Agenda of Unitary Plan Committee

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr CM Casey and Cr C Darby have 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 Unitary Plan Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 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.

Unitary Plan Committee

08 July 2014

Unitary Plan update

File No.: CP2014/12771

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present a suggested work programme for the Unitary Plan Committee during the course of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) hearings over the next two or so years. The work programme will enable the committee to confirm the council’s position in respect of the key issues raised in submissions on the PAUP. Once confirmed, council planning staff and the council’s legal team will present the council’s case at the hearings. As discussed in this report, there may however be situations where the committee will need to delegate its authority to a smaller group of councillors or senior planning staff to respond to proposals put forward at mediation.

2. The committee’s work programme will ultimately need to align with the schedule of pre-hearing meetings and hearings. The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) is working to complete a draft schedule in the coming weeks. The schedule will be discussed at the next committee meeting.

Executive summary

3. As outlined in the 20 May report to the committee, submissions on the PAUP closed at 5pm on 28 February 2014. 8946 were received on time and a further 479 were received by 30 April 2014. The Chair of the IHP has agreed to accept all submissions received by 30 April 2014. Fourteen submissions have been received since that date. Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires the council to prepare a summary of the decisions requested in the submissions. On 11 June 2014 the Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) report was notified and the further submission period commenced. Almost 100,000 individual decisions are summarised in the SDR report.

4. As discussed in the May report to the committee, further submissions cannot raise new issues and only those with an interest greater than the general public or representing a matter of public interest can make a further submission. The further submission period closes on 22 July 2014.

5. Council planning staff have carried out a preliminary analysis of the submissions and identified a range of issues that are likely to be of strong interest to the committee. Given the sheer number of topics addressed in the PAUP and the wide range of issues raised in the submissions, a work programme of key issues under a series of topics is presented for the committee to consider. For topics that sit outside the suggested work programme, it is proposed that the Manager Regional and Local Planning and the Unitary Plan Manager are delegated the authority to confirm the council’s position at any pre-hearing meetings, mediation or at the hearings.

Recommendation/s

That the Unitary Plan Committee:

a) agree that the key issues associated with the various themes outlined in the agenda report will form the basis for the committee’s work programme during the course of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings.

b) delegate to the Manager Regional and Local Planning and Unitary Plan Manager the authority to confirm the council’s position (where generally consistent with the approach in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) during any pre-hearing processes and at the hearings in respect of the remaining issues raised in submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

c) request that the Unitary Plan Manager provides a regular update on progress with all submission topics throughout the course of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings.

Comments

6. As outlined in the 20 May 2014 report to the committee, submissions on the PAUP closed at 5pm on 28 February 2014. 8946 were received on time and a further 479 were received by 30 April 2014. The Chair of the IHP has agreed to accept all submissions received by 30 April 2014. Fourteen submissions have been received since that date. Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires the council to prepare a summary of the decisions requested in the submissions. On 11 June 2013 the Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) report was notified and the further submission period commenced. Almost 100,000 individual decisions are summarised in the SDR report.

7. As discussed in the May report to the committee, further submissions cannot raise new issues and only those with an interest greater than the general public or representing a matter of public interest can make a further submission. The further submission period closes on 22 July 2014.

8. Council planning staff have carried out a preliminary analysis of the submissions and identified a range of issues that are likely to be of strong interest to the committee. Given the sheer number of topics addressed in the PAUP and the wide range of issues raised in the submissions, a work programme of key issues under a series of topics is presented for the committee to consider. For topics that sit outside the suggested work programme, it is proposed that the Manager Regional and Local Planning and the Unitary Plan Manager are delegated the authority to confirm the council’s position at any pre-hearing meetings, mediation or at the hearings.

Pre-hearing meetings, mediation and hearings

9. The IHP is developing a schedule for pre-hearing meetings and hearings based on the coding framework used by the council to categorise the decisions requested in the submissions. The schedule has yet to be released. To give some indication of the scale of the task ahead however, there are over 700 topics and sub-topics in the submissions coding framework, many of which will require at least one pre-hearing meeting and a hearing. Some hearings may last for several days.

10. A summary of the pre-hearing meetings, mediation and hearings processes is given below. A more detailed description is provided in the IHP Procedures Manual included as Attachment A.

