I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 12 November 2015 9.30am Reception
Lounge, Level 2 |
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
6 November 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 12 November 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
6 Local Board Input 7
7 Extraordinary Business 7
8 Notices of Motion 8
9 Reports Pending Status Update 9
10 Summary of information memos and briefings - 12 November 2015 17
11 Housing for Oplder Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation 19
12 Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 31
Attachments to item 12 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda Under Separate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will be available.
13 Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report 43
14 Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power Generation Precinct 125
Attachments to item 14 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda Under Separate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will be available.
15 Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management Act Discussion Document 129
16 Hobsonville Point update and proposed screen precinct 131
The report was not available when the agenda to print and will be circulated prior to the meeting.
17 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
18 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 133
C1 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update 133
C2 Tamaki Regeneration Project 133
C3 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for mediation and hearings - Tertiary Education Zones and Precincts for Akoranga 1 (AUT), Albany 9 (Massey University) and Wairaka (UNITEC) 134
C4 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Appointment of Additional Independant Hearings Panel Members 134
1 Apologies
Apologies from Cr AJ Anae and Cr LA Cooper 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 Thursday, 15 October 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.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
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 12 November 2015 |
|
File No.: CP2015/23355
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).
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) receive the reports pending status update. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 10 September 2015 |
11 |
bView |
Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme 2015/2016 |
13 |
Signatories
Author |
Tam White - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Summary of information memos and briefings - 12 November 2015
File No.: CP2015/23451
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 15 October 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/memos were presented/circulated as follows:
· Village Town concept : for more information visit : http://villagetowns.nz
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.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 12 November 2015. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Letter from Claude Lewenz re: VillageTowns - a different approach to making Auckland the world's most liveable city (Extra Attachments) |
|
Signatories
Author |
Tam White - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Housing for Older Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation
File No.: CP2015/22700
Purpose
1. To approve the standardisation of eligibility criteria for Auckland Council’s housing for older persons service.
Executive Summary
2. Council currently has 1,412 housing for older persons dwellings, with a waiting list of 386 current applications. There are currently five different sets of eligibility criteria based on legacy councils’ policies, and no housing for older persons in the former Auckland City and Rodney legacy areas. These differences present significant challenges to applicants in understanding whether and where they might qualify.
3. In May 2015 Council’s Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the Long Term Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that eligibility would then be standardised.
4. The proposed standardised criteria require that applicants are eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, have assets of less than $40,000, are able to live independently, receive superannuation as their main source of income, have an identified housing need, and have lived in Auckland for one year or more in the last five years. Key stakeholder groups provided input into criteria development.
5. While the proposal excludes Aucklanders aged between 59 and 65 who are currently eligible, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the North Shore area, the overall impact of the revision is better access to HfOP for the service’s target population.
6. Staff presented the proposed criteria to local board chairs on the 19th October 2015. Local Boards Chairs expressed an interest in understanding what the impact of the proposed change in age criteria would be on future applicants. This information was provided to the Local Boards and is included in attachment C. Early estimates indicate that approximately 60 people on the waiting list will not be eligible to apply under the new criteria.
7. Council is currently seeking a partnership for HfOP services with one or many partner organisations. Staff recommend completing the current standardisation of criteria prior to this potential change in delivery due to the benefits of creating ‘one council voice’ regarding criteria, reducing confusion to customers and potential partners, and readying the portfolio for a partnership delivery model.
8. Staff propose the criteria take effect from 1 January 2016 and are applied to the current waiting list as well as new applications. The Auckland Development Committee has the delegation to approve the standardised eligibility criteria.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) approve that from 1 January 2016, one set of eligibility criteria will apply for all housing for older persons dwellings across Auckland as follows: i. Age: Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, including the same qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person). ii. Income: Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amount from their main source of income. iii. Assets: Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples). These are both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New Zealand Work and Income for their Accommodation Supplement. iv. Live independently: Able to live independently in an intensive housing environment. Definition: Can engage and/or manage any support services they might require and contribute constructively to harmonious community life. v. Housing need: Self-identified housing need at the time of application. This will ensure the assessment is reflective of housing need at the moment of the application (not an assumed future need). vi. Connection to Auckland: Lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last five years or is currently living there. b) note the changes do not apply to existing tenants but include tenants currently on the waiting list and new applications. |
Comments
9. Auckland Council owns and operates 1,412 ‘housing for older persons’ dwellings, concentrated in the south, west and north of Auckland. There is currently no HfOP housing in the former Auckland City and Rodney areas.
10. There is a growing waiting list for these dwellings, with 386 current applications and an additional 70 cases in the process of being assessed.
11. Currently, there are five different sets of eligibility criteria to access these dwellings, which are based on the policies of the legacy councils in which the properties are located. All criteria require applicants to be New Zealand citizens or residents aged 60 or over. Other criteria are similar and focus on determining need according to the thresholds of age, financial means, ability to live independently, housing need and connection to a locality. The additional criteria which differ within each region are outlined in detail in Attachment A.
12. The most significant issues associated with the current criteria are as follows:
a. different criteria mean applicants are treated inequitably across Auckland
b. navigating five sets of criteria is confusing for applicants
c. loosely worded and disparate criteria allow people to be put on the waiting list who are unlikely to receive an offer of placement in a unit. This creates longer waiting lists than necessary and slows down the application process for everyone
d. The current criteria are based on static numbers (for example ‘age 60’) rather than sector policy thresholds (for example ‘the age of entitlement to superannuation’). This means that when central government adjusts its policies, HfOP criteria become less relevant and discrepancies arise between national and local policies.
13. In May 2015 the Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the Long Term Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that existing eligibility criteria would then be standardised.
14. Since that time, council staff, as directed by the Auckland Development Committee, have begun to procure partner organisation(s) to assist in delivering HfOP accommodation and associated services. As part of that process, eligibility criteria need to align with central government (Ministry of Social Development (MSD) eligibility criteria or allocation frameworks. This is because central government social housing reform dictates that social housing assigned by private organisations must align with MSD criteria. Housing providers partnering with Auckland Council would fall under this legislation.
15. The standardisation of council criteria prior to engagement with MSD regarding delivery of social housing is a necessary precursor to entering into partnership for HfOP delivery. Standardised criteria are also expected to achieve significant efficiencies for Council in staff administration time. The current assessment process includes visiting applicants, obtaining financial and circumstantial information, discussing and assessing that information. Staff estimate that a consolidated approach will significantly reduce the time per application due to the clearer information for applicants and the reduced need for staff time spent explaining criteria to applicants and requesting additional information.
16. Council receives approximately 24 applications per month. A consolidated approach will deliver better value to ratepayers in both the quality of the service provided and the cost in processing applications.
Development of Criteria
17. To standardise eligibility criteria, staff considered the current sets of criteria as well as prevailing policy and practice within New Zealand for similar types of dwellings. Staff then sought feedback on their initial recommendations and tested their reasoning with following organisations and groups:
a. New Zealand Housing Foundation and Community Housing Aotearoa – for policy perspectives from the existing community housing sector.
b. Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) on the evolution of the various eligibility criteria used in state housing, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on the recent changes to the criteria.
c. Wellington and Christchurch City Councils as the most comparable council providers. Both of these councils use variants of HNZC’s criteria from 2003 and they are currently also reviewing their approaches.
d. The Seniors Advisory Panel, Age Concern and Grey Power – to consider the aged care sector from a variety of angles.
18. Stakeholders agreed with the broad eligibility criteria proposed, with varied feedback on the definitions and thresholds for each criterion. A summary of feedback for each criterion is outlined in Attachment B. As a result of this feedback, some of the recommendations were amended to arrive at the draft eligibility criteria thresholds as outlined in table one below.
Table One: Recommended standardised HfOP eligibility criteria for the Auckland region
Subject |
Criterion |
Age |
Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, including the same qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person). |
Income |
Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amount from their main source of income |
Assets |
Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples). These are both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New Zealand Work and Income for their Accommodation Supplement |
Ability to live independently |
Is able to live independently in an intensive housing environment, can engage and/or manage any support services they might require and contribute constructively to harmonious community life. This definition allows for applicants who may require assistance and who are able to manage this assistance |
Housing need |
Has a self-identified housing need at the time of application |
Connection to Auckland |
Has lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last five years or is currently living there |
19. This proposal removes criteria requiring residency in a legacy area. This will reduce the waiting list by around 25%, and make Council’s eligibility process more compatible with potential community housing partners.
20. In addition, linking eligibility to National Superannuation age and amount will automatically adjust eligibility to any central government pension policy changes. The criteria also require National Super to be the main source of income, which allows applicants to earn a modest supplementary income.
21. The proposal excludes people aged between 59 and 65 when compared with the current criteria, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the legacy North Shore. However overall, the revised criteria will provide better access to HfOP to the Aucklanders in most need of the service.
22. Commentary on the criteria by subject area is outlined in table two below.
Table two: commentary on eligibility criteria by subject
Subject of criterion |
Commentary |
Age |
Matching the age threshold and income thresholds set by the Ministry of Social Development for New Zealand National Superannuation eligibility means that the age threshold · is not fixed at an arbitrary age, which may not endure as central government superannuation policy changes and · reflects the proportion of the population to whom council seeks to provide a service People over the age of 60 are eligible under the existing five sets of legacy council criteria. Linking the age eligibility criteria to central government entitlement for New Zealand National Superannuation would mean that people who are over 59 but under 65 will no longer be eligible. Although the highest proportion of 59-65 year olds in Auckland are on the North Shore (Attachment C) we anticipate that matching the age threshold to that set by the Ministry will have the biggest impact on applicants in the South. This is because the South has the highest population of Maori and Pacific Islanders in Auckland and data indicates that due to a lower life expectancy, Maori and Pacific Islanders access social housing earlier than other ethnic populations. |
Income |
Basing the income criteria on the main source of income means that the applicant is able to earn a supplementary income without this affecting their eligibility. |
Assets |
The proposed asset threshold does not discriminate against applicants who may own modest assets. |
Ability to live independently |
The criteria regarding independent living means that the factors which contribute to a harmonious village life are incorporated into the process from the first step. |
Housing need |
The criteria regarding self-identified housing need now ensures the application is based on the current point in time. This increases the fairness of the assessment because all applicants are assessed on current state, not future state. |
Connection to Auckland |
Removing legacy connection criteria allows access to applications for the HfOP service across Auckland, including those areas without a legacy HfOP service. |
Rolling out standardised criteria
23. If approved, these criteria will standardise who is eligible for the waiting list. Once eligibility is determined, staff will assess need within that list from a social housing perspective, using an objective evidence-based weighting tool.
24. If the committee approve the proposed standardised eligibility criteria for HfOP services, staff recommend the criteria are applied to the existing waitlist and any new applications from 1 January 2016.
25. This will provide equity and fairness among existing and new applicants when their need is assessed and their priority on the list assigned.
26. When applied to the existing waiting list early estimates indicate that approximately 60 people will no longer be eligible under the new criteria.
27. If the new criteria where not applied to existing waiting list applicants these 60 people would stay on the list but the may not be allocated housing in the foreseeable future due to their need being assessed as lower than new applicants. For this reason staff do not recommend exempting current waiting list applicants.
28. Staff do not recommend reviewing current tenancies under the revised criteria.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
29. Council staff presented the proposed eligibility to criteria to the Local Boards Chairs Forum on the 19th October 2015. Local Board Chairs indicated an interest in further understanding the impact of the change in age criteria from 60 years to 65 years.
30. Council staff provided the requested information via memo to Local Boards. That information is based on data gathered from the 2013 census and is in Attachment C.
Māori impact statement
31. According to the 2015 survey of social housing tenants (Auckland Council/Gravitas) residents of housing for older person dwellings are more likely to identify as Maori or with a Pacific People’s ethnic group.
32. As Auckland Council investigates partnership options for delivery of HfOP, staff are developing an engagement plan that will ensure mana whenua and mataawaka are fully aware of the opportunities and are encouraged to participate to enable the recognition of koroua and kuia.
33. The partnership approach will also allow mana whenua and mataawaka to grow their role in provision of housing solutions. This may be through partnerships with existing community housing providers who can supplement and complement the respective skills of both parties in a partnership proposal.
Implementation
34. Pending approval of the standardised criteria, staff will implement the revised criteria from 1 January 2016.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Differing legacy eligibility criteria |
25 |
bView |
Stakeholder feedback summary |
27 |
cView |
Age and demographic data of Auckland’s 60-65 population |
29 |
Signatories
Author |
Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South |
Authorisers |
Graham Bodman - General Manager - Arts, Community and Events Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy
File No.: CP2015/23239
Purpose
1. To consider the feedback received during public consultation on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (the draft Strategy), to approve the Auckland Development Committee Deliberations Panel’s recommended changes to this draft Strategy as a result of this feedback and to adopt the final Strategy.
Executive Summary
2. The Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public consultation on 7 July 2015 in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act (2002).
3. Public consultation on the draft Strategy took place from 17 July to 17 August 2015. A total of 237 pieces of written feedback was received. This feedback, together with the feedback from 270 people who attended the four Have Your Say public meetings, was considered by the deliberations panel on 23 September and 7 October 2015. Overall, the feedback strongly supported the intent and purpose of the draft Strategy in terms of providing a region-wide approach to integrating and sequencing land use and infrastructure in the future urban zone (FUZ) areas.
4. The main changes proposed to the draft Strategy as a result of the feedback are the following amendments to the initially proposed sequencing of the FUZ areas:
a. that Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two
b. that Drury West (formerly called Karaka in the draft Strategy) be brought forward to the first half of decade two
c. that Opaheke – Drury be sequenced in the first half of decade three (previously the second half of decade two)
d. that Puhinui be included in the second half of decade two (though not included in the draft Strategy nor specifically raised in the feedback, it is included to align with recent planning undertaken for the area).
5. Other proposed changes in response to the feedback received include matters related to:
a. scale and context of growth
b. structure planning
c. costs, funding and financing solutions
d. importance of monitoring
e. collaboration.
6. A monitoring and review programme is an integral part of implementing the Strategy. It will ensure that the Strategy is responsive to changes in the future to deliver land for development at the right time and in the right locations. The monitoring programme will be part of a wider monitoring framework undertaken for the Auckland Plan.
7. As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructure providers will work together to ensure more detailed land use and infrastructure planning and delivery is aligned.
8. Future urban zones identified as ‘standalone areas’ (with the exception of Hingaia) are not included in the Strategy. They will be addressed through future work on the stage four (rural and coastal towns) Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) process.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) receive the summary of public feedback obtained during the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy consultation process b) approve the changes to the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy proposed by the Auckland Development Committee Deliberations Panel c) adopt the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy as proposed by the Auckland Development Committee Deliberations Panel and inclusive of additional changes approved by the Committee d) delegate through the Chief Executive to the General Manager,Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Auckland Development Committee. |
Comments
Background
9. The Auckland Plan identified ‘greenfield areas for investigation’ to provide for future growth outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The PAUP formalised this concept through the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as FUZ. The RUB has been subject to substantial public consultation: during the development of the Auckland Plan in 2011, the Auckland Unitary Plan discussion document consultation from late 2012 to mid-2013 and the subsequent notification of the PAUP in September 2013. It is noted that the precise boundaries of the RUB have not yet been finalised through the PAUP process.
10. The purpose of the Strategy is to provide a robust and logical 30-year sequence for when the 11,000 hectares of FUZ land is proposed to be ‘development ready’. This will enable coordination of timely structure planning, live zoning and bulk infrastructure provision to these areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructure providers. The future urban areas are predominantly rural and have not been previously identified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided prior to their development.
11. The areas included in the Strategy are located outside the 2010 MUL but exclude future urban zones identified as ‘standalone areas’ (with the exception of Hingaia). These areas will be addressed through future work on the stage four (rural and coastal towns) RUB process.
12. The Strategy leverages off existing legacy planning and approved Special Housing Areas (SHAs) for the first 5-10 years. Subsequently, the Strategy transitions to a more proactive approach that aims to ensure that the necessary underpinning network infrastructure will be available at the time of future live zoning of FUZ land.
13. The Strategy deals with the future urban areas located in the:
a. North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat
b. North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead
c. South: Puhinui, Takanini, Hingaia, Opaheke-Drury, Drury West, Paerata and Pukekohe.
14. The PAUP Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) has requested further information to understand how the council will manage the planning and development of future urban land. The Strategy forms part of the council’s overall integrated planning approach which includes the use of the RUB and the FUZ.
15. Structure planning and associated plan changes to create ‘live’ zonings will be done prior to the FUZ areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the council (or in partnership with others) in line with the sequencing outlined in the Strategy. Structure planning will be the stage of the process where local boards, mana whenua and communities will be most heavily involved in the planning of these areas.
Sequencing future urban zoned land
16. The approach undertaken to identify the sequencing of the likely structure planning/development readiness for the future urban areas was primarily a technical exercise that consisted of the following key stages:
a. work initially focussed on building a greater understanding of each future urban area by consolidating the planning information held across council and undertaking high level technical analysis. This exercise provided a clearer picture regarding the potential land uses, development capacities, development opportunities and constraints and the bulk infrastructure projects that would be required to urbanise these areas
b. a suite of principles was established to guide the development of the Strategy and to allow the overall prioritisation of the FUZ areas within the short, medium and long-term timeframes of the Strategy
c. a series of technical workshops were held with key infrastructure providers including Auckland Transport, Watercare, Veolia and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The workshops looked at each geographic location separately to understand the likely localised infrastructure requirements
d. the resulting information was then used to develop an overall regional picture and develop recommendations for when a future urban area should be live zoned. This required all areas to be compared and then sequenced. The regional analysis also compared the development capacities that were likely to occur and the necessary key enabling infrastructure projects (and their timelines and potential costs where known) with the aim that development capacities could be delivered, and that infrastructure costs could be spread, over the period of the Strategy
e. the outputs from all of these stages were then consolidated into a table that sets out the sequence order in terms of the council’s intentions of when these areas would be ready for urban development.
Public consultation
17. On 7 July 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to:
a) approve the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002).
b) approve the statement of proposal for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for consultation.
c) appoint Cr WB Cashmore, Deputy Chairperson C Darby, Cr D Quax and Cr MP Webster of the Auckland Development Committee and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to form a hearing panel, and delegate authority to this panel to attend public consultation events and consider the consultation feedback received, and make recommendations to the Auckland Development Committee.
d) delegate to the chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee the power to make additional or replacement appointments to the hearings panel if required.
e) delegate to the General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal, to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Auckland Development Committee.
Resolution: AUC/2015/147
18. Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox was subsequently appointed to the Strategy hearings panel. This panel was renamed the deliberations panel given that formal hearings were not required in this process which was undertaken under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. Public consultation on the Strategy took place from 17 July to 17 August 2015 and commenced with a media release from the council and the launch of an interactive webpage, followed by public notices in the New Zealand Herald and within targeted local papers. These notices informed the public that the draft Strategy and a statement of proposal were publicly available for comment and also advertised the upcoming Have Your Say public meetings.
19. Four Have Your Say events were held during the consultation period in Warkworth (3 August), Kumeu (5 August), Dairy Flat (10 August) and Drury (11 August). These locations were chosen with input from local board services staff. Each event was attended by four of the five appointed hearing panel members; as well as local board members, relevant council staff (including Auckland Transport) and representatives from the NZTA. The primary means to obtain feedback were small group facilitated table discussions, where members of the public could provide feedback on the draft Strategy in the presence of a hearing panel and/or elected member. Attendee comments were captured in writing and a report back from each table occurred. A good cross section of the public (270 people) attended these four events and the summary of feedback (see Attachment A) from each event was provided on the council’s website.
Feedback summary
20. A total of 237 pieces of written feedback were received on the draft Strategy (see summary in Attachment B). This feedback, together with the feedback received at the Have Your Say events, was considered by the deliberations panel at two sessions that occurred on 23 September and 7 October 2015.
21. The majority of written feedback was received from those located in the Rodney Local Board (45 per cent), followed by the Upper Harbour Local Board (19 per cent) and Franklin Local Board area (6 per cent). Overall, there was strong support for taking a region- wide approach to integrating land use and infrastructure, as was the draft Strategy’s intent and purpose.
22. Feedback has been grouped into 14 main themes, discussed below, which provides a summary of feedback received and the responses proposed. The amended version of the Strategy incorporating these responses is provided in Attachment C.
Theme one: the scale of growth and type of development envisioned
23. In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the lack of appreciation by the public about the scale of growth that is proposed by the Strategy, what this would mean in terms of urban development/form (e.g. the likely housing typology) envisaged and the amount of infrastructure that would be needed to allow urbanisation of the FUZ areas. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· a new section (section two: scale and context) with further explanation be added to clarify the scale of proposed FUZ area development and the type of development that is envisioned. As illustrative measures, the total FUZ area is compared to the size of the City of Hamilton and examples of likely housing types and urban form are included.
Theme two: the priority of brownfield versus greenfield development
24. In summary, the feedback received on this theme is defined by a perception that the council is prioritising greenfield area development without sufficiently examining options to accelerate brownfield area development. A small number of submitters suggested that a complementary brownfield strategy be developed. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a. a new diagram be added to the introduction (section one) to better illustrate what proportion of the anticipated future growth within Auckland over the next 30 years will occur within the FUZ areas
b. additional wording be added in the second paragraph of the introduction to clarify the importance of providing a pipeline of land supply in both brownfields and greenfields areas and that, as recognised by the Auckland Plan, both brownfields and greenfields land supply are needed
c. a revised monitoring section is added that highlights the importance of monitoring the on-going development capacity of both existing urban land and future urban land.
Theme three: the need for mixed land use
25. In summary, the feedback received on this theme outlined the importance many submitters put on ensuring that a balanced mix of residential and employment land would be achieved by the Strategy, so as to allow the development of well-functioning communities. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· an illustrative diagram of a “mock” structure plan be included in a new section on structure planning (section 3). This diagram visually illustrates that obtaining a balanced mix of business and residential land is anticipated by the Strategy, and the optimal mix of land use will be identified through the forthcoming structure planning processes.
Theme four: the importance of monitoring and implementation
26. In summary, the feedback received on this theme showed that there was significant public interest about how, and when, the Strategy would be monitored and reviewed. It was considered the monitoring of the Strategy should have the ability to alter the sequence and timeframes set out in the Strategy. However, there were significantly differing opinions over how flexible the review process should be in terms of responding to unforeseen changes that the monitoring could potentially identify. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· a revised monitoring and review section (section six) be added within the Strategy to make clear that:
o the Strategy will track and report on the progress of delivering land for new communities. This will include the identification of future urban zoning, structure planning, rezoning, servicing with bulk infrastructure, subdivision and the building consent process
o the Strategy will be monitored annually as part of a comprehensive and broader Auckland Plan Development Strategy monitoring framework
o the Strategy may be amended following a review, should the monitoring identify clear changes from the expected growth patterns, increased funding availability for bulk infrastructure, or a significant change in strategic direction (due to factors such as economic situations, or the regulatory planning context).
Theme five: the interrelationship between forecast infrastructure costs and dwelling numbers
27. In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to the cost table (page 13 of the draft Strategy) and the incorrect perception that the forecast infrastructure costs could be directly apportioned to the forecast dwelling numbers. In order to address this feedback it is proposed:
· that additional text be added within the Strategy to clarify that costs do not directly correlate to the number of dwellings forecast within each decade and that a proportion of these costs will be incurred in preceding decades to allow development in the subsequent decade.
