Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Submission to the Productivity Commission's Better uban planning Issues Paper

File No.: CP2016/03755

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission in response to its Better Urban Planning issues paper.

Executive Summary

2. In December 2015 the Productivity Commission (the commission) released its issues paper (the issues paper) on the Better Urban Planning inquiry.

3. The main purpose of the inquiry is to “review New Zealand’s urban planning system and to identify, from first principles, the most appropriate system for allocating land use to support desirable social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes”. It is not intended to provide a critique of previous or on-going reforms to the legislation that make up the urban planning system.

4. The council’s draft submission has taken its cue from the commission’s terms of reference and has focused on identifying principles that should underpin New Zealand’s future planning framework. It has also been based on feedback from the Auckland Development Committee workshop of 17 February 2016.

5. The draft submission sets out aspects of those principles by which future proposals can be judged and provides examples of what adhering to those principles would mean in practice. These aspects are broad ranging and the questions posed in the issues paper are addressed at a high level. This submission does not attempt to critique previous or ongoing reforms to the legislative and policy framework that make up the urban planning system.

6. The draft submission sets out three key themes.

a) Urban planning as a system. Under this theme the draft submission discusses the importance of certainty while maintaining flexibility of approach; the need for an evidence base for understanding; and the need for an efficient and effective urban planning system. As such, it proposes that the principles addressing urban planning as a system would include the following components:

i. achieving certainty of outcomes for all parties

ii. ensuring there is flexibility to respond to a changing environment, circumstances and new information

iii. flexibility in the process and approach is essential to ongoing innovation in delivering good planning outcomes

iv. decisions are robust and evidence based

v. a common set of data across agencies used in policy and plan making

vi. assumptions and limitations of data are explicit

vii. working jointly to achieve good outcomes

viii. information is accessible (obtainable, understandable, and available in a range of forms)

ix. clarity of roles/functions, responsibilities, and processes

x. enabling and incentivising good planning outcomes

xi. ensuring that the costs of the system don’t outweigh the overall societal benefits

xii. taking a long term view for outcomes to be effective.

b) planning for future funding challenges. It is proposed that the principles addressing this theme would address the following components:

i. phasing and sequencing of infrastructure development needs to be future-focused to ensure infrastructure remains fit for purpose by the time it’s delivered

ii. land use/release needs to be coordinated and integrated with infrastructure provision and funding i.e. one should be timed to match the other

iii. funding tools and mechanisms are available to enable the planning, sequencing and delivery of infrastructure, and are tied to development of land

iv. a balance between fixing current problems and challenges and anticipating future needs

v. economic tools that can have a useful role in specific circumstances, such as road pricing.

c) informed decision making for public engagement. It is proposed that a principle of informed decision making and public engagement would address the following components:

i. active and early engagement that uses clear evidence that is understandable

ii. clarity on the possible outcomes, impacts and trade-offs of a decision making process including being explicit about current and future populations and resources

iii. remain cognisant of the potential for imbalance in engagement when having regard to all the views of all the community

iv. front loading early engagement on high level policy to reduce the need to re-litigate matters through more detailed plans and avoid consultation fatigue.

7. Council’s response to the commission is due on 9 March 2016 and is set out in the draft submission (Attachment A).

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse Auckland Council’s submission to the commission’s Better Urban Planning inquiry issues paper; and

b) authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve council’s submission on the commission’s Better Urban Planning issues paper.

Comments

Better Urban Planning Inquiry

8. The government has instructed the commission to review the system of urban planning. This review is known as the Better Urban Planning inquiry (the inquiry).

9. The inquiry builds upon the commission’s previous Using Land for Housing inquiry in 2015 and picks up on the commission’s key message to government arising from that inquiry: if government wants to see substantial improvements in the land supply system more fundamental changes than those explored in the Using Land for Housing inquiry would be required.

10. In the inquiry terms of reference, the Ministers of Finance, Local Government, Building and Housing, Environment and Transport identify the following additional drivers for the inquiry:

a) the costs, complexity and uncertainty associated with the interaction of planning processes under the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act and Land Transport Management Act;

b) differences in purposes, timeframes, processes and criteria within the above law;

c) the impacts of these laws on the productivity of the wider economy;

d) the piecemeal fashion in which the current urban planning system has evolved;

e) evolution of international best practice in urban planning; and

f) findings and recommendations from the commission’s previous inquiries including the 2015 Using Land for Housing and 2012 Housing Affordability inquiries.

11. The purpose of the inquiry is to review New Zealand’s urban planning system and to identify, from first principles, the most appropriate system for allocating land use through this system to support desirable social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes.

12. At a high level, the scope of the inquiry involves identifying options to align the priorities of actors and institutions within an urban planning framework, making provision for sufficient current and future urban development and enabling alignment between national and local priorities.

13. The inquiry’s output will be a report identifying a range of alternative models for the urban planning system and a framework against which current practices and potential future reforms in resource management, planning and environmental management in urban areas will be assessed.

14. A critique of previous or on-going reforms to the legislation that make up the urban planning system is specifically excluded from being considered within the inquiry.

15. The commission will release its draft report in July and its final report will be tabled in Cabinet by 30 November 2016.

Auckland Council’s response

16. Council and Auckland Transport worked together to develop this response which included discussion with Watercare Services Limited.

17. Council supports the commission’s “blue skies” and first principles approach in its review of New Zealand’s urban planning system. The current inquiry into Better Urban Planning follows the commission’s previous inquiries. Council has provided the commission with submissions to both of those inquiries, namely Housing affordability^{^[1]} and Using land for housing^{^[2]}. The council’s draft submission has taken its cue from the commission’s terms of reference and has focused on identifying the key principles that should underpin New Zealand’s future planning framework.

18. This draft submission does not attempt to address the principles as specific statements, but rather identifies the key components that a principle of a ‘fit for purpose’ future urban planning framework should seek to address.

19. The draft submission proposes three key themes as follows.

Urban planning as a system

20. Under this theme it is proposed that there are three sub-themes. For each sub-theme, the submission proposes key components for each principle:

a) Certainty and flexibility

i. achieving certainty of outcomes for all parties

ii. ensuring there is flexibility to respond to a changing environment, circumstances and new information

iii. flexibility in the process and approach to support achieving the best outcomes, and allow for ongoing innovation.

b) An evidence base for understanding

i. robust evidence base for decision making

ii. a common set of data across agencies used in policy and plan making

iii. assumptions and limitations of data are explicit

iv. working jointly to achieve good outcomes

v. information that is accessible (obtainable, understandable, and available in a range of forms).

c) An efficient and effective urban planning system

i. clarity of roles/functions and responsibilities, and processes

ii. enabling and incentivising good planning outcomes

iii. balance to ensure that the costs of the system do not outweigh the overall societal benefits.

Planning for future funding challenges

21. It is proposed that principles of a system being able to plan for future funding challenges would address the following components:

a) phasing and sequencing of infrastructure development needs to be future-focused to ensure infrastructure remains fit for purpose by the time it’s delivered

b) land use/release needs to be coordinated and integrated with infrastructure provision and funding i.e. one should be timed to match the other

c) funding tools and mechanisms are available to enable the planning, sequencing and delivery of infrastructure, and are tied to development of land

d) the balance between fixing current problems and challenges and anticipating future needs

e) economic tools that can have a useful role in specific circumstances, such as road pricing.

Informed decision making for public engagement

22. It is proposed that a principle of informed decision making and public engagement would address the following components:

a) active and early engagement on policy that uses clear, easily understood evidence

b) clarity on the possible outcomes, impacts and trade-offs of a policy on current and future populations and resources

c) cognisance of the potential for imbalance in engagement when having regard to all the views of all the community

d) front loading early engagement on high level policy to reduce the need to re-litigate matters through more detailed plans and avoid consultation fatigue.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

23. The implications of the Better urban planning Issues Paper apply across the region and to all local boards. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend an Auckland Development Committee workshop on 17 February 2016 and to provide feedback.

24. Informal feedback had been received from Kaipatiki Local Board (Attachment B).

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

Māori impact statement

26. The Issues Paper and summary report was distributed to mana whenua and mataawaka for feedback.

27. A workshop with mana whenua representatives was held on 1 March 2016 at which staff gave a summary of the background to the inquiry and of the key points. Iwi representatives were invited to engage further in the process.

Implementation

28. No implementation issues have been identified at this stage of the inquiry.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	AC submission to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Issues Paper - Better Urban Planning March 2016	25
b View	Kaipatiki Local Board comment on 'Better Urban Planning' issues discussion	35

Signatories

Authors

Vanessa Blakelock - Principal Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Auckland Council submission on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2016/01720

Purpose

1. To retrospectively approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Social Services Select Committee on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill.

Executive Summary

2. This report enables retrospective approval of a submission made by Auckland Council to the Social Services Committee on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill.

3. The submission strongly supports the intent of the amendment to make rental homes warmer, drier and safer for New Zealanders, but questions the ability of the bill to meet that goal without further strengthening.

4. The submission recommended that the government:

· legislate a wider range of minimum standards

· add random auditing to ensure compliance proactively with the regulations

· require that all insulation, including upgrades to existing insulation, meet current Building Code standards

· explore a wider range of alternatives to raise internal temperatures in hard-to-retrofit properties

· extend Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes beyond June 2016 to June 2019.

Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) retrospectively approve the submission made to the Social Services Select Committee in Attachment A.

Comments

Background

5. The Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill proposes to enable the minister to develop regulations to require, where practical, that:

· landlords install insulation in the ceiling and floor of all private rental properties in New Zealand by 1 July 2019

· social housing providers install ceiling and floor insulation in their properties by 1 July 2016

· private and social housing providers install smoke alarms by 1 July 2016.

6. The Social Services Select Committee invited submissions on the bill over the Christmas period, with submissions closing 27 January 2016.

7. In developing the submission, council staff:

· consulted with the chair and deputy chair of Auckland Development Committee, and the chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

· referred to Auckland Council’s formal policy positions on housing quality

· included input from Infrastructure and Environmental Services, the Chief Sustainability Office, the Southern Initiative, Community Occupancy, Community Places, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Auckland Council Submission

8. The submission strongly supports the intent of the amendment to make rental homes warmer, drier and safer for New Zealanders, but questions the ability of the bill to meet that goal without further strengthening.

9. The submission recommended that the government:

· legislate a wider range of minimum standards to bring all rental housing up to modern standards, as the Social Services Committee has recommended for boarding houses

· add random auditing to ensure compliance proactively with the regulations

· require that all insulation, including upgrades to existing insulation, meet current Building Code standards

· explore a wider range of alternatives to raise internal temperatures in hard-to-retrofit properties, rather than simply exempting 100,000 homes

· extend Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes beyond June 2016 to June 2019 to enable more uptake.

Next steps

10. The Select Committee heard oral submissions on 25 February. Councillor Wood, Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, presented on behalf of the council.

11. The Social Services Select Committee is expected to report back to Parliament in June on the outcome of its public consultation.

12. The proposed changes are intended to come into effect from 1 July 2016. To achieve this date, the related regulations are being consulted on at the same time by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

13. The ministry released a technical consultation document on the related regulations for comment by 11 February 2016. Staff provided comments that align with the submission in Attachment A. Those technical comments are available upon request.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. Local board views were obtained through feedback on previous formal policy positions on housing quality.

15. Eleven of 21 local boards referred to housing quality in their local board plans, and four boards have undertaken their own projects with landlords. For example, Whau Local Board supported a research project on home heating and air quality which provided valuable insights into landlord and tenant attitudes to heating and retrofitting, cited in the submission.

Māori impact statement

16. Māori are over represented in areas of Auckland that have the highest rates of people who use no form of heating. The Productivity Commission found that Māori as a group experience disproportionately worse housing. They are also less likely than non-Māori to own their own house (43.3 per cent of Māori were owner occupiers, compared to 69.7 per cent of Europeans) based on the 2006 Census.

17. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board provided input on the submission. In addition feedback received from iwi on the Auckland Plan and the long-term plan related to housing issues was analysed and considered. This indicated that quality affordable homes with minimum standards for energy and water efficiency are critical for Māori wellbeing.

Implementation

18. There are no implementation requirements as a result of the decision in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill final submission - Auckland Council	43

Signatories

Author

Caroline Lonsdale - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Auckland Council's Submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2016/02539

Purpose

1. This report seeks endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill). This submission is being finalised and will be circulated as an addendum to the agenda prior to the meeting.

Executive Summary

2. The Bill was read for the first time in December 2015 and the period for submissions closes on 14 March 2016. The Bill is large and complex, proposing amendments to the:

· Resource Management Act 1991 (most of the Bill is focused on this Act)

· Reserves Act 1977

· Public Works Act 1981

· Conservation Act 1987

· Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

3. Auckland Council’s submission is structured around the following themes:

a. Coordination of central government wider reform programme - A number of initiatives exploring potential changes to resource management, urban planning and infrastructure legislation are being progressed as part of a wider reform programme. The draft submission proposes that coordinated, coherent solutions are required to integrate reforms rather than ad hoc changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 now.

b. Greater centralised planning control - A number of amendments expand Ministerial powers such that they enable plan content to be determined or give decision making powers. These will diminish local decision making. The draft submission proposes that they are not supported.

c. Simplification – The Bill also proposes amendments that seek greater efficiency by simplifying processes and providing certainty, saving time and money. The draft submission proposes that these are not supported where this effect is not achieved.

d. Role of iwi - Provisions seek to introduce new legislated processes for making arrangements with iwi meeting certain requirements. The draft submission emphasises that iwi arrangements are better based on strong relationships and good practice, instead of legislative requirement.

e. Collaborative and streamlined planning processes - Local authorities may choose to use new processes introduced as alternatives to the existing schedule 1 process under the RMA. The draft submission supports modifications to these processes.

f. Costs - The draft submission makes the point that many of amendments proposed by the Bill will impose additional costs on local authorities.

4. The draft submission supports amendments proposed to the Reserves Act 1977 and the Public Works Act 1981. No matters have been identified that merit comment in the amendments proposed to the Conservation 1987 nor the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

5. Auckland Council’s draft submission will be circulated separately and include further comment on individual clauses in a table.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the draft Auckland Council submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

b) authorise the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Auckland Development Committee to work with officers to finalise and approve the submission.

Comments

Resource Management Act 1991

6. The majority of the Bill is directed towards amendments to the RMA and is the focus of Auckland Council’s submission.

7. The amendments to the RMA emerge from significant concern at national, regional and local levels in regard to housing. Auckland Council acknowledges that they are complex matters that evolve over time and for which there are no ‘silver bullets’ or ‘quick-fix’ solutions.

8. Auckland Council has identified a number of themes that emerge from the amendments proposed to the RMA which inform this submission.

Coordination of central government wider reform programme

9. There are a number of inter-related planning and urban management initiatives amongst the government’s wider reform programme. Foremost, the government has instructed the Productivity Commission to enquire into the system of urban planning which could result in a fundamental review of the RMA. In addition, work is proceeding to develop a National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which will include content addressing ‘development capacity’.

10. Auckland Council is concerned that amendments to the RMA at this time amount to tinkering in the face of significant issues being considered in the government’s wider reform programme. The proposed amendments may enact new RMA provisions before the issues are fully understood and resolved in a coordinated manner with implications for the coherency of the planning framework and the wider reform programme.

11. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support a wider review of New Zealand’s planning system that looks at how best to achieve integrated outcomes (including funding) as opposed to ongoing ad-hoc amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Greater centralised planning control

12. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support guidance being provided under the RMA through instruments such as National Policy Statements (NPS) and National Environmental Standards (NES). At issue however, is the extent to which the proposed amendments extend beyond the provision of guidance and enable methods, rules and plan content, such as the zoning of particular land to be determined by the Minister.

13. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support a Ministerial oversight role that focuses Ministerial attention on the operation of the overall planning system and the provision of guidance. Auckland Council opposes provisions that erode local decision making and provide for Ministerial decision making power on plans.

Simplification

14. The Bill’s aim of achieving faster, simpler consenting is supported and actively pursued in the Council’s approach to practice improvements. Many of the amendments proposed seek to clarify the steps to be observed in the notification of consents, and to provide greater certainty. At issue is the extent to which these goals will be achievable in practice.

15. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support the aim of making processes under the RMA more efficient. This can be achieved by making processes more proportionate or by supporting established, good practice. Auckland Council contends, however, that the proposed amendments will increase processing and cost. The draft submission proposes that the District Plan could clarify the kinds of circumstances that would require notification of resource consents as an alternative to the Bill’s proposed amendments. An amendment in the Bill would require that submissions to resource consents and plan changes are struck-out, if they do not pass prescribed tests. The draft submission proposes that this amendment is opposed.

Role of iwi

16. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support the development of arrangements for the participation of iwi in RMA processes. The draft submission proposes that effective iwi engagement is more the result of strong relationships supported by good practice than legislative requirements. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council maintain the relationship based approach it has established with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Auckland’s 19 iwi. Any legislative requirements must be practicable for the 19 iwi of Auckland and for Auckland Council.

17. Auckland Council supports the appointment of hearings commissioners with expertise in tikanga Māori but suggests Council’s own approach of appointing, with IMSB involvement, a pool of independent planning commissioners (including those with tikanga Māori expertise) is more appropriate than consulting with iwi on planning commissioners every time a hearing is held. Auckland Council would like to see the government’s intention matched with investment to build capacity in tikanga Māori.

Collaborative and Streamlined planning processes

18. The amendments introduce two new processes which local authorities can request for making, changing or reviewing policy statements and plans as alternatives to the Schedule 1 process under the RMA: the collaborative and the streamlined planning process. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council:

i. support the collaborative process in principle with a number of modifications

ii. could support an amended proposal, although it opposes the proposed streamlined process due to the extent of the Minister’s role in determining the content of plans.

Costs

19. Many of the amendments outlined above will impose additional cost on local authorities. There is no analysis of the likely costs of the proposals in the Bill and their impact on local authorities. A welcome exception to increasing costs is the greater use of electronic means to implement requirements under the RMA.

Individual clauses

20. Natural Hazards - Part 2 of the RMA is amended to recognise the management of the risk of natural hazards as a matter of national importance. This amendment has been signaled for some time. The draft submission proposes that it is supported.

21. Hazardous Substances - amendments to sections 30 and 31 and Schedule 4 remove the need to consider hazardous substances in resource consents and private plan changes processes under the RMA. The draft submission proposes that this is not supported although it recognises that decision making for some hazardous substances is appropriately made at the national level.

22. Subdivision - proposed amendments would make subdivision a permitted activity where allowed by a resource consent or where it does not contravene an NES, or a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan. This amendment does not introduce any change in practice, as existing district plans and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan contain rules that require resource consents to be sought for subdivision.

Reserves Act 1977

23. The Bill introduces new processes for land exchanges and consequential amendments which align with RMA processes which the draft submission proposes are supported.

Public Works Act 1981

24. Amendments are made to the Public Works Act to update provisions for payments of compensation and to align the objection process with that of the RMA. The draft submission proposes that the amendments are supported subject to clarification of the drafting.

Conservation Act 1987 and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

25. No matters have been identified that merit comment on the amendments proposed to these acts.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

26. Local board Chairs were invited to attend the workshop with the Auckland Development Committee. Copies of the materials circulated in preparation for the workshop were also circulated to all local board members.

27. Several local boards have indicated they will formally respond. Local Board resolutions received will be appended to Auckland Council’s submission.

Māori impact statement

28. At the time of writing a hui with mana whenua representatives has been scheduled for 1 March 2016. The views of the hui will be presented to the Auckland Development Committee.

29. The Independent Māori Statutory Board’s submission to the Bill will be integrated into the draft Auckland Council submission where they are in agreement. Any comment that is not able to be integrated in this manner will be appended to Auckland Council’s submission as the submission of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Mike Moddie - Senior Solicitor Litigation & Regulatory

Megan Tyler - Manager Planning - Central/Islands

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2015/2016

File No.: CP2016/02737

Purpose

1. To present the Auckland Development Committee with the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework for adoption and provide the committee with an update on the implementation of the Community Grants Policy following the policy adoption in December 2014.

Executive Summary

2. The new Auckland Council Community Grants Policy (CGP) was adopted in December 2014. This policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to individuals, groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The CGP covers grants for community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and heritage, and includes:

· a local component (21 local grants programmes and a ‘multi-board’ grants programme, governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans), and

· a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).

4. The regional component of the CGP includes provision for six regional grant programmes targeting key activity areas aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan. One of these regional grants programmes is the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, with decision-making over this grants programme delegated to this committee.

5. This report seeks to set the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework for the 2015/2016 financial year. This framework sets out funding priorities, any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply, timing of funding rounds, planned approach to promotion, assessment, support for decision-making, evaluation and reporting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) adopt the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework for the 2015/2016 financial year as set out in Attachment B.

Comments

6. The Community Grants Policy (CGP), adopted in December 2014, covers grants for community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and heritage, and includes:

· a local component (21 local grants programmes and a ‘multi-board’ grants programme, governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans),

· a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).

7. The local component of the CGP has been implemented by staff which supports individual local boards to develop and adopt individual Local Grants Programme schedules which will guide community groups and individuals when making applications. Each Local Grants Programme schedule specifies the outcomes the board wishes to support through their grants programme, local board funding priorities, budget allocated to the grants programme, which grant types will operate locally, the number of funding rounds, funding round dates, any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply and other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. The regional component of the CGP recognises community grants as a key tool the governing body can use to implement their vision for the region as a whole, as set out in the Auckland Plan and other regional strategic documents. Grants provide a direct and tangible way of supporting Aucklanders’ aspirations for their city and responding to regional needs and opportunities.

9. The CGP established six regional grants programmes targeting six key activity areas aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan and allocated decision making over these programmes to the relevant governing body committees. The regional grant programmes and associated committees are

· Regional Arts and Culture Grants Programme (Arts Culture and Events Committee)

· Regional Community Development Grants Programme (Community Development and Safety Committee)

· Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme (Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee)

· Regional Events Grants Programme (Arts Culture and Events Committee)

· Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme (Auckland Development Committee)

· Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme (Parks Sport and Recreation Committee)

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme

10. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is described in Schedule 5 of the CGP (Attachment A). The schedule establishes the purpose of Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme as being to incentivise best practice, increase understanding and encourage community involvement in the care of our regionally significant heritage sites and places.

11. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is intended to help deliver the outcomes set out in the relevant Council strategies and plans. The Programme outcomes have been refined from broad outcomes referenced in the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme schedule of the CGP to provide greater clarity for applicants. Outcomes we are seeking to support through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme are:

· Regulations in the Unitary Plan are supported by incentives to protect and conserve significant historic heritage places

· Auckland Council, Mana Whenua, community organizations, and property owners work together to support kaitiakitanga and stewardship of historic heritage

· Aucklanders see Council investment in historic heritage

· Historic heritage grants unlock private and community investment in heritage conservation

12. Budget allocation for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was confirmed as part of the final decision making on the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025. The annual funding budget for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is $86,981.

13. For the 2015/2016 funding round this report sets out the proposed Regional Historic Heritage funding priorities, additional criteria, exclusions that will apply, investment approach, timing of funding rounds, planned approach to promotion, assessment, support for decision-making, evaluation and reporting.

14. Details are set out in the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Framework 2015/2016 (Attachment B). This Framework will be reviewed annually prior to the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round.

Consideration

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Priorities

15. Priorities for the 2015/2016 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round are recommended based on the Fund’s purpose and outcomes. The proposed priorities are:

· Conservation of regionally significant historic heritage places

· At-risk historic heritage places

· Supporting kaitiakitanga of Maori cultural heritage

· Heritage and character in Town Centres.

Eligibility Criteria

16. The CGP sets out qualifying criteria for regional funding as:

· services, projects or activities that primarily address regionally determined priorities and

· are regional in terms of scale or significance and/or

· are regional in terms of their impact or reach.

17. For the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, regionally significant projects can involve the following types of heritage:

· Historic Heritage places that are included in one of the schedules of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, including the Historic Heritage Schedule, Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua, Sites of Value to Mana Whenua and contributing buildings within a Historic Heritage Area or Historic Character Area.

· Historic Heritage places that are unscheduled but demonstrated to be of regional significance, subject to evidence that the site has interim protection through heritage covenants as well as a letter from the applicants confirming support for scheduling the site under the relevant heritage overlay.

· Movable heritage items subject to evidence that the object would be stored and exhibited within the Auckland region in a manner that will ensure its long-term protection.

18. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is open to applications from individuals, groups and other organisations who meet the general CGP eligibility criteria, qualify for regional funding, and are delivering projects or activities that will deliver (or contribute to) one or more of the outcomes listed above. Projects can take place on public, private or Maori land however restoration of historic heritage places which are owned by Council are not eligible for funding

Additional exclusions

19. The CGP states that the following activities will not be funded through any Auckland Council grants programmes:

· Debt servicing or repayment

· Legal expenses

· Activities that promote religious ministry or political purposes

· Medical expenses

· Public services that are the responsibility of central government (e.g. core education, primary health care)

· Physical works – e.g. improvements to community buildings – that require consents or permits, prior to the necessary consents or permits being obtained (grants may be awarded in principle, but funds will not be released until all conditions are satisfied)

· Purchase of alcohol

20. Governing body committees administering regional grants programmes can choose to specify additional exclusions. Based on a review of legacy council and other local authority historic heritage funding schemes, the following additional exclusions are proposed:

· Salaries; and

· Projects which are incompatible with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) NZ Charter (2010) and/or tikanga Māori.

Investment approach

21. Based on available budget and a review of legacy council and other local authority historic funding schemes it is recommended that the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme offer grants with a maximum annual value of $20,000.

22. It is recommended in the inaugural funding round that support be offered through one-off project grants and multi-year project grants (i.e. providing funding annually for a maximum of 3 years, without the applicant needing to re-submit their application each year). To be eligible for multi-year project grants it is recommended that applicants be required to provide a project plan covering the entire period of funding. Multi-year grants would be subject to additional accountability requirements with an expectation that projects will include detailed monitoring and evaluation.

23. Legacy council heritage funding schemes applied a 50% match of total project costs with the applicant’s contribution able to be comprised of a combination of financial resources, costed in-kind support, volunteer labour or funding from other organisations.

24. It is recommended that applications with some form of matched funding (applicant contribution) be prioritised through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme to ensure that Council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other providers. While it is desirable for applicants to provide a 50% match for Regional Historic Heritage grants, consideration would be given to allocating grants of up to 100% of the total project costs in exceptional circumstances, where the significance of heritage outcomes supported by the project and applicant circumstances warrant this level of support.

Local Board views and implications

25. The CGP enables local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. They may choose to fund local environmental projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa.

26. In formal feedback on the CGP some local boards expressed concern that the difference between ‘local’ and ‘regional’ was difficult to establish in the heritage area. Providing reference to scheduled classification seeks to add clarity to this distinction. The need for the project to reflect regional impact will be considered as part of the application assessment and will need to be considered part of the committee role in decision making.

27. While decision-making for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme sits with the Auckland Development Committee as part of the application assessment process, it is intended that local boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on applications and alignment of projects with Local Board priorities.

Māori impact statement

28. All grant programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

29. Kaitiakitanga of Maori cultural heritage is identified as a priority for the RHH Grants Programme and scheduled Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua and Sites of Value to Mana Whenua meet regional eligibility criteria.

30. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme will be promoted to Maori and iwi organisations through existing networks and staff with subject matter expertise regarding Maori cultural heritage and tikanga Maori would be involved in the application assessment process.

Implementation

31. An implementation plan is underway and the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme will be regionally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including Maori and iwi organisations.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Community Grants Policy Schedule Five: Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme	63
b View	Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme Framework	67

Signatories

Authors

Fran Hayton - Environmental Grants and Investives Manager

Mary Kienholz - Senior Specialist: Community Heritage

Tanya Sorrell - Team Leader Built & Cultural Heritage Policy

Authorisers

Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Takapuna High Level Project Plan – Unlocking Urban Renewal

File No.: CP2016/03456

Purpose

1. To seek the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the central Takapuna area that have been identified as opportunities to unlock strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.

Executive Summary

2. Takapuna represents an urban renewal opportunity as a desirable residential location, framed by a wonderful and well frequented beachfront and unique lake that could contribute to Auckland’s ambition to become the world’s most liveable city.

3. Takapuna is a metropolitan centre that has been subject to a number of plans and strategies and stakeholder engagement with considerable community and political support for urban renewal.

4. These plans have considered the role a number of at grade commuter parking areas can play in revitalising the centre, as well as properties acquired by the legacy council for that purpose, introducing additional residential development within a mixed-use context as well as delivering on a range of other objectives for the centre including improved public realm and connections to the beach.

5. The Takapuna High Level Project Plan (HLPP) completed by Panuku establishes the context, an approach to engagement and framework planning and the realisation strategy, including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of the Anzac Street and Gasometer properties.

6. The facilitation by Panuku will ensure that development outcomes are consistent with the framework plans and Local Board/Council aspirations for the area, including housing and mixed-use along with amenity improvements.

7. The aim is to unlock the strategic, community and commercial value of the sites, potentially serving as a catalyst for further development within and on the fringe of the centre.

8. Enabling development of these sites needs to deliver car parking solutions that are important to sustain the economic vibrancy of the commercial and retail centre as well as any other transport requirements prescribed by Auckland Transport such as managing public transport provision.

9. The redevelopment will be enabled through the sale of land to developers, with outcome controls in place, along with the possible use of existing Council LTP funding for projects in the area that support the development outcomes. Further funds could potentially be sourced from existing council budgets e.g. the parking contributions fund.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the Takapuna High Level Project Plan and the proposed outcomes including the framework planning and development process that underpins the approach set out in that plan.

b) endorse Panuku Development Auckland as Auckland Council’s lead delivery agency in Takapuna, noting that the framework planning phase will be a key interface for Auckland Council to enable the delivery of the High Level Project Plan.

c) grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to dispose of any of the properties listed below that are required to achieve the outcomes in the plan:

i) 40 Anzac Street (Including adjacent service lane)

ii) 72A Hurstmere Road

iii) 38 Hurstmere Road

iv) 34 Hurstmere Road

v) 78R Hurstmere Road

vi) 14 Huron Street

vii) 15 Northcroft Street

d) note that recommendation c) above is subject to the following conditions as shown in Attachment B and more fully described in Attachment C of the agenda:

i) satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes

ii) Auckland Transport confirming prior to the disposal of any of the sites described in Attachment B that transport arrangements will be accommodated to its satisfaction following the disposal

iii) disposal of the properties will be with the objective of achieving urban renewal and housing. The mechanisms to achieve this include contractual arrangements, such as reference briefs and development agreements.

e) note that Panuku will undertake a framework planning exercise to achieve quality urban design and other community outcomes, along with community objectives and will involve the Local Board and mana whenua in this planning process.

Comments

10. In October 2015, ADC formally endorsed Takapuna as one of nine locations for further investigation and consideration by Panuku.

11. In December 2015, ADC was presented with the priority development location process and emerging development work programme that included Takapuna as an “unlock” location.

12. A HLPP for Takapuna (refer Attachment A) was approved by the Panuku Board in November 2015.

13. A workshop was held with the Devonport -Takapuna Local Board on 2 February 2016 where the HLPP was presented. . Feedback was supportive of the work to date and appreciative of the fact that the substantial issues have been identified early on.

14. Following the Local Board workshop the HLPP was fully discussed with the Auckland Development Committee on the 17 February 2016

15. The purpose of the HLPP is to establish the context, engagement plans, framework planning approach and realisation strategy, including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the central Takapuna area consistent with Panuku and Council strategic objectives. The key deliverables of the HLPP are:

· Principles and approach to stakeholder engagement and the communication plan

· Scoping of opportunities that can be taken to the market to deliver developments that give effect to the plans and strategic objectives for the revitalisation of Takapuna

· The vision, principles and approach that will enable refreshed framework planning for the area and a reference brief for each site under consideration for development

· Development approach and realisation plan for each site under consideration

Strategic context

16. Takapuna is a metropolitan centre and the desire to revitalise the centre has been the subject of a number of plans and strategies, stakeholder engagement and considerable community and political support. Key plans and strategies include:

· Takapuna Strategic Framework (October 2010, North Shore City Council)

· Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Area Plan (2014)

· Takapuna Centre Plan (2014, Takapuna-Devonport Local Board)

· Anzac Street Car Park: Options Study (Draft, Auckland Council).

17. These plans set out a series of strategic principles as well as key projects and initiatives that will deliver on the vision for a vibrant and revitalised centre. This includes consideration of the role a number of at-grade commuter parking areas can play in revitalising the centre as well as properties acquired by the legacy council for that purpose, introducing additional residential within a mixed-use context as well as delivering on a range of other objectives for the centre.

18. The outcomes articulated in these plans are consistent with the strategic goals and objectives in Panuku’s SOI and include:

· Takapuna metropolitan centre is recognised as the primary commercial and community hub for Devonport-Takapuna that is contemporary, vibrant, pleasant, inviting and with a relaxed beach-side atmosphere

· Strong pedestrian connections and orientation to Takapuna Beach

· Quality future mixed use development and public space improvement

· Increased opportunities for new local businesses and economic growth

· More intensive housing options with easy access to local community infrastructure and amenities

· A more pedestrian focused and cycle friendly environment with a network of open space, laneways and urban plazas

· Car parking that supports the retail and entertainment identity of Hurstmere Road and the centre’s heart

· High quality transformational projects including, the ‘Gasometer’ and Anzac Street car parks

19. Greater Takapuna is also one of the identified Spatial Priority Areas (SPA) which have been selected in order to achieve multiple outcomes in support of the Auckland Plan. While the focus of Panuku is within the town centre, the SPA designation provides a solid platform to enable the cross-Council focus and approach that is necessary to achieve the outcomes for Takapuna identified in the HLPP.

Project Scope

20. Previous planning and strategic framework documents provide a platform for the revitalisation of the town centre and the HLPP has identified two precincts of Council land holdings (refer map in Attachment B) that are suitable to further these strategic aims and objectives. Panuku has selected the sites within these precincts as opportunities to unlock strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.

21. Some of the sites within these precincts are currently on the Auckland Transport Fixed Asset Register as at grade parking for short and long-stay commuter parking, while others are properties purchased by the legacy Council for strategic development purposes.

22. The precincts and sites along with their current ownership and usage as well as likely nature of future redevelopment are summarised below. Further details are contained in Attachment C.

Precinct	Sites	Business Owner	Current use	Planned redevelopment
Gasometer Site	14 Huron St 15 Northcroft St	AT – available in principle subject to parking requirements being resolved	At grade public car parking	Mixed use, likely including some long-term parking
Anzac Street Car Park & Surrounds	40 Anzac St	AT – available in principle subject to parking requirements being resolved	At grade public car parking	Mixed use (retail & residential) including active street frontages, laneways and public realm, and connections to Hurstmere Green and the beach.
	R78 Hurstmere Rd	AT – available in principle subject to parking requirements being resolved	At grade public car parking
	72A Hurstmere Rd	Panuku	Retail / access
	34&38 Hurstmere Rd	Panuku	Retail

23. In terms of the implementation phase consideration will also be given to opportunities to achieve enhanced strategic objectives beyond these sites through acquisition of additional properties, such consideration limited to be consistent with the “unlock” category.

24. Two further sites were identified within The Strand precinct, summarised below, however due to unresolved transport issues the future use or development of these sites were deferred at this stage and will be subject to further investigation.

Precinct	Sites	Ownership	Current use	Planned redevelopment
The Strand / Channel View Road	12 Channel View Rd 85 Hurstmere Rd	AT – not approved for release	At grade public car parking	Potential redevelopment opportunities subject to further investigation and transport needs assessment. Out of scope for the purposes of this HLPP

Precinct

Sites

Ownership

Current use

Planned redevelopment

The Strand / Channel View Road

12 Channel View Rd

85 Hurstmere Rd

AT – not approved for release

At grade public car parking

Potential redevelopment opportunities subject to further investigation and transport needs assessment. Out of scope for the purposes of this HLPP

Project outcomes

25. It is anticipated that once executed the project will deliver the following benefits:

· Revitalisation of town centre: residential and mixed-use development on the Anzac St site and Gasometer sites in accordance with requirements to deliver urban renewal consistent with established reference briefs and contractual requirements such as development agreements.

· An appropriate level of car parking to service the town centre.

· Active edges to Hurstmere Green

· Improved connections from the town centre to the beach

· Improved public realm spaces in the town centre

· An increased variety of dwelling typologies and price points

· A catalyst to further development

Project considerations

Statutory

26. The subject sites are classified as Metropolitan Centre Zone and Takapuna 1 Precinct, sub-precincts A, C and E under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) which are enabling zonings supportive of intensive residential and commercial development.

27. Statutory clearance procedures to enable realisation of the development opportunities are currently underway, including upliftment of designations for public parking and these will be resolved through the execution phase.

28. Requirements under the PAUP for no car parking on sites subject to key retail frontage overlay, requirement for active frontages, provision of public space for the market, providing necessary linkages to the beach, interface with other neighbouring sites and the Lake Road frontage potential streetscape improvements and public transport infrastructure need to be considered.

Parking and public transport

29. AT has advised that there is a requirement to secure the continued and future provision of commuter parking within the centre and also that any development planning needs to have regard to meeting future public transport needs.

30. AT has developed the Takapuna comprehensive parking management plan which estimates that the current supply of short stay / visitor parking in Takapuna exceeds the demand by about 300 spaces. Projected economic growth is expected to absorb this surplus over the next 10 years, with demand for an additional 580 visitor parking spaces anticipated in 30 years’ time. As the development of the Anzac and Gasometer sites will result in the removal car parking, anticipated demand will need to be accommodated within the centre in some way that is acceptable to AT.

31. To progress any initiatives to facilitate the development of these sites it is essential to confirm and test the AT requirements and the degree of flexibility as to where this car parking is located in order to optimise development opportunities and design outcomes. In addition, the provision for and management of public transport through the centre is also critica. At this stage it is assumed to be catered for within the existing public streets and does not have a direct impact on any of the sites.

32. The final details of AT requirements will be worked through as part of the framework planning which will directly inform the opportunities for each site. Furthermore, as the main areas of Council land are so significant in meeting the off street parking provision within Takapuna, the sequencing and timing of development of each site needs to be planned to ensure that the commercial functionality of the centre is not undermined by the loss of parking for a significant period of time.

Market demand

33. Takapuna Centre has a high level of market attractiveness and relatively high land values due to quality amenity and transport connectivity, a shortage of developable land parcels and a medium growth profile.

34. The town centre is a highly attractive and premier residential location; with high forecast population growth requiring an estimated additional 1,563 dwellings over the next 15 years. Currently a number of consented apartment proposals in Takapuna are being marketed and these will be investigated as part of the execution phase.

35. Increased residential development is likely to revitalise retail activity, with commercial office demand expected to continue at the current level, largely serving local demand.

Realisation Strategy

Land / opportunity aggregation

36. In terms of optimising both the strategic and commercial gains from the realisation of the identified precincts and sites, the following options have been considered:

· Opportunities to selectively acquire/aggregate land within each precinct to improve the commercial and strategic gain within and between the precincts.

· The benefits, or not, of aggregating the development opportunities when taking them to the market.

37. The option for Panuku to significantly acquire further property, prior to the market process, to drive a more comprehensive outcome requires time and additional commercial risks in this unlock location, with marginal strategic benefits.

38. In any event, the opportunity exists to provide for this possibility through the subsequent market engagement process. This will offer the opportunity for adjoining landowners to either be part of the process or for astute market players to recognise these opportunities and seek to deliver them through the EOI process.

39. This is the recommended approach, with the exception of further investigating some more modest acquisitions, should the strategic/commercial benefit balanced with risk be acceptable.

40. There seems little benefit in seeking a market response in only a single aggregated opportunity as each precinct is significant in its own right and collectively will increase the entry cost and will likely increase the development risk.

41. As outlined below, it is premature to consider the options for the Strand / Channel View precinct at this stage due to unresolved parking requirements and the fact that these sites are still not identified by AT as suitable for disposal.

42. The Anzac and Gasometer sites will therefore be offered collectively and singularly in one approach to the market.

Precinct realisation strategies

Gasometer Site - Northcroft and Huron Streets

43. The site currently provides some 140 car parks and is suitable to take to the market for development proposals through a conventional EOI/RFP process. Part of the site is already excavated below street level and the Burns and Auburn Street frontage has excellent outlook to the south and west.

44. The key to taking this development opportunity to the market will be confirming the extent of Council controlled off-street car parking to be provided in this location.

Anzac Street Site

45. This site currently provides 240 car parks. The site was purchased with the assistance of a separate rate levied on adjacent properties and many of the long established businesses have a strong sense of ownership. Any development proposal needs to be attuned to the need to ensure that any disruption to car parking availability does not undermine the commercial performance of the centre.

46. The Council owns the adjacent Hurstmere Green Reserve as well as 30/34 Hurstmere Road, two adjoining properties specifically purchased to enable a stronger pedestrian connection between the car park, Hurstmere Road and the beach.

47. Previous considerations of development opportunities of the site have considered providing either basement parking or a multi-level car parking building to create an opportunity to achieve the required car parking spaces and attractive commercial / mixed use space to strengthen the commercial centre of Takapuna. The viability of such options will be tested particularly the commercial implications of any proposed basement car parking.

48. The private sector can bring opportunities to improve the viability of this development opportunity through the control of adjacent properties that could be included within a broader development scheme.

49. It is noted that in respect of the properties indicated for disposal this will be done with the objective of achieving urban renewal, including housing. The mechanisms to achieve this may include contractual arrangements, such as reference briefs and development agreements.

The Strand / Channel View Road

50. Council owns an area of parking at 85 Hurstmere Road, adjacent to The Strand is likely to continue to be required for parking to service the beach area. The other key piece of land close to the beachfront is at 12 Channel View Road. This property is bisected by a right of way in favour of a property 51 Hurstmere Road.

51. In order to determine the future of this site there needs to be further work to identify its potential as proposed development sites and this should not delay bringing the other sites to the market.

Financial Implications

52. Redevelopment will be undertaken by the private sector, through an EOI/RFP process, which will unlock the commercial value of the sites. The CV of the combined sites equates to approximately $25 million.

53. Redevelopment will be considered alongside the possible use of supportive council projects approved in the LTP to improve the return.

54. There is approximately $3.6m in the car parking development contributions fund that could be available to offset the costs of providing car parking. These funds will be considered as part of the execution phase and business case development.

55. Development funding, if required, will be sourced by Panuku through the Strategic Development Fund and repaid from realisation proceeds.

Value Creation

56. As part of the implementation phase Panuku will assess the current financial benchmark for the sites under consideration and will report additional value creation through the planning and realisation process as well as the ultimate completed built value of the development projects undertaken by the private sector on the subject sites.

Consideration

Stakeholder views and engagement

57. There are a number of stakeholders within the area including Auckland Transport, the Takapuna-Devonport Local Board, wider Council, Mana Whenua, community and special interest groups and land owners of neighbouring properties.

58. While the stakeholders may hold different perspectives and interests, the community feedback on the Takapuna Strategic Framework together with the Local Board Plan, demonstrates a number of shared outcomes and objectives for the revitalisation of Takapuna, consistent with this project. Issues identified are the need to resolve the transport requirements with Auckland Transport and the requirements to relocate the weekend markets.

59. No other specific proposals or options involving partnerships have been explored to date as this will form part of the implementation of strategy market process.

Local Board views and implications

60. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board strongly supports Takapuna for restorative urban renewal within the Panuku work programme and more broadly as a Strategic Priority Area. It considers the development Panuku will stimulate is essential if Takapuna is to unlock its unique economic and social potential and play its part as one of Auckland’s metropolitan centres.

61. The Local Board has a vision to transform Hurstmere Road into a shared space and perhaps eventually a pedestrian only space, and would like to see this ambition achieved as part of any town centre development. The Local Board have also requested that any redevelopment should also host quality urban open spaces, including green open spaces that are sufficient for the needs of future residents, workforce and visitors.

62. The Local Board is aware that car parking will be an issue with any Anzac Street car park development. It requests that any redevelopment provides enough car parking for an increased resident and employee population. Coming up with a creative relocation solution for the Takapuna Sunday Markets is another matter that needs careful consideration.

63. Panuku has engaged early and communicated regularly with the Local Board during the location selection process and the preparation of the HLPP, which was work-shopped with the Local Board in February. Feedback was supportive of the work to date and is appreciative of the fact that the substantial issues have been identified early on.

64. The Local Board has been proactive in establishing a Community Reference Group to act as a key advisory body. Panuku will work closely with this group in the coming months to ensure the wider community is accessible, informed and involved.

65. Collaboration of the kind Panuku is aiming for will require a close partnership between the public, private and community sectors across key platforms to achieve an integrated strategy. To this end a number of base-line engagement measures are already in place between Panuku and the Local Board to ensure a close working relationship develops in the critical early stages of the planning phase.

Māori impact statement

66. There are 13 Iwi authorities with registered interest in the broader Takapuna-Devonport Local Board area. Panuku has been engaging with mana whenua through a regular monthly Forum throughout development of the Panuku work programme. Early conversations on the Takapuna project have been part of this work.

67. Through this process Panuku has established particular cultural and commercial interest from Ngāti Paoa, who would like to undertake a Cultural Values Assessment over Takapuna. This will be commissioned in the near future.

68. It is noted that an adjoining property to the Anzac precinct, 19 Anzac Street, is likely to form part of a future Treaty Settlement package.

69. More detailed conversations about planning for development at Takapuna were held at the 16 February Panuku Mana Whenua Forum. A site visit will take place in March/April to discuss specific cultural and environmental considerations.

70. It is expected that the following activities may be undertaken during the Framework Planning phase for Takapuna:

· Work in partnership with mana whenua kaitiaki officers towards best care for land and people in the development planning and implementation at Takapuna. This work is understood to enable protection of waahi tapu and the optimum health of the mauri (life force) of the natural environment.

· Environmental management recommendations will be incorporated into development planning.

· Application of the Te Aranga Design Principles in collaboration with mana whenua to capture and express broader interests through the built form and possible place-making activities as the project develops.

· Cultural Values Assessments if appropriate / requested.

· Exploration of development partnership opportunities.

71. Panuku will engage with the broader local Māori population within the scope of our collaborative community engagement processes.

Implementation

Project Phasing and Timing

72. The project has the following substantive phases:

Phase	Tasks	Estimated timing
Phase 1	SPA and HLPP - Context and current state analysis that will provide the foundation for the next phase	Completed November 2015
Phase 2	ADC and Local Board Reporting – Workshops undertaken during February 2016 with formal report to ADC in March 2016	April 2016
Phase 3	Engagement and Communications – Continuation of engagement commenced during the HLPP preparation process.	Ongoing until project completion
Phase 3	Investigation - Based on the context, an identification of the opportunities / constraints that will inform a clear project vision, objectives and design brief that will drive the framework planning phase. Investigation of any property acquisitions.	April 2016
Phase 4	Framework Plan - including reference brief and implementation strategy that will deliver on the agreed objectives.	June 2016
Phase 5	Business Case(s) to Panuku Board - will provide a sound basis for the rationale and implementation of the project.	June 2016
Phase 6	Implementation of Realisation Strategy	July 2016 onwards

73. The attachments have been prepared as a detailed summary of Panuku’s plans. This information will be reformatted into a booklet with images and graphics to assist with communications and engagement with local communities.

Framework Planning Approach

74. A considerable amount of planning work has already been undertaken for the wider Takapuna town centre. Therefore the approach being taken by Panuku is to review the existing context and planning work and consider and incorporate the principles elaborated within the legacy documents as relevant in refining the framework plan for the area. It is not anticipated that there will be any substantive amendments to what has already being significantly consulted on and workshopped with the community.

75. Panuku has commenced engagement with the Local Board and has established a baseline approach to engagement which will form part of a formal engagement plan.

76. The Framework Plan for the area will include:

· Design Statement – guiding vision

· Development Principles – what is prescribed/what is flexible

· Responsiveness – to context, market, site conditions etc.

· 3D Spatial representation of uses, movement and relationships

· Feasibility testing and sensitivities to optimise the commercial and design outcome

· Design principles / controls

· Reference / design brief that will inform any disposal

· Implementation strategy and plan

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	High Level Project Plan - Takapuna	81
b View	Project Area	107
c View	Schedule of Council Properties within Takapuna High Level Project Plan boundary	109

Signatories

Author

Allan McGregor – Manager Strategic Planning

Authorisers

David Rankin – Director of Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds High Level Project Plan - Unlocking Urban Redevelopment

File No.: CP2016/03756

Purpose

1. To seek the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the Northcote Centre area that have been identified as opportunities to unlock strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.

Executive Summary

2. Northcote has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a Town Centre which requires renewal. The immediate project area has an old town centre at its heart with established community facilities and a neighbourhood retail centre, including a supermarket, surrounded generally by low density residential, two schools and a high concentration of Housing New Zealand (HNZ) social housing.

3. The current urban fabric is largely in a poor condition mainly attributed to the ground lease structure of the Centre, some reluctance to freehold Council’s leasehold interests to facilitate private investment and a less than optimum approach to centre and place management.

4. Changing circumstances will enable Panuku to leverage and materialise previous planning efforts in Northcote by capitalising on a number of current and evolving opportunities, albeit over a period of time and subject to unlocking the complexities of the fragmented tenure and ground lease situation.

5. Current market conditions, that whilst improving, still needs to be influenced by comprehensive renewal in the wider area. Opportunities for unlocking Northcote rest on the platform of:

· Panuku leadership

· Opportunities granted by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

· Strategic Special Housing Area (SHA) designation

· Growing relationship with HNZ

· Improving local market conditions

· Housing for Older People initiative that will offer opportunities to improve the services to older people in the adjacent villages.

· The current rent review cycle

· Leaseholders on some of the larger properties desire to contribute to comprehensive development outcomes.

6. Based on existing planning documents a vision for the project is: “Northcote is a growing community with a lively and welcoming heart that celebrates culture and where business thrives and everyone’s needs are met”.

7. The project scope consists of:

· An area of control (5 ha) - the Town Centre where Panuku has direct control of the development due to Council's ownership of the sites.

· An area of influence (83 ha) - the wider neighbourhood where Panuku can influence framework planning, alongside HNZ which owns some 15ha and approx. 300 homes, to promote wider renewal benefits in partnership with other landowners.

8. Panuku is proposing four key strategic moves that will unlock the opportunities at Northcote:

· Partnering Approach

· Revitalising the Town Centre

· Reconnecting the Town Centre

· Developing the Town Centre

9. It is anticipated that once executed the project will deliver the following benefits:

· Regeneration of a local commercial and community hub that will benefit the community

· Improved economic performance of the centre as it responds to renewal and market perception

· Provision of additional housing choice

· Improved investment performance and capital value of an existing asset, maximising the community and commercial outcomes from the investment.

· Reconnecting the centre with its wider community.

10. Redevelopment will be enabled through the sale of land to developers along with the potential use of existing Council LTP funding for projects in the area that support the development outcomes.

11. It is noted that any redevelopment activity that may directly affect existing Council community facilities or services will be subject to liaison with the affected business owners and Local Board that may require further approval by Council as required.

12. Initial project budget for planning and place-making activities will be funded from Panuku budgets as well as additional income from planned rent reviews.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) endorse the Northcote High Level Project Plan and the proposed outcomes including the planning and development process that underpins the approach set out in that plan.

b) endorse Panuku Development Auckland as Auckland Council’s lead delivery agency in Northcote, noting that the framework planning phase will be a key interface for Auckland Council to enable the delivery of the High Level Project Plan.

c) grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to dispose of any of the properties listed below that are required to achieve the outcomes in the plan:

i) 1, 3-5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 35, 47, 49, 51Pearn Cr

ii) 1, 3-11, 13, 15, 16-30, 17, 21, 23-25, 27-35, 32-44, 43-47, 50-52 Pearn Pl

iii) 16-18, 30, 32 College Rd

iv) 2, 6-10, 16-26 Kilham Av

v) 111, 115, 123-127 Lake Rd

d) note that recommendation c) above is subject to the following conditions and described in more detail in Attachment C and D of the agenda:

i) satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes

ii) disposal of the properties will be with the objective of achieving urban renewal and housing. The mechanisms to achieve this may include contractual arrangements, such as reference briefs and development agreements.

e) grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to consider the service properties listed below that may contribute, in whole in part, to achieve the outcomes in the plan:

i) 1, 5 Ernie Mays St

ii) 6-8 Cadness St

iii) 65 Pearn Cr

f) note that recommendation e) above is subject to the following condition and described in more detail in Attachment C and E, of the report:

i) liaison with council business owners and the Local Board and the granting of further approval from council if the proposed contribution of these properties to the High Level Project Plan outcomes, either in whole or in part, directly affects existing or proposed community facilities/service properties.

g) note that Panuku will undertake a framework planning exercise to achieve quality urban design and other community outcomes, along with community objectives and will involve the Local Board and mana whenua in this planning process.

Comments

Background

13. In October 2015, ADC formally endorsed Northcote as one of nine locations for further investigation and consideration by Panuku.

14. In December 2015, ADC was presented with the priority development location process and emerging development work programme that included Northcote as an “unlock” location.

15. A High Level project Plan (HLPP) for Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds (refer Attachment A) was approved by the Panuku Board in February 2016.

16. The purpose of the HLPP is to establish the context, engagement plans, framework planning approach and realisation strategy, including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the central Northcote area consistent with Panuku and Council strategic objectives. The key deliverables of the HLPP are:

· Project description including vision, identification of project area and scope, objectives and key benefits / outcomes

· Principles and approach to stakeholder engagement and the communication plan

· The vision, principles and approach that will enable refreshed framework planning for the area and a reference brief for each site under consideration for development

· Scoping of opportunities that can be taken to the market to deliver developments that give effect to the plans and strategic objectives for the revitalisation of Northcote

· Overall implementation strategy and realisation plan for each site under consideration

· Project phasing and timing including process, milestones and resourcing

· Indicative project budget and proposed funding

· Key decisions and approvals required in order to proceed to execution phase

Strategic context

17. Northcote has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a town centre which requires renewal.

18. Northcote has a high level of planning in place from 2002 through the Northcote Central Project (a partnership between the community, North Shore City Council and HNZ) through to 2014 when Council's City Transformation unit proposed a staged approach to redeveloping the town centre. The only masterplan of the town centre that is active to date is the Northcote Town Centre Plan that was adopted by the North Shore City Council in 2010 and endorsed by the Kaipatiki Local Board in 2013.

19. The vision for the project (which follows from the Northcote Town Centre Plan) is: “Northcote is a growing community with a lively and welcoming heart that celebrates culture and where business thrives and everyone’s needs are met”.

20. Northcote centre falls within the Northcote Strategic Special Housing Area (SHA), which provides the opportunity to access the enabling PAUP provisions.

21. The PAUP will enable intensification and redevelopment of Northcote. The maximum building height in the Town Centre is being increased to 24.5m. Initial analysis shows future capacity of 220 apartments and 8,500m² of additional commercial floor space.

22. Council is investing in a number of infrastructure projects in the area, which when delivered in collaboration with the HNZ development of the SHA and redevelopment of the town centre, can bring wider regeneration outcomes for Northcote.

Market context

23. There is a lack of local apartment product largely due to the current District Plan provisions and the ability to source land suitable for such use.

24. There is an opportunity for future intensive development in the town centre considering improved market conditions and buyer appetite for well-priced apartment product, gentrification in the fringes driven by Auckland's growing demand for housing and capacity to increase residential and commercial space due to new intensification provision in the PAUP.

25. The current leasehold tenure is a major impediment to renewal and the ability to offer freehold is a critical precursor to enabling development activity by the private sector.

Project Scope

26. The geographical scope of the project covers an 88 ha neighbourhood inclusive of the Northcote Strategic SHA, Hato Petera College and the Fox Outlet Centre (refer Attachment B).

27. To clarify the role of Panuku in the project, the scope consists of:

· An area of control (5 ha) - the Town Centre where Panuku has direct control of the development due to Council's ownership of the sites. Council owns 36 of the 37 commercial and service sites in the Town Centre and manages through Panuku 32 ground leases, a commercial lease, and five service properties over those sites. Auckland Transport manages the car park on 115 Lake Road and has recently transferred the car park on 32 College Road to the Panuku portfolio of managed assets.

· An area of influence (83 ha) - the wider neighbourhood where Panuku can influence framework planning, alongside HNZ which owns some 15ha and approx. 300 homes, to promote wider regeneration benefits in partnership with other landowners.

Current state

28. The project area has an old town centre at its heart with established community facilities and a neighbourhood retail centre, including a supermarket, surrounded generally by two schools, low density residential and a high concentration of HNZ social housing.

29. Some improvements to the Town Centre began in 2006, largely focusing on car parking, public space and community facilities. However, the current urban fabric is largely in a neglected condition. The key issues that have previously constrained regeneration of the area are:

· Reluctance to freehold Council’s leasehold interests to facilitate private investment. The retail area, almost exclusively owned by Council, is subject to perpetually renewable ground leases, a tenure structure that has resulted in a lower quality built form and poor maintenance standards.

· Redevelopment is financially challenging as it is complicated by the economic implications of the ground lease arrangements, fragmented ground leases (33), multiple sub-lessees and the costs of replacing existing centre parking in any future development that has been a "free asset" supplied by Council.

· General market conditions, negative perceptions of the concentrated social housing and the absence of local apartment product as a viable housing option.

· HNZ has advocated redevelopment over more than 20 years with limited results and has invoked the concern of local residents in the process.

· Lack of a proactive strategic asset management approach, coherent and sustained leadership to achieve wider regeneration outcomes, and governance structure to control and direct the many public landholdings.

· Current District Plan zonings limit heights to 9 metres.

Platform to unlock opportunities

30. Changing circumstances have given renewed confidence for Panuku to leverage and finally materialise previous planning efforts in Northcote. Capitalising on a number of current and evolving opportunities, albeit over a period of time and subject to unlocking the complexities of the fragmented tenure and ground lease situation. Current market conditions, that whilst improving, are still needing to be influenced by comprehensive renewal in the wider area.

31. Opportunities for unlocking Northcote rest on the platform of:

· Panuku leadership - will ensure broader regeneration, including Council and surrounding crown assets, and will proactively and strategically manage the assets within the context of an overall framework plan built on an agreed vision and community consensus.

· Wider scope - including town centre as Council’s ‘area of control’ and wider Northcote as ‘area of influence’

· PAUP - allows for greater intensification.

· Northcote Strategic SHA designation - the Centre sits within the boundary of the Northcote Strategic Area SHA, with HNZ leading the development of its land north of the Centre. This will provide Panuku the impetus for regenerating the wider Northcote Central neighbourhood.

· Growing relationship with HNZ – HNZ is committed to see early development of the social housing area into a more balanced community, replacing social housing stock where appropriate and adding additional houses, largely priced to the market.

· Improving local market conditions – including a growing demand for apartment product in an area that has some fundamental market attractiveness derived from relative close proximity and views to the CBD and an established community / commercial hub. Preliminary feasibilities indicate that proposed mixed-use, 6 level apartment buildings are commercially viable subject to the need to replace the loss of existing parking currently provided free by the council. Coordinated development of the area with HNZ is expected to improve residential values.

· Housing for Older People (HfOP) initiative - the adjoining HfOP villages are now subject to a wider partnership arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation to provide older people housing across Auckland and these villages have development potential within that arrangement.

· Rent reviews - the seven-yearly rent review cycle, which commenced in January 2014, will determine the market potential of ground leases and provide opportunities to assemble strategic land and review the current ownership model.

· Leaseholders of larger sites desire to be involved in comprehensive renewal - will help increase the marketability of the Centre and potentially provide early development opportunities.

Key strategic moves

32. The four proposed key strategic moves that will unlock the opportunities that Northcote presents are:

Strategic Move 1 - Partnering Approach:

· A clear engagement strategy – engagement and communications plan that builds on previous plans and community consensus.

· Seek early development opportunities - in partnership with significant commercial interests / initiatives such as the larger leaseholders.

· Partnering to achieve desired outcomes - including capitalising on the relationship and commitment of HNZ to deliver more comprehensive regeneration within the wider area of influence, working collaboratively with local interests such as the Business Improvement District and with the Local Board who are committed to seeing the centre regenerated consistent with agreed plans.

Strategic Move 2 - Revitalising the Town Centre:

· A strategic asset management approach – proactive and comprehensive management that builds on the current rent review process to determine the market potential of ground leases, provide opportunities to assemble strategic land and review the current ownership model.

· Facilitate place making activity via funding sourced from increased rents - including revitalising the existing public realm, in partnership with Council, local businesses & community interests, the business association, Business Improvement District and Local Board. Public realm improvements will include green space linkages and pedestrian linkages as well as opportunities to link to other communities through proposed initiatives such as SeaPath and SkyPath.

Strategic Move 3 - Reconnecting the Town Centre:

· Refresh existing plans and preparing a Framework Plan for the wider area of influence in partnership with HNZ and consistent with previously approved Local Board Plans and community consensus. This will ensure future renewal of the area occurs in a pragmatic way and in response to current market, property and policy conditions, wider scope of the project, and new design parameters of Panuku.

· Use approved Council projects such as the Greenways project and storm-water improvements, to enhance amenity and local connections.

Strategic Move 4 - Developing the Town Centre:

· Seek approval and delegated authority to transact on all Council properties in the centre, allowing the ability to aggregate and strategically release freehold sites consistent with approved business cases and an established framework plan. Free-holding will facilitate private-sector investment in the development of the commercial sites and future sale of residential apartments on the upper floors of new developments.

· Unlock opportunities from PAUP - Capitalise on the additional development bulk accorded by the PAUP and if necessary using the SHA in this context.

· Improve local infrastructure - consistent with approved Council projects and supportive of the strategic framework. Opportunities to coordinate the number of Council infrastructure projects will be explored and authority sought for Panuku to coordinate this activity alongside the current Council business owners.

· Refine feasibility of development options - that will support future business case proposals to the Panuku Board. In the first instance focus on the larger leaseholder sites and the rear car park site on College Road already released by Auckland Transport.

Note: Framework Planning will include the existing community facilities as part of a comprehensive assessment of opportunities. The feasibility of redevelopment of the community facilities sites will be assessed in liaison with the business owners and the Local Board. Such development outcomes will look to improve the current community facility provision, consistent with the needs of the community, while potentially unlocking opportunities for residential development at upper levels.

33. Panuku will investigate and undertake some quick wins to create immediate value add such as continuing to revitalise the public realm, monitoring of leaseholders to improve their performance and investigating the viability of developing available Council land holdings such the carparks and the community hub as catalyst mixed-use developments.

34. Free-holding may commence with those sites that will affect the least number of ground leaseholders and occupiers.

Project Outcomes

35. It is anticipated that once executed the project will deliver the following benefits:

· Regeneration of a local commercial and community hub that will benefit the community

· Improved economic performance of the centre as it responds to renewal and market perception

· Provision of additional housing choice

· Improved investment performance and capital value of an existing asset, maximising the community and commercial outcomes from the investment.

· Reconnecting the centre with its wider community.

36. The expected community outcomes are:

· Housing - Appropriate, functional and well-built with a range of housing types that meet different and changing needs

· Environment - A clean, safe and visually attractive environment with more useable open spaces, native trees and birds

· Community - A strong sense of community, ownership and pride in the area with better access to well managed existing or purpose-built facilities

· Access - An accessible place for everyone with improved facilities for public transport and walking/cycling

· Town centre - A busy, pleasant town centre with a variety of shops/services, easy parking and where people feel safe

Financial Implications

37. Redevelopment will be undertaken progressively through the private sector.

38. In principle, development funding, if required, will be sourced by Panuku through the Strategic Development Fund and repaid from realisation proceeds.

39. Redevelopment will be considered alongside the possible use of supportive council projects approved in the LTP to improve the return and wider benefits.

40. As part of the implementation phase Panuku will assess the current financial benchmark for the sites under consideration and will report additional value creation through the process as well as the ultimate completed built value of the development projects undertaken by the private sector.

Value Creation

41. As part of the implementation phase Panuku will assess the current financial benchmark for the properties under consideration and will report additional value creation through the planning and realisation process as well as the ultimate completed built value of the development projects undertaken by the private sector on the properties.

Consideration

Stakeholder views and engagement

42. The key stakeholders of the project include the Kaipatiki Local Board, Auckland Transport, Development Programme Office, Council's Stormwater Unit, HNZ, the Northcote Mainstreet Business Association, the Ministry of Education and Progressive Enterprises (Countdown), which is the centre's anchor store.

43. There are partnership opportunities with the Northcote Mainstreet Business Association in regards to branding, HNZ in framework planning and major ground-lease holders and Iwi in commercial development.

44. Panuku is committed to working collaboratively with the Local Board and the strong network of existing stakeholders in Northcote during the Framework Planning phase. Collaboration of the kind Panuku is aiming for will require a close partnership between the public, private and community sectors across key platforms to achieve an integrated strategy. To this end a number of base-line engagement activities are already in place between Panuku and the Local Board to ensure a close working relationship develops in the critical early stages of the planning phase.

Local Board views and implications

45. There is broad support from the Kaipātiki Local Board for Northcote to be a focus for transformative urban regeneration within Panuku’s work programme. The Board has high aspirations for Northcote and revitalisation of the Town Centre is a key outcome of the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan.

46. Panuku has engaged early and communicated regularly with the Local Board during the location selection process and the preparation of the HLPP. The opportunities, focus and approach that have been identified in the draft HLPP were work-shopped with the Local Board in February. Feedback during the workshop revealed enthusiastic support for the proposals.

47. The Board supports redevelopment that enables Northcote to grow, develop and thrive, while protecting its unique personality and heritage character through quality design. The Board would like to see the Northcote town centre build on its identity as a vibrant multicultural hub and connect to adjoining suburbs through the greenway concept. The Board considers the provision of integrated and affordable housing options in the town centre and adjoining strategic special housing area as key components for the redevelopment of Northcote.

48. The Local Board highlights that Northcote has excellent social infrastructure, with an established network of stakeholders already working collaboratively. The commercial development opportunity in Northcote is significant. Key anchor tenants, an increasingly cohesive migrant business network and an established Business Improvement District programme will help Northcote regenerate itself as Panuku executes its regeneration strategy.

Māori impact statement

49. There are 13 Iwi authorities with registered interest in the broader Kaipatiki Local Board area. We have been engaging with mana whenua through our regular monthly Forum throughout development of the Panuku work programme and early conversations on the Northcote project have been part of this work.

50. Through this process we have already established particular cultural and commercial interest from Ngāti Paoa, who would like to be closely involved in future planning for this area.

51. We note there may be opportunity for development partnerships arising through Iwi Right of First Refusal options on potential HNZ land sale, or Treaty Settlements on Hato Petera College.

52. More detailed conversations about planning for development at Northcote were held at the February Panuku Mana Whenua forum. A site visit will take place in March/April to discuss specific cultural and environmental considerations. It is expected that the following activities may be undertaken during the Framework Planning phase for Northcote:

· Work in partnership with mana whenua kaitiaki officers towards best care for land and people in our development planning and implementation at Northcote. This work is understood to enable protection of waahi tapu and the optimum health of the mauri (life force) of the natural environment.

· Environmental management recommendations will be incorporated into development planning.

· Cultural Values Assessments if appropriate / requested.

· Exploration of development partnership opportunities.

53. Further noted is approximately 13% Māori / Pacific representation in the local resident population and the proximity of Awataha Marae to the area of influence. The Framework Plan will consider the integration of Awataha Marae in the community and we will engage with the local Māori population within the scope of our collaborative community engagement processes.

Implementation

Project Phasing and Timing

54. Key milestones for the project are set out below.

Tasks	Timing
Local Board Workshop	3 February 2016
Auckland Development Committee workshop	17 February 2016
Panuku Board approval of HLPP	24 February 2016
Auckland Development Committee approval of HLPP	April 2016
Engagement and Communication Plan	September 2016
Northcote Framework Plan (in conjunction with HNZ)	September 2016
Implementation Plan: Strategic Asset Management and Development / Realisation Strategy	June/July 2016 - onwards
Implementation Plan: Town Centre improvements and place making activity.	Approach - February 2016 Implementation - October 2016 onwards
Continuing implementation of all projects beyond Town Centre	Present – 2025

55. The attachments have been prepared as a detailed summary of Panuku’s plans. This information will be reformatted into a booklet with images and graphics to assist with communications and engagement with local communities.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	High Level project Plan - Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds	121
b View	Project Area	155
c View	Property Plan	157
d View	Propoert Disposal List	159
e View	Property Influence List	161

Signatories

Author

Alan McGregor - Manager Strategic Planning

Authorisers

David Rankin - Director Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Auckland

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

10 March 2016

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - revised zoning maps incorporating the Governing Body decision of 24 February 2016

File No.: CP2016/03386

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the committee with a full set of the revised zoning maps that represent the council’s position for hearing Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas). The Topic 081 hearing started on 3 March 2016 and will run through until the end of April 2016. The council’s case on the zoning maps will be presented to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) on 8 March 2016. The revised zoning maps will be circulated on Tuesday 8 March via email and later followed by hard copy.

2. The report also discusses the implications of a recent memorandum from the Panel that clarifies the Panel will not limit the questions it asks the council’s expert witnesses to business and rural zoning issues and the Future Urban zone. The memorandum from the Panel also re-confirms the Panel’s expectation that expert witnesses will comply with the Environment Court Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses.

Executive Summary

3. Topic 081 - Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) is the last major hearing that will be conducted by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel. The council’s evidence was lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January 2016. At the Governing Body meeting on 24 February 2016, a change in approach was endorsed relating to changes to the zoning maps that are not within the scope of submissions (i.e. out of scope).

4. Revised maps have been prepared that reflect the decision of the Governing Body. The maps will be provided to the Panel on 8 March 2016. As discussed at the Governing Body meeting, a consequence of the resolution is that most of the council’s expert witnesses can no longer present their expert evidence on zoning issues at the hearings. If they were to do so, they would be put in a position where their professional opinion (which they are required to give under the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses) would potentially undermine the decision of the Governing Body.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the revised zoning maps that reflect the decision made by the Governing Body on 24 February 2016 and note that these maps will form the council’s position at the Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) hearing.

Comments

5. Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) is the last major hearing that will be conducted by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel. The council’s evidence was lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January 2016. A change in approach to that supported in the council’s evidence was agreed to by the Governing Body on 24 February 2016. In particular, it was resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a) remove from the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan maps the ‘out of scope’ zoning changes made on 10 November 2015, which were not directly supported by any submission, and that this now be confirmed as Auckland Council’s position.

b) remove from the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan maps the ‘out of scope’ zoning changes made on 24 November 2015, which were not directly supported by any submission, and that this now be confirmed as Auckland Council’s position.

c) note that the proposed ‘out of scope’ zoning changes (other than minor changes correcting errors and anomalies) seek to modify the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in a substantial way.

d) note that the timing of the proposed ‘out of scope’ zoning changes impacts the

rights of those potentially affected, where neither submitter or further submitter, and for whom the opportunity to participate in the process is restricted to Environment Court appeal.

e) in the interests of upholding the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness, withdraw that part of its evidence relating to ‘out of scope’ zoning changes (other than minor changes correcting errors and anomalies).

6. Revised maps have been prepared that reflect this resolution, and the Panel has been advised that the council’s evidence on rezoning is withdrawn to the extent it proposed out of scope changes. The memo advising the Panel of the council’s revised position is included as Attachment A. The revised zoning maps are based on the maps lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January 2016. However, the residential zoning of sites that were identified as ‘out of scope’ has been changed back to the zoning on the maps in the 30 September 2013 notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

7. With respect to the revised maps, the following points are important to note:

· the changes only affect the residential zones; and

· in some cases the change back to the notified version of the maps results in a more intensive proposed residential zone (e.g. a change from Mixed Housing Suburban in the maps originally lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings).

8. The memo sent to the Panel also requested that the Panel agrees to confine its questions (and any cross-examination from submitters) of the council’s expert witnesses to matters relating to business and rural zones and the Future Urban zone. The response from the Chairperson of the Panel is included as Attachment B. The Chairperson did not agree to the council’s request, and as a result, the majority of the council’s witnesses will not be called by the council’s lawyers to answer questions from the Panel (or be cross-examined by other submitters). If they were to be called, they would be put in a position where their professional opinion, which they are required to give under the Environment Court Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, would potentially undermine the decision of the Governing Body. The response from the Chairperson of the Panel reconfirmed the Panel’s expectation that expert witnesses will comply with the Code of Conduct.

9. A consequence that arises from this issue is that few, if any of the council’s expert witnesses will be called to answer questions from the Panel (or be cross-examined by other submitters) on business and rural zoning issues, or the Future Urban zone. The only exception to this would be if the Panel itself calls them, or if the Panel agrees to requests from submitters to cross-examine the council’s expert witnesses. Housing New Zealand Corporation has recently made a formal request to the Panel to cross-examine the council’s expert witnesses on zoning issues. The Panel has yet to respond.

10. The following clauses from the Code of Conduct are of particular relevance to this issue:

· An expert witness has an overriding duty to impartially assist the Court on matters within the expert's area of expertise.

· An expert witness is not, and must not behave as, an advocate for the party who engages the witness. Expert witnesses must declare any relationship with the parties calling them or any interest they may have in the outcome of the proceeding.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11. Local Board representatives have been invited to all Unitary Plan committee meetings.

Māori impact statement

12. IMSB representatives are members of the Unitary Plan Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Memo advising Panel of Council's revised position	167
b View	Response from Chairperson of Independant Hearings Panel	171

Signatories

Author	John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

[2]Auckland Councils submission on the Using Land for Housing draft report, August 2015. http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/DR142%20-%20Auckland%20Council%20Draft%20Report%20Submission.pdf

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	Housing forward work programme update presentation (Under Separate Cover)
b	Future Urban Transport Network (Under Separate Cover)
c	Resource Legislation Amendment Bill memo (Under Separate Cover)
d	Productivity Commission Better Urban Planning Issues - presentation (Under Separate Cover)
e	Resource Management Reform Legislation - presentation (Under Separate Cover)

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