I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 13 August 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Auckland Development Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Dick Quax

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

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

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

 

7 August 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: Tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



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.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

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

·           Other 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.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

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     Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange                                                                      7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Reports Pending Status Update                                                                                  9

10        Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015                         17

11        Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document                       19

12        Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using Land for Housing Draft Report                                                                                                  25

13        Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3): Auckland Council’s Submission                                                                                                                   63  

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 65

C1       Confidential Reports Pending Status Update                                                          65

C2       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel - Historic/Special Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay 65

C3       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel - Viewshafts                                                                                                       66  

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Cr MP Webster and Cr SL Stewart have been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 7 July 2015, including the confidential section, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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       Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange

Purpose

1.       Ben Ross will address the committee in relation to the Manukau Interchange project.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      thank Ben Ross for his attendance and presentation.

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

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

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

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

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Reports Pending Status Update

 

File No.: CP2015/14971

 

Purpose

1.       To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary

2.       This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions from February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3.       This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in the confidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.

4.       The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information (Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the reports pending status update.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 13 August 2015

11

bView

Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme 2015/2016 - Augst 2015

13

      

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 





Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/15473

 

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to committee members since 7 July  2015.

Executive Summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following presentations were presented as follows:

·    5 August 2015 : Development Auckland

·    5 August 2015 : Britomart Precinct opportunities. The information was not available when the agenda went to print and will be available prior to the meeting.

4.       These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

5.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 13 August 2015.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

5 August 2015 : Development Auckland presentation (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document

 

File No.: CP2015/15462

 

Purpose

1.       To seek Auckland Development Committee approval for the release of Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document for public and stakeholder engagement, as the next step towards adoption of the Framework in late 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       Since 2005 Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council) has being working with relevant stakeholders, through the Aotea Quarter Plan 2007, to enhance the foundations of the Aotea Quarter and thereby its role as the arts, civic and cultural heart of the city centre and region.

3.       The Aotea Quarter Framework (the Framework) will seek to update and advance the strategic direction for the area set down in the Aotea Quarter Plan and more recently the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) 2012.  Reflecting the changing nature of the area and the transformation yet to occur, the Framework will provide the direction for the Quarter over the next 20 years. 

4.       The geographic coverage of the Framework area reflects the Quarter boundary set down in the CCMP 2012. This is more expansive than the previous Aotea Quarter Plan, extending beyond the core centred on Aotea Square to include the wider hinterland (see Attachment C - Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary).

5.       Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document (see Attachment A - Summary Document Text and Attachment B – Full Document) builds on the conversation with many of the key stakeholders and partners that has occurred over the first half of 2015.  It seeks to capture the main issues and opportunities affecting the area, presenting a strategic vision and set of future state outcomes alongside key ideas to be tested via the engagement process prior to the release of the final Framework in late 2015.  Specifically, the document reveals the opportunities for development and enhancement related to underutilised council group owned sites in the Quarter core, most notably the Civic Administration Building (CAB), 1 Greys Avenue and surrounds.

6.       Consultation from September 2015 will include further specific engagement with key stakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focus groups with key interests (residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general public consultation through Shape Auckland and social media.

7.       The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means of supporting Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL’s) parallel process of seeking private sector Expressions of Interest to invest in the refurbishment of the CAB and development of the surrounding land. (Auckland Development Committee Resolution number AUC/2015/148)

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the release of Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document for stakeholder and community engagement, subject to amendments or feedback from the meeting.

b)      authorise the delegation of any editorial changes to the Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document to the chair and deputy of the Auckland Development Committee.

 

Comments

8.       Preparation of the Framework is being co-ordinated by the council’s City Centre Integration team, which was established in 2014 as a means of coordinating the council group activity in the city centre and ensuring engagement with partners, key stakeholders and the public. The Framework will be a non-statutory plan that presents a 20-year strategic vision and direction for the Quarter.  It is intended to provide the context for council policy and strategy development, establish priorities for action and will inform future investment and decision-making. 

9.       The Aotea Quarter Plan 2007 established a strategic vision and set of objectives for the Aotea Quarter area as geographically defined at that time.  The Plan was translated into an Aotea Quarter Action Plan (2010-15), which established a detailed delivery programme.  Many significant schemes were delivered through the Action Plan, including the new Q Theatre and the upgrade of the Art Gallery, Aotea Square, Queen Street, Lorne Street, Khartoum Place and Bledisloe Lane, as well as many ‘soft’ initiatives aimed at furthering the identity of the area to reflect the vision and achieve greater place activation.

10.     The CCMP 2012 recognised that ongoing attention and investment was required in the Aotea Quarter to uplift and rejuvenate the vitality and vibrancy of the mid-city area and prepare it for the transformation set to occur as a consequence of the CRL Aotea Station. 

11.     The purpose of the Framework is to allow the council, its partners and stakeholders to reaffirm the strategic vision for the Quarter.  It is intended that the Framework is holistic in nature.  It will, however, have a particular focus on physical interventions, including opportunities to further improve the public realm and unlock the development potential of key development sites within the Quarter (predominantly council owned) that are capable of contributing to the overall vision. 

12.     The CCMP amended the Quarter boundary to extend beyond the Quarter core, reflecting the emerging importance of the hinterland to the overall vision (see Attachment C - Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary).

13.     Key factors identified in the CCMP 2012 that the Framework needs to respond to include:

a.   Identification of the area as a future development growth node associated with the CRL Aotea Station to be located in the heart of the Quarter.  The station, programmed to open in 2023, will stimulate an additional 73,000sqm of residential net floor area (1,825 additional residents) and 249,000sqm of commercial net floor area (12,450 additional workers) in the Quarter;

b.   Regional Facilities Auckland (‘RFA’), as owners and managers or the Aotea Centre and Aotea Square, plans to enhance the ‘arts and performance’ offer within and around the Aotea Centre.  Plans combine extensive renewals (building upgrade and ‘reskinning’) the existing Aotea Centre with expansion to include new rehearsal and practice spaces in an activated and accessible building;  

c.   Continued relocation of commercial office space from the Aotea Quarter to the waterfront and downtown area;

d.            Consolidation of many council staff in the Quarter in the 135 Albert Street building and the associated examination of potential future uses of the council’s land/property holdings in the area, most notably the CAB site, the South Town Hall (surface) car park accessed from Greys Avenue and the West Bledisloe surface car park (behind Bledisloe House);

e.   Ongoing investment by the two universities (University of Auckland and AUT) in the area in the form of new buildings.


14.     Since the release of the CCMP 2012, the following additional factors affecting the Quarter have emerged:

a.   A new regulatory planning framework for the Quarter through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan which deals with matters such as height limits and noise standards.

b.   The need for anchoring and growing the Quarter as the enduring home of the arts, culture and entertainment activities in light of the Auckland Theatre Company’s move to Wynyard Quarter.

c.   Application of the Te Aranga Māori design principles to understand opportunities for representing our unique and diverse cultural landscape.

d.   Rapid expansion of a residential neighbourhood populating repurposed office buildings on the fringes of the Quarter together with some significant new apartment tower developments peppered throughout the area.

e.   A City Centre Transport Framework which seeks to define the functional role and character of the primary streets through the city centre i.e. Wellesley Street as a civic public transport street and Mayoral Drive as an east-west connector.

f.    Significant investment in Myers Park as a vital green public open space, including the proposed upgrade to the Myers Park underpass (due for completion mid 2016) to improve safety and links between St Kevins Arcade, Myers Park, Aotea Square and beyond.

g.   Recent proposals for Light Rail Transit up Queen Street, including at least one stop in the Quarter on Queen Street.

h.   The re-opening of the St James Theatre and 300 apartment suites.

i.    The development of a City Centre Place Activation Strategy to inform a programme of work to be funded from the City Centre Targeted Rate. The programme is intended to generate activation within the city centre, in order to create meaningful and attractive places.

15.     The Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document (see Attachment A – Summary Document Text and Attachment B – Full Document) builds on the conversation with many of the partners and key stakeholders that has occurred over the first half of 2015, together with an Auckland Development Committee workshop on 30 June 2015. 

16.     The Consultation Document and summary version seek to capture the main issues and opportunities affecting the area and presents a strategic vision and set of future state outcomes alongside key ideas to be tested prior to the release of the final Framework in late 2015.  The strategic vision is as follows:

   “The Aotea Quarter is the arts, culture and civic heart for the people of Tamaki Makaurau-Auckland:

   A vibrant, resilient and unique place to indulge the senses, express creativity, and celebrate our indigenous & diverse cultures”.

17.     To give effect to the vision, four key themes or future outcomes have been identified:

a.   The Quarter core as the enduring home for the arts, culture, entertainment and civic life, creating a unique destination experience and brand. 

b.   Liveable, vibrant and diverse inner-city neighbourhoods engaging with and supporting the Quarter core.

c.   A public transport node that improves accessibility, supports growth and enables high quality development. 

d.   Spaces and buildings that lead and showcase Auckland’s drive for sustainability and celebrate its unique cultural identity through the Te Aranga Māori design principles.