Theme six: the sequencing of special housing areas
28. In summary, the feedback received on this theme reflected public concern that some of the recently approved SHAs have been omitted from the proposed sequencing in the draft Strategy and that it appeared that some SHAs may leapfrog the proposed sequencing, with the consequence that either no infrastructure, or only heavily constrained infrastructure, would be in place to service these SHAs. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a. the Hingaia SHA be included in the sequencing table
b. section four (the programme) more fully explains that approved SHAs have a significant role in the first decade of the Strategy and are a part of the transition to longer-term, more proactive planning
c. the Strategy makes reference to the fact that the Housing Accord and Special Housing Act 2013 has a set expiry date
d. additional text be added to explain that SHAs that are within the MUL or in ‘standalone’ areas (with the exception of Hingaia) have not been included (e.g. Flat Bush, Kingseat) as the development of these areas will be or have been addressed through other processes (e.g. ‘standalone’ areas will be addressed through a future process that looks at the RUB location in rural and coastal towns). FUZ areas inside the MUL have already had significant planning undertaken through SHAs and structure planning processes and is not the focus of this Strategy.
Theme seven: the relationship with other strategic and planning documents
29. In summary, the feedback received on this theme showed that many submitters wanted the Strategy to complement and connect to other major strategic and planning documents. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· a new paragraph and diagram be added to the introduction (section one) shows how the Strategy is interrelated and connects to major strategic and planning documents including the: Auckland Plan, 30-year Infrastructure Strategy, PAUP and Long-term Plan. Acknowledgement is also made to strategic transport documents (Regional Land Transport Plan and the National Land Transport Plan).
Theme eight: Māori
30. In summary, the feedback received on this theme reflected concern about whether the structure planning process would identify sufficient employment land and whether adequate consideration would be given to the development plans of Māori. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a. a new section on structure planning (section 3) be added, including an illustrative structure plan to show that a balanced mix of land uses is envisioned
b. additional text be included to acknowledge the aspirations for Māori land development, particularly on the periphery of Tamāki Makaurau, including an expanded Māori principle in Appendix one
c. there will be on-going dialogue between Māori and the council to ensure that Māori aspirations are being realised as the Strategy is implemented and that the wider monitoring framework will monitor how the council is addressing Māori land development aspirations.
Theme nine: the role of structure planning
31. In summary, the feedback received on this theme emphasised the importance of including the community in forthcoming structure planning. There were also requests for additional detail on the role of structure planning, when it would be undertaken, and who would lead. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· a new section on structure planning (section 3) be added that includes an illustrative structure plan. This section clarifies the role of structure planning and what it entails. It also outlines who could lead a structure plan and clarifies the role of the community in this process.
Theme ten: the funding/financing of infrastructure
32. In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to queries about the magnitude of the infrastructure costs outlined in the Strategy, how such costs would be funded/financed and who would pay for this infrastructure. It became apparent from analysing the feedback that additional clarification on what could be funded by development contributions was needed as some submitters misunderstood how this policy could be applied by the council. There were also a number of queries about whether alternative funding/financing tools could be applied. In order to address this feedback:
a. council staff have worked with key infrastructure providers to obtain the best cost estimates possible, which will be shown as ‘inflated costs’ including contingency estimates
b. further text be added is proposed to recognise that the council is working within a constrained financial environment and that development contributions will not cover the full amount of the bulk infrastructure costs proposed
c. the council will continue to examine how alternative funding/financing tools could be applied to fund new infrastructure needs generated by Auckland’s growth.
Theme eleven: the timing and importance of infrastructure
33. In summary, the feedback received on this theme stressed the need to ensure that key network infrastructure is in place before any development starts. There were also requests that public transport be central to the sequencing with the view to having well-functioning transport links in place at the time of development. There were a number of requests for various transport projects to be planned and constructed earlier than anticipated by the draft Strategy to alleviate or avoid perceived future congestion. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that a new section be added as section two (scale and content) which includes reference to infrastructure, in particular public transport.
Theme twelve: the sequencing and timing of live zoning
34. In summary, the feedback received on this theme was defined by requests to amend the sequencing and timing of live zoning, and in particular to bring the live zoning of certain future urban areas forward (e.g. bring Wainui/Silverdale/Dairy Flat forward before Warkworth). In addition, requests were received to include Warkworth North East within the sequencing, confirm that Dairy Flat is included in the Strategy and that Warkworth should not be split in a north/south orientation but occur as one concentrated development from the centre outwards. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a. Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two to enable prudent planning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements.
b. Drury West be brought forward to the first half of decade two to leverage off the approved SHA in that area and maximise its market attractiveness
c. Opaheke – Drury be pushed out to the firstt half of decade three to enable stormwater and bulk wastewater solutions to be planned, funded and constructed and also to allow time for the area to benefit from development occurring earlier in Drury West (it is considered that the market attractiveness of Drury West will have a positive spin off for Opaheke - Drury).
d. Dairy Flat (south of Bawden Road and west of Postman Road) be included to enable prudent planning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements. A caveat stating that its final inclusion be determined through the PAUP process be added
e. additional rationale be included to explain the order of the sequencing table (within Appendix one)
f. more explanation be provided in section three (structure planning) of the Strategy to clarify that structure panning will identify smaller, more nuanced areas for staging of development to ensure a logical rollout of local infrastructure and land use
g. the sequencing table be updated in section four and shown as table one below.
35. While Puhinui was not specifically raised in the feedback, it is included in the Strategy sequencing in the second half of decade two to align with recent planning undertaken for the area.
Table one: Revised sequencing for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy
Theme thirteen: the importance of collaboration
36. In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the importance of ensuring that all relevant parties collaborated on cross boundary infrastructure networks and funding issues - particularly for Auckland/Waikato. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
· an additional principle on collaboration be added to Appendix one (principles) that includes reference to adjoining councils, central government, developers, KiwiRail and other infrastructure providers
· the Māori social and economic wellbeing principle be amended to include Treaty of Waitangi settlement responsibilities.
Theme fourteen: process applied to develop the Strategy
37. In summary, the feedback received on this topic was defined by submitters who wanted more information about the process that was applied to develop the Strategy. In order to address this feedback, an explanation on the process and how this links to work undertaken to define the RUB is included in this Committee report.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
38. This Strategy has significant implications for local boards, particularly Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatotoe, Papakura, Manurewa and Franklin Local Boards, as they contain areas of future urban land sequenced by the Strategy.
39. Prior to the start of public consultation, a briefing was held for all local board members on 15 July 2015. Local board members most affected by the Strategy were invited to the four Have Your Say public meetings, with 23 members attending. A number of local board members took active roles at the Have Your Say events by hearing feedback from the public at the facilitated table discussions.
40. Feedback on the draft Strategy was received from 18 local boards. In general, local boards supported the overall purpose and intent of the Strategy. A common theme in the local board feedback was that infrastructure needed to be provided in a timely manner, particularly public transport. Clarity was also sought on how infrastructure was to be funded and by whom. The importance of monitoring and links to the Auckland Plan were raised, as well as the need to acquire land for open space and recreation as early as possible. Existing urban local boards raised the need for a focus on brownfield land supply to complement the Strategy’s focus on greenfields and that there is a need to balance business land supply with residential (and particularly affordable housing) provision. Many local boards also expressed the need to ensure that they and their communities have the opportunity to be fully involved in forthcoming structure planning processes.
41. Attachment D summarises local board feedback by board and Attachment E provides the complete record of the local board feedback received to the Strategy. The amended Strategy has responded to this feedback.
Māori impact statement
42. This Strategy has significant implications for Māori and has the capacity to contribute to Māori well-being and development of Māori capacity. It is acknowledged that Māori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment.
43. Post -Treaty settlement, Māori may be looking to invest settlement monies in long-term investments and this may have a number of significant implications for infrastructure planning. Māori also have the potential to be significant urban landowners that could be looking to actively participate in urban development and to promote specific outcomes for Auckland, the environment and for Māori. This would be achieved through partnerships, investments and greater involvement in decision making. The Strategy has been amended to acknowledge the council’s responsibilities under The Treaty of Waitangi.
44. Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite of principles which sit behind it. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015, prior to public consultation.
45. Written feedback was received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Te Ata. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua supported the intent and development of the Strategy and are seeking recognition of the need for business areas at the edge of/beyond Auckland as a potential way to mitigate the affordable housing issue faced by Auckland through creating new housing outside of Auckland’s boundary. Feedback from Ngāti Te Ata outlines a desire for alignment between the Strategy and their long-term aspirations in infrastructure, industrial, commercial, business and residential development. Members of Waikato-Tainui attended the Drury Have your Say event and their feedback was captured within the summary of feedback document for this event. There was also some support in the general feedback for principle three of the Strategy ‘Supporting lifting Maori social and economic wellbeing’.
46. The Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau refers to the four pou of social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing areas. To better articulate the link with the four pou, principle three of the Strategy has been expanded to include a reference to cultural and environmental wellbeing given the role of the Strategy in contributing to the Māori Plan’s key direction of developing vibrant communities.
Implementation
47. A monitoring programme will be an integral and important part of implementing the Strategy and making it a document that can be responsive to changes in the future. This will ensure that the proposed sequencing remains relevant and effective and is able to respond to change. As part of consultation on the draft Strategy, feedback was received on the importance of monitoring and review. In response the section on monitoring and review of the Strategy was revised to provide more detail.
48. As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructure providers will work together to ensure land use and infrastructure planning is aligned. Further detailed planning for large areas of future urban land will occur at the structure planning stage prior to live zoning and provision of bulk infrastructure.
49. Council is investigating alternative mechanisms to fund, finance and deliver infrastructure. This includes options such as public‑private partnerships; private sector funding or provision; alternative funding mechanisms such as regional fuel taxes; congestion charging; tax incremental financing; user charges; sponsorship opportunities and partnership or collaborative approaches.
50. Benefits to individual infrastructure projects may vary, depending on the mechanism used. These will be considered on a case-by-case basis and could include targeting funding for infrastructure investment to an area or community which receives the benefit; improved environmental performance; improved resilience and greater equity in funding contributions. There is also potential for more collaborative approaches to infrastructure investment
No. |
Title |
Page |
Have Your Say events summary of feedback on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Summary of written feedback on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Amended Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Summary of local board feedback received on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Complete record of local board feedback received on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Author |
Amanda Harland – Principal Growth & Infrastructure Advisor |
Authorisers |
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report
File No.: CP2015/20461
Purpose
1. To receive the report of the independent Consideration Panel on the proposed land exchange for the Three Kings Reserve, and confirm acceptance of the Panel’s recommendation to proceed with the exchange, subject to the Chief Executive entering into a land exchange agreement setting out the terms of that exchange.
Executive Summary
2. Fletcher Residential Limited (Developer) is planning a residential property development on its Three Kings quarry land. As part of its development, it has proposed exchanging fully developed sports fields, and other land and improvements, in return for some adjacent Council-administered reserves land to be developed for housing.
3. The Reserves Act 1977 permits land exchanges if, broadly, the exchange results in a similar or better reserves “amenity” outcome for the public (i.e. improved benefit for the purpose of the reserve). Public and iwi consultation is required, and Ministerial approval is also required since some of the land is Crown-derived.
4. To assess the merits of the proposed exchange:
a. Council issued a s.15 Reserves Act notice of an intention to exchange reserve land, and also appointed an independent panel to consider any submissions and make a recommendation to Council. The Consideration Panel’s report (attached) recommends that Council proceeds with the exchange on certain conditions, and on the assumption that the exchange is in Council’s favour financially.
b. Staff have identified, assessed and reported on other options and these are referenced in a section of Attachment C.
5. If Council accepts the Panel’s recommendation and resolves to request the exchange, Council will then enter into a land exchange agreement with the Developer, covering the essential terms of the exchange including:
a. Specifications for the reserve improvement works, including new sports fields, and other Developer undertakings.
b. Project phasing and step-plan for implementing the exchange.
c. Any pre-conditions and deadlines for performance of the exchange (including the Developer’s planning approvals for the development).
6. The Panel’s recommendation, in light of the Developer’s representations during public consultation and the hearings process, represents the baseline requirements for the land exchange which will be reflected in the exchange agreement.
7. Council’s decision to enter into any land exchange agreement is as a land-owner (subject to Reserves Act requirements). Planning and consenting decisions relating to the Developer’s project are distinct regulatory issues, and the planning process is separate from the Reserves Act process. The outcome of the Reserves Act process will give certainty to the ability of any plan change to be implemented.
8. Council’s Chief Executive, in conjunction with Panuku Development Auckland, would complete the negotiations with the Developer to implement the Panel’s recommendations prior to forwarding a request to the Minister, and attend to the execution and implementation of the land exchange agreement and performance of any Council obligations if the Minister were to approve the request. The final apportionment and proportional ownership of the parcels of the reconfigured reserve will be agreed with the Department of Conservation in this process.
9. The Panel’s recommendation should be considered as a whole. The Committee can accept or reject it, but cannot propose any changes to its terms without restarting the hearing process or referring the matter back to the Panel for further consideration.
That the Auckland Development Committee, as a Committee of the Whole and as the Committee responsible for the related Plan Change PM372: a) accept the report and recommendations of the Consideration Panel relating to the proposed exchange b) accept that the fiscal evaluation of the exchange land and the value of the benefits to accrue to the reserve land supports the disposal of part of the existing reserve and the acquisition of new reserve by way of exchange under s.15 of the Reserves Act c) request the Minister of Conservation’s approval to the exchange under s.15 of the Reserves Act in accordance with the Panel’s recommendation. d) delegate to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council (acting in consultation with Panuku Development Auckland) authority to: i) negotiate and enter into the land exchange agreement in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations; ii) agree the final apportionment and proportional ownership of the parcels of the reconfigured reserve with the Department of Conservation; ii) to forward the resolution requesting approval of the exchange to the Minister of Conversation (with all required attachments) on completion of the exchange agreement; and iii) exercise Auckland Council’s rights and obligations under the exchange agreement, and attend to all technical matters and processes required, to give effect to completing the land exchange and related matters in an orderly manner. |
Comments
Statutory process and the Consideration Panel
10. On the 11 June the Committee resolved (AUC/2015/118) to issue a notice of intention to exchange reserve land under s.15 of the Reserves Act relating to the rehabilitation and development of the Three Kings Quarry subject to PM372. Before making that decision, officers had considered and reported on other reasonable practicable options to the proposed exchange. These options are described in Attachment C.
11. The notice of intention to request an exchange of reserve land was published in the New Zealand Herald on 22 June, with two further notices in the Central Leader on 24 June and 3 July. The notice was posted on Auckland Council’s website, and information relating to the proposed exchange, including survey plans, previous reports to the Local Board and the illustrative exchange plans were made available on council’s engagement website, www.shapeauckland.co.nz.
12. The consultation period ran from 22 June to the 24 July and 233 submissions were received during that period. 222 of these submissions were received following a public meeting held on 21 July. Two submissions were received from iwi, one from Nagti Maru and the other on behalf of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and representative entities.
13. On the 22 July the Hearings Committee (HEA/2015/72) appointed a panel of four independent commissioners to consider the submissions arising from the notification period.
14. On 25, 26 and 31 August public hearings were held and submitters were able to address their submissions. The Consideration Panel held deliberations in public on 6 October and issued their consideration of objections report and recommendations on 15 October 2015 (see Attachment A).
15. The Panel has also prepared a Submissions Schedule where it records whether the Panel accepted, in part or in whole, an issue raised by the submitter, or where it rejected the submission, or found it to be ‘not relevant’ (see Attachment B).
16. The report recommends the exchange, but on the basis that part of the reserve land identified for exchange be retained in Council ownership. The land recommended to be withdrawn comprises 6,262m² on the northern side of the western reserve (superlot F). The commissioners also agreed with Housing New Zealand’s submission that 770m² of land on the southern part of the Western Reserve be withheld (part of superlot G). The Developer advised the Panel that 13 terraced houses were planned for superlot F, but that the final typology was undetermined. Please refer to Attachment E for a plan illustrating the areas recommended for retention.
17. Though satisfied with the original notified exchange outcome, Parks and Recreation Policy staff support the Panel’s recommendation and note the exclusion of land on the northern side of Western Park will protect views of the maunga and improve connections to open space and the surrounding area. The additional 6,262m2 will increase the overall amount of open space available for the local community and enable the development of a more diverse range of open space experiences in that area.
18. Though the area of 770m² adjacent to Housing New Zealand’s ownership will be difficult to manage as reserve, the longer term use for the land is likely to be for residential purposes, and provide opportunities to work with Housing New Zealand to further improve the amenity of the open space in the surrounding area.
19. The Developer has commented that the reduction in the quantum of land it would receive in the recommended exchange, compared to the notified exchange, will have a substantial financial impact on the proposed development. CBRE assesses the impact to be a reduction in the value of land to have been received by the Developer to be circa $2.65m. The fiscal impact of retaining this area of reserve to Council will be marginally increased management costs for its ongoing maintenance.
20. While no formal request has been raised, it is useful to note that a proposal to change the terms of the recommendation made by the Panel should be referred to the Panel. ADC’s options are to accept (or reject) the Panel’s recommendations as a whole; refer the matter back to the panel; or to restart the hearing process.
Consideration of key issues
21. A wide range of issues where raised by submitters, being principally: a perceived inequality in the exchange proposal; a lack of effective public consultation; the impact of the exchange on Te Tatua a Riukiuta; the location and use of the sports fields; the connections with the surrounding environment; the consideration of alternative development options; the impact on community facilities; statutory and process concerns; and the fill level of the rehabilitated quarry.
22. The panel considered the submissions in the context of the Reserves Act 1977, and recognised that its decisions should be made in such a way as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Panel recognised that the active protection of taonga, in this case Te Tātua a Ruikiuta, is a requirement and that ‘the Crown and Council are obligated to do everything they can to protect the maunga or, at the very least, not do anything that will further compromise this taonga’.
23. The Panel was satisfied that there had been considerable effort by Council to consult with iwi, but expressed disappointment in not being able to hear and discuss matters with iwi representatives at the hearing.
24. A brief summary of the key findings of the panel is attached in Attachment C to this report.
25. On pages 24 - 25 and pages 31- 32 the report discusses open space provision and on page 32 notes a concern about the quantum of open space. Council’s Parks and Recreation Policy have commented in response to this concern that the primary focus of the council’s open space guidelines is to ensure that residents have access to a range of open space experiences. The outcome of the exchange will provide a 2.7ha central park for organised sport and informal recreational use, a public plaza with adjacent shared space, a recreational area on the western reserve and improved pathways, landscaping and connections.
26. Apart from the open space provision in the proposed development, there is an extensive open space network in the immediate vicinity including Te Tatua a Riukiuta/Big King Reserve, Three Kings Reserve (east) and Robinson Reserve, which collectively amount to some 11ha of existing open space. Within a 1.3km radius, other parks and reserves provide additional open space experiences. The officers confirm that the total overall quantum of open space in the vicinity would be more than adequate to meet the needs of both the existing and future community.
27. The Panel also identified issues raised in submissions that, though not directly relevant to their decision making, warranted identification for consideration by Council. These related to improving processes to increase the flow of feedback in iwi consultation, the entrenchment of public access to the reserve, housing affordability at Three Kings, the scope of any future development on Fyvie Avenue to enhance the maunga, and the investigation of the enhancement of east-west links with adjoining owners Housing New Zealand and Antipodean Properties ltd, as illustrated in the Richard Reid plan.
Exchange Agreement matters noted by the Panel
28. In its decision the Panel noted several matters relating to the proposed exchange; that the delivery of a quality environment is more properly a matter to be assessed under the Resource Management Act; that the terms of the exchange agreement must ensure the delivery of intended open space access and recreational facilities, and that clear stages of development will provide for the land title transfers to occur once those aspects of the development had been completed.
29. The exchange agreement will address these issues and will seek to balance the delivery of the outcomes with the practicalities of undertaking a complex development of this magnitude over a period of years. Reserve improvement works will be specified as part of the agreement and the local board views will be sought on those.
30. This report seeks delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of Auckland Council to finalise and enter into the exchange agreement.
Valuation Considerations
Reserves Act
31. The Reserves Act focuses on the benefit gained via exchange for the purpose of the reserve, in this case ‘recreation’. However, a valuation can help support the decision-making as a “check” against the values-based assessment of the amenity outcomes, and to help inform Council’s position in negotiations with the exchange counterparty.
32. In addition, the Public Finance Act prevents the Department of Conservation from accepting an area of lesser market value in exchange for an area of greater market value unless the other party pays the equality or there is an appropriation to cover the Crown loss.
33. S.25 of the Reserves Act states that a reserve can only be disposed of after its reservation is revoked. Therefore any valuation of reserve land on the basis of willing buyer/willing seller is somewhat hypothetical, but the key point is that both parcels of land being exchanged are valued on comparable criteria (i.e., apples with apples).
34. For exchange purposes, it is the relativity of values that is important, not the absolute values. Therefore the valuer has some flexibility in deciding what assumptions to apply, provided these are applied consistently.
35. The valuation figures prepared by CBRE are set out below to enable the Committee to understand the relative values of the exchange. The full valuation can be made available to councillors and other council stakeholders, and should be withheld from public distribution on grounds of commercial sensitivity. The full valuation will also be provided to the Department of Conservation if the recommended exchange is requested.
Summary of cost/benefit or fiscal equality of the exchange
36. Overall, under the Panel’s recommendation, the Developer will receive land with a potential value of $17.33m, but is likely to incur development costs in the region of $14.76m in order to release this development value. Accordingly, CBRE advise the value of the land in its current state is worth in vicinity of $2.57m. The Developer will also pay for reserve improvements that Panuku estimate will cost in the region of $3.38m.
37. Crown and Council will receive land hypothetically worth $19.775m, on the assumption it is zoned for high density residential activities. However, due to its reserve status, an allowance or a discount for a ‘chance of change’ from open space to residential use (which would require the revocation of its reserve status) tempers its value to circa $4.94m.
38. Therefore the Developer will obtain land with a net value of $2.57m and will spend $3.38m on the sportsfields, pathways, staircases and landscaping etc. The new reserve land has a value in the region of $5.0m and represents a saving on land acquisition costs to council of about $20.0m. Council will also have the benefit of improvements to the local park assessed at $3.38m.
39. The apparent imbalance of the exchange from the Developer’s standpoint is explained by the knowledge that the exchange will unlock and enhance the development opportunity of the whole quarry and reserve area, which is subject to the outcome of PM372. To this end, it is conceivable that the Developer will benefit from a greater gross realisation for their project through having the potential to sell residential units in an integrated scheme benefitting from the surrounding high quality open space amenity, compared to a stand-alone scheme on 985 Mt Eden Road.
Value of land to the Developer
40. In the notified exchange proposal in June, four parcels of reserve land totaling 2.26ha were proposed to transfer to the developer, freehold, not subject to reserve status. In assessing the value of the land two assumptions were made. One, the land had consent for high density residential development and two, that the land was level, fully serviced by roading, and that it was connected to essential infrastructure such as wastewater, water, telecoms and stormwater. On these assumptions the value of the land was assessed by Council’s independent valuers, CBRE, at $20.25m.
41. However, under the exchange, the Developer would receive the 2.26ha of land in its current state, land locked, with no roading access and no infrastructure. In addition, substantial civil engineering works are required to create level building platforms and roading.
42. Further to a high level review by Riley Consultants Ltd of the major civil engineering works, and using infrastructure costings prepared for the Developer by Aurecon Ltd, it is estimated that development costs of c.$15.0m is required to prepare the four land parcels for development. Accordingly, the ‘As Is’ development value of the land under the notified exchange proposal would have been in the region of $5.2m.
43. Following the Panel’s report and recommendation, the amount of land recommended for transfer reduces to 1.56ha. This is likely to have only a small impact in reducing the development costs as most of the costs relate to the land that would still transfer to the developer. CBRE are of the opinion that the current development value of the three parcels of land totalling 1.56ha is in the order of $2.57m, after deduction of development costs.
Value of land to Council/Crown
44. The amount of land proposed to be transferred to Crown and Council totals 2.666ha. The land will be prepared and delivered to council ready for the addition of reserve improvements, such as the sand carpeted playing fields which will be done by the Developer. The amount of land to transfer to crown and council is unaffected by the Consideration Panel’s report, though more land is retained in the existing reserve.
45. On the assumption that this land has a high density residential zoning, CBRE are of the opinion that the two parcels have a current market value of $19.775m. The parcels are contiguous with the existing reserve land, and are fully accessible from the current reserve. Though the intention is to use the land for sportsfields, and also for a stormwater retention area on infrequent occasions, this new reserve land could be capable of supporting residential development and its hypothetical value reflects that use. The new reserve land will be delivered to an ‘As Complete’ specification and no costs in its rehabilitation will be incurred by council.
Value of Reserve Improvement Works
46. In addition to providing new reserve land under the exchange agreement, the Developer will undertake to carry out reserve improvement works that include the provision of sand carpeted playing fields to the central reserve, provision of adequate parking for users of the facilities, a public plaza and adjoining shared space roading, staircases, paths, cycle lanes, landscaping and planting to the reserve areas. A serviced building platform will be provided adjacent to the playing fields and a play space for children in a location to be agreed.
47. At the submission hearings, the developer committed to providing adequate changing rooms and toilet facilities on the serviced building platform and this, together will the provision of lighting to the sports fields, was recognised by the Panel as being important considerations to be agreed with the Developer in the exchange agreement.
48. From a high level review of the Reserve Improvement Works, Panuku is of the opinion that the value of these improvement works is in the order of $3.38m
49. On 23 September 2015, the Board of Panuku Development Auckland resolved that it was satisfied the notified exchange met the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989 and that the exchange could be recommended to the Auckland Development Committee (subject to the recommendations of the Consideration Panel) as the value of the land being received in the exchange exceeded the value of the land to transfer to the Developer.
50. The Panuku management has reviewed the revised valuation and development cost advice, and the Panuku Board has been updated on the Consideration Panel’s recommendation at its meeting on 28 October. The Board is of the opinion that its resolution of 23 September stands.
Apportionment of new reserve land
51. Under the Panel’s recommendation, three parcels of reserve land totaling 1.56ha would be transferred to the Developer. A further 1.36ha of reserve land will be used for the construction of public roads to provide access to the whole development area and to the new sportsfields.
52. In exchange, 2.66ha of 985 Mount Eden Road would become vested as new reserve land under the Reserves Act 1977.
53. As a result of the recommended exchange, land classified as reserve will reduce from 6.4ha to 6.3ha, but the plaza will add over 1,000m² of public space. Land used for roads, footpaths, cycle ways and car parks will increase from 0.85ha to 1.71ha.
54. Following completion of the exchange, a true-up will be required between Crown and Council on their underlying landholdings in the reserve. Council will remain the administering body for the entire reserve and the reserve will be a local park.
55. The land exchange is proceeding on the basis of equal contributions of Council-derived and Crown-derived land. However, the land actually being exchanged is split ⅔ to ⅓ between crown and council so the parties will need to “true up” their respective landholdings to reflect the proportional contribution to the exchange.
56. Although this could be achieved by dividing up interests in the new land that would cut through the central park and the playing fields. This is unsatisfactory to both Crown and Council, so it is better that the true-up is achieved with other land in the reserve.
57. It is possible that Iwi will be in discussions with Crown concerning the Crown-derived land in the reserve, and subject to any statutory requirements (including the Reserves Act), it makes sense to achieve the true-up in a manner convenient for Crown and Iwi to progress their own discussions, as this does not prejudice Council’s overall interest. This Report recommends that the Chief Executive deal with this issue if and when it arises.
Other Options
58. Since 2008, and through to 2015, a wide range of options have been considered for the integration and rehabilitation of the reserve land as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the quarry area. This has been conducted in the context of workshops and public consultations for the development of local planning strategies, particularly the Three Kings Plan with the Local Board, and has included adjoining owner engagement, iwi consultation, public consultation and engagement with stakeholders. Through this process the notified exchange was developed as the best option for the reasons reported to the committee on 11 June this year.
59. This process is described in more detail in Attachment C and also refers to the Richard Reid Plan that was published close to the end of the public submission period on the exchange. Though prepared on the request of the Local Board, this plan has not been subject to any consultation with stakeholders, or council officers. The Plan is not regarded by officers as a practical or reasonable alternative to the recommended exchange.
Other Matters
60. The other matters referred to in the Panel’s report will be considered in the implementation of the exchange where relevant, and the comments on more general issues such as the provision of affordable housing and the processes around iwi engagement will be raised with appropriate council officers and the IMSB for further consideration.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
61. There has been engagement with the Puketapapa Local Board at all stages of the land exchange process. The Local Board separately provided its views on the proposed exchange by way of a submission, and the Panel considered and addressed those matters in its report. Due to timing issues, Local Board comment on the Panel recommendations was not available for this report. The Local Board will provide its comments separately to the Committee.
Māori impact statement
62. Objections were received from Ngati Maru and from Paul Majurey on behalf of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau. Both objections addressed a view that the exchange did not address extant Treaty issues and did not put anything back into the Tupuna Maunga.
63. The Panel considered in depth the protection and enhancement of the maunga, the proposed development on the western reserve, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Panel’s decision to recommend the retention of the 6,032m² on the western reserve was to protect and enhance the recreational amenity of this area, and to actively protect of the taonga, Te Tātua a Riukiuta. As the Panel commented ‘We do not believe the building of units on the northern side of this space is appropriate, given its importance to the neighbouring community in social, cultural and recreational terms’.
64. For the avoidance of doubt, land exchanges under section 15 of the Reserves Act do not trigger rights of first refusal under Treaty settlements.
Implementation
65. Following a resolution by the Committee to request the exchange, the draft exchange agreement will be completed under delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of Auckland Council.
66. The request to the Department of Conservation will be prepared by council staff and submitted to the Department following completion of the exchange agreement.
67. A diagram is attached in Attachment D illustrating the next steps and the alignment of the Reserves Act process with the Resource Management process.
68. While the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee ordinarily makes decisions on the acquisition and disposal of park land, ADC is considering this recommendation here because PM372 is predicated on the land exchange.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Consideration Panel Recommendation Report |
51 |
bView |
Submission Schedule - Three Kings Exchange |
91 |
cView |
Summary of issues and findings. |
117 |
dView |
Flow chart of RMA and Reserves Act processes |
121 |
eView |
Areas recommended for exclusion |
123 |
Signatories
Author |
Nigel Hewitson - Team Leader Disposals |
Authorisers |
Clive Fuhr - Manager Acquisitions & Disposals Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power Generation Precinct
File No.: CP2015/22890
Purpose
1. To seek agreement to withdraw text and maps of the following parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP):
(a) 1373 locations from the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay (Sites of Value)
(b) the Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct.
Executive Summary
2. Council has the ability to withdraw all or part of the PAUP. Withdrawing means that text and maps are removed immediately by the council rather than waiting for the council’s decision on the PAUP. It is proposed to withdraw two parts of the PAUP at this time.
3. Council’s evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel is to remove 1373 Sites of Value from the PAUP. This was not opposed by submitters. Given that the Sites of Value have immediate legal effect, it is prudent to lessen the degree of regulatory impact imposed on land owners as soon as possible, where the sites are no longer supported by council due to insufficient evidence.
4. Genesis Energy Limited who proposed the development of a power plant and own the subject land, wish to remove the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct from the PAUP. The removal of the precinct is supported as this is a more efficient way of dealing with the matter than progressing the removal of the precinct through the PAUP Hearings process.
That the Auckland Development Committee: a) endorse the withdrawal of two parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan: i) 1373 Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua which were proposed to be deleted in the Council’s evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel in hearing topic 037 ‘Mana Whenua sites’ (refer to Attachment A in the agenda report). ii) The Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct at the request of the landowner, Genesis Energy Limited. |
Comments
Legal ability for withdrawal
5. The ability to withdraw all or part of the PAUP is provided for in Clause 8D of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) as modified by section 124 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA). Section 124 of the LGATPA enables the council to amend the PAUP before it publically notifies its decisions on the recommendations of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel). Clause 8D of Schedule 1 to the RMA allows local authorities to withdraw a proposed policy statement or plan at any time before the approval of a policy statement or plan, or before any appeal hearing commences.
6. In amending the PAUP under section 124 of the LGATPA, and Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA, the council is required to:
(a) Give notice of the amendments to the Panel;
(b) Provide copies of the amendments to the PAUP to the Panel;
(c) Make the amendments available for inspection on the council website and at council offices; and
(d) Provide public notice of any withdrawals including the reasons for those withdrawals.
Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua
7. The Auckland Development Committee on 24 March 2015 endorsed the removal of approximately 750 Sites of Value where an accurate location has not been confirmed, 70 Sites of Value that are not of Maori origin or duplicates, and any sites that were to be identified by Mana Whenua as not being of value.
8. Subsequently, a desktop archaeology data audit by council and a values screening assessment by Mana Whenua found that 1373 Sites of Value had insufficient information to support their retention. Specifically, the reasons for deletion were:
(a) 752 sites did not have values assigned by Mana Whenua;
(b) 73 sites were non-Māori or duplicates;
(c) 552 sites did not have a confirmed location; and
(d) 10 sites where it was unknown if the object of value was a natural or archaeological feature.
9. There is some urgency on council's part to consider removing these Sites of Value from the PAUP as the overlay rules took immediate legal effect on notification of the PAUP (30 September 2013). Given that council has presented evidence to support the removal of 1373 Sites of Value, requiring resource consents for earthworks within the vicinity of the sites is placing an unnecessary impact on affected land owners.
10. An updated schedule for the Sites of Value to Mana Whenua which indicates the locations proposed to be removed from the PAUP and the corresponding Appendix 4.2 of the PAUP are contained in Attachment A.
Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct
11. The PAUP was notified with the inclusion of the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct which was a rollover of provisions within the Auckland Council District Plan, (Rodney Section). The precinct allows for the construction and operation of a 480 Mega Watt combined cycle gas turbine electricity generating facility.
12. Genesis Power Limited, who is the landowner and the original proponent of the proposed plant, no longer intends to proceed with construction. The Company wishes to sell the property. A letter from Genesis Power confirming this is contained in Attachment B. The letter also seeks the revocation of the corresponding approved resource consents which is being progressed separately.
13. It is not considered that removing the precinct from the PAUP will create any issues given that the proposal is unimplemented. Withdrawing the precinct will give greater certainty for the current rural and residential land uses. The underlying notified zone is Rural Production, bisected by road and rail strategic transport corridors, an electricity transmission corridor and a gas transmission pipeline designation.
14. Ten submission points from five submitters were received with respect to the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct. Except for two submission points from Genesis Energy to retain the precinct, all other submissions relate to electricity connections and operating standards within the precinct.
15. The objectives and policies (F5.41) and rules (K5.41) and GIS planning map for the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct is contained in Attachment C.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
Consultation
16. Council’s Heritage Unit and Area Planning North Unit both support the withdrawal of the Sites of Value and the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct respectively.
Significance of decision
17. The decision to remove 1373 Sites of Value from the PAUP will mean that land owners who propose work within 50 meters of a site will no longer have to apply for resource consent. Withdrawing 1373 Sites of Value now, rather than waiting until the PAUP becomes operative, means that a level of regulatory burden will be removed.
18. The significance of withdrawing the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct is low as the development of the power plant is no longer a reality. In other words, removing the precinct does not have a bearing on the outcome of the plant, but provides the opportunity for Genesis Energy to sell the land so that it may be used for another purpose, or give greater certainty for the current rural and residential activities on the site.
Decision making
19. The Auckland Development Committee has delegation to withdraw part of the PAUP.
Local board views
20. Local board chairs attended an information workshop on 18 September 2015 where they were given an update on the council’s position on the PAUP at the hearings, including the position to remove 1373 Sites of Value. Some local board Chairs also attended previous Auckland Development Committee meetings where Sites of Value were discussed. The Rodney Local Board Chair had been informed of Genesis Energy’s request to remove the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct.
Financial and resourcing implications
21. The withdrawal is within the ongoing operational budgets for the PAUP.
Legal and legislative implications
22. Legal staff have given advice on the legal process for the withdrawal process as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
Māori impact statement
23. Mana Whenua have been involved in the values screening assessment and the PAUP hearing for the Sites of Value (Topic 037 Mana Whenua sites) as described in paragraph 8 above.
24. Mana Whenua ascribed value in the screening assessment to Sites of Value which are proposed to be removed by council. However, council did not support the retention of these sites as there is not an accurate location recorded, the location is a duplicate, or there is uncertainty of the origin of the site.
25. Mana Whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board position has been to maintain the Sites of Value overlay and retain the number of locations as notified.
26. The council presented and tabled evidence at the hearing which detailed the proposal to remove 1373 locations. Given time limitations, written evidence did not stipulate the number to be removed, except to detail the review process. The number of sites proposed to be removed by council was provided at the hearing.
27. Removing 1373 Sites of Value, due to a lack of sufficient evidence will improve the overall robustness of the remaining 2227 sites. The Maori heritage team has a programme to review Māori cultural heritage in Auckland to ensure that it is appropriately recognised, protected and enhanced in a comprehensive manner.
28. No submitter, including Mana Whenua or the Independent Maori Statutory Board provided any written closing statement which responded to the proposal to remove 1373 Sites of Value.
Implementation
29. The withdrawal of the 1373 Sites of Value and Rodney Thermal precinct requires various steps to be undertaken as outlines in paragraph 6 above. The costs associated with this are minor and can be implemented within the existing Unitary Plan budget.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Updated Schedule Sites of Value to Mana Whenua (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Letter from Genesis Energy (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Rodney Thermal Precinct (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Author |
Jym Clark – Planner |
Authorisers |
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management Act Discussion Document
File No.: CP2015/23681
The report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be circulated separately prior to the meeting.
Author |
Tam White – Democracy Advisor |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 2015 |
|
Hobsonville Point update and proposed screen precinct
File No.: CP2015/23812
Purpose
1. To update the Committee following the July meeting in relation to Hobsonville Point 20 hectare block: Future Land Use.
2. The report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be circulated prior to the meeting.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Tam White - Democracy Advisor |
Auckland Development Committee 12 November 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 Tamaki Regeneration Project
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 is to be kept confidential until such time as Cabinet approves proceeding with Stage 2 and Council and Crown jointly make a media release reflecting this. Releasing this information prior would prejudice the commercial position of Panuku Development Auckland or Auckland Council. s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. In particular, the report is to be kept confidential until such time as Cabinet approves proceeding with Stage 2 and Council and Crown jointly make a media release reflecting this. Releasing this information prior would prejudice the commercial position of Panuku Development Auckland or Auckland Council. |
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 submissions - council position for mediation and hearings - Tertiary Education Zones and Precincts for Akoranga 1 (AUT), Albany 9 (Massey University) and Wairaka (UNITEC)
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. |
C4 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Appointment of Additional Independant Hearings Panel Members
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)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. In particular, the report contains information regarding the experience and qualifications of private individuals.. |
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. |
C5 Deferred Special Housing Area Request
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. |