Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

Auckland Development Committee

08 December 2015

Priority Development Locations and Panuku Development Auckland Work Programme

File No.: CP2015/25948

Purpose

1. The purpose of this paper is to:

a. Report on the process and progress made by Panuku Development Auckland in considering the shortlisted Town Centre locations provided by Auckland Council on 15 October 2015.

b. Provide a recommendation on the two locations that have been selected as “Transform” locations for approval by the Committee.

c. Provide updated thinking on the wider Panuku Development Work Programme, including the “Unlock” and “Support” locations.

Executive Summary

2. On 15 October 2015, the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) formally endorsed the shortlist of nine locations, established through the Location Analysis Process, to handover to Panuku Development Auckland for further investigation.

3. Panuku has drawn from the Council qualitative and quantitative material and undertaken an assessment focused on our understanding of the role of Panuku and the use of additional information.

4. The main steps in the decision making process have been to:

a. Review the material (assessment criteria and nine locations) from the Auckland Council Location Analysis Project

b. Review Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) and Waterfront Auckland (WA) legacy development projects

c. Develop decision making criteria, specific to the role and function of Panuku

d. Pursue conversations with potential development partners

e. Consult within the Council family, including the DPO and Auckland Transport, with regard to timing and deliverability

f. Consider available Panuku resources.

5. In particular, Panuku has used the following points to reference discussion and analysis:

a. Critical mass of Council land holdings (scale) and the ability to stage quicker wins with long term goals (impact). A key part of this is community readiness for change.

b. Partnership opportunities, particularly with the Crown, but also within the Council family in agreeing joint objectives

c. Ability to leverage off previous public and private investment and consider future investment

d. Commercial proposition of the development site, or sites, and the market attractiveness

e. Location of areas that have excellent access to public transport.

f. A focus on do-ability

6. From this work, development categorisations were formed, this is summarised in Figure One and further detailed in the main body of the report.

Figure One: Development Strategy

7. The involvement of Panuku in the three types of locations will be different from place to place. Numerically there will be more Support Locations than there will be Unlock and Transform. All locations will play their part over time to the Panuku Development Work Programme. The Support and Unlock locations will be a dynamic category, as it is recognised that the facts can change on the ground depending on new sites or development opportunities and partnerships that can become available.

8. Panuku has now identified 17 locations that will form part of the development work programme. Pertinent to this decision making paper is the recommendation that Panuku operate in two additional ‘Transform’ locations:

a. Manukau Metropolitan Centre and surrounds

b. Onehunga Town Centre and Port.

9. These two areas provide the greatest opportunity for Panuku to catalyse high quality urban redevelopment at a scale, in conjunction with the Crown and the private sector, resulting in:

a. Creation of a well-designed safe and healthy built environment, with good quality public realm

b. An increase in housing supply and residential choices (maintaining existing social housing capacity)

c. Economic development opportunities

d. Achievement of certain defined social/environmental/community/economic development goals.

10. The ADC is now asked to note the overall programme and approve the “Transform” locations.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note the material provided on the Priority Development Location Selection process and the emerging Development Work Programme.

b) endorse the two “Transform” locations of Manukau (Town centre and surrounds) and Onehunga (Town centre and Port) as these locations best meet the criteria prioritised by Panuku given its agreed purpose.

Comments

11. On 15 October 2015 the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) formally endorsed the shortlist of nine locations to handover to Panuku Development Auckland for further investigation. The shortlisted locations were, in no particular order:

a. Manukau

b. Northcote

c. Otahuhu

d. Takapuna

e. Onehunga

f. Avondale

g. Henderson

h. Mt Eden Station

i. Newmarket

Panuku Decision Making Process

12. Since the formation of Panuku in September the Executive and the Board have considered the material from Council and formed a view on a future development work programme. The main steps in our decision making process have been to:

a. Review the material (assessment criteria and nine locations) from the Auckland Council Location Analysis Project

b. Review ACPL and WA legacy development projects

c. Develop decision making criteria, specific to the role and function of Panuku

d. Pursue conversations with potential development partners – via Treasury, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC)

e. Consult within the Council family, including the DPO and Auckland Transport with regard to timing and deliverability

f. Consider available Panuku resources.

Reviewing the Auckland Council Assessment Criteria

13. Panuku drew from the assessment objectives and supporting criteria that Council provided through the Location Analysis work. We assessed the AC assessment objectives and criteria and reframed the criteria, largely informed a focus on the role and purpose of Panuku.

Figure Two: Reviewing the Council Assessment Objectives and establishing Panuku Specific Criteria

Auckland Council Assessment Objectives	Explanation	Relevance to Panuku Role and Function?
1. Market Attractiveness	The locations need to have a degree of market appeal and potential for redevelopment. Given the nature of the redevelopment programmes envisaged consumer demand for higher density housing is also important.	Yes relevant. Interrogation of specific sites needed to review redevelopment potential and uncover barriers to redevelopment or sale. Refer: Key Land Holdings Criteria/Commercially Viable/Market Criteria.
2. Land and Influence	The locations need to have council owned opportunities present and also be complemented with potential to partner with other land owners (in particular the Government and local iwi).	Yes relevant. Fundamental for achieving Panuku objectives, particularly in areas where Council ownership is fragmented. Refer: Scale and Impact/ Key Land Holdings/Partnership Criteria
3. Scale	The locations need to have significant capacity for increases in residential and business activity. They must also be highly accessible to ensure access to and from opportunities (particularly employment).	Yes relevant. Fundamental for achieving Panuku objectives, particularly in areas where Council ownership is fragmented. Refer: Scale and Impact /Proximity to PT Criteria
4. Timing and Enablement	The locations need to be enabled by necessary bulk infrastructure and have sufficient planning undertaken to facilitate redevelopment aspirations to progress at pace.	Yes relevant. Readiness will directly impact abilities around timing for redevelopment. Refer: Scale and Impact Criteria/Leverage off previous investment
5. Community Impact	The locations need to have community support for change and the necessary community facilities to sustain growth. They should also have opportunities to positively impact on Maori wellbeing and to reduce deprivation.	Yes relevant. Readiness will directly impact abilities around timing for redevelopment. Refer: Scale and Impact Criteria
6. Capital Complexity	The locations need to be deliverable in the ‘short term’ without the need for significant unplanned investment, and be already prioritised for public investment to support/stimulate redevelopment.	Yes relevant. Readiness will directly impact abilities around timing for redevelopment. Refer: Scale and Impact Criteria/ Leverage off previous investment

Figure Three: Panuku Decision Making Criteria

Panuku Refined Criteria

Scale & Impact

· Ability to achieve increased growth and density capacity as a result of redevelopment (includes unitary plan provisions, infrastructure readiness)

· Ability to unlock previous challenges/road blocks within the Auckland Council Family

· Lifting the game from the past

· Making a material contribution to housing and town centre strategies. Making a difference over time through results, including providing some quick wins (3 years)

· Ability to influence new investment decisions (i.e. decisions pending on major infrastructure projects to ensure a cohesive/co-ordinated approach)

· Extent of Local Board and community planning and readiness for change

Key Land Holdings

· Land holdings currently being managed by Panuku – interrogating the complexities and opportunities of the sites

· The number of sites that have development potential

· Total hectares of Council family holding

· Proximity of Government land holdings and timing for redevelopment

· Proximity of Iwi land holdings

Commercially viable/market attractive

· Extent to which Panuku can create an environment for the private sector to invest with confidence

