Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

1 Apologies

An apology from Councillor Sharon Stewart has been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 May 2014, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Auckland Development Committee

12 June 2014

Housing Monitoring Report

File No.: CP2014/12015

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is:

· To provide the committee with a copy of the Auckland Housing Accord Monitoring Report #2 (October 2013 – March 2014); and

· Enable the committee to receive a presentation on the process for determining the 4^th tranche of special housing areas (SHAs).

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Housing Accord requires the targets for new dwellings and new sites consented to be monitored and reported to the Joint Housing Steering Group. The Joint Housing Steering Group comprises the Minister of Housing, Hon Nick Smith; the Associate Minister of Housing, Hon Paula Bennett; Mayor Len Brown and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.

3. The Monitoring Report assesses progress from 1 October 2013 as this aligns to the dates in which the housing legislation became operative (16 September 2013), the Auckland Housing Accord formally signed (3 October 2013) and the Housing Project Office (HPO) opened (1 October 2013).

4. The 2^nd Monitoring Report was formally received by the Joint Steering Group on Friday 30 May 2014 and publicly released by the Minister and Mayor on the afternoon of 30 May. The Accord targets take account of activity within SHAs and beyond. As expected, improved consenting numbers are the result of a general increase in activity across Auckland at this stage as it is early days for consents to be lodged within SHAs. We note that only 22 of the 63 recommended SHAs are currently operative and a number of the T1 and T2 SHAs are large greenfield, multi-owned sites that require plan variations and extensive professional input by the applicants’ consultants prior to the lodgement of a consent.

5. The Monitoring Report identifies that 18 consent applications within SHAs have been approved to date and 18 masterplanning pre-applications are underway, including more than 10 plan variations. The Masterplanning applications in greenfield areas will have a significant contribution to make on bringing land supply forward. Areas such as Hingaia, Scott Point and Kumeu-Huapai benefit from the SHA status as there is a fast-track process to change the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) zoning from future urban to live residential zonings. The plan variations for such areas are anticipated to be lodged by August 2014. Under the new housing legislation these will need to be finalised within six months as opposed to what potentially could be several years under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Similarly, in the qualifying development consenting team, there are 18 pre-applications also underway. This acknowledges the developers’ need to have time to plan their proposals and integrate infrastructure activity prior to the lodgement of the consent.

6. With the increase in consenting activity across Auckland, the year 1 Accord target to achieve 9,000 new residential building consents or consented sections is likely to be exceeded by almost 1,300. Nevertheless, significant effort is still required to ensure year 2 (13,000) and year 3 targets (17,000) consented dwellings and sites are achieved. A copy of the Monitoring Report is attached for the committee’s information. To date we are still only half way back to the building consent peak in 2004/5.

7. It is anticipated that there will be a 4^th tranche of SHAs reported to committee by August 2014. To achieve this deadline the process is likely to include one round of meetings with local boards together with due diligence against the approved criteria. Staff would like to present the proposed process for establishing tranche 4 SHAs at the committee meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive a presentation on the Auckland Housing Accord Monitoring Report #2 (October 2013 to March 2014) and the report be received

b) receive a presentation on the proposed process for establishing tranche 4 SHAs

c) circulate the report and presentation to all local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Housing Monitoring Report	9

Signatories

Authors

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

12 June 2014

Auckland Transport's Draft Parking Discussion Document

File No.: CP2014/11862

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update and receive high-level feedback from the Auckland Development Committee on Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document and clarify the links between a comprehensive parking strategy, land use and the broader outcomes of the Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. The high level direction for parking comes from the Auckland Plan, together with the regulatory approach to off-street private parking in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document (Attachment A) relates to the management of on-street and off-street public parking provided by Auckland Transport. The Draft Parking Discussion Document has been developed to support the broader land use and outcomes in the Auckland Plan and the regulatory approach in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. The Draft Parking Discussion Paper is not a statutory document and is separate from the Resource Management Act and the hearing process regarding the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland Transport is seeking submissions and feedback to inform the development of a parking strategy.

4. Parking provision is a significant component in the shaping of urban form, at the nexus of both land use planning and transportation. A comprehensive parking strategy is an important tool to manage parking to achieve transport objectives (particularly travel demand management, transport mode choice, managing congestion and adverse impacts), desired land use and compact city as well as the broader outcomes of the Auckland Plan.

5. Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document sets out a framework for the provision, management and pricing of public parking (on-street and off-street) and park and ride facilities in Auckland, and outlines nine policy approaches.

