Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 14 April 2016

9.30am

Reception Lounge, Level 2
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Dick Quax
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Member David Taipari
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr John Watson
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr George Wood, CNZM
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee
	Member Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

8 April 2016

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: Tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Please note: Any attachments listed within this agenda as “Under Separate Cover” can be found

at the Auckland Council website http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:

· Unitary Plan

· Plan changes to operative plans

· Designation of Special Housing Areas

· Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

· Spatial Plans including Area Plans

· City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

· Tamaki regeneration projects

· Built Heritage

· Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 13 April 2016, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 Chair, Auckland District Council of Services, Richard Northey

Purpose

1. Richard Northey, Chair, Auckland District Council of Services wishes to address the Committee in support of Councillor Cathy Casey’s notice of motion to increase the amount of pensioner housing.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Richard Northey, chair, Auckland District Council of Services for his presentation.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

8.1 Notice of Motion - Councillor Cathy Casey - Amend Action 5 of the Housing Action Plan

1. In accordance with Standing Order 2.5.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Cr Cathy Casey, seconded by Cr John Watson for inclusion on the agenda for the Auckland Development Committee meeting being held on Thursday, 14 April 2016.

2. Cr Cathy Casey proposes to move the following motion, seconded by Cr John Watson:

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) amend Action 5 of the Housing Action Plan from:

“Enable redevelopment projects on existing Council Housing for the Elderly sites while maintaining at least the existing number of units for older people in the Council property portfolio”

“Enable redevelopment projects on existing Council Housing for the Elderly sites while increasing the existing number of units for older people in the Council property portfolio”.

Background

3. Councillor Cathy Casey’s signed Notice of Motion is appended as Attachment A.

Attachments

a Councillor Cathy Casey's signed Notice of Motion ............................ 119

Auckland Development Committee

14 April 2016

Summary of information memos and briefings - 14 April 2016

File No.: CP2016/06275

Purpose

1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to committee members since 15 October 2015.

Executive Summary

2. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

3. The following presentations/memos/reports were presented/circulated as follows:

· 29 March 2016 :

a. Housing forward work programme

b. Panuku Development Auckland reinvestment process

c. Transform Manukau – high level project plan

d. Rapid Transit Network

e. Light Rail update

4. These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

5. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 14 April 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Housing forward work programme presentation (Under Separate Cover)
b	Panuku Development Auckland reinvestment process presentation (Under Separate Cover)
c	Transform Manukau - high level project plan presentation (Under Separate Cover)
d	Rapid Transit Network presentation (Under Separate Cover)
e	Light Rail update presentation (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

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

Auckland Development Committee

14 April 2016

Port Future Study Update

File No.: CP2016/06192

Purpose

1. This report broadly outlines progress on the Port Future Study since the last update to the Auckland Development Committee on 15 October 2015. It also serves as background for Dr Rick Boven, the Independent Chair of the Study, to give a verbal report on the process thus far and answer any questions Committee members may have.

Executive Summary

2. The Port Future Study has appointed consultants and made significant progress in its methodology towards a recommendation to the Auckland Development Committee later this year. On its current trajectory, the study will report at the Committee’s July meeting. Since the last chairman’s report in October 2015, the broader Reference Group has met twice during February and April of this year. The Consensus Working Group continues to work closely with its consultants, directing their methodology and building its own understanding of the issues.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive a verbal update from Dr Rick Boven, Independent Chair for the Port Future Study.

b) receive the background report on the progress of the Port Future Study.

Comments

3. On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61). Consistent with the Committee’s subsequent resolution on 14 May (Resolution number AUC/2015/95), a collaborative Māori and stakeholder process was established to investigate the long term future of Auckland’s port.

4. As directed, two groups have been established from stakeholder organisations and mana whenua: a broader Reference Group and a smaller Consensus Working Group (CWG). The Reference Group consists of around 80 members and held its first meeting in September 2015.

5. On 15 October 2015, the Auckland Development Committee received an update and the Study Scope as well as a verbal report from Independent Chair Dr Rick Boven. The Committee endorsed the Study Scope at this time (Resolution number AUC/2015/194).

6. In November 2015 the CWG appointed a consortium of consultants to provide the technical work of the study. The consortium members are Ernst & Young (lead), Black Quay, GHD, Jasmaz, Aurecon, eCoast and JLL. The project is tracking towards delivery of CWG recommendations to the Auckland Development Committee in July.

7. The CWG continues to meet regularly and gain a shared understanding of the issues as well as work closely with the consultants as they progress their methodology.

8. The consortium’s methodology reflects the Study Scope. It first identifies a longlist of location options that are theoretically technically feasible for an alternative port location. This list (Attachment A) was distributed to the Reference Group and made available to the media in February 2016.

9. At this second meeting of the Reference Group in February, the CWG and consultants received valuable feedback on the project methodology, longlist of port location areas and assessment criteria.