· Analysis of current market willingness to invest and attractiveness of the area

Partnership opportunities

· Working with agreed objectives/parameters within the Council family. Agreeing on a joint strategy

· Joint branding and redevelopment of Government land – HNZC, MOE, NZTA, KiwiRail

· Working with Iwi

· Not for Profit initiatives

· Working with the Private sector

Leverage off previous investment

· Ability and opportunity to build on Council or public investment in transport, waste water investment, public space, community facilities

· A record of what investment is planned for the short-long term that can also be leveraged off

Proximity to Public Transport

· Accessibility to the Rapid Transit Network (RTN) e.g., rail or dedicated busway (800m)

· Accessibility to the Frequent Transport network (FTN) e.g. good local PT connections (400m)

Reviewing the Nine Council Shortlisted Locations

14. Once we agreed the criteria we assessed the nine council locations and the legacy development projects. Using our professional judgement of each of the nine areas an assessment was been made of each location based on criteria. Importantly, we were able to identify where some of the barriers to development/progress have been historically (physical or organisational), and discuss “what would Panuku do?”

15. The Executive assessed whether the organisation could make a difference including through quicker wins or early results (over the next two to three years) in context of the longer term. Some tests were also made of the Strategic Intelligence Group (SIG) analysis of market attractiveness, based on experience of the development managers in these areas. We drew from experience and knowledge of the Local Boards and consultation with them about outstanding issues and the community’s readiness for change.

Reviewing ACPL and WA Legacy Development Projects

16. A full review of all of the development projects of the legacy organisations (ACPL and WA) was undertaken. For ACPL projects in particular there was an interrogation of each of the individual sites and how these might morph into larger opportunities within a geographic area. Insight into historic and current market interest and commercially viable opportunities were also provided.

Pursuing Partnership Opportunities with Potential Development Partners

17. The Panuku Executive has been actively discussing partnership opportunities with the Crown. The Executive is aware that there are a number of at scale opportunities in particular HNZC land provides a major opportunity.

Working with the Council Family

18. Another area where Panuku is focusing on is how this organisation will work with other parts of Auckland Council particularly Auckland Transport and the new Development Project Office (DPO) which is responsible for consenting and infrastructure co-ordination and upgrades.

Prioritising and Allocating Panuku Resources

19. The work programme outlined in section 8 of this report, indicates that Panuku will be operating in 17 locations across the Auckland region. Some will require a long term custodial approach (10 years +) over a wider geographical area, others will be on a site specific basis and require a shorter term involvement. The spread of resources within the organisation needs to be considered and prioritised.

20. It is assumed that current resource or ability to expand is based on accepted parameters e.g. the use of the Development Fund and the ability to capitalise against sale proceeds. There will need to be a business case for the resources required for Transform locations.

Rationale for the Panuku Work Programme

Testing the Nine Shortlisted Locations under Panuku Criteria

21. We considered nine locations provided by Auckland Council against our refined criteria (as outlined in Figure Three). A summary of the analysis is provided in Figure Four. Area profiles are included in Attachment A.

Figure Four: Analysing the Nine Shortlisted locations

Panuku Refined Criteria							Recommend
Manukau Metropolitan Centre and surrounds	Significant opportunity in TC, which is amplified with inclusion of HNZC land. Some sites ready to go after Panuku master plan. Zoned Metropolitan center. High capacity for growth	AC land ownership 22.56 ha over 30 site. Panuku already involved in four key sites	Traditionally challenging area to generate market interest – although recent some apartment interest has been strong	HNZC land holdings close to TC and within a 3-5km radius of the centre. Treasury has an interest in meeting housing supply and sustainable employment opportunities	Government investment in MIT and AUT High level of transport investment	On RTN with good local PT connections	Transform location
Onehunga Town Centre and Port	Significant opportunity for scale and impact with the with imminent purchase of the Onehunga Port and ability to connect to the Manukau Harbour and Town Centre	Several large Council-owned sites in this centre, including the Park and Ride next to the Onehunga Station. Port land to be added to the portfolio	Market attractiveness rated as high. High appeal for residential use	HNZC land holdings/ SHA in close proximity	$29m investment in the Onehunga foreshore project. $1.2m for upgrade to Onehunga Mall. Transport investment (PT and road)	On RTN with good local PT connections	Transform Location
Takapuna	Excellent opportunity to initiate action on Council sites Some sites ready to go after Panuku master plan	Two high profile sites. Anzac Street car park and Gasometer sites – for mixed used development Potential over medium term to purchase other sites or unlock other council owed sites	Market attractive area. High level of amenity and good connectvity	Auckland Transport as owner of car park sites. AT car park study indicates parking on key development sites still needed	$5.6m Taharoto/ Wairau Road upgrade. Bus frequency upgrades. Improvements in beach front amenity	On RTN with good local PT connections	Unlock location
Northcote	Excellent opportunity, however very complex leasehold structure in town centre. Working with HNZC land to improve and increase housing stock	Council has the majority ownership of the TC (leasehold). 4.16 ha over 84 sites	Market attractive area. Would require Panuku attention to stimulate interest and activity around residential	HNZC land holdings within a 3-5km radius of the centre. Area is in a SHA. Large iwi land holdings to the east of the TC	LTP $6m to centre upgrade. Stormwater upgrade planned	On FTN with good local PT connections	Unlock location
Henderson	Good opportunity through range of Council land holdings. Capacity to develop is high. TOD development around rail station for mixed use could be an early win	AC council ownership 18.57 ha over 30 sites Waitakere central site strategically located and large site	Market attractiveness is low. Panuku could stimulate residential interest in the Ex-council building. Commercial and retail competition from nearby New Lynn and Westgate.	Auckland Transport as owner of car park sites. Area is in a SHA. Waitakere central site	Ex-Waitakere City Council building. Rail station.	On RTN with good local PT connections	Unlock Location
Otahuhu	Already subject to Council focus through SPA, limited scale opportunities for Panuku to deliver outside what AC is already delivering	AC ownership 3.52ha over 21 sites. High site fragmentation Panuku involved in two sites with community tennants	Medium level of market attractiveness. Moderate level of value from amenity and proximity to services	Within Auckland Council family Area is in a SHA.	Signficiant investment being co-ordinated by Auckland Council (streetscape, PT interchange and recreational centre, stormwater upgrade)	On RTN with good local PT connections	Support Location
Avondale	Good opportunity as Panuku already operating in this area on individual sites	AC ownership 4.13ha over 24 sites Panuku involved in three sites for residential development	Medium level of market attractiveness. Moderate level of value from amenity and proximity to services	Potential for integrated development with HNZ and SHA sites at 24 and 26 Racecourse Parade and 1909 Great North. Avondale Racecourse future not determined	$5m to upgrade the TC and the wider area will benefit from the $66 million upgrade to Oakley Creek releasing housing capacity	On RTN with good local PT connections	Support Location at least until a signficiant partnership opportunity presents iteself
Mt Eden station	Excellent opportunity given AT land holdings and CRL investment. Project is some years away before redevelopment can be activated	AC ownership at least 1.56ha over 12 sites. Further land acquitions have been made by AT, informaton is confidential	High level of market interest and attractiveness	Auckland Transport as major owner of the site	CRL investment	On RTN with good local PT connections	Watching Brief. Revisit in 2-3 years
Newmarket	Limited opportunity. Few council sites of scale for redevelopment	AC ownership 1.5ha of 4 sites. None of these sites are development sites	High level of market interest. Market will generate positive regeneration	Limited, unless Panuku purchased sites in the open market and worked with private sector developer	CRL investment	On RTN with good local PT connections	Do not progress as a Panuku project

Testing the Legacy Development Projects

22. The next task was to review all of the ACPL and WA development projects and consider the potential around those areas against the revised Panuku criteria – refer Figure Four for the summary analysis and Attachment A for the detailed profiles.