 

18.     These outcomes and many other aspects of the emerging Framework will be tested through the consultation process scheduled to occur during September 2015.  It will include further specific engagement with key stakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focus groups with key interests (residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general public consultation through Shape Auckland and social media.

19.     The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means of supporting the ACPL-led parallel process of seeking private sector Expressions of Interest relating to investment in the refurbishment of the CAB and development of the surrounding land, as supported by the Auckland Development Committee at its July 2015 meeting (Resolution number AUC/2015/148)

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20.     The need for the Framework was flagged by the Waitematā Local Board (WLB) during 2013/14 as a means of capturing their local place-making objectives and the broader context for change in the area. 

21.     The WLB has been involved in the development of the Framework through a series of workshops and the provision of informal feedback on related discussion papers.

22.     Specific feedback has been given on the relationship to Myers Park and related expectations on any future development outcomes for the South Town Hall site i.e. minimisation of shading affects, legibility and visual connection to Myers Park and Aotea Square and promotion of land-uses that activate the area and support the creative cluster.

23.     More generally, the WLB have registered an expectation the development on identified opportunity sites, including the CAB, would support the overall outcomes stated for the area and have a preference for ensuring the Council retain long-term control of the public space and sites i.e. freehold ownership. 

Māori impact statement

24.     Kōrero with Mana Whenua on the Framework has taken place over the past few months with three specific CCI City Centre Hui taking place (all 19 iwi are invited with typically between 6-8 represented, including Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki).   Through this kōrero, the vision has been amended to better reflect the importance of indigenous culture to the Quarter, a future outcome introduced relating to the Te Aranga Māori Design principles with an associated section on their application to physical projects and a draft map covering sites of cultural significance developed.  Further kōrero will continue through the public consultation process.

25.     The draft Consultation Document was presented to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) on 3 August 2015. Feedback from IMSB will be tabled at the meeting.

Implementation

26.     The final Framework, scheduled for adoption late 2015, will include a comprehensive delivery section to include an implementation programme for identified projects.  


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Aotea Quarter Framework Summary (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Aotea Quarter Framework (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Tim Watts – City Centre Design and Delivery Manager

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using Land for Housing Draft Report

 

File No.: CP2015/12650

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission in response to its Using land for housing draft report.

Executive Summary

2.       In June 2015 the Productivity Commission (the commission) released its Draft Report (the draft report) on the Using land for housing inquiry. 

3.       There are many areas of the draft report that the council can support, and is already taking action on. However there are some propositions that have the potential to undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.

4.       Neither the council nor central government can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. Greater collaboration with central government is essential to addressing housing supply issues.

5.       A growing city delivers benefits for economic growth and some economies of scale in the provision of services. However, a larger population also provides service delivery challenges such as managing transport congestion, and increases the costs of building and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.

6.       Within this context it is proposed that the following key messages are included in the council’s submission:

a.       a strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing challenges, and central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect. It is therefore proposed that the council:

i.     supports a more integrated planning framework

ii.     does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development Authority in Auckland but supports working alongside central government to achieve the objectives of Development Auckland

iii.    advocates for a full assessment of central and local government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.

b.       the planning system needs some changes.  It is therefore proposed that the council:

i.     encourages early engagement ahead of notification

ii.     supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in regulatory policy development

iii.    opposes limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to local issues.

c.       there are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships. It is therefore proposed that the council:

i.     supports partnership with private sector including iwi and central government to finance infrastructure.

7.       The council’s response to the commission is due on 14 August 2015 and is set out in the draft submission (Attachment A).

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      endorse Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using land for housing draft report, which includes the council’s responses to the commission’s findings, recommendations and questions.

b)      authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve the council’s  submission on the Productivity Commission’s Using land for housing draft report.

Comments

The Inquiry

8.       The government has asked the Productivity Commission to review the local planning and development systems of New Zealand’s fastest-growing urban areas and identify leading practices that are effective in making land and development capacity available to meet housing demand. This review is known as the Using land for housing inquiry.  

9.       In January 2015 the council made a submission on the issues paper in relation to the inquiry. In June, the Commission released its draft findings and recommendations in the Using land for housing draft report. The commission will present its final report to government by 30 September 2015.

10.     The draft report reflects the scope of this inquiry which is to examine the processes and practices of local planning and development systems. This is to identify leading practices that enable the timely delivery of housing of the type, location, and quality demanded by purchasers. The particular focus is on urban growth areas, including any early lessons from the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

11.     The draft report builds on earlier commission reports in the area of housing, land and regulation such as the Housing affordability report (2012) and the Local government regulation report (2013).

12.     The scope of the inquiry excludes a review of the role and purpose of the RMA, and of the Building Act and related building consent applications processes. It also excludes changes to the ownership of local authority infrastructure assets. 

13.     The inquiry does however include consideration of the funding and governance of local infrastructure assets and provisions of the RMA and Building Act which could be changed without fundamentally altering the role or purpose of those Acts.  The draft report makes 120 findings, 38 recommendations and asks 37 questions.

Auckland Council’s response

14.     Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop the draft submission attached at Appendix A. The following section proposes the key messages and major points to be included in the submission.

A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing challenges, and central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect.

The draft submission proposes that:

15.     The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housing supply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither the council nor central government can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiterates the importance of working and engaging with Māori across this issue.

16.     The council agrees with the commission’s approach in trying to identify options for local and central government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that central government has a range of levers that it can use. The council would advocate for a full assessment of the combined central and local government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.

17.     The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes for communities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.

18.     The council does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development Authority in Auckland but supports central government undertaking complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland.

19.     The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy formulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery may have spatial impacts within Auckland.

The planning system needs some changes.

The draft submission proposes that:

20.     The council supports the commission’s view that land use and infrastructure planning can be better integrated thereby improving outcomes on the ground.

21.     The council supports a greater focus and capacity in relation to benefit analysis in policy development, as well as consideration of public benefits and costs, amenity and community aspirations. While the council agrees that regulation does add cost to the process, it considers that the draft report’s discussion of regulation is narrowly focused on costs.  

22.     The council’s position is that local authorities and their communities should make land use decisions. Similarly the council opposes limitations on its ability to tailor planning rules to local issues. The council is clear that the Local Government Act 2002 and the RMA confer particular roles and responsibilities to local authorities. One of these roles is land use planning in the local context.

23.     The council supports front-loading public consultation and changing the phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities ahead of notification.

There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships

The draft submission proposes that:

24.     The council supports partnership with the private sector including iwi and central government to finance infrastructure. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take in directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using some of the additional income generated by growth. 

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25.     The implications of the recommendations contained in the draft report apply across the region and to all local boards. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend Auckland Development Committee workshops and to provide feedback. 

26.     Informal feedback from the Orākei Local Board has been incorporated into the submission where appropriate. The feedback covered a range of issues including the importance of community and local government input into local planning decisions. The board opposes the removal of controls including minimum apartment sizes and opposes a ministerial power to direct changes to district plans and regional policy statements. 

27.     Feedback from the Papakura Local Board was not received in time to be included in the body of the submission but is attached to this committee report and will be appended to the council’s submission. The points made by the board include the need for the place-making role of local boards and locally driven engagement to be recognised in planning processes. The board opposes the minister having the scope to direct changes to district plans and regional policy statements. It supports the use of targeted rates for growth enabling infrastructure on the proviso that communities paying the targeted rates are directly benefiting from the infrastructure.

 

 

 

28.     Other local boards that wish to provide any subsequent views on the draft report have the opportunity to append their views to the final submission.  

Māori impact statement

29.     It is considered that the draft report’s implications for Māori affect three key groups: Māori residents and ratepayers – as home owners and renters; Māori as owners of Māori land; and mana whenua as kaitiaki.

30.     The median personal income for Māori in Auckland is 18% lower than the median annual personal income for the general regional population. This means that Māori households will tend to find it harder than many other households to access suitable housing and that they have a disproportionate need for access to social and affordable housing options. The draft report proposes inclusionary zoning as a tool that may positively impact on Māori. The approach taken by the council in its draft submission is that a suite of tools is required to address the affordability gap. 

31.     There may be opportunities for owners of Māori and Treaty settlement land to partner in investing in infrastructure as noted in the council’s draft submission.

32.     The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Māori land through an Urban Development Agency would face sensitive Treaty issues and the draft submission proposes that the council agrees with this finding.   

33.     The draft report discusses options for achieving a balance between national and local interests. If this results in greater central government involvement in local planning decisions, this could potentially impact on the kaitiaki role of mana whenua and the provisions that the council has sought to put in place to enable mana whenua input into planning processes. This could also potentially impact on the council’s relationships with mana whenua. 

34.     Changes to the planning system and the extent of regulations may have particular impacts on Māori. For example, a potential reduction in protections for cultural values and cultural significance, set backs and view shafts, and potential exclusion of Māori interests by limiting notification along the lines of provisions in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.