6. High level feedback, including initial officers’ feedback on the Draft Parking Discussion Document is set out in Appendix B. The feedback supports the general approach to parking management in the Draft Parking Discussion Document and raises issues relating to park and ride facilities, Auckland Transport’s role in relation to off-street car park buildings in centres, and particular issues.

7. The Draft Parking Discussion Document is a much-needed integration of myriad legacy policies and a positive direction for comprehensive parking policy in Auckland. The document’s objectives align with the outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan, the policy approach supports the regulatory approach of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The proposed policies are a strong step forward in optimising parking’s contribution to Auckland as the world’s most liveable city.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive this report, including Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document.

b) agree that a comprehensive parking strategy is necessary to help deliver the broad outcomes of the Auckland Plan.

c) request that Auckland Transport incorporates Auckland Council’s feedback as set out in Appendix B into a comprehensive parking strategy.

d) request that budget implications relating to parking pricing and price adjustment be considered in the Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

e) review and jointly approve with Auckland Transport a final Parking Strategy that arises out of the consultation on the Draft Parking Discussion Document.

Comments

Strategic Context

8. Parking management is a major influence on transport mode choice and a strong determinant of land use and quality compact city and, as such, underpins the strategic direction and successful implementation of the Auckland Plan and the delivery of its outcomes.

9. The Auckland Plan directive 10.6 states that parking standards and innovations should incorporate multiple objectives, including the need to:

· Facilitate intensive and mixed-use developments within strategic locations

· Improve housing affordability

· Reduce development costs

· Encourage use of public transportation

· Optimise investments in public parking facilities, civic amenities and centre developments

· Foster safe, convenient and attractive walkable neighbourhoods.

10. The Auckland Plan also signals the need for high-quality urban design, borne by flexibility and appropriate regulation, with an intent to review the approach to parking as part of the development of the Unitary Plan. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) requires that car parking be managed to support:

· Intensification in and around the city centre, metropolitan, town and local centres and within mixed-use corridors

· The safe and efficient operation of the transport network

· The use of more sustainable transport options including public transport, cycling and walking

· The economic activity of businesses

· Efficient use of land.

11. The PAUP proposes maximums (in and around the city centre fringe area, centres zones, mixed-use zone and terraced housing and apartment buildings zone) and removes minimums (from town centres) as a way to support intensification and public transport as well as mitigate some of the potential for parking oversupply, poor land use and negative impacts on housing costs. The Draft Parking Discussion Document proposes a parking management approach which supports the PAUP’s regulatory approach.

12. The Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan 2013 (RPTP), a statutory document prepared by Auckland Transport, includes a policy to integrate public transport services with parking policies, including actions to “promote the complementary design of public transport services and parking regulations and policies, including pricing, design parking and park-and-ride pricing policies in a manner that is supportive of public transport services… and review area parking strategies and pricing policies to effectively manage parking around transport interchanges and to encourage usage of feeder bus services.”

13. The RPTP also includes a policy to provide park and ride at appropriate locations, including actions to adopt a comprehensive park and ride strategy, to develop facilities at peripheral locations, to apply criteria to determine investment priorities and to appropriately manage demand at park and ride facilities with pricing.

14. The Auckland Regional Parking Strategy 2006 is the legacy parking strategy produced by the Auckland Regional Council. Some aspects of that strategy are out of date but the broad approach to parking management flows through to the Draft Parking Discussion Document.

Current Situation

15. The need for a comprehensive parking strategy is underscored by a variety of emerging conflicts, including conflicts between:

· Residents, businesses and commuters over limited parking spaces

· Long stay commuter parking and short stay parking, generally for business or shopping

· On-street parking and public transport

· The general public and permit holders using available parking for non-essential purposes.

16. Likewise a suite of recent trends, including, for instance, changes in travel preferences (an increase in public transport and active modes), driving distance (a decline in vehicle kilometres travelled per capita), demands for public road space and land prices also adds pressure for changes to the current approach.

Draft Parking Discussion Document

17. Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document contains an overview of key issues associated with parking in Auckland and seeks feedback on nine main policy approaches. Its comprehensive approach by Auckland Transport to on- and off-street parking provision, management and pricing strives to address current problems with parking in Auckland. Auckland Transport’s objectives are to support economic development, good urban design, public transport patronage and the efficient movement of people, goods and services throughout the city.

