Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:

· Unitary Plan

· Plan changes to operative plans

· Designation of Special Housing Areas

· Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

· Spatial Plans including Area Plans

· City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

· Tamaki regeneration projects

· Built Heritage

· Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.

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

11 June 2015

Proposed Plan Change 28 (PC28) Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To be made operative

File No.: CP2015/09608

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change (PC28) operative.

Executive Summary

2. PC28 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) was prepared to provide for a village growth node at Kingseat for approximately 5000 people. 250ha of land was rezoned at Kingseat by PC28 for: business, residential, light industrial, heritage, mixed use and recreational zones.

3. PC28 proposed design principles for Kingseat that would enable it to be developed as a compact and contained urban area of high amenity with a unique sense of place. Kingseat was to be characterised by connected areas of open space and to be a readily walkable village. PC28 was notified on 20 January 2011.

4. PC28 has been heard, decisions have been released and all appeals resolved through Environment Court assisted mediation. Appellants to PC28 included Auckland Transport, Kingseat Group (Pulin & Ors) and Ngati Tamaoho. On the 8May 2015 the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving all three appeals.

5. A copy of PC28 as amended by the Environment Court consent order is contained in Attachment A. PC28 can now be made operative.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve in accordance with the consent orders issued by the Environment Court, Plan Change 28 (Kingseat) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) authorise the Manager Planning South to complete the statutory processes required under Clause 20 to the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, to make Proposed Plan Change 28 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative, including the determination of the operative and notification date.

Comments

6. PC28 proposed changes to the Franklin District Plan, now referred to as the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section), to allow for urban growth at Kingseat Village for an expanded population of approximately 5000 people.

7. PC28 formed part of a district wide strategic approach to growth management in the rural and coastal parts of the former Franklin District. Kingseat was identified within this strategic approach as a potential growth node. Structure planning was undertaken to provide for an expanded Kingseat. Key elements of PC28 included: the rezoning of approximately 250 ha of land for residential, lifestyle living, business and recreational land use. Kingseat was to be expanded on the basis that the settlement would be developed with the ability to easily walk and cycle.

8. PC28 was notified on 20 January 2011. A hearing for PC28 was held and decisions on submissions were released in July 2013. PC28 amends the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) topics that relate to village zones, village growth management, subdivision, cultural heritage and the Kingseat Special Purpose Zone.

9. 3 appeals were received to PC28 on a range of topics. These appeals were received from Ngati Tamaoho, Auckland Transport and the Kingseat Group. Ngati Tamaoho opposed Plan Change 28 on the basis of concerns around further urbanisation of the scale proposed at Kingseat within its rohe. Ngati Tamaoho were particularly concerned about the potential impact of stormwater and waste water on the Tangata Whenua Management Area associated with the Whatapaka Creek (see the Maori Impact Statement below). Auckland Transport appealed PC28 on the basis of concerns surrounding the provision, co-ordination and funding of roading infrastructure. Kingseat Group appealed PC28 provisions relating to heritage, waste water and the reuse of scheduled buildings at the Kingseat Hospital site.

10. Workshops were held with Ngati Tamaoho on possible approaches to managing stormwater and the disposal of wastewater. Through a consultative approach consensus was able to be reached with Ngati Tamaoho around these issues. Discussions with Auckland Transport on provisions to ensure the coordination, funding and timing of road improvements resulted in agreement being reached on these matters. Discussions were also held with the Kingseat Group which focussed on the possible activities that could be accommodated in existing heritage buildings at the Kingseat Hospital site. Agreement was reached both on the range of activities considered compatible with heritage values at the site and the appropriate resource consent status for assessment of future development proposals.

11. All three of the appeals were settled by negotiation. On 8 May 2015 the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving the appeals. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of PC28. Council can now approve PC28 to be made fully operative.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC28 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified of PC28 becoming operative and have been kept updated on progress regarding the resolution of the appeals.

Māori impact statement

13. The Kingseat plan change area contains ancient and modern pa sites and is rich in archaeology. The area is characterised by Urupa and middens. The presence of extensive archaeological resources has been detected within a 50 metre lineal length along the edge of the Whatapaka Creek and within the Kingseat plan change area.

14. Historically, the Kingseat area has been characterised as an area populated by a significant Maori population. Whatapaka (Clarks) Creek sits adjacent and to the west of the Kingseat plan change area. It has long been a traditional hunting and gathering area used by Maori for food resources. Furthermore, Whatapaka Creek has been gazetted as Maori reservation for the purpose of a landing place, fishing ground catchment area, bathing place and a place of historic, spiritual and cultural significance for the common use and benefit of the hapu of Whatapaka Marae o Tainui. It is also only one of two locations in the Auckland region identified in the Auckland Coastal Plan as a Tangata Whenua Management Area. Land use adjacent the Whatapaka Creek has the potential to significantly affect the cultural values associated with this waterway.

15. Cultural impact assessments were undertaken to assist decision making and take into account the matters of concern to iwi. A cultural impact assessment by Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Tamaoho was commissioned to build on an earlier cultural impact assessment prepared by Ngati Te Ata to address issues raised by iwi on PC28 in the submission process.

16. Ngati Tamaoho was opposed to the further urbanization of the Kingseat area and the associated effects it foresaw on the local environment. Ngati Tamaoho had concerns that urbanization would adversely impact on its ability to continue traditions such as fishing and food gathering. The Whatapaka inlet has been used to provide food resources for the hosting of visitors to the Marae, which has included on regular occasions the Maori King.

17. Ngati Tamaoho held concerns that storm water discharges would adversely impact shellfish beds and that waste water discharge into the Whatapaka Creek would make the use of this waterway for fishing and food gathering culturally unacceptable. Other concerns associated with PC28 raised during the council hearing process by Ngati Tamaoho included disturbance of a nearby godwit roosting ground from recreational activity associated with an enlarged Kingseat.

