Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b) Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c) Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e) Relationships with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees.

(f) Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

IMSB

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

CCOs

· Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Public Input - Mr David Price, Chairman of Redoubt Road Environmental Action Group 7

5.2 Public Input - Alistair White and Duncan Ecob - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4 8

5.3 Public Input - Robert Reese and John Dare - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4 8

6 Local Board Input 9

6.1 Local Board Input - Howick Local Board Chair - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4 9

7 Extraordinary Business 9

8 Notices of Motion 10

9 Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) - Notification of Proposed Private Plan Change 375- Rezoning of 231 and 261 Morrin Road, St Johns. 11

10 Final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan 19

11 Takapuna Centre Plan 25

12 Endorsement of the draft Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan for final release 33

13 Auckland Housing Accord 4th Quarter Monitoring (Year-End) Report

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

14 Cost of Servicing Residential Growth Study

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

15 Proposed Auckland Housing Bond Guarantee

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

16 Productivity Commission Inquiry - Using Land for Housing

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

17 Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy 2015-2025 LTP 37

18 Auckland Council Feedback on the LGNZ 3 Waters Issues Paper & National Survey Results 63

19 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

20 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 73

C1 Special Housing Areas on Māori Land, Treaty Settlement Land and Māori Special Purpose Zoned Land 73

C2 Special Housing Areas Tranche 4 deferrals and new proposals 74

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 13 November 2014, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Public Input - Mr David Price, Chairman of Redoubt Road Environmental Action Group

Purpose

1. To provide an opportunity for Mr David Price, Chairman of Redoubt Road Environmental Action Group, to speak to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Mill Road corridor development.

Executive Summary

2. The Chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request from Mr David Price, Chairman of Redoubt Road Environmental Action Group, to speak to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Mill Road corridor development.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Mr David Price, Chairman of Redoubt Road Environmental Action Group, for his presentation to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Mill Road corridor development.

5.2 Public Input - Alistair White and Duncan Ecob - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4

Purpose

1. To provide Alistair White and Duncan Ecob with an opportunity to speak to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

Executive Summary

2. The Chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request to speak from Mr White and Mr Ecob.

3. This item of public input will be heard at the beginning of the confidential section of the meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Alistair White and Duncan Ecob for their presentation to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

5.3 Public Input - Robert Reese and John Dare - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4

Purpose

1. To provide Robert Reese and John Dare with an opportunity to speak to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

Executive Summary

2. The Chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request to speak from Mr Reese and Mr Dare.

3. This item of public input will be heard at the beginning of the confidential section of the meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Robert Reese and John Dare for their presentation to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input - Howick Local Board Chair - Special Housing Areas Tranche 4

Purpose

1. To provide David Collings, Howick Local Board Chair, with an opportunity to speak to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

Executive Summary

2. The Chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request to speak from the Howick Local Board Chair.

3. This item of Local Board input will be heard at the beginning of the confidential section of the meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank David Collings, Howick Local Board Chair, for his presentation to the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Special Housing Areas Tranche 4.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) - Notification of Proposed Private Plan Change 375- Rezoning of 231 and 261 Morrin Road, St Johns.

File No.: CP2014/26221

Purpose

1. To seek a decision to accept and proceed to publicly notify a request for a private plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (‘the District Plan’) submitted by the University of Auckland (the ‘University’) under Clause 25 of the Resource Management 1991 (‘the RMA’).

Executive summary

2. Clause 21 of the First Schedule to the RMA provides for private requests to change a District Plan or Regional Plan.

3. The University has requested a private plan change to the District Plan. The purpose of the request is to rezone the site at 231 - 261 Morrin Road (the subject site, ‘Tāmaki Campus’) from Special Purpose to Mixed Use to allow a diversity of land uses to enable future redevelopment.

4. This request is referenced as PA375 and proposes to change the District Plan as follows:

· Amend Sheets E14 and E15 in relation to the subject site as follows:

o Planning Map 1 - remove the Special Purpose zone and replace it with the Mixed Use zone;

o Planning Map 2 - remove the label ‘02’ and replace it with ‘10’.

· Amend Appendix B Additional Limitations, Controls and Diagrams to delete the subject site from E14-02 Concept Plan- University of Auckland Tāmaki Campus and delete the northern ‘Major Access/Egress’.

· Add a new E14-10 to Appendix B Additional Limitations, Controls and Diagrams, which set out site-specific development controls, additional activities, information requirements and assessment criteria to apply in addition to, or in place of, the standard Mixed Use zone provisions.

5. Under Clause 25 of the RMA, the council is now required to determine whether to:

i) accept or reject the plan change request; or

ii) adopt the proposed private plan change and promote it as a council plan change; or

iii) process the request as a resource consent application.

6. A private plan change request can only be rejected on the limited grounds specified in the RMA and this request is not considered to fall into any of these categories.

7. The proposed plan change is not considered appropriate for adoption as a public plan change or for processing as a resource consent application.

8. 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 on the appropriateness, costs and benefits of the proposed private plan change.

9. A decision to notify the plan change request 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 the private plan change.

10. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request 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 the private plan change request by the University of Auckland to amend the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) to rezone approximately 12.5 hectares of land at 231-261 Morrin Road, St Johns from the Special Purpose 2 zone (Education) to Mixed Use along with site specific provisions (PA375) and that the request proceed to public notification 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 a private plan change request 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 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

iv) 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.

b) authorise the Manager, Planning: Central and Islands to notify PA375 in accordance with Clause 26 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments

Background

11. The University is proposing to divest the Tāmaki Campus from its current property portfolio due to the recent acquisition of other sites including the Newmarket campus at the former Lion Nathan Breweries site at Grafton.

12. The current zoning and concept plan for the Tāmaki Campus site under the District Plan limits the permitted activities and scale of development to those associated with tertiary educational use.

13. The University proposes to rezone the site from Special Purpose 2 (Education) to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use zone is proposed as it will allow a diversity of land uses and recognise the site’s strategic proximity to the Glen Innes rail station, the proposed Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (‘AMETI’) network improvements and the Glen Innes town centre.

14. The Tāmaki Campus site currently has a concept plan in the District Plan (reference E14-02) which outlines permitted activities and development controls. The University seeks to remove the site from the concept plan. The concept plan will remain in the District Plan and applies to Colin Maiden Park, previously owned by the University. The private plan change only relates to the University’s landholdings.

15. The University is also proposing new site-specific activities, development controls, information requirements and assessment criteria. These would be contained within a new set of provisions (proposed reference E14-10) and would each apply to the site in addition to or instead of the standard Mixed Use provisions.

The site and surrounds

16. The land affected by the plan change request is 231-261 Morrin Road, St Johns (being Lots 1 and 2 DP 328428). This site is located on the corner of Morrin and Merton Roads.

17. The site is strategically located within walking distance of the Glen Innes train station and town centre. It is also in close proximity to the AMETI road network, with a future extension of AMETI located along the site’s eastern boundary.

18. It is comprised of two properties, being 231 and 261 Morrin Road, as shown in Attachment A. The properties are both irregularly shaped and are 0.66ha and 11.9ha respectively.

19. There are a number of existing buildings on the site and large amount of at-grade car parking. The buildings are currently used as classrooms, health and science laboratories, lecture theatres, offices and the Ray Meyer Research Centre.

20. The site is bordered by open space and industrial land uses. To the west is Colin Maiden Park, which was recently purchased by Auckland Council and there is also a small area of open space borders the site immediately south of 231 Morrin Road. To the north across Merton Road are recent retail developments while to the east are light industrial activities.

Plan change request

21. The plan change request seeks the following amendments to the District Plan:

· Amend Sheets E14 and E15 in relation to the subject site as follows:

o Planning Map 1 - remove the Special Purpose zone and replace it with the Mixed Use zone;

o Planning Map 2 – remove the label ‘02’ and replace it with ‘10’.

· Amend Appendix B Additional Limitations, Controls and Diagrams to delete the subject site from E14 02 Concept Plan- University of Auckland Tāmaki Campus and delete the northern ‘Major Access/Egress’.

22. The current District Plan maps and the proposed District Plan maps and provisions are included at Attachment B and C.

23. The University considers the request for a private plan change to be the most appropriate means of providing for future use and development of this strategic site. They propose that it will provide the form and density of development to give effect to the Auckland Plan and the growth strategies contained within the District Plan.

Statutory considerations

24. Clause 22 of the First Schedule of the RMA sets out the requirements and processes to be followed in making a request under Clause 21 of that schedule.

25. 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. Alternatively, it may instead adopt the proposed private plan change as its own or decide to treat the request as if it is a resource consent application.

26. The information that the University has provided to support the request has been assessed by council staff and expert consultants and is considered sufficient for the purposes of notification. The council may, however, request further information or commission reports prior to making a decision on any of the submissions received and the merits of the proposal.

27. 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 the 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.

28. It is important to note that the tests in Clause 25(4) (a) to (e) 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.

29. 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. Therefore, acceptance of the plan change request does not preclude the council from making any decision on the merits of the plan change.

30. The statutory matters listed above 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?

31. The site proposed to be rezoned is owned by the University.

32. The purpose of the proposed plan change is to facilitate the future redevelopment of the Tāmaki Campus site after it is no longer required by the University.

33. Comprehensive analysis reports are included with the plan change request 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’.

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?

34. The zoning relating to the site under the operative District Plan 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.

35. The proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zones the site as Tertiary Education. The University has made a submission on the PAUP, requesting Mixed Use and for the site to be a sub-precinct of the Tāmaki Precinct. The determination of this submission will be made through the Unitary Plan process.

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

36. The phrase “sound resource management practice” is not defined 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.

37. In this case, the request represents an increase in the land zoned for Mixed Use and some site specific changes to the Mixed Use provisions. 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 request. A complete review and assessment of these still needs to be carried out by the council and this will occur following its notification.

38. 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?

39. Given the scale of the request and the stage of the private plan change 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?

40. The request 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.

41. Based on the above discussion, it is considered that the proposed private plan change request should not be rejected on the grounds set out in Clause 25(4) (a) to (e) of the First Schedule to the RMA.

42. On the basis of the conclusion that the proposed private plan change request be accepted for notification, Clause 25(2) and (3) gives the council the option of:

1) Adopting the request, or part of the request, as if it was a proposed change made by the local authority itself; or

2) Accepting the request in whole or part; or

3) Dealing with the request as if it was an application for a resource consent.

Option 1:

43. If the council adopts the private plan change request, it is promoting the proposed changes. The proposed private plan change request is a private initiative of the applicant. Given the size and nature of the 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:

44. Acceptance of the request and notifying as a private plan change request 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 change 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 request following a hearing;

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

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

Option 3:

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

Conclusion

46. It is therefore recommended that council accepts the application for notification as a private plan change request (Option 2).

Notification

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

48. At this stage it is proposed that the notification will begin in mid-January 2015.

Significance of decision

49. The proposal does not trigger the council’s significance policy.

50. The impact on the community can be fully explored during the submission and hearing process.

51. Acceptance of the plan change request does not indicate support or opposition for the proposals and is not an assessment of its merits or effects.

Consultation

52. The application includes full details of the consultation that the University has undertaken to date. This includes consultation with several iwi, the Meadowbank and St Johns Residents Association, Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and the Glen Innes and Panmure Business Associations.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

53. The Orākei Local Board has been briefed on the details of the request and the plan change process. They agree with the advice from Council officers to recommend to accept and proceed to notify the application. The Local Board also recognise key issues to be considered for any future development on the site include: appropriate height, quality urban design, master-planning and traffic impacts. The Local Board also requested that the public notification period either commence in February 2015 and run for 4 weeks (20 working days) or that the notification period run for 6 weeks (30 days) from mid-January 2015 to enable residents a chance to have their say.

54. While the site falls within the Orākei Local Board area, it is in close proximity to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Board area. Given this, and in particular the proximity of the site to the Glen Innes town centre, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has also been briefed on the details of the request and the plan change process.

Māori impact statement

55. The applicant has consulted with a number of iwi, including Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and Ngāti Paoa. This has been documented in the application.

56. All of the iwi groups known to have an interest in the Orākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board areas will also be directly notified of the private plan change request.

Implementation

Financial and resourcing implications

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

Legal and legislative implications

58. 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 request for notification.

Implementation issues

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

60. 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	Location Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Relevant Current District Plan Maps (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Proposed District Plan Maps and Provisions (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Roberts - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit – GM Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan

File No.: CP2014/26671

Purpose

1. To adopt the final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan (‘the plan’ – provided in this report as a document and maps at Attachment A and B).

Executive summary

2. Area plans are 30-year local spatial plans for a local board area, applying the Auckland Plan at a local community level. Since January 2014 the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan working party has overseen the development of a draft and final area plan with input from across the council and relevant Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).

3. The development of the area plan has included two community engagement phases - initial engagement in February-March 2014 and consultation on a draft plan in July-August 2014. These have been combined with engagement on the new Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan and were notable by the extensive support and assistance of key community stakeholder representatives.

4. Feedback from engagement on the draft plan contained majority support for the draft plan’s key components – six key moves, three theme outcomes and actions, and outcomes for key places.

5. All feedback was assessed in terms of whether a change or addition would be advisable for the final plan. These items were discussed with the working party and at a local board briefing in September 2014. There has also been a review of the key moves, outcomes and actions by various parts of the council and relevant CCOs to confirm their deliverability, particularly those in the first five years. A number of requests and suggestions for changes arising from engagement have been included in the final plan, along with changes requested by the working party directly.

6. In addition to these amendments, changes and additions have been made to the structure of the draft plan to complete the final plan and achieve more consistency with other area plans. This includes the addition of a description of the Devonport-Takapuna area, how the area plan was developed, and the strategic context of the plan. Actions under theme outcomes have been separated into those for delivery in the next five years, and aspirational actions for the future beyond five years and up to 30 years.

7. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board endorsed the final plan at its meeting on 18 November 2014, subject to some amendments that have been incorporated and approved by the Chair and Deputy Chair. Following consideration by the Auckland Development Committee the final plan will be produced and published.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) adopt the final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan (Attachment A and B of the agenda report).

Comments

Background

8. Area plans are 30-year local spatial plans for a local board area, applying the Auckland Plan at a local level. The Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan process commenced in November 2013 and included two community engagement phases (initial and draft) being combined with the new Local Board Plan 2014-17.

9. Since January 2014 staff have been meeting with the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan working party consisting of the local board chairperson, deputy chairperson and the two local ward councillors. The purpose of the working party has been to agree the programme of work, approaches to engaging the community, and emerging content of a draft and final plan with input from across the council and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). All local board members were invited to attend working party meetings.

10. Comprehensive initial community engagement occurred in February-March 2014, which invited feedback on what people valued about the area and their aspirations. Hui were also held with mana whenua and mataawaka groups. Extensive assistance of key stakeholder representatives helped shape the draft plan, which was endorsed by the local board in June and then adopted by the Auckland Development Committee in July for community engagement.

11. Decision-making on engagement approaches, the draft plan and final plan rests with the local board and ultimately the Auckland Development Committee. This reflects the dual governance nature of area plans and their part in the council’s planning framework.

12. The area plan is not an opportunity to amend the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which has commenced its statutory process of public submissions and hearings. The area plan does however set out actions to implement the land use outcomes envisaged in the PAUP.

Community engagement on the draft area plan

13. Engagement on the draft plan was again combined with the draft local board plan. The separate draft plan documents and feedback forms asked different questions, arising out of the specific content of each plan. Being a non-statutory plan the draft area plan did not require a Special Consultative Procedure approach, unlike the draft Local Board Plan. Feedback received on the draft area plan was not therefore considered as formal submissions and subject to hearings.

14. Following Committee approval the draft plan, a summary flyer and feedback form were put on the council engagement website. Copies of the same material were placed in local council venues such as libraries and service centres. The material was available for a three week period until 6 August 2014 when draft local board plan engagement also concluded.

15. Meetings and events were again organised with the assistance of key stakeholders. These included local community meetings advertised through local channels, and meetings with key representatives of relevant sector groups operating in the local board area.

16. In total the following feedback on the draft plan was recorded or received:

· Notes of comments made at local community and sector meetings

· 120 completed feedback forms

· 33 items of detailed feedback, in the form of letters or ‘submissions’ mostly from local groups and organisations

· A petition with 80 signatories, accompanied by 49 letters, from residents of Byron Avenue, Takapuna, sent to the mayor and also received by the local board

17. Also received or recorded were notes taken at a workshop of the Kaipatiki Local Board, comments from Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Ltd, and the Independent Maori Statutory Board, and from meetings with representatives from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Maru.

Feedback on the draft area plan

18. The content of the draft plan was generally supported through feedback received. There were no major areas or sections of the draft plan that feedback sought to be removed or substantially changed. There were also no reasons arising from the feedback to consider adding new sections or topics, as a result of matters having been missed or not included. There were however a range of amendments and detailed additions to the draft plan and requests for some outcomes or actions to be emphasised or prioritised, and for others to be modified.

19. In terms of the draft plan’s proposed ‘key moves’ there was a high level of support, with over 80% of feedback form responses considering them to be important or somewhat important. Key move 4 relating to recognising the kaitiaki role of mana whenua was considered important or somewhat important by 52% of respondents.

20. In terms of the ‘area framework’ it was generally understood that the PAUP represents the current land use framework that guides future development of the area. However, some feedback suggested that the potential level of redevelopment or intensification, particularly on the Devonport peninsula, be contained until key infrastructure (namely transport and road capacity) has been addressed.

21. The proposed ‘outcomes for key locations’ (metropolitan, town and local centres) were generally supported, with 64% of feedback form responses being in the ‘supportive’ end of a 5-point spectrum and 19% in the ‘unsupportive’ end. Some feedback suggested some matters of detail be included in these statements to reflect local aspirations or concerns.

22. The proposed theme outcomes and actions had general overall support, with 71% of feedback form responses being in the ‘supportive’ end of the spectrum and 13% in the ‘unsupportive’ end. There were a range of suggestions and requests for including more detail in outcomes or actions, and for them to apply to particular places or groups.

23. A feedback summary report and a compilation of all feedback received were discussed with the working party in September. Guidance was received from the members relating to key aspects recurring or emerging from the feedback. Following this, a schedule of all feedback key points and recommendations for addressing them in a revised final area plan was discussed at a local board briefing on 23 September.

24. A meeting was held on 2 October with residents of Byron Avenue, Takapuna, who had provided feedback in opposition to the proposed ‘Upper Shoal Bay Link’ project in the draft plan. Staff from Auckland Transport (AT) clarified the proposal as being only one long-term option in a recent study into Takapuna transport futures undertaken on behalf of AT. It was noted that the study had yet to be adopted and there would be full consultation on any proposals in the future should AT progress work on improving the connection between Akoranga busway station/Barrys Point area and Takapuna centre for buses, cycling and walking. It was agreed that amendments would be made to the plan to reflect this position.

Changes to the draft area plan for the final version

25. The process for reviewing and revising the draft area plan to take account of feedback has also included a review of the document to achieve more consistency with the Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan (also being prepared to a similar timetable). This has seen the actions listed under each theme outcome separated into two timescales, first being over the next five years and second from six to 30 years. The allocation of actions to these two periods, and their deliverability within the scope of the Mayor’s LTP 2015-25 proposal, has been assessed by the responsible council departments and relevant CCOs.

26. Key changes, additions and amendments to the structure of the draft area plan have been made in preparing the final area plan, as follows:

· Updating of the Foreword by the Chair of the Local Board

· Addition of sections providing a description of the Devonport-Takapuna area, how the area plan was developed, and the strategic context including the Auckland Plan

· Shortening of ‘key move’ descriptions and relocation of ‘key actions’ to theme sections to collect all actions together in one place

· Relocation of ‘outcomes for key places’ to after the theme sections to reflect their role as place-based application of the theme outcomes and to give the themes more prominence in the document after the ‘key moves’

· Creating two separate schedules for expected timescale of delivery of actions

27. In addition to these changes numerous amendments have been made to the draft plan to incorporate recommendations discussed with the working party and local board arising from feedback. Amendments have also arisen from further review by parts of the council and CCOs responsible for delivery of actions. The more significant amendments have been summarised in the final plan in the ‘developing the area plan’ section.

28. The proposed final area plan was reviewed by the working party at its meetings on 4 and 5 November. The area plan maps (the key plan and three theme maps) have also been reviewed and updated from the draft area plan to reflect amendments made to the content.

29. The final area plan was considered by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board at its 18 November meeting. Resolution DT/2014/300 was carried as follows:

“That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) ask officers to remove the public transport link across Upper Shoal Bay from the map on p.69 to conform with the statement in paragraph 24 of the main report.

b) ask officers to include a reference for carparking provisions in Belmont and Hauraki Corner.

c) ask officers to check that the upgrade to Clarence Street is in the local board plan and to include it in the area plan if it is missing.

d) delegate approval of any other minor edits to the final Area Plan arising from the meeting to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson before being reported to the Auckland Development Committee.

e) subject to the above changes, endorse the final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan (Attachment A) and recommend to the Auckland Development Committee that it be adopted.”

30. The amendments requested at points a to c in the resolution have been made and the final area plan document has been approved by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the local board.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. The development of the area plan has been overseen by the area plan working party. All members of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board have been invited to working party meetings and received relevant material for meetings including agendas and minutes. Working sessions were held with the working party in September to review draft plan engagement feedback and identify areas to review or amend. Briefings of the full local board have occurred through the process, the most recent being on 23 September to review all feedback on the draft plan and associated recommendations for amendments. The local board resolved to endorse the final plan at its meeting of 18 November, as detailed above.

Māori impact statement

32. Following initial discussions with Te Waka Angamua, the Independent Maori Statutory Board was notified in December 2013 of the upcoming Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan process and advised the proposed engagement approach for mana whenua and mataawaka.

33. Early in 2014 contact was made with the following 13 iwi that have association with Devonport-Takapuna regarding their involvement in the development of the area plan:

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tāmaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngaati Whanaunga

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Patukirikiri

· Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Whātua

34. Hui were held in February 2014 with nine of the mana whenua groups and also with matawaaka representatives to seek guidance on the Maori outcomes and aspirations for the draft plan. As a result, and reflecting the directions of the Auckland Plan, Maori outcomes and aspirations were integrated throughout the theme sections of the draft plan.

35. The draft plan was distributed to mana whenua groups and feedback was invited in July 2014. Meetings were held with representatives from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Maru in August, involving the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the local board, where feedback was given and other matters relevant to the local board plan and ongoing relationship were discussed. In September 2014 staff of the Independent Maori Statutory Board noted there had been no issues or concerns raised by iwi about the process of engagement and the plan, and that the process had been robust.

Implementation

36. Implementation of area plan key moves and actions can occur through a range of methods. These include through commitments in the long-term plan, local board plan and subsequent local board agreements, advocacy of council or local board on other agencies (including CCOs and central government), through the Unitary Plan once operative, and through local place planning and improvements. Budgets will be considered through the long-term plan process for delivery of initiatives in the first ten years. The delivery of the outcomes later in the 30-year planning period will rely on the continuing identification and commitment of funding. Progress on implementing the area plan actions will be reported to the local board annually.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan document (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Final Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan maps (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner - North West Planning

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit – GM Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Takapuna Centre Plan

File No.: CP2014/26811

Purpose

1. To decide on the approval of the publication of the Takapuna Centre Plan.

Executive summary

2. The Takapuna centre can play a significant role in the Auckland Plan’s strategic directives of focusing growth within a network of high quality centres. It is a metropolitan centre where the council has the opportunity to lead any transformation projects through its major landholdings. The Takapuna Centre Plan focuses on these strategic opportunities.

3. The Takapuna Centre Plan: Implementing the Takapuna Strategic Framework (‘the centre plan’) highlights and provides greater visibility for the transformational projects in Takapuna’s commercial heart. It is a continuation of the Takapuna Strategic Framework (TSF), providing further detail on the transformational projects proposed by the TSF as well as an update on how council is implementing previous planning work. Features of the centre plan are:

§ principles to guide future development within Takapuna;

§ place-shaping factors that are integral to Takapuna’s unique character;

§ three headline projects designed to showcase Takapuna’s potential for improvement; and

§ other actions that council and Auckland Transport can undertake.

4. The centre plan has been prepared in collaboration with key internal stakeholders involved in the headline projects and other actions. Public engagement was not carried out because the plan’s content is largely an update of previous work identified through extensive public engagement and community feedback. The plan is intended, through its clear and accessible format, to make community and private interests aware of the headline projects that will help to transform the heart of Takapuna over the next 30 years. However, any project will need to go through the appropriate approval process which may include public notification.

5. The current version of the centre plan contains amendments that resulted from local board workshops held on 23 June and 26 August 2014. Selected external stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide feedback at a workshop on 7 October 2014.

6. Based on the feedback received, changes were made to the Anzac Quarter section of the plan. They include:

§ a larger plaza fronting Lake Road;

§ new artist’s impressions of the changed plaza and possible new development activating Potter’s Park; and

§ changes to the text to strengthen the quality open space and development outcomes, as well as new reference to a design brief and master planning process.

7. On 18 November 2014, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved to endorse the centre plan subject to minor amendments. They include clarification on the quality and use of public open space, and how building form and scale relate to open space. The amendments are explained at paragraph 24 of this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve the ‘Takapuna Centre Plan: Implementing the Takapuna Strategic Framework’ for publication.

Comments

Background

8. The Takapuna centre can play a significant role in the Auckland Plan’s strategic directives of focusing growth within a network of high quality centres. It is a metropolitan centre where the council has the opportunity to lead any transformation projects through its major landholdings. The Takapuna Centre Plan focuses on these strategic opportunities.

9. The ‘Takapuna Centre Plan: Implementing the Takapuna Strategic Framework’ (‘the centre plan’) highlights and provides greater visibility for the transformational projects in Takapuna’s commercial heart. It is a non-statutory document that reinforces Auckland Council’s vision for Takapuna’s future as a metropolitan centre.

10. The centre plan brings together ongoing planning initiatives (Takapuna Strategic Framework; the Auckland Plan, Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan, and various transformation projects) as they relate to Takapuna centre. Features of the centre plan are:

§ principles to guide future development within Takapuna;

§ place-shaping factors which are integral to Takapuna’s unique character;

§ three headline projects designed to showcase Takapuna’s potential for improvement; and

§ other actions that council and Auckland Transport can undertake.

11. The centre plan was drafted in collaboration with key internal stakeholders involved in the three headline projects and other actions. Public engagement has not been carried out as part of the centre plan development. This is because the plan’s content is largely an update of how council is implementing previous planning work identified through extensive public engagement and community feedback. However, any project will need to go through the appropriate approval process which may include public notification.

12. The plan is intended, through its clear and accessible format, to make the community and private interests aware of the headline projects that will help to transform the heart of Takapuna over the next 30 years.

The Takapuna Strategic Framework (TSF)

13. The centre plan was prepared as a continuation of the Takapuna Strategic Framework (TSF). North Shore City Council prepared the TSF in 2010 to guide the strategic growth and change of Takapuna centre and its surrounding area over the next 30 years. Much of the research, analysis and community feedback – captured through stakeholder meetings, public displays and a discussion document – are directly reflected in the content of the centre plan.

14. Since the adoption of the TSF, Auckland Council and the private sector have undertaken projects to improve Takapuna Centre. Examples include council’s upgrades in Hurstmere Green, and private projects such as McKenzies and ‘the Commons’.

15. Current council projects including the funded Hurstmere Street upgrade, and private developments (such as a new dining precinct fronting The Strand) build on the strengths of the local economy and the lifestyle attraction of the centre. The completion of the centre plan is timely for council’s consideration of projects in the TSF as part of the Long-term Plan (LTP) process.

The Auckland Plan, the Draft Devonport-Takapuna Area and Local Board plans

16. In mid-2014 the local board endorsed the draft Devonport-Takapuna Area and Local Board Plans. The area plan is a 30-year local spatial plan to achieve the directions of the Auckland Plan at a local board level. The local board plan sets out the priorities and preferences of the local community over a three year period and provides the context for local board decision making.

17. Responding to what the community has said, these documents identified the need for the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre to be an area for prioritised investment by council and the private sector. The centre plan gives effect to this priority though its headline projects and identified actions.

Key content of the Centre Plan

18. The proposed Takapuna Centre Plan is attached as Appendix A for approval. Following explanatory and context sections, the centre plan sets out principles and place-shaping factors identified by the TSF and more recent work. The place-shaping factors, which will anchor any future development within the ‘sense of place’ unique to Takapuna’s beach-side setting, are:

§ character and landscape

§ urban form

§ public open space

§ activities

§ access and movement.

19. The centre plan focuses on providing more detail on the headline projects proposed by the TSF. They are catalyst projects identified as having the most effect on the long term success of Takapuna’s commercial heart. Through the use of strong images and graphics, the plan seeks to capture the private sector and the community’s imagination and enthusiasm for the possibilities of the projects. The headline projects are:

§ redevelopment of council-owned Anzac St carpark into a quality open space and mixed-use development in the heart of Takapuna;

§ upgrading the open space link between Hurstmere Green, The Strand, and Takapuna Beach to open the centre to its stunning coastal setting; and

§ progressive streetscape upgrades beginning with Hurstmere Road to transform the centre’s public spaces.

20. Other actions are identified to be delivered over the next 30 years. These focus on projects that, in collaboration with Auckland Transport, council can work on to achieve quality developments on its own properties, streets, and public open space.

Consultation to date

21. Apart from targeted stakeholder and local board workshops, there has been no further public engagement in developing the centre plan. However, community engagement for the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan and the Local Board Plan, which took place from 14 July to 7 August, provided the following views relevant to Takapuna centre:

§ general support for development of Takapuna’s commercial heart;

§ support for strengthening linkages between the centre and Takapuna Beach; and

§ support for improvements to Hurstmere Road.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. A working draft of the centre plan was initially work-shopped with the local board on 23 June 2014. The discussion around the content of the plan is summarised below.

Local board feedback	Staff response
While local board members generally supported the purpose and initiative of the centre plan, there was no consensus on the balance of open space to development depicted in the concept image for Anzac Quarter.	Worked with council’s urban design team to come up with an alternative configuration that better aligns with the concept first endorsed by the local board at the workshop on development options for the Anzac Street carpark site in December 2012.
‘Public Open Space’ preferred over the term ‘Public Realm’.	Changed terminology.

23. The subsequent amended version of the centre plan was work-shopped with the local board on 25 August 2014. Key stakeholders were also invited to discuss the plan at a workshop on 7 October 2014. They included representatives from:

§ Takapuna Business Association;

§ Environment Takapuna;

§ Auckland 2040; and

§ Milford Residents Association.

24. Their comments are summarised below.

Workshop feedback	Staff response
Concern that any development on the Anzac St carpark site will not match the ideal presented by the plan.	Changed the ‘Anzac Quarter’ section of the plan to explain how the council will manage the divestment/briefing process to ensure the integrity of the outcomes.
Concern that there is not enough open space provision in Anzac Quarter.	Changed the illustrative concepts to show an enlarged possible public plaza fronting Lake Road.
Concern that the graphics used signalled that the design is final.	Commissioned artist impressions to express the design in a more conceptual manner.

25. On 18 November 2014, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved to recommend to the Auckland Development Committee that the plan be approved for publication with amendments.

26. The proposed changes are summarised below.

Local board resolution	Staff response
[DT/2014/296] That more weight is given to the words in the Takapuna Centre Plan, rather than the pictures, especially relating to the Anzac Quarter and the provision of good quality public space thereby enabling civic events like Anzac Day, catering for up to 10,000 people and markets like the current Sunday market to occur.	The fourth outcome listed on page 24 of the document has been amended to refer to the Anzac Day commemorations as a specific example of a civic ceremony that the proposed open spaces could accommodate. The foreword has been amended to add the following: The projects have a focus on how we can improve and add to our public spaces and design our streets to be more people friendly through opportunities such as shared spaced or pedestrianisation. The third paragraph on page 23 now includes ‘It is important that these activities continue’.
[DT/2014/297] Encourage underground carparking and other carparking options (aiming for 400 rather than the current 270+) to support Hurstmere Road becoming a shared and/or pedestrian only open space and the possibility of a portion of The Strand becoming a pedestrian only open space.	The final outcome on page 24 refers to provision for at least 270 short term parking spaces. This has been amended to add ‘and possibly up to 400’. In terms of Hurstmere Road and The Strand, page 26 is amended to include reference to an “extended open space and pedestrianized link between Hurstmere Green, The Strand and the Beach Reserve”. Reference is already made to a design option for Hurstmere Road being a flush surface, which would enable a shared space and increasing pedestrian emphasis as the centre’s population and activity grows.
[DT/2014/298] Ensure the built scale, especially in the Anzac Quarter, does not undermine the quality of usable public open space with particular note given to reducing shadowing, but enhancing sunshine, shade and shelter throughout the year.	Outcome 5 on page 24 amended to read: “Building scale and form that relate to and frame the public open spaces while enabling those spaces to provide a choice of sunshine, shade and shelter throughout the year.”
[DT/2014/299] ask officers to come back to the board in future to enable that board to have input into the design brief for the what is currently the Anzac Street carpark and consult with the community before the Anzac Street carpark or any part thereof is sold into the private sector.	The design brief is intended to be put to the board for input, including key stakeholder views if the board wishes.

Local board resolution

Staff response

[DT/2014/299] request that funds raised by any sales of land or airspace and Development Contributions are used to progress the Takapuna Strategic Framework and developing Takapuna as a desirable, people friendly Metro Centre, including the provision of open space.

The issue of funds raised by any sales is already addressed in the final paragraph on page 23 of the plan. It notes that the site is an opportunity through a private sector agreement to build a high quality mixed use development which could enable the council to achieve public open space and car parking benefits while offsetting or minimising the cost to ratepayers.

Funds from the divestment of council asset are automatically placed in a general ledger. The ring-fencing of any funds require committee approval.

Development contributions are collected for activities in funding areas. The money can be used anywhere in the funding area. For the existing policy the smallest catchments are North, Central, South, West, Hauraki Gulf Islands and Rural. As development contributions fund both historic and planned works they are not restricted to a specific development site.

Maori impact statement

27. Consultation with mana whenua was undertaken on the Takapuna Strategic Framework Discussion Document. More recently, in February and July 2014, hui were held with 9 mana whenua groups and matawaaka representatives on Maori aspirations for the Draft Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan. As a result of the hui, Maori outcomes were developed and integrated throughout the draft plan.

28. No specific engagement with Maori was undertaken as part of the Takapuna Centre Plan. Maori aspiration for Takapuna centre is given effect by the centre plan through its strategic links with previous planning initiatives, the draft area plan, and the local board plan.

29. An opportunity identified in the draft area plan includes partnering with mana whenua on local environment projects and exploring opportunities to develop and use open space to actively highlight their role as kaitiaki. The public space projects highlighted in the centre plan provide such opportunities.

30. Specifically, page 6 of the centre plan sets out the principles that will underpin the projects to take Takapuna forward, the first of which is to ‘Create an environment that tells the story of mana whenua cultural landscapes through Te Aranga Maori Design Principles (refer to the Auckland Design Manual)’.

Implementation

31. Implementation of the Takapuna Centre Plan can occur through a range of methods including the Long-term Plan (including Local Board Agreements), local board plans, and advocacy for the delivery of projects through other agencies (including CCOs). The delivery of the identified projects will be dependent on continued commitment of funding and council working together with the private sector.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Takapuna Centre Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Wayne Siu - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit – GM Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Endorsement of the draft Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan for final release

File No.: CP2014/26949

Purpose

1. To decide on the approval of the Otara-Papatoetoe area plan for final release.

Executive Summary

2. In June and July 2014, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and the Auckland Development Committee endorsed the draft Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan for community engagement and feedback. The report presented to the Auckland Development Committee in July 2014, set out the background for the development of the draft Area Plan and also outlined the nine key moves.

3. During the four week community engagement period between 21 July and 17 August 2014, the community was provided with a number of opportunities to view and submit on the draft area plan and feedback was received from 75 respondents.

4. The working party have considered the feedback received and, where appropriate have made a number of amendments to the area plan document. In November 2014, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the draft area plan for final release.

5. A copy of the area plan and five thematic maps are provided in Attachments A and B respectively.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan and five thematic maps as set out in Attachments A and B of the agenda report.

Discussion

6. In June and July 2014, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and the Auckland Development Committee endorsed the draft Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan for community engagement and feedback. The report presented to the Auckland Development Committee in July 2014, set out the background to the development of the draft area plan and also outlined the nine key moves.

Community Engagement

7. Community engagement on the draft Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan was undertaken between 21 July and 17 August 2014. The focus of engagement was to connect with existing community networks and included:

· Presentations and discussions at community network meetings

· Four drop-in and display sessions

· Pop-up events at the Ōtara markets, Papatoetoe Vintage market, and Manukau and Papatoetoe train stations

· Individual meetings with community stakeholders such as the Counties Manukau District Health Board, Cross Power Ministries, and the Papatoetoe Cosmopolitan Club

· Two youth engagement events held at the Tupu (Dawson Road) and Papatoetoe Libraries

· Presentation of the draft Area Plan to the Southern Mana Whenua Information Hui in Manukau. Ten mana whenua representatives from southern iwi and hapu were in attendance.

Feedback received

8. A total of 75 responses (54 from individuals and 21 from organisations) were received. The key moves, and supporting projects and initiatives generally received a high level of support. Transport matters attracted the largest amount of feedback, closely followed by issues relating to the built environment.

9. As a result of the feedback, the working party made a number of amendments to the area plan document. The majority of amendments made were to further clarify the scope of projects and initiatives listed or to include additional organisations as support partners.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

10. A working party comprising all seven members of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, and two ward councillors have worked collaboratively to develop the area plan. A number of the community engagement events e.g. youth events, were attended by members of the Board.

11. A series of workshops were held with the working party to establish and agree the vision, key moves, and supporting projects and initiatives together with the way the Area Plan can help deliver on the outcomes and directions in the Auckland Plan. Key projects and initiatives within the Area Plan align with those in the draft Local Board Plan.

Maori Impact Statement

12. The process of engagement on area plans with mana whenua and mataawaka groups in the wider Ōtara-Papatoetoe area has been developed in collaboration with the council’s Maori Strategy and Relations Department.

13. Individual hui were hosted with the representatives of nine Mana Whenua groups to seek their views and aspirations for the area, and how this knowledge could be recognised and reflected in the draft Area Plan. These groups were:

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Waikato Tainui

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

14. Of the 11 mana whenua groups with an interest in the area, only two chose not to participate.

15. Mataawaka groups were invited to attend key stakeholder workshops to understand their aspirations for the area. Unfortunately none of the groups were able to attend. Copies of the draft Area Plan were subsequently sent to mataawaka groups to encourage feedback. No feedback was received from these groups.

Implementation Issues

16. Area plans are a key mechanism to implement the Auckland Plan and enable greater level of detail in terms of outcomes and aspirations expected across the region. The area plan aligns with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and will inform future long term plans where facilities and items for capital investment may be required. The implementation and prioritisation of projects and initiatives in the Area Plan will inform and help to shape the forward work programmes for the Council, Council Controlled Organisations and other key delivery partners.

17. The recommendation to agree the content of the final draft of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

18. The delivery of the key moves will be supported by a separate implementation plan that will identify:

· likely timeframe for delivery of the ‘short-term’ projects and initiatives that are funded, and can be implemented over the next five years

· desired timeframes and potential funding requirements for the ‘longer-term’ aspirational projects and initiatives that are not yet funded and/or planned for

· lead agency and/or delivery partners responsible for each project and initiative.

19. The implementation plan will sit alongside the area plan, and is used as a tool to advocate for, and secure funding through future Long-term and Annual Plan budget processes. The implementation plan will be prepared following adoption of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Area Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Theme Maps (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Marc Dendale - Team Leader Planning South

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy 2015-2025 LTP

File No.: CP2014/27497

Purpose

1. To receive the material that forms the basis of the draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (the “Strategy”) and provide feedback.

Executive Summary

2. Infrastructure provides the foundation upon which our city is based. Significant projects have the ability to be transformational in helping council to reach the Auckland Plan vision of being the world’s most liveable city.

3. As part of the recent Local Government Act (LGA) amendments, the council is now required to develop a 30 year Infrastructure Strategy as part of its Long-term Plan (LTP). Council is required to meet the purposes of the Act, which are to:

· identify the significant infrastructure issues for the council over the 30 years

· identify the principal options for managing those issues; and

· identify the implications of those options.

4. The Strategy will also outline how the council intends to manage our infrastructure assets, taking into account increased demand, combined with funding constraints. The Strategy has to outline a 30 year summary of council infrastructure investment.

5. The cost of major projects together with their long life spans means it is vital to make the right decisions. The LTP process enables council to make decisions about trade-offs between infrastructure types in the short term period. The Strategy has a role in aligning infrastructure provision across the range of infrastructure types in the longer term.

6. The draft Strategy has been developed through a collaborative process involving departments and stakeholders from across council including: Finance, the Chief Planning Office, the Housing Project Office, Infrastructure and Environmental Services, Watercare and Auckland Transport. The New Zealand Transport Agency has also been included as a key partner.

7. In March 2014 the draft material for the Strategy was reported to the Infrastructure Committee and a workshop was held with members of the Regional Development Committee in October 2014. Local Boards were consulted during their September – October 2014 cluster meetings.

8. The draft material contains a section that sets out a commitment to Māori, including a statement that acknowledges that Māori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment.

9. Through the LTP process, the council will:

a. highlight the matters of public interest arising in the draft Strategy in the LTP consultation document; and will

b. generally consult on the material that will form the basis of the final Strategy as part of the ‘supporting information’ – this is the material attached to this report.

10. On the 18 December 2014 the Governing Body will be asked to adopt this consultation material. Feedback from the Committee meeting will be incorporated into that consultation material.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note that the material provided will form the basis of the Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy 2015-2015.

b) provide feedback to staff on the material to be incorporated into a draft infrastructure strategy for Governing Body approval on 18 December 2014.

Discussion

Background

11. Infrastructure provides the foundation upon which our city is based. Significant projects have the ability to be transformational in helping council to reach the Auckland Plan vision of being the world’s most liveable city.

12. The development of the Strategy is a statutory requirement as part of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 amendments. The Strategy will outline a 30 year summary of council infrastructure investment; identify significant infrastructure issues, the principal options for managing those issues and how the council intends to manage its infrastructure assets under a “most likely scenario”.

13. The Strategy must be developed as part of a council’s 2015-2025 LTP and is being developed as part of Auckland Council’s Finance LTP workstream. The cost of major projects together with their long life spans means it is vital to make the right decisions. The LTP process enables council to make decisions about trade-offs between infrastructure types in the short term period, while the Strategy provides the longer term context.

14. The Strategy is prepared under section 101B of the LGA which identifies infrastructure assets as including existing or proposed assets to be used to provide services by or on behalf of the council in relation to the following groups: water supply, sewage (wastewater), the treatment and disposal of sewage, stormwater drainage, flood protection and control works and the provision of roads and footpaths. Discretion in the Act allows council to include any other assets. We propose to also include assets relating to community facilities, public open space and public transport.

15. The strategy provides the context in which Council infrastructure operates including the current asset base, its roles in infrastructure provision, as well as physical and demographic factors. It also acknowledges the Housing Accord as an initiative to address Auckland’s housing challenge.

The material

16. The material (Attachment 1) outlines the key content that will form the basis of the draft Strategy. It includes a comprehensive package of mechanisms for managing infrastructure issues facing council over the longer term. Council is required to meet the purposes of the Act, which are to:

· identify the significant infrastructure issues for the council over the 30 years

· identify the principal options for managing those issues; and

· identify the implications of those options.

17. The Strategy will also outline how the council intends to manage our infrastructure assets, taking into account increased demand, combined with funding constraints.

18. The Strategy will identify the significant pressures on infrastructure demand led by; Auckland’s growth, demographic change, service level expectations, environmental sustainability, resilience and the condition of existing assets. The Strategy will build on the Auckland Plan 30 year vision for Auckland to be the world’s most liveable city. It will provide a package of mechanisms that will respond to the challenges that Auckland faces which comprises:

· The Auckland Plan Development Strategy Implementation and Spatial Prioritisation

· Management of the demand for infrastructure

· Smart investment / transformative infrastructure investment

· Infrastructure provision aligned across the networks

· Efficient and innovative asset management

· Additional funding tools

· A monitoring programme for growth.

19. The Strategy content has been developed within the context of a constrained funding environment, with growth being a key driver of demand for infrastructure. It will complement the Financial Strategy which is also being developed as part of the LTP.

20. Further information that will form the basis of the Strategy, including the Investment Summary and a list of major projects over the 30 year period was still being drafted at the time of writing this report. This information will provide a picture of where, over the next 30 years there will be pressure on infrastructure provision and budget. A copy of this will be provided before the meeting.

21. Feedback from the Committee will be added to the material for the Governing Body to adopt for consultation on the 18^th of December 2014.

Process

22. The material has been developed through a collaborative process involving departments and stakeholders from across council including: Finance, the Chief Planning Office, the Housing Project Office, Infrastructure and Environmental Services, Watercare and Auckland Transport. The New Zealand Transport Agency has also been included as a key partner.

23. An update on the material was reported to the Infrastructure Committee in March 2014 (Resolution number INF/2014/21).The resolution was that the Committee:

a) Receive the report and request regular quarterly reports and updates on possible issues as they arise.

24. Subsequently, further information has been presented to a workshop of the Auckland Development Committee (16 October 2014).

25. This is the first time Auckland Council will have an infrastructure strategy. It is anticipated that this will enable dialogue with others involved in infrastructure provision and skills and labour market development on an on-going basis. The Strategy will provide an opportunity to signal council’s longer term view and direction to the wider community, including other infrastructure providers, which will inform and support their long term planning. The plan also provides an opportunity to integrate infrastructure and environmental sustainability issues as it is further developed.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

26. Presentations on the Infrastructure Strategy were made to the local board cluster meetings during September - October 2014. The comments received at these meetings have been used to inform the development of the draft material presented to the Committee.

Māori Impact Statement

27. The strategy will contain a section that sets out a commitment to Māori this includes a statement that acknowledges that Māori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment. Preservation of the mauri or life essence of water and waterways is a matter of great importance to Māori and is an issue that is central to many of Auckland’s infrastructure projects. Consultation with Te Waka Angamua provided background information on technical work that underpinned the draft document. There will also be opportunity for Māori to be involved in refinement of the Strategy through the wider engagement process of the LTP.

Implementation Issues

28. On 18 December 2014 the Governing Body will adopt the LTP consultation document. Information from the Strategy will be included in the consultation document. The draft Strategy (along with other policies such as the Financial Strategy) will be available to the public as supporting documents for the LTP. It is therefore important that the Strategy aligns with these documents.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy 2015-2025 LTP	41

Signatories

Authors

Dawne Mackay - Principal Strategic Planner

Stephanie Jowett - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Harvey Brookes - Acting GM Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Auckland Council Feedback on the LGNZ 3 Waters Issues Paper & National Survey Results

File No.: CP2014/27710

Purpose

1. To retrospectively approve the feedback council provided to the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 3 Waters Issues Paper and accompanying New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) 3 Waters Services Survey Result Report.

Executive Summary

2. LGNZ are seeking to better understand the state and performance of the three waters (water supply, wastewater and stormwater) assets and services.

3. LGNZ produced an issues paper for Council’s to respond to. Watercare, Stormwater and the Chief Planning Office produced a response to the paper.

4. The feedback agreed with the approaches suggested by LGNZ in relation to; setting a national policy response for funding ageing assets and improving the resilience of assets. It noted that Auckland has moved away from addressing the variable approaches taken by legacy councils (when dealing with asset issues) focusing instead on the benefits of better performing infrastructure.

5. The council recommended that the proposed meta data standard be given more importance, to ensure consistency of data for the industry, and future surveys should be refined to reflect the different stormwater service delivery options.

6. Due to the timeframes for consultation, the report was signed off by the Deputy Mayor and the Chief Planning Officer. This report seeks the committee’s retrospective approval on the submission to the 3 Waters Issues Paper and accompanying New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) 3 Waters Services Survey Result Report.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) retrospectively approve the Auckland Council feedback on the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 3 Waters Issues Paper and New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) 3 Waters Services Survey Results Report dated 21 November 2014.

Discussion

Background

7. The LGNZ 3 Waters project is a proactive and collaborative effort by local government, central government and the water sector to improve asset performance and service provision in potable, waste and stormwater across New Zealand.

8. The project was established by LGNZ in 2013 to respond to an information gap that was revealed in the 2011 National Infrastructure Plan that suggested the three waters system in New Zealand may be broken.

9. For the first time a populated National Information Framework database has been established that provides a clearer picture of the current state of the three waters assets and services, following a National Information Survey which collected data from a total of 70 councils.

10. The issues paper (http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Publications/LGNZ-3-Waters-Issues-Paper.pdf) presents the key issues facing the sector that need to be addressed. These issues are based on information gathered from survey responses and feedback from LGNZ workshops and are identified as:

i. investing to replace and renew existing assets;

ii. investing to meet rising standards and increasing expectations;

iii. providing end-users with the right incentives to use water infrastructure and services efficiently.

11. The next step is to test the scale and scope of these issues and what might be an appropriate solution tool kit, with the feedback provided to LGNZ informing this next step.

12. The 3 Waters project will: produce a series of best practice interventions focused on the business of providing water services; provide a tool for assessing service design; provide a forum for addressing the balance of cost versus outcome in relation to drinking water quality, and; develop a prioritised local government stormwater work programme.

Council Feedback

13. The LGNZ 3 Waters project is a proactive and collaborative effort by local government, central government and the water sector to improve asset performance and service provision in potable, waste and stormwater across New Zealand.

14. The project was established by LGNZ in 2013 to respond to an information gap that was revealed in the 2011 National Infrastructure Plan that suggested the three waters system in New Zealand may be broken.

15. For the first time a populated National Information Framework database has been established that provides a clearer picture of the current state of the three waters assets and services, following a National Information Survey which collected data from a total of 70 councils.

16. The issues paper (http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Publications/LGNZ-3-Waters-Issues-Paper.pdf) presents the key issues facing the sector that need to be addressed. These issues are based on information gathered from survey responses and feedback from LGNZ workshops and are identified as:

iv. investing to replace and renew existing assets;

v. investing to meet rising standards and increasing expectations;

vi. providing end-users with the right incentives to use water infrastructure and services efficiently.

17. The next step is to test the scale and scope of these issues and what might be an appropriate solution tool kit, with the feedback provided to LGNZ informing this next step.

18. The 3 Waters project will: produce a series of best practice interventions focused on the business of providing water services; provide a tool for assessing service design; provide a forum for addressing the balance of cost versus outcome in relation to drinking water quality, and; develop a prioritised local government stormwater work programme.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

19. Engagement with Local Boards to obtain any feedback on these reports has not been possible, given the timeframes associated with the response.

20. However the views and concerns of Local Boards relevant to the three waters infrastructure are known from the Local Board Advisory Areas Report to the Budget Committee meeting on 5 November 2014. Of particular concern to Local Boards is the impact of stormwater on healthy waterways, which is also part of what the 3 Waters project seeks to address.

21. There will be further opportunities between now and December 2015 for engagement with Local Boards as the project progresses.

Maori Impact Statement

22. Specific engagement with Mana Whenua in relation to these documents and feedback on them has not been possible given the response timeframe.

23. However, the feedback document will be presented to the Watercare CCO Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in late January 2015 and also to the Auckland Council Kaitiaki Meeting in February 2015, for information.

24. Provision of this feedback is only one of the initial steps in the overall LGNZ project. Engagement will be undertaken throughout the remainder of the LGNZ project between now and December 2015.

Implementation Issues

25. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Feedback Response	67

Signatories

Authors

Tyler Sharratt, Sustainable Catchments Specialist

Susan Andrews, Sustainable Catchments Specialist

Authorisers

Harvey Brookes - Acting GM Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Development Committee

03 December 2014

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Special Housing Areas on Māori Land, Treaty Settlement Land and Māori Special Purpose Zoned Land

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Special Housing Areas Tranche 4 deferrals and new proposals

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Chairperson	Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Darby
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Dick Quax
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Member David Taipari
	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