35.     The draft report and summary was distributed to mana whenua and mataawaka for feedback. At the time of writing no feedback had been received, however the council has reviewed the submissions that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum have made directly to the commission and the content has been considered in the preparation of the council’s draft submission and this Committee report.

36.     Council staff met with the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff to discuss the draft report. Feedback from IMSB staff has been considered in the preparation of the council’s draft submission and this Committee report.

Implementation

37.     No implementation issues have been identified.

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Council's submission to the Productivity Commission's Using land for housing draft report

31

bView

Papakura Local Board formal feedback

61

     

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Auckland Council Draft Submission 13 August 2015

 

Title: Submission to New Zealand Productivity Commission Draft Report – Using land for housing June 2015

 

 

 

1.0 Executive Summary

 

1.      Auckland Council (the “council”) welcomes the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s (the “commission”) timely draft report on Using land for housing.  

2.      The council made a submission to the commission’s Issues paper for this inquiry in January 2015.

3.      Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in Auckland. The council welcomes the broader approach taken by the commission in the draft report which recognises the critical role of infrastructure and infrastructure investment, from both a housing pipeline and an affordability perspective. The council reiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of a range of solutions needed to address housing affordability.

4.      The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the country’s long-term economic growth and that Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of national population growth. Auckland will need to build the infrastructure for an urban area equivalent to one and a half times that of Hamilton to support the additional greenfield growth provided through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

5.      However, a council’s revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth. Therefore the infrastructure investment required to support growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for general rates.

6.      There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already taking action on. For the first time since the Auckland Plan was adopted, Auckland now has a ‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supply of just under 6 years. Through the Auckland Housing Accord the council and government are committed to accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable homes.

7.      There are some propositions canvassed in the draft report that the council opposes as they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.

8.      The council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop this submission. The council’s main messages in response to the inquiry are:


 

 

A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing challenges, central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect

9.      The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy formulation and analysis, particularly where there may be spatial impacts within Auckland.

10.    Overall, the council supports the commission’s view that a more integrated planning framework is required. The council has previously provided feedback to government on the consideration of urban matters in legislative amendments and national policy proposals and reiterates those positions. The council does not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland but supports central government undertaking complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland.

11.    The council advocates for a full assessment of the combined central and local government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required in local planning matters.

The planning system needs some changes

12.    The council has previously provided feedback to government on legislative amendments to speed up and improve the consenting and plan making processes and reiterates those positions.  This includes the council’s support for front-loading public consultation and changing the phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities ahead of notification. In relation to the impact of regulations, the council supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in policy development.

13.    The Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 confer on local authorities the role of land use planning in the local context and it is the council’s overall position that local authorities and their communities should make land use decisions. The council also confirms its role of tailoring planning rules to local issues and opposes limitations on its ability to do so.

There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships

14.    A growing city delivers agglomeration benefits for economic growth and some economies of scale in the provision of services. However, a larger population also leads to negative externalities in service delivery such as transport congestion, and increases the costs of building and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.

15.    The council is looking for financing partners to share some of the risk of infrastructure investment. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take in directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using some of the additional income generated by growth.

16.    The council reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commission’s issues paper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to engaging Māori in the provision of housing.

17.    Auckland Council is pleased to submit its response to the Productivity Commission’s Using land for housing draft report for consideration.

 

2.0 Introduction

 

18.    The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the country’s long-term economic growth. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city and commercial centre, with a scale and ethnic diversity that supports critical international connections. It is home to over a third of New Zealand’s population, accounts for a third of all national employment, and contributes 35 per cent of national GDP. The population of Auckland is expected to exceed 2 million by 2040.

19.    Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of national growth. The last census showed that half of New Zealand’s growth since the previous census was in Auckland which is projected to account for 70 per cent of growth in the North Island in the next 20 years.

20.    It is essential that the right infrastructure is in place to support projected growth. Auckland will need to build the infrastructure for an urban area equivalent to one and a half times that of Hamilton to support the additional greenfield growth provided through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This will require significant investment in infrastructure (see Appendix A). Bulk infrastructure takes time to plan, design and deliver with long lead in times and even longer asset lives. This has implications for ongoing operational costs.

21.    A council’s revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth in the same way as income taxes and GST. The infrastructure investment required to support growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for general rates. Development contributions and targeted rates cannot manage all the funding impacts.

22.    The commission has identified democratic deficits which it believes create “a wedge between local and national interests”. The council agrees there is a careful balancing act required between supporting both national and regional objectives and building alignment between those objectives. The council continues to engage in different ways with its communities to ensure there are opportunities for all sectors of the community to participate more effectively.

23.    Councils are best placed to understand their communities and local needs within the context of land use and infrastructure challenges. This is why it is critical that the council works in partnership with central government to find solutions to issues of national and local importance.

24.    Accommodating Auckland’s growing population and enabling the delivery of more affordable housing is a priority for the council and Aucklanders. The council shares the commission’s objective of unlocking the potential of Auckland to achieve a strong economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New Zealanders. Ensuring an adequate supply of land for housing and enabling multiple housing options[1] to address needs across all income segments is a crucial step in capturing the significant productivity gains that large cities can generate.


 

25.    Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in Auckland. These are challenges that many successful international cities continue to grapple with, and that require action across multiple areas. The council welcomes the broader approach taken by the commission in the draft report which recognises the critical role of infrastructure and infrastructure investment, from both a housing pipeline and affordability perspective.

26.    The council reiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of a range of solutions needed to address housing affordability. Fundamental elements of a robust long-term housing programme include: making the right decisions about development location and development sequencing, lowering house build and operating costs, improving access to finance, raising the capacity and capability of the building industry to deliver an appropriate range of housing types and supply, and providing additional support for low-income households. Managing unrealistic expectations and resistance to change add further complexity to the housing challenges.

27.    The council also reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commission’s issues paper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to engaging Māori in the provision of housing. The council’s submission recognises the critical importance of affordable housing as one of the issues in the The Schedule of issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

28.    Auckland is already focused on ensuring there is an adequate supply for housing through releasing land and increasing development capacity. The Auckland Plan sets a target of an average of 7 years supply (minimum 5 years and maximum 10 years supply) of ‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced land). For the first time since the Auckland Plan was adopted, Auckland now has a ‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supply of just under 6 years, with a further 3.85 years in the pipeline. This brings the total greenfield supply to 9.34 years.

29.    In addition, as part of the Auckland Housing Accord, the council and government are committed to accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable homes. This work is happening now and at pace.

This submission

30.    There are many areas of the commission’s draft report the council supports and is already taking action on. There are also some propositions canvassed that the council opposes as they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making. It is important to understand any potential cost implications of such proposals.

31.    This submission provides a number of recommendations and responses which support the three key messages outlined in paragraphs 9 - 15. These recommendations are supported by further information in the body of the submission.

32.    The council has considered all the questions, findings and recommendations contained in the commission’s draft report but comments only on the most substantive issues in this submission document.

 


 

Recommendations

33.    There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already taking action on. The council’s submission has been informed by its experience and lessons learned post-amalgamation in a way that can constructively support this inquiry. This experience is of a scale and complexity not otherwise experienced in New Zealand and includes:

i.    Auckland Plan — a fully integrated spatial plan that sets the strategic direction for Auckland for the next 30 years.

ii.    Auckland Unitary Plan — a single planning rule-book that incorporated extensive early pre-notification engagement and use of an independent hearings panel. This plan will provide for greater intensification and the growth of Auckland.

iii.   Auckland Housing Accord — including establishment of 86 Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.

iv.  Auckland 30 year Infrastructure Strategy.

v.   Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy — setting the direction on sequencing and timing of greenfield land development over 30 years. This strategy is currently out for public consultation.

vi.  Forward Land and Infrastructure Programme — better intelligence on infrastructure capacity and integration across infrastructure platforms.

vii.  consent approval process (Consenting Made Easy) to speed up and deliver a consistent quality  of consents using customer-centric processes.

viii. Development Auckland — establishment of a regional urban development agency.

ix.  integrated infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.

x.   establishment of spatial priority areas and subsequent targeting of investment.

34.    Within this context, the council makes the following recommendations on the questions, findings and recommendations in the commission’s draft report:

Strong partnership with government — using levers effectively

xi.  Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should be undertaken in the context of a wider review of the RMA.

xii.  Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issues provided it takes a broader focus than housing/land supply.

xiii. Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable the Minister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.

xiv.   Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some aspects of the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.

xv. Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland; but support central government undertaking complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland to enable the council’s agency to achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

xvi.   Support improving information quality and sharing between central and local government.

xvii.  Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.