18. Auckland Council stormwater staff have held a number of workshops with Ngati Tamaoho and have been able to incorporate stormwater provisions in PC28 which resolved Iwi concerns regarding the possible impact of stormwater on the Whatapaka Creek. Watercare and Ngati Tamaoho have agreed to modified provisions in PC28 which would preclude any discharge of waste water into the Whatapaka Creek. Consequently, Ngati Tamaoho has now accepted a set of modified PC28 provisions.

General

19. Declaring PC28 operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process for the Plan Change.

Implementation

20. The recommendation to make PC28 operative is consistent with Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

21. Pursuant to clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, Council can now approve PC28 and once approved, publicly notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

22. There will be some administrative costs involved in making the PC28 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section). These costs can be accommodated within the Plans and Places Department’s budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kingseat Provisions (PC28) Including Provisions Declared as being Resolved by the Environment Court (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer (at the time of authorisation)

Auckland Development Committee

11 June 2015

Request to Extend the Time Limit for Proposed Plan Change 35 (Puhinui Gateway) to Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section)

File No.: CP2015/10051

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to extend the time limit for processing Private Plan Change 35 (PPC35) Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) under section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as sought by the applicant, Southern Gateway Consortium.

Executive Summary

2. Private Plan Change 35 (PPC35) Puhinui Gateway lodged by the Southern Gateway Consortium (SGC), seeks to rezone 150ha of rural land in the Puhinui area located outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL)/Rural Urban Boundary for business activities. The applicant also requested the council to promulgate an extension to the MUL to include the private plan change area.

3. PPC35 was notified in July 2013. Clause 10(4) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires a local authority, in this case Auckland Council, to issue its decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions to a private plan change, no later than two years after the notification date of the plan change. Clause 10(4) of Schedule 1 also permits the council to extend a time limit set in it, guided by Section 37A of the Act.

4. As PPC35 was notified on 19 July 2013, a decision by the council on provisions and matters raised in submissions in relation to PPC35 is required by 19 July 2015. In view of outstanding matters relating to PPC35, including the issue of the MUL/Rural Urban Boundary, which are being progressed through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process, a decision by the council will not be possible by 19 July 2015. The SGC has therefore requested the council to grant an extension of time in terms of section 37 to enable the plan change process to be able to continue (refer to Attachment A).

5. It is considered appropriate that the time limit for PPC35 be extended by two years, thereby requiring a decision on PPC35 to be notified by 19 July 2017, unless the SGC withdraws PPC35 prior to that time.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) agree to grant, pursuant to Section 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991, an extension of time for Private Plan Change 35 to 19 July 2017.

Discussion

Private Plan Change 35 And The Puhinui Structure Plan

6. PPC35 was lodged by the Southern Gateway Consortium (SGC) and seeks to rezone 150ha of land currently zoned for rural purposes in the Puhinui area for business activities. The plan change area is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) and the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). The applicant also requested the Council to promulgate an extension to the MUL to include the private plan change area. Consents relating to stormwater were lodged concurrently with PPC35 and notified separately.

7. In March 2013, the council’s Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) accepted PPC35 for public notification. However, the Committee deferred its decision to promulgate a change to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) to shift the MUL until a master planning process for the Puhinui area located outside the MUL had been undertaken. This was to ensure an integrated planning approach for the Puhinui area as a whole (refer to Attachment B). The intent of the master planning process was to determine whether the wider Puhinui area or parts thereof should be included within the RUB in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). PPC35 was publically notified in May 2013 and as a result of an administrative error, renotified on 19 July 2013. Thirty six submissions and five further submissions to PPC35 were received

8. In February 2014 the Auckland Development Committee was updated on progress on the master planning process and approved the preparation of a structure plan for the Puhinui area (including the PPC 35 area), to inform the council position on the future land use and to provide a development framework for the whole of the structure plan area. The ADC also reconfirmed that any decision regarding a change to the MUL/RUB in response to PPC35 would not occur until the structure planning process had been completed.

9. The ADC was updated on progress in October 2014 and again in May 2015. The structure plan process which has involved all key stakeholders in the area, including the SGC, is now well advanced. The council intends to present a package of planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan area to the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) towards the end of 2015 as part of the PAUP hearings process. This would include any changes to the RUB, a phasing plan and a funding framework for infrastructure delivery. The IHP route is considered an appropriate option as it will ensure an integrated planning outcome for the entire Puhinui area, including the Southern Gateway Consortium’s private plan change area of 150 ha, and address issues raised in submissions.

Request For Time Extension And Justification For The Extension

10. As PPC35 was notified on 19 July 2013, a decision by the council on provisions and matters raised in submissions in relation to PC35 is required by 19 July 2015. In view of the outstanding matters relating to PPC35 which although being progressed, have not been completely resolved, the development of the Puhinui structure plan and the current stage of the PAUP process, a decision by the council will not be possible by 19 July 2015.

11. While the SGC is not averse to its plan change being considered as part of the PAUP hearings process as outlined above, it has indicated that it does not intend to withdraw PPC35 and may still wish to pursue this avenue to obtain a decision on the plan change. A hearing on PPC35 later this year which would be separate from the PAUP hearings process, is therefore still a possibility although its timing is as yet uncertain. For this reason, the SGC is seeking an extension of the time limit for PPC35.

12. Clause 10(4) of the First Schedule of the Act requires a local authority, in this case Auckland Council, to issue its decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions to a private plan change, no later than two years after the notification date of the plan change. Clause 10(4) of Schedule 1 also permits the council to extend a time limit set in it, guided by Section 37A of the Act.

Matters To Be Considered

13. Section 37A specifies that the extension of time limits must not have the effect of more than doubling the maximum time period specified in the Act, unless a longer period is requested by the applicant and agreed to by the local authority. However, in order to decide whether to extend a timeframe, the local authority must take into account Section 37A of the RMA, namely:

· the interests of any person who, in its opinion, may be directly affected by the extension or waiver;

· the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of a proposal, policy statement or plan; and

· its duty under section 21 to avoid unreasonable delay

14. It is considered that the interests of submitters and members of the public will not be adversely affected and that the process to date has permitted many issues raised with respect to PPC35 to be addressed.