10. These location areas were then analysed using criteria beyond the initial analysis for theoretical technical feasibility. This included their cultural, environmental, social and economic attributes. Both the current Ports of Auckland Ltd site and other existing port locations were also analysed.

11. The third meeting of the Reference Group will be held on 13 April 2016. At the meeting, it is anticipated that the CWG and consultants will receive comment from the Reference Group on the methodology and emerging shortlist. Dr Boven will provide commentary in his verbal report.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. The project team gave a briefing about the Study at the Local Board Chairs Forum on 22 June 2015. Local Board Chairs have also been provided with the finalised Scope, longlist of areas and shortlist attached.

Māori impact statement

13. As noted, there are four mana whenua members on the CWG who provide mana whenua input to the Study. The chairs and commercial arms of Auckland’s mana whenua iwi have also been invited to be members of the Reference Group.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Potential areas investigated	23

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard – Strategy Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

14 April 2016

Auckland Housing Accord Reporting

File No.: CP2016/02290

Purpose

1. This report includes an update on the monitoring and reporting programme for the Auckland Housing Accord (the Accord) and particularly the monitoring and reporting of progress in Special Housing Areas (SHAs).

2. It also seeks the Committee’s endorsement of the proposed Auckland Housing Accord monitoring and reporting programme to December 2016.

Executive Summary

3. On 7 April 2016 the Mayor and the Minister for Building and Housing announced the tenth and final tranche of Special Housing Areas to be created, taking the full number to 154, and providing potential for 56,000 new homes across Auckland. They also released the Auckland Housing Accord First Quarterly Monitoring Report for the Third Accord Year (covering the period 1 October to 31 December 2015) (see Attachment A).

4. That report indicated that at 31 December 2015 there was good progress toward the overall three year Accord target of 39,000 sites and dwellings. The next quarterly monitoring report covering the period 1 January to 31 March 2016 is due for completion in mid-May 2016.

5. With approximately six months left to the end of the Auckland Housing Accord there is increasing interest in the performance of SHAs in the delivery of new homes, and the presentation of this report will include an up to date figure for home completions in SHAs.

6. As the quarterly monitoring report demonstrates, and as shown in Attachments B and C of this report, there is a large amount of activity in SHAs in the form of earthworks and dwelling construction that will deliver significantly greater numbers of home completions in SHAs in the months and years ahead.

7. This report describes and recommends a reporting programme for the remainder of 2016 that will build on existing reporting and provide significantly more information on progress within SHAs including home completions and photos of completed or under-construction developments.

8. Accord monitoring now opearates at three levels:

Level 1: Mainly performance against Housing Accord targets and overall consenting activity in SHAs (as in previous quarterly reports)

Level 2: Detail about each SHA (refer Attachment B), including infrastructure issues

Level 3: Detail about each qualifying development consent, home completion and ready for occupation.

9. Future quarterly reports will include more Level 2 information and summary Level 3 information. It is not proposed to report on progress against individual consents.

10. The value of aerial photography for illustrating the range and scale of SHA activity is demonstrated in Attachment C. The areas shown are:

a. 12 of the 42 SHAs where consented dwelling construction and earthwork activity / site preparation is taking place;

b. 12 of the total of 154 SHAs (Tranches 1-10), including 893 (56 per cent) dwellings consented in SHAs since the start of the Accord. Or, 4.4 per cent of all dwellings consented in Auckland since the start of the Accord;

c. 3,276 (57per cent) of the potential sections and dwellings enabled by resource consents approved under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA);

d. 270 hectares (11 per cent) of the Future Urban Land (FUZ) supply pipeline through SHAs or 2.75 per cent of the entire FUZ in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan;

e. Approximately 2 per cent of the 56,000 dwellings expected to be constructed in SHAs at full build-out (a 10 year plus development pipeline)

Please note the above figures are based on data from February (building consents) and March (Tranche 10 recommendations), and that some areas subject to earthworks do not yet have building consents for home construction.

11. SHA consenting will peak in 2017 or later but actual development activity and dwelling completions will probably peak a year or two after consenting activity peaks. The Accord ends on 16 September 2016 but consent applications already lodged can continue to be processed under HASHAA.

12. A comprehensive Housing Accord Three Year report is also proposed for presentation to the Committee by December 2016. As with quarterly monitoring reports it is proposed that it be prepared jointly with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The Ministry has endorsed this proposal.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the Auckland Housing Accord Monitoring Report for Quarter 1 of Year 3

b) note that Auckland Housing Accord monitoring indicates that:

i) at 31 December 2015 the year 3 target of 17,000 consented dwellings and sites and the total three year target of 39,000 consented dwellings and sites continued to be achievable, noting also that the building consent figures for January and February 2016 have also been positive;

ii) good progress is being made toward a more comprehensive set of Special Housing Area performance data, including reliable figures for new home completions consented under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

c) note that:

i) with the inclusion of Tranche 10, Special Housing Areas will enable development of approximately 56,000 dwellings across Auckland and almost 2,500 hectares of Future Urban Zone land.

ii) this 2,500 hectares represents approximately one quarter of the anticipated 30 year greenfield land supply anticipated by the Auckland Plan and shown in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

iii) the greenfield SHAs make full use of available bulk infrastructure capacity and provide a very large area for developers to deliver accelerated greenfield housing developments.

d) agree the proposed composition of future quarterly monitoring reports will be as described in this report, with increasing detail on activity in each of the special housing areas, subject to commercial sensitivity and the privacy of home buyers or occupants:

Level 1. Represents the content of existing monitoring reports:

i. Dwelling consents Auckland-wide: last 12 months / last 3 months

ii. Progress in SHAs:

1. Pre-application stage (consents and plan variations)

2. Under assessment (consents and plan variations)

3. Plan variations approved

4. Resource consents approved

5. Building consents approved

6. Under construction;

Level 2. Further information for each SHA:

i. Time analysis of progress from SHA request through establishment, masterplanning and consenting stages to current state of development

ii. Description of the development typology –mix of zones, land uses and built form;

iii. Infrastructure requirements, issue resolution and agreements

Level 3. Summary information about

i. Qualifying development application and approval dates and a summary of what was approved

ii. Building consent application and approval dates and a summary of what was approved

iii. Works commencement dates

iv. Construction completion dates

e) agree to receive a detailed Auckland Housing Accord assessment report that will be prepared in collaboration with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment by December 2016 and describes overall achievement against the Special Housing Area objectives of the Auckland Housing Accord.

Discussion

13. The latest Auckland Housing Accord monitoring report (for Quarter 1 of Year 3: October to December 2015) (Attachment A) shows that:

a. The net number of new sections created and dwellings issued with building consents in the first quarter of Year 3 was 3,902, which is 23 per cent of the 17,000 target. The full year target of 17,000 and the total three year target of 39,000 remains achievable

b. City-wide results to December 2015 show:

i. 9,251 new dwellings issued with building consents to December 2015 is the best in any 12-month period since 2004, over a decade ago

ii. A 21 per cent increase on the same period of the previous year (up by 1,619 from 7,632 dwellings)

iii. 4,066 dwellings in multi-unit buildings were issued with building consents in the 12 months to December 2015, up by over 1,133 from 2,933 in the same period in the previous year

iv. multi-unit dwellings accounting for 44 per cent of new dwellings were issued with building consents in the 12 months to December 2015.

c. In November and December 2015, 966 and 947 new dwellings were consented respectively. If these monthly rates can be sustained in Accord Year 3 – new dwellings consented in a 12 month period could soon exceed 10,000, a level not seen since 2004.

d. The greenfield land supply position continues to significantly improve owing to SHAs. The supply of “ready to go” (zoned and serviced) greenfield land is 6.5 years (1.5 years over the Auckland Plan minimum target of 5 years) and up from 6.15 at the end of Accord Year 2 with live-zonings of greenfield land at Huapai and Scott Point boosting supply.

e. SHAs are delivering a significant land supply pipeline with 3.9 years of Future Urban Zone land in SHAs over two Accord years.

14. Housing Accord reporting is expanding in the third year of the Accord. Quarterly monitoring reports in the first year of the Accord had a focus on SHAs established and their potential yield, including their contribution to the overall supply of land for housing.

15. In the second Accord year the emphasis moved toward the number of consents issued for dwellings and sites within SHAs and across all parts of Auckland Council

16. In the third year the emphasis will move again toward the number of homes actually completed or under construction, particularly those that are directly attributable to the Housing Accord and its supporting legislation, the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA). While the Accord and HASHAA have significantly reduced the consenting part of the development timeline, the developer still needs to prepare and service the site and build the new homes (or sell sites to a home building company).

17. Please note the Accord target of 39,000 relates to consented sites and dwellings, not new home completions.

18. DPO analysis revealed that under HASHAA, from the time of a request for a SHA being received, all end-to-end planning processes are being completed and resource consents are being granted in as little as:

a. 13 months for greenfield sites (including plan variations); and

b. 11 months for brownfield sites which are able to use Unitary Plan zonings under the Accord to enable more intensive residential development without plan change.

These times are significantly shorter –in some cases one sixth- than the equivalent processes under the Resource Management Act 2002.

19. The third year of the Accord was always going to be the year when the effect of the Accord would really become evident, noting that the majority of the Accord’s effect on housing supply is not expected to peak until 2017/2018 -see Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates how SHAs will deliver approximately half of the current visible housing development pipeline. Please note that these figures are based on developer intentions at the date of SHA establishment and “known others” includes developments of five or more dwellings.

20. The Development Programme Office (DPO), the Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) and Regulatory Services are working on an expanded data set that will improve future monitoring reports, including new home completions that are attributable to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Area process. The results of this work will be included in the next quarterly monitoring report and will play a significant part in the overall Accord performance assessment. The first output from this analysis will also be presented along with this report at the committee meeting.

Figure 1: Potential section/dwelling delivery from Tranche 1-10 Special Housing Areas 2014-2018

Figure 2: Cumulative long term dwelling supply forecast: increasing impact of SHAs

Note: Known others are intended developments of 5 or more dwellings outside special housing areas

21. Attachment B lists the levels and types of data that will be captured

Level 1 represents the content of existing monitoring reports:

a. Dwelling consents Auckland-wide: last 12 months / last 3 months

b. Progress in SHAs (see Attachment C for examples):

i. Pre-application stage (consents and plan variations)

ii. Under assessment (consents and plan variations)

iii. Plan variations approved

iv. Resource consents approved

v. Building consents approved

vi. Under construction.

Level 2 lists intended further information for each SHA:

i. Time analysis of progress from SHA request through establishment, masterplanning and consenting stages to current state of development

ii. Description of the development typology –mix of zones, land uses and built form.

iii. Infrastructure requirements, issue resolution and agreements

Level 3 lists intended further information about each consent:

i. Qualifying development application and approval dates and a summary of what was approved

ii. Building consent application and approval dates and a summary of what was approved

iii. Works commencement date

iv. Construction completion date

22. It is not proposed to include full Level 3 detail in monitoring reports but summaries will be included.

23. The Development Programme Office proposes to prepare a detailed end of Accord assessment report in collaboration with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and reported to this committee by December 2016. The scope of this report will be a matter for ADC discussion and input.

Consideration

Local Board Views

24. The Development Programme Office will include a local board breakdown of data and an evaluation of overall performance in local board areas against the issues raised by each local board as part of the final report. Local Boards have had a role in the development of council’s response to SHA requests and in some cases their concerns have not been sufficient to justify the rejection of a request. As SHA developments come to fruition there will be an opportunity to evaluate the outcomes against the concerns that were raised. This evaluation will be of relevance not just for the HASHA process, but also the intent and implementation of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions for higher density housing, new growth areas and quality urban design.

Maori Impact Statement

25. Maori organisations including Mana Whenua and Mataa Waka have participated in the SHA programme as developers seeking to build homes for their own use or for commercial purposes. Iwi organisations have also been involved in the SHA assessment process in the later stages to help the DPO take account of the potential effect of SHA developments on iwi values.

26. In addition to the levels of data intended for reporting in Attachment 1, the end of Accord report is an opportunity to consider and report on the extent to which Maori values have been reflected in the overall outcomes of the Auckland Housing Accord.

Implementation Issues

27. Implementation of the recommendations in this report will be through subsequent quarterly reporting and the completion of an overall Auckland Housing Accord report by December 2016, led by the Development Programme Office in collaboration with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. No additional resourcing is sought for this work.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Housing Accord First Quarterly Report for Third Accord Year	33
b View	Auckland Housing Accord Year Three Monitoring Programme	73
c View	Examples of Construction in Special Housing Areas	85

Signatories

Author

David Clelland - Head of Infrastructure Programme

Authorisers

John Dunshea - General Manager Development Programmes Office

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Auckland Development Committee

14 April 2016

Attachment B:

auckland Housing Accord Year Three monitoring PROGRAMME

Introduction

Auckland is now in the third year of the Auckland Housing Accord and the Year 3 first Quarter Monitoring Report (Attachment A) indicates good progress toward targets in Years 1 and 2 and a good start to Year 3, with over 3,900 net sections/dwellings consented, almost 23% of target yield with three remaining quarters to go for the year.

The Committee will be familiar with quarterly Auckland Housing Accord monitoring reports prepared jointly by the Council and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). It includes housing data for all of Auckland and for all SHAs at an aggregated level.

While the Monitoring Report enables a wider view of Auckland’s housing activity and progress towards Accord targets, it does not easily enable inspection of progress on an SHA-by-SHA basis. As the Accord draws to a conclusion, the council will be doing all it can to ensure SHAs delivery as much new housing as possible.

This addendum presents a proposal for reporting of progress in each of Auckland’s 155^{^[1]} special housing areas (SHAs). This will help decision makers to look at the performance of individual SHAs or groups of SHAs and determine for example whether there are further interventions by council that may assist progress.

Levels of data held and processed by the Development Programme Office

The diagram below shows that in addition to data behind the Monitoring Report (Level 1), the DPO collects two further levels of data on SHAs, each level contains considerably more detail than the level above it.

Level 2 data comes from the DPO’s SHA Dashboard and contains details about each SHA such as area, dwelling yield, type (greenfield/brownfield), zoning as well as establishment details (request date, Gazette date). The Dashboard also tracks the progress of master planning, plan variations and consent applications. It monitors numbers of dwellings and sections actually consented as well as dwellings built in each SHA^{^[2]}. The dashboard can be used to group SHAs by Local Board Area or by Ward and can be used to raise alerts, using a “traffic light” system to reflect good or poor SHA performance. This will provide for earlier visibility of infrastructure issues that may be holding up SHA progress and contribute to their resolution by timely public agency funding allocations or through infrastructure funding agreements with developers.

Level 3 collects data on a consent-by-consent basis. Over two years into the Accord, there are now over 700 lines of data in the consents application database, detailing plan variation and consenting activity being processed by the DPO in the SHAs. While this information is aggregated up into the Level 2 Dashboard and the Level 1 Monitoring Report, its complexity and detail means that it is not useful to present in its entirety.

For the foreseeable future it is proposed that Level 2 SHA Dashboard will remain the primary source of data for monitoring SHA performance. The DPO can also provide Level 3 summary data to decision makers but it is not proposed to report on individual consents.

Better visibility of progress within special housing areas

As stated above, it is proposed that the primary window for viewing SHA information should be the Level 2 SHA Dashboard.

As well as material in spreadsheet form showing the SHAs and their activity (A3 sample of dashboard attached) it may be useful for decision makers to see at a glance SHAs that are performing well and those that are inactive or developing slowly or where they are developing under normal RMA consenting process rather than under HASHAA.

The DPO has prepared a number of charts to improve the visibility of SHA data. Charts 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached show initial samples of the proposed new Level 2 outputs. Chart 5 contains aggregated yield information about all SHAs over time in terms of qualifying developments approved, dwellings consented, dwellings completed and sections created.

Using the dashboard and charts, decision makers will be able to see details for each SHA, including expected final yield, and progress toward achieving that yield, in terms of plan variations completed, approved qualifying developments, dwellings consented and dwellings completed as well as sections created (greenfield SHAs only).

Currently there is 700 lines of data in the consents database and reporting will focus on aggregate data by type, area or timeframe rather than on individual consents.

Auckland Development Committee

14 April 2016

Housing forward work programme

File No.: CP2016/05217

Purpose

1. To present to the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) the Auckland Council group’s current housing work programme/activities and seek endorsement of the proposed direction for the 2016/17 housing forward work programme.

Executive summary

2. In response to the October 2015 ADC resolutions related to the Chief Economist’s report “Housing supply, choice and affordability”, staff have compiled a stock take of housing activity underway or planned across the Council group.

3. This work demonstrates that there is a significant amount of activity underway in the housing area across the Council group. The Council’s interventions are primarily supply-based, but also cover choice, quality, affordability, and information/alignment activity of a cross-cutting nature.

4. Staff have also assessed the options recommended in the Chief Economist’s report to identify to what extent these recommendations have been or are being addressed. From the assessment it is evident that many of the options recommended in the Chief Economist’s report are already being addressed by Council.

5. It is worth noting that Council has a broad placemaking role which is not explicitly targeted at, i.e. it goes beyond, housing market efficiency or regulation. The existing tools available to Council (for example, through land use planning) are applied to address/balance multiple outcomes to improve Auckland’s overall liveability. Housing is just one component of this.

6. Under the current housing work programme, Council is pursuing largely what it can within current financial and legislative parameters, for example, through infrastructure provision, efficient consenting, Special Housing Areas and the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

7. It is recommended that Council continues and completes the current substantive housing programme of work. Although this will take up the majority of Council’s effort, there is some capacity to explore new thinking on housing (potential new tools, ideas and approaches). Council endorsement is sought to explore this new thinking as part of the 2016-17 housing forward work programme. This is likely to require partnership/engagement with Central Government and other parties.

Recommendations

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) note that many of the recommendations in the Chief Economist’s report, “Housing supply, choice and affordability” are already being addressed by the Council.

b) endorse continuation and completion of the current substantive housing programme of work already underway across the Auckland Council group.

c) agree to explore new areas of thinking on potential tools, ideas and approaches as part of the 2016-17 housing forward work programme, noting that it is likely to require partnership/engagement with Central Government and other parties.

Comments

8. On 15 October 2015, the ADC considered a report from the Chief Economist, “Housing supply, choice and affordability” (the Report). In response to the resolutions on this Report [ADC/2015/196], staff have undertaken work to:

a. provide a current understanding of housing activity underway or planned across the Council group and draw this together as an integrated picture;

b. assess the options recommended by the Chief Economist in the Report to identify those which already have activity underway to progress them (in part or full), those that do not, and those which are not consistent with Council policy, and;

c. from the findings of this work, propose a direction for the 2016-17 housing forward work programme.

National and international context

9. Housing is a complex issue and a challenge for high growth cities internationally. It is a key focus for Central Government and an issue of national significance.

10. This is reflected in the number of initiatives underway this year as part of a wider reform programme led by Central Government, all of which have an impact on housing. These initiatives include the development of a National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the Productivity Commission Better Urban Planning Inquiry and the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.

11. From reviews of international research on housing, it is clear that Auckland is not unique and there is no ‘silver bullet’ which can address housing affordability – a package of interventions is needed.

Auckland context - housing definitions

12. The Auckland Plan sets out definitions of housing concepts that provide useful context for this report.

a. Housing affordability – a household’s capacity to pay to rent or purchase a home (influenced by a range of demand and supply side factors)

b. Affordable housing – housing designed to meet the needs of low to moderate income households requiring some form of assistance (a subsidy or intervention)

c. Social housing – subsidised rental housing for people on the lowest incomes, unable to pay private market rates and unlikely to be able to own their own home; or who are vulnerable and/or have special needs.

Current housing work programme

13. Staff have prepared an integrated picture of the current Council group housing work programme (see Attachment A - Auckland Council Group Housing Activity Stocktake April 2016). The stocktake covers current and planned housing activity across the Council group, including any joint activity with Government (activity at conceptual stage or not yet resourced has not been included). Housing fora and steering groups are out of scope.

14. The stocktake demonstrates that:

a. there is a significant amount of work underway in the housing area across the Council group

b. Council’s interventions are primarily supply-based, but also cover choice, quality, affordability, and information/alignment activity of a cross-cutting nature.

15. Significant infrastructure investment and delivery programmes are also underway which underpin the current work programme (e.g. via Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited). These are critical in ensuring land can be developed and serviced.

Options from the Chief Economist Report

16. The Chief Economist’s Report identified a long list of 34 potential options to address housing affordability. Of those, the Chief Economist suggested that nine not be pursued and/or that they are adequately looked after by other parties.

17. The table at Attachment B - Status analysis of identified options from the Chief Economist’s Report: Housing supply, choice and affordability (October 2015) presents a summary of the remaining 25 options recommended in the Report. The table identifies those options which do or do not have activity underway to progress them (in part or full), and those options which are not consistent with current Council policy.

18. What is evident from this assessment is that many of the options recommended in the report are already being addressed by Council (in part or full).

19. It is worth reflecting that Council has a broad placemaking role which is not explicitly targeted at, i.e. it goes beyond, housing market efficiency/regulation. The existing tools available to Council (for example, through land use planning) are applied to address/balance multiple outcomes to improve Auckland’s overall liveability. Housing is just one component of this.

20. In reflecting on the current housing work programme, Council is pursuing largely what it can within current financial and legislative parameters, for example through infrastructure provision, efficient consenting, Special Housing Areas and the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Proposed direction for 2016-17 housing work programme

21. As highlighted earlier in this report, there is currently a substantive housing programme work already underway across the Council group that takes up the majority of Council’s effort. It is recommended that Council continues and completes this work. There is however some capacity to explore new thinking on housing. The Committee’s endorsement is sought to explore this new thinking as part of the 2016-17 housing forward work programme.

22. There is an opportunity to focus this new thinking on potential new tools, ideas and approaches. This would draw from international experience/research of cities with similar growth profiles and challenges. This work would likely require partnership/engagement with Central Government and other parties.

23. Staff have identified potential areas for exploration as part of this new thinking which include, but are not limited to:

a) Housing market efficiency

· For example: How can the housing market be encouraged to be more efficient? It is noteworthy that there is no equivalent of the Financial Markets Authority for the housing market.

b) Land price appreciation

· For example: How can society capture some of the benefits that accrue as a result of investments/planning decisions made by public entities?

c) Alternative financing/new revenue streams for infrastructure

· For example: What additional tools, ideas and approaches could be explored to support the infrastructure investments required for a growing city-region? Note: the Alternative Financing Project will be reporting back on this during 2016.

d) Direct development role for public sector

· For example: Is there a greater/more direct role for public sector entities to play in housing/mixed use developments?

e) New housing ownership/leasing models and expectations

· For example: What other models exist to support home ownership/leasing and what roles exist for government, the private sector and the community in this space?

24. Exploratory work within these proposed areas is likely to identify a variety of tools, ideas and approaches that present opportunities not just for Auckland but also other high growth areas in New Zealand. Some ideas may also have been investigated by Council or other parties in the past, but it could be time for these to be revisited.

25. The detailed scope, timing and lead department/agency for each potential area is yet to be developed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. The housing forward work programme is a region-wide programme. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend a related Auckland Development Committee workshop on 29 March 2016 and provide feedback on the draft programme.

Māori impact statement

27. The current housing forward work programme outlined in this report represents a high level regional view of the activity underway across the Council group. It has been aligned to the four Auckland Plan priorities of supply, choice, quality and affordability.

28. Reflected within this programme are activities specifically targeted at improving Māori well-being. For example, this includes but is not limited to, Council support for papakainga and Māori housing through Te Toa Takitini.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council Group Housing Activity Stocktake April 2016	105
b View	Status analysis of identified options from Chief Economist's report: Housing supply, choice and affordability (October 2015)	107

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Lead 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

14 April 2016

Transport for Future Urban Growth update

File No.: CP2016/06238

Purpose

1. To present the findings from the first round of consultation for the Transport for Future Urban Growth project.

Executive Summary

2. The purpose of the Transport for Future Urban Growth project is to develop an integrated future transport network and high level land use plan for Auckland’s Future Urban zones in the north, north west and south of Auckland, as identified in the notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. A long list of options for each growth area was developed and consulted on in February and March 2016 during a series of public open days, stakeholder meetings and hui as well as through online media. In total, over 770 people attended one of nine information sessions and more than 620 feedback forms were completed.

4. The key findings from this consultation fed into the development of a draft preferred transport network for each area. The preferred option will go out for consultation in April and May 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the update on consultation for Transport for Future Urban Growth.

Comments

5. The notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) identifies approximately 11,000 hectares of rural land for future urbanisation with the potential to accommodate approximately 110,000 dwellings and accommodate approximately 50,000 jobs.

6. Transport for Future Urban Growth (TFUG) is a joint project between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency that responds to this growth. It seeks to develop a transport network that provides an integrated and multi-modal response to the anticipated growth in future urban areas that reside outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit, in line with Auckland Council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS). It aims to provide integrated planning certainty that will assist the prioritisation of necessary transport interventions over the next 30 years.

Consideration

7. After a series of multi-agency workshops to develop a longlist of transport options for each sub-regional area, consultation was undertaken with residents, key stakeholders and iwi regarding potential transport network improvements. The objective of the consultation was to understand current and future transport movements and resident views on the potential network improvements for the area. The three key growth areas included in the consultation were:

a) The South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Drury West, Paerata and Pukekohe

b) The North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

c) The North West: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead.

8. A copy of the TFUG consultation report is attached as Attachment A.

9. The consultation took place from 18 February – 17 March 2016 and included:

a) 30,000 households contacted about the project

b) a series of information days in each area where attendees were invited to talk to the project team, leave comments, fill out paper or online feedback forms available through the Auckland Transport website or email feedback. Over the feedback period there were 8,191 page views on the Auckland Transport web page for the project, making it the most popular page on the AT website during that time. This was also promoted on Auckland Council’s ShapeAuckland website and OurAuckland publication (digital and paper) and on Neighbourly.co.nz as well as other media

c) iwi engagement with the following iwi:

· Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

· Te Uri O Hau

· Nga Maunga Whakahi o Kaipara

· Ngati Whatua Orakei

· Ngati Manuhiri

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Te Ahiwaru

· Ngati Te Ata

· Ngati Paoa

· Ngati Maru

d) key stakeholder meetings including the Property Council and interested developers with land in future urban areas

e) comments on Transportblog were also gathered.

10. Overall, most people agreed with the aspirations and issues outlined for transport in the three growth areas.

11. Key findings in the south included:

a) the need to improve public transport services (particularly rail) and new road connections

b) suggestions for improvements to rail including shorter journey times/introduction of express services between Papakura and Pukekohe, and the extension of the rail network to new locations, including Pokeno

c) a call for more rail stations in the south and more park and ride facilities. Residents in the south had a strong preference for wanting to make trips by train

d) support for an alternative north-south route parallel to SH1 to reduce congestion on the Southern Motorway and requests to provide an alternative route to the airport and to the north west.

12. Key findings in the north included:

a) the need for improvements to bus services, roads as well as new road connections in order to reduce congestion, better cycling infrastructure and better public transport generally

b) suggestions for improvements to bus services to include more frequent and express services, separate busways and bus lanes, an extension of the northern busway and increased local services that feed into longer distance services. Many people living in the area would also prefer to make commuting journeys via bus

c) many participants felt that transport networks and infrastructure were lagging behind housing growth and development in the area, further contributing to existing traffic issues

d) almost universal support for the Northern Busway being extending to Silverdale/Orewa

e) the need to address congestion at the Hill Street intersection in Warkworth and improving traffic flow through the area generally, developing the Western Collector and a more connected network

f) majority support that a Matakana Link Road should extend further east to connect the areas between Matakana Road and Sandspit Road.

13. Key findings in the north west included:

a) the need for improvements to public transport and good walking and cycling connections.

b) strong support for extending commuter rail services to Huapai, with around half of participants commenting that they would use extended rail services from Swanson

c) calls for improvements to traffic congestion in the area, which could be alleviated by improvements to public transport services and/or road networks e.g. a Kumeu/Huapai by-pass and/or a State Highway 16 to State Highway 18 direct connection

d) the need to improve safety on State Highway 16 including the intersection with the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway

e) many residents felt that the current transport issues needed to be addressed urgently and were frustrated that these issues had not already been addressed (especially the safety issues on SH16)

f) majority support for the planned north-western busway from the CBD to Westgate to be extended to Kumeu and the Constellation bus station, and that these should be future-proofed for light rail

g) most participants preferred that State Highway 16 through Kumeu and Huapai be changed into an urban road as the area changes with a new high capacity parallel corridor created.

14. The engagement period for iwi started in November 2015 and will be completed in June 2016. Key findings from mana whenua feedback on the draft preferred network to date are noted below in paragraph 24.

15. These key findings were reported back to the project team and considered during the evaluation workshops to identify a draft preferred network for each area. This draft preferred network will go out to the public, key stakeholders and iwi for consultation in April and May of 2016. A similar approach to engagement and reporting back will be taken as with previous consultation, including a report back to the community with responses to major feedback points and asking stakeholders and communities if we have it about right; what they like about the proposed draft preferred network; and what they think could be improved in the proposed draft preferred network.

Local Board views and implications

16. This work has significant implications for local boards, particularly Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatotoe, Papakura, Manurewa and Franklin Local Boards, as they contain areas of future urban land areas. As a result, there has been regular engagement with the local boards who have Future Urban Zones in their areas, as well as other local boards who have requested an update, since November last year to keep them updated on the long-listing process and outcomes and feedback has been received.

17. Consultation on the short-listing process and outcomes with local boards is currently on-going.

18. Feedback to date has fed into the development of the draft preferred network.

Māori impact statement

19. This work has significant implications for Māori and has the capacity to contribute to Māori well-being and development of Māori capacity. It is acknowledged that Māori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment.

20. Post-treaty settlement, Māori may be looking to invest settlement monies in long-term investments and this may have a number of significant implications for infrastructure planning. Māori also have the potential to be significant urban landowners that could be looking to actively participate in urban development and to promote specific outcomes for Auckland, the environment and for Māori. This would be achieved through partnerships, investments and greater involvement in decision-making.

21. A Mana Whenua engagement workstream has been developed for this project. The purpose of this engagement is to:

a) provide information and seek feedback from Mana Whenua on the package of options

b) develop and integrate Mana Whenua criteria and objectives into the mutli-criteria assessment for the project

c) provide a platform for on-going engagement with Mana Whenua in the future phases of the project.

22. As the project is a regional project, the project has invited 19 iwi kaitiaki to engage and one presentation to Independent Māori Statutory Board staff members has been undertaken. The project relies on the regular hui established by Auckland Transport and NZTA. The following iwi have participated in the iwi engagements for this project:

· Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

· Te Uri O Hau

· Nga Maunga Whakahi o Kaipara

· Ngati Whatua Orakei

· Ngati Manuhiri

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Te Ahiwaru

· Ngati Te Ata

· Ngati Paoa

· Ngati Maru.

23. Individual iwi have provided feedback on the preferred the preferred network. The themes from this engagement included:

a) iwi need to understand the implications of the options on further development in the areas

b) iwi recognise that any of the options will have an impact on their interests and that development needs to be done in a way that aims to improve important values

c) specific iwi have specific local concerns that ought to be considered

d) iwi want to understand how the feedback is being integrated into the options and decision-making. Mana Whenua wish to be at the decision-making tables for the final network

e) that the options are present at a conceptual level and make it difficult to assess the actual impact on its values.

24. A set of Mana Whenua values is being developed through Mana Whenua workshops setting out the generic values to be included in the Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) for the project. One set of matters that the options must be assessed against is “Reflecting Mana Whenua Values”.

25. A workshop with Mana Whenua aimed to understand what makes up Mana Whenua values for the purpose of this project. As part of the assessment, Mana Whenua will assess the options against the following Mana Whenua values which will provide an assessment framework for Mana Whenua values:

a) papakainga, Māori land and Marae (existing and future)

b) Mana Whenua heritage (tangible and intangible)

c) giving effect to Treaty settlement outcomes and the principle of redress

d) Te Taiao (air, land, water, coast, taonga)

e) Mana Whenua wellbeing.

26. It is anticipated that the Mana Whenua values framework will carry through to the detailed phases of the project.

27. All information on the project will continue to be sent to the 19 iwi to enable an ongoing opportunity for engagement. Additional workshops and one-on-one engagements with iwi where they are unable to attend have been provided and taken up by iwi.

Implementation

28. This work will feed into a Programme Business Case to identify long-term (30 year) transport infrastructure requirements for future urban areas.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Transport for Future Urban Growth Consultation Interim Report : South, North and North West (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Tanya Mead – Senior Transport Advisor – Transprt Strategy

Phil Haizelden, Team Leader, Transport Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

[2] The dashboard currently estimates completed dwellings in the SHA based on site inspections and developer-provided information. The Operations Division is currently working on methodology that will automate data collection on dwelling completions within SHAs and across the rest of Auckland, enabling reporting on a monthly basis.