18. The document identifies a variety of issues and trends and provides policy responses, including:

· Managing demand for parking in the City Centre, metropolitan & town centres

· Consistent approach to managing parking in centres

· Balancing competing demands for parking in residential streets

· Managing off-street parking facilities in the City Centre

· Investing in off-street parking facilities

· Prioritising access to on-street parking

· Reducing parking on arterial roads

· Managing special purpose parking

· Allocation of parking permits

· Investment in park and ride facilities

· Pricing of park and ride spaces

· Price adjustment for on-street parking

· Price adjustment for car park buildings in the City Centre

Auckland Council Proposed Feedback

19. It is proposed that Auckland Council will provide high-level feedback from the Auckland Development Committee and detailed comment from staff as set out in Attachment B. Further detailed staff feedback will be added. The document was released on 28 May and feedback is required by 30 June.

20. Council staff are generally supportive of the policy approach outlined in the document. Establishing a comprehensive parking strategy by bringing multiple policy approaches into one streamlined, consistent and comprehensive parking strategy, delivered and overseen for the first time by an amalgamated local government for Auckland, will enable parking to contribute to a variety of long-term land use, economic, health and liveability outcomes for Auckland. Parking management is a strong determinant of quality compact urban form, a key enabler to economic development and a major influence on increasing public transport and active modes.

21. The approach will also help solve emerging conflicts between users, will help respond to changing travel demand and demographic trends, and will help prepare Auckland to meet the challenges and opportunities borne by a growing and maturing city. The policy response is consistent with many of the recommendations made by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute at an Auckland Conversation presentation on 16 May 2013.

22. It is widely recognised that performance-based or demand responsive parking—achieving about 85% target occupancy rate by managing pricing and availability—is an effective way to optimise a variety of outcomes including managing demand, increasing turnover, reducing parking-related congestion and ensuring predictability for consumers.

23. In Auckland, pricing of on-street parking has been working in the City Centre, Newmarket, Parnell and Remuera. In centres which rely just on time restrictions, there is a growing tendency for parking exceeding the allowable time limits. This results in reduced turnover and availability of parking as well as significant infringement tickets – Takapuna is an example of this. A sensible and coordinated roll-out of pricing in centres to manage parking aims to achieve benefits to users, including the convenience of predictably of finding a parking space, paying for as much time as needed and avoiding costly infringement tickets.

24. The Draft Parking Discussion Document proposes policies which will help resolve a variety of current conflicts. In residential areas, zones and time restrictions will prioritise short-stay business trips and parking for residents, helping to reduce conflicts with commuters. On arterial roads, removal of on-street parking will help reduce conflicts with more frequent and reliable public transport service and the safety of active modes. In off-street parking facilities in the City Centre, a shift from commuter parking to short-term casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business will reduce conflicting aims of increasing public transport patronage but providing below-market commuter parking.

25. The Draft Parking Discussion Document affirms that, while a coordinated approach is necessary, each area has unique characteristics and needs and this is reflected in developing a set of Comprehensive Parking Management Plans and a case-by-case consideration of removing parking on arterials.

26. Shifting the focus of off-street parking in City Centre public car parking facilities from commuter parking to short-term casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business will help increase public transport patronage and active modes and encourage a more economically prosperous city. Any future investment in off-street parking facilities will need to meet a rigid set of business case investment criteria, including divestment if the criteria are not being met. This will help ensure better alignment with outcomes and a transition of uses that better reflects the best value of land and the land use context. In this regard, further investigation of Auckland Transport’s role regarding parking buildings in the City Centre is recommended.

27. When used in strategic locations, park and ride is a tool that can extend catchments for public transport and result in increased patronage as well as a reduction in parking demand in the urban core. However, when used unstrategically, park and rides may discourage existing feeder bus and active mode choices, have unintended land use impacts like undermining transit oriented development, and contribute additional congestion and therefore may not reflect good value for money in certain locations. We support Auckland Transport’s further investigation into potential park and ride locations, with a suggested focus on confirming criteria in a Parking Strategy for identifying park and ride sites for Council investment (e.g., land value, construction costs, operating costs, local public transport network, potential role of the private sector), as well as considering where divestment from current park and ride sites may be appropriate. Further recommendations are made in Appendix B.

28. As described in Appendix B, a few concerns have been raised about specific aspects of policy approaches, including:

· Introduction of a 10-minute grace period

· Introduction of a “congestion buster” product

· Provision of free parking for the Santa Parade event

· Proposing a targeted number (up to 10,000) of new park and ride spaces

· Providing replacement off-street parking when reducing on-street parking on arterials

We offer a number of suggestions for improvement in a parking strategy in Appendix B.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. Local Boards have been consulted by Auckland Transport in the development of the Draft Parking Discussion Document through three consolidated Local Board workshops in May.

30. Based on the information supplied at those workshops, there was a general level of support for the proposed approach to parking. There were suggestions that parking revenue from centres are put back into local improvements, that feeder buses may provide better patronage outcomes than park and rides in more central locations, and that local businesses need to better understand the benefits of arterial parking removal. The feedback was mixed and wide-ranging and was recorded by Auckland Transport.

Maori impact statement

31. The Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, Principle Seven (Mutual Benefit), Issue #14 relates to access to infrastructure services, with Māori “empowered, enabled, respected and recognized as requiring ongoing access to safe, operational and reasonably priced infrastructure services by a council that recognizes the importance of infrastructure services as a core council activity.” To those ends, the Draft Parking Discussion Document and subsequent Parking Strategy would deliver infrastructure services benefits like improving public transport frequency and reliability and the safety of active modes. An 85% occupancy policy approach to on-street parking, for instance, would deliver convenience, time-saving and predictability benefits. Using price over time restrictions in some areas would also reduce the likelihood of parking infringements. There would also likely be adverse social impacts from paid parking which may create financial hardship or discourage vehicle trips to centres by lower income households.

32. Māori impacts are being considered as part of Auckland Transport’s wider consultation process.

Implementation

33. The Draft Parking Discussion Document will progress into a Parking Strategy, which is proposed to be incorporated into Auckland Transport’s Integrated Transport Programme (ITP). Funding constraints and new funding assumptions will likely play a role in determining the package of investments in parking, including park and ride provision and comprehensive parking management plans. The effects of policies in a Parking Strategy would need to input to Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025, since the first decade of the ITP will likely form the basis for transport investments in the Long Term Plan.

34. Comprehensive Parking Management Plans will need to be prepared, the roll out of paid parking will need to occur when triggers are met and parking removal on arterials will be addressed on a case-by-case basis as guided by a final parking strategy. There may be opportunities to reinvest revenue from demand responsive parking pricing back into centres and/or to use it as a source for Business Investment Districts.

35. It may not be possible, particularly in the first decade, to include a comprehensive list of park and ride facilities that Auckland Transport will invest in. Some park and rides may require alternative approaches, including commercial partnerships and/or lease of pre-existing spaces. Limited funding will also place park and rides under particular scrutiny, especially those that are not aligned with existing land uses (e.g. higher value land in centres or the isthmus) or the local transport network (e.g. on existing feeder routes).

36. Funding pressure during the development of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2015-2025 will also raise the issue of whether to retain, divest from or repurpose existing Council-owned off-street parking facilities in the city centre, especially given the current land value. Exiting off-street parking would result in lost revenue but may be balanced by repayment of debt or an opportunity for redevelopment.

37. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 states that Council is responsible for off-street parking facilities under the control of Council. Council therefore must adopt the off-street elements of a final parking strategy. Council staff are currently working on a Council traffic bylaw, which will provide off-street parking controls. Council and Auckland Transport staff are also currently working towards a full delegation from Council to Auckland Transport of management, control and enforcement of off-street parking. Both these pieces of work are due for completion by the end of 2014.

38. Join sign off of a parking strategy by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport is required because it will involve both off-street parking and impacts on land use.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Parking Discussion Document (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Auckland Council feedback on Auckland Transport's Draft Parking Discussion Document	37

Signatories

Authors

John Mauro - Principal Transport Planner

Authorisers

Kevin Wright - Manager: Transport Strategy

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

12 June 2014

12 June 2014

Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport Parking Review

Private Bag 92260,

Auckland 1142

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please find attached Auckland Council feedback on the Draft Parking Discussion Document. This incorporates the high level direction from the Auckland Development Committee and detailed comments from Council staff.

We look forward to working with you in the preparation of a final Parking Strategy which as indicated in our feedback we are seeking joint sign-off.

If you require any clarification on the submission please contact me by phone on 09 307 6063, or by email at roger.blakeley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Yours sincerely

Dr. Roger Blakeley,

Chief Planning Officer

Encl.

Feedback on Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document

The following feedback relates to Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document released on 28 May 2014. The feedback includes the high level feedback from the Auckland Development Committee and detailed comment from officers from the Transport Strategy Unit, the Spatial & Infrastructure Strategy Unit, and the Regional & Local Planning Department. [Further detailed comment to be included from staff in Economic Development, City Transformation and Built Environment.]

Summary

We are supportive of the general framework for the provision, management and pricing of parking and park and ride facilities. The general approach to parking taken in the Draft Parking Discussion Document is more strongly aligned with the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan, including moving toward outstanding public transport within one network, improving the quality of urban living and fostering better economic outcomes. The Discussion Document is well placed to form the basis of a Parking Strategy which supports the regulatory approach to parking outlined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and provides guidance to a range of parking issues.

It should be underscored that this is the first time that the one amalgamated city is proposing to manage parking across all of Auckland. Change of any kind often elicits strong responses. While many responses are likely to improve the document, we would suggest that AT (and the one Council family) focus on the benefits of such a ‘big picture’ approach across all of Auckland and an adherence to the broader strategic direction of the Auckland Plan.

Because of the impacts on land use and the interdependencies with Council’s planning, particularly outside the road corridor, the Council wishes to jointly sign off a Parking Strategy that arises out of the consultation on the Discussion Document.

We are supportive of a number of approaches, including:

· Bringing all of these approaches into one streamlined, consistent and comprehensive parking strategy, delivered and overseen for the first time by an amalgamated local government for all of Auckland

· Demand responsive pricing and a target occupancy rate of 85% for on-street parking

· Development of detailed Comprehensive Parking Management Plans

· Residential zones and permits and/or time use restrictions to encourage short stays

· Shifting off-street parking in the city centre away from commuter parking to short stay parking

· Off-street parking investment criteria, including possible divestment when criteria are not being met

· Prioritisation of user groups for on-street parking access

· Phasing out of on-street parking on arterial routes, corridors serving the FTN and on-road cycling corridors with high current or future use and identified safety issues

· Clear and consistent on-street parking restrictions

· Streamlining legacy council permits and rationalising permits appropriately

· Park and ride investment in the right locations (e.g., at the urban fringe) guided by criteria in a Parking Strategy

· At a future time, using pricing to manage demand of park and ride spaces

We also have concerns about aspects of specific policy approaches, including:

· Introduction of a 10-minute grace period

· Introduction of a “congestion buster” product

· Provision of free parking for the Santa Parade event

· Proposing a targeted number (up to 10,000) of new park and ride spaces

· Providing replacement off-street parking when reducing on-street parking on arterials

We offer a number of suggestions, including:

· Enabling a more dynamic demand-responsive parking approach

· Review of whether Council should continue to own or manage off-street parking buildings

· Inclusion of greater detail on the provision of bicycle parking or integration at a later date

· Strong case-by-case consideration for the traffic calming and safety benefits of retaining parking, particularly for walking and cycling

· Mitigating impacts on businesses from removal of arterial on-street parking by incorporating the use of side streets for parking

· Removing reference to a 10,000 space park and ride target and replacing with clear guidance about appropriate public sector provision of park and ride facilities for cars and bicycles

We address our concerns and suggestions in greater detail below, concurrent with each of the nine sections in the document.

5.1a: Managing demand for parking in the city centre, metropolitan & town centres

5.1b: Consistent approach to managing parking in centres

We support a peak target occupancy rate of 85% for on-street parking in town centres and using price to manage demand through ‘performance-based’ or ‘demand responsive’ pricing. Research demonstrates that adjusting parking pricing (and/or timing restrictions) to achieve 85% occupancy has a number of benefits. Demand responsive pricing reduces vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and congestion from circling cars searching for parking, particularly at peak times, resulting in better air quality, climate, and road safety outcomes, as well as improving frequency and reliability of public transport. Pricing to achieve 85% target occupancy also provides better predictability and choice for consumers, especially for shorter trips, which delivers better economic development outcomes. While parking pricing can be considered regressive, it is not necessarily more so than other means, particularly if revenue displaces general rates or improves public transport choices. We support adoption of this approach as detailed in the Auckland Transport Price Adjustment Policies to ensure consistent and transparent parking management across Auckland.

We are also supportive of providing a consistent approach to managing parking in centres. Recognising the importance of building in some flexibility to reflect the unique circumstances of each centre, we support the development of sequenced Comprehensive Parking Management Plans for each centre that analyse current and future issues, supply and demand and provide implementation plans. Not only will this enable both flexibility and consistency, it will better link future parking demand to land use planning and travel demand.

While we are very supportive of the general approach, we would encourage future investigation into a more dynamic demand-responsive approach, which allows parking rates to vary in real time by the block, time of day or day of week. Success in other cities (e.g., San Francisco’s SFpark) highlights the use of technology to monitor and adjust parking price, as well as allowing customers to check price and availability and pay for parking with mobile apps. Payment integration with the AT HOP card may be a future opportunity, both to increase user convenience and to promote greater public transport patronage by increasing use and familiarity with AT HOP.