15. Considerable work has been undertaken since the notification of PPC35 to address anticipated effects of the proposal. The extension of time would contribute to the achievement of a better assessment of effects especially in regard to understanding the implications across the Puhinui structure plan area.

16. Progressing the PPC35 process, the Puhinui structure plan and the PAUP has been ongoing and the need to extend the limit of PPC35 has not been due to unreasonable delays by any of the parties involved but rather due to the complexity of both the Puhinui area itself as well as the plan processes involved. The decision to undertake a comprehensive approach to planning in the Puhinui area will result in optimal long term outcomes for this key part of Auckland.

17. It is considered appropriate that the time limit for PPC35 be extended by two years, thereby requiring a decision on PPC35 to be notified by 19 July 2017, unless PPC35 was withdrawn by the SGC prior to that time.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. The extension of time sought is a statutory matter not requiring consultation with local boards. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board have been kept informed of progress on the Puhinui structure plan work and the state of play on PPC35. Any decision reached on this issue will be provided to both local boards as information.

Māori impact statement

19. As part of the statutory notification of PPC35, the iwi groups notified were:

· Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Te Ara Rangatu o Ngati Te Ata o Waiohua

· Te Ahiwaru

· Ngati Tamoho Trust

· Waikato Tainui Te Kauhangaui Inc

· Huakina Development Trust

· Ngati Maru Rununga

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngati Tamatera

· Ngati Whanaunga

· Ngati Whatua Orakei

· Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

· Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust Board

20. The council is working on the related Puhinui structure plan in partnership with Te Akitai Waiohua. Updates have been provided to other iwi, some of whom have attended workshops relating to the Puhinui structure plan.

Implementation

21. This will include the tasks associated with the drafting of provisions for the Puhinui structure plan area, any associated changes to the RUB, a development phasing plan and a funding framework for infrastructure delivery. It will also include engagement with stakeholders and submitters on a without prejudice and without commitment basis as well as the presentation of the proposals to the IHP as part of the PAUP hearings programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Application letter to Auckland Council received from Bully Gully	23
b View	Location map_Puhinui structure plan area and Private Plan Change 35 area	27

Signatories

Authors

Marc Dendale - Team Leader Planning - South

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer (at the time of authorisation)

Auckland Development Committee

11 June 2015

Proposed Private Plan Change 79 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section 2005) Relating to the Zoning of Queen Elizabeth Square, Auckland Central

File No.: CP2015/10106

Purpose

1. To make decisions on a request for a private plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section 2005) submitted by Precinct Properties Downtown Limited (“Precinct”) under Clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management 1991 (“the Act”) and relating to the planning provisions applicable to Queen Elizabeth Square (“the square” or the subject land”).

Executive Summary

2. Precinct has made a private plan change request (refer to Attachment A to this report) to the Council for the modification of the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section 2005) (“the district plan”). The outcome behind the request is to provide development potential on the Queen Elizabeth Square land and allow it to be incorporated in surrounding development. The request is referenced as PA 79 and proposes to change the District Plan as follows (refer to Attachment B):

· Amend Planning Overlay Maps 1-7

· Amend the text of Part 6 – Development Controls (multiple additions to the text)

· Amend Figure 14.2 (Central Area open space facilities and locations) by removing the ‘Existing Public Open Space’, ‘Pedestrian Routes / Open Spaces to be enhanced’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth Square’ text from the subject land.

· Amend Figure 14.2A.6 (Concept Plan – Queen Elizabeth Square) by removing the concept plan from the subject land.

· Amend the text of Part 14.2A.8.7

3. The plan change request relates to land currently owned and managed by Auckland Council but is subject to a conditional sale agreement pending road closure and the change of zone to city centre zone to provide development potential on the Queen Elizabeth Square land. The Council in its regulatory capacity is required to consider a private plan change request even if the applicant is not the owner of the land and this matter is not a determinant on the plan change being accepted for processing by Council. Any agreement relating to the sale of the subject land to Precinct is part of a separate process to this plan change request.

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

5. The Council is must now determine:

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

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

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

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

7. A decision to notify the plan change request does not involve the Council’s consideration of the merits of the request, and 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 request.

8. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted, and that it be publicly notified.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) resolve pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 to accept for notification the private plan change request (PA 79) by Precinct Properties Downtown Limited to amend the Auckland Council District Plan, Operative Auckland City – Central Area Section 2005, by deleting the Public Open Space 1 zone from Queen Elizabeth Square, and replacing it with the Pedestrian-Orientated Activity Area notation; and that the request be publicly notified in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule to the Act for the following reasons:

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

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

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

iv) the level of detail contained in the request is suitable for a plan change request, and while there is a resource consent lodged for development of the site at present, the plan change request will provide certainty to the applicant, the Council and the public as to the future form of development of the subject land.

b) authorise the Manager Planning: Central and Islands to notify Plan Change 79 in accordance with clause 26 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991

Comments

Background

9. The land subject to the plan change request is part of what is commonly known as Queen Elizabeth Square. It is located on the western side of Lower Queen Street in downtown Auckland, and is comprised in a single, rectangular shaped lot with an area of approximately 1,892m².

10. Auckland Transport began the process of designating the land running underneath the square as part of the City Rail Link project. At approximately the same time, Precinct purchased the Downtown Shopping Centre and HSBC Building (in addition to the Zurich Building which they already owned).

11. The ownership arrangements on the block provided an opportunity for the comprehensive redevelopment of the block, and Precinct and Auckland Council subsequently commenced discussions on possible development options. The Council provided their agreement in principle for the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square (Auckland Development Committee resolution dated 15 May 2014), and in September 2014 agreed to sell the land to Precinct, subject to the outcome of commercial negotiations and the required public processes (including this plan change request).

12. The development proposals prepared by Precinct Properties and discussed with the Council to date include development over Queen Elizabeth Square. Those plans have been progressed to the point where a resource consent application has now been lodged with the Council for an office tower, including north-south and east-west pedestrian connections at ground level.

13. The plan change request seeks to establish a planning framework for the development of Queen Elizabeth Square, which necessitates the rezoning of the land to provide development potential, and appropriate development controls that will ultimately shape the design of any such development.

14. It is noted that the specific details of the plan change request are similar to the notified provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and / or those changes being discussed to the notified provisions through the hearing process.

Site description

15. The site comprises of a rectangular public open space (Queen Elizabeth Square) of 1,892m² and opening onto the footpath of Lower Queen Street to its eastern side, and bounded by the HSBC Building to the north, Downtown Shopping Centre to the west, the Zurich Building to the south. A significant free-standing bus shelter sits along the full extent of the footpath along the eastern edge of the block.

Image taken from AEE (Page 5) supporting the private plan change request

16. The topography of the site is generally flat but has a gentle slope towards the north east. The surface of the square is constructed from red and yellow paving bricks with concrete edging. The northern part of the site includes an area of approximately 300m² of hard landscaping planted with 17 juvenile Kauri trees. The trees are the only vegetation on the site.

17. A sculpture, ‘Te Ahi Kaa Roa’ by Ngati Whatua Tamaki occupies the southern part of the square. A portal to an underground pedestrian tunnel beneath Lower Queen Street and connecting the square with the Britomart Transport Centre is located on the eastern edge of the site.

Plan change requests

18. The plan change request seeks the following amendments to the Auckland Council District Plan, (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section 2005):

· Amend the relevant planning maps to:

o Planning Overlay Map 1: Delete the ‘Public Open Space 1 precinct’ from the subject land

o Planning Overlay Map 2: Add the ‘Pedestrian-Orientated activity area’ to the subject land

o Planning Overlay Map 3: Add the ‘Special Height Control Only’ notation to the subject land

o Planning Overlay Map 5: Add the 6:1 BFAR and 13:1 MTFAR notations to the subject land

o Planning Overlay Map 6: Delete scheduled item ‘353’ from the subject land

o Planning Overlay Map 7: Delete the ‘Pedestrian Mall’ notation from the site

o Delete the ‘Queen Elizabeth Square’ text from all seven Planning Overlay Maps.

· Amend the text of Part 6 – Development Controls (multiple additions to the text)

· Amend Figure 14.2A.6 (Concept Plan – Queen Elizabeth Square) by removing the concept plan from the subject land.

· Amend the text of Part 14.2A.8.7

19. Precinct consider the request for private plan change to be the most appropriate means of providing the form and density of development to give effect to the purpose of the Act.

Statutory considerations

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

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

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

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

(2) The local authority may either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. The above quoted statutory matters are considered in the following section.

Determination as to whether the private plan change request should be accepted or rejected

a) Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

26. The plan change request seeks that a ‘Pedestrian-Orientated activity area’ notation replace the ‘Public Open Space 1 precinct’ notation. Included with the plan change request is comprehensive analysis reports from expert consultants recognised in their field of expertise. While the content and conclusions are open for dispute as part of the submissions and evaluation process, the opinions held, which support the plan change, are not considered to be ‘frivolous or vexatious’.

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?

27. The specific zoning relating to the application sites has not been considered by the Council or the Environment Court within the last two years. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is currently progressing through the hearings stage, however, as the plan is not operative it cannot be said to have “been considered and given effect to or rejected by the Council or the Environment Court within the last two years”. Therefore, the Council cannot reject the request under this clause.

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

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

29. In this case, the request would see the provisions that currently apply to the adjacent developed land be applied to the subject site, as well as some new site-specific 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 requests. A complete review and assessment of these still needs to be carried out by the Council and this will occur following its notification.

30. Accordingly, it is concluded that the scope and extent of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the Act 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?

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

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

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

33. 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 Act. The Council’s options to reject it are limited by the Act. If the committee accepts the proposed private plan change for notification, it does not mean that the Council, in its regulatory capacity, has pre-determined the merits of the plan change.

34. On the basis of this conclusion, Clause 25(2) to (3) inclusive gives the Council the options of:

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

ii Accepting the requests in whole or part; or

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

Option 1:

35. If the Council adopts the private plan change requests, it is promoting the proposed changes. The proposed private plan change request is a private initiative of the applicant, albeit with the general support of the Council as part of commercial negotiations being undertaken between the two parties. Given the size and extent of the request and the nature of the land included, 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:

36. 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 changes and all submissions on it from the wider community and can then proceed to make its decision to approve, approve with modifications, or reject the 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 changes would generally fall on the applicant.

Option 3:

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

Conclusion

38. It is therefore recommended that the Council select option 2 and accepts the proposed private plan change request for public notification.

Notification

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

Significance of Decision

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

Consultation

41. The applicant has undertaken consultation with Auckland Council and its CCOs, Iwi and Mana Whenua on several occasions, and with Heritage New Zealand. The full details of consultation are included in the plan change request documents and supporting information.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

42. The Waitemata Local Board (local board) have been informed of the receipt of the plan change request and briefed on the details of the request and the plan change process.

43. Overall, the local board supports this private plan change request being accepted by the Council so that it can go through the statutory planning process to allow the public to submit on the proposed zoning. The comments provided by the local board are appended at Attachment C. The local board also posed some questions to Council’s planners and answers will be provided to these questions directly to the board prior to the Auckland Development Committee (June 2015) meeting. These are matters of content in the proposed plan change request and do not hinder further consideration of the request through the statutory process.

44. The local board will continue to be updated about the status of the plan change request throughout the process.

Māori impact statement

45. The applicant has consulted with 13 interested iwi in the area, details of which have been documented in the application. Those iwi who attended meetings in November and October 2014 include:

· Ngati Whatua o Orakei

· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki

· Ngati Paoa

· Ngati Maru

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

46. Iwi have also been involved in strategic planning and local place-making initiatives led by Auckland Council and / or their CCOs, and relating the sale and future use of the square.

47. Further engagement with iwi is being focused through the CRL works affecting the QE Square land as required in the CRL designation.

48. Iwi will be notified of the plan change and will have the ability to make submissions.

Implementation

Financial and resourcing implications

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Private Plan Change PA79 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Copy of proposed rules (Appendix 2 of the Plan Change Request) (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Waitemata Local Board Feedback (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Hannah Thompson - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer (at the time of authorisation)

Auckland Development Committee

11 June 2015

Housing for Older Persons

File No.: CP2015/10493

Purpose

1. To approve a mandate for Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) to engage with the Community Housing sector (“the first stage”) to explore a “partnership” model/approach to the delivery of accommodation for older persons in Auckland.

Executive Summary

2. Informed by work undertaken jointly with Auckland Council Property Department (ACPD) and Community Development Arts and Culture (CDAC), the report follows on from the workshop held with the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) on 17 April 2015.

3. ADC was generally supportive of the proposed objectives and two-stage process proposed.

4. Stage 1 is the securing of a community housing partner and agreeing the terms, structure and operating parameters of the partnership, for final approval by council, including the proposed engagement with development partners as part of stage 2.

5. Stage 2 (post-1 July 2016) – This stage will be ongoing as the partnership engages with the development industry to physically deliver the service improvements and growth of the portfolio consistent with the partnership objectives.

6. Auckland Council currently owns 1,412 Housing for Older Persons (HfOP) rental units and facilitates ownership, through ground lease, of 150 units known as own-your-own units (OYO). The portfolio, excluding OYO, is spread around the city in 62 villages covering 26ha.

7. A review of the portfolio has identified significant redevelopment potential that could potentially double the provision of housing, including social housing.

8. Redevelopment will offer significant opportunities to deliver on Council’s Housing Action Plan and ACPL’s SOI objectives associated with housing, affordability, intensification and town centre regeneration.

9. A partnership approach will continue to deliver the accommodation service to existing tenants who are most vulnerable but will do so within a business model that will protect and provide more certainty to existing tenants, reduce costs to ratepayers and deliver improved service levels.

10. A key driver for securing a partner/s is that it will provide Council access to government income-related rent subsidies (IRRS), estimated at $38 million over the first 10 years, remove significant costs from Council in maintenance and refurbishment and unlock commercial and strategic value from sub-optimum assets.

11. ACPL has held a number of discussions with the community housing sector as well as other key players in the elderly/social housing market, who are generally in support of the two-stage process proposed by ACPL.

12. ACPL is seeking ADC/Council approval of the high level objectives and two-step process to secure partner/s in the provision of HfOP in Auckland as outlined in this report. If approved, the next steps are:

i) Stage 1 - ACPL to initiate an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to secure a shortlist of potential Community Housing Provider (CHPs) partner/s, with experience and asset/tenancy management service capability.

ii) Preferred partner and ACPL to refine the partnership offer and next stage of the process including role of the parties, treatment of assets, partnership vehicle, preferred process to secure development capability etc. after a more detailed assessment of the HfOP portfolio has been completed.

iii) ADC/council to approve the recommended partnership model following the EOI and assessment/dialogue process with the preferred partner/s.

iv) Council to undertake public consultation early in 2016 to address any requirements under the “significance” policy.

v) Council to approve the final partnership details prior to the end of the 2015/16 financial year

vi) Council/ACPL/partnership move to staged implementation effective 1 July 2016.

vii) Stage 2 (Ongoing post-1 July 2016) – Partnership to progressively engage with the market to improve service standards and grow the portfolio consistent with the approved objectives and agreed partnership model.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve the objectives for the Housing for Older Persons partnership approach, as outlined in the agenda report.

b) authorise Auckland Council Property Limited, in liaison with council, Auckland Council Property Department and Community Development Arts and Culture, and in accordance with the approved objectives in clause a), to:

i) seek a Community Housing Provider that will partner with council to deliver Housing for Older Persons (HfOP) services.

ii) negotiate the proposed terms, structure and operating parameters (Stage 1), including the basis upon which the partnership will seek development services (Stage 2).

iii) identify issues and implications for council that will form part of any requirement and/or proposal to consult with the community on the partnership proposal that will form part of the Annual Plan consultation process in early 2016.

c) request Auckland Council Property Limited to report back to the Auckland Development Committee prior to the end of 2015, with recommendations in respect to clause b).

Comments

Social housing context

13. In 2013, the government made a number of changes to the way social housing is provided in New Zealand – the social housing reform programme. The programme has introduced a new basis for the Government’s contribution to rent paid by low-income qualifying tenants – the income-related rents subsidy (IRRS).

14. As part of the reform programme, the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) is now the single purchaser of government-funded social housing. Its role is to provide support for people with serious housing needs for the duration of their need, integrating housing assistance with other social assistance delivered by MSD.

15. MSD released information in April 2015 on how and where it expects to fund social housing tenancies. This identifies Auckland as an area of high unmet need where MSD intends to increase purchasing over the next 2-3 years as follows:

Area:	Additional housing to purchase:
Auckland	710
Manukau	550
North Shore	90
Waitakere	330
Papakura	90
Franklin	30
Rodney	10
TOTAL:	1810 (including 730 1 bedroom units)

16. The IRRS scheme only applies to new tenants placed by MSD in housing which is owned or operated by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP).

17. Legislation is currently before the House which will enable MSD to enter into long-term contracts with providers to purchase some of the new places in Auckland. At the moment MSD cannot guarantee how many places they will purchase from any particular CHP.

18. The community housing sector in New Zealand is small, owning or managing around 5,000 properties in total. The average portfolio is 124 properties, however many are much smaller than this. Despite the sector currently being small, it is now well organised and has a strong vision to grow overall provision across New Zealand from current levels of around 15,000 people in community housing to 50,000 people by 2020.

19. Approximately 2 per cent (1,050 dwellings) of Auckland’s overall supply of social housing is supplied by the community housing sector.

20. It is noted that of the 2,337 applications currently on the housing register for IRRS 32 per cent are Māori.

Strategic context

21. The Council Housing Action Plan identified two key actions associated with HfOP:

Action 5 - Enable redevelopment on existing Council Housing for the Elderly sites while maintaining at least the existing number of units for older people in the Council property portfolio.

Action 9 - Use existing Council-owned housing stock to help grow the Community Housing Sector by investigating the management options of Council-owned housing stock including transfer of assets to existing community housing providers or forming a specialist housing provider for older people.

22. ACPL’s SOI has the following relevant element within the strategic framework:

ACPL contributes exemplar housing developments to increase the supply of housing in Auckland, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market, working with partners.

Council’s HfOP portfolio

23. Council owns 1,412 HfOP rental units and facilitates ownership, through ground lease, of 150 units known as own-your-own units (OYO). The portfolio is managed by ACPD and CDAC .

24. It is anticipated that the treatment of the OYO units will add some complications to the proposed process and may, as part of a further analysis, be excluded from the partnership and form part of some future consideration and recommendation to council.

25. The HfOP stock, excluding OYOs, is made up of 62 villages of contiguous bedsits and one bedroom units in a medium density social housing setting. The purpose of the housing is to ‘support ageing in place by providing affordable housing for Auckland seniors with a housing need”.

26. The properties are unevenly distributed across the city, with rental units concentrated in the South (686), North (458) and West (268). The majority of OYO units are in the Central area (83), followed by North (37), South (18) and West (12).

27. The properties are not contiguous (although may lie adjacent to other Council land) and occupy over 26ha in total.

28. $38 MILLION has been set aside in the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan (LTP) for refurbishment. A portion of the portfolio has been refurbished between 2006 and 2010 by legacy councils using the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s Housing Innovation Funding, which has implications for the manner in which council can deal with these particular assets and this will be addressed through the dialogue with the preferred partner.

29. An assessment, taking into account the current unit size, internal construction, location and other material criteria, suggests that a significant portion (41per cent) of the portfolio is not fit for purpose.

The opportunity

30. Council’s HfOP portfolio offers a material contribution to the supply of affordable and accessible social housing in Auckland. However, the portfolio is capable of delivering significantly more housing units with a bias to affordability, a process that can also assist in growing the social housing sector.

31. Redevelopment of the portfolio will offer ACPL significant opportunities to deliver on actions identified in the Housing Action Plan as well as SOI objectives associated with housing, affordability, intensification and town centre regeneration.

32. The portfolio is of sufficient scale to attract capable partners, with management and development capability.

33. A key driver for securing a partner/s is to provide council access to government IRRS:

i) MSD’s purchasing intentions indicate a reasonable level of alignment with council’s current portfolio. The IRRS, available from Government, is estimated at approximately $4 million p.a. phased in over 10 years. The cumulative value to ratepayers is estimated at $38 million over the first 10 years.

ii) However, the eligibility for this subsidy is subject to government criteria and funding availability. One of the criteria to be eligible for registration as a CHP is that it must not be a local authority, a Council-controlled Organisation (CCO) or the subsidiary of a CCO unless the subsidiary is operating at arm’s length from the local authority or CCO. Indications from government are that if council-owned 49 per cent or less of the subsidiary it would comply with the criteria.

iii) It would be proposed as part of the partnership considerations/negotiations that government advice would be specifically sought in respect of the application of the IRRS to the portfolio going forward.

34. The opportunity exists for council to:

i) Reshape the portfolio to better meet the needs of tenants and deliver improved levels of service through phased development/refurbishment activity.

ii) Reinvest funds released from developing those areas of the portfolio determined as currently not “fit for purpose” into suitable older persons and/or affordable housing.

iii) Invest external funds (such as the IRRS and non-ratepayer capital funding such as grants) into refurbishments and replacements that deliver “fit for purpose” older persons and/or affordable housing

iv) Derive commercial and community benefit from potentially consolidating the portfolio with a CHP.

v) Grow the social/affordable housing portfolio.

Draft objectives

35. In seeking to deliver HfOP through a partnership approach, the following are the key objectives:

i) Maintain at least the current level of older adult provision and/or social housing and protect that number permanently as accessible and affordable rental options.

ii) Ensure that current tenants and any council obligations/commitments inform the operating parameters for the partnership.

iii) Maintain at least the current place management level of service.

iv) Improve the average quality of the current stock, better matching need with provision, addressing the “fit for purpose” gap and lowering ongoing operating costs.

v) Seek opportunities in the longer-term to assist in the growth of the social/affordable housing stock, improve the place management level of service provision and enable and grow the Community Housing sector.

vi) Materially contribute to Auckland Plan strategies, such as intensification and housing, by significantly increasing the number of housing units across the partnership portfolio, catering for older persons, mixed tenure and with a bias towards more affordable options.

vii) Maximise opportunities to access non-ratepayer operational funding such as the IRRS and non-ratepayer capital funding such as grants to achieve objectives, and remain within the LTP funding envelope.

viii) Adopt a measured approach to implementation of any new model that minimises disruption to tenants, optimises the role and value that council/ACPL and a partner can contribute, and ensures that required financial and strategic returns are delivered from any development activity consistent with these objectives within a sustainable business model.

ix) Ensure the legitimacy of the procurement process that gives certainty to potential partners to engage with council and ACPL in a meaningful way.

Partnership procurement process

36. To achieve these objectives, in particular to access the IRRS and tenancy management services, ACPL is proposing to undertake the following two-stage engagement process with the market:

i) Stage 1 – Secure Community Housing Partnership - Seek a CHP/s and agree/define the basis upon which the parties will enter into a partnership arrangement, undertake the assessment of the portfolio opportunities, selection and treatment of assets, commercial partnership arrangements and the procedures associated with securing the future development partner/s.

ii) Stage 2 (Ongoing post 1 July 2016) – Secure development partner/s to deliver future development opportunities. This may involve multiple approaches to developers with discrete development packages over a number of years or the securing of a “master developer” along the lines of Hobsonville Point or some other method, including an oversight role for ACPL/Development Auckland.

Proposed partnership approach – EOI & key issues

37. The determination of an appropriate partnership structure is the subject of professional advice still to be received, however the following is relevant to the consideration:

i) The approach proposed by ACPL has been extensively canvassed with the Community Housing sector and other older persons/social housing providers across the delivery spectrum.

ii) The assets of the council will form the primary initial capital base and the relationship between the council, via ACPL, and the assets and/or any future capital contributions need to be protected in a formal way via share structures and/or restricted voting rights or some other mechanism. This is the subject of professional advice currently awaited in terms of paragraph 48 below.

iii) The partnership structure needs to deliver a sustainable business model to the partners that will meet the objectives of the council as laid down, recognise the asset contribution and/or any introduced capital of the council and meet the objectives of the partner.

iv) The partnership will deliver both tenancy and asset management services independent of the council.

v) No further funding need is identified beyond that which is already indicated in the 2015 LTP.

vi) The structure must receive any IRRS or other grant funding that will assist in the delivery of the objectives.

vii) It is likely that the structure will be “financially closed”, such that development returns, IRRS receipts, grant funding as well as operating revenue and expenses will all circulate to service, grow and improve the housing portfolio and the partnership capability.

38. The status of council’s existing tenants and any obligations/commitments that exist would need to be addressed and some “protection” agreed to ensure that the financial parameters to be applied to their ongoing occupancy or possible relocation in any partnership arrangement meet council objectives.

39. The manner of engagement with the private sector developers, their role and resources to be secured, and the treatment of development returns all need further consideration once the proposals of the CHPs are received and explored.

40. Redevelopment will likely deliver a combination of social and market housing and potentially mixed tenure – these matters could also influence the structure and approach to the development market.

41. It is likely that ACPL will continue to play a resource/directive role in the development space to ensure the wider strategic benefits to the council from redevelopment are addressed.

42. The partnership will formalise the approach to the development market that will seek expertise and capital to deliver the variety of development opportunities that will arise through the portfolio.

43. Key criteria for Community Housing Partners:

i) Registered Community Housing Providers or capable of registration

ii) Visions, values and business principles

iii) Financial capability/history including current operational and capital funding model.

iv) Experience in the provision and management of social housing, including interface with government and other agencies.

v) Track record in the development of social housing. This criteria will depend on the procurement model for development proposed by the partner, or subsequently negotiated, which may include a role for Development Auckland going forward.

vi) Demonstrated experience in partnerships and ability to sustain long-term partnerships – private, NGO or public sector entities.

vii) Portfolio and asset management experience.

viii) Proposed partnership structure, including relationship between the structure and council assets and operating parameters.

Progress to date

44. A preliminary assessment of the HfOP portfolio, undertaken by Auckland Council Property Department, Community Development Arts and Culture and ACPL, indicated that significant challenges and opportunities exist within the portfolio.

45. ACPL management led a workshop with the ADC on 17 April 2015, which was supportive of the proposed objectives and process outlined above.

46. Dialogue is ongoing with government in respect of the application of the IRRS and the criteria and the certainty attached to it. The major issue is for Council to access the subsidy, which is a key driver to a change in delivery of this service via partners.

47. Dialogue with the industry and CHPs is ongoing to better refine the terms of the EOI that will offer the best opportunity to secure the delivery partner/s.

48. While there has been extensive discussion with Community Housing Providers further professional advice is currently being sought in respect of the following:

i) The appropriate business structure for the vehicle

ii) Substantive operating parameters that have regard to the relative skills, resources and assets of both parties

iii) Treatment of assets and protection of the respective capital contributions (via initial assets and any subsequent introduced capital) of the partners

iv) Process and parameters for either party to exit the partnership

v) Treatment of assets in respect of any windup or desire by either party to exit the partnership

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

49. Local Board views have not been sought in this respect. While there is likely to be some initial apprehension from existing tenants, the objectives set by council and the proposed approach is likely to be positive for local communities.

50. Benefits to local communities are seen as - delivering more certainty to the provision of the service, service levels are proposed to be improved, the housing stock will grow and the social housing sector will also grow further capacity.

Māori impact statement

51. The implication of the application of a partnership approach to delivering services, to a vulnerable sector of the Auckland community, is seen as positive for the reasons outlined above in 50. Of the 2,537 applications showing on the register as in Auckland Super City, 32 per cent show with main applicant being Māori (information provided by MSD 1 June 2015). By entering a partnership with a CHP, these applicants can be allocated to council’s housing portfolio.

52. Two substantive criteria to select a community housing partner are the ability of the partner to access the IRRS by being a registered Community Housing Provider and having the necessary experience in the provision of social housing, including tenancy and asset management.

53. The partnership approach also provides a significant opportunity for tribal authorities representing mana whenua interests, and urban Māori authorities to grow their role in provision of housing solutions for their people. An engagement plan will be developed, in consultation with Te Waka Angamua, to ensure that these organisations are aware of the opportunity and are encouraged to participate. This may be through partnerships with existing community housing providers who can supplement and complement the respective skills of both parties in some form of partnership proposal.

Implementation

54. The following are the substantive steps towards implementation

i) June 2015 - Formal approval from ADC confirming objectives and partnership approach to deliver improved older adult/social housing provision.

ii) June 2015 – Communication with tenants and council staff commences

iii) July 2015 (Stage 1) - ACPL prepares an initial Memorandum, based on council’s objectives, to enable an EOI process to secure a short-list of potential Community Housing Partners.

iv) August 2015 – ACPL assess EOI proposals, select a preferred partner/s and engages in constructive dialogue to refine terms of partnership, operating parameters, etc.

v) September 2015 - ADC is updated on options, partnership structures and any requirements of the partners and approves preferred option and any council requirements of the partner/s.

vi) June 2015 to October 2015 - ACPL/council undertake a further assessment of the portfolio to inform a more comprehensive view of the partnership offer and implementation strategy.

vii) October/November 2015 - ACPL, informed by the above assessment, selects a preferred partner/s, and confirms any statutory consultation requirements, if any, with council.

viii) End of 2015 – ACPL seeks approval from ADC as to the recommended approach, structures, preferred partner/s and public consultation requirements through the Annual Plan process.

ix) Early 2016 - Council undertakes public consultation through the Annual Plan process.

x) May 2016 - ACPL refines recommended approach based on public consultation feedback and submits final proposal to ADC for approval.

xi) 1 July 2016 (Stage 2) – Staged implementation commences.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Allan McGregor - Manager Property Asset Development

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive Officer - ACPL

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

11 June 2015

Auckland Development Committee - Proposed Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2015/10597

Purpose

1. To enable the committee to agree a twelve month forward work programme, to be reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

Executive Summary

2. This report recommends a 12-month forward work programme for the Auckland Development Committee (ADC). The purpose of the programme is to enable the committee to deliver on its priorities and to manage its workflow. It also provides direction to the advisory work that staff need to undertake to support that.

3. The work programme is part of a package of governance changes recently introduced across council committees. These include reducing the formal reporting of ‘information only’ items; increasing the chief executive’s financial delegations; and reducing the number of formal meetings of reporting committees to provide more time for focus on strategic priorities.

4. A proposed programme that aligns with the committee’s delegations and Long-term Plan (LTP) funding is attached at Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) agree to the work programme under Attachment A of the agenda report to guide the work of this committee over the next twelve months, noting that it will be updated monthly and reviewed approximately every six months.

Comments

5. The Auckland Development Committee (ADC) delegations state that the committee is responsible for “the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities.”

6. The delegations include a number of key responsibilities and powers which give effect to the above.

7. This report recommends a 12-month forward work programme for the ADC, to be reviewed on a six-monthly basis. The purpose of the programme is to enable the committee to ensure that it is delivering on its priorities and to manage its workflow.

8. The executive leadership team (ELT) has proposed that all committees should have agreed programmes by the end of 2015. Programmes for the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee and for Finance and Performance will be developed next, in July/August. This is part of a package of governance changes recently introduced to improve the quality of governance and supporting advice. These changes include:

· Ensuring that the majority of reports to committees require governance decisions, rather than being for information. The ADC committee now has a new standard report which provides an electronic link to non-confidential memos and workshop material distributed since the previous meeting to ensure that it is on the public record.

· Increasing the chief executive’s financial delegations which will help reduce reporting to committees.

· Reducing meeting frequency for reporting meetings to provide time for focus on strategic priorities and more opportunity for workshops. Regularly scheduled workshops will be used for a combination of briefings and to provide political guidance to the policy development process.

9. A draft work programme is attached (Attachment A). The draft programme includes an explanation of why the work is being undertaken, the committee decisions required, the fit with committee delegations and LTP implications. Note that new work not on the programme will be generated from time to time, but this should still be considered priority work by the committee. Staff will provide a brief justification for any work being reported that is not part of the programme.

10. The programme covers five categories of work that fit with the committee’s delegations:

11. Statutory

This includes approvals of Special Housing Areas (SHAs); recommendations regarding plan changes to operative plans; and the decisions in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

The current PAUP reporting is focused on the council’s position entering into mediation on more complex or controversial topics. The Unitary Plan Committee considers other topics. Note that the PAUP reports on this agenda are likely to be the last of these pre-mediation reports. The Independent Hearings Panel will report back with its recommendations in mid-2016 and the committee will need to decide whether to agree with the recommendations. The PAUP team may seek guidance on council’s position on various matters prior to this, depending on the outcomes of the next stages of the PAUP process.

12. Spatial Plans

These include area plans, master plans and Frameworks. The plans have multiple purposes including informing statutory processes and identifying infrastructure requirements. They also help guide public and private investment. City Centre Integration (CCI) has been charged with developing Frameworks for locations within its area of responsibility. Development Auckland will prepare master plans for approval by council for the major areas in which it operates.

Note that many spatial plans are approved by local boards who are responsible for local place-making. The plans considered by ADC are those which are strategically significant because they drive growth or other regional strategic priorities of the council. In these cases, local boards provide input to the plans.

13. Strategic Projects

Examples of these projects include the future of the Civic Administration Building, the Council’s Housing for Older Persons service and portfolio, and the Downtown Car Park. The projects often involve council assets that are under-utilised or not fit for purpose. There are opportunities to redevelop these to achieve strategic outcomes, or to realise value. The majority of these projects are being undertaken by Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL), often in conjunction with CCI. From September, Development Auckland will be responsible for the projects.

14. Long-term plans/programmes

These include the Future Port Study, agreed to by the Committee in May 2015, and the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS). The FULSS will help inform the timing of release of land that is zoned Future Urban in the PAUP. The draft work programme also includes an Affordable Housing Programme review. This is a currently a place holder for a piece of work that will be developed over the coming months.

15. There are also likely to be some other long-term plans, programmes or strategies added to the work programme at the next review. For example, the council has just completed its first Infrastructure Strategy and there is an opportunity to develop this further. As the Housing Accord and associated legislation enters its final year, there may be a need to consider what will replace it. Related to this is the work being undertaken by council and government on a possible Transport Accord.

16. Other

There are a range of other matters reported to the committee from time to time including submissions on topics within the committee’s delegation, and one-off pieces of work such as the recent review of the council’s consent processes in relation to development of sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi. These are difficult to programme as they arise out of committee resolutions or external processes.

17. There is an opportunity for the committee to consider whether there are any gaps in draft programme, or any projects that the committee does not consider a priority. However the draft programme mainly reflects commitments already made by the council and funded in the LTP. It also reflects ACPL’s Statement of Intent which will be approved by the end of June. Any significant new work would require assessment of LTP or Statement of Intent impacts.

18. In addition to the items on the programme there will be quarterly updates from the CCI team and quarterly updates on the Housing Strategic Action Plan. These will be scheduled for workshops, with an electronic link to presentation material provided in the following month’s ADC agenda within the new monthly “Summary of information memos and briefings” report.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The intention is that formally adopting committee work programmes will help to inform local board work programmes over time.

Māori impact statement

20. The projects and processes being reported to this committee will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported. The adoption of a forward work programme may inform the IMSB work programme.

Implementation

21. Once approved, a short report will be prepared for each agenda showing how the reports on the agenda align to the adopted work programme. Staff will review the programme approximately every six months and report to the committee with proposed changes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Development Committee Twelve Month Work Programme	51

Signatories

Authors	Catherine Syme – Chief Advisor, Deputy Mayor’s Office
Authorisers	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

11 June 2015

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 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

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