23. It should be noted that in the analysis Wynyard Quarter and Tamaki Transformation Project have not been included in the analysis. Wynyard Quarter is already a Transform location as identified through the Panuku Business Plan. Panuku will continue to play an active role in supporting the Tamaki Regeneration project.

24. The Housing for Older Persons Network of Villages is a regional wide project. Council currently owns 1,412 Housing for Older People rental units located in 62 villages covering 26 hectares. The properties are unevenly distributed across Auckland as follows: South (686), North (458) and West (268). Elements of the stock have significant redevelopment potential.

25. It is the intent of Panuku that this stock should at least double the provision of housing, including at least current social housing and additional affordable housing. This will offer significant opportunities to deliver on Council’s Housing Action Plan and the organisation’s objectives around housing, affordability, intensification and town centre regeneration. There is also a new model to enable government subsidies.

Figure Four: Reviewing Legacy ACPL projects

Panuku Refined Criteria							Recommend
City Centre	Strategic and high profile sites in the City Centre for redevelopment and contribution to quality mixed use development	Civic Administration Building and Downtown Car park in AC ownership	High level of market interest. High profile sites.	Private sector partnership on Civic Admin Building.	Britomart and Aotea precinct improvements, including future CRL.	ON RTN, excellent local connections	Unlock location
Old Papatoetoe Town Centre	Refurbishment of the mall will provide significant amenity upgrade to the town centre. Stage One housing development complete, more stages to go	Two sites to be redeveloped into retail and commercial uses. Further property to be developed into residential	Moderate level of market interest. Panuku investment will be required to stimulate interest and activity	Auckland Council family - Adjoining land held by council could offer opportunity to broaden scope and influence of current sites	Revitalisation of old Papatoetoe by Council	On RTN with good local PT connections	Unlock location
Hobsonville Point	Significant land holdings to be committed for residential development and up and an employment hub	Panuku holds 20 hectares which will become mixed use, predominately residential	High level of market interest in this development site	Delivery by private sector	Hobsonville Point is a major public sector led development. Some existing investment in marine precinct. High amenity coastal access	On RTN (Busway)	Unlock Location
Ormiston TC & Flatbush	Panuku’s involvement at Ormiston is via a 20ha Town Centre development, subject to a development agreement	Development deal completed on Ormiston TC. Panuku preparing 5 sites for sale at Flatbush school road.	High level of market interest expected on these development sites	Delivery by private sector – Todd property Group. This should yield in excess of 450 dwellings. Nearby site will also generate residential	Proposed sales leverage off existing and planned developments in area	Regular FTN connections planned	Unlock Location
Mt Eden (Cnr of Dominion Rd and Valley Road)	High profile site. Increased quality mixed use development - 91 apartments and ground floor retail. Potential for exemplar project	214-222 Dominion Road and 113-115 Valley Road - contiguous block of 7 adjoining lots positioned at the north eastern corner of Dominion Road and Valley Road	High level of market interest expected on this development site	Delivery by private sector	High level of masterplanning completed on this site	On FTN	Support Location
Whangaparaoa – Link Cres	Development site providing in the order of 50 new homes with a public reserve incorporating a wetland and playground. Expected to be an exemplar of a high quality medium density development	20 Link Crescent is a 2ha site	High level of market interest expected on this development site valued for its coastal lifestyle and strong community connection	McConnell Property preferred development partner and a conditional development agreement has been signed	Consultation for the future use of the site dates back to 2001. High level of masterplanning now completed for this site	Good connections to FTN	Support Location
Pukekohe	Opportunity for redevelopment of strategic site next to rail line. Individual AC owned sites could be planned together for best impact	Panuku managing six properties, one adjacent to rail line, five in town centre.	Moderate level of market interest. Would require Panuku investement to stimulate interest and activity around residential	KiwiRail, Auckland Transport. Private sector. Opportunity for land swap with St Johns on one site.	Some TC upgrades being led by City Transformation in Council	On RTN, but not part of electrified system yet	Support Location
Stonefields	Development sites with potential for residential	84 - 100 Morrin Rd 78 Merton Road 120 Abbotts Way	Difficult sites due to historic contamination. However in market attractive area around Stonefields development	Private Sector	Private sector residential development	Connections to FTN	Support Location
Howick	Mixed use development on small site, potentially with adjoining car park land	16 Fencible Drive	High level of market interest expected on this development site	Local Board	Drawing on recently completed Howick Village Place study	Connections to FTN	Support Location
New Lynn	This is a high profile site that fronts two important streets in terms of urban fabric – Totara Avenue and McRay Way	10 – 22 Totara Avenue 944m2	Good level of market interest expected on this development site	Private sector	Significant legacy investment in New Lynn – mixed use and transport	On RTN and good connections to FTN	Support Location
Pakuranga (Mall)	Opportunity to develop Mall site.	AT owned carparks adjoining Mall.	High level of market interest expected on this development site	With private sector. Auckland Council, through City Transformation is leading the negotiations.	Major roading upgrade planned.	Low connectivity currently.	Previously reported as a support location. Not to be progressed as limited Panuku role

Emerging Work Programme Categorisations

26. Considering all of the criteria, Panuku has developed a work programme. The work programme is based on three categories.

Figure Six: Categorising Activities

Proposed Category	Description and Thresholds
	• Purpose: Custodianship of major change over a long term • Over multiple, complex, large scale sites • Will require masterplanning , fully engaging stakeholders and developing long term relationships with stakeholders • A high degree of control needed to facilitate public outcomes and private investment. Direct intervention needed outside the business-as-usual mechanisms. • Place making and management an ongoing resource • Will require reallocation of funds, value capture, capital recycling to fund the project over the long term
	• Purpose: Overcoming barriers to redevelopment of large sites • More than one site (2-4) • Will require some masterplanning – an opportunity to view sites holistically, rather than as single sites. • Panuku role to facilitate private investment to unlock the development potential of surrounding land and other qualitative factors, some place making initiatives and management will be required • Requires broader stakeholder relationships and engagement with stakeholders • A dynamic category – because the facts can change on the ground depending on new sites or opportunities that can become available
	• Purpose: Infill development - mixed-use and housing on discrete sites to increase levels of development and contribute to disposals targets • An individual site, commercial in nature • Limited masterplanning • One development partner only • Contained stakeholders • A dynamic category – contributes to asset sale targets for Panuku • Note: Every time a new site becomes available a judgement will need to be made on whether it is for disposal or redevelopment. If it is a redevelopment opportunity, then it will fall into the Support Category

27. The full programme outlined in Figure Seven and supporting map provided as Attachment B.

28. An important point to note is that over time:

a. As opportunities arise (particularly access to new properties), some of these areas may change categorisation and require a different level of focus. This will apply to the “Support” and “Unlock” categories

b. As Panuku involvement comes to completion, new projects will be added to the list, mostly as Support locations are key to asset sale and SOI targets as well as development outcomes.