We have concerns that the introduction of a 10-minute grace period is an unnecessary step that may encourage additional car use and have impacts on encouraging PT patronage growth. While useful in substituting for dedicated taxi and loading zone spaces (and adding to simplicity and on-street legibility), a 10 minute grace period may encourage drop offs/pick-ups throughout the city, likely inducing additional peak-time congestion. We suggest removal of the 10-minute grace period so that it does not appear in the parking strategy.

5.2: Balancing competing demands for parking in residential streets

We are supportive of appropriate use of residential zones, permits and/or time use restrictions to encourage short stays and to reduce conflicts between commuters and local businesses and residents. This is particularly important in supporting the regulatory approach outlined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which introduces maximum parking requirements and reduces some minimum requirements. Aside from managing current conflicts, such an approach will encourage a shift toward public transport and improve the safety of residential streets.

5.3: Managing off-street parking facilities in the city centre

We support shifting the focus away from off-street commuter parking in public car parking facilities in the city centre to better align with the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan, including increasing PT patronage and active modes and encouraging a more economically prosperous city. This means reducing and phasing out AT-owned/managed commuter parking in favour of prioritising short-term casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business in the city centre. We suggest further review of whether Council should continue to own or manage off-street parking buildings in the city centre, as described in more detail below.

We have concerns that a potential ‘congestion buster’ product would work against the policy to focus on short-stay casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business in the city centre. Such a product seems generally similar to the current early bird product. While a congestion buster that focuses outside of the peak may alleviate some congestion by better distributing peak car trips to centres, it may also encourage more commuting by car instead of shifting some trips to public transport, a key focus of the Auckland Plan. Furthermore, while car trips to the CBD are projected to fall somewhat over the next 30 years, all-mode trips will increase, so inter-peak congestion will be an issue. Adding a product that may need to be removed later seems an unproductive strategy.

5.4: Investing in off-street parking facilities

We are supportive of not providing off-street parking to expand the supply of free or low cost parking. We also support the off-street parking business case investment criteria, including considering divestment when the criteria are not being met. Along these lines, we would encourage further analysis of whether or not Council-owned off-street parking buildings provide sufficient investment return to justify continued Council ownership or use—as the Discussion Document states, “In larger centres, it is expected that off-street parking will be provided by private developers.” Given high and increasing land value, the potential to transition to better commercial uses or to divest may provide better revenue opportunities for Council/AT and would likely align better with the desired strategic direction, including encouraging greater PT patronage and active modes. A similar exit approach should be considered for park and rides when they no longer deliver the desired outcomes or where the land use (and value) has changed substantially over time (see 5.9a, below).

5.5: Prioritising access to on-street parking

We support the approach to prioritising user groups for on-street parking access and the associated hierarchy, which enables better clarity, transparency and consistency. While bicycle parking shows up on the hierarchy and is meant to be provided in accordance with existing AT guidelines and plans, greater clarity is required about the extent of the bicycle parking policy. The Discussion Document has a focus on car parking and is light in relation to bicycle parking. We suggest either further expansion of bicycle parking in the Parking Strategy or integration at a later date of future work into clarifying Council/AT’s role in the supply of bicycle parking facilities.

5.6: Reducing parking on arterial roads

We generally support phasing out on-street parking on arterial routes, corridors serving the FTN and on-road cycling corridors with proven safety issues to encourage more frequent and reliable PT service, increased PT patronage and increased walking and cycling. As noted in the Discussion Document, this is dependent on specific context, as in some cases, parking provides traffic calming and safety benefits to pedestrians and cyclists. We recommend focussing on the guidance provided by Auckland Plan Directive 10.6, which calls for parking standards and innovative parking mechanisms to take into account the promotion of public transport and the fostering of safe, convenient and attractive walkable neighbourhoods.

We support mitigating impacts on businesses by incorporating the use of side streets for parking instead of a policy of replacement provision, since such a policy creates expectations that Council is unlikely to be able to afford to meet.

5.7: On-street parking restrictions and events

We are supportive of clear and consistent on-street parking restrictions and promotion of PT and active modes for events. Our only concern is with the mention of ‘historical arrangements that the public expect’ around the Santa Parade event. Since both historical and current public expectations are likely to be wide-ranging for a variety of parking-related issues, we would suggest eliminating this one exception for better policy consistency.

5.8: Allocation of parking permits

We are supportive of streamlining previous legacy council permits and rationalising permits appropriately to enable priority access by priority users (like emergency services) and equitable access by the general public.

5.9a: Investment in park and ride facilities

We support “park and ride facilities in the right places,” as stated in the Discussion Document, in accordance with the criteria in the RPTP, including:

· Park-and-Ride is planned as an integral part of the public transport network, extends the public transport customer base and encourages public transport patronage

· Potential sites are located to intercept commuter trips from catchment areas that have high Park--and-Ride potential, based on assessed demand

· Park-and-Ride facilities are located to relieve congestion by intercepting commuter traffic, and to ensure that vehicles accessing the facilities do not worsen local traffic congestion

· New Park-and-Ride facilities are focused on outer areas where public transport services are limited, or to serve areas that are beyond the walk-up catchment of the rapid and frequent service network

· Park-and-Ride provision is avoided in metropolitan and town centres, except as part of a staged transition to other uses

· Park-and-Ride locations take fare zone boundaries into account

We support a Parking Strategy confirming the criteria for consideration in identifying park and ride sites for Council investment. We support a Parking Strategy noting the potential role of the private sector in providing park and ride facilities at locations, where allowed under the PAUP; and the potential role of informal park and ride on surrounding streets which may be managed.

As noted in the Discussion Document, additional analysis is necessary, particularly around land value, availability, commercial development opportunities, construction and operating costs, consenting, and details around the public transport network and feeder services. We advise extending the range of interventions beyond investment, so that it is clear where park and rides investment should be high, where it should be minimal, where park and rides should be retained and where park and rides should be exited, e.g.:

	Park and Ride Intervention
Criteria	Med-High Growth	Small Growth	Retention	Exit
*Existing Land Use (Primary)*	· Rural · Urban periphery · Greenfield short term	· Non centres outside isthmus	· Non centres	· Centres · Isthmus
PT/Active Networks	· Not on FTN	· Not on FTN	· On FTN · Otherwise poor access options	· On FTN w/ direct competition to feeder networks · Creates congestion issues
Value for Money	· Commercial opportunity not contradictory to strategic direction	· Commercial opportunity not contradictory to strategic direction		· Higher investment return from other aligned uses

Our most serious concern in this section is that the policy approach leads with meeting an arbitrary target of new park and ride spaces (“up to 10,000”) based on comparison with other cities. We consider this approach to be unwise since a) there may be less expensive opportunities to achieve patronage gain, like feeder bus services and walking and cycling infrastructure, b) park and rides located where there are feeder bus or active mode choices may discourage those modes, c) locating park and rides in town centres identified for growth may have negative unintended land-use impacts, including undermining transit oriented development and d) caution may be required to avoid too great a subsidy for drivers and do not reflect the true costs of using park and ride (although we are generally supportive of temporary arrangements with minimal investment that, for instance, could be leased and then transitioned to other uses, such as transit oriented development). We suggest removing reference to a 10,000-space target.

The RPTP, referenced in Section 3 (page 8), mentions criteria to guide investment, including: “New Park-and-Ride facilities are focused on outer areas where public transport services are limited, or to serve areas that are beyond the walk-up catchment of the rapid and frequent service network.” Not mentioned in the Discussion Document is another criterion in the RPTP that is particularly important: “Park-and-Ride provision is avoided in metropolitan and town centres, except as part of a staged transition to other uses.” We have concerns that the location of park and ride facilities at town centres (including Sylvia Park, Panmure, Avondale, Mt Albert and Papatoetoe) would undermine planned intensification at those centres and the bus feeder services. A stronger case could be made for location of park and ride facilities in the periphery of the metropolitan area, in accordance with the criteria in the RPTP and which supports the Discussion Document’s suggested approach to “avoid locating park and ride facilities in metropolitan and town centres except as part of a stage transition to other uses.”

5.9b: Pricing of park and ride spaces

We support the approach to price park and ride facilities to manage demand at an appropriate time in the future. While there may be potential equity impacts of pricing, a demand-responsive price may help mitigate such impacts, which would reflect geographic differences in park and ride pricing. Pricing park and rides would not only help recover some of the potential costs of facility construction, lease and/or operation, it would make best use of current facilities before investing in additional facilities and deliver better predictability to users.

Auckland Development Committee

12 June 2014

Submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the "Setting a direct referral threshold and related matters" discussion document

File No.: CP2014/11500

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek retrospective approval of an officer-only submission to a recent Ministry for the Environment discussion document. The submission, on proposed thresholds for the direct referral of notified resource consent applications and Notices of Requirement, was lodged with the Ministry on 30 May 2014.

Executive summary

2. Recent legislative change now makes it mandatory for consent authorities to grant a direct referral request to the Environment Court in cases where a certain threshold is met; unless exceptional circumstances apply. The Ministry for the Environment recently released a discussion document setting out a number of proposals in relation to the setting of that threshold. Auckland Council’s submission calls for thresholds to be set as high as possible; to be calculated based on capital value; and to apply to all proposals irrespective of their type or location. The submission also argues for the inclusion of two nationwide and two Auckland specific exceptional circumstance ‘matters’.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) retrospectively approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Ministry for the Environment’s Setting a direct referral threshold and related matters discussion document.

Comments

3. The Resource Management Amendment Act (RMAA) was passed into law in September 2013. The legislation now makes it mandatory for consent authorities to grant a direct referral request to the Environment Court in cases where a certain threshold is met; unless exceptional circumstances exist.

4. The RMAA 2013 enables the government to make regulations that prescribe investment threshold amounts and in May 2014 the Ministry for the Environment released a discussion document setting out a number of proposals for these regulations.

5. Due to the short timeframes allowed for submissions, officers were unable to secure Committee endorsement of council’s submission before the deadline. An “officer-only” submission (see Attachment A), which was based on Council’s 2013 submission to the Resource Management Reform Bill, was lodged with the Ministry on 30 May. The following commentary provides a summary of Auckland Council’s main submission points.

Investment thresholds

6. Auckland Council’s 2013 submission on the Resource Management Reform Bill argued that there is no direct relationship between the investment levels represented by an application and the effects, complexity and/or level of controversy it raises. Building on this argument the officer-only submission notes that while Council’s position has not changed, any thresholds that are set need to be at an appropriately high level to ensure that the majority of notified resource consent applications are determined locally. The discussion document notes three possible options to specify the investment value of a proposal in monetary terms:

I. Capital investment value of a project

II. Wider impacts of a project on economic activity

III. Net present value assessment of all costs and benefits of a project measured in monetary terms

7. The submission states that capital investment value is the simplest method of valuation and is therefore the easiest for local authorities to verify and less likely to be challenged by interested parties. The submission also recommends that the regulations specify what can and cannot be included in the calculation of capital investment value and that valuations should only include those works that are subject to the current application.

Single versus different threshold amounts

8. The discussion document considers whether to set one single threshold amount for all of New Zealand which would apply to all proposals irrespective of their type or location, or whether to have different thresholds for different types of proposals or in different locations. Auckland Council’s submission states that it is important that the regulations are: simple to understand, to apply and to calculate and, therefore, that one single threshold amount should be set for all of New Zealand.

How high (or low) should the threshold amount be set?

9. The submission notes that with no statutory criteria set for consideration of direct referral requests there needs to be a high threshold set in order to avoid requests of locally focused projects. The submission calls for a threshold set at $50M to prevent the Environment Court managing and hearing a large number of projects within the $20M-$49M range that are significant but primarily local in nature.

The exceptional circumstances ‘matters’

10. The RMAA 2013 states that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, the consent authority must grant the request for direct referral if the value of the investment in the proposal is likely to meet or exceed a threshold amount prescribed by regulations. If exceptional circumstances exist, the consent authority makes the decision on whether the application should be directly referred to the Environment Court. The discussion document considered a number of possible exceptional circumstances to which the Auckland Council submission agrees:

· That the existence of agreements between consent authorities and local iwi and hapu should be prescribed as an exceptional circumstance where the direct referral process will run contrary to a settlement agreement.

· That the involvement of submitters at the local level where there is a high level of public concern should be prescribed as an exceptional circumstance.

11. The submission also proposes that:

· Two types of proposals (residential development and retail and office developments) should be prescribed as exceptional circumstances in the Auckland urban area only and not subject to direct referral to the Environment Court even if the value of the investments meet the threshold given the large number of “business as usual” proposals that Auckland Council considers in these categories.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Local boards were closely involved in the development of Auckland Council’s 2013 submission on the Resource Management Reform Bill which provided the basis for the views expressed in this submission. Given the short timeframes allowed for submissions, local boards have not been involved in this latest submission but a copy will be sent to all local boards for their information.

Maori impact statement

13. Auckland Council recognises the importance of developing long lasting relationships with Māori and the submission argues that the existence of agreements between consent authorities and local iwi and hapu should be prescribed as an exceptional circumstance where the direct referral process will run contrary to a settlement agreement. A copy of this report will be sent to the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Implementation

14. There are no immediate implementation issues arising from this report, however, officers will monitor the progress of the proposed regulations to ensure that any implementation or operational implications are understood.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Submission to the Ministry for the Environment	49

Signatories

Authors

Craig Glover - Principal Strategy Analyst

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Chairperson	Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Darby
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Dick Quax
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Member Josie Smith
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr John Watson
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr George Wood, CNZM
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee
	Member Liane Ngamane