|
Governing Body
24 February
2016
|
|
City Rail Link
and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update
File No.: CP2016/02691
Purpose
1. To provide an update on
developments relating to the City Rail Link (CRL) and the Auckland Transport
Alignment Programme (ATAP), and authorise the negotiation with Government of a
joint business plan for the CRL project.
Executive
Summary
2. On 27 January 2016, the Prime
Minister confirmed the Government’s support for, and intent to part fund, the
CRL.
3. The next step is for Council and
the Government to negotiate a joint business plan for the project.
4. On 19 February 2016, the
‘Foundation Report’ for ATAP was released. This report provides the framework
for the remainder of the project which will provide advice on intervention
packages in April 2016 and a final report including recommendations regarding
implementation in July 2016.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a) receive an update on the
Government's position on the City Rail Link and related next steps.
b) authorise the Mayor, Cr Bill
Cashmore and chief executives of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to
negotiate a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with the Government
for adoption by the Governing Body.
c) receive an update on the
Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
|
Discussion
City Rail Link
5. In November 2015, I wrote to the
Prime Minister requesting that the Government confirm the nature and timing of
its funding contribution to the CRL. On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister
confirmed his Government's support for the CRL by announcing that it would
fomalise its funding commitment by bringing forward work on the joint business
plan for the project to 2016.
6. This commitment of funding from
the Government provides the certainty to Council and Auckland Transport to
progress the project, based on the time frame set out in the 2015 Long Term
Plan.
7. As a result of the Government's
funding confirmation there are a range of details that now need to be confirmed
with the Government regarding the project. The issues to be negotiated are
expected to include ownership, governance, project risk and funding details.
8. The Government has proposed that
the business plan largely be confined to the matters above, as opposed to it
representing a wholesale rework of the analysis and detail of the project that
has previously been undertaken. The amount of work that Council has already
undertaken on the project and related issues will position us well for these
negotiations.
9. To advance this work there will
need to be continued discussions at a governance-level, with the Prime
Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport and at an
officers-level led, from Council's perspective, by the chief executives of the
Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.
ATAP Foundation Report
10. The Budget Committee, at its 7
May 2015 meeting, resolved the following in relation to engaging with the
Government on alternative transport funding (BUD/2015/10):
"that the Mayor and Chief Executive engage with
the government to enable the implementation of an alternative funding system by
2018/2019 to fund the implementation of the Auckland Plan Transport Network for
the Long-term Plan 2018-2028"
11. On 27 August 2015, the Minister
of Transport joined with me to release the terms of reference for the ATAP
process. The focus of the project was to improve the alignment between Council
and the Government regarding Auckland's transport programme in order to advance
the following broad objectives:
· To
support economic growth and increased productivity by ensuring access to
employment/labour improves relative to current levels as Auckland's population
grows
· To
improve congestion results, relative to predicted levels, in particular travel
time and reliability in the peak period and to ensure congestion does not
become widespread during working hours
· To
improve public transport's mode share, relative to predicted results, where it
will address congestion
· To
ensure any increases in the financial costs of using the transport system
deliver net benefits to users of the system
12. Since that time the partners in
the project (Ministry of Transport, The Treasury, State Services Commission, NZ
Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport) have worked closely
and collaboratively to advance the first deliverable of the project, the
"ATAP Foundation Report" which was released by the Minister of
Transport, Hon Simon Bridges and myself on Friday 19 February.
13. The Foundation Report (a copy of
which is appended as Attachment A) provides an overview of the context, problem
definition includes the following information:
· A
summary of Auckland's current transport situation, including recent trends and
how Auckland compares with similar cities internationally
· An
outline of future trends that will impact on Auckland's transport system,
including growth changing land-use and travel trends
· An
evaluation framework to test an intervention's (or combination of
interventions) contribution to desired outcomes
· A
presentation and description of key issues for future stages of the project to
focus on.
14. The foundation report provides a
framework through which intervention packages can be developed and assessed.
This work will result in a further two deliverables for the project,
specifically:
· Initial
advice reporting on the development, testing and evaluation of broad intervention
packages - April 2016.
· A
final report detailing the best performing intervention packages the related
preferred strategic approach and recommendations regarding implementation -
July 2016.
15. By achieving agreement on the
optimal transport programme for Auckland, ATAP will provide for Council and
Government to discuss and agree a sustainable long-term funding model for
transport infrastructure. This in turn will conclude the almost five years of
work that Council has undertaken on alternative funding sources for transport
infrastructure.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
16. Both the CRL and ATAP are
regional in their impacts.
17. The CRL is designed to increase
the transport system’s ability to move people to and from the region’s business
and entertainment centre.
18. ATAP is designed to review and
agree on the significant elements of the entire region’s land transport
planning from 2018 onwards.
Māori
Impact Statement
19. Impact on Māori is expected
to be positive, in that the CRL will enable more people to access the City
Centre for employment and social activity, via a more cost effective and
environmentally less harmful means of transport than most feasible
alternatives.
20. ATAP also is designed to improve
both social and environmental outcomes.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
ATAP Foundation Report
|
9
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
His Worship the Mayor
|
|
Governing Body
24 February
2016
|
|
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's
current position on the zoning maps
File No.: CP2016/02689
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to
explain:
· the
special legislation established for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);
· the
current and next steps in the hearings process and in particular the
decision-making process on the zoning maps (and all other aspects of the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) in July and August 2016;
· the
process undertaken to confirm the council’s position and evidence for the
re-zoning hearings that commenced on 15 February 2016;
· the
approach taken in the council’s evidence relating to the proposed revised
zoning maps; and
· the
implications of a number of options that could be taken by the council in
response to concerns raised about the council’s position and evidence on the
zoning maps.
Executive
Summary
2. Approximately 4,000 submissions
and 2,500 further submissions were made on the zoning maps in the PAUP. The
submissions raised approximately 20,000 separate points. The scale and
complexity involved in addressing the submissions is unprecedented in New
Zealand.
3. No decisions have been made by
the council on the final form of the zoning maps. Those decisions will be made
in August 2016 by the Governing Body, after the Auckland Unitary Plan
Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) has listened to and read all of the
submissions, and has made its recommendations to the council on 22 July 2016.
4. The Panel directs the hearings
process. For all intents and purposes the council is a submitter at this stage
and must provide evidence to the Panel on any position it takes to a hearing.
5. Currently the Panel is hearing
evidence from submitters on the zoning maps and precincts. As part of its
evidence, the council has proposed changes to the zoning maps, based on a
series of principles endorsed by the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015
and guidance issued by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in
July 2015.
6. The proposed revised maps give
effect to the Regional Policy Statement chapter of the PAUP and seek to avoid
spot-zoning or pepper-potting the maps. There are over 413,000 properties zoned
residential in Auckland. The proposed changes to the maps involve
approximately 14 per cent (57,820 properties) of all residential properties in
Auckland, with approximately seven per cent clearly within the scope of
submissions and seven per cent potentially outside the scope of submissions.
The remaining 86 per cent, or approximately 351,180 properties, have no
proposed changes to the notified PAUP zoning maps.
7. This report responds to concerns
that have been raised about the council’s position on the zoning maps, as set
out in the comprehensive evidence that was filed with the Panel on 3 December
2015, and 26 January 2016. It discusses the implications of a number of
options, some of which are extremely significant in terms of their impact on
the overall hearings process.
8. Over 990 submitters have
indicated to the Panel that they wish to be heard at hearings on the zoning
maps. Some of those submitters are requesting significant changes to the maps
to enable more housing (up-zoning), while others are requesting down-zoning. If
the council withdraws its evidence on the zoning maps, the discussion over
up-zoning and down-zoning will still occur at the hearings. The material
difference will be that the council will not be able to provide professional advice
to moderate the extremes of both sides of the discussion.
9. Staff therefore recommend that
the council should maintain its current position, but clearly stress to the
Panel the need to consider issues of natural justice and fairness when
reviewing the council’s position and that of other submitters during the course
of the hearings in March and April 2016.
|
Recommendations
That the Governing Body:
a) note that the council has not
made any decisions on the zoning maps in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
This decision will be made in August 2016 after considering the
recommendations from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.
b) note the proposed changes
discussed in the council’s evidence respond to guidance from the Auckland
Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in relation to avoiding spot-zoning
or pepper-potting the zoning maps. Remaining strictly within the scope of
submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan would not meet the Panel’s
guidance.
c) note that the special legislation
for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan passed by the Government allows the
Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel to recommend changes that
are not within the scope of submissions, but balances this by enabling anyone
who is prejudiced by the council agreeing to accept the Panel’s
recommendations to appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court.
d) note the concerns expressed by
members of the public and community groups about the council’s current
position on the zoning maps in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
e) request staff to instruct the
council’s lawyers to stress to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings
Panel on 3 March 2016, the importance of considering natural justice and
fairness issues when considering the council’s position and that presented by
other submitters at the re-zoning hearings.
f) direct the Auckland
Development Committee to hold two workshops specifically on the zoning maps
as soon as practicable after recommendations on changes on the zoning maps
are received from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel on 22
July 2016. These workshops are over-and-above the two full day workshops
already planned in August, prior to the council making its decisions on the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
|
Comments
Part A - Recap on the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Process
Special Legislation - Local Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
10. The Local
Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is special
legislation enacted by the Government that sets out a process for the
development of the first combined planning document for Auckland Council under
the Resource Management Act 1991.
11. The LGATPA
provides for the following:
· the
preparation of the PAUP;
· the public notification of the PAUP for
submissions;
· the closing date for original
submissions on the PAUP;
· the requirement for the council to
summarise the original submissions received and publicly notify them;
· the closing date for further
submissions;
· the establishment of the Auckland
Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, a Chairperson and Panel Members,
outside of the council, to hear submissions on the PAUP and make
recommendations to the council on the PAUP;
· the ability of the Auckland Unitary
Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) to recommend changes to the PAUP
that are not within the scope of submissions;
· the date the Panel must provide its
recommendation report(s) to the council – 22 July 2016;
· the date the council must publicly
notify its decisions on recommendations, and also make the Panel’s
recommendations public – 19 August 2016;
· the
Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and non-submitters
in relation to the council’s decision, which include:
o Environment
Court rights of appeal for submitters where the council rejects a Panel
recommendation and decides an alternative solution;
o Environment Court rights of appeal
for any person (whether a submitter or not) where the council accepts a recommendation
of the Panel that is identified by the Panel as beyond the scope of submissions
on the PAUP, and that person is or will be unduly prejudiced by that decision.
12. With regard to
costs that could be awarded in relation to any Environment Court appeals on the
council’s decisions on the PAUP, the Environment Court of New Zealand: Practice
Note 2014 states at clause 6.6(b) “The following issues are relevant to the
practice of the Court in considering costs issues: (b)Where an appeal against a
proposed policy statement, plan, or plan change under Schedule 1 to the RMA has
proceeded to a hearing, costs will not normally be awarded to any party”.
13. In the absence
of special legislation, the PAUP would have been developed entirely under the Schedule
1 process in the RMA. As a result, the PAUP would have been notified for
submissions, submissions would have been received and summarised, the summary
would have been notified and further submissions called for. Any submitters
who wished to be heard would attend a council hearing, and the council would
make a decision on the PAUP. Submitters who were unhappy with the council’s
decision could appeal to the Environment Court and seek the changes to the Plan
that they had sought in their submission.
14. While the
council is the decision maker for the PAUP, the council does not conduct the
hearings – that is the role of the Independent Hearings Panel. The council
attends the PAUP hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel, as it is
required to under the LGATPA (section 137, LGATPA).
Timeline for submissions, hearings and decision-making
15. The diagram below sets out the
overall timeline for the submissions, hearings and decision-making process for
the PAUP, as set out in the LGATPA:
Role of the Panel
16. It is the role
of the Panel to:
· hold hearings into submissions on the
PAUP;
· regulate its hearings (or alternative
resolution approaches) in accordance with the LGATPA;
· adhere to a hearing procedure that is
appropriate and fair in the circumstances; and
· provide its recommendation report(s) to
the council by 22 July 2016, with the LGATPA explicitly providing that the
recommendations can include changes to the PAUP that are out of scope of
submissions.
17. The panel does
not need a submitter to raise out of scope matters – it can do so itself.
18. It is not
the role of the Panel to make decisions on the PAUP. The Panel is only
required to provide its recommendations to the council on any changes it
considers should be made to the PAUP.
Role of
Auckland Council
19. It is the role
of the council to:
· attend
all hearing sessions unless excused by the Panel;
· participate in pre hearing meetings,
expert conferencing and mediation;
· provide evidence to support the PAUP or
any proposed amendments to the PAUP; and
· Consider the recommendations of the Panel
and make decisions on those recommendations.
Scope and Rights of Appeal
20. As outlined
above, the Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and
non-submitters in relation to the council’s decision on the Panel’s
recommendations on the PAUP include:
· Environment Court rights of appeal to any
person (whether a submitter or not) where the council accepts a recommendation
of the Panel that is identified by the Panel as beyond the scope of
submissions on the PAUP, and that person is or will be unduly prejudiced by
that decision.
21. The Panel has
issued two directions on scope – one on 14 January 2016, on residential
re-zonings and issues of scope, and a subsequent direction on 18 February 2016,
providing clarification of the earlier directions. However, the Chairperson highlights the direction that it
is important to note that the legal position set out in that decision is
altered in relation to the Panel’s powers under section 144(5) of the LGATPA
which provides that the Panel is not limited to making recommendations only
within the scope of submissions on the PAUP.
22. As summarised in
the Panel’s 14 January 2016 direction, Housing New Zealand Corporation has
filed legal submissions with the Panel, which argue that the scope for amending
residential zonings in Auckland is not as limited as the council position
indicates.
23. While the
council has taken a conservative view of scope, and sought to rely on specific
submissions for scope, we note that scope is determined as being anywhere
between the position in the PAUP as notified and the relief that is sought in
any original submissions on the PAUP – whether that original submission is
specific to a property address or street, or whether that original submission
is more broad and general in nature.
24. It is Housing
New Zealand Corporation’s position that their original submission on the PAUP
and the Government’s submission provide the scope for the re-zoning that is
proposed by the council in evidence, and that the council’s proposed changes to
residential zonings are not in fact out-of-scope. This will be a matter for the
Panel to determine, as the Panel in making its recommendations is required to
clearly identify any recommendations that are out-of-scope of submissions.
Part B Where are we at in the submissions,
hearings and decision-making process?
Hierarchy within the PAUP and hearings completed to date
25. The PAUP is a fully combined
planning document prepared under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It
contains the following key components:
· Regional Policy Statement
· Regional Plan (including the Regional
Coastal Plan)
· District Plan (including the zoning
maps).
26. These three components are based
on the hierarchy set out in the RMA, with the Regional Policy Statement at the
top of the hierarchy. The zoning maps are a tool that is required to give
effect to the Regional Policy Statement and the objectives and policies set out
in the District Plan for each of the zones.
27. Since September 2014, the Panel
has completed the hearings for some sixty PAUP topics. The first tranche of
hearings addressed submissions on the Regional Policy Statement. Since then,
the Panel has completed hearings in respect of the Regional Coastal Plan
(excluding coastal re-zoning and precinct submissions), other regional plan
provisions and the District Plan (excluding re-zoning and the majority of the
precinct submissions).
Re-zoning and precinct
hearings
28. The council received over 4,000
submissions and 2,500 further submissions on the zoning maps in the PAUP,
comprising over 20,000 specific submission points affecting over 80,000
properties. In order to manage the re-zoning hearings, the Panel has split the
hearings into two separate hearings, Topic 080 (Re-zoning and Precincts –
General) and Topic 081 (Re-zoning and Precincts – Geographical Areas).
29. Hearing Topic 080 addresses
re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to Public Open Space zones,
Regional Coastal Plan zones and various Special Purpose zones and their related
precincts. Topic 080 also addresses general submissions relating to zoning and
precincts. The hearing for Topic 080 started on 15 February 2016 and is due to
be completed by the end of March 2016. At the beginning of this hearing, the
council presented its overall approach to zoning and outlined the principles
the council adopted in preparing zoning maps showing proposed changes for the
re-zoning hearings.
30. Hearing Topic 081 addresses
re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to the remaining zones, including
the business, residential and rural zones. The timeline below sets out the key
dates for Topic 081.
Topic 081 Timeline
31. Over 1,200 pieces of evidence
have been lodged with the Panel in relation to Topic 081, with over 990
submitters scheduled to attend the hearings in March and April. A diverse range
of individuals and organisations have made submissions on the business,
residential and rural zoning maps in the PAUP, including the Government,
Housing New Zealand Corporation, developers, resident and business associations,
advocacy groups and private individuals. As with all previous hearings, some
submitters support the council’s position as set out in its evidence, while
others are opposed to the council’s position. The evidence lodged by these
submitters has directly responded to the council’s position. Preparing the
evidence has required considerable time, cost and effort on the part of many of
these submitters.
32. Attachment C sets out the list of
resident and advocacy groups with submissions that form part of the Topic 081
hearings.
33. The Panel office has advised that
a number of submitters have indicated they will not be lodging evidence in
support of their submission because they have read the council’s evidence and
support the council’s proposed changes to the zoning maps.
Next steps after April 2016
34. As outlined above, the council is
due to receive the Panel’s recommendations on 22 July 2016. At this stage two
full day Auckland Development Committee workshops are planned to consider the
Panel’s recommendations, prior to a full day decision-making meeting of the
Auckland Development Committee/Governing Body in August 2016. A series of
Unitary Plan Unitary Plan Committee workshops are also proposed between March
and June 2016. In light of the importance of the zoning maps, it would be
advantageous to schedule an additional two days specifically on any recommended
changes to the maps as soon as practicable after the council receives the
recommendations from the Panel.
Part C - Recap on how the zoning submissions and
further submissions were assessed
35. The zoning maps in the PAUP are
one of the main tools to implement the Regional Policy Statement and the
objectives and policies of the zones themselves. A major challenge faced by the
council in assessing the approximately 4,000 zoning submissions and 2,500
further submissions was how to avoid a piece-meal approach and ensure an
appropriate degree of consistency across Auckland. That is not to say that the
PAUP should not recognise the differences between different parts of the
region, but rather that areas with similar characteristics should be located in
a similar zone.
36. In order to manage the highly
complex exercise of assessing the submissions on the zoning maps, a set of
guiding principles were developed based on the position the council had taken
at the Regional Policy Statement hearings and the various zone hearings during
2014 and 2015. The principles were adopted by the Auckland Development
Committee in May 2015 (see Attachment A) and these principles guided the
various teams of planners in preparing revised maps for the Unitary Plan
Committee to consider in November 2015.
37. The high level principles adopted
by the Auckland Development Committee set out below:
· To
achieve a quality compact urban form with housing choice within
neighbourhoods, contained within the Rural Urban Boundary and primarily
focused within the metropolitan area 2010
· Rezoning
proposals should not reduce overall capacity for housing
· Emphasis
should be given to residential ‘upzoning rather than ‘downzoning’ to ensure
housing supply issues are not exacerbated.
· Upzoning
should be in concentrated areas such as around defined centres or nodes
· There
should be no large scale rezoning or upzoning in coastal or rural settlements
due to the significant investment required to support this
· There
should be no rezoning from Future Urban zone to another zone other than to
reflect operative Special Housing Areas or to correct an error (e.g. the land
already has a ‘live’ zone in the operative plan)
· Avoid
‘reverse sensitivity’ at the interface between industrial zones and more
intensive residential zones
· Avoid
increasing risks in areas affected by coastal hazards (erosion or inundation)
· Protect
regionally and nationally significant infrastructure from ‘reverse’ effects.
38. Guidance from the Panel was also
taken into account (see Attachment B), in particular the need for:
· the
overall zoning maps to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement;
· the
zoning maps to give effect to the zone objectives and policies; and
· “spot-zoning”
to be avoided.
39. The diagram below illustrates in
simple form how the various principles adopted by the Auckland Development
Committee are used to locate the residential zones (decreasing with intensity
away from centres and rail stations).
• Chapter B2.1 of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) seeks to enable
higher residential densities in neighbourhoods within moderate walking
distances from the city centre, metropolitan, town and local centres, or the
rapid and frequent network facilities
• Terrace
Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone should generally apply within
approximately 250m walking distance of metropolitan, town and local centres,
the rapid and frequent transport network and arterials
• Mixed
Housing Urban (MHU) zone should generally apply within approximately 250m
walking distance of the THAB and Mixed Use zone, the rapid and frequent
transport network and arterials. The zone is also applied close to
neighbourhood centres.
40. As the following diagrams
illustrate, council’s approach is to enable intensification much closer to town
centres and public transport than some other submitters have proposed. For
example, Council’s expert evidence on this point supports a lessor spread of
the more intensive residential zones than Housing NZ is proposing.
41. The following diagram includes
the specific distances set out in the principles for the THAB and MHU zones
from Metropolitan, Town, Local and Neighbourhood Centres, and the Frequent
Transport Network (FTN) and Rapid Transport Network (RTN).
42. Other submitters, in particular
Housing New Zealand, have adopted their own principles (as set out in their
evidence for Hearing Topic 080 and Hearing Topic 081). Housing New Zealand
Corporation’s approach is illustrated below.
43. Of particular note is the
considerably more expansive distance adopted by Housing New Zealand Limited for
the THAB and MHU zones relative to Metropolitan and Town Centres (at total of
800 metres as opposed to 500 metres). Housing New Zealand presented their
evidence to the Panel in support of this approach on 23 February 2016 and will
present their revised zoning maps in March 2016.
44. In addition to developing a series
of principles, staff also mapped the approximately 20,000 submission points
within approximately 100 geographical submission areas, and began to look for
common themes. The maps below show examples of the mapping of submission
points. They also show the complexity of the task involved in developing a
council response to the submissions, and the difficulty in avoiding spot-zoning
or pepper-potting the zoning maps. For example, if five separate property
owners on a street requested a sensible change in their submission, but no-one
else on the street made a submission, should the zoning only change for those
who submitted? Taking this approach would result in spot-zoning, where one
property owner has one set of planning rules and their neighbour (whose property
has identical characteristics) has a different set of planning rules.
Area with a small
number of submissions
Area with a large
number of site-specific submissions
45. Applying the principles adopted
by the Auckland Development Committee and following the guidance issued by the
Panel has enabled the council to address the approximately 20,000 zoning
submission points while avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps.
The council’s evidence for the zoning hearings shows the proposed changes that
are clearly within the scope of submissions and those that are not specifically
requested in the submissions. Approximately 14 percent of all residential
properties in Auckland are proposed to be rezoned in the council’s evidence,
with approximately seven percent of those changes clearly within the scope of
submissions and approximately seven percent not specifically requested in the
submissions. Approximately 413,000 properties are proposed to be zoned
residential in Auckland under the PAUP. The council’s evidence recommends
retaining the notified PAUP zoning for approximately 86 percent of residential
properties in Auckland.
46. It is important to note that some
of the proposed changes that are not within the scope of specific submissions:
· would
down-zone properties within the council’s proposed revised pre-1944 overlay;
· would
re-zone properties from the Single Housing zone to another residential zone due
to new information relating to flood plains;
· would
change the zoning of properties from the Single House zone to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zone in places where the Single House zone is more restrictive than
the current Operative District Plan.
47. As previously noted, responding
to submissions on the PAUP zoning maps is an unprecedented undertaking. The
council’s evidence includes 258 separate planning and other technical
statements in support of the proposed changes to the zoning maps. The evidence
is aligned with the principles set by the council and is based on the professional
views of the council’s planning and other technical experts.
Part
D - Options at this point in the hearings process
48. The following options have been
prepared to assist the Governing Body in responding to concerns about the
council’s current position as set out in the evidence lodged with the Panel on
3 December 2015 and 26 January 2016.
|
Options
|
Implications
|
|
Option 1
Withdraw out of scope changes from the
council’s evidence
|
· Addresses the concerns of some members of the public
· Results in a piecemeal approach as the evidence is
completely integrated (geographic areas and in and out of scope)
· A re-write of the expert evidence will be required;
and there is no time for that to occur before the specific residential zone
hearings commence on 3 March 2016.
· Results in a major disconnect between the zoning
maps and the council’s evidence
· Disadvantages submitters who have not filed evidence
on the basis they were happy with the council’s position
· Disadvantages submitters who have spent money and
time putting evidence together after reading the council’s evidence
· No council planning witnesses to support piecemeal
zoning as such an approach is contrary to planning best practice
· No council planning witnesses there to provide a
view on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s request for substantial up-zoning
|
|
Option 2
Withdraw all of the council’s zoning
evidence
|
· Generally as above
· Less complex for the Panel and
submitters to understand the council’s position.
· Council’s expert evidence that supports
or responds to in scope submissions will be lost and council’s experts will
not be able to attend the hearings.
|
|
Option 3
Not withdraw the council’s zoning
evidence (in whole or part). Auckland Council legal submission to request
that the Panel carefully considers issues of natural justice and fairness
when considering any proposed out of scope changes.
|
· Avoids
the adverse implications of Options 1 and 2
· Does not derail the hearings process
· Allows participants to have their say at the
hearings without changing the process or their evidence
· The council stays in the hearings to give a
balanced view to diametrically opposing views
|
|
Option 4
Not withdraw the council’s zoning
evidence (in whole or part). Ask for a preliminary hearing on Housing New
Zealand Corporation’s position in relation to the scope provided within its
submission and the Government’s submission.
|
· As per Option 3
· Would
confirm the Panel’s view in relation to the extent of out of scope changes
proposed by the council and others
· Legislation allows out of scope changes so the Panel
may not want to bind itself until it has heard all the evidence.
|
|
Option 5
Not withdraw the council’s evidence (in
whole or part). Arrange two full day workshops in August solely on the zoning
maps with a focus on any out of scope recommendations from the Panel.
|
· As per Option 3
· Allows the council the opportunity to consider in
greater detail the Panel’s recommendations on the zoning maps prior to making
decisions in August 2016
|
49. The adverse implications of
Options 1 and 2 are significant. A combination of Options 3 and 5 is therefore
recommended.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
50. Due to the urgent nature of the
Governing Body meeting, it has not been possible to obtain the views of local
boards. However, it is understood that a number of local board chairs will be
in attendance at the meeting to convey their views to the Governing Body.
Māori
impact statement
51. The council engaged extensively
with Māori during the preparation of the PAUP. Aside from
the location and extent of the Māori Purpose zone, the zoning maps were
not a major area of focus for Māori. There is however general support from
Mana Whenua for the quality compact city approach embodied in the PAUP zoning
maps.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Zoning Principles adopted by Auckland Development
Committee - May 2015
|
87
|
|
bView
|
Independent Hearings Panel Guidance - Zoning Precincts
and RUB
|
101
|
|
cView
|
Community and Resident Groups - Topic 081
|
105
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
|
|
Authoriser
|
Stephen Town - Chief Executive
|