Figure Seven: Development Programme

Proposed Category	Locations
	• Wynyard Quarter • Manukau Metropolitan Centre and surrounds • Onehunga Town centre and Port • Tamaki Regeneration (in partnership)
	• Takapuna Town Centre • Northcote Town Centre and surrounds (including HNZ block) • City Centre • Old Papatoetoe Town Centre • Henderson Town Centre • Hobsonville • Ormiston Town Centre and nearby sites in Flatbush • Housing for Older Persons Network of Villages
	• Mt Eden (Dominion Rd & Valley Rd) • Whangaparoa (Link Road) • New Lynn • Avondale • Pukekohe • Stonefields (Morrin Rd, Merton Road, Donnelly Road) • Howick (Fencible Drive) • Otahuhu

Recommendation for Transform Locations

29. Based on the analysis and judgement against the Panuku criteria, it is the Panuku Executive recommends that the Board endorse the locations of:

a. Manukau Metropolitan Centre and surrounds

b. Onehunga Town Centre and Port.

Manukau Metropolitan Centre and Surrounds

30. Based on the Panuku criteria, Manukau Metropolitan Centre and surrounds delivers on:

a. Scale and impact: The Metropolitan centre itself has the capacity to receive significant growth and height. Auckland Council owned land holdings and possible HNZC partner opportunities will provide scale and joint brand potential. Some Auckland Council owned sites are ready to go after Panuku masterplan process. The Local Board is supportive of growth and change in this area.

b. Key land holdings: Auckland Council owns a number of sites in the centre of Manukau which it can use, in partnership with private developers, to increase the housing supply in the area in the form of mixed-use housing and commercial buildings, retail shops, and to improve connections around the area between homes, public spaces, public transport and the town centre.

c. Ability to leverage off previous investment: Government investment in social infrastructure. Recent investment from Auckland Transport in public transport infrastructure.

d. Market/commercial viability: Traditionally a challenging area to generate market interest; however some apartments in the area have been well received.

e. Partnership potential: Housing New Zealand currently owns a large amount of land within eight to 10 kilometres of the centre. There is a significant opportunity for Panuku to work with government organisations, in partnership with developers, to create large-scale change in a much wider area by unlocking the current HNZ sites in conjunction with the upgrade of the town centre. At the least Panuku will focus on the metropolitan centre itself with a roughly three kilometre radius around it. This is the basis of current recommendations.

f. Proximity to PT: Connected to rail and bus with frequency improvements still to be made.

Onehunga Town Centre and Port

31. Based on the Panuku criteria, Onehunga Town Centre and Port delivers on:

a. Scale and impact: Changing the Port of Onehunga to a more mixed use precinct is seen as the key to the regeneration opportunity in Onehunga. This sale had been progressed by ACPL, it is not yet fully completed, but expected to be soon. This is four hectares of property (wharf and waterspace) that Panuku will have sole influence over. Being able to link the Port to the Town Centre and to Māungakiekie-One Tree Hill through quality networks presents a scale and impact opportunity that has not been able to be considered to date. The Local Board is supportive of growth and change in this area.

b. Key land holdings: Panuku could use Council land holdings in the town centre and the Onehunga Port in the future, to enable the development of high quality, mixed styles of housing close to the town centre, public transport and the water’s edge. The Port land offers opportunities to offer access to, and better use of, the waterspace on the Manukau Harbour which has traditionally not received as much attention as the Waitemata.

c. Ability to leverage off previous investment: There has been a significant amount of public investment in Onehunga to improve connections to public transport including a new rail station, and around $29m of council and NZTA funding to open up the Manukau Harbour edge. Future investment includes the east-west link (NZTA) which is proposed to improve freight efficiency, however the current designation will sterilise the port site and waterfront to the east. This will be an area for Panuku to influence.

d. Market/Commercial viability: This area has not yet reached its market potential, and it would be the role of Panuku to stimulate interest and activity.

e. Partnership potential: There is HNZC land in close proximity of the Town Centre and a potential opportunity for Panuku to work with government organisations in this location.

f. Proximity to PT: Connected to rail and bus networks, with frequency improvements still to be made.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

32. Panuku has undertaken early and transparent local board engagement to enable stakeholder feedback to help inform the Panuku Board’s thinking on the work programme and ultimately its recommendation to Council.

33. Throughout October and November, information has been openly shared with local boards through group workshops and individual meetings. An invitation to provide written feedback was also extended. Overwhelmingly the engagement has been well received both from a substantive and a process perspective.

34. The feedback on location selection has also been supportive of the Panuku Board’s recommendations regarding the categorisation of the locations.

35. A comment from the Henderson-Massey Local Board captures the overall tone of the feedback “we would like to express our sincere gratitude at the process Panuku Development Auckland has laid down for development decisions. The ease of access to important information, and in a timely manner has been exceptional and been of great assistance to this Board”.

36. Emergent themes from our stakeholder network include:

a. Genuine excitement for Panuku to drive revitalisation at a local level

b. Support in principal for a transformational shift in the way that Council delivers its urban development activities

c. Optimism to develop strategic partnerships that will unlock Auckland’s potential

d. Advocacy at the local level for particular locations to be included in our work programme.

37. The inclusive approach to engagement has also enabled some peripheral issues to be raised and dealt with in an effective and timely manner. The most recurrent of these issues being the general expectation that we have access to extensive resources, time, people, and money to deliver projects.

38. The open process has given us an opportunity to consistently explain our financial model and set expectations to a reasonable level in terms of what, when and how we will deliver. Consistency of messaging is key to mitigating the risk of this expectation growing. The process has also provided us an early platform from which we have been able to reiterate our vision, purpose and mandate through the statement of intent.

Local Board Engagement Timeline:

a. 12 October Local Board and Local Board Services Briefing

b. 15 October Info pack (location profiles, ADC report, memo) to Local Boards

c. 23 Oct Local Board Services Workshop

d. 28 October Phone calls Local Board Chairs advising of emerging work programme

e. 29 October Local Board Members workshop on emerging work programme

f. 29 October Local Board Memo, advising of emerging work programme and next steps.

Local Board Feedback

39. Twelve of the 21 Local Boards submitted written feedback. All of the feedback we received was supportive.

Local Board	Feedback
Howick	· Fully supportive of the proposed work programme · The Board also advocates Ormiston and sites at Flat Bush be included in the Unlock category and that Pakuranga, Howick as a Support category which is in line with the Panuku proposals
Kaipatiki	· Pleased to see Northcote included in list and is supportive of it being in the Unlock category
Manurewa	· Supports the framework Panuku is using to identify priorities · Would like Panuku to consider adding Manurewa Town Centre to the mix (which it is not at this stage) if Manukau becomes a Transform.
Henderson-Massey	· Very supportive of the process to date · Advocates for Panuku to unlock the major potential of Henderson town centre which is what is proposed by Panuku.
Mangere-Otahuhu	· Welcomes the formation of Panuku and looks forward to strategic partnerships. The Board stated it was supportive of the process to date. The Board advocates for higher intensity development in the Otahuhu SHA and provides Otahuhu specific information; this aligns with our current thinking.
Maungakiekie – Tamaki	· Very supportive of Onehunga being included as an area for significant redevelopment which aligns with the current proposals.
Puketapapa	· The Board supports our thinking for Housing Villages for older people be included as an Unlock · This Board also proposes a number of new suggestions, specifically the Board o supports Three Kings Town Centre as a Transform and Support area o advocates Stoddard Road as a key area for inclusion in Support or Unlock o advocates for Mt Roskill shopping centre on Dominion Road as a Support candidate.
Devonport-Takapuna	· The Board strongly supports Takapuna being a priority location for redevelopment which is in line with the proposed work programme.
Waitakere Ranges	· This Board acknowledged the level of research and sharing of information in the process. · This Board advocates for Council to adequately resource Panuku in future years · This Board requests that Glen Eden Town Centre to be included as a priority area for us, which it is not currently.
Albert-Eden	· This Board has provided feedback in response to the draft work programme, by proposing potential sites requiring further investigation in addition to the urban locations already identified by Panuku for development - specifically, Pt Chevalier, Waterview and Dominion Rd/New North Rd.
Franklin	· Supportive of Manukau as a Transform location and of Onehunga’s Unlock potential which is reflective of our initial thinking · The Board also advocates that Papakura should be included in the Unlock category which is a new suggestion · Finally the Board supports the inclusion of Pukekohe as a Support area

Māori impact statement

40. Through its development work programme Panuku will have a clear role in giving effect to outcomes directed by the council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. Through the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the importance of land to Māori we acknowledge that our particular relationship with Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua is one of partnership in management and development of this essential element.

41. Through deepening Panuku relationships with mana whenua and extending this into committed collaborative engagement and relationships with mataawaka and urban Māori, the broader Māori population, we have the potential to materially uplift Māori contribution to the social, cultural, economic and environmental successes of Auckland. This in turn raises our capability in shaping the fabric and nature of Auckland’s urban environment.

42. Setting our core development programme is a key step in progressing this work. Panuku has accordingly engaged with Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua throughout our decision-making process in a robust and inclusive manner that has been reviewed and supported by Te Waka Angamua and the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Maori Engagement Timeline

a. 18 August: Monthly mana whenua engagement forum briefing (combined ACPL and WA pre-transition)

b. September: Individual meetings with mana whenua hapū offered and undertaken where requested

c. 15 October: Info pack (location profiles, ADC report, memo) to IMSB and mana whenua iwi and hapū – written feedback invited by 13 November

d. 20 October: Monthly Panuku mana whenua engagement forum discussion

e. 3 November: Follow up email to IMSB

f. 17 November: Monthly Panuku mana whenua engagement forum, final feedback opportunity.

Mana whenua Feedback

43. No written feedback was received from mana whenua. Verbal feedback gathered is summarised below. Noting that we are now establishing contact with Urban Māori Authorities, marae and community based groups and Māori organisations in our proposed areas of work so that we can also work with them as we begin master planning in the New Year.

a. No mana whenua iwi or hapū expressed a desire for one particular overall location to be selected over the others; or not selected

b. Their response in respect of interests was consistent with their approach to treaty settlements, being a strong assertion by most of the ‘layers of interests’ approach

c. Several iwi signalled a desire to be involved and informed on all Transform, Unlock and Support locations and seek active engagement with Panuku

d. The Forum expressed concern over Panuku alignment of work in areas where significant planning is already in place – for example in Manukau broader area the Puhinui masterplan, Southern Initiative and Unitary Plan

e. General agreement from the Forum that the early phase of Masterplanning in 2016 should include review of current plans, including mana whenua feedback into plans

f. Best practice in environmental management was discussed as imperative, with a strong appetite for improving infrastructure wherever possible. Several groups indicated that the Transform locations presented a strong opportunity for improvement and that they would take every chance to advocate for this

g. There is a strong desire for proactive commercial engagement through individual relationships and clearly defined process. Most iwi are interested in commercial opportunities wherever they may exist across the city, but particularly in their areas of strongest interest

h. Some mana whenua hapū expressed they are in the development stage organisationally and may be less able to take advantage of commercial opportunities, particularly while settlements are finalised

i. There was general agreement that mana whenua should be involved in an embedded manner throughout planning activities, with an emphasis on early and collaborative engagement. Kaitiaki officers reinforced this as essential in enabling them to fulfill their responsibilities

j. There was a level of comfort around how future engagement would look if the current Panuku engagement approach at the Waterfront applied to future planning activities region-wide provided Panuku took the opportunity for proactive early engagement presented by our regular forum. However this level of engagement would also pose resourcing issues that would need to be assessed early

k. One mana whenua hapū suggested that sites chosen for intensive work could possibly benefit from completion of Cultural Values Assessments. It was acknowledged that not all mana whenua iwi and hapū would think it a useful process. It was also not suggested that it fully replace Te Aranga Design analysis on a case by case basis, but to provide Panuku and developers from which to initiate a Te Aranga process, and to avoid iwi having to regularly repeat information.

44. Panuku will continue with our collaborative engagement Māori in the New Year to make the most of the commercial and non-commercial opportunities presented by the emerging work programme.

IMSB Feedback

45. The engagement process undertaken by Panuku is fully supported by the IMSB Board and it supports Panuku, in consultation with Maori, developing an engagement process involving both mana whenua and mataawaka.

46. In relation to the priority locations, the Board supports the preferred locations and it recognises that the locations offer a wide range of opportunities for Maori to both input into and benefit from. The IMSB has asked for regular update outlining progress on the work programme, views and input from Maori, responses to this input, and identification of possible opportunities and partnerships.

Implementation

47. Should the ADC agree on the two “Transform” Locations then Panuku will begin the process of developing High Level Project Plans (HLPP) for these areas. The HLPP process is expected to uncover more detail and report on an overall strategy and vision for each area, the scope of the projects and the anticipated or necessary Panuku mandate to enable us to achieve that vision.

48. In April 2016 Panuku will present two HLPP to ADC for approval. This work is also likely to flag the additional resources, over and above the current available.

49. It is important that the organisation can demonstrate quicker wins (2-3 years). It is anticipated that the following locations can contribute to the objectives of Panuku in the short term:

a. Link Crescent, Whangaparoa: A conditional Development Agreement has been entered into with McConnell properties for the development of 59 house lots.

b. Hobsonville: Development Agreement to be finalised for Stage One which will deliver 80-85 house lots. SHA application for a further the balance of the site to be granted.

c. Takapuna: Two potential development sites to be marketed, subject to Auckland Transport parking requirements.

d. Dominion Road and Valley Road, Mt Eden: A mixed use development for which Panukau will seek a Resource Consent prior to marketing the opportunity.

e. Old Papatoetoe Town Centre: Complete the sale of the Supermarket and associated retail refurbishment and car park works.

f. City Centre: Civic Administration building development agreement finalised.

50. Avondale Development Agreement with Ockham Properties for the development of 70 apartments, 24-26 Racecourse Parade properties and the completion of 1 Trent Street by NZ Housing Foundation which will provide 34 homes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Area Profiles	47
b View	Proposed Range of Transform, Unlock and Support Locations	85
c View	Reporting Stages	87

Signatories

Author

Fiona Knox – Strategic Projects Manager – Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

David Rankin – Director Strategy & Engagement – Panuku Development Auckland

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

08 December 2015

Approach for making decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

File No.: CP2015/25225

Purpose

1. To inform the committee of the statutory process for the release of the council’s decision on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and to seek endorsement of an approach for assessing the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel’s (the Panel) recommendations next year.

Executive Summary

2. A special legislative process was set up to ensure the first Auckland Unitary Plan could make the journey from public notification to operative at a much faster pace than would typically occur under the Resource Management Act. Without this process, it is highly likely the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan would take at least another five years to become operative.

3. The Panel is required to release its recommendations no later than 22 July 2016. The council then has 20 working days to publicly notify a decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Where the council rejects a recommendation from the Panel, it must specify the alternative provision and provide reasons.

4. Appeals to the Environment Court on the council’s decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan are limited to situations where:

a. the council has accepted a recommendation that is beyond the scope of submissions and the person wishing to appeal is unduly prejudiced by the council’s decision; or

b. the council has rejected a recommendation from the Panel.

5. Appeals on procedural issues can be made to the High Court.

6. Given the tight timeframe, an approach for assessing the Panel’s recommendations should be based on a framework that ensures:

a. the council can meet its statutory deadline;

b. the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan continues to deliver on the priorities in the Auckland Plan; and

c. the overall integrity of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is not compromised.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse an approach of prioritising the council’s response to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendations based on topics that will have a significant impact on the ability of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to deliver on the priorities in the Auckland Plan. This approach will result in a focus on the entire Regional Policy Statement and the following hearing topics:

i. Business

ii. Coastal: Port Precinct

iii. Historic heritage

iv. Infrastructure

v. Landscapes

vi. Mana Whenua sites

vii. Māori land and treaty

viii. Natural hazards and flooding

ix. Residential

x. Rural

xi. Rural Urban Boundary

xii. Significant Ecological Areas

xiii. Special character and pre-1944

xiv. Sustainable design

xv. Transport

xvi. Viewshafts

xvii. Waitakere Ranges

xviii. Zoning.

Comments

Statutory Process

7. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act 2013 (the Act) establishes a stream-lined process to help deliver the first Auckland Unitary Plan. The Panel established under the Act started hearing submissions in September 2014. The Panel is scheduled to complete the hearings in April 2016 and is required to release its recommendations to the council no later than 22 July 2016.

8. The council has 20 working days to consider the Panel’s recommendations and to notify a decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, together with its reasons for any recommendation it has rejected. This period can be extended to 40 working days by the Minster for the Environment. Within this timeframe staff will need to analyse the recommendations, prepare reports for the Auckland Development Committee and Governing Body and prepare the council’s decision. Based on a 20 working day scenario the council must release its decision version by 19 August 2016.

9. The Act was written to create a process that enabled the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to move from notification to operative at a much faster pace than typically could occur under the Resource Management Act. This includes limiting appeals to the Environment Court on the council’s decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to situations where:

a) the council has accepted a recommendation that is beyond the scope of submissions and the person wishing to appeal is unduly prejudiced by the council’s decision; or

b) the council has rejected a recommendation from the Panel.

10. Appeals on procedural issues can be made to the High Court.

Decision Version

11. The council is required to release a decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and set out the recommendations it has accepted and rejected (if any). If a Panel recommendation is rejected, the council must provide reasons as well as the alternative provision it supports. Alternative provisions must be within scope of submissions and must be based on material that was presented to the Panel at the hearings. The council also has the ability to accept a recommendation but alter the relevant Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provision in a minor way to correct a minor error.

12. The council is required to prepare a Section 32 AA cost benefit analysis report (under the Resource Management Act) for any changes made to the Panel’s recommended version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Assessment of the Panel’s Recommendations

13. There are three main factors to consider when assessing the Panel’s recommendations. The first is to ensure the council meets the statutory timeframe for releasing its decision. The second is to ensure that the decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan continues to deliver on the priorities in the Auckland Plan. The third is to ensure the overall integrity of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan remains intact, and that any provisions that are rejected are replaced with provisions that seamlessly integrate with the rest of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This requires time and careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences.

14. The strategic directions and related priorities of the Auckland Plan are provided in Attachment A, together with a list of hearing topics that are considered to be the most important in terms of the link between these two fundamental council plans.

Consideration

Options

15. Three options for reviewing the Panel’s recommendations have been assessed. The pros and cons of each option and a preferred option are discussed below:

Option 1: Accept all of the Panel’s recommendations

Pros:

a. The council can easily meet the statutory deadline.

b. Appeals are limited to where a person is unduly prejudiced in relation to accepted recommendations that are beyond the scope of the submissions, or to the High Court on procedural issues.

c. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan remains integrated and intact (assuming the Panel recommendation achieves this).

Cons:

a. Fails to deliver on public expectations that the council will carefully consider the Panel’s recommendations before making its decision.

b. Provisions may compromise the council's ability to implement the Auckland Plan.

Option 2: Undertake a chapter by chapter assessment of the Panel’s recommendations

Pros:

a. Meets public expectations that the council will carefully consider the Panel’s recommendations.

Cons:

a. The statutory deadline is unlikely to be met.

b. Pressure to meet the statutory timeframe will likely result in errors being made.

c. "Unpicking" may cause unintended consequences within other provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

d. Potential for a significant number of Environment Court appeals and delays in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan becoming operative.

Option 3: Focus on topics that significantly affect the implementation of the Auckland Plan (RECOMMENDED OPTION)

Pros:

a. The council can make the statutory deadline (although this depends on the extent of any recommendations that are rejected).

b. Reports to the Auckland Development Committee are based on the bigger picture, focusing on parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that are fundamental to implementing the Auckland Plan.

c. Limits the number of potential Environment Court appeals.

d. Minimises the risk of significantly “unpicking” the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and therefore reducing potential for inconsistencies and loss of integration.

Cons:

a. Some aspects of the Panel’s recommendations will only have a high level review.

b. If the council decides to reject a significant number of the Panel’s recommendations, there is a risk the council will not meet the statutory deadline.

16. Option 3 focuses the assessment of the Panel’s recommendations on their impact on the implementation of the Auckland Plan. Attachment A lists the13 strategic directions in the Auckland Plan and their associated priorities, and notes the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearing topics that are considered to have a significant impact on the council’s ability to implement the Auckland Plan. This option recognises that the Panel has been set up to carefully consider the submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, hear expert evidence from the submitters and make recommendations. It acknowledges that within the statutory timeframe for making its decision, the council needs to focus its effort.

17. For all options there exists the opportunity for the council to change the Auckland Unitary Plan through public plan changes after the PAUP becomes operative.

Local Board views and implications

18. Local boards have played a significant role in developing the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Throughout the process, workshops have been held with local boards, and local board chairs have been invited to attend all relevant committee workshops and meetings. Views from local boards on the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan were also included in the local board section of the council submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. All local boards who provided views in the council submission were informed of the topics going into the hearings and given the opportunity to present their views to the Panel (in situations where their views differed from that of the Governing Body).

Māori impact statement

19. A high level of engagement has occurred between the council and Mana Whenua in developing the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Mana Whenua are in general agreement that the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan takes an important step forward in terms of planning under the Resource Management Act. The process of developing the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has fostered a partnership between the council and Mana Whenua. This is reflected in an ongoing refinement of the Cultural Impact Assessment provisions, and developing best practice for implementing these provisions.

20. The Independent Māori Statutory Board and all 19 Mana Whenua entities made submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. These submissions supported the overall approach and suggested amendments to lift the responsiveness of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to Mana Whenua. Most Mana Whenua entities have been active participants in the hearings and associated mediations. The council has responded positively to the submissions from Mana Whenua within the context of the council’s other responsibilities under the Resource Management Act.

21. No specific engagement with Mana Whenua is proposed between the release of the Panel’s recommendations and the release of the council’s decision. Given the engagement to date, the views of Mana Whenua are well known and the council is in a position to factor this into its decision-making.

Implementation

22. It is proposed that the hearing topics that have the greatest impact in terms of implementing the Auckland Plan are presented to the committee in two workshops on the 8 and 9 August 2016. A decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan will then be presented to the committee on 18 August 2016 with the Governing Body following directly after for final approval of the council’s decision.

23. A considerable amount of effort is required to ensure that the Panel’s recommendations and the council’s decision are available on the council website within the statutory timeframe. Training of staff from across the organisation will also need to occur during this time period.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Plan Strategic Directions and related Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Topics	95

Signatories

Author

Celia Davison – Manager Unitary Plan

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

08 December 2015

Heritage Advisory Panel Recommendation-Kings School

File No.: CP2015/24143

Purpose

1. To consider the Heritage Advisory Panel recommendation regarding the issuing of a heritage order on the Hanna Block at the King’s School in Remuera.

Executive Summary

2. The Council has been requested by the Heritage Advisory Panel to undertake a heritage evaluation of the King’s School Hanna Block in the light of new important heritage information and consider as a matter of urgency the issuing of a heritage order on the King’s School Hanna Block.

3. Consent to demolish the Hanna Block was granted by Council in December 2014.

4. The Hanna Block is not scheduled as a heritage building in either the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (operative plan) or the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The proposed demolition was a permitted activity under the PAUP, and a discretionary activity under the operative plan on the basis that a small part of the Hanna Block is located within the site surrounds of a scheduled Category B building – the King’s School Chapel.

5. King’s School has had two heritage assessments undertaken by Salmond Reed Architects Ltd. The first is a heritage evaluation which considers the Hanna Block to be of overall considerable heritage significance. The second is a heritage impact assessment which assesses that there will be little impact from demolition of the Hanna Block on the Category B scheduled Chapel on the site.

6. Demolition has already begun on site at the Kings School in reliance on the demolition consent, with the Hanna Block clock tower removed in December 2014. The commencement of the main demolition works are scheduled to start in early December 2015 and to be completed over the summer school holidays (December 2015/January 2016).

7. Initiating the heritage order process exposes Council to significant risks. The risks are both financial and reputational. It could be argued that Council is acting in bad faith, that it is being inconsistent and therefore unreasonable, by in the first place, granting consent to the demolition of the Hanna Block and then 12 months later preventing the consent holder from being able to implement their consent through the issuing of a notice of requirement for a heritage order.

8. King’s School is likely to suffer significant detriment if the Council initiates the heritage order process. King’s School has already undertaken capital expenditure of $3 million. The Council could be ordered by the Environment Court to compulsorily acquire the Hanna Block building. This is an unlikely situation given the location of the building on the site. However, if the Council is determined to protect the Hana Block, then the Council should be mindful that it could be exposed to substantial (but as yet undefined) costs and compensation for the restoration and retention of the building.

9. There is also a risk of judicial review if the Council were to issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order, as this would prevent the consent holder from implementing their demolition consent. Furthermore, the circumstances of the school are likely to be viewed sympathetically if any legal proceedings are brought in this context.

10. It is recommended that the Council does not issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order on the Hanna Block. If this recommendation is accepted, the risks to the Council will be reduced. It is certain however, that the Hanna Block will be demolished in accordance with the terms of the demolition consent issued in December 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) inform the Heritage Advisory Panel that it has considered its recommendation and has decided not to issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order for the Hanna Block at the King’s School in Remuera.

Comments

The Hanna Block

11. King’s School is an independent preparatory school located in Remuera. The Hanna Block is a long rectangular building located at the central core of the school. The building was constructed in 1936 and has functioned as a boarding and classroom facility.

12. The Salmond Reed, Heritage Impact Assessment commissioned by the King’s School Board of Trustees states: The Board, having considered the functional, safety economic and heritage issues with the building considers a new building is the best option for the future and it proposes to demolish the building. In discussions with the King’s School Board of Trustees they advised officers that the reason for demolition is that the building requires considerable and expensive earthquake strengthening and even then the building would not meet their teaching requirements.

13. The Hanna Block is not a scheduled historic heritage building / place under the operative plan or the PAUP.

14. Notwithstanding that the building is not scheduled, a heritage evaluation of the Hanna Block was undertaken by Salmond Reed Architects Ltd on behalf of King’s School in August 2014. This evaluation considered the Hanna Block to be of overall considerable heritage significance.

15. The King’s School Chapel, located to the south east of the Hanna Block, is scheduled under both the operative plan and the PAUP as a Category B building / historic heritage place. A small corner of the Hanna Block sits within a protected 30 metre ‘site surrounds’ of the chapel under the operative plan, however it does not sit within the ‘extent of place’ of the chapel in the PAUP. As a small corner of the Hanna Block was located within the site surrounds, discretionary activity consent was required for demolition of the Hanna Block under the operative plan. Under the PAUP demolition is a permitted activity.

16. Demolition has begun on site, with the Hanna Block clock tower removed in December 2014. The remaining demolition works are scheduled to start in early December 2015 and to be completed over the 2015 / 2016 summer school holidays, to minimise disruption to students and staff.

Resource consent for demolition

17. Consent was required as a discretionary activity for the demolition of the Hanna Block under the operative plan. The reason being that a small corner of the Hanna Block is located within the site surrounds of the scheduled King’s School Chapel.

18. A heritage impact assessment undertaken by Salmond Reed, supported by Council’s heritage unit, found that the effects of the demolition of the Hanna Block on the heritage values of the scheduled Chapel were minor.

19. Consent to demolish the Hanna Block was granted in December 2014.

20. The reasons for granting the resource consent (R/LUC/2014/4160) include:

The proposal provides for the demolition of the Hanna Block located within the south-western corner of King’s School in Remuera. The Hanna Block does not have any specific heritage recognition under the Auckland Isthmus District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, despite its age and architectural character. The demolition of the Hanna Building is reasonably anticipated by the Auckland Isthmus District Plan. The demolition of the Hanna Building is a permitted activity under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Save the King’s School Hanna Block and the Heritage Advisory Panel

21. The Heritage Advisory Panel received a presentation on 20 October 2015 from Rob Thomas, a Waitemata Local Board member and a member of Save the King’s School Hanna Block. In response, the Panel resolved:

Resolution number HER/2015/44

request Auckland Council to undertake a heritage assessment of the King’s School Hanna Block in the light of new important heritage information and consider as a matter of urgency the issuing of a heritage protection order on the King’s School Hanna Block.

The implications of a heritage order

22. The Council, as a heritage protection authority, can issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order, as set out in section 187 to 198 of the Resource Management Act 1991. This would override the demolition consent and hence provide statutory protection to the Hanna Block.

23. While the notice of requirement is processed, and prior to the Council’s ultimate decision whether or not to confirm the heritage order, the notice of requirement has interim effect. During that period, no person may do anything that would “wholly or partly nullify the effect of the heritage order” without prior written consent of the Council, as the heritage protection authority.

24. The notice of requirement overrides any other provision in the operative plan or the PAUP and, as previously stated, overrides any resource consent.

25. At the end of the heritage order process the Council must decide whether to confirm, modify or withdraw the requirement for the heritage order. If a party is unhappy with the Council’s decision, they can appeal this to the Environment Court.

26. If appealed successfully, the Environment Court may give the Council the option of either withdrawing the requirement or of requiring the purchase of the land. The option of requiring purchase is very unlikely in this case, due to the location of the Hanna Block within the core of the school.

Identified benefits and risks of a heritage order

27. The primary benefit of issuing a notice of requirement for a heritage order is that demolition of the Hanna Block could only occur with the approval of Council, as the heritage protection authority.

28. Initiating the heritage order process does however expose Council to significant risks.

29. King’s School are likely to suffer significant detriment if the Council initiates this process. King’s School has already undertaken capital expenditure of $3 million on architectural, structural, and other professional design services. The school anticipates “significant financial loss” if the project is delayed or unable to proceed with funding arrangements that rely on the current timeline of works. The school estimates the financial loss to be in the magnitude of “potentially a further $6 million to $9 million”.

30. Given that the Council granted consent to the demolition of the Hanna Block in December 2014, the Council would be exposing itself to a risk of judicial review if it were to now issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order and prevent the consent holder from demolishing the building. Furthermore, given the capital expenditure, the circumstances of the school are likely to be viewed sympathetically by the Court. This could result in the Court quashing the decision to initiate the heritage order process, which would enable the demolition to proceed in accordance with existing consents. The Council could also be ordered to pay legal costs incurred by King’s School in bringing legal proceedings.

31. Once the notice of requirement process for a heritage order is underway, the Council could also be ordered by the Environment Court to compulsorily acquire the Hanna Block building. This is an unlikely situation given the location of the building on the site. However, if the Council is determined to protect the Hana Block building on behalf of the community, then the Council should be mindful that it could be exposed to substantial (but as yet undefined) costs and compensation for the restoration and retention of the building. This is the situation Council reached through its previous heritage order case, the Thomas Doo building on Hobson Street.

32. There are some similarities to the Thomas Doo building in this case. In the Thomas Doo case, an application was made to demolish the building in January 2005 prior to the building being scheduled as a Category B building under Plan Change 7 in June 2005. As the application was made prior to the plan change being notified, the application was required to be processed as a (restricted) controlled activity, and as a controlled activity the Council was required to grant consent to the demolition application. To prevent demolition of the building, the Council issued a notice of requirement for a heritage order for the building. Related legal costs exceeded $250,000.00. As outlined above, the Council also compensated for the restoration and retention of the building.

33. The Council has granted resource consent to demolish the Hanna Block within the last 12 months. This consent application was assessed overall as a discretionary activity, giving the Council the ability to decline the consent. There is some commentary on the heritage values of the Hanna Block in the Council documentation, leading to the granting of this consent. This commentary indicates Council officers previously considered that the heritage values of the Hanna Block did not warrant the declining of the consent for demolition. While these actions do not prevent the Council from initiating the heritage order process, it is inconsistent.

34. If the Council were to pursue a heritage order it is likely there will be adverse media coverage over the facts of the case that could lead to potential reputational damage for the Council. There are likely to be allegations that the Council is acting in bad faith, particularly given that there is no new information before the Council that was not before the Council when it issued its decision granting consent to the demolition of the Hanna Block in December 2014. It is important to note however, there is also a risk that there would be criticisms of the Council if the demolition of the Hanna Block occurs.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

35. The site is in the Orakei Local Board area. No feedback has been sought from the Local Board on this report.

36. In the 10 December 2014 Hearings Committee agenda report on the appointment of Independent Commissioners to make decisions on the application for resource consent to demolish the ‘Hanna Block’ the following is stated:

37. The Orakei Local Board has been provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application. Comments were sought by the reporting planner on Wednesday 22 October 2014. Support for notification of the application was split; Troy Churton recommended full notification, Desley Simpson and Kit Parkinson resolved to support the demolition. Desley Simpson provided the application to Iain Valentine, Chair of the Remuera Residents Association, who supported the demolition to be approved on a non-notified basis. Desley Simpson also provided the application to Sue Cooper, Remuera Heritage, who has no objection to the demolition.

Māori impact statement

38. The Hanna Block and its proposed demolition do not have any identified implications for Māori. No feedback has been sought from iwi on this report.

Implementation

39. If the recommendation is accepted, that no notice of requirement be issued for a heritage order on the Hanna Block, there are no matters to consider for implementation. The Hanna Block will be able to be demolished, in line with the approved resource consent.

40. If a notice of requirement is issued for a heritage order on the Hanna Block, the processes under section 187 to 198 of the RMA must be followed. There will be significant time pressures on the Council to complete this process, with the remaining demolition works scheduled to start in early December 2015. As discussed in this report, if the committee agrees to issue a notice of requirement for a heritage order there will be significant costs that are not currently budgeted.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

08 December 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 Pakuranga Town Centre Delegation of Authority Approval

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals .

s7(2)(c)(ii) - 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 damage the public interest.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals .

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 contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals .

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

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.

C3 Special Housing Areas Tranche 9: Recommendations

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information 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.

C4 Special Housing Areas Tranche 9: Further Recommendations

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information 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.

C5 Housing for Older Persons: Procurement of a Preferred Community Housing Provider Partner

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

In particular, the report contains commercial sensitive information.

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 contains commercial sensitive information.

s48(1)(a)

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a View	City Centre Integration update (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Downtown Public Spaces (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Towards the Aotea Quarter Framework feedback report (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Draft Aotea Quarter Framework (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Manukau Interchange update (Under Separate Cover)
f View	Memo update on future proofing on the route protection for the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (Under Separate Cover)

Date	Stakeholder
8 May 2015	Council family workshop
12 May	CCO Governance & Monitoring Committee Workshop
13 May 2015	Council family workshop with Strategic Intelligence Group
10 June 2015	Project Steering Group
16 June 2015	Auckland Development Committee Workshop
27 July 2015	Project Leadership Team
24 June	Council family workshop
27 July 2015	Board Advisory Group
29 July 2015	Project Leadership Team
4 August	Project Steering Group
5 August	Auckland Development Committee Workshop
18 August	Mana Whenua Hui – Waterfront Auckland
18 August	Board Advisory Group
1 September	Auckland Development Committee Workshop
October	Central Govt Discussions - Treasury, MBIE, HNZC
12 October	Local Board and Local Board Services
15 October	Auckland Development Committee Meeting
15 October	ADC Committee
15 October	Information pack (location profiles, ADC report, memo) to IMSB, Local Boards, Mana Whenua
20 October	Hui
21 Oct	Councillor memo – from David Rankin updating on progress and outlining next steps
23 Oct	Local Board Services workshop
28 October	Panuku Board
28 October	Phone calls to Councillors, Local Board Chairs, senior Council staff advising Councillors of Boards initial thinking
29 October	Local Board Members workshop
29 October	Councillor Memo – From John Dalzell updating Councillors of Board meeting and next steps
29 October	Local Board Memo – From David Rankin updating members on the outcome of Board meeting, and next steps

Author	Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy