Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

Auckland Development Committee

11 September 2014

Housing Strategic Action Plan - Stage 1 - Update and Next Stage

File No.: CP2014/19982

Purpose

1. To outline and have endorsed the focus of future work to be undertaken under the Housing Action Plan.

Executive summary

2. A report was presented to the Auckland Development Committee on 11 March 2014. This report outlined progress being made on the 32 actions in the Housing Action Plan, and identified that there had been a number of developments relating to housing which impacted upon any proposed Stage 2 work.

3. The recommendation (resolution number AUC/2014/49) from the 11 March meeting was to:

a) endorse the future priorities set down in the report in respect of Stage 1.

b) review Stage 2 of the Housing Action Plan in light of progress on Stage 1 and the development of the Auckland Housing Accord including the establishment of the HPO, and a further report on whether to proceed with additional work be submitted to the Auckland Development Committee by June 2014.

c) circulate this report to all local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and the Heritage Advisory Panel for their information.

4. There are a number of Stage 1 actions that have a high degree of importance. Many of these actions have been completed and have also resulted in further recommendations or actions. These include:

§ 1 (increase ability of ACPL to work / partner with others)

§ 11 (investigate unregulated investment)

§ 14 (development contributions deferrals)

§ 16 (land value capture)

§ 17 (inclusionary zoning in PAUP)

§ 19 (end to end consenting)

§ 20 (“one deposit” consents)

§ 21 (building consent pre-approvals)

§ 24 (landlord WOF scheme)

§ 25 (social return on investment)

§ 26 (Homestar rating)

5. There are also a number of partially completed Stage 1 actions that need to be finalised. Staff consider that effort should be put into completing and implementing these actions from Stage 1 of the Housing Action Plan rather than initiating the original Stage 2 of the work programme. Stage 2 work has now been superseded by other events including the Auckland Housing Accord.

6. It is therefore recommended that actions to be taken forward and the focus of future work are the activities outlined within Attachment 1 to this report.

7. The budget for this work is estimated to be in line with the Housing Action Plan work to date ($120K per annum) and will be managed by existing resources within the Housing Project Office with assistance from other areas of council on relevant actions.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the completion of Stage 1 of the Housing Action Plan and agree not to proceed with the original Stage 2 Housing Action Plan, as this has been superseded by agreements and actions being undertaken under the Auckland Housing Accord.

b) circulate this report to all local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) for their information.

Background

8. Directive 11.1 of the Auckland Plan states that Auckland Council will “Develop and deliver on a multi-sector Housing Strategic Action Plan to achieve the required increase in housing supply, including options to increase affordable housing for first home buyers”.

9. The purpose of the Housing Strategic Action Plan was to have a multi-sector commitment to improve the delivery of quality of affordable housing. Given the scale and complexity of housing issues, it was agreed that the HSAP be carried out in two stages:

i. Stage 1 focused on Directive 11.5 of the Auckland Plan, which committed Council to working with others to urgently investigate and use the whole range of possible housing development vehicles, policy and regulatory tools, that would increase the supply of affordable housing in Auckland

ii. The Housing Action Plan adopted by Council in December 2012 is the outcome of Stage 1. The Housing Action Plan (Stage 1) has 12 priority areas and 32 actions and was developed with input from a range of parties in the housing and development sector, iwi housing authorities and included participation by central government colleagues.

iii. Originally Stage 2 was to focus on other critical housing issues, and the contribution of other sectors, in which Council can act as facilitator and catalyst to bring parties together. Stage 2 was deferred to allow progress to be made against Stage 1 of the Housing Action Plan.

10. Following the adoption of the Housing Action Plan there have been a number of developments in the housing area. The council entered into a Housing Accord with central government, the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHA) was promulgated and the Housing Project Office was established. Consequently, staff consider that effort should be put into completing and implementing Stage 1 of the Housing Action Plan rather than initiating the original Stage 2 of the work programme.

11. The March report provided an update and outlined that:

· Of the 12 Priority Areas within the Housing Action Plan which were translated into 11 workstreams and 32 actions (and an additional 4 sub-actions). The status of these actions were as follows:

· Six have been completed – Actions 4, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 22

· Twenty four are substantially underway – these being Actions 1, 2, 3 4a, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30

· Five have been commenced - these being Actions 7, 8, 18, 31 and 32

12. A summary of the status of the Stage 1 actions, and those actions to be taken forward and the focus of the future work, is identified within Attachment 1.

Discussion

13. A further review has been undertaken on the scope of the Housing Action Plan moving forward.

14. The Auckland Housing Accord and recent HASHA legislation has set the direction for further initiatives to improve housing affordability in Auckland. The outcome has meant that the Housing Project Office (HPO) was established to facilitate the identification of Special Housing Areas (SHAs), and to fast track the implementation of approvals and consenting for qualifying developments. The HPO is also the portal for housing strategy and policy, including the Housing Action Plan.

15. Work on the Accord is aligned to a number of areas of the Housing Action Plan. For example, priority area 7 on regulatory processes covers innovation. This area of work will be expanded in practice as the HPO is delivering in a new regulatory environment. The HPO takes a whole of council approach, with dedicated staff from councils CCO’s, Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited and council asset managers e.g. stormwater. Emphasis is on having one council wide portal through the HPO for qualifying development consents and SHA approvals and plan variations. Co-ordination of infrastructure delivery (at the same time; in the same place) is a key component of the “one-stop shop” HPO portal and a key criteria in the identification of special housing areas. A number of regulatory innovations are underway e.g. the HPO consenting team has worked with the NZ Green Building Council to streamline the registration, assessment and audit of homes within SHAs to achieve the Homestar rating in the PAUP significantly reducing associated costs and time; working with the council’s building control team it has also initiated a pilot option for planning self-certification for building consents checks subject to certain criteria to provide greater choice to an applicant; similarly it has introduced a new role of a project lead planner that assumes all the roles of key relationship manager; project manager and is also the senior consent assessor to enhance the ‘one stop shop ‘ concept and delivery of QD consents.

16. Council is also working closely with a number of groups on housing related issues. The Government and Council are working together through working groups such as the Joint Officials Housing Working Group. Equally Council is working closely with the private sector and third party housing suppliers to identify and resolve issues impacting on housing supply and affordability.

17. Effectively the originally envisioned Stage 2 of the Housing Action Plan is already occurring via other mechanisms, and therefore Stage 2 has been redefined.

Conclusion

18. That the focus of the Housing Action Plan moving forward be on delivering on the actions within Stage 1 and the associated sub-actions as detailed within this report.

19. That there be six monthly reporting against the actions to the Auckland Development Committee.

Consideration

Maori impact statement

20. In undertaking the workstreams and actions within the Housing Action Plan the HPO has been working with Te Waka Angamua (TWA), the Independent Maori Statutory Board(IMSB), iwi, mana whenua, Urban Maori Trusts, mataawaaka organisations, central government and others to identify opportunities for papakainga and other types of housing and social infrastructure for Maori. This is consistent with affording a priority to the transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan; including significantly lifting Maori social and economic well-being.

Local Board Views

21. The Local Board Chairs’ and members views have been sought during the drafting of the Housing Action Plan – Stage one via workshops. Individual boards have been engaged further where specific actions affect a local board area e.g. when sites were selected for the Place Management Study; and also through the identification of Special Housing Areas.

Consultation

22. As this project is about implementing the Auckland Plan, no specific public consultation is planned. There was engagement with relevant external agencies, iwi, mana whenua mataawaka, business, property and community stakeholders in the preparation of the Housing Action Plan. The public is also consulted on specific regulatory policy mechanisms through the Unitary Plan process, including the March 2013 Addendum to the Draft Unitary Plan that included the option for inclusionary zoning (Action 17 in the Housing Action Plan) and Land Value Capture (Action 16).

Financial and Resourcing Implications

23. Completion of the Housing Action Plan will be delivered within existing staff resources and approved budgets. Any proposals that stem from the action plan e.g. a potential for an Auckland Housing Bond (currently being investigated) will be reported to the committee with any associated financial implications. It is also noted that the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) are co-funding the cost of servicing residential development and demand on infrastructure study.

Legal and Legislative Implications

24. There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report. However, the Housing Action Plan supports Council’s requirement to address cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being across Council activities as required by the Local Government Act 2002; and ensure that activities improve the well-being of communities as directed in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Implementation Issues

25. The Housing Action Plan is an action identified in the Auckland Plan and this report is to confirm its scope allows progress to be made.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of Actions Progress	13

Signatories

Authors

Rohan Bush - Strategic Housing Analyst

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

11 September 2014

Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation

File No.: CP2014/19301

Purpose

1. To present the findings of two independent public space evaluation studies as well as other considerations to satisfy resolutions passed by the Auckland Development Committee at its meeting on the 15 May 2014 in relation to the report ‘Downtown Shopping Centre Block Redevelopment – Future of Queen Elizabeth Square’ (Resolution number AUC/2014/64). Based on the findings of the studies, this report seeks approval to commence the statutory processes associated with the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square and the consequential work required to deliver new alternative public space/s and secure desired design outcomes from the redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Development Committee at its meeting on 15 May 2014 considered the report Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) Block Redevelopment – Future of Queen Elizabeth Square (Resolution number AUC/2014/64) and resolved to approve, in principle, the disposal of the land on which Queen Elizabeth Square (QE Square) stands as part of the wider redevelopment of the DSC block. This approval was subject to the outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land). It was made on the basis that the redevelopment of the block is of the highest ‘world class’ design quality and the proceeds from the sale of QE Square are reinvested in new or enhanced downtown public space/s. The latter point was to be further considered through an evaluation study of ‘off site’ public space options and presented back to the Auckland Development Committee for final approval.

3. QE Square as defined for the purpose of this report is contained by Lower Queen Street to the east, HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) to the north, Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) to the west and Zurich House (21 Queen Street) to the south. It measures approximately 2000 square metres (sq m) in size. The DSC block in which QE Square sits is bounded by Lower Albert Street, Quay Street, Custom Street West and Lower Queen Street. With the exception of QE Square all of the land in the block in owned by Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL).

4. In June 2014 Council commissioned Reset Urban Design Limited to undertake an independent evaluation of existing public space provision in the downtown area including QE Square and evaluate options for future offsite public space/s. This evaluation study, referred to as the Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation (DPSOE), finds that the existing as well as a potentially enhanced QE Square is fundamentally compromised as a public space not least because of the shading effect of HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street). It concludes that there are better alternative spaces which, with the proceeds of its sale, could be created or improved to enhance the overall downtown public space provision (see Attachment A - Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation)

5. The study recommends the following options would provide improved civic and informal recreational spaces in the downtown area:

· an upgraded pedestrianised civic space on Lower Queen Street, in front of the Chief Post Office (CPO) heritage building, to be delivered as part of the City Rail Link (CRL) ‘early works package’ to a standard that is ‘coherent with the wider area and/or recent public realm upgrades in the area’ as per the City Rail Link Notice of Requirement conditions.

· a suite of three new or upgraded downtown waterfront public spaces that will provide for informal recreational uses as well as ceremonial welcoming activity. These spaces stretch between the foot of Lower Albert Street in the west through to the Admiralty Steps area to the east of Queens Wharf.

6. Preparation of the study included sessions with the Waitemata Local Board, joint workshops of the Auckland Development Committee and Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee (30 July and 3 September 2014), a series of meetings with five iwi groups, Waterfront Auckland’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and various meetings with staff representing various parts of council and Council Controlled Organisations.

7. Independent of the above work, the Copenhagen based leading international practice in public life studies and public realm design, Gehl Architects, undertook a review of QE Square. Their evaluation found that HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) compromises the QE Square space from an environmental perspective and restricts visual connectivity to the waterfront whilst Lower Queen Street bus and rail underpass infrastructure blocks the space from the street (see Attachment B –Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation). They conclude that “if other open space options exist within the area it would be worthwhile exploring how they could offer something that is more valuable and attractive than the current QE Square”.

8. A review of identified public space options against Te Aranga Māori design principles, including consultation with five mana whenua groups, determined that the downtown waterfront options, specifically the Admiralty Steps area, present much greater opportunities to achieve the cultural landscape qualities sought than the existing QE Square.

9. The City Centre Integration group led Downtown Framework document, the topic of a separate report to this meeting of the Auckland Development Committee (Ref CP2014/20135), provides the strategic context and overarching vision to these evaluation studies and the recommendations of this report. The Framework and evaluation studies suggest that the incorporation of QE Square in the wider redevelopment of the DSC block would enable the following outcomes:

a. The creation of at least two new or enhanced waterfront recreational public spaces, superior in form and function to QE Square, utilising the return from the sale of the land.

b. A greater level of control, via specific requirements within the terms of sale, over the design of the DSC block in support of achieving a world class gateway development and city centre destination. A key requirement will be an enhanced pedestrian east-west laneway that functions as an attractive, publically accessible route between public transport nodes as part of the wider City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) identified circuit.

c. A new active edge to a new civic space on Lower Queen Street in front of the CPO building, commensurate in size but better quality to QE Square, made possible by the east-west laneway and the consequent shift of Lower Queen Street bus stops and infrastructure to Lower Albert Street.

10. On the basis of these outcomes this report seeks to reconfirm the 15 May 2014 Auckland Development Committee approval to dispose of QE Square subject to outcome of associated statutory public processes. It proposes that the proceeds from the sale of QE Square be reinvested in at least two new or enhanced public spaces in the downtown waterfront area as part of a network of public spaces connected via an upgraded Quay Street to a new civic space in Lower Queen Street.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note the findings of the Downtown Public Space Options Evaluation (Reset Urban Design), Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation (Gehl Architects) and Te Aranga Māori Design Evaluation (Rau Hoskins).

b) confirm approval to sell land on which Queen Elizabeth Square stands to Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL) subject to successful commercial negotiations, the outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land) and the inclusion of design quality requirements for the Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) block in the terms of sale.

c) agree that the proceeds from the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square be reinvested in the delivery of at least two of three identified potential alternative public spaces along the downtown waterfront i.e.:

i) new/improved space west of Queens Wharf on the water’s edge at the foot of Lower Albert Street

ii) improved space around the historic ferry building and at the base of Queens Wharf

iii) new/improved space east of Queens Wharf in the Admiralty Steps area.

d) note the initial draft design requirements for the Downtown Shopping Centre block that will form part of the terms of sale, summarised as follows:

i) support the vision for the area as expressed in the Downtown Framework and the general design principles of the Downtown Shopping Centre Block Design and Development Brief (October 2013).

ii) creation of an at-grade, publicly accessible (24hrs/7days), open with weather protection, east-west pedestrian laneway connection between Lower Queen Street and Lower Albert Street through the block.

iii) creation of a north-south pedestrian link through the block referencing the old Little Queen Street.

iv) creation of an active built edge to Lower Albert Street, Lower Queen Street, Quay Street and Custom Street that is human in scale and reinforces and enhances the positive street qualities of the surrounding area in terms of scale, massing, rhythm, articulation and transparency of facade.

v) best practice environmental design including a minimum New Zealand Green Building Council rating of 5 Stars or a recognised equivalent standard for the commercial tower.

vi) application of Te Aranga Māori Design principles in the design process and final design.

vii) support of the Auckland Urban Design Panel to the final design.

e) note that, additional to the waterfront public spaces identified in point c), a new civic pedestrianised space is to be delivered on Lower Queen Street in front of the Chief Post Office (Britomart Transport Centre) as part of the City Rail Link ‘early works' package. The proposed civic space will be delivered to a standard that is ‘coherent with the wider area and/or recent public realm upgrades in the area’ as per the City Rail Link Notice of Requirement conditions.

f) note that the design of alternative public spaces identified in b) will form part of Quay Street upgrade project design package scheduled to commence November 2014.

g) agree that staff report back to the Auckland Development Committee with an update on the alternative public spaces design development as part of the Quay Street upgrade project.

Comments

11. The Auckland Development Committee on 15 May 2014 resolved the following as part of the report entitled Downtown Shopping Centre Block Redevelopment – Future of Queen Elizabeth Square. (Resolution number AUC/2014/64)

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve in principle the disposal of land on which Queen Elizabeth Square stands as part of the wider redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block subject to the outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land).

b) agree to the sale only if the proceeds from the potential disposal of Queen Elizabeth Square are reinvested in new or enhanced public civic space/s that:

i. is of at least the same quantum and higher quality to the existing space

ii. is located either within or in reasonable proximity to the Downtown Shopping Centre block

iii. is capable of being delivered broadly at the same time as the permanent loss of the existing space

c) direct staff to work with the Waitemata Local Board and Iwi on evaluating ‘offsite’ public civic space options with the findings to be considered by the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee prior to being presented back to the Auckland Development Committee for approval in August.

d) agree the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square being considered as part of the preparation of a Development Agreement between Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Limited and Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited on the basis that:

i. its final inclusion remains subject to statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land).

ii. The Development Agreement include conditions relating to the built form outcomes sought by council.

e) agree that any disposal of Queen Elizabeth Square is done so in the context of the overall masterplan and its vision for the city centre and achieving world class outcomes befitting this unique space in the context of Auckland”.

12. Queen Elizabeth Square (QE Square) as defined for the purpose of this report is contained by Lower Queen Street to the east, HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) to the north, Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) to the west and Zurich House (21 Queen Street) to the south. It measures approximately 2000 square metres (sq m) in size. The DSC block in which QE Square sits is bounded by Lower Albert Street, Quay Street, Custom Street West and Lower Queen Street. With the exception of QE Square all of the land in the block in owned by Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL).

13. In June 2014 Reset Urban Design, led by Garth Falconer, was commissioned to undertake, in response to point c) of the 15 May resolution, an evaluation study of the public space options in the downtown area referred to as Downtown Public Space Option Evaluation (DPSOE). In addition to this commission Rau Hoskins, Design Tribe, was engaged to work with Iwi in assessing options against Te Aranga Māori design principles (see Māori Impact Statement). Groups from across the Council family were involved in reviewing this work including Waterfront Auckland, the City Centre Integration team, Auckland Council Property Ltd and Auckland Transport. The Waitemata Local Board also participated in and reviewed the evaluation work.

14. Council also commissioned the leading international practice in public life studies and public realm design, Gehl Architects, to undertake a further independent review of Queen Elizabeth Square (see Attachment B – Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation).

15. The Downtown Framework, the topic of a separate report to this meeting of the Auckland Development Committee (Ref CP2014/20135) provides the strategic context to these evaluation studies and the recommendations in this report.

Downtown Public Space Option Evaluation Study (DPSOE)

16. The DPSOE was undertaken to:

· Identify and understand the needs for public space in the downtown area.

· Understand the historical development of this area from a public space perspective.

· Develop a set of assessment criteria to assess public open space in the downtown area.

· Assess the qualities of both the existing and an enhanced (realistic best case) QE Square.

· Identify alternative spaces that could be invested in with the proceeds from a sale of QE Square.

Public Space Requirements in the Downtown Area

17. The DPSOE found that there was a lack of good quality public open spaces in the downtown area. There was a lack of diversity and hierarchy, with very little variation in use. The spaces were found to be fragmented with poor connectivity, doing little to support the needs of Aucklanders and visitors.

18. A recreational needs survey^{^[1]} for the city centre was undertaken in 2009 which concluded that there was a need for:

· More open space

· Playgrounds

· Additional facilities

· Safer access

· Places to gather and enjoy events

· Stronger connections to water

19. The study also highlighted that by 2030 there will be a doubling of workers in the city centre to 128,000 and residents will increase by 50% to 42,000. The City Centre Masterplan (July, 2012) revised these figures to upwards of 140,000 workers and 45,000 residents by 2032.

20. Achieving new public space provision in the city centre and downtown in particular is challenging given its built up nature with perhaps the exception of the waterfront. The DPOSE therefore places an emphasis on the quality of existing and new spaces rather than overall quantity and contemplates the potential of ‘repurposing’ city roads in a manner already delivered through the City Centre Shared Space Programme.

History of public space in the downtown area

21. The downtown area is reclaimed land. Before the reclaimation the foreshore was an important area for mana whenua as a place to arrive and depart by waka and gathering fish and shellfish. The area was progressively reclaimed for commercial and port activity during the late 19^th Century. Queens Wharf was constructed at this time, and it and the waterfront were publicly accessible. In 1909, for safety and security reasons, the red fence was constructed which effectively constrained public access to all but those catching ferries. Consequently, the only public spaces were the streets and they became increasingly congested with vehicles in the 20^th century.

22. QE Square was created on the western side of Lower Queen Street in 1973 following the demolition of previously intact Victorian and Edwardian built fabric as part of the Auckland Harbour Board modernist redevelopment plans. It was designated as open space and transferred to Auckland City Council in exchange for the closure of Little Queen Street.

23. For most of the 1970’s QE Square functioned primarily as a transitional public space and forecourt entrance to the newly constructed DSC and Air New Zealand House (now HSBC Tower) and Downtown House (now Zurich House). Its unattractive environmental conditions were widely criticised as evidenced in the Ministry of Works and Development report, Walking Around Town (April 1977). This report concluded that ‘the Square is transitional space, perhaps a forecourt to the buildings, but as a pleasant place for pedestrians to relax in the city it is a failure’ citing the climatic challenges and lack of active frontage as the primary causes. (see Attachment C – Extract from Walking Around Town)

24. Criticisms of the space during the1970’s prompted full closure of Lower Queen Street as a public square between DSC and the CPO building. The new expanded square featured extensive public seating in areas defined by raised planters, trees and fountains, and became a popular and well-used public space, enjoying full exposure to the sun during the middle of the day.

25. With the development of the Britomart Transport Centre in 2002 Lower Queen Street became a bus exchange and QE Square was returned back to its original 1970’s state. A new canopy was constructed on the western side of the street to shelter bus users and pedestrians moving from the city to the waterfront. During the early 2000’s QE Square represented one of the few public spaces in the downtown area, however the opening up of Queens Wharf to the public in 2011 and the creation of new space within the Britomart precinct including Takutai Square increased overall provision markedly.

Public space assessment criteria

26. The DPSOE determined that the most relevant public space for the downtown area is both civic and informal recreation. It went on to develop a set of assessment criteria from best practice open space design guidance contained in the Auckland Design Manual (ADM) for each type of space. These were applied to QE Square (existing and enhanced) and an initial seven off site public space options.

27. The evaluation criteria used for civic spaces was:

· on busy routes and at significant sites

· large space for events, gathering and ceremonies

· comfortable and safe

· strong identity and heritage

· community facilities

· cater of pedestrians

· active edges and extended hours

28. The evaluation criteria used for informal recreation spaces was:

· very accessible

· multi-functional from play to walking

· good views

· sheltered and sunny

· locate near amenities especially water

· cater for range of users

Existing Queen Elizabeth Square evaluation

29. In summary, the DPSOE study found that the negative site attributes of QE Square outweighed the positive site attributes.

The positive attributes include:

· It is next to a major pedestrian route – adjacent to Lower Queen Street

· At approximately 2000 sq metres, it is a sizable space

· It is opposite the CPO (Britomart Transport Centre) building

The negative attributes include:

· It does not support objectives of connectivity and permeability in relation to the public open space network in the downtown area

· It creates a gap in the building edge on the western side of Queen Street – the main city to harbour link

· It is subdivided from the adjacent space of Lower Queen Street and does little to support this space

· It is a residual space that has become the forecourt to a private shopping mall development with poor building edges – it is not a destination

· Its original reason for being is usurped; it has become a ‘side show’ to the nearby waterfront and does little to enhance the link with the waterfront

· There is minimal mana whenua or heritage value

· It has a poor environment – being both windy and in shade for the majority of the day

· It doesn’t meet the open space/recreation needs of residents, workers or visitors

30. The DPSOE study concludes that QE Square is a poor quality public open space that does little to support public use and enjoyment in the downtown area.

31. Gehl Architects came to a similar conclusion over QE Square following a visit on 13 June 2014. They applied their standard 12 quality criteria for public space to the site and determined that it performed poorly against four criteria, average on four and well on four. Mitigation measures to overcome the four criteria upon which it scored poorly i.e. i) protection against unpleasant sensory experiences; ii) opportunities to see; iii) opportunities for play and exercise; and iv) opportunities to enjoy the positive aspects of climate were as follows:

a. Redevelop the block to create an extroverted structure that integrates with the square and initiate activation of the square through active frontages and active uses

b. Demolish HSBC tower [1 Queen Street] to allow solar access, to eliminate wind problems and create views and direct links to the waterfront

c. Reconfigure bus interchange /station entry to allow a seamless integration of QE Square and Queen Street.

32. Gehl Architects concluded that if other open space options exist within the area it would be worthwhile exploring how they could offer something that is more valuable and attractive than the current QE Square.’ (See Attachment B - Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation)

33. These conclusions mirror those of the Waterfront Auckland Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and the QE Square evaluation in the Ministry of Works and Development report, Walking Around Town (April 1977).

Enhanced Queen Elizabeth Square evaluation

34. Notwithstanding the identified fundamental challenges of QE Square and the fact that from mid 2016 the space will be closed to the public for a period of 2-3 years for CRL related works, the DPSOE study explored two options for retaining and enhancing the space.

35. A courtyard option with a central feature surrounded by activated building edges was considered alongside an option that partly/fully covered the existing square providing better protection from the microclimatic issues. In both options it was assumed that Lower Queen Street would be enhanced albeit buses would still be retained in Lower Queen Street due to uncertainty around achieving an outcome for the laneway that would satisfy the public transport performance requirements i.e. 24hr/7 day a week public access. The canopy along Lower Queen Street was also retained to provide the required level of weather protection.

36. A further option considered the potential relationship between an enhanced QE Square and a pedestrianised Lower Queen Street as allowed for by the removal of buses. This was based on an assumption that the east-west laneway through the block required for the bus interchange on Lower Albert Street could be achieved to the required qualities without the sale of QE Square i.e. through the consent process or through some commercial arrangement with PPNZL that excluded QE Square. This option retained the canopy as it would still be required as weather protection along a major desire line.

37. The QE Square enhanced options performed better against the criteria than the existing, particularly the QE Square and Lower Queen Street option. They however still fell short of alternative spaces, not least because the shading issue of HSBC Tower (1 Queen Street) is not addressed. The purchase and demolition cost of HSBC Tower is estimated to be in excess of $100 million.

Alternative public space options evaluation

38. The DPSOE and Gehl Architects evaluation recommend that a better proposition for public space provision in the downtown area is to consider options that provide for an enhanced downtown waterfront and Lower Queen Street experience.

39. From the initial seven DPSOE identified off site options four outperformed the others with one specifically satisfying the civic space need in the downtown area:

a. A new pedestrianised civic space, similar in size to the existing QE Square, in front of the CPO (Britomart Transport Centre) building on Lower Queen Street. The DPSOE considered the space to be a superior alternative civic space to the existing QE Square with improved access to the sun and glimpsed views to the harbour. Furthermore, it would have an improved relationship to the CPO building has a public function and quality of architecture that is befitting as an edge to an important civic space.

b. Subject to the relocation of current bus movements and associated infrastructure from Lower Queen Street to Lower Albert Street the pedestrianised civic space will be delivered as part of the CRL early works package. The CRL Notice of Requirement (NoR) conditions require that ‘the design and construction of reinstated streetscapes/station plaza’s should be coherent with the wider area and/or recent public realm upgrades in the area’. Further work is required to determine the final design and specification of the civic space including whether the existing underpass and associated lift, stairs and ramp are to be incorporated. Any additional costs associated with the delivery of the proposed space beyond the scope of the NoR conditions would need to be considered in the context of the to be agreed wider city centre Long Term Plan 2015-25 funding envelope.

40. Three spaces on the downtown waterfront have the potential to satisfy the DPSOE identified need for recreational space in the downtown area:

a. A new/improved space west of Queens Wharf at the foot of Lower Albert Street which would build on the existing north facing qualities and views across the Waitemata Harbour. It would support and provide a vital interface between the Viaduct, Princess Wharf and redeveloped DSC.

b. An improved space around the historic ferry building and at the base of Queens Wharf, itself scheduled for a public space upgrade.

c. A new/improved space east of Queens Wharf in the Admiralty Steps area. The space, currently operational port under the control of Ports of Auckland, has been identified by mana whenua as an important space for ceremonial welcoming given its proximity to the city centre and visual links to the Waitemata, Takarunga (Mt. Victoria) Maunga a Uika (North Head), Rangitoto and the wider Hauraki Gulf. The ability for the public to gain access the space is subject to the outcome of strategic studies described in the Downtown Framework.

41. The DPSOE proposes that the three potential recreational public spaces be considered together as part of a network to complement and reinforce the Quay Street upgrade.

42. The return from the sale of QE Square is expected to be sufficient to deliver at least two of the three identified waterfront spaces based on current cost estimates. It is proposed that the design and delivery of all three be further explored as part of the Quay Street upgrade project, which is currently going through a Request for a Proposal process to appoint a design team in October 2014.

43. The final implementation programme for the waterfront spaces will be determined by the QE Square consenting pathway, conclusion of the sale process and confirmation of sequencing with the wider downtown programme including CRL early works package, the Quay Street upgrade and other Long Term Plan 2015-25 identified potential projects such as the Ferry Basin project. A further report recommending the spaces to be pursued will be presented to the Auckland Development Committee once this design and costing work has been completed.

Design requirements

44. A series of design requirements relating to the redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block are proposed for inclusion in the terms of sale for QE Square securing outcomes that cannot necessarily delivered through regulatory processes. The initial draft proposed design requirements can be summarised as:

a. Support the vision for the area as expressed in the Downtown Framework and the general design principles of the Downtown Shopping Centre Block Design and Development Brief (October 2013).

b. Creation of an at-grade, publicly accessible (24hrs/7days), open with weather protection, east-west pedestrian laneway connection between Lower Queen Street and Lower Albert Street through the block.

c. Creation of a north-south pedestrian link through the block referencing the old Little Queen Street.

d. Creation of an active built edge to Lower Albert Street, Lower Queen Street, Quay Street and Custom Street that is human in scale and reinforces and enhances the positive street qualities of the surrounding area in terms of scale, massing, rhythm, articulation and transparency of facade.

e. Best practice environmental design including a minimum New Zealand Green Building Council rating of 5 Stars or a recognised equivalent standard for the commercial tower.

f. Application of Te Aranga Māori Design principles in the design process and final design.

g. Support of the Auckland Urban Design Panel to the final design.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45. The Waitemata Local Board has been involved in a series of workshops including a session with the Auckland Development Committee on 30 July and 3 September 2014.

46. The Board support the general findings of the DPSOE and have expressed a particular desire to see additional entirely ‘new’ public space provided in the downtown area. On this basis, the Board have a stated preference for the Lower Queen Street civic space and the Admiralty Steps waterfront space options but do expect that the other options are also pursued. As a minimum they expect three of the four identified options to be delivered as offset for the loss of QE Square.

47. The Board also believe that the new east-west laneway through the DCS block should be regarded as an important new addition to the downtown public space network.

Māori impact statement

48. The downtown area is profoundly important to manu whenua being the place of arrival and departure for waka, harvesting of shellfish beds and general trade. Furthermore QE Square has cultural value being the site of the basalt rock Te Ahi Kaa Roa sculpture (by Ngāti Whātua, 2004). There is also a grove of kauri trees, within recessed gravel pit on the northern edge of QE Square which was installed 2003 as part of a general upgrade. Set against this context, the evaluation team including Rau Hoskins worked with five Iwi groups (of the 13 invited) that expressed an interest in being involved - Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Pāoa, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki – to explore the cultural landscape value of QE Square and the alternative public space options. [Note. the Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki representative was not able to attend any of the meetings, but has been kept informed of the details discussed].

49. At an initial series of meetings the identified public space options were tested against Te Aranga Māori design principles which have been adopted by council through the Auckland Design Manual.

50. The assessment against Te Aranga principles can be summarised as follows:

· Mana / Rangatiratanga: For a public space to have mana or status in the eyes of mana whenua it must be a place where manuhiri / visitors can be appropriately welcomed and greeted and a place where mana whenua in turn can comfortably exercise manaakitanga / holistic hospitality. Such a space must have the ability for clear thresholds to define an ‘atea’ space which can become a zone of engagement and pōwhiri / welcoming. The existing QE Square space lacks these critical qualities while the waterfront options, particularly the base of Queens Wharf and the Admiralty Steps have the potential to provide high quality zones of engagement.

· Whakapapa: While the existing QE Square has a certain level of significance to mana whenua insofar as it was once part of the foreshore acting as a launching place for waka and a significant shellfish bed, it now has a comparatively low value because it is not a natural venue for engagement or ceremonial interaction. With the Admiralty Steps and base of Queens Wharf possessing these critical features the opportunity exists for mana whenua to apply appropriate names to these areas to acknowledge their significance and cement mana whenua re connections. Dedicated discussions are required with mana whenua regarding any potential relocation of Te Ahi Kaa Roa sculpture and Kauri grove.

· Tohu: To mana whenua, and Māori in general, high value outdoor spaces have strong physical and visual connections to natural features and landmarks which define tribal territories and narratives. As a largely enclosed public space QE Square lacks connections to critical natural features and landmarks whereas the Admiralty Steps in particular links strongly to the Waitematā, Takarunga (Mt Victoria) Maunga a Uika (North Head) and beyond to Rangitoto and many other significant landmarks.

· Mauri tū: A new public space on the downtown waterfront and a renewed physical connection to the Waitematā allows for a stronger mana whenua focus on environmental quality in this area with a particular focus on water quality. As kaitiaki with a physical base at the downtown waterfront, mana whenua will be more readily able to support and encourage efforts to enhance water quality of the inner harbour.

· Taiao: A new public space on the downtown waterfront offers significant opportunities for mana whenua to be involved in naturalising both the harbour edge and wharf areas with locally significant materials and plantings which will encourage native bird and marine life and enhance the attractiveness of this public space for mana whenua, mataāwaka, tauiwi and manuhiri alike

· Mahi Toi: The development of a new high profile public space offers the opportunity for mana whenua creative engagement at all levels ensuring that appropriate historical and contemporary cultural narratives can find creative expression within the physical realm.

· Ahi kā: For mana whenua the true value of a new public space will only be realised if there is physical support for their regular presence within that space. A waka culture centre and or a whare manaaki based in the Admiralty Basin with appropriate land and water based facilities would enable mana whenua to exercise their kaitiaki and manaakitanga responsibilities while providing a unique Māori and Pacific presence as part of the maritime gateway to the city.

51. The five iwi groups will continue to be involved in the process of designing the alternative public spaces with the remaining eight iwi groups kept informed with an open invitation to become more closely involved.

Implementation

52. The current negotiations with PPNZL regarding the CRL works in conjunction with the redevelopment of the DSC address the impact of the rail tunnels on the land owned by PPNZL. It is planned to recognise in the commercial agreement with PPNZL the land that it loses for the tunnel volume taken by the CRL. It is proposed that PPNZL’s ability to construct underground car parking would be retained by granting it a subterranean lease under part of QE Square. As this land currently has the status of road, this approval rests with the Board of Auckland Transport. This arrangement assists in minimising any financial payment to PPNZL in regard to the tunnel land requirement.

53. Any construction under QE Square is independent of any decision to allow the development of the above ground area as that is considered in this report.

54. Confirmation of the approval to sell QE Square to PPNZL will trigger a number of internal and public processes involving Auckland Transport (AT), Auckland Property Limited (ACPL) and council.

55. Prior to ACPL being able to progress any agreed disposal of the QE Square land, planning and road stopping processes need to have been completed.

56. QE Square is likely to be closed to the public for 2-3 years from late 2016 to accommodate CRL construction works. The proposed CRL rail tunnels run under the QE Square and are planned to be constructed as part of the arrangement with PPNZL to construct the tunnels under the adjoining DSC. If that agreement did not eventuate QE Square would still be closed for adjacent CRL construction and would ultimately need to be excavated for the tunnel construction.

57. If QE Square is sold to PPNZL it will plan the development of the area as part of its larger development of the DSC. However, construction on the site can only proceed once the statutory processes are completed. PPNZL is preparing to lodge a resource consent for the DSC redevelopment. This will not assume any inclusion of the QE Square. If council agree to selling QE Square, PPNZL will deal with the consenting of development at a later stage.

58. The three identified waterfront public spaces will be advanced to preliminary design stage through the Quay Street upgrade project. The final implementation programme will be determined by the QE Square consenting process, conclusion of its sale and confirmation of sequencing with the wider downtown programme as further described in the Downtown Framework.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Downtown Public Space Evaluation	55
b View	Queen Elizabeth Square Evaluation	93
c View	Extract from Walking Around Town	101

Signatories

Authors

Tim Watts - Manager Built Environment

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Auckland Development Committee on planning for a future busway along State Highway 16 (SH16).

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan anticipates significant growth in the northwest part of Auckland in the next 30 years. 80,000 new dwellings and 60,000 new jobs are expected by 2041. This scale of residential and employment growth will put pressure on the transport system and considerable investment will be required to provide a high quality, reliable public transport network in the area.

3. Recent patronage modelling, which includes Auckland Plan growth scenarios, indicates that the demand for bus services in Northwest Auckland will triple in the coming decades to a level that warrants a full busway from Westgate to the city centre along SH16. The busway would provide rapid transit to a different catchment than that served by the Western Railway Line.

4. Auckland Transport’s Integrated Transport Programme (ITP) identifies the Northwestern Busway as a second decade project (2021-2031), although it is recognised that changes in development and growth rates may require the project to be brought forward. Faster than expected growth is also occurring in northwest Auckland from initiatives such as Special Housing Areas.

5. Further analysis, investigation and evidence are required to enable the protection of a route. At this stage, analysis has been undertaken at a strategic level only to establish the need for a transport intervention and the appropriateness of a busway.

6. It is important that the busway route is protected as soon as practicable, as the increasing growth in the area is not only placing the transport system under greater stress, but it may also encroach upon the land adjacent to the SH16 motorway corridor that may be required for the busway.

Recommendations

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note the need for investment in public transport improvements to support the considerable development expected for northwest Auckland.

b) note that NZTA has committed to short term public transport improvements along SH16 in the form of shoulder bus lanes between Waterview and Westgate as part of the Western Ring Route project.

c) support the main objective of the Northwestern Busway to enable frequent, high-speed, high-capacity and high-quality public transport services from the Northwest growth area to the city centre.

d) support ongoing work between Auckland Transport and NZTA to develop a strategy to secure route protection for the Northwestern Busway.

Comments

Development in Northwest Auckland

7. As with most infrastructure projects, the timing and scale of land use development within its catchment will be a key driver in the need for the Northwestern Busway.

8. The Auckland Plan Development Strategy proposed significant growth in the northwest part of Auckland over the next 30 years, with 80,000 additional dwellings and 60,000 additional jobs expected by 2041. A high level of growth for the area was confirmed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), with substantial amounts of land rezoned from Rural to Future Urban.

9. Further to this future greenfield growth, extensive upzoning in Te Atatu, Massey and Westgate has also been included in the PAUP. There are also a number of ‘business-as-usual’ developments (such as the Westgate town centre) that will also deliver significant growth within the next five to ten years. A map showing the busway’s approximate catchment and PAUP zones is included below:

10. Special Housing Areas (SHAs) are being identified across the city, including northwest Auckland, where fast-tracked development of affordable housing can take place. Based upon these trends, it is expected that approximately 20,000 housing units will be built in Northwest Auckland in the next ten years.

Proposed Busway Alignment and estimated patronage, costs, and timeline

11. The SH16 corridor is a distinctly separate corridor to the Western rail line with its own unique catchment. As such, the Northwestern Busway is a complementary public transport improvement to rail improvements such as rail electrification and the City Rail Link (CRL).

12. Recent patronage modelling indicates that there will be a significant increase in demand for public transport towards the city on SH16 as a result of considerable development in Northwest Auckland. In 2041, modelling results indicate that there will be approximately 30,000 trips (car and public transport) during the morning peak from West Auckland to the city centre and fringe. While these trips will be made via rail, bus and car, limited road capacity necessitates that public transport will increasingly be relied upon for travel between Northwest Auckland and the city centre. Furthermore, this level of travel demand confirms the SH16 corridor as an important, strategic public transport link and as such requires significant investment to provide the necessary reliability for a high frequency, rapid transit bus corridor.

13. For comparison, the North Shore is forecast to have approximately 20,000 trips (car and public transport) to the city centre and fringe in 2041. The Northern Busway has been very successful and has greatly contributed to an approximate doubling of bus patronage across the Harbour Bridge from 2004 to 2014. It is expected that the Northwestern Busway would have similar potential to significantly increase bus patronage along the SH16 motorway corridor.

14. The first stages of bus priority along the SH16 corridor are currently being built as part of the Western Ring Route project, consisting of shoulder bus lanes between Waterview and Westgate. The shoulder bus lanes between Waterview and Lincoln Road will open by 2016. The shoulder bus lanes between Lincoln Road and Westgate will open by 2018. A bus interchange is also being investigated at the Te Atatu Road SH16 motorway interchange. This interchange is the first step in developing the Northwestern Busway and is required to support the complete roll-out of the new bus network by 2018. Construction timing will depend on the LTP and RLTP funding processes currently underway.

15. Initial investigations have identified the proposed alignment of the Northwestern Busway as being along the southwest side of the SH16 motorway corridor (shown in the graphic below). The graphic also illustrates the already committed shoulder bus lanes which are currently being constructed across the SH16 causeway via the Western Ring Route project. Lastly, shoulder bus lanes are proposed along the SH18 motorway corridor.

Shoulder bus lanes currently being constructed by NZTA b/w Lincoln Rd and Waterview by 2016

Shoulder bus lanes are proposed for SH18 (needed by end of third decade)

Busway is proposed on south side of SH16 (budgeted for second decade delivery – investigation currently underway)

Shoulder bus lanes will be built by NZTA between Lincoln Rd and Westgate by 2018

16. An economic evaluation is underway to establish the full costs and benefits of the scheme. Based on preliminary analysis, the draft ITP contains $376M for the Northwestern Busway in the second decade, but it is expected that earlier delivery may be required, in order to meet accelerated growth projections. It is expected that the busway will be delivered through a staged approach, which provides key infrastructure when justified by demand or in response to land use change.

17. The Northwestern Busway aligns with the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) which was completed in response to a request from central government to develop a robust and achievable multi-modal programme for access into Auckland’s city centre. By 2041, CCFAS found that vehicle journey times into the city centre increase considerably and there will be significant problems with bus and train capacity. CCFAS evaluated numerous options for improving access to the city centre and one of the key findings is that a combined approach of CRL and surface bus improvements is the only option that meets projected public transport demand. The Spatial Priority Area work which is informing the LTP, also identifies the Northwestern Busway as a key project to lift the transformational shift of “moving to outstanding public transport with one network” in the NORSGA Spatial Priority Area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Previous reports on the Northwestern Busway have been distributed to the affected Local Boards. The Henderson-Massey Local Board resolved “That the bus provision on the North-west motorway be a dedicated busway similar to the North Shore busway, including widening of the North-West transport corridor to accommodate the busway”.

19. The Whau Local Board resolved to endorse, in principle, a dedicated busway along the Northwestern Motorway at its August 2011 meeting.

20. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board supported a busway along SH16 in its submission on the Regional Land Transport Programme.

Maori impact statement

21. Any proposal for a busway along the SH16 corridor could have cultural impacts on Maori which would require engagement with iwi as part of the planning, designation and resource consent processes. The ecological impacts of widening SH16 for a busway will likely be an important issue for local iwi. Maori would benefit from public transport improvements along SH16.

Implementation

22. NZTA is implementing bus priority improvements in the shorter term along the SH16 corridor in the form of shoulder bus lanes between Waterview and Westgate. AT is implementing bus improvements on the local road network to support the rollout of the new network, including the construction of the Te Atatu Bus interchange by 2018.

23. A busway along the SH16 causeway would be extremely challenging to build due to the environmentally sensitivity of the area, and it is generally accepted that the committed shoulder bus lanes currently being constructed will be a sufficient level of bus priority for the foreseeable future.

24. Although construction funds are allocated in the second decade of the ITP, no funding has been allocated for route protection of a busway along SH16. Discussions are underway between AT and NZTA regarding the financial responsibility for land acquisition.

25. AT, together with Council and NZTA, are currently advancing the strategic business case for the project. It is anticipated that this will be completed by early 2015.

26. Following the adoption of the strategic business case, the next step for the busway is to undertake route protection processes, including securing additional funding for property acquisition.

Signatories

Authors	Sam Corbett – Principal Transport Planner
Authoriser	Peter Clark – General Manager, AT Strategy and Planning

Auckland Development Committee

11 September 2014

Proposed Private Plan Change 372 and 373 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

File No.: CP2014/20248

Purpose

1. To request a decision to publically notify two requests for private plan changes to the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) submitted by Fletcher Residential Limited (‘Fletcher’) under Clause 25 of the Resource Management 1991 (‘the RMA’).

Executive summary

2. Fletcher has requested two private plan changes to the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999). The purpose of the requests is to provide for the redevelopment of the quarry site at 985 Mt Eden Road, Three Kings for residential purposes. The requests are referenced as PA372 and PA373 and propose to change the District Plan as follows:

3. PA372 (request 1 and Attachment A to this report)

· Amend the relevant planning maps to:

o Rezone land at 985 Mt Eden Road (the quarry site) from Business 7 to a mix of Residential 8b, Open Space 2 and Open Space 3

o Rezone land at 23-25 Fyvie Ave from Business 7 to a mix of Residential 8b and Open Space 2

o Rezone land at 1011 Mt Eden Road from Business 7 and Open Space 3 and 4 to a mix of Business 2, Residential 8b and Open Space 2

· Include a Concept Plan and associated provisions in Appendix B to the planning maps

· Amend the text of Part 7 – Residential

4. PA373 (request 2 and Attachment B to this report)

· Amend the relevant planning maps to rezone land at 985 Mt Eden Road (the quarry site) from Business 7 to a mix of Residential 8b, Open Space 2

· Include a Concept Plan and associated provisions in Appendix B to the planning maps

· Amend the text of Part 7 – Residential

5. Plan change request PA372 includes land currently owned by Auckland Council and the Crown which is managed by Auckland Council. The council in its regulatory capacity is required to consider a private plan change even if the applicant is not the owner of the land and this matter is not a determinant on the plan change being accepted for processing by council. Any potential land exchange between the applicant and the council (and the Crown) is a separate process to be considered under the Reserve Act 1977.

6. Clause 21 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the RMA’) provides for private requests to change a District Plan or Regional Plan. The information supporting the request is adequate for public notification. It includes an assessment of options and alternatives available, an assessment of effects on the environment, an assessment against relevant Regional and District Plan policies, and an evaluation under section 32 of the RMA of the appropriateness, costs, benefits, efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed private plan change. The council may request further information or commission reports prior to making a decision on any submissions received and the merits of the rezoning.

7. The council is now required to determine:

i) whether to accept or reject the plan change request; or

ii) whether the proposed private plan change should be adopted by the council and promoted as a council plan change; or

iii) whether the council considers that the request would be better processed as a resource consent application.

8. A private plan change request can only be rejected on the limited grounds specified in the RMA. A lack of ownership of the land by the applicant is not a ground for rejecting this request.

9. A decision to notify both plan change requests has nothing to do with the merits of the request nor does it bind the council to any decision on the plan change request. Subsequent to the notification and submission process, a hearing will be held, and at this time, the council can decide on the merits of each private plan change.

10. It is recommended that the two private plan change requests be accepted for notification and be publicly notified.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) resolve pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 to accept for notification private plan change request 1 (PA372) by Fletcher Residential Limited to amend the Auckland Council District Plan, Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999 to rezone 15.2 hectares of land owned by Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure on Mt Eden Road from Business 7 (quarrying) to a mixture of residential and open space zones; and 6.4 hectares of adjacent land owned by the Crown and Auckland Council (known as Three Kings Reserve) to a mixture of residential, open space and business zoning, and that the request be publicly notified in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule of the RMA for the following reasons:

i) the proposal does not meet the statutory tests 25(4)(a) to (e) for rejecting the Proposed Private Plan Change in that it is not frivolous or vexatious, the matter has not been dealt with within the previous two years, is not contrary to sound resource management practice and will not make the District Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA

ii) the applicant has not requested the council adopt the plan change request and the primary beneficiary is the applicant

iii) the council, in its capacity as regulatory authority, is able to consider all the details of the proposed private plan change request and submissions prior to making a decision on the merits of the rezoning

iv) the level of detail contained in the request and unknown time frame for development is such that the request is not able to be treated as a resource consent.

b) authorise the Manager Planning: Central and Islands to notify PA372 in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991

c) resolve pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 to accept for notification private plan change request 2 (PA373) by Fletcher Residential Limited to amend the Auckland Council District Plan, Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999 to rezone 15.2 hectares of land owned by Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure on Mt Eden Road (known as the Three Kings Quarry) from Business 7 (quarrying) to a mixture of residential and open space zones, and that the request be publicly notified in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule of the RMA for the following reasons:

ii) the applicant has not requested the council adopt the plan change request and the primary beneficiary is the applicant

iv) the level of detail contained in the request and unknown time frame for development is such that the request is not able to be treated as a resource consent

d) authorise the Manager Planning: Central and Islands to notify private plan change 373 in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

e) request Auckland Council Property Limited to investigate the proposed land exchange outlined in private plan change PA372, including the process that would need to be followed, and report back to the Auckland Development Committee in October 2014.

Comments

Background

11. The former Auckland City Council first began investigating the future use of the Three Kings Quarry site in 2009 as part of the Future Planning Framework. Through that process, the council identified the quarry as a potential site for future mixed–use development.

12. In 2011, Winstone Aggregates (a subsidiary of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited) was granted resource consent to begin filling the quarry following an appeal to the Environment Court (Decision No. [2011] NZEnvC214.

13. In 2013, the Puketapapa Local Board endorsed the development of a Precinct Plan for the Three Kings area to enable a more integrated and coordinated approach to redevelopment and provide a forum for public participation in the planning process. A discussion document was released for public consultation in May 2013 and a Draft Three Kings Plan was released for public consultation in June 2014. The final Three Kings plan was endorsed by the Puketapapa Local Board on 28 August 2014.

14. Throughout development of the Three Kings Plan, Fletcher has continued to undertake detailed investigation around the future use of the site. In February 2014, Fletcher publically released a master plan for redevelopment of the quarry that included adjoining reserve land to enable better integration with the town centre, surrounding residential areas and open space network. This vision forms the basis of request 1 (PA372).

Site description

15. Fletcher Fletcher has lodged two plan change requests to facilitate the redevelopment of the quarry site for residential purposes. It is proposed to rezone the land to a medium-high intensity residential zone to achieve up to 1500 dwellings with a variety of housing types and sizes. Request 1 (PA372) applies to the quarry site, which is owned by Fletcher, but also includes land owned and/or managed by Auckland Council. This request anticipates a future land exchange between Fletcher and Auckland Council to achieve better integration of the redeveloped quarry site and the surrounding environment. Any potential land exchange is a separate process dealt with under Reserve Act 1977.

16. Request 2 (PM373) applies to the quarry site only and is Fletcher’s default option should a land exchange not occur.

17. The land affected by the plan change requests is described below:

Quarry site (request 1 and 2)

18. The Three Kings Quarry is a 15.2ha site located at 985 Mt Eden Rd (shown as Parcel A in Attachment C). The site is comprised of two distinct areas, the quarry pit which covers the majority of the land and varies in depth up to 40 metres below the level of adjoining land; and a generally flat area of approximately 1.2ha in the north-eastern corner. This north eastern part of the site is currently used for a mix of commercial activities including a café, a veterinary and a retail outlet.

19. The site has been used for quarrying purposes since 1922, however, quarrying activities are now complete. In July 2011, the Environment Court granted consent for Winstone Aggregates to begin filling the quarry and preparation has begun for future use of the site.

Auckland Council managed land (request 1 only)

20. 1011 Mt Eden Road is a 6.5ha irregularly shaped area of reserve land located adjacent to the southern boundary of the quarry site. The site spans Graham Breed Drive and includes the sports fields fronting Mt Eden Road, however, the plan change request only applies to 3.3ha north of Graham Breed Drive adjoining the quarry site (shown as Parcel B in Attachment C).

21. The area is owned by the Crown but administered by the council as reserve. The land was also used for quarrying until the 1970’s and currently contains a car park and a council parks depot (in the south-western corner). The remainder is currently fenced off and not utilised for open space.

22. 23-25 Fyvie Ave is a 3.05ha irregularly shaped area of reserve land located adjacent to the south western corner of the quarry site (shown as Parcel C in Attachment C). The land is held in two parcels with one parcel being owned by the Crown and the other by Auckland Council. Both parcels are managed by Auckland Council and the area is currently used for active recreation purposes.

Plan Change Requests

23. Both of the plan change requests seek the following amendments to the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999):

· amend planning maps F07, F08, G07 and G08 to rezone land and include a new reference to proposed Concept Plan F08-84

· addition of proposed Concept Plan F08-84 and associated provisions to Appendix B to the planning maps

· amend the text of Part 7 – Residential

24. Table 1 (below) shows the current and proposed rezoning for each plan change request. The parcels of land affected by the plan change are shown in Attachment C to this report. A map showing the current operative zoning in the area is included as Attachment D to this report.

25. Fletcher consider the request for private plan change to be the most appropriate means of providing the form and density of development to give effect to the Auckland Plan, the growth strategies contained within the District Plan and the recently endorsed Three Kings Plan.

Area

Description

Current Zone

Proposed Zone

(PA372)

Proposed Zone

(PA373)

Parcel A

(15.2ha)

985 Mt Eden Rd

(Three Kings quarry site)

Business 7 (quarry)

Residential 8b (strategic growth management zone)

Open Space 2 (informal recreation)

Open Space 3 (organised recreation)

Residential 8b (strategic growth management zone)

Open Space 2 (informal recreation)

Parcel B

(3.3ha)

1011 Mt Eden Road

(central open space)

Open Space 3 (organised recreation)

Open Space 4 (community)

Residential 8b (strategic growth management zone)

Business 2

Open Space 2 (informal recreation)

n/a

Parcel C

(3.05ha)

23-25 Fyvie Ave

(western open space)

Business 7 (quarry)

Residential 8b

Open Space 2 (informal recreation)

n/a

Statutory considerations

26. Clause 22 of the First Schedule of the RMA sets out the requirements and process to be followed in making a request under Clause 21 of the First Schedule.

27. Provided that all relevant information is provided with the request, the council is required to consider the request and make a decision as to whether to accept the request or reject it. It is not required to adopt the proposed private plan change as its own, but may do so if it wishes.

28. The request has been assessed by council staff and expert consultants and based on the level of information required at this stage, is considered sufficient to enable both plan changes to proceed to notification. The council may request further information or commission reports prior to making a decision on any submissions received and the merits of the rezoning.

29. The process for considering a private plan change request is set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule to the RMA. Clause 25 (2), (3) and (4) of the First Schedule state that:

(2) The local authority may either:

(a) Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed policy statement or plan made by the local authority itself; …..or

(b) Accept that request in whole or in part.

(3) Deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent….;

(4) Reject the request in whole or in part, but only on the grounds that:

(a) The request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) The substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the local authority or Environment Court within the last 2 years; or

(c) The request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

(d) The request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

(e) The policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

30. The matters which can be considered as a basis for rejecting the request in whole or in part are limited to the matters set out in Clause 25(4)(a) to (e) inclusive. It is important to note that these are threshold tests and do not require that the council undertake a substantive assessment of the proposal or reach any view on the merits of the request at this point in the process. This report and the information presented in it does not form the basis of any of the required consideration of the effects, impact on objectives and policies by the RMA. Acceptance of the plan change requests does not preclude the council from making any decision on the merits of the plan changes when this work is done.

31. The above statutory matters are considered in the following section.

Determination as to Whether the Private Plan Change Request Should be Accepted or Rejected

a) Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

32. The sites to be rezoned are either currently owned by the applicant or directly adjoin those owned by the applicant. The purpose of the proposed plan change is to facilitate the future redevelopment of the quarry and adjoining land into residential and open space areas and to connect the proposed development other nearby land. The zoning proposed is a mixture of Residential 8b, Open Space 2 and 3 and Business 2.

33. Included with the plan change requests are comprehensive analysis reports from expert consultants recognised in their field of expertise. While the content and conclusions are open for dispute as part of the submissions and evaluation process, the opinions held, which support the plan change, are not considered to be ‘frivolous or vexatious’.

34. Specific consideration has therefore been given to whether the lack of ownership of the land by the applicant or lack of explicit support by one of the owners could amount to the request being frivolous or vexatious. The applicant for private plan changes does not need to be the owner of the property and it is recommended that council investigate the land exchange proposal in parallel with this private plan change request.

35. These matters are not considered ‘frivolous or vexatious’ as this committee is required to consider the plan change request according to the relevant statutory provisions regardless of land ownership. Any contractual arrangements entered into by the council should not affect the council’s regulatory functions and decision making.

36. It is therefore concluded that the request is not frivolous or vexatious.

b) Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the Council or the Environment Court within the last two years?

37. The specific zoning relating to the application sites has not been considered by the council or the Environment Court within the last two years. Therefore, the council cannot reject the request under this clause,

c) Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

38. The phrase “sound resource management practice” is not defined in by statute but is often used as a broad principle or concluding consideration following a more specific assessment. The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572) has considered this term in the light of clause 25(4)(c) to the First Schedule of the RMA and states:

… the words “sound resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the RMA’s purpose and principles. I agree too with the Court’s observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the RMA’s purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption.

39. In In this case, the request would represent substantial increase in land zoned residential and open space and a reduction in land zoned business, plus associated rule and assessment criteria changes. A robust evaluation of the relevant planning considerations, including environmental effects and against the relevant objectives and policies has been included with the plan change requests. A complete review and assessment of these still needs to be carried out by the council and this will occur following its notification.

40. Accordingly, it is concluded that the scope and extent of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered at this preliminary stage. The plan change request therefore satisfies this statutory criterion.

d) Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

41. The Applicant has provided an assessment against sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA. In general terms, given the scale of the request and at this stage of the process, there is nothing to indicate that it would make the District Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA (standards, policy statements and plans).

e) Has the District Plan to which the request relates been operative for less than 2 years?

42. The requests relate to sections of the District Plan that have been operative for more than 2 years. The request therefore cannot be rejected under this clause.

43. It is considered that the proposed private plan change requests should not be rejected on the grounds set out in Clause 25(4)(a) to (e) of the First Schedule to the RMA. The council’s options to reject it are limited by the RMA. If the committee accepts the proposed private plan change for notification, it does not mean that the council, in its regulatory capacity, has pre-determined the merits of the plan change.

44. On the basis of the conclusion that the proposed private plan change requests be accepted for notification, Clause 25(2) to (3) inclusive gives the council the options of:

i) Adopting the requests, or part of the requests, as if it were a proposed change made by the local authority itself; or

ii Accepting the requests in whole or part; or

iii. Dealing with the requests as if they were an application for a resource consent.

Option 1:

45. If the council adopts the private plan change requests, it is promoting the proposed changes. The proposed private plan change requests are a private initiative of the applicant. Given the size and extent of the request and the nature of the land included in the rezone request it is considered appropriate that the applicant promote this as a private plan change request and pursue the requested changes so that the council in its regulatory capacity can assess the request on an independent basis.

Option 2:

46. Acceptance of the requests and notifying as private plan change requests has the following advantages:

· The council remains in a neutral position until it has had the opportunity to consider the details of the proposed private plan changes and all submissions on it from the wider community and can then proceed to make its decision to approve, approve with modifications, or reject the requests following a hearing;

· The proposed private plan changes have no legal effect unless approved by the council and any appeals are resolved; and

· The costs of processing the proposed private plan changes would generally fall on the applicant.

Option 3:

47. Given that the request relates to rezoning of the land, it is not considered appropriate to process the request as a resource consent.

Conclusion

48. It is therefore recommended that the council select option 2 and accepts both the proposed private plan change requests for notification.

Notification

49. If the council accepts the proposed private plan change requests, it has four months in which to notify the request for submissions.

Significance of Decision

50. The proposal does not trigger the council’s significance policy. The impact on the community can be fully explored during the submission and hearing process. Acceptance of the plan change requests does not indicate support or opposition for the proposals and is not an assessment of its merits or effects.

Consultation

51. The applicant has undertaken consultation with a variety of community and stakeholder interest groups, both as part of the Puketapapa Local Board consultative process for the Three Kings Plan and through their own open days and community meetings. The full details of consultation are included in the plan change request documents and supporting information.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

52. The Puketapapa Local Board have been informed of the receipt of the plan change requests and briefed on the details of the requests and the plan change process. The local board will continue to be updated about the status of the plan change requests.

Māori impact statement

53. The applicant has consulted with interested iwi in the area via the Tamaki Collective. This has been documented thoroughly in the application and in the design of the master plan which has included reference to Maori design principles and matters significant to those iwi who were involved.

54. In addition, an expert review of the cultural design considerations made in the master plan has been included in the documentation submitted with each plan change request

Implementation

Financial and resourcing implications

55. All reasonable costs associated with processing a private plan change are borne by the applicant and there are no significant financial or resourcing implications.

Legal and legislative implications

56. The recommendations of this report are in accordance with to the processes set out in the RMA and are within the committee’s delegated powers. There are no significant legal implications arising from the acceptance of the requests for notification.

Implementation issues

57. If the request is accepted, the proposed private plan change will proceed to notification under Clause 26 of the First Schedule of the RMA. Subsequently the proposed private plan change will be considered under Clause 29 of the First Schedule of the RMA and the council in its regulatory capacity may decline, approve or approve with modifications the proposed private plan change.

58. The council will be required to monitor the effectiveness of the new plan provisions as required by the RMA.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Private Plan Change PA372 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Proposed Private Plan Change PA373 (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Land Subject to Plan Change Requests (Parcels A, B & C) (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Operative District Plan Zones (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Peter Cooper - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

11 September 2014

Review of the Area Planning Programme

File No.: CP2014/18698

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to set out the work programme priorities of the North Western, Central and Southern Area Planning teams over the next two years bearing in mind the tight timeframes of the Unitary Plan project, for the approval of the Auckland Development Committee.

Executive summary

2. The Area Planning teams have to date carried out a combination of work including finalising current plan changes and appeals, area plan and town centre plan projects and support when required in the preparation of the Proposal Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

3. The first round of area plans (Mangere-Otahuhu and Hibiscus and Bays Area Plans) was completed in 2013 and work has already commenced on the next two plans – Otara-Papatoetoe and Devonport-Takapuna. In addition, a number of smaller scale plans have been completed as well as work on spatial priorities for the Long Term Plan process.

4. Area planning staff have already contributed significantly to the development of the PAUP and it is important for these teams to continue to give this a high priority over the next two years to ensure a high quality PAUP is completed within statutory time frames.

5. In addition, the teams will carry out some detailed spatial planning as the need arises (e.g. CRL and AMETI projects) as well as spatial planning work within the Council’s agreed spatial priorities and growth areas. Any new private plan changes or Notices of Requirement will have to be processed. However there will be little capacity to commence new area plans until the bulk of the Unitary Plan work is completed.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) Notes the necessary involvement of Area Planning staff in the PAUP process to ensure that the Unitary Plan is completed to a high standard and within statutory time frames.

b) Agrees that Area Planning resources should be deployed according to the following priority:

- completing operative plan changes and Notices of Requirement;

- working on specific sections of the PAUP, i.e. the RUB boundary, precincts and zone change requests;

- finishing current area planning work including existing area plans, town centre and other plans, and targeted future spatial planning within agreed spatial planning area priorities to support the LTP;

- new area planning work will only be started if it contributes to Council’s strategic priorities and as resources allow.

Comments

6. The area plans programme has been underway for two years with two plans completed (Mangere-Otahuhu and Hibiscus and Bays) and two draft plans at public engagement stage (Otara-Papatoetoe and Devonport-Takapuna). A more streamlined approach has been undertaken with the latter two plans, now that the Auckland Plan and the PAUP have been prepared and the aspirations of Local Boards are clear through their Local Board plans and agreements.

7. Draft area plans are now shorter, use information from community responses on plans and policies previously consulted on, (e.g. the Auckland Plan), are based around transformational moves and contain fewer but more prioritised actions. They are however founded on the same research and involve inputs from a wide range of groups including Council departments and CCOs, government agencies, business associations, iwi and ratepayer groups. A key outcome is not only the integrated and prioritised plan of action at the end but also the enhanced relationships developed between council, local boards, stakeholders, iwi and the public during the process of developing the area plan.

8. The sequence of area plans was agreed by the then Regional Development and Operations Committee in February 2012, before the Auckland Plan was finalised and the draft and publicly notified PAUP was prepared. Sequence criteria included: areas of draft Auckland Plan priorities; where preparatory work was required to assist Unitary Plan development; the recent nature of legacy planning; and geographic spread.

9. Now that both the Auckland Plan and the PAUP have been prepared, it is useful to review the criteria (for example, taking into account the local planning work needed to contribute to the Spatial Priorities being developed to support decisions on the Long Term Plan project) and therefore the sequence.

Other Plans

10. The Area Planning teams have completed, or are in the process of completing a range of other non-statutory plans at various local scales for places.

Non Statutory Place Based Plans

Plan	Scale	Progress
Hibiscus & Bays	Area	Completed
Mangere-Otahuhu	Area	Completed
Otara-Papatoetoe	Area	In Progress
Devonport-Takapuna	Area	In Progress
Pukekohe	Satellite Growth Centre	In Progress
Milford	Town Centre	In Progress
Silverdale	Town Centre	In Progress
Takapuna	Metro Centre	In Progress
Avondale	Masterplan	Completed
Ponsonby Road	Town Centre	Completed
Three Kings	Town Centre	Completed
Puhinui	Structure Plan	In progress
Waterview	Local	Completed
Newton Plan	Local	In progress
Oratia	Local	Completed
Muddy Creeks	Local	Completed
Bethells Beach	Local	In Progress
Karangahape Road	Local	In Progress
Pakuranga	Town Centre	In progress
Kumeu- Huapai Plan	Local	In Progress

If not already completed, most of these are likely to be completed by the end of the 2014-15 year.

Spatial Priority Areas

11. As part of the spatial prioritisation and investment work being developed for the draft LTP 2015-25 process 9 Spatial priority areas (plus the City Centre) have been identified and work programmes developed. Within a number of these work programmes is the requirement for future spatial planning e.g. a comprehensive plan for Unitech/Carrington Road area (Inner West Triangle SPA); undertake integrated planning for Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura. (Manurewa-Takanini-Papakura SPA). This work is considered to be the next priority after staff have resourced operative plan changes/NORs, the PAUP and the current place based plans work programmes.

Future Spatial Planning Areas

12. Another aspect of the spatial prioritisation and investment work being developed for the draft LTP 2015-25 process, was the initiation of high level proactive planning of areas zoned Future Urban in the PAUP. These areas will need to be proactively planned in readiness for the next decade’s growth to ensure efficient Council investment in infrastructure and its affordable timing. High level frameworks will be developed internally to give a broad overview of residential and business areas, together with arterial routes, three waters supply and open space/community facilities provision. This work can then be followed by future detailed structure planning and zone changes when capacity monitoring indicates the need for a staged release of the Future Urban Zones to a ‘live’ status

Place Audits

13. In addition, Council staff have been working with Local Boards to trial ‘Place Audits’ for specific centres. In brief, a Place Audit tool uses expert in-house staff across a range of Council/CCO disciplines (planning, heritage, urban design, stormwater, environment, transport, community and economic development etc.) to rapidly assess the current strengths and weaknesses of a place in a collaborative way using a detailed questionnaire. The combined results are discussed with the relevant Local Board and then conversations can be started with local communities knowing that some integrated thinking has already taken place. From this, possible actions (physical or social) may be agreed with the Council, Local Board or community to improve the place. The tool is designed to enable Local Boards and communities to focus on actions (not necessarily funded or led by Council) that address weaknesses or enhance strengths of a place.

14. To date, Place Audits have been carried out in the following centres:

- Devonport

- Papatoetoe

- Henderson

- Point Chevalier (in progress)

- Sandringham (in progress)

15. Further Place Audits are likely to take place as the tool is refined and further staff are trained in its use.

Statutory Plans

16. Over the next two years as the PAUP is being finalised to an operative status, the Council still has a legal obligation to maintain the current eight legacy district plans and four legacy regional plans and policy statement. Currently in train there are:

Council Plan Changes
Hearings	Peter Snell Youth Village; Royal Road
Appeals	Hibiscus Coast Gateway; Matakana Country Park; Kingseat; Franklin (TDRs); Clevedon; Volcanic Viewshafts (across several district plans and RPs)
Private Plan Changes
Hearings	Dawsons Road Subdivision; Brick Bay; Lincoln Road; Puhinui; Valley Road; Dominion Road; Mt Eden Road
Notices of Requirement
Auckland Transport 6 Watercare 1 NZTA 2 Ministry of Education 2 Auckland Council 1 Other 2

17. Area planning staff have no control over the lodgement of Private Plan Changes and NORs, and have no option but to complete these, often with complex planning appeals and demanding Environment Court deadlines. It is understood that at least three new private plan changes are likely to be lodged shortly.

Role of Area Planning Staff in PAUP Process

18. Notwithstanding all the above work, a significant change over the past year and an even greater focus for Area Planning staff over the next two years is the involvement of these staff in completing the PAUP in order to help ensure that the Unitary Plan is completed within statutory timeframes.

19. It will be recalled that throughout 2011-13, the Auckland Council specifically requested the Government to amend the RMA to enable faster processing of the Proposed Unitary Plan, rather than the 5 – 10 years that most legacy Council district plans had taken to be made operative. As a result, changes made by the government have included the establishment and appointment of the Independent Hearings Panel with power to make decisions, appeals limited to points of law etc. There is therefore a strong political and reputational imperative for the Council to deliver a comprehensive and high quality completed Unitary Plan for Aucklanders by September 2016.

20. Area Planning staff played a significant part in the draft PAUP process in early to mid-2013. Staff attended dozens of public meetings, liaised with local boards in relation to zone boundaries, drafted rules for over 40 precincts (local areas with specifically tailored rules) and reviewed boundaries of the proposed RUB.

21. Since public notification of the Plan, over 9,000 submissions were made raising over 93,600 individual points, and in recent weeks 3,115 further submissions have been received either supporting or opposing specific submissions. Nearly 7,800 points have been raised relating to over 130 place-based precincts as well as numerous requests for new precincts. There is thus an immense amount of information to be summarised, coded and then developed into mediation and hearings reports.

22. It is inevitable that if the Unitary Plan is to be completed on time nearly all of the Area Planning team members will have to work almost full-time on the PAUP. This work will comprise responsibility for:

- Addressing submissions relating to zone change requests (20,240 points raised).

- Reviewing requests for changes to precincts.

- Reviewing submissions relating to RUB boundaries, and developing context framework plans for each RUB area to provide broad decisions on the staging of land release and sufficient information on likely land uses (residential, business, arterial roads, open space etc.) to enable infrastructure providers to make decisions on planning, funding and implementation.

- Preparing for and attending pre-hearing meetings and hearings.

Summary

23. Area Planning staff have to date contributed a significant way to the development of the PAUP while at the same time working on a variety of area, centre and local plans, negotiating appeals and finalising plan changes and Notices of Requirement. Further, some Area Planning staff have already been seconded into the Housing Project Office as requested, or to the Independent Hearings Panel Office to work full-time on the Unitary Plan.

24. However, the reputation of the Auckland Council is at stake in relation to ensuring the delivery of a high quality and comprehensive Unitary Plan, both in terms of content and process by September 2016. To achieve this, it is vital to focus all available planning resources on the PAUP.

25. This does not mean that the Area Planning teams will not be using their local knowledge working on area or local scale planning. In effect that is exactly what the Unitary Plan work on zone changes, precincts and RUB work is about. Planning staff must also complete statutory plan changes and Notices of Requirement, and should complete existing area and centre plans.

26. Further work will also be carried out in more targeted places, for example once spatial priorities are confirmed, integrated planning will be required to support investment in agreed major projects and work will need to start on planning for the next decade of spatial investment priorities to ensure that future growth is well planned and staged.

27. There will therefore be little capacity to commence new area plans until the bulk of the above priority work can be completed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. The views of Local Boards have not been specifically sought for this report. Local Boards are aware of the tight deadlines to complete the Unitary Plan. It is intended to complete all current area and centre plans. Should Local Boards wish to commence new area or other place based planning, it will need to be assessed from a strategic perspective through the filters of the LTP and PAUP.

29. Once this report has been approved by the Auckland Development Committee, it will be discussed with the Local Boards.

Māori impact statement

30. The views of Maori have not been specifically sought for this report. It is likely that Maori will want to ensure that specific precincts sought by iwi via the PAUP process are processed within statutory time frames.

Implementation

31. The preparation of a high quality Unitary Plan requires a Council-mandated focus on providing sufficient resources from across the Regional and Local Planning Department, and other Council departments and CCOs in order to be completed within statutory time constraints. Of necessity, local and area plans will have a lesser level of priority until the Unitary Plan is completed.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

11 September 2014

2016 Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation Arrangements

File No.: CP2014/20134

Purpose

1. To decide whether to change the electoral system for the 2016 elections.

2. To make recommendations to the Governing Body in regard to a review of representation arrangements and Māori wards.

Executive summary

3. These matters were reported to the Governing Body on 28 August 2014. The Governing Body resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a) refer the 2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation Arrangements report to the Auckland Development Committee for consideration at its meeting on 11 September 2014;

b) delegate to the Auckland Development Committee, the power to make a decision regarding the electoral system and to make a recommendation to the Governing Body in October 2014, regarding electoral wards and representation.

4. The original report has been amended to be more explanatory.

5. The issues around these matters are complex and it is therefore recommended that a working party is established, particularly to consider whether any legislative changes should be required in time for a review of representation arrangements to be commenced in 2017 for the 2019 elections.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm that the status quo will prevail as the electoral system for the 2016 elections.

b) recommend to the Governing Body that it:

i) establish a working party to look at options for conducting the next representation review and whether legislative changes are warranted, particularly in regard to the fixed membership of the Governing Body and processes for aligning local board boundaries with ward boundaries

ii) appoint four Governing Body members to the working party

iii) invite the Local Board Chairs Forum to nominate four Local Board members to the working party

iv) invite the IMSB to nominate two IMSB members to the working party

v) request the working party to report back by 30 June 2015

vi) take no further action on the matter of Māori wards until after the working party has reported back.

Comments

Background

6. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the opportunity for local authorities to consider:

· changing the electoral system (for example from FPP to STV)

· establishing Māori wards

· reviewing representation arrangements.

7. That Act sets out deadline dates in relation to each of these, if they are to take effect at the next elections. A summary of these dates is:

· 12 September 2014 for a resolution to change the electoral system

· 23 November 2014 for a resolution to establish Māori wards

· 31 August 2015 for a resolution making the council’s initial proposal on representation arrangements.

If the Council does not pass any resolutions regarding these, the status quo continues.

Electoral system

8. Under the First Past the Post system (FPP) a candidate can be successful at election by winning more votes compared to other candidates.

9. Under the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system, a voter casts a single vote but ranks his or her preferences. First preferences are used to establish whether any candidates are elected by reaching the required quota of votes. If not, the system provides a method for transferring second preferences and other preferences until all vacancies are filled.

10. An argument in favour of STV is that it is a fairer system, in that if a voter’s first preference would otherwise be wasted, the voter’s second and other preferences can be recognised. An argument against STV is that it is more complex than FPP and more difficult for voters to understand – with a possibility of more “informal” votes (votes not properly entered so not counted). Some councils which moved to STV have moved back to FPP, on the basis that it is easier to understand for voters and that STV did not affect the outcome. There is some evidence that informal votes are due to mixed electoral systems on the one voting paper, rather than STV per se, and that when all issues on a voting paper are decided through STV there are fewer informal votes.

11. The legislation setting up the Auckland Council prescribed FPP for the 2010 and 2013 elections. When the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill it said:

“The majority of us are of the view that the disadvantages of STV, particularly its perceived complexity (and therefore its propensity to discourage voting), outweigh the disadvantages of FPP for the 2010 elections.”

12. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has recently published its inquiry into the 2013 local government elections. It notes the mix of FPP and STV as follows:

“Local authorities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system or STV. In 2013, 90 per cent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections. Therefore, voting in most local elections involved a combination of FPP and STV. We understand that generally the STV councils have a higher turnout, but the incidence of invalid voting is usually far higher in District Health Board elections, because people tick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them.

In 2008, the Local Government Commission conducted a post-election survey of voters; 52 per cent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing, while 46 per cent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 per cent) said they would prefer a single system.”

13. The committee did not make a specific recommendation.

14. A further aspect of STV is that, on election day, the result is delayed, due to the need to have all votes in prior to transferring preferences.

15. The guidelines issued by the Local Government Commission state:

“The Commission notes, for example, the argument that to gain the full benefits of proportional representation under STV, multi-member wards or constituencies of at least three members, but preferably five to seven members, are required. Clearly this should be considered by a local authority using STV when undertaking its representation review.”

16. Governing Body member wards are either one member or two member wards, and therefore STV would not likely have a significant impact.

17. Local boards are multi-member bodies and local board members were invited to a briefing on these issues. There was not a strong desire expressed for change.

18. Whether or not the council resolves to change the electoral system, it must give public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll.

Review of representation arrangements

19. Each territorial and regional council must conduct a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years. If the Council decides to not conduct a review for the 2016 elections, it must conduct a review for the 2019 elections.

20. If the Council decides to conduct a review, it must resolve its initial proposal by 31 August 2015 (but not before 1 March 2015). Investigations would need to commence this calendar year to meet that deadline.

21. The total number of members of the Governing Body is set by legislation at 20 councillors. The review could determine:

(i) whether councillors are elected at-large, by ward or by a mixture of at-large and ward

(ii) the number, names and boundaries of wards

(iii) the names of local boards

(iv) the number of members of each local board (between 5 and 12)

(v) whether these are elected at large or by subdivision

(vi) the number of subdivisions and their boundaries

22. The representation review provisions which apply to councils generally and to Auckland Council’s Governing Body with respect to ward boundary changes do not apply for local board boundary changes. Proposed changes to local board boundaries must be dealt with as a reorganisation proposal in the same manner as proposed boundary changes between local authorities.

23. The legislation requires effective representation of communities of interest and fair representation (the people represented by each councillor should not deviate from the average by more than 10 per cent). However, when the Local Government Commission set the current boundaries it accepted some deviations over the 10 per cent threshold. The commission was directed by legislation to create a single member ward for the former Rodney district and a single member ward for what remained of the Franklin district after the southern part of the district was transferred to Waikato District Council.

24. On current statistics, there would be an under-representation problem in the Waitemata ward. This is primarily brought about by the number of residents now residing in apartments in the CBD and CBD fringe. Attached is a table of changes based on information from the 2013 census.

25. Adjusting the boundary of the Albert-Eden-Roskill boundary to include some of the current Waitemata ward could address this variance. Changing the boundaries of one ward can have a flow-on effect into other wards.

26. The process and timeframes, should the council choose to undertake a review this term are as follows:

· Council resolves its initial proposal by 31 August 2015

· Public make submissions

· Council hears and considers all submissions

· Council makes another resolution

· Council notifies its second resolution by 19 November 2015

· Public submit appeals and objections

· All appeals and objections are forwarded to the Local Government Commission by 15 January 2016

· The Local Government Commission makes a determination before 11 April 2016

27. We are not aware of significant problems with the current arrangements and do not intend to recommend a review for the 2016 elections. Further, the period during which the Council would be considering the various options prior to making a resolution, is when the Council will also be making its decisions around the LTP. This would be a particularly busy time.

Māori wards

Background

28. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 23 councillors, two of whom would be elected at large from the Māori electoral roll and one of whom would be appointed by Mana Whenua.

29. However, Parliament legislated for a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 20 councillors with no Māori seats and the creation of an Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

30. Nevertheless, the general provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 with respect to Māori wards still apply to Auckland Council. Thus, as the legislation stands, the IMSB would continue to exist if Māori wards were established.

31. The legislation provides for councils to establish Māori wards for the 2016 elections by passing a resolution by 23 November 2014. This is discretionary. Council is not required to take any action.

32. Two regional councils have Maori constituencies – Bay of Plenty and Waikato.

Concept of Māori wards

33. All wards function as a basis for electing members by those electors within the ward who are entitled to vote. Māori wards, where they exist, are an overlay over the geographical general wards in the same way as the Parliamentary Māori constituencies are overlays on the general constituencies.

34. An elector of a Māori ward is an elector who is registered on a Parliamentary electoral roll for a residential address within the Māori ward and who is registered as an elector of a Māori electoral district. Such an elector is not able to vote in regard to any other ward but can vote for at-large candidates (such as mayor).

Number of members elected through Maori wards

35. There is a formula in the Local Electoral Act 2001 for determining the number of members who may be elected through Māori wards.

36. On the basis of statistics supplied by Statistics New Zealand, one member of Auckland Council could be elected through a Māori ward. The total number of Governing Body members is set in legislation at 20 plus the mayor and so the number of general members would be reduced to 19 if a Māori ward was established.

37. At the time the report to the Governing Body was prepared, the advice was that 2 members could be elected. The difference occurs through the use of more recent statistics. The previous statistics produced 1.51 members (rounded to 2) whereas the recent statistics produced 1.44 members (rounded to 1).

How Māori wards may be established

38. Māori wards may be established in any of the following ways:

(i) the Council may resolve to establish Māori wards

(ii) electors may demand a poll at any time

(iii) the Council may hold a poll at any time (including in conjunction with the elections)

A requirement to establish a Māori ward arising through any of these processes would apply for at least two electoral cycles.

Effect of a Council resolution to establish Māori wards

39. If the Council resolved to establish Māori wards by 23 November 2014, the resolution would apply to the 2016 and 2019 elections. Any resolution to establish Māori wards made after that date would not apply to the 2016 elections but the two subsequent elections.

40. The Council would be required to give public notice of the right of 5% electors to demand a poll.

41. If a demand for a poll is received by 28 February 2015 then the poll will be conducted by 21 May 2015, and the result of the poll would apply to the 2016 and 2019 elections. The cost of a standalone poll would be approximately $1 million. The electoral officer is required to conduct the poll within 82 days of receipt of notice of a valid poll – the Council does not have the discretion to delay such a poll until the elections.

42. If there is no demand for a poll, the Council’s resolution is not defeated and takes effect.

43. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (Schedule 1A) requires a review of representation arrangements to be held if Māori wards are established. As discussed previously in this report, there is no compelling reason to conduct a full review for the 2016 elections.

44. Should the Council resolve to introduce Māori wards then the timeframes are as follows.

By 23 November 2014	Council resolution to establish a Māori ward followed by public notice of right to demand a poll
By 28 February 2015	If demand for a poll received, the poll must be conducted prior to 21 May 2015 and apply to 2016 elections

45. Through various engagement and consultation processes there has been a call for direct Māori representation on the Governing Body and greater involvement by Māori in council decision making processes.

46. This is reflected in the IMSB’s schedule of issues of significance and Māori Plan:

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their ability to actively and meaningfully contribute to the development of Auckland, in becoming the world’s most liveable city by a council that actively engages, consults and includes Māori in decision making processes and future plans”.

“Māori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised as playing an important role in the development of local communities by a council that recognises the role of Māori in local board decision making”.

47. In the IMSB’s view the establishment of Māori wards are an important part of contributing to these outcomes. The board is of the view that direct representation on the Governing Body through Māori wards is distinct from the IMSB’s role as an independent statutory authority. From the board’s perspective the two roles are not mutually exclusive.

48. The establishment of one or more Māori wards would have the effect of triggering a representation review. The transfer of Māori voters from the general roll to the Māori roll, would impact on the remaining number of voters in each general ward in a manner that would not be uniform. This would affect the plus or minus 10 per cent rule and mean the redrawing of most, if not all, ward boundaries. The Governing Body ward boundaries would then not be contiguous with local board boundaries unless the local board boundaries were to be reviewed as a consequence. This would require a reorganisation proposal, as noted in para 22.

Conclusion

49. There is no compelling reason to conduct a full review of representation arrangements but one would be required if the Council resolved to establish a Māori ward.

50. A review of representation arrangements could require a simultaneous reorganisation proposal in order to deal with alignment between local board boundaries with changes to ward boundaries.

51. Because the total number of Governing Body members is set at 20, a member elected through a Māori ward would reduce the total number of general members to 19.

52. If the council were of a mind to consider the establishment of Māori wards in the future it may well want to consider advocating changes to legislation as to the maximum number of members and the process for considering local board boundaries. Such a review could not be completed within the timeframe required for the 2016 elections.

53. It is therefore recommended that a working party is established to work with officers to investigate all options and report back to the Governing Body with recommendations relating to changes for the 2019 elections.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

54. A workshop was held for local board members. Those attending did not express a desire for change in relation to the electoral system. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has also advised their preference for maintaining status quo (WTK/2014/110) in regard to the electoral system. There was some support at the workshop, and by Waitakere Ranges Local Board, for investigating Māori wards. The report recommends the establishment of a working party, which could include local board representation.

Māori impact statement

55. There has been no consultation with Māori specifically in relation to this report. However, the matter has been raised through previous engagement processes and been the subject of advocacy to the council by the IMSB (see body of report). The report recommends the establishment of a working party, which could include IMSB representation.

56. Māori wards are one mechanism for increasing Māori participation in council decision making. However, there are a range of other mechanisms which are not reliant on a representation review. These are the subject of advocacy through the IMSB’s schedule of significance and Māori Plan, and the council is actively striving to advance enhanced involvement in decision making through a range of initiatives.

Implementation

57. If the Governing Body resolves to change from FPP to STV, the Council’s current provider of election services will be able to make the appropriate changes. However, there would need to be an extensive awareness campaign to ensure all voters were aware of the change.

58. If the Council resolves to establish Māori wards there is the risk of demand for a poll requiring a poll to be held with a cost of around $1 million, which is unbudgeted.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Wards 2010 and 2013	153

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

[1] Sport and Recreation in the City Centre – Understanding Needs and Identifying Barriers and Gaps in Provision, Auckland City Council, November 2009

Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Cr 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

Appeal lodged by	Section 274 parties
Board of Airlines Representatives New Zealand (BARNZ)	Ministry of Education
Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL)	Ministry of Education
The Todd Property Group	Auckland Transport Bosher Family Trust Margret Burrill William Burrill Rachel Lee Neil Construction Limited
Hugh Green Limited	AIAL Margaret Burrill
Thomas and Adamson Limited(TAL) Hugh Green took over this appeal	AIAL Hugh Green Limited

Authors	Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer