Responsibilities
This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland
Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural
objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will guide the physical
development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,
housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects
associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:
·
Unitary Plan
·
Plan changes to operative plans
·
Designation of Special Housing Areas
·
Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing
·
Spatial Plans including Area Plans
·
City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board)
and city transformation projects
·
Tamaki regeneration projects
·
Built Heritage
·
Urban design
Powers
(i) All powers necessary to
perform the committee’s responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that the Governing Body
cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)
(b) where the committee’s
responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only
(ii) Approval of a submission to an
external body
(iii) Powers belonging to another
committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting
of that other committee.
(iv) Power
to establish subcommittees.
Exclusion of the public – who needs to
leave the meeting
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the
meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a
person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
·
Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know”
basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform
their role.
·
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must
leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to
perform their role.
·
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain
only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
·
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
·
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if
the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the
meeting is a committee meeting).
·
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a
pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
·
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a
committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain,
subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Independent Māori Statutory Board
·
Members of the Independent Māori
Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.
·
Independent Māori Statutory Board
members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform
their role.
Staff
·
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior
management) remain.
·
Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
·
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed
in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter
affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.
Council Controlled Organisations
·
Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain
only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled
Organisation.
1 Apologies
An apology from
Cr R Clow has been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
4 Public Input
Standing Order
7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
5 Local Board Input
Standing Order
6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson)
is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The
Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever
practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The
meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not
meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is
in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
6 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
7 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Auckland
Development Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan - Council Position for Mediation - Volcanic Viewshafts
and Height Sensitive Areas
File No.: CP2016/04591
Purpose
1. To obtain, for the purpose of
mediation directed by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, the
Auckland Development Committee’s position on:
a. retaining 70 “regionally
significant” Volcanic Viewshafts within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(PAUP);
b. the recommended removal of five
Volcanic Viewshafts;
c. the recommended reclassification
of three Volcanic Viewshafts as “locally significant”; and
d. amendments to the height controls
for land within two Height Sensitive Areas.
Executive
Summary
2. At its meeting
on 13 August 2015, the Auckland Development Committee supported a review of the
criteria in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) for regionally
significant views, and the development of criteria for locally significant
views. The committee also supported a further review of the impacts of the
viewshafts on development. Subsequently, the Auckland Unitary Plan
Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) directed a process of
expert caucusing covering essentially the same matters. This report considers
the outcomes of the expert caucusing in relation to Volcanic Viewshafts and
Height Sensitive Areas.
3. The expert
caucusing has involved an extensive review of the Volcanic Viewshafts and
Height Sensitive Areas and a consistent (amongst the experts) description of
the values of each. This in-depth analysis has highlighted some Volcanic
Viewshafts that are no longer considered to be of significance and others that
have local, rather than regional significance. A new “local significance”
category is being recommended, by the experts group, accompanied by
identification criteria and revised planning provisions. In relation to land in
two Height Sensitive Areas, the work has identified that the permitted heights
in specific areas can be raised without affecting local views to the adjacent
maunga.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Development
Committee:
a) support retaining 70
“regionally significant” Volcanic Viewshafts within the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan.
b) support, due to their
compromised nature, the recommended removal of the following Volcanic
Viewshafts from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (as shown in Attachment A
to the agenda report):
1. A11: Mount Albert from Fowlds Park
2. E04: Mount Eden from Balmoral Road
3. E06: Mount Eden from Alberton House
4. E19: Mount Eden from the Southern Motorway
5. W06: Mount Wellington from Waipuna Road.
c) support
reclassifying the following Volcanic Viewshafts as “locally significant”
within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (as shown in Attachment B to the
agenda report):
1. O10:
One Tree Hill from College Road
2. T08:
Rangitoto from St Helier’s Bay Road
3. W13:
Mount Wellington from West Tamaki Road
d) support amendments to the
provisions in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to introduce a “Locally Significant
Volcanic Viewshafts” category, in which resource consent applications to
exceed the floor of the viewshaft are a Restricted Discretionary Activity (in
contrast to the current Non-complying Activity status for “regionally
significant” viewshafts).
e) support amendments to the
height control for the Height Sensitive Area that applies to the main
Devonport business area to permit heights of up to 9 metres and 13 metres in
specific areas, as shown in Attachment C to the agenda report.
f) support
amendments to the height control for the Height Sensitive Area that applies
to the Elizabeth Knox Retirement Home to permit heights of up to 9 metres
around the perimeter of the site and 11 metres in the core of the site, as
shown in Attachment C to the agenda report.
|
Comments
4. Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas are used to protect
the visual integrity of volcanic maunga classified as Outstanding Natural
Features in the PAUP. Key features of the provisions in the PAUP are:
a. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) objective and policies provide
for the “regionally significant” views to and between Auckland’s maunga to be
identified and protected.
b. The RPS objective and policies, also copied into district plan
section of the PAUP, provide that buildings or structures that penetrate the
floor of the Volcanic Viewshafts are to be “avoided” unless they have “no adverse effect” on the visual integrity of the
volcanic maunga as seen from the identified viewing point or line, or such
development is located and complies with an identified height sensitive area.
c. Urban
intensification is required to be consistent with the protection of volcanic
features and viewshafts.
d. The rules
provide that, with some exceptions (including buildings that do not further intrude
into viewshafts and some infrastructure), buildings and structures that exceed
the permitted heights are a Non-complying Activity and are required to be
publicly notified.
5. Volcanic
Viewshaft and Height Sensitive Area provisions have
existed in Auckland’s planning documents for the past 40 years. With some
modifications and updating, the PAUP generally adopted previous plan viewshafts
and Height Sensitive Areas, and associated
provisions.
6. The key
features listed in Paragraph 4 a) to d) above were the basis of the council’s
position going into the Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas hearing
in May last year.
7. The major issues raised by
submitters at the hearing were as follows:
a) Many submitters were concerned
that the PAUP did not contain an explanation of the values of the Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. This was
associated with a general concern about insufficient justification for the
viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas under section 32 of the Resource Management
Act.
b) Some submitters, notably Housing
New Zealand Corporation (HNZC), did not agree that all of the viewshafts are
regionally significant. HNZC sought the introduction of “district” and “local”
categories of viewshafts, with correspondingly more flexible rules.
c) One or two submitters, notably
the Volcanic Cones Protection Society, sought that all of the 87 viewshafts in
the notified PAUP are retained, and that an extra local category of viewshaft
protection is introduced, allowing the addition of further viewshafts through
later plan changes.
d) A number of parties considered
that the policy “test” should be “no more than minor” adverse effects rather
than “no” adverse effects, at least for what they regarded as being less
significant (or more “costly”) viewshafts.
e) Many submitters opposed the
Non-complying Activity category and public notification rules. A key reason
given was that there were likely to be resource consent applications that did
not have adverse effects, or more than minor adverse effects. The costs and
time involved in processing those applications was considered an unnecessary
and unjustified expense. Many parties sought that the public notification rules
are deleted and that the Non-complying Activity category is replaced by one
requiring a Restricted Discretionary Activity.
f) Several submitters considered
that the costs associated with the loss of opportunities for urban
intensification need to be taken into account in assessing whether Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas are included in
the PAUP, and that the costs of limiting urban intensification should be one of
the criteria used to assess applications for infringing the Volcanic Viewshaft
and Height Sensitive Area height controls.
8. On 17 July 2015, the Panel released interim guidance on Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. The Panel
indicated that, at that stage, it did not consider
that all
of the
Volcanic Viewshafts contained in the PAUP were of regional significance or
that any development that penetrates a Volcanic Viewshaft
would
be inappropriate.
9. The interim guidance was
considered by the Auckland Development Committee on 13 August 2015. The
committee supported a review of the criteria in the PAUP for regionally
significant views, and the development of criteria for locally significant
views. The committee also supported a further review of the impacts of the
viewshafts on development (AUC/2015/173).
10. On 21
August 2015, the Panel issued a procedure for further
assessment of Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. Landscape,
planning and economic experts representing all submitters that wished to be
involved were to caucus and carry out the following tasks:
a) Identification, description and assessment of the public values
of each Volcanic Viewshaft and Height Sensitive Area (and supply that
information to all interested parties).
b) Identification of criteria/methodology appropriate to each
Volcanic Viewshaft and Height Sensitive Areas identification.
c) General identification of views to volcanic cones that merit
assessment (starting with the existing 87 Volcanic Viewshaft in the notified
PAUP and any others specifically identified in submissions).
d) Specification of the boundaries of the Volcanic Viewshaft and
Height Sensitive Areas needed to protect the identified public values of the
view.
e) Assessment
of the overall value of each Volcanic Viewshaft and Height Sensitive Area at
regional, district or local level.
11. The Panel directed that there was then to be a mediation involving
all submitters on the extent of protection appropriate to the Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas in light of their values and
significance, and taking into account other relevant PAUP provisions (other
overlays, zoning, development controls, designations, etc). This mediation is
scheduled for 5 April 2016.
12. Finally, there
was to be a consideration of the appropriateness of including the Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas in the PAUP informed by section 32
analysis, including all benefits and costs and a review
of the Volcanic Viewshaft or Height Sensitive Areas where section 32 analysis indicated amendment, reassessment or
deletion.
13. The hearing is scheduled to reconvene on 4 May 2016.
Consideration
14. The tasks
set by the Panel in Paragraph 10 above have been substantially completed by the
expert groups. The council’s landscape architect, Stephen Brown, has played a
major role as part of the landscape architects expert caucusing group. Mr Brown
was tasked with photographing and drafting a description of all Volcanic
Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas –
the “Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Statements”.
15. As part
of that process, Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive
Areas were reassessed with an attempt to achieve as much agreement as
possible amongst the landscape experts.
16. At the
conclusion of this exercise, Mr Brown supports changes being made in three
distinct areas.
17. The first
area relates to those viewshafts that should be deleted from the PAUP on the
basis that they are not (or more particularly, are no longer) “significant”.
These viewshafts include the nine viewshafts previously agreed to by the
council prior to the commencement of the hearing last year.
18. In
addition, Mr Brown on his re-analysis, believes that a further five Volcanic
Viewshafts should be deleted, as they are no longer significant in his
professional opinion. In all cases these viewshafts have become compromised by
development that has occurred since they were originally identified. In this
respect, Mr Brown’s professional opinion is consistent with the other landscape
architects who participated in the expert caucusing.
19. Maps
showing these Volcanic Viewshafts and an explanation of Mr Brown’s assessment
are given in Attachment A. The further Volcanic Viewshafts recommended by Mr
Brown and the other landscape architects to be deleted are:
1. A11: Mount Albert from Fowlds
Park
2. E04: Mount Eden from Balmoral
Road
3. E06: Mount Eden from Alberton
House
4. E19: Mount Eden from the
Southern Motorway
5. W06: Mount Wellington from
Waipuna Road.
20. Mr Brown
does not support the opinion of other landscape architects that a further two
Volcanic Viewshafts (A13 and W03) should be deleted from the PAUP. Mr Brown
considers that these Volcanic Viewshafts are regionally significant.
21. The second area relates to three
viewshafts that Mr Brown considers do not now reach a “regionally significant”
threshold, but which are still worthy of recognition as “locally significant”
viewshafts. Maps showing these Volcanic Viewshafts and Mr Brown’s analysis
appear in Attachment B. The Volcanic Viewshafts are:
1. O10: One Tree Hill from College
Road
2. T08: Rangitoto from St Helier’s
Bay Road
3. W13: Mount Wellington from West
Tamaki Road
22. Mr Brown does not support the
opinion of other landscape architects that a further 18 Volcanic Viewshafts are
only locally significant. Mr Brown considers the 18 Volcanic Viewshafts to be
regionally significant.
23. If a “Locally Significant
Volcanic Viewshafts” category is introduced, this will need to be accompanied
by a policy recognising local views and rules that manage those Volcanic
Viewshafts. It is proposed that development that infringes a locally
significant viewshaft is a Restricted Discretionary Activity.
24. The third area where Mr Brown
believes changes should be made relates to the Height
Sensitive Area that applies to the main Devonport business area, and the
Height Sensitive Area that applies to the Elizabeth Knox Retirement Home. The council’s
position at the start of the hearing was that a 9 metre height control should
apply in the case of Devonport and an 8 metre height control in the case of the
Elizabeth Knox Retirement Home. In both of these cases, submitters have argued
that there are parts of the Height Sensitive Area where
development can occur to a higher height without having any adverse effect on
local views of the maunga. This is generally because there are areas already
screened by existing buildings, or land that is not in a local view.
25. The submitters’ experts have
worked closely with Mr Brown to identify impacts that buildings of various
heights would have in these areas. Mr Brown has concluded that in some parts of
the main Devonport business area, the height control should be increased to the
underlying zone height control of 13 metres. In terms of the Elizabeth Knox
Retirement Home, Mr Brown has concluded that the height control should be
increased to 9 metres around the perimeter of the site and 11 metres within the
core part of the site. The proposed height mapping is shown in Attachment C.
26. The council has previously
recognised that there may be an opportunity to further refine the Height Sensitive Area mapping. In particular, when
considering the notification of the PAUP between 28 August and 5 September
2013, the (then) Auckland Plan Committee agreed:
(a) to endorse the 8 metre height
control in the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan for all buildings within the Blanket
Height Sensitive Areas around the base of a number of the volcanic cones until
such time as a comprehensive landscape analysis of alternatives is undertaken.
Local
Board views and implications
27. The views of
Local Boards are able to be represented by the invitation extended to all Local
Board Chairs to attend the Auckland Development Committee meeting.
Māori
impact statement
28. The importance of volcanic maunga
to Māori is acknowledged. The Independent Māori Statutory Board, Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati
Te Ata Waiohua Trust Board, Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua, Ngaati Whanaunga, Nga
Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau, Marutuahu Iwi and Ngati MaruTūpuna Maunga
o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority are all parties to the appeals and will be
invited to the forthcoming mediation.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Volcanic Viewshafts Propsed to be Deleted
|
15
|
|
bView
|
Volcanic Viewshafts Proposed to be Amended to being of
"Local" Significance
|
25
|
|
cView
|
Amendments to Height Sensitive Area mapping
|
33
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Peter Raeburn – Planning Consultant
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