 

Planning system needs some changes

xviii.             Support front-loading public consultation and change in phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities (pre-notification) – support consultation ahead of notification.

xix.               Support robust cost and benefit analysis of regulation.  Much greater focus needs to be given to building capacity to undertake quantification of benefits and robust benefit analysis.

xx.                Oppose limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to local issues, e.g. including rules relating to mandatory apartment balcony/private open space, and minimum apartment sizes.

xxi.               Support evaluation of independent hearings panel and independent commissioners without predetermining the results of that evaluation.

xxii.              Support inclusionary zoning as an important and valid tool to use in conjunction with other measures to improve retained affordable housing (for the life of the dwelling).

xxiii.             Generally support intensification where infrastructure capacity is available but note that infrastructure is only one of a number of considerations.

xxiv.             Agree there is no need for planning controls that duplicate standards already set by the Building Act. Planning controls do not duplicate those standards and are only imposed where there are amenity or environmental protection issues not covered under the Building Act. 

xxv.              Oppose the recommendation to review zoning rules for rural land as the rationale for such a review fails to take into account the full range of reasons for zoning rural land.

xxvi.             Support alignment of Auckland Transport and Watercare statements of intent with the Auckland Plan.

Address infrastructure financing through partnerships

xxvii.            Propose partnership with private sector and government to share burden and risk of financing additional infrastructure.

xxviii.           Direct government funding of some water and wastewater infrastructure from revenue arising from growth.

xxix.             Provide councils with ability to use value capture rating through targeted rates mechanism – implement by allowing rates to be set on basis of a change in land value.

xxx.              Support use of motorway pricing and further discussion on road pricing.

xxxi.             Oppose proposal to require councils to consider requests by developers to build infrastructure funded by targeted rates.

xxxii.            Remove exemption from rates for crown entities, hospitals, schools, ports, railways, airports.

xxxiii.           Oppose a requirement to shift the basis of general rates from capital value to land value.

xxxiv.           Oppose price control on Watercare.

xxxv.            Oppose need to include additional information in Development Contributions policy relating to dwelling floor areas and cost of providing infrastructure services.

 

3.0 Strong partnership with central government – using levers effectively

Text Box: Recommendations
•	Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should be undertaken in the context of a wider review of the RMA.
•	Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issues provided it takes a broader focus than housing/land supply. 
•	Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable the Minister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.
•	Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some aspects of the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.
•	Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland; but support central government undertaking complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland to enable the council’s agency to achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland. 
•	Support improving information quality and sharing between central and local government.
•	Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.    The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housing supply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither council nor central government can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiterates the importance of working and engaging with Māori across this issue.

36.    The council agrees with the commission’s approach in trying to identify options for local and central government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that central government has a range of levers that it can use. These include sharing of its expertise, use of its resources, ability to direct or incentivise crown agencies, and ability to align funding cycles of key crown agencies to local government funding cycles. The council would advocate for a full assessment of the combined central and local government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.

37.    The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy formulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery may have spatial impacts within Auckland. This engagement could be supported by increasing levels of central government capability in Auckland as recommended by the McKay report.[2]


 

Amend Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to include urban matters

38.    The draft report includes a recommendation to clarify the role and importance of housing and urban environments in the RMA (Recommendation 5.6).

39.    The council supports the addition of management of cities and urban matters to the RMA to better reflect that the majority of New Zealanders live in cities and towns. The council seeks to work with government to develop appropriate provisions that reflect Auckland’s scope and scale and its diverse range of communities.

40.    Any change of this nature to the RMA is best undertaken within the context of a wider, formal review of the entire RMA, rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. The government has signalled that this will be part of the future package of resource management reforms.

41.    The council welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with central government on resource management reforms. 

National Policy Statement on urban issues

42.    The council would support the development of a National Policy Statement (NPS) on urban issues provided that it is not narrowly focused on housing/land supply (Question 9.3).  

43.    The key benefit of clear national direction could be in reducing possible inefficiencies and duplication that may arise from all high-growth councils addressing similar urban issues and policy options with their communities. 

44.    A NPS on urban matters should provide guidance, leaving local authorities to decide what development occurs at a regional or local level. In Auckland’s case, this happens through the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan.

45.    The NPS would be best developed through local and central government working collaboratively. 

46.    The council understands there is a concern about the varied approaches taken by local authorities in relation to papakāinga and marae development on Treaty settlement land. Some national level guidance would be useful and it is suggested that a National Policy Statement for Māori land use and papakāinga development would help to ensure consistency across local authorities. This could form part of the NPS on urban issues or be a stand-alone document.

Ministerial powers to direct plan changes

47.    The draft report asks whether there would be merit in expanding the existing powers in the RMA to enable Ministers to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth (Question 9.4). 

48.    The council opposes direct ministerial intervention in this situation. Giving ministers further powers to intervene in or control aspects of local planning functions could undermine local autonomy and the accountability of local authorities to their communities.


 

49.    Market participants, including developers, organisations and individuals, already have the option through the private plan change process to test or challenge local government planning decisions. If the market demands additional housing supply in a particular area, i.e. development is commercially viable, private plan changes can be used to enable the market. 

50.    The ministerial veto power is only one option of many that could be used to address differences in national and local interests. The council would rather work with central government to carry out a robust cost and benefit assessment of the wide range of possible approaches such as developing a NPS before a policy response is selected.

51.    Local and central government can and do work collaboratively, avoiding the need for ministerial intervention. Examples of such collaborative work between Auckland Council and government include the Auckland Housing Accord and Tamaki Redevelopment Company activities. 

52.    A collaborative approach between local and central government provides for:

a.   greater flexibility

b.   greater buy-in

c.   increased responsiveness and timeliness

d.   more scope to leverage capability and resources

e.   the ability to tailor localised solutions to meet local needs and national objectives.

 

Voluntary legislative avenue for spatial plan

53.    The proposed new voluntary legislative avenue to enable more effective planning in high growth cities contains a number of features set out across four recommendations in the draft report (Recommendations 3.5–3.8).

54.    The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes for communities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.

55.    The draft report does not comment on how the voluntary legislative avenue  discussed in Recommendations 3.5 to 3.8 might intersect with existing statutory spatial planning requirements such as those under which Auckland Council operates. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to prepare a spatial plan that contributes to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being through a comprehensive and effective long term (20 – 30 year) strategy for Auckland’s growth and development. The council consulted extensively with Aucklanders and stakeholders, including government, during the development of its spatial plan, the Auckland Plan, and the Plan reflects Auckland community aspirations. The council has previously advocated for a more integrated planning framework and to give the Auckland Plan greater statutory weight in relation to the Unitary Plan.   

56.    The council supports the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue:

a.   Better integration of Local Government Act, Land Transport Management Act and Resource Management Act objectives (spatial planning and water and transport infrastructure planning, prioritisation, phasing and delivery).

b.   Better integration of central government and local government infrastructure planning and the inclusion of key central government actors whose services matter for the functioning of cities (Recommendation 3.7). This may help to address the ongoing challenges of aligning cities’ longer term development and infrastructure needs, and central government’s shorter term planning and fiscal cycles.

c.   Processes being included in the proposed new legislative avenue which encourage robust regulatory analysis and development similar to those in section 32 of the Resource Management Act (Recommendation 3.8).

d.   Councils undertaking peer review of regulatory proposals within spatial plans (Finding 3.19). Councils should be able to exercise discretion to determine when and if peer review could add value and when the costs of peer review are likely to outweigh the benefits.

e.   Allowing councils to opt into the new legislative framework or elect to use the existing legislative pathways for land development (Recommendation 3.6) to enable councils to tailor their approach to that which best suits local circumstances.

57.    The council does not support the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue proposal:

a.   Narrowing of the scope of spatial plans developed under this option (Recommendation 3.5 and Finding 3.15) to include the 30 year infrastructure strategy, longer term transport planning, and longer-term thinking about the growth of the city and land-use rules.

b.   The Auckland Plan is required to integrate broad outcomes across a 30 year timeframe which enables decision makers to understand impacts at both a temporal and spatial level. This leads to more informed decision making and risk management, as trade-off decisions are understood within the wider planning context. As the only city of international scale in New Zealand, Auckland must consider and plan for itself in both the global and national context. Auckland’s ability to attract and retain international talent and investment may require a different approach to that of attracting and retaining talent from within New Zealand. The Auckland Plan provides a framework by which international, national, regional and local interests can be considered and balanced in a holistic manner and then integrated across a wide range of the council’s operations and with other stakeholders.

c.   The requirement for spatial plan approval by both Cabinet and the council (Recommendation 3.7). This could significantly reduce the ability of a council to make decisions in accordance with the aspirations of its communities. Section 80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to involve central government amongst others throughout the preparation and development of the Plan. Working in partnership would help to ensure the implications of spatial planning on the financing of central government infrastructure are fully understood.

d.   The inclusion of land-use rules in a spatial plan (Finding 3.15). A spatial plan is a strategy. Adding land-use rules to a spatial plan would significantly increase the complexity of the proposed spatial plan (even if the scope of the plan was significantly narrowed) and reduce its accessibility for the community. It would also duplicate what sits in a district or unitary plan.


 

Urban development agency

58.    The council agrees with the commission that there can be high value in urban development agency models (Recommendation 10.2). During Auckland’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025 process, the establishment of an urban redevelopment agency was one of four key issues highlighted for feedback. As a result of the Long Term Plan decisions, Auckland Council’s regional urban redevelopment agency, Development Auckland, will be operational from 1 September 2015.

59.    The council does not support the establishment of a central government urban development agency (UDA) in Auckland. The council does support and believes there is scope for central government to undertake complementary development activities and to work alongside Development Auckland. Working together in this way will enable the council’s agency to achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

60.    The draft report proposes that activities of a UDA would involve:

a.   assembling public landholdings with private landholdings to allow development on the required scale

b.   coordinating and integrating the delivery of infrastructure

c.   spatially master planning large-scale residential development projects.  This would involve the removal of planning powers from councils for a limited duration, be subject to a streamlined planning process and more enabling land use rules

d.   partnering with private sector developers to deliver these projects

e.   operating under a streamlined planning and consent process

f.    using compulsory land acquisition powers to effect development as necessary. 

61.    While the council can support some of those activities, it would not support the proposed removal of planning powers from local government to a UDA as local government is better placed to undertake local planning. Auckland is currently working through its Unitary Plan process, an integrated and co-ordinated regional planning mechanism. The council has a number of other workstreams to support increased re/development capacity, i.e. the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, the Long Term Plan and the 30 year Infrastructure Strategy. These mechanisms have been developed as part of the comprehensive planning and funding framework. Transfer of planning powers could undermine this framework and adversely impact the effort the council has expended to enable development in a planned, sustainable and phased way across the region.  

62.    The council also would not support central government independently constructing its own infrastructure or obliging council infrastructure providers to accept privately provided assets. Even with significant co-ordination and collaboration this could impact on the council’s planning for and management of its infrastructure networks, and undermine the council’s ability to optimise its operational costs.  The council would also be concerned if this resulted in the reprioritisation of trunk infrastructure spend or programming in Auckland. This could result in inefficient use of resources, unintended consequences and risk undermining the goals of the urban development agencies operating in Auckland, the Unitary Plan and the Auckland Plan. 

63.    The intention for Development Auckland is to focus on redevelopment opportunities, specifically brownfields redevelopment. Development Auckland intends to:

a.   manage the council’s non-service property portfolio and provide strategic advice on the council’s other property portfolios

b.   recycle or redevelop sub-optimal or under-utilised council assets and aim to achieve an overall balance of commercial and strategic outcomes

c.   facilitate private sector, third sector, iwi and government investment and collaboration into the sustainable redevelopment of brownfield urban locations

d.   coordinate the provision of the council’s infrastructure and other investment in these locations

e.   continue to lead the development of the waterfront and deliver the Waterfront Plan 2012

f.    accommodate residential and commercial growth in urban locations with good public infrastructure and services. These redevelopments will offer a range of residential choices and price points to cater for diverse households.

64.    At this stage Development Auckland does not intend to focus on greenfield urban development. Feedback from Auckland developers on whether a development agency should be involved in greenfield development was negative. The Property Council, for example, submitted that the proposed agency should not seek to deliver in those areas where the private sector could. The Property Council was supportive of the council establishing an agency to support brownfield redevelopment.  

65.    The council welcomes discussions with central government on an approach to using existing levers to support the council’s activities via Development Auckland and exploring options for how central government can best add and derive value in Auckland. 

66.    Some options for central government to support and complement Development Auckland’s activities could include:

a.   working with the council to identify public land to be developed (Recommendation 4.4)

b.   providing funding or enabling necessary funding options

c.   improving, clarifying or introducing legislative settings to support Development Auckland’s activities 

d.   exploring other options for leveraging existing redevelopment opportunities.

67.    It would be useful for central government to undertake an evaluation of existing urban development initiatives it has been involved with in Auckland region, (i.e. Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited and Hobsonville Point Company Limited) to identify key lessons from those experiences. The council would be interested in partnering with central government to evaluate the Auckland based UDA initiatives.

68.    The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Māori land would face sensitive Treaty issues (Finding 10.6) and the council agrees with this finding.

 

Opportunities for information sharing

69.    The council is supportive of the recommendations to provide commercially viable development capacity and to explore the development of an Urban Feasibility Model (Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2). A group of experts, including economists, developers and the council’s land use modellers, have worked together to model such capacity as part of the Unitary Plan process. The council suggests that the Ministry for the Environment review this model in addition to looking at overseas examples. There are costs in developing and running these models. One practical way central government could assist would be in providing expertise and/or funding to enable regular updates of this information.

70.    The council does not currently report on dwelling completions but sees the value in doing so as it would provide an improved picture of housing delivered across Auckland. The council welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with central government to progress this work (Recommendation 4.2).  

71.    The council also supports developing and maintaining an inventory of public land holdings in high-growth cities to identify sites that could be used for housing (Recommendation 4.4).

72.    The council understands the importance of “land readiness” through its Auckland Plan, Forward Land and Infrastructure Programme, Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the Unitary Plan. It has a target to have an average of 7 years (minimum 5 years and maximum 10 years) of ready-to-go land supply. This means operative zoning and bulk services infrastructure are in place.

73.    The council therefore supports expressing land supply targets as zoned and serviced land and publicly reporting on performance (Recommendation 4.1, 6.1).  The council currently reports on land supply through a number of different tools.  Under the Auckland Housing Accord, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the council present joint quarterly monitoring reports which provide an up-to-date picture of the land and housing supply situation. The report monitors progress against the Accord targets for new dwellings and new sections as well as provides information on forward land supply and special housing area (consenting) activity. The council also reports on zoned and serviced land through its Auckland Plan Implementation Update and intends to report on un-zoned but planned-for future zoning; zoned; zoned and serviced; zoned, serviced and consented land and dwellings within the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the Development Strategy Annual Monitoring Report.

74.    The draft report recommends the feeding of information from council asset management systems into decision making about optimal infrastructure standards (Recommendation 6.6). In Auckland, relevant aspects of this information are shared with the development community via reporting on the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the Forward Land Infrastructure Programme (FLIP), the 30 year Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Plan. The council’s Infrastructure and Developer Forum provides opportunities for information sharing amongst the sectors.


75.    Auckland Transport has participated in the Transport Analytics Governance Group (TAGG) since its inception. The TAGG was set up to drive improvements to asset management practice without the formal structure or process of established industry groups. Considerable progress was made on the development of meta-data standards for transport. This is now a national project with the scope expanded to three waters and buildings.

76.    Housing growth areas are unavoidably increasing maintenance and operational costs for the Auckland transport network. Preliminary work indicates that for each dwelling built, the maintenance and operational costs (excluding public transport service provision) increase by $600 per dwelling per year. Therefore investigations into how infrastructure is provided need to focus on both capital expenditure and operational expenditure.

77.    The council also notes the comments in submissions by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum proposing an option for councils to make public information about the demand for and supply of social and affordable housing. In principle, the council supports greater information sharing but has a limited role in providing housing. This would need to be a multi-party initiative to be effective.

 

78. 4.0 Planning system needs some changes

Text Box: Recommendations
•	Support front-loading public consultation and change in phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities (pre-notification) – support consultation ahead of notification.
•	Support robust cost and benefit analysis of regulation.  Much greater focus needs to be given to building capacity to undertake quantification of benefits and robust benefit analysis.
•	Oppose limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to local issues, e.g. including rules relating to mandatory apartment balcony/private open space, and minimum apartment sizes. 
•	Support evaluation of independent hearings panel and independent commissioners without predetermining the results of that evaluation. 
•	Support inclusionary zoning as an important and valid tool to use in conjunction with other measures to improve retained affordable housing (for the life of the dwelling).
•	Generally support intensification where infrastructure capacity is available but note that infrastructure is only one of a number of considerations. 
•	Agree there is no need for planning controls that duplicate standards already set by the Building Act.  Planning controls do not duplicate those standards and are only imposed where there are amenity or environmental protection issues not covered under the Building Act. 
•	Oppose the recommendation to review zoning rules for rural land as the rationale for such a review fails to take into account the full range of reasons for zoning rural land. 
•	Support alignment of Auckland Transport and Watercare statements of intent with the Auckland Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79.    Overall, the council supports the commission’s view that land use and infrastructure planning can be better integrated thereby improving outcomes on the ground. While the RMA is not, in itself, within scope of this inquiry, the commission makes some recommendations which would be given effect through the RMA.  Auckland Council has previously provided feedback to government on RMA amendments to speed up and improve the consenting and plan making processes. Some of these points are included in addition to specific responses to the commission’s draft report.

80.    While the council agrees that regulation does add cost to the process, it considers that the draft report’s discussion of regulation is too narrowly focussed on costs (or equivalently, on the benefits of regulating less). The council considers that:

a.   Land use planning is not all about the provision of land for housing. Land is required for business and industry, activities such as tourism and recreation, and services such as education and health. A narrow focus on housing means that the other important elements of successful cities and economies may be forgotten.

b.   It is also important to strike a balance between land for housing and land for employment use. Compact urban form, a key principle driving the development strategy within the Auckland Plan, recognises the need to provide a range of employment opportunities across the urban area.

 

c.   Regulation can also have benefits and these must be weighed up against the costs. Local government needs to consider public benefits and costs as well as individual benefits and costs. Protection of the environment is one example where regulation can occur to ensure that the overall public benefit of clean water, undeveloped maunga, forest and significant ecological environments are considered where such consideration may not be given by individuals or the market.

 

d.   Consideration of amenity in resource management processes is critical. 

 

e.   There is a lack of robust benefit analysis by both local and central government. At the policy development stage, the majority of resources are put towards identifying costs with comparatively little put towards quantification of the benefits. The council supports a greater focus and capacity in relation to benefit analysis in policy development.

 

f.    Community aspirations are a valid consideration when weighing up the costs and benefits of regulation. 

 

81.    The council is clear that the Local Government Act 2002 and RMA confer particular roles and responsibilities to local authorities. One of these roles is land use planning in the local context.

82.    If the balance between national and local interests shifts, this could potentially impact on the kaitiaki role of mana whenua and the provisions that Auckland Council has sought to put in place to better enable mana whenua input into the planning process.

83.    The council’s overall position is that local authorities and their communities should make land use decisions.

 

Front-load public consultation requirements

84.    The commission makes a number of findings around the issues of consultation and notification but few recommendations. Overall, the council supports more streamlined, timely and less costly processes that still enable a high degree of public participation and quality decision-making.

85.    The council adopted a Significance and Engagement Policy in 2014 as required by the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland’s scope and scale means that the council is regularly consulting with the public across a range of issues.  The council’s position is that Aucklanders engage with consultation processes where those issues being consulted on are most relevant for them. This may relate to wider regional issues, for example the Unitary Plan or Auckland Plan development, or it may relate to local issues, for example consents and local board activities. 

86.    As discussed in the council’s response to the commission’s issues paper, the council considers there are a range of options in relation to RMA reform which could improve the efficiency of the planning system without significantly compromising public engagement and consultation. The council notes the commission’s findings in relation to timeliness impacts of public consultation and engagement on the plan-making processes (Findings 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13). The council’s previous submissions on these points do not involve a reduction of consultation and engagement opportunities, rather they are directed at front-loading the consultation and changing the phasing of when consultation occurs, i.e. greater levels of consultation occur at the initial stages of the plan-making process and engagement opportunities progressively decrease during the process. The council requests the commission reconsider the impact of changing (not reducing) the phasing of RMA consultation processes.

87.    The council supports the commission’s recommendation that local authorities should set policies for publishing and consulting on draft plan reviews or plan changes of interest to the wider community ahead of notification, unless compelling reasons exist for not doing so (Recommendation 4.5).

88.    The council considers that it is still appropriate to impose a legislative requirement on local authorities to consult on draft plan changes prior to notification. This legislative requirement should relate only to council-promulgated plan changes to avoid unnecessary public consultation on private, site-specific plan changes.

89.    In the council’s view, Schedule 1 does not prevent pre-notification consultation.  It does, however, prescribe certain requirements like public notices in newspapers which are very costly (at least $5000 per application in the New Zealand Herald). Using public notices in a newspaper is an outdated way of communicating and the Schedule 1 requirements should be reviewed to see if the benefits outweigh the costs.

90.    The council undertook a comprehensive pre-notification public consultation on the draft Unitary Plan. This commenced with the release of a very early draft of key sections of the Unitary Plan to key stakeholders, and was followed by an extensive 11 week communications and engagement campaign. Almost 25,000 individual pieces of written feedback were received on the full draft Unitary Plan. This process resulted in significant improvements being made to the Unitary Plan prior to public notification. Summaries of the main changes to the Unitary Plan were made available on the council’s website.

91.    The council notes that there is nothing preventing this approach in any of the current legislation. The amendments to the Local Government Act to provide for more flexible consultation processes will also encourage councils to think differently about the way in which they engage.

 

Statutory notification – Schedule 1 or HASHA

92.    The council does support narrowing the eligibility of further submitters to those who are directly affected by a proposal, e.g. the owner of a site where a tree is proposed to be scheduled. In the council’s experience, the current process adds significant costs and time for very little benefit.

93.    The commission asks how eligibility for notification and consultation and site-specific proposed plan changes should be defined, and whether the definition used in the HASHA Act or the 2009 RMA amendments would be preferable (Question 4.4).

94.    The council has experience of working under both the RMA Schedule 1 and HASHA processes. There are benefits and costs to both options.

a.   The Schedule 1 process has been amended over the years and the presumption is no longer public notification.  However, the Schedule 1 process provides for councils to publicly notify applications where appropriate.  It is also the process that most communities are familiar with.

 

b.   The HASHA process limits notification to directly adjoining sites and there is no option of public notification.  Disadvantages of the HASHA process include the fact that it is a ‘one size fits all’ approach which does not have the flexibility to take account of different circumstances.

 

95.    The definition of eligibility of involvement is key in determining notification provisions.  Issues like the materiality of the change/proposal and the function of the proposed activity are important factors. It will be critical to ensure that Māori interests are not excluded.

 

Cost-benefit analysis

96.    The commission recommends that local authorities should undertake robust cost-benefit analyses before considering the introduction of building height limits, and should lift current limits where it cannot be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs (Recommendation 5.4).

97.    The council supports the need for robust cost-benefit analyses for all policy, including building height limits. However, the council also considers that not all environments are the same and therefore there will be a need for building height limits in some areas.  

98.    While robust cost benefit analysis is needed, the majority of resources are put towards identifying the costs with relatively little put towards benefits. 

99.    The council and central government could investigate options for funding a research programme to test and assess the non-market benefit values from managing urban issues. This research could have a focus on quantitative impacts that can be incorporated into cost-benefit analyses as well as qualitative findings that can be generalised.

 

 

Limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to local issues

100.  There are a number of recommendations in the draft report aimed at reducing regulatory costs:

a.   Urban territorial authorities should remove District Plan minimum parking requirements, and make more use of traffic demand management techniques (Recommendation 5.3).

 

b.   Urban territorial authorities should remove District Plan balcony/private open space requirements for apartments (Recommendation 5.1).

 

c.   Once the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has completed planned work on updating Building Code rules and guidance related to air quality, lighting, acoustics and access in multi-unit dwellings, local authorities should review minimum apartment size rules in their District Plans with a view to removing them (Recommendation 5.2).

 

101.  Overall, the council opposes limitations on local government’s ability to tailor planning rules to local issues. In the following paragraphs, the council comments on the specific rules identified in the above recommendations.

102.  In the Auckland context, in areas which are well served by public transport, the council agrees that minimum parking provisions can add unnecessary costs and send the wrong signals to the market. The council, in conjunction with Auckland Transport, is already focussing on traffic demand management techniques instead of minimum parking provisions in appropriate areas well serviced by public transport. However, the council does not support a national, blanket rule disallowing minimum parking requirements.

103.  Similarly, the council does not support national, blanket rules disallowing minimum balcony/private open space requirements for apartments or minimum apartment sizes. The council considers that the costs of requiring balconies have been overstated, particularly in light of the fact that the market will pay a premium for an apartment with a balcony as opposed to one without. The council is aware of the Grimes and Mitchell and MRCagney reports on these related matters referenced by the commission. As acknowledged by the commission, the Grimes and Mitchell report “explicitly did not look at benefits”. 

104.  As previously stated, policy matters such as minimum apartment sizes and private open space provisions need to have an equally robust benefit analysis undertaken. The council’s current position is that it considers regulation such as minimum apartment sizes and private open space provisions are necessary to ensure long-term liveability and quality of buildings and spaces.

 

Independent Hearings Panel and independent commissioners

105.  The council supports the commission’s recommendation that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for the Environment should, once the work of the Auckland and Christchurch Independent Hearings Panels (IHPs) is complete, evaluate the IHP processes, with a view to deciding whether IHPs will become a permanent feature of the planning system (Recommendation 4.6).

106.  The evaluation should focus on the role of IHPs in the plan making process. It is important that the results of the evaluation are not predetermined and that key lessons from both Auckland and Christchurch processes are fully considered as part of the proposed review. 

107.  Feedback from Auckland communities on the experience of the IHP process has been mixed – some are positive around the expertise and robustness of process, others are negative around the complexity and difficulty of navigating through it.

108.  Given the experience that the council has had with the IHP for the Unitary Plan, the council welcomes the opportunity to work together with central government on both the review and any subsequent implementation.

109.  The council uses independent commissioners for the majority of its RMA hearing functions. Decision-making authority is generally delegated to independent commissioners for resource consents.

110.  The council recognises that independent commissioners are an additional cost which is borne by the applicant. However, there have been very few concerns raised by applicants on the use of independent commissioners.

 

Inclusionary Zoning

111.  The council is addressing the supply of affordable housing through tools such as the Auckland Housing Bond Guarantee. The Special Housing Area process has shown that, without affordability requirements, developers would not actually have produced the affordable product.  Therefore, increasing land supply is not enough to guarantee the supply of affordable housing. In the Unitary Plan, the council is proposing a mandatory requirement for affordable housing in greenfield developments as developers can factor it into the land prices. This is a way of utilising the value uplift from land rezoning for public good. 

112.  However, the Unitary Plan cannot generate supply of houses. Removal of supply constraints may help to stimulate more supply, but there are other barriers and issues at play, particularly for housing for low to moderate income households. Hence, the approach taken by the council is that a suite of tools is required to address the affordability gap. Inclusionary zoning is an important and valid tool to use (with strong international precedent producing effective outcomes) in conjunction with other measures to improve affordability.

 

Intensification where there is existing infrastructure capacity

113.  The commission recommends that councils ensure planning rules do not prevent intensification in areas where there is existing infrastructure capacity (Recommendation 6.2)

114.  While the council supports the premise that areas with infrastructure capacity should be intensified, the local context is very important when considering intensification.  As stated throughout this submission, local government needs to consider public benefits and costs and community aspirations. Intensification is not always appropriate in all areas with infrastructure capacity.

 

Exceeding Building Act standards

115.  The draft report proposes that local authorities should review District Plan controls on the design and construction of buildings or dwellings that exceed standards set under the Building Act, with a view to removing them (Recommendation 5.5).

116.  While the council supports any recommendations to reduce legislative overlap, it is important to note that the Building Act and RMA have two very different purposes:

a.   The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. 

b.   The purpose of the Building Act is to provide for the regulation of building work, establishment of a licensing regime for building practitioners and the setting of performance standards for buildings. This purpose includes “having attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and wellbeing of the people who use [buildings]” and “buildings are designed, constructed, and able to be used in ways that promote sustainable development.”

 

117.  It is not the practice of the council to develop planning rules in isolation from the Building Act. The starting point for planning rules is the standards set under the Building Act.  Further rules are only added by the council where there are amenity or environmental protection issues which are not covered or adequately addressed under the Building Act.

118.  As a result, the council considers that regulation such as minimum apartment sizes are appropriate under the RMA and do not undermine the Building Act. Certain amenity issues are of particular importance in the management of cities and urban matters.

119.  Alternatively, if it is considered that RMA plans cannot address issues such as avoiding flood hazards, universal access in residential developments, sustainable design, etc., then the Building Act needs to be reviewed to ensure these current shortcomings are rectified.

 

Zoning rules for rural land

120.  The report includes findings on the tensions between the growth of cities and agricultural/rural land on the edges. In particular, the report links zoning of large minimum lot sizes with the purpose of protecting “elite” or “high-class” agricultural land. The report proposes a review of zoning rules for rural land (Recommendation 3.3)

121.  The council does not agree that such zoning is primarily for the purposes of protecting agricultural land. The purpose of such zoning is multi-faceted and also includes:

a.   avoiding ad hoc development in rural areas and the high costs of servicing this with infrastructure

b.   avoiding reverse sensitivity impacts on existing rural activities and maintaining a strong rural economy.


 

Alignment of SOIs with Auckland Plan

122.  Council supports the recommendation that Auckland Transport and Watercare should amend their statements of intent (SOI) so that they are aligned with the Auckland Plan and its target for new dwellings (Recommendation 8.1)

123.  This work is already underway. The recent Auckland Transport SOI for 2015 includes strategic themes developed to align with the Auckland Plan strategic direction and recognises the need for participation in a targeted and integrated approach to development as part of the council’s spatial priority areas and special housing areas.

124.  All CCOs are already required to give effect to the Long Term Plan.

5.0 Address infrastructure financing through partnerships

Text Box: Recommendations
•	Propose partnership with private sector and government to share burden and risk of financing additional infrastructure.
•	Direct government funding of some water and wastewater infrastructure from revenue arising from growth
•	Provide councils with ability to use value capture rating through targeted rates mechanism – implement by allowing rates to be set on basis of a change in land value.
•	Support use of motorway pricing and further discussion on road pricing.
•	Oppose proposal to require councils to consider requests by developers to build infrastructure funded by targeted rates.
•	Remove exemption from rates for crown entities, hospitals, schools, ports, railways, airports.
•	Oppose a requirement to shift the basis of general rates from capital value to land value. 
•	Oppose price control on Watercare.
•	Oppose need to include additional information in Development Contributions policy relating to dwelling floor areas and cost of providing infrastructure services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

125.  A growing city delivers agglomeration benefits for economic growth and some economies of scale in the provision of services. Councils, hence ratepayers, incur additional infrastructure costs as populations grow. These increased costs go beyond the additional local infrastructure required to service growth areas. A larger population leads to negative externalities in service delivery (transport congestion) and diseconomies of scale in the construction and provision of assets (higher land prices). This raises the costs of building and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers[3].

126.  Council’s revenues do not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth in the same way as income taxes and GST.  The infrastructure investment required to support growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for general rates.  Development contributions and targeted rates cannot manage all the funding impacts.

127.  The council is looking for financing partners to share some of the risk of infrastructure investment. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take in directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using some of the additional income generated by growth.

 

Financing infrastructure investment

 

128.  The council agrees that debt is an appropriate means of financing investment in infrastructure. The costs of this debt should be met by the beneficiaries of the investments (land owners, developers and future property owners) because:

a.   it ensures they take account of all the costs of development in their decision making

b.   developers and other beneficiaries are paying for the benefits they receive rather than existing ratepayers.

 

129.  Setting charges on land that will be serviced by additional infrastructure in the form of development contributions or other charges is the best means to achieve this. 

130.  As a result of its power to set rates and sound fiscal management the council has excellent access to capital markets. The council’s access to debt is not unconstrained. The ultimate constraints are economic ones:

 

a.   what is the appropriate size of council

b.   what is the appropriate risk profile of our investments in infrastructure

c.   are long term funding mechanisms through charges, rates or various types and development contributions affordable for our community.

131.  Fiscal prudence drivers dictate a long term sustainable balance must be struck between debt and revenue.

132.  To enable additional investment in infrastructure the council is looking to partner with the private sector including iwi, through development agreements, and central government. This will enable more infrastructure investment to be financed without imposing additional risk on existing ratepayers or putting undue pressure on the council’s balance sheet ratios. The proposals in the draft report that support land aggregation through development agencies will provide the potential for more partners of scale with whom financing arrangements can be entered into.


 

Central government role in financing infrastructure

 

133.  Central government receives benefits in terms of income and consumption taxes from additional growth, and from housing constructed to serve the additional population.[4]  The council considers the government could partner with the council to take a more direct role in the financing of infrastructure.  The council could then use its funding tools, development contributions and targeted rates, to refund this investment

134.  In addition the government should consider sharing in the funding of long lived water and wastewater assets from some of the additional income it expects to receive from growth in the Auckland economy. While this doesn’t link directly to the users of the service it would support acceleration of infrastructure investment, land release, housing construction and economic growth.    

135.  The commission found (Finding 8.1) that “The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport includes relatively weak reference to land supply for housing. A stronger focus on how transport infrastructure can support land supply for housing would change NZTA’s investment priorities and might help to free up land supply in high-growth cities. However, shifting the priorities for land transport funding could have implications for existing priorities”. The council broadly agrees with this finding. NZTA funding criteria focuses largely on “level of service” investment, often at the expense of supporting forward investment in growth. The majority of investment goes towards remedying existing levels of service problems. Therefore most growth-related projects fall below the funding line.

136.  In addition, the council is concerned that NZTA does not fund rail improvements. This gap should be addressed to enable metro rail developments to be considered as part of public transport solutions for Auckland.

137.  The council and Auckland Transport have established the Local Residential Growth Fund as a new measure – a ring-fenced fund dedicated to Special Housing Area/plan change related projects which have a high (75%) growth component and a well-documented need. This fund will not deliver on all growth needs.

 

Funding infrastructure investment

 

138.  The tools that council has available to fund the costs of infrastructure to serve growth are:

a.   general rates – used to fund infrastructure that can’t be funded from contributions

b.   development contributions – primary funding source

c.   targeted rates – not presently used but offers advantages in some circumstances

d.   government grants for transport.

 

139.  Development contributions currently allow the council to secure most of the funding required to meet the costs of development, i.e. water, wastewater, roading or transport infrastructure. However, contributions do not cover all the costs of infrastructure and specifically as a result of legislative changes, contributions no longer cover all the costs of infrastructure expected by ratepayers, e.g. swimming pools and libraries. These costs now have to be met by existing ratepayers rather than the beneficiaries of the investment. 

140.  In addition to the above, the council, along with Local Government New Zealand, supports broadening the funding tools available to improve economic efficiency and better support partnerships with government, private sector and others. Key areas where the council seeks change are discussed in the following sections and are included in response to the proposals within the commission’s report.

User charges

 

141.  The commission recommends that councils should pursue opportunities to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure assets including through greater use of user charges where this can reduce demands on infrastructure (Recommendation 6.4)

142.  The commission also recommends that Government should adopt the Local Government Infrastructure Advisory Group’s recommendation to amend the Land Transport Management Act to allow pricing on existing roads where there is a business case that enables effective network optimisation (Recommendation 6.5)

143.  The council already funds water and wastewater through user charges via its subsidiary Watercare Services Limited. 

144.  The commission also asks whether there is a case for introducing access, quality and price regulation for water services (Question 8.4). There would be little benefit from the price regulation as Watercare cannot make a profit, unlike other utilities.  The council is not aware of any evidence on the cost efficiency of Watercare's investment programme and operations that would justify the costs of regulation.

145.  The Auckland Plan identifies the need to implement new transport funding mechanisms to raise revenue and manage demand. Our analysis shows these charges provide three times the economic benefits of alternatives such as petrol taxes and rates.

146.  The council has led the road pricing discussion in Auckland and has established community support for a motorway user charge. A Colmar Brunton survey of 5000 Aucklanders identified that 57 per cent preferred a motorway user charge.

147.  The council is continuing to work with the government to eventually implement a new transport funding mechanism.

Targeted rates

 

148.  The council does not currently use targeted rates to fund growth infrastructure but is considering making greater use of this tool. Targeted rates offer some advantages over development contributions as they:

a.   are payable whether or not development proceeds

b.   providing a more secure revenue stream

c.   encourage development and discourage land banking

d.   can be levied on existing property owners where they benefit from infrastructure investment (development contributions can only be levied on new developments and for the benefits they receive)

e.   spread the cost of infrastructure over a longer time period thus reducing upfront capital requirements.


 

149.  The council could apply a targeted rate to recover the cost of some, or all, of the infrastructure to meet the demands of growth in a particular area.  This would apply to both new and existing properties. The share of the cost of infrastructure to be met by different properties could be based on similar characteristics to those used to allocate cost under the development contributions policy.

150.  A targeted rate is payable by a property owner whether or not they develop. It is therefore likely that some property owners would oppose this form of funding. One alternative that may make a targeted rate more palatable and to better align the cost allocation with benefit would be to apportion the cost on the basis of change in land value, a form of value capture rate. In this way a property owner would pay a share based on the benefit they were receiving in terms of land value uplift. In order to be able to employ this tool the council recommends that the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 be amended to allow rates to be set on the basis of change in land value.

 

Value capture rating

 

151.  The council agrees with the draft report’s conclusion that there is a strong case for the public to capture unearned land value increases resulting from public action. The council also agrees with the views on the role that participation in the market via an urban development agency and the use of targeted rates as a form of betterment levy can take. The use of more direct methods such as an ongoing land value increment should be considered as part of a wider discussion on local government funding and the tax base in general.

 

Developer requests for targeted rate to fund growth-infrastructure

 

152.  The commission recommends that councils be required to consider a request from developers to construct growth-enabling infrastructure, to be repaid through targeted rates on the properties that benefit from the infrastructure connections (Recommendation 7.3). The possible purposes of this recommendation are to:

a.   allow for additional land to be made available for development beyond that which council plans to service and release

b.   spread the cost of infrastructure over a longer time period and away from the developers to the new property owner.

 

153.  Pursuing all such opportunities outside the council’s planned growth approach would lead to the council taking on more debt. A blanket requirement to formally consider all such proposals would incur more administrative cost and divert key staff from focusing on issues that would have a real impact on land supply. In so far as it reduces capital pressure on developers it is noted that the council already allows developers to defer payment of contributions until the sale of a property. 

154.  The council considers it has sufficient flexibility to adequately assess the impacts of developer proposals and exercise its discretion if the benefits of such proposals outweigh the costs. Further, the council considers a mandatory requirement to include developer proposals outside priority areas would not be cost effective. Agreeing to these proposals would require the council to divert spending from higher priority infrastructure programming. The council does not support this proposal.

 

Removal of rating exemptions for crown entities and other land

 

155.  The council supports removing the exemption from rates not just from Crown entities but also from ports, railways, airports, hospitals and schools.

156.  Rates are a tax that fund a wide variety of council services including roading, water supply and waste water, storm water, governance, regulatory functions, and community facilities such as libraries, parks and swimming pools.

157.  All land owners benefit from the public good services that councils provide. Most also benefit from direct private benefit services such as refuse collection, water and waste water services. As all land receives some benefit then all land should be liable for rates. Legislation allows councils to charge rates to land classified as non-rateable for water, sewerage and refuse so long as the service is being provided to the land.  

158.  Rating exemptions initially covered crown land, land used for religion, and land covered by native title. Over time these exemptions have been expanded and developed to reflect changes to how the land is used, specifically:

a.   the devolution of functions to entities that are legally separate from the crown

b.   commercial activities being undertaken on some crown land.

 

159.  Reasons for providing rating exemptions include:

a.   land provides a public good

b.   land has no or limited economic use

c.   land receives limited benefit from council services.

 

160.  The impacts of continuing to provide these rating exemptions are:

a.   ratepayers bear the costs of services that are delivered to exempt land

b.   the crown benefits from subsidised council services

c.   dilution of the available rates base resulting in either reduced service levels or higher rates bills.

 

161.  Many rating exemptions have been derived from a broad policy of exempting crown lands. The rationale for providing ongoing exemptions for ports, railways, airports, hospitals and schools is based almost exclusively on national interest. The council believe that these exemptions are no longer appropriate because:

a.   the public good provided from the land accrues to a wider community (i.e. the country as a whole) and it is inappropriate that only local communities fund them

b.   the value of the rating exemption for an individual property is out of proportion from the value of the public benefit provided

c.   although local communities benefit from the activities undertaken on non-rateable land, similar benefits can be obtained from land that is rateable

d.   continuing exemptions reduces incentives for efficient investment[5]

e.   other utilities such as gas and electricity networks pay rates

f.    all the currently exempted activities are subject to GST and income tax to fund central government activities so they should also be subject to local government rates.

 

162.  Councils see investment in infrastructure as necessary if the government’s goal of “growing an inclusive innovative economy for the benefit of all” is to be achieved. The main impact that of continuing rates exemptions for crown land is that there will be less funding available for investment in infrastructure.

Capital Value and Land Value rating

 

163.  The adoption of an integrated rating system in Auckland has led to large increases for many ratepayers.  A move now to land value rating would lead to further significant changes in rates.

 

164.  One criticism of rating systems is that they are regressive in relation to incomes. The commission finding that land value has a better relationship to incomes than capital value is contrary to the findings of the Local Government Rates Inquiry. The council’s view is that rates based on property values (both land and capital value) have a very good correlation with household incomes, although the closeness of this fit is influenced by the choice of differentials and the use of fixed charges. The council also considers that although land value rating does provide a stronger incentive to develop land, this difference is small and will not have a material impact on development decisions.

 

165.  In Auckland key benefits of continuing to use capital value as the basis for rating include:

a.   capital values are more accurate as there is significantly more information available on market transactions for developed land as opposed to vacant land

b.   capital values have a better correlation to benefits received from council services and require fewer differentials.

 

166.  Having just completed a three year process of standardising rates for the Auckland region to be based on capital value, changing to land value would create significant short term swings in the incidence of rates. Particularly, significant reductions for utility companies and significant increases for the rural sector.

 

Development Contributions policy detail

 

167.  The council does not support the recommendation that councils should include information in their development contributions policy about the relationship between dwelling floor area and the cost of providing infrastructure services (Recommendation 7.2). The council already sets development contributions based on dwelling floor area and will provide on request the information on which this decision was reached. There is little value in adding more text to already lengthy contributions policy documentation.


 

 

Appendix A


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 2015

 

Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3): Auckland Council’s Submission

 

File No.: CP2015/15702

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval for the Auckland Council’s submission to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (no 3).

2.       The report was not available when the agenda went to print for the reason that local boards have been given an opportunity to provide informal comment on the draft submission prior to reporting to the Committee. Local Boards’ have been given until 5 August to provide their input.

3.       The report will be circulated prior to the meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      consider the report.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 August 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

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 regarding development proposals.

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 regarding development proposals.

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       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel - Historic/Special Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice..

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.

 

C3       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel - Viewshafts

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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice..

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.

 

   



[1] Including apartments, terrace housing, duplexes, townhouses, and stand-alone dwellings

[2] McKay D, Review of Central Government Policy, Implementation, Strategy and Leadership Effectiveness in Auckland: Report for Chief Executives Governance Group (August 2014)

[3] Development contributions can require developers to make a contribution towards some of the cost of maintaining service levels but not all of them.

[4] GST on the average new house ($300,000) constructed in Auckland is $45,000 whereas the average development contribution is $19,055.

[5] The council charges rates internally and central government entities should also meet these costs.