Pre-hearing meetings

11. The IHP intends to prepare a report known as a ‘parties and issues’ report for each topic. These reports will identify all of the submitters and further submitters for each topic, the range of issues raised in the submissions and confirm whether the IHP believes the topic will benefit from expert witness conferencing (experts meeting to document areas of agreement and disagreement) and/or formal mediation, or whether the topic should proceed straight to a hearing. The purpose of pre-hearing meetings is essentially to confirm whether the council or submitters agree with the ‘parties and issues’ report. Pre-hearing meetings may also be used to seek clarification from submitters on issues raised in submissions.

Mediation

12. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act contains specific provisions relating to the PAUP process and places an emphasis on setting up processes to resolve issues prior to formal hearings. Consistent with the legislation, the IHP has signaled that some topics will be identified for mediation prior to a hearing. While mediation is traditionally used to explore options for resolving an issue without a hearing, or narrowing the issues that require a hearing, it can also be used to bring parties with similar views to agree to present a combined case at a hearing. The council is required to attend all mediation sessions arranged by the IHP, unless the IHP agrees this is unnecessary.

13. It is essential that the council is able to confirm whether or not it agrees to a suggestion that arises during any mediation session. Given that the delegated authority to confirm the council’s position in response to the submissions rests with the Unitary Plan Committee, it is likely there will be occasions where it is necessary for the committee to delegate this authority to a smaller group, or potentially senior council planning staff. Reports to the committee will address this issue as the need arises.

Hearings

14. The purpose of hearings is to enable submitters who have indicated they wish to be heard to speak to their submission and present any supporting evidence from experts such as planners, ecologists, archaeologists and traffic engineers. The IHP will also allow some cross-examination of experts and will no doubt ask questions of submitters and experts to assist it in making recommendations back to the council.

Confirming the council’s position at mediation and hearings

15. In a normal hearing process (for example a hearing on a plan change to one of the operative district plans), council staff or consultants would typically present their professional advice directly to the hearings panel. The Auckland Unitary Plan process is very different to a normal hearing process however, and as a result, it is entirely appropriate that the Unitary Plan Committee directs the council’s position during any pre-hearing processes or at the hearings. This presents two key challenges that will need to be carefully managed.

16. Firstly, with such a large number of submission points (almost 100,000) and potentially as many as 700 topics requiring a hearing, the committee will need to meet frequently and consider its position swiftly enough to ensure the council is able to meet the IHP’s timetable and present a strong case.

17. Secondly, there may be situations where council staff are unable to support the council’s position (as directed by the Unitary Plan Committee). Should this occur, attempts will be made to find a consultant who is able to support the council’s position. The committee does, however, need to be aware that such a situation could result in the council’s position being set out at the hearings without any supporting expert evidence.

Key Issues

18. For many topics, a very wide range of issues are raised in the submissions. For others, only a handful of issues are raised. The table below summarises the key issues raised under groups of topics referred to in the submissions coding framework as ‘themes’.

Theme

Key Issues

Airport

· Airport zone provisions relating to changes in airport operations and flight paths

· Activities and activity status in the Airport zone (e.g. providing for emergency services, businesses directly associated with aviation, manufacture of aircraft or aircraft components as permitted activities)

· Activities in the High Aircraft Noise Area and Moderate Aircraft Noise Area

Business (except the City Centre)

· Emphasis on public transport

· Retail and office controls

· Design controls

· Height controls

· Air quality overlays around and within the Heavy Industry zone

· Industrial activities in the Light Industry zone

City Centre

· Height (mainly in the waterfront precincts e.g. Wynyard, Viaduct, Britomart, Port and Quay Park), including Auckland Council’s submission relating to the Waterfront Building Height and Form Strategy

· Changes to the Port precinct provisions

Contaminated land

· Contaminated land controls

Designations

· Various issues depending on the nature and location of the notice of requirement or designation

Earthworks

· Earthworks controls

General – Lighting

· Lighting controls, especially those that affect active recreation

General - Noise and Vibration

· Noise controls and associated policies

General - Temporary Activities

· Temporary activity rules and their relationship to stadiums and showgrounds

· Temporary activities on private land

Historic Heritage

· Overall policy approach

· New scheduled items and removal of existing scheduled items

Infrastructure

· Sustainable management of significant infrastructure

· Alignment between the policy framework and the provisions for managing significant infrastructure

· Recognition of significant infrastructure in policies and rules

Mana Whenua

· Cultural Impact Assessments

· Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua

· Development of Maori and Treaty Settlement land

Natural Hazards and Flooding

· Overall policy approach to natural hazards and flooding

· Rules relating to natural hazards and flooding

Natural Heritage Landscapes

· Overall policy approach

· Submissions seeking identification of new types of landscapes

Public Open Space Zones

· Development of public open space (e.g. buildings and structures) and issues of consultation and public notification

· Activity status of different activities (e.g. commercial activities such as cafes)

· Acquisition of additional public open space, the timing and sequencing of acquiring public open space

· Development of additional recreation facilities

· Impervious area and site coverage controls

· Lighting controls

Special Purpose - Major Recreation Facilities

· Multi-purpose use of major recreation facilities

· Activities and activity status

RPS – Managing Growth

· Timing of release of land for growth – which greenfield areas will be released first and when?

· Provision of infrastructure

· Location of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) including proposals for major new areas within the RUB

Residential zones

· Retained affordable housing provisions

· Density and minimum lot size

· Minor household units

· Intensification and character

· Development controls

· Notification

· Design related rules (e.g. universal design, sustainable design, services and waste, minimum room dimensions, dwelling size)

Social infrastructure (Special Purpose)

· Requirement for new social infrastructure as Auckland grows and intensifies, especially schools

· Activities and activity status especially in the Tertiary Education zone

· Precinct versus zone approach for schools and tertiary education institutes

· Tertiarty education facilities within high noise areas

· Dwellings in the School zone

· Places of worship – new precinct or zone

· Height in the Healthcare Facility zone

· Activity status of new buildings in the Healthcare Facility zone

· Residential development in the Healthcare Facility zone

· Concept plans for various healthcare facility sites (e.g. Auckland Hospital)

Special Character Overlays

· Location of the Special Character overlay including requests to delete areas and add new areas (e.g. Hill Park Manurewa, Point Chevalier, Howick, Devonport (new areas), St Heliers, City Centre, Tamaki Drive)

· Rules relating to significant infrastructure

· Activity status for demolition, alterations and new buildings

· Notification

Pre-1944 Building Demolition

· Overall policy approach

· Location of the Pre-1944 Building Demolition overlay

· Notification

Precincts

· Removal of precincts

· Amendments to precincts

· New precincts

Subdivision

· Minimum site size for subdivision in the residential zones - particularly Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban

· Rear site/access to rear site rules

Rural subdivision

· Overall policy approach

· Activity status

· Minimum lot size

· Transferable rural site subdivision provisions

Stormwater

· Overall policy approach

· Activity status for development in flood plains and Stormwater Management (Flow) areas

Sustainable development

· Sustainable design controls

Transport

· Emphasis on public and alternative forms of transport

· High Land Transport Noise overlay

· Integrated Transport Assessments

· Parking maximum/minimum approach

· Cycle parking and end of trip facilities

· Vehicle access

· Traffic Generation Control

· Use of designations within the road corridor

Strategic Transport Corridor zone

Trees

· Controls on pruning and removal

· New notable trees and removal of trees from the schedule

Vegetation Management and Significant Ecological Areas

· Overall policy approach including rules

· Site-specific submissions

Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas rules

· Height controls within the viewshafts and height sensitive areas

Waitakere Ranges

· Various provisions

Water

· Policy approach and rules

Zoning

· Various - largest volume of submission points across all themes and topics

19. In order to respond to the sheer volume of issues raised in the submissions and the required pace of the hearings process, it is recommended that the committee confirms this initial list of key issues as its work programme. As long as the general approach in the PAUP is maintained, it is also recommended that the committee authorises senior planning staff to work with the council’s legal team to present the council’s case in respect of the remaining issues raised in the submissions. Where additional matters become of interest during the course of the hearings, the committee can clearly “call in” those matters for political direction. Similarly, where senior planning staff believe the council should depart from the general approach contained in the PAUP, a workshop would need to be held with the Unitary Plan Committee and a report prepared outlining the recommended change in approach.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The views of local boards are able to be represented by the invitation extended to all local board chairs to attend the Unitary Plan Committee.

Maori impact statement

21. If the Unitary Plan Committee accepts the recommended work programme discussed in this report, then many of the key issues of interest to Maori raised in submissions on the PAUP will be considered by the committee at the appropriate time in the overall hearings schedule. It is considered that there are no other impacts on Maori arising from the recommendations made in this report.

Implementation

22. The recommendations made in this report can be implemented within the existing Unitary Plan budget and staff resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	IHP Procedures Manual	15

Signatories

Authors	John Duguid - Manager Plan Development
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Unitary Plan Committee

08 July 2014

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview

File No.: CP2014/13879

Purpose

1. To update the Unitary Plan Committee on the capacity modelling undertaken using the provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The report outlines the modelling results, discusses the model itself and outlines how it can be used to inform decision-making.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) developed a computer model that calculates the number and location of possible additional residential dwellings and business floor space enabled by the PAUP zoning framework. The analysis concluded that the PAUP enables between an additional 258,518 and 417,045 dwellings and in business areas an additional 22 million square metres of floor space.

3. The model allows for key PAUP planning rules and development controls, such as lot sizes, yard/boundary set-backs and driveway widths, to be evaluated.

Recommendations

That the Unitary Plan Committee:

a) receive the report

b) note that the model is a useful decision support tool, and that it has, and will be, used to support decision-making

c) note that results and methodology and assumptions technical reports will be published soon

d) note that work is underway to refine and improve understanding of enabled growth potential by utilising and refining the model outputs.

Background

4. The Capacity for Growth Studies (CfGS) are snapshots that seek to measure the amount of additional residential and business development that the operative plans enable at a given point in time.

5. The 2012 (operative legacy district plans) study involved the development of a model which combines corporate geospatial information (for example, building footprints and planning rules such as subdivision and some bulk and location provisions), in order to determine the amount of additional residential and business development enabled under those operative planning provisions. The 2012 results report and methodology and assumptions report were published in April 2013 as Auckland Council technical reports, TR2013/010 and TR2013/009 respectively.

6. Following the completion of the 2012 work, a new model was commissioned to reflect the PAUP. Model building commenced in September 2013 and final data outputs were completed in May 2014. Staff involved in developing the Unitary Plan assisted in the interpretation of rules which inform how the model works.

7. The results of the PAUP model are a measure of what the PAUP enables; it produces a census of all land and its development potential. The results are not a measure of whether development will or might happen in a given location; rather they indicate what has been enabled by the relevant plan rules (i.e, “what the council has allowed to happen”).

8. Two reports are currently being peer reviewed (including internal and external review), and will shortly be published as Auckland Council technical reports. The first report will outline the results, and the second will detail the methodology and modelling assumptions.

Capacity model overview

9. The model works by taking spatial data, such as building footprints, and applying the PAUP sub-division and development control rules to each property, using zone, precincts and selected overlays. Analysis is largely undertaken at the parcel level within the urban area and at the title scale for the rural area (exceptions apply for various structure plans and special areas), meaning that results can be aggregated into other larger spatial units such as local board areas.

10. The model calculates development capacity in either a residential, business, rural or special area (i.e, locations that are not modelled and are a combination of the previous three types) category. Each of these categories is further assessed based on the individual rules that apply, the nature of the site (vacant or otherwise), and/or the type of development approach (infill or redevelopment).

11. The rules used for modelling are the highest consent category in the plan where clear parameters are outlined. In the PAUP this is almost always the rule text as written. The development consent category ranges from Permitted to Discretionary, although most are Controlled or Limited Discretionary Activities. Open ended parameters have been modelled assuming an ‘assumed proxy’ limit. For example, sites in the Mixed Housing ‘unlimited density’ zone have an average density of 110 square metres per dwelling, based on design led worked examples from Jasmax and Auckland Council’s Built Environment Unit. Almost all of these ‘rule parameter’ values can be varied if required.

12. Residential capacity is reported as the number of additional dwelling units that could be built under the PAUP planning rules. Business land capacity is measured by area of business zoned land free of buildings (as hectares, split into vacant and vacant potential). Business redevelopment capacity measures capacity for additional floor space on business zoned parcels (converted to capacity for employees and/or dwellings). Rural capacity is reported as additional dwellings (and a new PAUP provision, potential TRSS donor or receiver status). Special areas are reported based on the nature of their intended final land use (residential, business, rural or a mix of all of them) based on a review of the relevant documentation rather than modelled outputs.

13. Residential development capacity is reported as two totals, based on the net potential increase in dwellings depending on the development approach taken:

· ‘Infill’ development is where existing development (if any) on a site remains in place and new dwellings fit around it.

· ‘Redevelopment’ is where existing development is removed and the site developed in accordance with the development controls.

This range reflects the fact that some sites may have many possible (re)development outcomes.

14. The model uses the cadastral pattern as at 30 September 2013. This is significant, as some of the widespread development outcomes encouraged by the Mixed Housing and THAB (Terraced Housing and Apartment Building) zones are premised on changes to the underlying parcel configuration, through site amalgamation, to achieve the minimum site frontage and area requirements necessary to enable the higher density provisions in these zones to be utilised.

15. Details of how the model is constructed, its underlying assumptions and operations are included in the forthcoming technical reports.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan capacity results

16. The model suggests that the PAUP provides residential capacity for between 258,518 and 417,045 additional dwellings, with the opportunities for :

· 207,795 to 359,018 additional dwellings within the urban area (inside the Metropolitan Urban Limits as at 1 November 2010).

· 34,323 to 41,627 additional dwellings within rural towns.

· 16,400 additional dwellings within the rural area.

17. In addition to this capacity there may also be opportunities to yield further dwellings through other means, including:

· The amalgamation of parcels in order to create sites that would allow the yielding of a greater number of dwellings.

· The residential conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings could yield an additional 214,868 dwellings (only from those parcels/dwellings where no other development opportunity exists).

18. The following points should be noted:

· The results include residential capacity in town centres and relevant business areas, but use a modified or more 'realistic' capacity measure and not the maximum capacity allowed under the PAUP.

· The above results do not include future capacity that will eventually be provided for in Future Urban Zoned areas. These areas are collectively expected to accommodate approximately 90,000 dwellings (Auckland Plan, 2013).

19. The PAUP provides for a total of 7884 hectares of business zoned land:

· Of this business land, 1312 hectares was assessed as being currently vacant.

· If all modelled land was redeveloped in business areas and centres (under a modified, 'realistic' scenario) it could provide an additional 22,519,499 square metres of floor space.

Model uses: scenario testing

20. The model can be used to show the potential effects of variations in various modelled rules on growth and development potential. For example, between the draft and the proposed versions of the Unitary Plan, the minimum net site area for new vacant sites in the Single House Zone (SHZ) changed from 500 to 600 square metres. Looking at the effect of this change in a selected set of parcels (see Appendix A), where the SHZ rules are applied (unmodified by Precincts or Overlays under both plans), shows that in this area, a 20 per cent increase in site size resulted in a 60 per cent reduction.

21. While this is a small example, it illustrates the model’s ability to show the effects of PAUP rules. It represents a significant improvement on more generalised or ‘rule of thumb’ approaches. It also shows that the key to releasing (or controlling) plan enabled capacity for development is the relative ‘fit’ between the rules applied and the existing development and cadastral pattern.

22. A wide variety of rule based parameters can be varied, depending on the zone for modelling purposes. For standard residential zones, this includes minimum site area, setbacks and driveway widths, for more intensive zones, minimum frontage, site area and expected density/dwelling gross floor area, and in business areas, height limits, setback and other bulk and location controls can be easily varied. Other spatial features can also be changed such as the extent of a zone or overlay.

23. This model’s capability has wide monitoring and research application; being able to show what the potential impacts of different rules at a site, neighbourhood, or for the region, is of considerable use.

Intended uses of the study results

24. The CfGS is a key input into a range of council’s land use, transport and infrastructure planning and financial decision-making processes. These include satisfying Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002 statutory requirements for land use monitoring, updates and forecasts; Watercare Services Limited have used the outputs for their Demand Model and Local Upgrades and Project Planning work and the data is used a key input for Auckland Council’s transport modelling work. Work is also underway with private sector agencies to develop and refine the overall analysis.

Key modelling considerations and future work

25. The outputs of the model are not growth projections. The outputs are a measurement of what the planning system allows to happen, but this is only one (albeit major) factor influencing what might actually happen. Total plan-enabled capacity is highly unlikely to be taken up for a wide variety of reasons, including various physical or spatial constraints not considered in the modelling, personal land owner preferences, and wider economic and market factors.

26. A better understanding of these various reasons and factors, and how they will influence what is ‘realistically likely’ to happen, is a key part of ongoing work.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. Results from the CfGS are available at a local board level and can be communicated on request. Once approved for publication, the CfGS technical reports will be publicly available in hard copy or from Auckland Council’s website.

Maori impact statement

28. It is considered that there are no specific impacts on Maori arising from any decisions made by the Unitary Plan Committee in response to this report.

Implementation

29. The recommendations contained in this report can be implemented within the existing RIMU budget and staff resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Indicative Example -Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results. Scenario testing example	39

Signatories

Authors

Regan Solomon- Manager, Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit.

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Unitary Plan Committee

08 July 2014

Attachment

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Development Capacity Results

Scenario testing example: Impact of a change in minimum net site area from 500 square metres to 600 square metres in the Single House Zone (SHZ), on residential redevelopment capacity.

The following is a worked example of the model’s capability to investigate variation in rule parameters on development potential.

Figure 1 below shows an overview of the example area (Glendowie around Churchill Park). This area was chosen as it is a relatively contiguous area of SHZ with notable development potential under both the Draft and Proposed Unitary Plans (UP). Care should be taken before conflating results from this specific location to other similarly zoned locations.

Figure 1: Study Area, valid model developable input parcels and PAUP base zoning

Indicative Example Only

Some variation between the spatial extent of Zones, Precincts and Overlays between the Draft and Proposed UP means only a subset of sites in the study area are directly comparable.

Figure 2 below shows the extent of the parcels in the study area fitting this SHZ zoning criteria.

Figure 2: Parcels modelled as unmodified SHZ in both the Draft and Proposed UP (n = 1069 parcels, existing dwelling count = 1141)

Indicative Example Only

In this example, the variation investigated is a change from a 500 square metres minimum net site area (as per the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan) to 600 square metre minimum net site area (as per the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan). In this instance the results are compared between the Draft AUP Model outputs and the PAUP Model outputs for sites that were modelled as unmodified Single House Zone (no precincts or overlays) in both plans. Figure 3 below shows the lot size distribution of parcels in this sample set.

Figure 3: Parcel size distribution

Indicative Example Only

@ 500m2, Number of sufficiently size d candidates = 143

@ 600m2, Number of sufficiently sized Candidates = 69

While the physical arrangement of the parcel size and number of existing dwellings will actually determine the yield resulting from the models analysis, the probable effect on potential candidate population from change in minimum net site area is discernable from this graph. The histogram also reveals that the area is dominated by sites between 800 square metres and 900 square metres (the mode (and median) is 809 square metres, or one fifth of an acre) reflecting the age the area was originally laid out, and contributing to its character.

This suggests that if widespread infill development was to be facilitated in this area, that a minimum site size around half or less of this common size would create considerable capacity. Equally, a site size larger than this will tend to reduce infill opportunities, but not at a linear rate relative to minimum site size, as larger site sizes are increasingly rare, as our analysis will show.

Figures 4 and 5 below show parcels that are modelled redevelopment candidates (with a net dwelling yield equal to or greater than one) at a minimum net site area of 500 square metres and 600 square metres respectively.

Indicative Example Only

Figure 4: Modelled redevelopment parcels at 500 square metres (n = 109, Dwelling Yield = 121)

Figure 5: Modelled redevelopment Sites at 600 square metres (n = 45, Yield = 49)

Indicative Example Only

Figure 6 Shows both analyses, with one per 660 square metres (1:600) (red) on top, with those remaining blue sites that are visible being those developable at one per 550 square metres (1:500) that are no longer developable at one per 600 square metres (1:600).

Figure 6: Comparative analysis 500 square metres (blue) versus 600 square metres (red)

Indicative Example Only

Figure 7 below shows the effect on redevelopment candidates, dropping by from 109 of 1069 (or around 10 per cent of parcels) to 49 of 1069 (or less than 5 per cent).

The impact on potential development opportunities also reduces from an additional 121 dwellings to 49, a reduction of nearly 60 per cent, from a site size increase of 20 per cent.

Figure 7: Effect on redevelopment yield

Indicative Example Only

Chairperson	Cr Alf Filipaina
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Penny Hulse
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Chris Darby
	Cr Denise Krum
	Member Liane Ngamane
	Member Josie Smith
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Penny Webster

Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP