Addendum Agenda of Auckland Development Committee

Auckland Development Committee

10 August 2016

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan- Report 2 Response to the recommendations of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel on the provisions of the Plan

File No.: CP2016/17039

1. Purpose

To provide an analysis of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel’s (the Panel) recommendations on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the PAUP) contained within the Panel’s recommendation reports and recommended version of the Auckland Unitary Plan (provisions and maps).

To provide recommended responses to accept or reject the Panel’s recommendations.

2. Executive summary

This report should be read in conjunction with item 10 – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Report 1 – Information on process, statutory framework and decision making which sets out important background information and the decision making framework.

Staff began work on a “combined plan” in 2011, undertook extensive engagement with Aucklanders on a draft plan in 2013 and publicly notified the PAUP in September 2013. The Panel held hearings over 20 months and their recommendations are now with Auckland Council for a final decision. The scale of work undertaken by the Council’s elected members, Council staff, consultants and lawyers engaged by Council, submitters, the public of Auckland and the Panel (and Panel staff) in relation to the PAUP is unprecedented in New Zealand.

To assist the Council in its decision, staff have undertaken a full review of the Panel’s Recommendations and prepared proposed responses which are set out in this Report 2 (relating to the PAUP, with the exception of designations) and Report 3 (designations).

For the majority of the PAUP provisions, the Panel has adopted the Council’s position as its recommendations. This means that for most of the plan, Council’s position was considered to be the best option for achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991. Where this is the case, staff are recommending that the Panel’s recommendations are accepted in full (Part A).

In a few cases, the Panel has made recommendations that represent a policy shift from Council’s position and the staff are supporting these recommendations (Part B). Staff have provided analysis and reasons for these matters.

There are also some cases where the Panel has made recommendations that represent a policy shift from Council’s position and the staff are not supporting these recommendations (PART C). Staff have provided analysis, reasons and alternative provisions for these matters.

The staff are also recommending technical changes which do not constitute any shift in policy but are important to enable the efficient use of the PAUP and to ensure integration of provisions. Staff have focussed on those that are considered to be critical to understanding and using the PAUP. PART D identifies the topic reports where only technical changes are being recommended by staff. There are also some technical changes discussed as part of the analysis in Part B and Part C.

As with all plans prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, an essential part of the process is the ongoing monitoring of the plan outcomes to ensure they are having the intended impact in the environment. This will mean that plan changes and operational improvements are required in the future, in some areas, to refine outcomes and processes.

3. Format of Report and Recommendations

In this report the Panel’s recommendations contained in the specified Panel topic report, together with the Panel’s recommended text for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and planning maps, as they relate to the specified Panel topic and report. Where the Panel has included a recommendation within their “Overview Report”, these recommendations have also been addressed within the staff recommendations for each topic report.

There are a number of attachments to the report;

· Attachment A – Link to the Panel’s Recommendation reports, recommended PAUP and maps.

· Attachment B – Alternative Solutions (text and diagrams)

· Attachment C – Alternative Solutions (maps)

· Attachment D – Section 32AA reports

Where staff have recommended a rejection of a Panel recommendation, the alternative solutions and where required the Section 32 AA analysis are contained in Attachments B, C and D.

Recommendation/s

Staff recommendations are contained throughout this report.

4. PART A Hearing Topics with all recommendations supported by staff (no policy shifts

In many cases the Panel’s recommendations on a topic are consistent with Council’s position. In forming its position, Council has undertaken a Section 32 analysis and provided reasons for its approach. Where the Panel has effectively agreed with Council, then staff recommend that the Panel’s recommendations be accepted with no change.

4.1 Recommendation/s

Staff recommendations are contained throughout this report.

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel reports below as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

1. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 001 Auckland – wide, July 2016

2. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 002 Eplan and miscellaneous, July 2016

3. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 003 Chapter A Introduction, July 2016

Regional Policy Statement

4. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 005 – Issues of Regional Significance, July 2016

5. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topics 006 – Natural resources and 010 Biodiversity, July 2016

6. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 007 – RPS climate change, July 2016

7. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 008 – Coastal Environment, July 2016

8. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 018 Monitoring and environmental results anticipated, July 2016

Auckland-wide Rules and overlays

9. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 019 – Natural features, landscapes and character, July 2016

10. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 020 – Viewshafts, July 2016

11. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 024 – Genetically Modified organisms, July 2016

12. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 027 – Artworks, signs and temporary activities, July 2016

13. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 031 – Historic heritage, July 2016

14. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 040 – Lighting, noise and vibration, July 2016

Zones

15. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 055 – Social facilities, July 2016

16. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 056,057 – Rural zones, July 2016

17. Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 064 – Subdivision – urban, July 2016

5. Part B Hearing Topics with all recommendations supported by staff (some policy shifts)

The following recommendations include some changes to council’s positions. Staff recommend acceptance of these recommendations and provide some analysis of the changes;

5.1 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 004 General Rules, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel has recommended deletion of Framework Plans

B. The Panel has recommended deletion of information requirements for design statements

C. The Panel has recommended deletion of cultural impact assessments

Discussion

Technical matters:

A. The Panel recommends deletion of Framework Plans

I. The Council position

The council has used framework plans in precincts for large areas of development. The Environment Court declaration, sought by the council, resolved that the use of framework plans were lawful but refrained from making a declaration on the merits of the tool for achieving integrated development.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deletion of framework plans as a method in the Plan. The Panel considers that framework plans are not the most appropriate tool to control future development as the statutory process underpinning them is not open and transparent. It does not allow people to ascertain what rules apply to a particular place and removes the opportunity for affected parties to participate in decision making.

III. Staff comments – Accept: Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Council should however, continue to refine the development of a method, as an alternative to structure planning, that helps achieve integrated development in large areas of development.

B. The Panel recommends deletion of information requirements for design statements

I. The Council position

A design statement has been identified in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) as one of six regulatory methods for achieving the objectives and policies identified in the chapter on a quality built environment. The PAUP includes Auckland-wide objectives and policies and general provisions for design statements to support these rules.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and reasons

It is the Panel’s view that applicants should be able to design the proposal they wish to build provided it meets the relevant tests of the Plan and the Resource Management Act 1991. In the Panels view it is the Council’s role to assess the applicant’s proposal against the provisions of the Plan and the requirements of the Act. It is not Council’s role to redesign a proposal. If a proposal fails to meet the relevant standards identified in the Unitary Plan then it may be declined consent.

For this reason the Panel recommends that all the provisions relating to design statements should be deleted from the PAUP.

III. Staff comments – Accept: Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. A design statement is primarily a visual document presenting the design process of a development from the beginning when the context is analysed and used to inform the final proposal. This practice can still be encouraged through pre- application meetings with applicants and the council can take an active role in encouraging applicants to provide these assessments with their proposals.

b. Also the Auckland Design Manual and other guidance materials and processes will be able to be used to achieve good design outcomes.

C. The Panel recommends deletion of information requirements for cultural impact assessments

I. The Council position

A cultural impact assessment would be required for resource consents where there are objectives, policies and assessment criteria which refer to Mana Whenua values. It is the tool by which Mana Whenua may articulate their values with respect to a development proposal.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting cultural impact assessments, and any reference to them, from the PAUP. Instead, the Panel proposes reliance on the standard requirements for assessment of effects on the environment under Schedule 4 of the RMA.

III. Staff comment – Accept: Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. ‘Environment’ is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991 to include people and communities and the cultural conditions which affect people and communities. Therefore in preparing an assessment of effects on the environment to form part of an application for resource consent, an applicant must address any potential effects of a proposed activity on Mana Whenua, including their relationship with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga as well as kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, wherever those matters may be relevant.

b. It is therefore accepted that the consideration of cultural values can be incorporated in an assessment of environmental effects.

5.1.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 004 General Rules, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.2 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 010 – Historic Heritage, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

The Panel recommends deletion of the policies which seek to protect and manage unscheduled significant historic heritage.

Discussion

Policy matter

A. The Panel recommends deletion of the policies which seek to protect and manage unscheduled significant historic heritage

I. The Council position

The historic heritage provisions relate to significant and identified historic heritage places and the provisions provide for a methodology of identification, evaluation and scheduling of items of significant and important historic heritage based upon an agreed set of factors.

The PAUP as notified and council’s position at the hearing included policies seeking to adopt a precautionary approach to subdivision, use and development in areas that may have unidentified historic heritage places and to manage subdivision, use and development when a place of potential historic heritage value is discovered to avoid damage or destruction of the place until the level of significance is evaluated.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation largely retain the historic heritage provisions as put forward by the Council and as agreed by most parties through the mediation and hearings process but has deleted the provisions seeking to protect or manage 'unscheduled significant historic heritage' places from the regional policy statement because some of these provisions have been addressed in the PAUP provisions. This is a consistent approach that the Panel has recommended across the entire regional policy statement.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The Panels recommended provision and methods achieve the outcomes sought in the PAUP for historic heritage places and for identifying those places and will provide for protecting and managing adverse effects on unidentified or unscheduled significant historic heritage places in the PAUP.

5.2.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 010 – Historic Heritage, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.3 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 020 – Viewshafts, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends amending the Regionally Significant Viewshaft schedule (L9) which lists a total of 74 regionally significant viewshafts. The schedule is amended as follows:

a. Reintroduction of three volcanic viewshafts (K01, K02 and R01) as regionally significant

b. Five volcanic viewshafts confirmed as locally significant rather than regionally significant (010, 005, T09, W13 T08)

c. Two regionally significant viewshafts deleted ( A11, E04)

B. The Panel recommends the creation of a locally significant category of volcanic viewshaft which provides for buildings to penetrate the floor of the viewshaft as a restricted discretionary activity

C. The Panel recommend amending the permitted height up to 9m within the Height Sensitive Areas

D. The Panel recommend amending the permitted height within Devonport Centre Height Sensitive Area changed to 13m for specified sites

E. The Panel recommend amending the removal of the rule relating to buildings that breach a volcanic viewshaft

F. The Panel recommends increasing the height of buildings that intrude into a regionally significant volcanic viewshaft from 8m to 9m

G. The Panel recommends buildings that penetrate the floor of a local public viewshaft require a Restricted Discretionary activity consent.

Discussion

Policy Matters

A. The Panel recommends amending the Regionally Significant Viewshaft schedule (L9) which lists a total of 74 regionally significant viewshafts. The schedule is recommended to be amended as follows:

a. Reintroduction of three volcanic viewshafts (K01, K02 and R01) as regionally significant.

b. Five volcanic viewshafts confirmed as locally significant rather than regionally significant (010, 005, T09, W13 T08)

c. Two regionally significant viewshafts deleted ( A11, E04)

I. The council position

The notified PAUP included 87 Regionally Significant Viewshafts. Through the hearing process, mediation and expert conferencing council proposed to remove 9 of these viewshafts with the 78 remaining as regionally significant.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel largely confirmed the overlay objectives and policies and activity table for viewshafts and height sensitive areas as agreed between the Council, submitters and the expert working group. It confirmed the majority of individual viewshafts including K01, K02, R01, as regionally significant. A new category of locally significant volcanic viewshafts is created

Five of the 78 regionally significant volcanic viewshafts are confirmed as having local significance and are protected under the locally significant set of provisions

III. Staff Comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The Panel made a judgement on all the viewshafts and agreed with submitters including the Volcanic Cones Society that K01, K02 and R01 are of regional significance and warrant protection under the PAUP. Council’s experts are in agreement with this recommendation as it aligns with the provisions and is consistent with criteria / thresholds adopted for identifying viewshafts.

b. Three of the five volcanic viewshafts recommended to be put into a new local category were supported by all landscape experts, including Council’s expert who concluded that these volcanic viewshafts were no longer considered to be of regional significance but did warrant protection to a lesser degree.

c. The recommendation to delete two volcanic viewshafts deemed as regional is in line with the position of Council’s expert and other experts involved in the conferencing process who agreed that the removal of these viewshafts is consistent with the criteria / thresholds adopted for identifying viewshafts.

B. The Panel recommends the insertion of a locally significant category of volcanic viewshaft which provides for buildings to penetrate the floor of the viewshaft as a restricted discretionary activity.

I. The council position

The PAUP as notified and councils position at the hearings provides for the protection of regionally significant volcanic viewshafts with the penetration of a building into the viewshaft as a non-complying activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has introduced a new category of locally significant volcanic viewshafts and provided for the penetration of buildings into the locally significant viewshaft as a restricted discretionary activity. It has retained the penetration of building into a regionally significant viewshaft as a non-complying activity.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The new category of volcanic viewshaft is a shift from the Council position that all scheduled volcanic viewshafts were deemed regionally significant and were provided the same level of protection (non-complying activity) for buildings that penetrate into a volcanic viewshaft. This shift is however in line with Council’s experts position through expert conferencing.

b. The Panel confirmed that amendments to the provisions were made in accordance with the new methodology developed from expert conferencing (of which council experts were involved) and provides an enhanced foundation to include additional locally significant volcanic viewshafts into the PAUP in the future. Identification and introduction of new locally significant views to the maunga can be undertaken through future plan changes.

C. The Panel recommends amending the permitted height in the Height Sensitive Areas from 8m to 9m.

I. The council position

In the notified PAUP and in council’s position, the height of buildings is permitted up to 8 metres in a height sensitive area, and 9 metres where a height sensitive area intersects with a Business zone, Healthcare Facility zone or School zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The height sensitive areas are confirmed in accordance with the position of the Council but with the height of all buildings permitted up to 9 metres in a height sensitive area (except Devonport).

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The recommended height aligns with the rest of the PAUP – most specifically within the Single House Zone (8 metre height provided with a 1 metre provided for a roof). It is also the height that has generally applied in the legacy plans.

D. The Panel recommends amending the permitted height within Devonport Centre Height Sensitive Area to be 13m for specified sites.

I. The council position

In the PAUP, the height of buildings are permitted up to 8 metres in a height sensitive area, and 9 metres where a height sensitive area intersects with a Business zone, Healthcare Facility zone or School zone.

There is also an Additional Height Control applied to the Devonport Town Centre zone up to a height of 13 metres.

Council’s position at the hearing did not accord with the results of the expert caucusing on this matter.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommended that identified sites within the Mount Victoria Height Sensitive Area allow for a building height limit up to 13 metres in height.

The additional height recommended by the Panel within the Mount Victoria Height Sensitive Area is not identified as a “blanket” height control. The PAUP identifies in the provisions section, some sites within the Devonport Town centre where the 13 metre height limit has been considered appropriate.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Council’s expert, Stephen Brown undertook a detailed analysis of the Height Sensitive Area around Mount Victoria through the expert caucusing instructed by the Panel.

b. Mr Brown’s final evidence to the Panel concluded that: Much of the Devonport Business area sits within a basin at the foot of Takarunga / Mt Victoria. This basin, together with existing development focused on the picture theatre, means that additional development could occur within parts of the current ‘village’ without having an appreciable impact on views of the nearby cone, its identity or the local community’s sense of engagement with it.

c. Even so, the height limits applicable to such development vary from location to location and should also take into account the integration of such development with neighbouring residential areas and their views to the cone. In particular, even though additional development – up to 13m high – could occur closer to the waterfront and the western side of the Business Area without affecting local views of the cone, there is more limited potential for new development on the eastern side of Victoria Rd

d. The additional height provided by the Panel over sites within the Devonport Town Centre aligns with the 13 metre Height Variation Control and the underlying Town Centre zone. The amendment to the Height Sensitive Area is consistent with these sections of the PAUP

e. Council’s experts’ position remains unchanged and therefore staff support the Panel’s recommendation.

E. The Panel recommends the removal of the rule relating to buildings that breach a volcanic viewshaft.

I. The council position

The councils position has a rule that provides for buildings as a permitted activity where they breach a Volcanic Viewshaft as long as they are located in front or behind an existing building that already blocks part of a view.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has removed the rule relating to buildings that breach a volcanic viewshaft where they are located in front of or behind an existing building where the existing building already blocks part of a view to a maunga.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Agree with the Panel that this is a scenario best managed through the consenting process.

F. The Panel recommends increasing the height of buildings that intrude into a regionally significant volcanic viewshaft from 8m to 9m

I. The council position

The council position proposes that buildings that intrude into a regionally significant volcanic viewshaft require Restricted Discretionary activity consent up to 8m in height, beyond which they are a non-complying activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommendation is that buildings that intrude into a regionally significant volcanic viewshaft require Restricted Discretionary activity consent up to 9m in height, beyond which they are a non-complying activity.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The recommended height aligns with the rest of the PAUP – most specifically within the Single House Zone (8 metre height provided with a 1 metre provided for a roof form). It is also the height that generally applies in the legacy plans.

G. The Panel recommends buildings that penetrate the floor of a local public viewshaft require a restricted discretionary activity consent.

I. The Council position

The Council position proposes that it is a Non-complying activity to breach a local public viewshaft

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommendation is that buildings that breach a local public viewshaft require Restricted Discretionary activity consent.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The Panel have proposed a less restrictive approach to the management of buildings that penetrate the floor of a local public viewshaft. That approach clearly differentiates between regional and local public viewshafts.

5.3.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 020 - Viewshafts, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.4 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 023 – Significant ecological areas and vegetation management, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends deletion of SEAs from the Special Purpose Quarry zone

Discussion

Policy Matter

A. The Panel recommends deletion of SEAs from the Special Purpose Quarry zone

I. The council position

Sites which meet the SEA_ Terrestrial criteria are identified (mapped in GIS, and included in the SEA schedule) and protected regardless of the zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

Removes SEAs from the Special Purpose Quarry Zone. The Panel considers that mapping of SEAs creates a tension between competing planning considerations, and may frustrate the purpose of the zone or location (with economic or strategic importance to the region and which cannot be achieved in another way or area).

In some instances the Panel found the evidence in support of the SEA to be inadequate.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The quarry zones that have had the SEA deleted from them are still subject to the general vegetation management rules and therefore the potential loss of biodiversity can still be managed to some degree.

5.4.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 023 – Significant ecological areas and vegetation management, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.5 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 032 Schedule of historic heritage, July 2016

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. Karangahape Road area added to the schedule as a Historic Heritage Area, an extent of place added to planning maps and a statement of significance

B. Amendment to the Schedule as follows:

a. Approximately 120 new places added to the Schedule, 60 in the North Shore from Plan Change 38 and 60 proposed by other submitters, mainly Heritage NZ.

b. 14 places deleted from schedule (see list)

Discussion

Policy Matter

A. The Panel recommended to add the Karangahape Road area to the schedule as a Historic Heritage Area, an extent of place added to planning maps and a statement of significance.

I. The council position

Karangahape Historic heritage area (HHA) was not proposed in the notified PAUP but controls to manage the special character of the area were proposed through a precinct. Karangahape Road Business Association proposed

Karangahape Road (K Road) as a Historic Heritage area. Council supported this and said it was a priority to add this area to the Schedule of Historic Heritage but had not had enough time to undertake the necessary work to add Karangahape Road as an HHA.

II. The Panel recommendation and reasons

The Panel added Karangahape Road as an HHA with the boundaries of the HHA encompassing a larger area than the Precinct, to include more properties that sit beyond the Karangahape Road frontage, to acknowledge the historical context of the area and the contributing properties adjacent to the road. The Symonds Street cemetery is also included, even though it is individually scheduled.

A consequential amendment is the change to the provisions for the Karangahape Road Precinct. These now focus on a limited range of matters, as the HHA provisions provide for the protection, use and management of the historic heritage values of the area.

III. Staff comments – Accept - Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation to add Karangahape Road area HHA to the Schedule of Historic Heritage Areas. Its special character is derived from its ridge top location and concentration of historic heritage and special character buildings and features.

b. A consequential amendment is the change to the Karangahape Road. Precinct which now focuses on a limited number of matters such as frontage control and new buildings as a matter of discretion.

B. The Panel recommends amendments to the Schedule as follows:

a. Approximately 120 new places added to the Schedule, 60 in the North Shore from Plan Change 38 and 60 proposed by other submitters, mainly Heritage NZ.

b. 14 places deleted from schedule (see list)

I. The council position

During the hearings, Council’s case sought the addition of about 60 historic heritage places that were proposed to be scheduled through Plan Change 38 to the North Shore City District Plan; amendments to the scheduling (either in the text of the schedule or a change to the extent of place on the planning maps) of a number of places, following agreement between Council and the submitter. Also a number of places were retained on the schedule that submitters wished to have removed from the schedule.

II. The Panel recommendation and reasons

Retain the schedule of historic heritage places, with some additions, deletions (see attached list) and amendments. Of note, a number of Council owned properties were added to the schedule (see list).

III. Staff comments – Accept - Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. It is considered that the additions, deletions and amendments to the schedule are appropriate.

Council-owned places added to Schedule

Places deleted from Schedule

· Bledisloe House, 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland Central

· Caretaker’s Residence, Victoria Park, Auckland Central

· Epsom Memorial Arch and Marivare Reserve;

· Onehunga Wharf

· Waiuku War Memorial Town Hall

· Logan Bank, 110-114 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central

· First World War Memorial Beacon, Quay Street, Auckland Central

· Civic Administration Building, Greys Avenue, Auckland Central

· Former Citizens’ Advice Bureau, 301-317 Queen Street, Auckland Central

· WA Thompson and Co. Building, 307-319 Queen Street, Auckland

· Queens Wharf, Auckland Centra

· Sunrise Vineyard gateway (proximate to 289 Great North Road, Henderson)

· Rainbow Warrior bombing site, Marsden Wharf

· State houses at 177, 179 and 181 Lake Road, Devonport

· Symonds Street flats, 44 Symonds St, City Centre

· St Patrick’s Presbytery, 131 Seddon St, Pukekohe

· St Joseph’s Primary School, 29 High Street, Otahuhu

· St Mary’s Catholic Church, Onewa Road, Northcote

· Former convent, 454 Great North Road, Grey Lynn

· Misa, 116 Balmoral Road, Balmoral

· Bakehouse, 26-28 Princes St, Onehunga Mall

· 23 and 27 Tui Brae, Beachlands (archaeological site)

· Tawera House, 55 Kolmar Rd, Papatoetoe

· Birkenhead Bus Depot, Verrans Corner, Birkenhead

· Bomb Point, Hobsonville

· Catley House, 46 Quebec Road, Milford

5.5.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 032 Schedule of historic heritage, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.6 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 045 Airports, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommend amending the aircraft noise overlay for Auckland airport

Discussion

Policy matter:

A. The Panel recommend amending the aircraft noise overlay for Auckland airport

I. Council’s position

The proposed extensions to the aircraft noise overlay should be part of a future alteration to the Auckland Airport designation for the second runway.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the noise overlay maps be changed to provide for forecasted increase in air traffic using the airport. This involves an amendment to the land use controls in anticipation of the airport being allowed to emit more aircraft noise in the future. In addition, transitional mitigation conditions have been included in the designation.

The Panel is of the view the recommendation provides for the reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations for air travel and the mitigation of noise from the aircraft.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. the recommended change affects only a limited number of properties, with the Auckland Airport designation requiring Auckland Airport to provide mitigation measures for these affected properties.

b. transitional mitigation conditions have been included in the designation.

5.6.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 045 - Airports, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.7 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 076 – Major Recreation Facility Zone and precincts, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends amendments to the Eden Park precinct to provide for one day-night cricket test per year.

I. The council position

There was no provision for a day-night cricket test in the Eden Park precinct.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel has not provided any specific reasons.

III. Staff comments – Accept – staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The recommendation is supportive of the direction set in the Auckland Plan in respect of maximising the contribution of recreation and sport to Auckland’s economic prosperity.

5.7.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 076 – Major Recreation Facility Zone and precincts, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.8 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 077 – Sustainable Design, July 2016”

A. The Panel recommends deleting the Auckland-wide objectives, policies and rules for sustainable design.

I. The council position

a. The Council’s position proposed rules within the PAUP to require:

i. all new residential buildings to either achieve a minimum 6 star rating from the NZ Green Building Council Homestar Tool version 3 (2015); or

ii. comply with a set of sustainable building standards relating to double glazing, ceiling, wall and floor insulation, extraction ventilation, water efficiency ratings for taps and showers, light fittings and building materials.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has not supported the Council’s position that this matter requires a regulatory response. The Panel considers that the PAUP controls cannot exceed the requirements for such controls set by the Building Code.

In relation to the Building Act the Panel made the following comments:

“ As set out in the Panel’s direction of 8 October 2015 on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Building Act 2004 and proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rules, the Unitary Plan can control the location of the building on a site, or the overall height of the building so as to address the adverse effects of that location or height on the environment. However, it should not be controlling the manner in which a building is constructed. This type of control addresses the function of the building rather than its effects on the environment around it and is not appropriate to be included in a district plan which is concerned with land use planning”.

The Panel also noted that the council has a range of non-regulatory mechanisms and other methods available which could be used to promote the adoption of sustainable design without making that a mandatory requirement under the PAUP.

III. Staff Comments – Accept – staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. it is accepted that there are other regulatory (Building Act) and non- regulatory tools such as the New Zealand Green Building Council Homestar tool to promote the use of sustainable design. This, together with advocating that the Government reviews the Building Code, will assist in ensuring a higher standard of sustainable building construction in the residential areas of Auckland.

b. the uptake of sustainable design solutions within the next 18-24 months can be monitored to see if the industry does indeed provide ‘greener’ homes through Council guidance and other regulatory and non-regulatory tools.

c. Discussions can be undertaken with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to stress the need for review of the Building Code.

5.8.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accept all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 077- Sustainable Design, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps.

5.8.2 Recommendation

The Auckland Development Committee requests that the Chief Executive Officer advocates for changes to the Building Act and associated regulations to achieve improved sustainable design outcomes.

6. Part C – Hearing Topics where some of the Panel’s recommended changes are not supported by staff

Summary of Key Panel Recommendations

Under each of the following hearing topics is a summary of:

· Any key policy shifts recommended by the Panel (where there is a significant difference from the Council’s position at the hearings)

· Any key technical recommendations that staff do not support

· The Council’s position at the hearings

· The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

· Staff comments and recommendations as to whether the Panel’s recommendations should be accepted or rejected.

6.1 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 006 and 035 Air quality, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends deletion of the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay (and associated provisions)

B. The Panel recommends deletion of the Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay (and associated provisions);

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards

Discussion

Policy Matters:

A. The Panel recommends deletion of the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay (and associated provisions)

I. The Council position

The Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay sought to avoid adverse effects of vehicle emissions on childcare facilities located near identified transport corridors.

II. The Panel Recommendation and reason

The Panel recommends the deletion of the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay and associated provisions because it believes there is no good resource management reason to control one activity (childcare centres) and not all sensitive activities. The Panel also believes that this method does not appear to be effective in mitigating the effects of transport emissions along corridors, compared to the alternative of improving vehicle emission standards.

III. Staff comment – Accept: Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. These provisions are discrete and can be revisited later via a plan change (if required) when the council has further information from its monitoring programme. In addition advocacy to central government on vehicle emission standards is an available option.

B. The Panel recommends deletion of the Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay (and associated provisions);

I. The Council position

The Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay applies a 500m buffer around areas zoned Business – Heavy Industry zone to address potential reverse sensitivity effects of residential areas on heavy industry.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reason

The Panel recommends deletion of the Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay and associated provisions because it considers it is more appropriate to rely on the consenting and monitoring of heavy industrial air discharges at their source. The Panel also considered that relevant objectives and policies should be clarified to ensure that reverse sensitivity issues can be assessed in any change of zoning.

III. Staff comment: Accept - Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Reverse sensitivity can be addressed through policies in the PAUP and may be a more effective method in addressing reverse sensitivity effects of residential areas and industrial discharges to air.

Discussion

Technical Matters:

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards

I. The Council position

The PAUP as notified uses the Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards which contain standards for contaminants that are additional to those set out in the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deletion of references to the Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standard because it does not consider there is sufficient justification for including the Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards in the PAUP and that reliance on the national standards provides sufficient regulation for managing air quality. The Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards could be considered via section 104(1)(c) of the RMA when processing applications for resource consent.

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

If reference to the Auckland Ambient Air Quality standards are not included in the PAUP

a. The limits and criteria for a number of pollutants which may adversely affect air quality will not exist.

b. Outcomes outlined in the Regional Policy Statement Objectives B7.5.1(1) and B7.5.1(3) and the Auckland wide objectives E14.2(1) and E14.2(3) will not be achieved.

c. There will be uncertainty and inefficiency in the processing of resource consent applications.

6.1.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topics 006 and 035 Air quality” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendation outlined below, which it rejects:

A. The Panel recommends deleting the Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards

TECHNICAL MATTER

Reasons for rejecting the recommendation are:

· The limits and criteria for a number of pollutants which may adversely affect air quality will not exist.

· Outcomes outlined in the Regional Policy Statement Objectives B7.5.1(1) and B7.5.1(3) and the Auckland wide objectives E14.2(1) and E14.2(3) will not be achieved.

· There will be uncertainty and inefficiency in the processing of resource consent applications.

6.2 Panel reports entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 009 – Mana Whenua, July 2016” and “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 036/037 – Maori land and Treaty and Mana Whenua sites, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends deleting the Regional Policy Statement provisions relating to Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua, and the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay and associated provisions.

Discussion

Policy matter:

I. The Council position

The Regional Policy Statement in the notified PAUP introduces the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay. This overlay provided a precautionary mechanism through a control on earthworks to protect the tangible and intangible, cultural and heritage values. Sites and places remained in the overlay where they are known to be of Māori origin, and were assigned values by Mana Whenua.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends deleting the Regional Policy Statement provisions relating to Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua, and the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay and associated provisions. The Panel incorrectly stated that the Council had formally withdrawn the sites on private land due to insufficient evidence, and that the remaining sites are those on publicly-owned land.

The Panel has also recommended the deletion of those sites of value identified on publicly-owned land. This means that all of the sites of values would be removed from the PAUP. The Panel’s reasons for removing sites of value identified on publicly-owned land are the same as those set out above. That is, those sites have not, in the Panel’s view, been appropriately identified and evaluated to determine if they are indeed a site of value.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Reinstatement of the provisions in the Regional Policy Statement will enable the Council to better meet its statutory obligations under section 6(e) of the RMA.

b. The Panel's recommendation to withdraw all sites and places of value was based on an inaccurate understanding of the Council's Auckland Development Committee resolution of 12 November 2015 and subsequent withdrawal of 593 sites.

c. There is a sufficient evidential basis for the inclusion of 2213 sites and places of value in the overlay, as established in the evidence, legal submissions, closing statement and post-hearing report provided by the Council to the Panel in both hearing Topics 009 and 037.

d. There is a risk of ongoing loss and degradation of sites and places of value to Mana Whenua in the absence of protection under the PAUP.

e. The Panel incorrectly indicates that “while those sites of value were identified in the notified PAUP, no criteria had been applied to be able to evaluate them or verify that the sites actually existed and what their values were.” This work was undertaken as part of the evidence base for Topic 037.

6.2.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel reports entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 009 – Mana Whenua, July 2016” and “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 036/037 – Maori land and Treaty and Mana Whenua sites, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of Sites and Places of Value to the Mana Whenua overlay and associated provisions.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendation are:

· Reinstatement of the provisions in the Regional Policy Statement will enable the council to better meet its statutory obligations under section 6(e) of the RMA.

· Reinstatement of the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay will enable the council to better meet its statutory obligations under section 6(e) of the RMA.

· The Panel's recommendation to withdraw all sites and places of value was based on an inaccurate understanding of the Council's Auckland Development Committee resolution of 12 November 2015 and subsequent withdrawal of 593 sites.

· There is evidential basis for the inclusion of 2213 sites and places of value in the overlay, as established in the evidence, legal submissions, closing statement and post-hearing report provided by the Council to the Panel in both hearing Topics 009 and 037.

· There is a risk of ongoing loss and degradation of sites and places of value to Mana Whenua in the absence of PAUP protection.

· The Panel incorrectly indicates that “while those sites of value were identified in the notified PAUP, no criteria had been applied to be able to evaluate them or verify that the sites actually existed and what their values were.” This work was undertaken as part of the evidence base for Topic 037.

6.3 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 010/029/030/079 – RPS Heritage/ special character and pre- 1944”.

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearings except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Pre-1944 Building Demolition Overlay and related controls.

B. The Panel recommends the retention of the Special Character overlay over the Howick business area

C. The Panel recommends removal of the precinct from Puhoi and including it in the Special Character overlay

D. The Panel recommends the addition of Hill Park, Manurewa as a Special Character area – general (both Residential and Business) and Pukehana Avenue, Epsom as a Special Character area – Residential.

E. The Panel recommends the removal of reference to the 1940 date applied to demolition or removal of buildings in the activity tables for all buildings in the Isthmus A, B and C Special Character areas and to Special Character Residential North Shore areas

F. The Panel recommends the deletion of the objective providing for management of heritage values at the Regional Policy Statement rather than providing objectives that provide for both amenity and historic heritage values

Discussion

Policy matter:

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Pre-1944 Building Demolition Overlay and related controls.

I. The council position

The Council’s position regarding the Pre-1944 overlay has been that it is a temporary overlay to be replaced with a more appropriate set of controls, such as the special character overlay, on appropriate areas by way of a future plan change. The PAUP sets out a timeframe of three years for the necessary work to convert the Pre-1944 overlay.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control Overlay and all of the provisions relating to it have been deleted in their entirety

The Panel has recommended that the Pre-1944 overlay be deleted and that Council pursue the creation of additional special character areas and scheduled historic heritage places through future plan changes without the assistance of the temporary overlay.

It is the Panel’s view that the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay is placing unnecessary constraints and burdens on landowners seeking to develop their properties in seeking to protect buildings with unidentified significant historic heritage value.

The Panel's recommendation is that the PAUP should only protect those items, places and areas that have been scheduled after being identified and evaluated and which satisfy the evaluation factors.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel for the following reasons:

a. The work to identify additional special character areas is underway in some parts of the refined overlay. The overlay was divided into 36 new areas and 20 areas that are extensions to existing special character areas. Of these, 11 priority areas have been progressed to date. These include:

i. Seven new areas (five residential, two business)

ii. Four extensions to existing areas (three residential, one business).

b. At the same time, the refined overlay contained a large number of places (approximately 500) identified to be of potential heritage interest. A prioritisation process was undertaken, and 31 places have progressed to a full evaluation and consideration for potential inclusion on the plan’s historic heritage place schedule.

c. These plan changes would be able to be notified in early 2017. Future work would be required to advance the balance of the identified areas and places.

B. The Panel recommends the retention of the Special Character overlay over the Howick business area

I. The Council position

Howick town centre was included in the Special Character overlay as a Business area. No buildings were identified as character buildings and there was no character statement. Because Howick was managed quite differently to other areas and because it was not considered to exhibit collective and cohesive values, Council proposed to remove the Howick Business area from the Historic Character overlay and manage it via a precinct instead.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel did not agree with council’s recommendation to delete the overlay from Howick, it supports submitters, such as the Howick Ratepayers and Residents’ Association. The Panel’s reasons include the need to retain the heights in the main street to ensure redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding area and to retain views to the north.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The extent of the Special Character overlay of the Panel recommendation is the same as the precinct. The height controls are very similar.

b. Howick was well represented at the PAUP hearings, with residents noting the importance of Howick as one of Auckland’s early settlements.

c. The built environment includes scheduled historic heritage places. The District Plan provisions as recommended by the Panel are more comprehensive than those proposed for Howick in the notified PAUP and will ensure any new development responds to the predominant character and built form of the place.

C. The Panel recommends removal of the precinct from Puhoi and including it in the Special Character overlay

I. The Council position

Puhoi was included in the Special Character overlay (Residential General). No buildings were identified as character buildings and there was no character statement. Council proposed to remove Puhoi from the Historic Character overlay, because it is a disparate collection of scheduled historic heritage buildings. Council proposed to manage the area via the notified precinct (with some amendments) which sought to manage the landscape setting/character of scheduled historic heritage places. The precinct covered a larger area than the Special Character overlay.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the proposed Puhoi Precinct is deleted and that Puhoi is included within the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business in recognition of the sense of place and character, manifested in its remaining historic buildings and in its strong community.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The extent of the Special Character overlay in Puhoi within the Panel recommendation is the same as the notified extent of the overlay. The built environment within the overlay area includes scheduled historic heritage places. The provisions as recommended by the Panel are more comprehensive than those proposed for Puhoi in the notified PAUP and will ensure any new development responds to the predominant character and built form of the place.

I. The Council position

Hill Park, Manurewa was not included in the Special Character overlay. It was previously a residential heritage area in the legacy Manukau City District Plan. Pukehana Avenue, Epsom was included in the Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control overlay

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel was persuaded by the extensive evidence of submitters to include these areas within the Special Character overlay

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The evidence presented by the submitters demonstrated the Hill Park area has a level of cohesion such that it warrants inclusion within the character overlay.

b. Pukehana Avenue was included within the revised spatial extent of the Pre-1944 overlay and the character summaries provided with the Council’s evidence considered the street (among others) to have sufficient values that it may be considered as a potential extension of the existing character overlay. The evidence presented by the submitters supported the inclusion and identification of Pukehana Avenue within the revised spatial extent of the pre-1944 overlay and clearly demonstrated the values met the criteria for inclusion within the character overlay

I. The council position

In the Special Character overlay as notified, a pre-1940 date applied to demolition or removal of buildings in the activity tables for Isthmus A and identified sites within Isthmus B and C.

A pre-1940 date also applied to demolition and additions and alterations to buildings within the North Shore special character areas via the assessment criteria to limit the application of Restricted Discretionary activity consent to buildings constructed prior to 1940.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation removes reference to the 1940 date applied to demolition or removal of buildings in the activity tables for all buildings in the Isthmus A, B and C Special Character areas and to Special Character Residential North Shore areas to standardise provisions across these areas.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The effect of deleting the date means that all development (total or substantial demolition, removal, relocation, additions, alterations and new buildings) within the character areas becomes subject to Restricted Discretionary activity consent and the associated assessment criteria.

Discussion

Technical matter:

F. The Panel recommends the deletion of the objective providing for management of heritage values at the Regional Policy Statement.

I. The council position

The Councils case at the Panel hearings was that the ‘Special Character’ overlay should be renamed “Historic Character’ in acknowledgement that areas subject to the overlay are part of the historic heritage continuum and the name historic character better describes those areas whose character is principally derived from historic values. The reason for this was to give clarity to what the provisions sought rather than to change the intent/outcome of the provisions. The relevant RPS objective reflected that approach to recognise that the purpose of the overlay is to manage change in areas that demonstrate a combination of identified historic heritage and amenity values.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel has recommended that this matter is addressed as special character, with the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) objective amended to recognise the amenity values of the special character areas with no objective on heritage values.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Special Character Areas overlay – Residential and Business district plan (DP) provisions and character statements recommended by the Panel identify both amenity and heritage values of the areas that are

addressed in the DP provisions. However the cascade down from the RPS to DP is not evident with no corresponding RPS objective resulting in a disconnect between the RPS and DP provisions.

6.3.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 010/029/030/079 – Special character and pre 1944, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below, which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTER

· The Panel recommends the deletion of the objective that provides for management of heritage values in the Regional Policy Statement

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Special Character Areas overlay – Residential and Business District Plan provisions and character statements recommended by the Panel identify the amenity and heritage values of the areas are to be addressed in the District Plan provisions. However the cascade down from the RPS to District Plan is not evident with no corresponding RPS objective resulting in a disconnect between the RPS and District Plan.

6.4 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 011 Rural Environment, July 2016”

Recommendation Report IHP – 011 – Rural environment

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of the objective on security of food supply

B. The Panel recommends including Landscape and biodiversity values in the RPS Rural Objectives.

C. The Panel recommends a different management approach for prime soils to the management approach for elite soils.

D. The Panel The Panel recommends deleting objectives and policies for rural subdivision that:

a. Prevent inappropriate subdivision

b. Promote the significant enhancement of indigenous biodiversity

c. Facilitate transfer of titles only into the Countryside living zone.

Discussion

Policy Matter

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of the objective on security of food supply

I. The council position

The PAUP as notified has an objective seeking to achieve food security for the region.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

In the rural objectives, emphasis has shifted away from “security of food supply” to “making a significant contribution to the food supply” for Auckland and New Zealand.

The Panel considered that food supply was more of an issue than food security per se.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The recommendation will still achieve the overall outcome proposed by the council at the hearings and is not contrary to the direction set in the Auckland Plan.

B. The Panel recommends including Landscape and Biodiversity values in the RPS Rural Objectives.

I. The council position

Landscape and biodiversity values were not explicitly addressed in the provisions, because they were addressed in other parts of the PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The addition of landscape and biodiversity values is now explicitly mentioned in the rural RPS objective.

The Panel considered that they should also be mentioned in the RPS - Rural section. This strengthens their importance.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a) The recommendation will still achieve the overall outcome proposed by the council at the hearings. It is not contrary to the direction set in the Auckland
Plan, and strengthens the importance of landscape and biodiversity values in rural areas.

C. The Panel recommends a different management approach for prime soils to the management approach for elite soils.

I. The Council position

Council wanted both elite and prime land to be treated the same – i.e. protected.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The strategy for elite land and prime land are now different with elite land to be protected (same as Council’s final position) and prime land is to be managed to enable its capability, flexibility and accessibility for primary production.

III. Staff comments– Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

The recommendation will still achieve the overall outcome proposed by the council at the hearings. It is not contrary to the direction set in the Auckland Plan and adopts a more pragmatic approach to protection of prime soils (in line with the King Salmon decision). A monitoring programme can be put in place following the PAUP becoming operative to determine how the provisions are working to inform a future plan change if necessary.

D. The Panel recommends deleting objectives and policies for rural subdivision that:

a. Prevent inappropriate subdivision

b. Promote the significant enhancement of indigenous biodiversity

c. Facilitate transfer of titles only into the Countryside living zone.

I. The Council position

The Council’s closing statement included objectives and policies around rural subdivision that sought to prevent sporadic and scattered rural subdivision, significantly enhance indigenous biodiversity in exchange for subdivision, and to limit receiver sites (from Transferable Rural Site Subdivision) to primarily the Countryside Living zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

Removes objectives and policies around rural subdivision that sought to prevent sporadic and scattered rural subdivision, to significantly enhance indigenous biodiversity, and to facilitate transfers of titles only into the Countryside Living zone. The Panel considers that in-situ subdivision for rural lifestyle purposes should be enabled subject to specific constraints on location, scale and density. The Panel considers that providing for this type of in-situ enhancement subdivision, promotes the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons.

The Panel’s recommended approach:

· Would enable inappropriate subdivision of the rural area through a proliferation of rural-residential lots across the production focussed rural zones (resulting in loss of rural production, reverse sensitivity, rural character and amenity, potential additional demands on infrastructure in remote locations).

· Undermine the Auckland Plan’s strategic direction for the rural areas and the concept of the compact city that inherently has as a benefit the retention and protection of rural areas (rather than their subdivision for rural-residential uses).

· Undermine the focus of rural lifestyle living to be in the Countryside Living zone.

6.4.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 011 – Rural Environment, July 2016 as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps , except for the recommendations outlined below, which it rejects:

The Panel recommends deleting objectives and policies for rural subdivision that:

a. Prevent inappropriate subdivision

b. Promote the significant enhancement of indigenous biodiversity

c. Facilitate transfer of titles only into the Countryside living zone.

POLICY MATTER

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

The Panel’s recommended approach would:

· Enable inappropriate subdivision of the rural area through a proliferation of rural-residential lots across the production focussed rural zones (resulting in loss of rural production, reverse sensitivity, rural character and amenity and potential additional demands on infrastructure in remote locations).

· Undermine the Auckland Plan’s strategic direction for rural areas.

· Does not support the concept of the compact city that inherently has as a benefit the retention and protection of rural areas (rather than their subdivision for rural-residential uses).

· Undermine focus of rural lifestyle living in the Countryside Living zone.

6.5 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 012 – Infrastructure, energy and transport, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearings except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends deletion of policies which encourage land use and transport integration and in particular, the location of higher intensity activities where those activities are served by key public transport services and routes

Discussion

Policy matter

I. The council position

Higher intensity land uses should be located where they can be serviced by the key public transport services and routes.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation is to use generic/neutral language when referring ‘public transport’. The general term has been applied throughout the PAUP to replace the more specific references, and in particular ‘rapid and frequent service network’

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Land use and transport integration are key considerations in the management of growth and the efficient use of the transport network.

6.5.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 012 – Infrastructure, energy and transport, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below, which it rejects:

A. The Panel recommends deleting policies which encourage land use and transport integration and in particular, the location of higher intensity activities where those activities are served by key public transport services and routes.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommended policy framework does not adequately address land use and transport integration which is a key consideration in the management of growth and the efficient use of the transport network.

6.6 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 013 – Urban growth, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearings except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the Rural Urban Boundary line be located at the district plan level

B. The Panel recommends that the Rural and Urban Boundary be deleted from rural and coastal towns and villages; and growth in new and expansion of existing rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of objectives and policies that seek to focus growth within the existing metropolitan area

D. The Panel recommends amendments to the policy that guides the location of the Rural Urban Boundary

E. The Panel recommends that commercial activities are enabled within centres and corridors

Discussion

Policy Matters

A. The Panel recommends the Rural Urban Boundary line be located at the district plan level

I. The council position

The Rural Urban Boundary was identified as a method in the Regional Policy Statement to implement the objectives and policies for managing growth to achieve a quality compact urban form. The Rural Urban Boundary line was identified on the maps as part of the Regional Policy Statement meaning that only the Council (or the Minister for the Environment) could move the line.

The Council’s position was that locating the Rural Urban Boundary at the Regional Policy Statement level provided the certainty necessary to enable the effective and efficient management of growth, particularly in relation to programming and funding infrastructure to serve growth and newly urbanised areas.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel did not agree with the Council’s position and recommended that the Rural Urban Boundary be retained but identified as a District Plan rule. Criteria for any
change is set out in the Regional Policy Statement so that there is a firm framework for any change. Such change can be initiated by parties in addition to the Council. The recommendation seeks to provide flexibility in the location of the Rural Urban Boundary should it emerge that more supply, or supply in more efficient locations, is required.

As a consequence there is no longer a Rural Urban Boundary at Waiheke because the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan does not form part of the PAUP at this stage. Therefore the Panel has no jurisdiction to apply a Rural Urban Boundary at Waiheke.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Locating the Rural Urban Boundary at the District Plan level relies on a strong policy framework being set out in the Regional Policy Statement to guide any changes as well as having to follow the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1.

b. The Panel’s recommended policy for changes to the Rural Urban Boundary is largely consistent with the policy proposed by the Council. Criteria to be considered when changing the Rural Urban Boundary include the protection of natural and physical resources that have been scheduled and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and its heritage features; ensuring significant adverse effects from urban development on receiving waters in relation to natural resource and Mana Whenua values are avoided, remedied or mitigated; and avoidance of elite soils, mineral resources and significant natural hazards.

c. Any changes proposed to the Rural Urban Boundary will be required to go through the statutory process set out in the first schedule of the RMA for private plan changes. The process requires evaluation of any proposal to consider whether it is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives; and the assessment of benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects that are anticipated.

d. The structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1 adequately address the matters that need be addressed through any plan change process.

e. Proposals to expand the existing urban area on Waiheke would be subject to either a non-complying resource consent or a private plan change request, which along with the objective and policies of the Hauraki Gulf Islands will be sufficient to guide decision making.

B. The Panel recommends that the Rural and Urban Boundary be deleted from rural and coastal towns and villages, and growth in new and expansion of existing rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled.

I. The council position

Limited growth is expected to occur in settlements. Council’s case identified that a Rural Urban Boundary would be applied around all serviced rural and coastal towns and villages to assist in managing the extension of settlements to ensure efficient infrastructure provision and retention of character. Some provision for limited expansion was provided in the PAUP prior to a Rural Urban Boundary being identified.

Council’s strategic policy position was that new towns and villages outside the Rural Urban Boundary should be avoided to achieve a quality compact urban form by focusing growth within existing areas.

A Rural Urban Boundary was not identified for any rural and coastal towns and villages within the PAUP. Council’s case on topic 016/017 identified a Rural Urban Boundary for some rural and coastal towns and villages but indicated further work was required to determine the rural settlements growth strategy and determine where growth is best located in these areas rather than consider these on a case by case basis.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel deleted the requirement for a Rural Urban Boundary around rural and coastal towns and villages and amended objectives and policies to enable growth and development of existing or new towns and villages.

Towns and villages throughout the region provide different housing choices and support rural communities and activities, and settlements should be able to grow organically.

The Panel considers that it is appropriate and necessary to provide for new towns and villages outside of the Rural Urban Boundary.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The approach recommended will enable growth of rural and coastal villages to be controlled by a combination of the restrictions on the intensity of rural subdivision and the expectation that any change of zoning, and in particular any change from a rural to an urban zone, will involve a structure planning process done in accordance with the structure plan guidelines in the PAUP (see Appendix 1 Structure plan guidelines).

b. The criteria for considering any new or expansion of existing rural and coastal town or village is sufficiently robust. Locations in or adjacent to areas that contain significant natural and physical resources are to be avoided. In addition, proposals are required to maintain and enhance the character of any existing town or village, provide adequate infrastructure, and avoid significant natural hazard risks and elite soils.

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of objectives and policies that seek to focus growth within the existing metropolitan area

I. The council position

Expression of the council’s growth strategy was reflected by objectives to contain urban growth within the Rural Urban Boundary primarily focused within the metropolitan area 2010, and to provide for up to 70 per cent of total new dwellings by 2040 within the metropolitan area and up to 40 per cent outside the metropolitan area (everywhere else).

The growth strategy as identified in the proposed plan reflected Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation deletes provisions relating to the 70/40 to provide a quality urban city.

The Panel considers that it is more important to promote a centres and corridors strategy and a quality compact urban form than any particular predetermined location of this capacity. The Panel’s view is that identification of the 70/40 distribution of capacity in the regional policy statement may in practice impede desirable growth in some areas for no good reason.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The lack of a specific objective and policy that indicates the primary location for growth is within the existing metropolitan area means that there is little or no guidance for where future growth should be enabled and encouraged.

b. The Panel’s recommendation does not have sufficient regard to the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy resulting in a misalignment with the council’s strategic directions

c. Focusing intensification within the existing urban area delivers the benefits of a quality compact urban form, which include better public transport, proximity to amenity and services, efficient infrastructure servicing, environmental protection, reduced carbon footprint

D. The Panel recommends amendments to the policy that guides the location of the Rural Urban Boundary

I. The council position

In response to the Panel’s interim guidance on topic 013 and 016/017 RUB the council recommended a new policy be inserted into the regional policy statement to provide greater transparency around the criteria to be considered by the council when identifying or changing the Rural Urban Boundary.

The drafting of the policy was on the basis that the Rural Urban Boundary remained at the regional policy statement and would not be subject to private plan changes.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

A new policy is included within the regional policy statement setting out the criteria for shifting the location of the Rural Urban Boundary and a requirement to follow the structure planning guidelines when doing so.

The Panel supports the inclusion of a policy in the regional policy statement along the lines advanced by the council’s planner, to set out the criteria for any change set out in the regional policy statement, so that there is a firm framework for any change but that such change can be initiated by parties in addition to Council.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. To support the Rural Urban Boundary at the district plan level the policy framework needs to be sufficiently clear and certain of the outcomes to enable inappropriate proposals to be turned down

b. The recommended policy does not include either providing a quality compact urban form or the importance of land use and transport integration

c. Reliance on the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1 to achieve these outcomes is inadequate because the guideline is not a policy

d. The Panel’s recommended policy does not reflect the Panel’s position it its report that the policy applies to requests to amend the Rural Urban Boundary and must follow the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1.

E. The Panel recommends that commercial activities are enabled within centres and corridors

I. The council position

The notified PAUP and the Council case included regional policy statement provisions to implement a ‘centres-plus’ commercial growth strategy. This strategy:

a. encourages commercial activities in the city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres;

b. enables commercial activities on Identified Growth Corridors; and

c. enables commercial activities in other areas, where appropriate.

The regional policy statement also provided criteria to evaluate whether new commercial activity in out-of-centre locations is appropriate.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommendation enables commercial activities:

a. in the city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres; and

b. along ‘corridors’.

‘Corridors’ is not a defined term and are much wider than the ‘Identified Growth Corridors’ identified as part of Council’s case version.

There are no regional policy statement criteria to evaluate whether the proposed location of new commercial activity is appropriate.

The Panel did not make any comment about this policy shift in their reports.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendations for the following reasons:

a. The ‘centres-plus’ commercial growth strategy has been removed. The strategy is considered to be an appropriate method to achieve land use, transport and infrastructure integration in centres, and provides a release valve that enables commercial activities in out-of-centre areas where this is appropriate

b. The district plan provisions have some objectives and policies that recognise the importance of centres but there is no vertical alignment to any objective or policies in the regional policy statement provisions

c. The absence of an RPS objective and related policies greatly weakens the ability to assess the effects of dispersed commercial activity (for example, land use and transport integration, effects on centres and community social and economic wellbeing)

d. The Panel has not provided reasons why the centres-plus strategy has been deleted

e. The centres-plus commercial strategy reflects the PAUP mediation, where the commercial and industrial growth provisions were agreed to by all parties present, except for one. The parties agreeing to the mediated position included the ‘Key Retail Group’ who has been heavily involved in the centres-plus strategy formation since the notification of Change 6 to the legacy Regional Policy Statement in 2005

6.6.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 013 – Urban growth, July 2016 as they relate to the content of the PAUP, and also the associated recommendations as they appear in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below, which it rejects:

POLICY MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of objectives and policies that seek to focus growth within the existing metropolitan area

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The lack of a specific objective and policy that indicates the primary location for growth is within the existing metropolitan area means there is little or no guidance for where future growth should be enabled and encouraged.

· The Panel’s recommendation does not have sufficient regard to the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy resulting in a misalignment with the Council’s strategic directions

· Focusing intensification within the existing urban area delivers the benefits of a quality compact urban form, which include better public transport, proximity to amenity and services, efficient infrastructure servicing, environmental protection and a reduced carbon footprint.

B. The Panel recommends amendments to the policy that guides the location of the Rural Urban Boundary

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· To support the Rural Urban Boundary at the District Plan level the policy framework needs to be sufficiently clear and certain of the outcomes to enable inappropriate proposals to be turned down

· The recommended policy does not include either providing a quality compact urban form or the importance of land use and transport integration

· Reliance on the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1 to achieve these outcomes is inadequate because the guideline is not a policy

· The Panel’s recommended policy does not reflect the Panel’s position in its report that the policy applies to requests to amend the Rural Urban Boundary and must follow the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1.

C. The Panel recommends that commercial activities are enabled within centres and corridors

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The ‘centres-plus’ commercial growth strategy has been removed. The strategy is considered to be an appropriate method to achieve land use, transport and infrastructure integration in centres, and provides a release valve that enables commercial activities in out-of-centre areas where this is appropriate.

· The District Plan provisions have some objectives and policies that recognise the importance of centres but there is no vertical alignment to any objective or policies in the regional policy statement provisions.

· The absence of a Regional Policy Statement objective and related policies greatly weakens the ability to assess the effects of dispersed commercial activity (for example, land use and transport integration, effects on centres and community social and economic wellbeing).

· The Panel has not provided reasons why the centres-plus strategy has been deleted.

· The centres-plus commercial strategy reflects the PAUP mediation, where the commercial and industrial growth provisions were agreed to by all parties present, except for one. The parties agreeing to the mediated position included the ‘Key Retail Group’ which has been heavily involved in the centres-plus strategy formation since the notification of Change 6 to the legacy Regional Policy Statement in 2005.

6.7 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 028 Future urban zone, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of subdivision in the Future Urban zone from a Prohibited activity to a Discretionary activity.

B. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of landfills in the Future Urban zone from a Non-complying activity to a Discretionary activity.

Discussion

Policy Matters

A. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of subdivision in the Future Urban zone from a Prohibited activity to a Discretionary activity.

I. The Council position

Council’s evidence supported providing for subdivision in the Future Urban zone as a Prohibited activity with the exception of subdivision for network utilities, rural industries, greenhouses, amendments to a cross lease and minor boundary adjustments to ensure orderly development of land for urban purposes, comprehensively designed urban development and the efficient provision of bulk infrastructure.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommended that it is important to pay close attention to potential subdivision which may hinder future urbanisation by fragmenting parcels of land and creating roads (whether formed or not) in ways that can result in urban form with poor amenity values and low levels of efficiency.

The recommended subdivision rules provide for all subdivision in the Future Urban Zone as a Discretionary activity, rather than subdivision for specified purposes such as network utilities and minor boundary adjustments.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. It is an important that the Plan does not facilitate the fragmentation of land, within the Future Urban zone, which might prevent or hinder efficient and well planned urbanisation with good urban form and efficient and orderly provision of infrastructure.

b. By allowing discretion, the recommended wording of the subdivision provisions in the Future Urban zone are unclear about the types of subdivision that could be promoted .

B. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of landfills in the Future Urban zone from a Non-complying activity to a Discretionary activity.

I. The Council position

The notified PAUP provides for landfills as a Non-complying activity in the Future Urban zone and in all rural zones.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendations make landfills a Discretionary activity in the Future Urban zone. The Panel have aligned the provisions in the Future Urban zone with the Rural Production zone in all respects other than activity status of landfills. The recommendation provides for landfills as a Non-complying activity in all rural zones for but not the Future Urban zone. No reason has been given in the recommendation report.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Landfills create significant long term adverse effects over a wide area, potentially irreversible changes and require detailed and careful management and should be addressed through as a Non-complying activity.

b. Changing the recommended Discretionary activity status to Non-complying activity status is consistent with the relevant objectives and the consistent management of this activity across the PAUP.

6.7.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council topic 028 – Future Urban zone, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of subdivision in the Future Urban zone from a Prohibited activity to a Discretionary activity

Reasons for rejecting the recommendation are:

· It is an important that the PAUP does not facilitate the fragmentation of land within the Future Urban zone, which might prevent or hinder efficient and well planned urbanisation with good urban form and efficient and orderly provision of infrastructure.

· By allowing discretion, the recommended wording of the subdivision provisions in the Future Urban zone is unclear about the types of subdivision that could be promoted.

B. The Panel recommends changing the activity status of landfills in the Future Urban zone from a Non-complying activity to a Discretionary activity.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Landfills create significant long term adverse effects over a wide area, potentially irreversible changes and require detailed and careful management and should be assessed as a Non-complying activity.

· Changing the recommended discretionary activity status to Non-complying activity status is consistent with the relevant objectives and the consistent management of this activity across the PAUP.

6.8 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 033/034 – General coastal marine zone and other coastal zones, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends a more restrictive approach for mangrove removal

B. The Panel recommends deletion of the specific provisions for houseboats

C. The Panel recommends no indication in the activity table for discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms of which standard applies to each activity.

E. The Panel recommends including in the definition of marine and port facilities reference to ‘sea walls’

Discussion

Policy matters

A. The Panel recommends a more restrictive approach for mangrove removal

I. The Council position

In the notified PAUP, mangrove removal is a Permitted activity in areas that were free of mangroves in 1996. Through the hearing process, the council supported a request to provide for mangrove removal in the Whangateau Harbour as a Permitted activity in areas that were free of mangroves in 1948. ‘Mangrove removal not otherwise provided for’ is a Restricted Discretionary activity.

II. The Panel Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel removed the Permitted activity status for mangrove removal from areas that were clear of mangroves in 1996 and the 1948 Permitted activity for the Whangateau Harbour. The activity status for ‘mangrove clearance not otherwise provided for’ is changed from Restricted Discretionary to Discretionary.

The Panel considered that the value of mangroves as indigenous flora and the need to weigh the competing interests in the coastal marine area can only be done through the consenting process on a case-by-case basis. The Panel found that the multiple dates, while attempting to determine a pre-mangrove or minor mangrove state, were arbitrary and not a sound basis to set planning controls.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The 1996 date was based on the availability of aerial photos across the region and did not have a clear link to environmental effects except that more recent mangroves generally have less ecological value than older mangroves. The 1996 limit was potentially unworkable in some cases because of difficulties in identifying the location of the limit on the ground.

b. The retention of limited Permitted activities (for mangrove seedling removal; for mangrove removal to enable the use of existing structures and infrastructure – maximum of 200m² except in areas identified as Significant Ecological Area – Marine 1, Outstanding Natural Character and Outstanding Natural Features where it is a maximum of 30m²) provides for some mangrove clearance without consent costs.

c. The objectives and policies provide clear direction for mangrove management. They establish that mangroves should be retained where they have significant ecological values or are mitigating coastal hazards. They also provide for mangrove removal where it restores other values, including natural character, ecological values, public access and navigation.

B. The Panel recommends deletion of the specific provisions for houseboats

I. The Council position

In the General Coastal Marine zone houseboats are a Discretionary activity. In the Mooring zone at Wharf Rd, Waiheke Island, four houseboats are a Restricted Discretionary activity and at the Rangihoua Creek mooring zone, seven existing houseboats are a Permitted activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommended the deletion of the provisions relating to houseboats. The Panel does not consider that living on board a vessel (houseboat) is a resource management issue in and of itself. They note that the effects from living on board a moored vessel, such as discharges from that vessel and access to and along the coastal marine area, are resource management matters and are appropriately controlled by the PAUP.

The Panel retained the definition of ‘houseboat’ and did not modify the definition of ‘vessel’ which lists houseboats as one of the forms of vessel to be included.

In Mooring zones, including the Rangihoua Creek and the Wharf Road Mooring zones, new and existing swing moorings (including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored) and pile moorings existing at 30 September 2013 (including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored) are Permitted activities. New pile moorings are a Restricted Discretionary activity. A Discretionary consent is required for moorings (and associated vessels) outside of the mooring zone. If a houseboat is anchored, rather than on a mooring, it can be in place for a maximum of 28 consecutive days before a consent is required as a Discretionary activity.

III. Staff comment – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The potential adverse effects of living on vessels can be managed under other controls such as those for sewage discharges and for occupation that restricts public access.

b. The Permitted activity status for vessels and moorings in the Mooring zone provides for various existing houseboats at Waiheke Island as was the Plan’s intention.

c. The Panel have removed the restriction on houseboats establishing in Mooring areas other than the two areas that were noted in the PAUP. Such vessels will need a permit from the Harbour Master and the only effects considered in that process relate to navigation safety. The recommendations may mean that houseboats could utilise space in Mooring zones and reducing the area available for other vessels. This situation could be monitored and reviewed in future. If it becomes a significant issue, a plan change could be undertaken.

Technical matters

C. The Panel recommends indication in the activity table for discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms an indication of which standard applies to each activity.

I. The Council position

The activity table for discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of vessels includes notes stating which controls apply to each permitted activity. These notes were agreed at mediation.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel accepted the provisions agreed at mediation but did not include the notes stating which particular controls (now called standards) apply to each activity. All the listed activities must now meet every standard. There is no specific reason given for not including the notes.

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendations of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. All of the listed bio-fouling Permitted activities must now meet every standard. This does not recognise that different combinations of controls should be applied to different risk-based scenarios.

b. This creates an unworkable situation that fails to meet the purposes the PAUP is trying to achieve (i.e. “encouraging” low-risk in-water cleaning, but imposing increasingly onerous standards as the level of cleaning risk increases).

c. Overly onerous requirements (i.e. capture all material to 50 microns) are now applied to low risk hull cleaning.

d. The controls are unworkable for higher risk bio-fouling as they are required to use gentle, non-abrasive methods.

D. The Panel recommends including in the definition of marine and port facilities reference to ‘sea walls’

I. The Council position

The definition of ‘marine and port facilities’ should not include ‘seawalls’. These are included within the definition of ‘hard protection structures’.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel included ‘seawalls’ in the definitions of both ‘marine and port facilities’ and ‘hard protection structures’.

III. Staff comment – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendations of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. It creates confusion and uncertainty to include seawalls in two terms which are used in different rows of activities tables.

b. In the Minor Port zone, Port precinct and Gabador Place precinct these have a different activity status (Permitted and Restricted Discretionary).

c. The Panel accepted other proposals to explicitly include hard protection structures in these areas but also included seawalls in the definition of marine and port facilities. They should be only within hard protection structures.

6.8.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 033/034 – General coastal marine zone and other coastal zones, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends no indication within the activity table for discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms of which standard applies to each activity

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· All of the listed bio-fouling Permitted activities must now meet every standard. This does not recognise that different combinations of controls should be applied to different risk-based scenarios.

· This creates an unworkable situation that fails to meet the purposes the PAUP is trying to achieve (i.e. “encouraging” low-risk in-water cleaning, but imposing increasingly onerous standards as the level of cleaning risk increases).

· Overly onerous requirements (i.e. capture all material to 50 microns) are now applied to low risk hull cleaning.

· The controls are unworkable for higher risk bio-fouling as they are required to use gentle, non-abrasive methods.

B. The Panel recommends including in the definition of marine and port facilities reference to ‘sea walls’

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· It creates confusion and uncertainty to include seawalls in two terms which are used in different rows of activities tables.

· In the Minor Port zone, Port precinct and Gabador Place precinct these have a different activity status (Permitted and Restricted Discretionary).

· The Panel accepted other proposals to explicitly include hard protection structures in these areas but also included seawalls in the definition of marine and port facilities. They should be only within the definition of hard protection structures.

6.9 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 050 to 054 City Centre and business zones, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. Port Precinct – The Panel recommends that all reclamation, other than minor reclamation for the purpose of repairs and maintenance (including remedial or rehabilitation work) is a Discretionary activity rather than a tiered approach with Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary and Non-complying activities for reclamation in Areas A, B and C on precinct plan 4.

B. Port precinct - The Panel recommends that new wharves (and alterations to existing wharves) are a Restricted Discretionary activity rather than a tiered approach with Discretionary and Non-complying activities in Areas A, B and C on precinct plan 4.

C. Queens Wharf viewshaft – The Panel recommends that the PAUP does not include a viewshaft.

D. The Panel recommends deleting the pre-1940 building demolition control from Queen St Valley and Karangahape Road Precincts.

E. The Panel recommends deleting standards relating to building work and internal design matters addressed in the Building Code: admission of daylight to dwellings, universal access to residential buildings

F. The Panel recommends deleting prescriptive design based standards and addressing design matters through the resource consent process for: ground floor entrances at street frontage level, glazing and ground floor activities.

G. Quay Park Precincts – The Panel’s recommendation to delete framework plans has resulted in a consequential amendment in the Quay Park Precinct

H. Wynyard Precinct – The Panel recommend deleting framework plans which has resulted in a consequential amendment to the height and gross floor area controls in the Wynyard Precinct.

I. Queen Street Valley Precinct – The Panel’s recommendation to delete the pre – 1940 building demolition control from the Queen Street Valley Precinct.

J. The Panel recommends the deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard in the City Centre and business zones.

K. The Panel recommends the deletion of urban design standards in business zones

L. The Panel recommends the deletion of internal design standards for dwellings in the city centre

M. The Panel recommends the height in Newmarket Metropolitan Centre be increased to the standard zone height of 72.5m

N. The Panel recommends a Height in Relation to Boundary control within the Mixed Use Zone and between the Mixed Use Zone and the General Business Zone.

O. The Panel recommends a recession plane indicator diagram which is inconsistent with the Height in Relation to Boundary controls in all business zones

P. The Panel has recommended the deletion of specific standards to manage development within natural hazards areas within the Port Precinct.

Discussion

Policy Matters

I. The council position

A tiered approach with Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary and Non-complying activities for reclamation in the identified Areas A, B and C on precinct plan 4.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

All reclamation, other than minor reclamation for the purpose of repairs and maintenance (including remedial or rehabilitation work) is a Discretionary activity.

The Panel considers:

a. this is consistent with the activity status in the other port precinct areas;

b. the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 sets out a policy approach of avoiding further reclamations unless a number of criteria can be satisfied;

c. the Regional Policy Statement gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and similarly seeks to avoid further reclamation, but accepting that this may be appropriate in some circumstances;

d. the areas shown as A, B and C in Precinct 4 are arbitrary regardless of which party was suggesting the area;

e. that reclamations are a significant activity and can have both positive and adverse effects, such that a full assessment under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 should be able to be carried out for any application;

f. that the matters of discretion retained for the Restricted Discretionary activity reclamation were very broad and of little difference to Discretionary activities; and

g. the PAUP (as recommended by the Panel) no longer has a general non-notification default for Restricted Discretionary activities.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. A Discretionary activity provides that a full assessment of effects, both positive and adverse, can be undertaken. A Discretionary activity is consistent with other waterfront and port areas in the PAUP. The policy approach is consistent with the NZCPS and RPS.

B. Port precinct – The Panel recommends that new wharves (and alterations to existing wharves) are a Restricted Discretionary activity rather than a tiered approach with Discretionary and Non-complying activities in Areas A, B and C on precinct plan 4.

I. The council position

A tiered approach with Discretionary and Non-complying activities in the identified Areas A, B and C on the precinct plan.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

New wharves (and alterations to existing wharves) are a Restricted Discretionary activity. This matter was not discussed in the Panel’s recommendation report.

III. Staff comment - Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter.

a. The matters of discretion and assessment criteria allow for appropriate consideration of relevant matters. The approach is consistent with the NZCPS and RPS.

C. Queens Wharf viewshaft – The Panel recommends that the PAUP does not include a viewshaft.

I. The council position

Council supported a viewshaft from the end of Queens Wharf out to the harbour it its rebuttal evidence. It was not in the PAUP as notified.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has not included the Queens Wharf viewshaft in the PAUP. The Panel considers that the viewshaft is a major policy shift that would be better to include through a plan change with appropriate consultation. The viewshaft could have significant implications for the operation of the port.

III. Staff comment - Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. This provision is discrete and can be revisited later via a plan change if required.

D. The Panel recommends deleting the pre-1940 building demolition control from Queen St Valley and Karangahape Road Precincts. Refer to Topic 032 – Historic Heritage for discussion.

I. The council position

The city centre zone included standards to control admission of daylight to dwellings and universal access to residential buildings.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel considers the standards go beyond the Council’s authority in relation to land use control under RMA and into controls on building work which is within the ambit of the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code.

III. Staff comment – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. These provisions are discrete and can be revisited later via a plan change if required.

I. The council position

The City Centre zone included standards to control ground floor entrances at street frontage level, glazing and ground floor activities

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting some prescriptive design based standards and addressing design matters through the resource consent process. The Panel considers design matters are better addressed through assessment criteria, rather than standards.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Design matters can be adequately addressed through assessment criteria, rather than standards.

G. Quay Park Precinct - The Panel recommendation to delete framework plans has resulted in a consequential amendment in the Quay Park precinct

I. The council position

Framework plans were a method used in the Quay Park precinct and this included a height precinct plan that applied a “post-framework plan” which provided for increased building height.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation to delete framework plans has resulted in a consequential amendment in the Quay Park Precinct with the additional height enabled through the framework plan process (in sub-precinct A) being deleted. This matter is not specifically addressed in the Panel report.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. An application to infringe the height standard can be applied for as a Restricted Discretionary activity. As such, the change is considered to be relatively minor.

H. Wynyard Precinct – The Panel’s recommendation to delete framework plans has resulted in a consequential amendment to the height and gross floor area controls in the Wynyard Precinct.

I. The council position

Framework plans were a method used in the Wynyard Precinct to encourage intergrated development by allowing for increased building height and gross floor area once a framework plan is approved.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation’s and Reasons

a. The Panel’s recommendation has meant the deletion of additional height and site intensity precinct plans that applied “post-framework plan” and

assessment criteria associate with framework plans. The “pre-framework plan” site intensity and height allowancesare significantly lower than previously enabled through the framework plan process

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The recommended deletion of the post-framework plan height and site intensity provisions significantly reduces the development potential of Wynyard Precinct expressly enabled in the notified PAUP and may potentially result in the inefficient use of this City Centre land and public infrastructure

b. The recommended deletion of all assessment criteria previously relating to framework plans results in a disconnect between the objectives and policies, and the rules of the Precinct

c. The recommendation will prevent the development of sites fronting Jellicoe Street for non-marine uses (i.e. apartments and retail) contrary to the Wynyard Quarter Urban Design Strategy, and the objectives and policies, for Wynyard precinct

d. The recommended changes to provisions were not sought by any submitter to the Wynyard Precinct.

I. Queen Street Valley Precinct – The Panel’s recommendation to delete the pre – 1940 building demolition control from the Queen Street Valley Precinct.

I. The council position

The total demolition or substantial demolition (more than 30% by volume), or any demolition of the front façade of a building constructed prior to 1 January 1940 was a Restricted Discretionary activity in this Precinct.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends the deletion of the pre-1940 building demolition control from the Queen Street Valley precinct.

The Panel considers that while the cut-off year is different, the reasons for this recommendation are the same as for the deletion of the pre-1944 building demolition control elsewhere in Auckland. This includes that the control is placing unnecessary constraints and burdens on landowners seeking to develop their properties in seeking to protect buildings with unidentified significant historic heritage value

III. Staff comments – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The maintenance and enhancement of the pre-1940 buildings in the Queen Street Valley Precinct is integral to maintaining its special character

b. The retention and protection of special character buildings constructed prior to 1940 maintains the integrity and coherence of the built form and architecture, and the streetscape within this area.

c. the pre-1940 trigger and its application was determined as a result of survey work.

J. The Panel recommends the deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard in the City Centre and business zones.

I. The Council position

The city centre zone and business zones include standards for minimum dwelling size.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has recommended the deletion of the standard for minimum dwelling size.

The Panel considers that the rule goes beyond the Council’s authority in relation to land use control under the RMA and into controls on building work and internal design matters which is within the ambit of the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code.

III. Staff comment – Reject - Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Building Act does not address social or design quality effects associated with small dwellings. It is therefore necessary to manage these through the district plan

b. Intensive living environments require internal living spaces which are functional and which provide for amenity to meet the day- to-day needs of residents

c. This will assist to maintain the social wellbeing of the community, support social cohesion and thereby support further intensification within urban environments as these areas become desirable places to live

Discussion

Technical Matters

K. The Panel recommends the deletion of urban design standards in business zones

I. The Council position

The Council’s case had rules in the commercial zones concerning the following urban design matters; buildings fronting the street (I3.4.6), building entrances (I3.4.7) minimum floor to floor height (I3.4.8), glazing (I3.4.9), roller doors (I3 1.1 Activity table), verandahs (I3.4.13) and building frontage height (I3.4.14).

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends deleting these rules but addressing them using assessment criteria (H9.8.2(2)).

The Panel did not provide specific reasons for this change in their reports.

III. Staff comment – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Council’s case sought to use rules to provide a permitted baseline level of effects against which applications can be assessed. The Panel has recommended a more flexible approach through the use of assessment criteria.

b. The outcomes sought by the rules remain but a different tool is recommended. These changes are consistent with the recommended changes to urban design provisions across the PAUP. Built form outcomes can be monitored and addressed in a future plan change if the recommended tool does not deliver the preferred outcomes.

L. The Panel recommends the deletion of internal design standards for dwellings in the city centre

I. The Council position

The Council’s case have rules concerning minimum internal design standards for dwellings and other matters (I3.4.20). These include; admission of daylight to dwellings, minimum dimension of principal living rooms and bedrooms, dwelling mix, storage, servicing and waste, separation between buildings on the same site and universal access to buildings. These rules are supported by appropriate assessment criteria.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends deleting these rules. Some of the matters remain in assessment criteria. The Panel’s view is that a more enabling approach is the most appropriate to help achieve a quality compact city and 'unlock' needed residential development capacity.

The Panel also considers the standards go beyond the Council’s authority in relation to land use control under the RMA and into controls on building work which is within the ambit of the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code.

III. Staff comment – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Built form outcomes can be monitored and addressed in a future plan change if the recommended tool does not deliver the preferred outcomes.

M. The Panel recommends the height in Newmarket Metropolitan Centre be increased to the standard zone height of 72.5m

I. The Council position

The height in the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre is 32.5m. This height is broadly consistent with the volcanic viewshafts that transect the centre.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends a height limit of 72.5m in the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre. This is consistent with their guidance that the PAUP should not have two controls seeking to control the same outcome.

III. Staff comment – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Some plan users may find this approach confusing as two height controls apply to the area. However the effective height limit remains broadly the same, as the floor of the volcanic viewshafts transecting the centre have not been amended. Similar outcomes are likely to be achieved using the Panel’s approach.

N. The Panel recommends a Height in Relation to Boundary control within Mixed Use Zone between the Mixed Use Zone and the General Business Zone.

I. The Council position

Neither the notified PAUP or Council’s case team version has a similar Height in Relation to Boundary control.

II. The Panel Recommendation and reasons

The Panel’s recommendation applies a Height in Relation to Boundary control of 8m + 60° at the interface between: (Table H.13.6.2.1 Height in relation to boundary)

a. sites in the Mixed Use zone that are adjacent to other sites in the Mixed Use zone; and

b. sites in the Mixed Use zone that are adjacent to the General Business zone.

The Panel did not make any comment about this provision in their reports.

III. Staff comment – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. an internal Height in Relation to Boundary control in the Mixed Use zone is not considered appropriate as:

i. it could unduly constrain development on Mixed Use zone sites;

ii. other controls protect the amenity of adjoining Mixed Use zoned sites; and

iii. no other business zones have an internal height in relation to boundary control.

b. In addition, it is considered unnecessary to provide a Height in Relation to Boundary control on sites in the Mixed Use zone in favour of adjacent General Business zone sites. The anticipated amenity in the Mixed Use zone is higher than that anticipated in the General Business zone so it is unnecessary to ‘protect’ General Business zoned sites from the potential effects of sites zoned Mixed Use.

O. The Panel recommends a recession plane indicator diagram which is inconsistent with the Height in Relation to Boundary controls in all business zones

I. The Council position

Council’s case had a recession plane indicator diagram which is a tool to assist plan users to determine what Height in Relation to Boundary control should apply, depending on the boundary to which the building is adjacent. With the exception of the General Business zone, each business zone (e.g. Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, Mixed Use and Business Park zones) has different Height in Relation to Boundary controls for buildings located at different orientations (e.g. located on the southern boundary when adjacent to Open Space zones). The recession plane indicator diagram assists plan users in locating the southern boundary and the relevant zone table will supply the correct Height in Relation to Boundary control.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommended diagram is very similar to Council’s case version but instead of showing which boundary applies, the diagram provides actual recession planes of 35 degrees, 45 degrees and 55 degrees. These recession plans are inconsistent with the relevant zone Height in Relation to Boundary table which provides the correct recession planes (eg Figure

H9.6.2.3 Recession plane indicator for sites adjacent to an open space zone). The Panel did not make any comment about this provision in their reports.

III. Staff comment – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. This appears to be a technical error. While the diagrams are similar, the Panel’s recommended diagram shows a 55 degree and 35 degree notation shown for the north and south boundaries respectively. These recession planes are not reflected in the Panel’s recommended provisions, as shown in Table H.6.2.1 in each business zone. Consequently, the diagram and tables are inconsistent, which will lead to confusion and potential error.

b. In addition, the diagram has been included in the General Business zone, which does not contain an orientation-based rule. It should therefore be deleted from the General Business zone.

P. The Panel has recommended the deletion of specific standards to manage development within natural hazards areas within the Port Precinct.

I. The Council position

‘Bespoke’ standards were developed to enable port operations within natural hazard areas, primarily coastal hazard areas and in relation to overland flow paths.

These bespoke standards were proposed because the Auckland wide provisions, designed to identify natural hazard areas at a regional scale did not take into account the unique functions and features of the port area. The Port is functionally required to be located where it is and as a result is subject to several natural hazards. Given the well understood nature of the port operations, standards were developed and supported to enable port activities and ensure that hazard risk to other property were managed.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has recommended the inclusion of a Port Precinct. The Port precinct provisions do not include the standard for development within natural hazard areas. Therefore, the Auckland wide provisions apply.

III. Staff comment – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The lack of bespoke port provisions result in them being unworkable in relation to enabling the port activities to take place within natural hazard areas in the Port precinct.

6.9.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 050-054 – City Centre and business zones, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

· Wynyard Precinct

· Wynyard Precinct – The Panel’s recommendation to delete framework plans has resulted in a consequential amendment to the height and gross floor area controls in the Wynyard Precinct.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The recommended deletion of the post-framework plan height and site intensity provisions significantly reduces the development potential of Wynyard Precinct expressly enabled in the notified PAUP and may potentially result in the inefficient use of this City Centre land and public infrastructure

· The recommended deletion of all assessment criteria previously relating to framework plans results in a disconnect between the objectives and policies, and the rules of the Precinct

· The recommendation will prevent the development of sites fronting Jellicoe Street for non-marine uses (i.e. apartments and retail) contrary to the Wynyard Quarter Urban Design Strategy and the objectives and policies for Wynyard Precinct

· The recommended changes to provisions were not sought by any submitter to the Wynyard Precinct.

· Queen Street Valley Precinct – The Panel’s recommendation to delete the pre – 1940 building demolition control from the Queen Street Valley Precinct.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The maintenance and enhancement of the pre-1940 buildings in the Queen Street Valley Precinct is integral to maintaining its special character

· The retention and protection of special character buildings constructed prior to 1940 maintains the integrity and coherence of the built form and architecture, and the streetscape within this area.

· the pre-1940 trigger and its application was determined as a result of survey work.

· The Panel recommends the deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard in the City Centre and business zones.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Building Act does not address social or design quality effects associated with small dwellings. It is therefore necessary to manage these through the district plan

· Intensive living environments require internal living spaces which are functional and which provide for amenity to meet the day- to-day needs of residents

· This will assist to maintain the social wellbeing of the community, support social cohesion and thereby support further intensification within urban environments as these areas become desirable places to live

TECHNICAL MATTERS

· The Panel recommends a Height in Relation to Boundary control within Mixed Use Zone between the Mixed Use Zone and the General Business Zone.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· an internal Height in Relation to Boundary control in the Mixed Use zone is not considered appropriate as:

§ it could unduly constrain development on Mixed Use zone sites;

§ other controls protect the amenity of adjoining Mixed Use zoned sites; and

§ no other business zones have an internal height in relation to boundary control.

· In addition, it is considered unnecessary to provide a Height in Relation to Boundary control on sites in the Mixed Use zone in favour of adjacent General Business zone sites. The anticipated amenity in the Mixed Use zone is higher than that anticipated in the General Business zone so it is unnecessary to ‘protect’ General Business zoned sites from the potential effects of sites zoned Mixed Use.

· The Panel recommends a recession plane indicator diagram which is inconsistent with the Height in Relation to Boundary controls in all business zones

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· This appears to be a technical error. While the diagrams are similar, the Panel’s recommended diagram shows a 55 degree and 35 degree notation shown for the north and south boundaries respectively. These recession planes are not reflected in the Panel’s recommended provisions, as shown in Table H.6.2.1 in each business zone. Consequently, the diagram and tables are inconsistent, which will lead to confusion and potential error.

· In addition, the diagram has been included in the General Business zone, which does not contain an orientation-based rule. It should therefore be deleted from the General Business zone.

F. The Panel has recommended the deletion of specific standards to manage development within natural hazards areas within the Port Precinct.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The lack of bespoke port provisions result in them being unworkable in relation to enabling the port activities to take place within natural hazard areas in the Port precinct.

6.10 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 058 – Open space, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel’s recommends amending the activity status for new buildings and additions, height and gross floor area threshold standards.

Discussion

Policy Matter

A. The Panel’s recommends amending the activity status for new buildings and additions, height and gross floor area threshold standards.

I. The Council position

New buildings and additions were permitted activities subject to compliance with standards which included height and gross floor area. These standards varied across the five open space zones reflecting the outcomes sought in each zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends new buildings and additions (apart from small scale public amenities and parks infrastructure) be a Discretionary activity, except in the Open Space – Community zone.

The height control is recommended to be removed (apart from 4m for small scale public amenities and parks infrastructure), so that each new building is to be assessed on a case by case basis in the context of the site.

The recommended maximum gross floor area standard is 50m² for all Open space zones (except the Open Space – Community zone where it is 300 m²).

Overall, the Panel has recommended a policy shift towards open space remaining as ‘open’ as possible and to provide greater protection from adverse effects for adjoining neighbours.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the recommendation fails to appropriately balance the need to use public open space effectively and manage pressure to use open spaces as population increases, with the need to manage impact on neighbours.

b. the recommendation imposes a single approach across all zones and does not appropriately regoncise the values and purpose of each zone.

6.10.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 058 – Open space, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

A. The Panel recommends amending the activity status for new buildings and additions, and the height and gross floor area standards for the Open Space zones

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The recommendation does not appropriately balance the need to use public open space effectively (and manage pressure to use open spaces as population increases), with the need to manage impacts on neighbours.

· The recommendation imposes a single approach across all Open Space zones and does not appropriately recognise the values and purpose of each zone.

6.11 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 059 to 063 – Residential zones, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel has recommended amendments to the purpose of the Single House Zone

B. The Panel has recommended that minor dwellings are provided for in the Single House Zone.

C. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the density control in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

D. The Panel has recommend the deletion of development standards relating to garages (percentage of front façade and set back) and dwellings fronting the street

E. The Panel has recommended that Integrated Residential Developments are provided for as a Restricted Discretionary activity in the Single House zone.

F. The Panel has recommended the deletion of Retained Affordable Housing provisions.

G. The Panel has recommended amending the threshold for requiring resource consent from three or more dwellings to five or more dwellings in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones (MHU).

H. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard.

I. The Panel recommends the deletion of front fence rule and deleting policies relating to streetscape from the Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace House and Apartment Building zones.

J. The Panel has recommended amending the Height in Relation to Boundary Controls in the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones.

K. The Panel has recommended amendments to apply the Height in Relation to Boundary Control and the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Control to the front boundary within the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The Height in Relation to Boundary adjoining lower intensity zones is recommended to apply to the front boundary within the Mixed Housing Urban zone.

L. The Panel has recommended the deletion of a standard relating to reticulated water supply and wastewater network capacity and moving the matter to assessment criteria.

M. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the definition of building coverage.

Discussion

Policy Matters

A. The Panel has recommended amendments to the purpose of the Single House Zone

I. The Council Position

In the notified PAUP the Single House zone provided for low density suburban housing characterised by one house per site of one to two storeys. The Council’s position at the hearing was to amend the purpose of the zone to clarify that the zone should apply in areas with identified natural/built character, areas with environmental/infrastructure constraints and areas not in close proximity to the public transport network or centres or large urban facilities.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the purpose of Single House zone is to maintain and enhance the amenity values of established residential neighbourhoods in a number of locations. It specifies that these neighbourhood amenity values may be based on special character informed by the past, spacious sites with large trees, a coastal setting or other factors such as neighbourhood character. The purpose is clarified to provide for housing choice and that the Single House Zone may be applied in greenfield developments.

III. Staff Comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. the amended purpose of the zone provides for a range of living options and choices which is not contrary to the direction set in the Auckland Plan and is generally consistent with the council’s positions at the hearing.

B. The Panel has recommended that minor dwellings are provided for in the Single House Zone

I. The Council Position

Minor dwellings are not provided for in the notified PAUP and were only proposed through the Council’s evidence at the hearings as a permitted activity in the Single House zone where located within historic character areas outside of an identified flood plain.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends providing for minor dwellings throughout the Single House zone up to 65m²in area.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. Minor dwellings were provided for in a number of the legacy district plans.

b. Minor dwellings will provide greater housing choice in the Single House zone.

C. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the density control in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

I. The council position

Council’s position at the hearing was to retain a density control of one dwelling per 200m² and remove the density control where the site is greater than 1000m²to enable more efficient use of land within the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel supports the retention of the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to facilitate some intensification while retaining a more suburban character, generally defined by buildings of up to two storeys. It recommends removing the density provisions to enable a more flexible approach to multi-unit developments where core standards (those directly affecting adjoining and nearby sites) are met.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. Deleting the density control for sites less than 1000m² in the Mixed Housing zone will enable greater housing choice and capacity and encourage a range of dwelling sizes across many parts of Auckland.

b. Suburban character and amenity issues are better addressed by bulk and location controls and through the design review process for multi-unit developments.

D. The Panel has recommend the deletion of development standards relating to garages (percentage of front façade and set back) and dwellings fronting the street

I. The Council position

The Council’s position at the hearing was to manage the effects on the streetscape in all zones (except the Large Lot zone) and to maintain on site amenity within the higher density zones by applying these rules as development standards.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel finds that a more enabling approach is the most appropriate to help achieve a quality compact city and 'unlock' needed residential development capacity. The Panel also considers that for developments of five or more dwellings, requiring a Restricted Discretionary consent, will provide for such matters to be part of the council’s overall design assessment.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The adverse impacts of garages dominating streets and poorly designed street frontages is primarily an issue for multi-unit developments, not stand-alone houses.

b. Amendments are proposed by staff later in this section of the report that would allow the council to adequately assess the location and design of garages and street frontages for residential development of three or more dwellings.

E. The Panel has recommended that Integrated Residential Developments are provided for as a Restricted Discretionary activity in the Single House zone.

I. The Council position

Within the Council’s closing position retirement villages are a Discretionary Activity in the Single House zone where large scale multi-unit developments are not anticipated.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has enabled Integrated Residential Development, including retirement villages, as a Restricted Discretionary activity.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the assessment of this intensity of development in the Single House Zone as a Restricted Discretionary activity and with limited potential for notification is contrary to the stated purpose and associated objectives and policies of the zone.

b. a full assessment as a Discretionary Activity is a more appropriate approach for the assessment of Integrated Residential Developments in the Single House zone.

F. The Panel has recommended the deletion of Retained Affordable Housing provisions.

I. The council position

The notified PAUP included objectives, policies and methods to require all residential developments of more than 15 dwellings to include provision for ’Retained Affordable housing’ of at least 10 per cent of the units. Retained Affordable housing was defined to mean dwellings sold or rented at a rate such that households on 80 to 120 per cent of the median household income for Auckland would spend no more than 30 per cent of their gross income on rent or mortgage repayments. Future transfers of these dwellings would be controlled as to price or rent by the use of encumbrances on the land, with purchasers or tenants being required to demonstrate their eligibility to meet the affordability requirements.

Through its evidence in response to submitters' issues, the Council's position was modified to a mixed mandatory / bonus-based approach. This meant that the affordable housing could be a combination of income-related and price-relative housing. Future plan changes (such as rezoning future urban land to a live urban zoning) were to incorporate a mandatory requirement of 10% of dwellings to be affordable. For development of already zoned land, a selected range of bonuses were identified, mostly relating to additional height. Affordable housing was to be provided where those bonuses were taken up.

The income-related housing was to be subject to a retention mechanism to control future sale prices. This could include purchase of the dwelling by a Community Housing Provider. Certain types of residential development were exempt from the requirement, such as developments including social housing and retirement villages.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting the objectives, policies and methods for Retained Affordable housing as, in its view, the affordable housing provisions as proposed by the Council would likely reduce the efficiency of the housing market due to effectively being a tax on the supply of dwellings and be redistributional in their effect, and that this is not an appropriate method under the RMA.

The Panel recommends that the most appropriate way for the PAUP to address housing affordability is by enabling a significant increase in residential development capacity and a greater range of housing sizes and types.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. the Panel’s recommended zoning and amendments to the residential provisions will enable a significant uplift in feasible enabled capacity and an increase in housing types to increase the supply of housing over the next 30 years.

b. it is accepted that this has the potential to make a far greater difference to the supply of more affordable dwellings that the Retained Affordable housing provisions

I. The council position

Under the notified PAUP, four or more dwellings in the Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones, and two or more dwellings in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone require resource consent so that design matters can be assessed. In response to various submissions the Council proposed to reduce the number of dwellings that can be constructed as a permitted activity from three to two in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones. This means that resource consent would be required for three or more dwellings to assess their design and appearance

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel recommends that up to four dwellings are permitted as of right on sites zoned Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban provided they meet all the applicable development standards. Five or more dwellings would require a Restricted Discretionary activity consent in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones.

The Panels has recommended that all dwellings in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone require a Restricted Discretionary activity consent.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the Panel’s recommended controls manage the bulk and location of buildings to provide for privacy, daylight access, and ratio of buildings to open space. However, the recommended development controls do not manage quality residential outcomes such as:

i. amenity and safety of the street or public open spaces

ii. the quality of building appearance, including modulation and articulation (e.g. the avoidance of large blank walls facing the street, parks or neighbouring properties)

iii. the interrelationship between a number of amenity attributes including safety, daylight, sunlight, privacy, functionality, and visual amenity associated with multi-unit development.

b. the Panel accepts that reliance on development controls alone is insufficient to achieve the character and quality objectives of the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones as it recommends a resource consent assessment for multi-unit development of five or more dwellings.

c. submitters who presented evidence at the hearing supported the two dwelling permitted threshold (i.e resource consent required for three or more dwellings). These submitters included a broad cross-section of community groups and developers (Auckland 2040, Housing NZ, Property Council, Fletcher Residential, Herne Bay Residents Association, Todd Property and Ockham developments).

d. no evidence was provided at the hearing stating that requiring a resource consent for three or four dwellings would be a disincentive to development.

e. there is a high risk that permitting four dwellings without resource consent will result in poor design outcomes, particularly at the street interface

H. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard

I. The council position

A minimum dwelling size control was applied in the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terraced Housing and Apartment zones to control internal on site amenity in multi-unit developments to ensure dwellings are functional and of a sufficient size for the day-to-day needs of residents.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends that minimum dwelling sizes should be deleted as a standard for two main reasons: the relationship between the Building Act 2004 and the RMA and whether a minimum dwelling size is a resource management issue.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

Discussion

Technical Matters

I. The council position

The Council position includes objectives and policies relating to streetscape issues, and includes rules to manage garages and fences in the Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban Zones and the Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation has an objective to achieve quality amenity from the street but there is no policy to support this in any residential zones. The Panel has also recommended deletion of the front fence rule and this now defaults to 2.5m, which is higher than the maximum height of side and rear fences (2m).

III. Staff Comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. this matter is not addressed in the Panel report and may be a drafting error given that the amenity of the street is still included in the residential zone objectives.

b. permitting front fences up to 2.5m will result in poor streetscape outcomes

J. The Panel has recommended amending the Height in Relation to Boundary Controls in the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones.

I. The council position

The council position included the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Control as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation provides for both the Height and Relation to Boundary Control and the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Control as a Permitted Activity.

III. Staff Comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Rule is more enabling than the Height in Relation to Boundary control and should be assessed as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

I. The council position

The council proposed that the Height in Relation to Boundary Control, the Alternative Height and Relation to Boundary Control and the Height in Relation to Boundary adjoining lower intensity zones should not apply to road boundaries.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s drafting of these rules is unclear.

III. Staff Comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Applying the Height in Relation to Boundary Control and the Alternative Height and Relation to Boundary Control to the road boundary will result in the upper floors of buildings being set back from the street, which is the part of the site most able to absorb the effects of additional building bulk and where outlook is available.

L. The Panel has recommended the deletion of a standard relating to reticulated water supply and wastewater network capacity and moving the matter to assessment criteria.

I. The Council Position

The Council position provided a rule and assessment criteria requiring sufficient water and wastewater capacity to be available for any new dwelling in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones and the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building Zone to ensure that resource consents for multiple

dwellings are not approved for proposed developments that cannot be serviced due to a lack of capacity in the water and wastewater network.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommendations remove the control and provide for this as a matter of assessment only. The matter of assessment has not been applied to dwellings or integrated residential development. Also the criteria now refer to on site wastewater systems.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the recommended assessment criteria relating to on site wastewater systems appears to be a drafting error, as this is applied to zones that do not rely on on-site wastewater systems.

b. the criteria as drafted could create issues for Watercare as some applicants may think they can build septic tank systems within serviced urban areas, contrary to legislation.

c. it is important to allow for an assessment of wastewater network capacity for multi-unit developments

M. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the definition of building coverage.

I. The council position

Building coverage is defined.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has deleted this definition for no specific reason.

III. Staff Comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the definition of building coverage clarified that eaves of buildings are not included in the calculation of building coverage. The deletion of the definition would result in the inclusion of eaves in the coverage calculation which could discourage the provision of eaves in order to comply with the control.

6.11.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 059 to 063 – Residential zones, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

A. The Panel has recommended that Integrated Residential Developments are provided for as a Restricted Discretionary activity within the Single House Zone

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The assessment of this intensity of development in the Single House zone as a Restricted Discretionary activity is contrary to the stated purpose and associated objectives and policies of the zone.

· A full assessment as a Discretionary Activity is a more appropriate approach for the assessment of Integrated Residential Developments in the Single House zone.

B. The Panel has recommended amending the threshold for requiring resource consent from three or more dwellings to five or more dwellings in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones (MHU)

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommended controls manage the bulk and location of buildings to provide for privacy, daylight access, and ratio of buildings to open space. However, the recommended development controls do not manage quality residential outcomes such as:

o amenity and safety of the street or public open spaces

o the quality of building appearance, including modulation and articulation (e.g. the avoidance of large blank walls facing the street, parks or neighbouring properties)

o the interrelationship between a number of amenity attributes including safety, daylight, sunlight, privacy, functionality, and visual amenity associated with multi-unit development.

· Submitters who presented evidence at the hearing supported the two dwelling permitted threshold (i.e. resource consent required for three or more dwellings). These submitters included a broad cross-section of community groups and developers (Auckland 2040, Housing NZ, Property Council, Fletcher Residential, Herne Bay Residents Association, Todd Property and Ockham developments).

· No evidence was provided at the hearing stating that requiring a resource consent for three or four dwellings would be a disincentive to development.

· There is a high risk that permitting four dwellings without resource consent will result in poor design outcomes, particularly at the street interface.

C. The Panel has recommended that deletion of the minimum dwelling size standard.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· In the Residential zones it is considered that the minimum dwelling size standard should still be applied to developments of three or more dwelling units

· The Building Act does not address social or design quality effects associated with small dwellings. It is therefore necessary to manage these through the district plan

· Living environments associated with three or more dwelling units require internal living spaces which are functional and which provide for amenity to meet the day- to-day needs of residents

TECHNICAL MATTERS

C. The Panel has recommended deleting the front fence rule and policies relating to streetscape from the Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace House and Apartment Building zones

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Permitting front fences up to 2.5m will result in poor streetscape outcomes.

· This matter is not addressed in the Panel report and may be a drafting error given that the amenity of the street is still included in the residential zone objectives.

D. The Panel has recommended amending the Height in Relation to Boundary Controls in the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Rule is more enabling than the Height in Relation to Boundary control and should be assessed as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

E. The Panel has recommended amendments to apply the Height in Relation to Boundary Control and the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary Control to the front boundary within the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The Height in Relation to Boundary adjoining lower intensity zones is recommended to apply to the front boundary within the Mixed Housing Urban zone.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Applying the Height in Relation to Boundary Control and the Alternative Height and Relation to Boundary Control to the road boundary will result in the upper floors of buildings being set back from the street, which is the part of the site most able to absorb the effects of additional building bulk and where outlook is available.

F. The Panel has recommended the deletion of a standard relating to reticulated water supply and wastewater network capacity and moving the matter to assessment criteria.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The recommended assessment criteria relating to on site wastewater systems appears to be a drafting error, as this is applied to zones that do not rely on on-site wastewater systems.

· The criteria as drafted could create issues for Watercare as some applicants may think they can build septic tank systems within serviced urban areas, contrary to legislation.

· It is important to allow for an assessment of wastewater network capacity for multi-unit developments.

G. The Panel has recommended the deletion of the definition of building coverage.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The definition of building coverage in the PAUP clarified that eaves of buildings are not included in the calculation of building coverage. The deletion of the definition would result in the inclusion of eaves in the coverage calculation which may discourage the provision of eaves.

6.12 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 064 Subdivision – rural, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the Council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of objectives, policies and rules that enable sporadic and scattered rural subdivision.

B. The Panel recommends the inclusion of provisions that allow for minimal environmental benefits to be accepted in exchange for rural-residential subdivision.

C. The Panel recommends the no specific site sizes for Countryside Living subdivision in the Caldwells Road area in Whitford.

Discussion

Policy Matters

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of objectives, policies and rules that enable sporadic and scattered rural subdivision.

I. The Council position
The Council’s closing statement contained objectives, policies and rules to direct subdivision of the rural area to be primarily in the Countryside Living zone. This included no allowance for in-situ sites to be created for wetland protection and a limit of 3 sites to be created in-situ for either protecting existing SEA or where 5ha of planting is added to an existing SEA. All other sites generated through bush or wetland protection were required to be transferred into the Countryside Living zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons
The Panel has not distinguished between in-situ and Transferable Rural Site Subdivision in regard to the numbers of sites able to be created. The Panel has allowed 12 in-situ sites (bush protection) and no cap on in-situ sites for wetlands and revegetation planting. The Panel did not consider that the Council’s transferable rural site subdivision would achieve much due to its restrictive nature, in particular the limited receiver areas.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The provisions will enable inappropriate subdivision of the rural area through a proliferation of rural-residential lots across the production focussed rural zones (resulting in loss of rural production, reverse sensitivity, rural character and amenity, potential additional demands on infrastructure in remote locations).

b. The provisions undermine the Auckland Plan’s strategic direction for the rural areas.

c. The provisions do not support the concept of the compact city that inherently has as a benefit the retention and protection of rural areas (rather than their subdivision for rural-residential uses)

d. The provisions do not make it clear that the focus of rural lifestyle living is the Countryside Living zone

B. The Panel recommends the inclusion of provisions that allow for minimal environmental benefits to be accepted in exchange for rural-residential subdivision.

I. The Council position

The Council’s closing statement allowed for only SEA areas identified on the overlays to be protected in exchange for in-situ or transferable subdivision rights. The Council’s ratios of environmental protection to titles created started at 5ha for indigenous vegetation (bush) and 5,000m² for wetlands.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel has broadened the range of bush/wetland that can be protected in exchange for rural-residential sites. This now includes any bush/wetland that simply meets certain SEA factors. The Panel considered that for the purposes of subdivision both identified SEAs and areas that are not identified SEAs (but could meet the criteria) should be considered the same. The Panel were also cognisant that not all areas satisfying the significant ecological area factors had been mapped by Council.

The Panel has also reduced the minimum areas to be protected in exchange for subdivision. In some cases this is five times less than the Council’s position. For example the Panel’s table allows for two new sites to be created where:

a. 2.0001ha of bush is protected compared to the Council’s position of 10ha.

b. 5,001m² of wetland is protected compared to the Council’s position of 1ha.

The Panel considers that the proposed minimum areas will produce significant environmental benefits.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The provisions will enable potentially inappropriate subdivision of the rural area with minimal environmental gains.

b. The provisions enable subdivision of sites with SEA factors as opposed to identified SEAs. The SEA factors are not suitable to be used for rural subdivision assessment as they:

i. Were made for a different purpose (assessing significance for vegetation protection – not for assessing whether the ecological value of an area would mitigate rural subdivision).

ii. Were designed to be applied in a single, comprehensive manner across the region, not in isolation on a case by case basis. Site by site assessment in isolation will result in over-estimation of the significance of sites.

c. The provisions will enable a potentially significant increase in the number of rural-residential lots that can be generated (particularly in relation to wetland and revegetation planting subdivision).

C. The Panel recommend no specific site sizes for Countryside Living subdivision in the Caldwells Road area in Whitford.

I. The Council position
The Council’s closing statement did not support a new Whitford 2 precinct, but

rather to amend the Countryside Living subdivision table to have a minimum site size of 1ha (minimum average of 2ha) and no transfers enabled for the Caldwell Road area. This alternative approach was agreed with the submitter (Camperdown Holdings Limited).

I. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons
The subdivision table in the Panel’s provisions does not specifically refer to the Caldwell Road area. Rather, the subdivision provisions for this area are grouped together with the wider Whitford area which has a minimum site size of 2ha (minimum average of 4ha). The Panel did not specifically cover the Caldwell Road area in its report.

II. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. the minimum site size for the Caldwells Road area was agreed with the submitter (Camperdown Holdings Limited) during the hearings process as an appropriate alternative mechanism to a Precinct.

b. the Panel’s report is silent on this matter and it seems to be an error.

6.12.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 064 – Subdivision - rural, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of objectives, policies and rules that enable sporadic and scattered rural subdivision

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommended provisions will enable inappropriate subdivision of the rural area through a proliferation of rural-residential lots across the production focussed rural zones (resulting in loss of rural production, reverse sensitivity, rural character and amenity and potential additional demands on infrastructure in remote locations).

· The provisions undermine the Auckland Plan’s strategic direction for the rural areas.

· The provisions do not support the concept of the compact city that inherently has as a benefit the retention and protection of rural areas (rather than their subdivision for rural-residential uses).

· The provisions do not make it clear that the focus of rural lifestyle living is the Countryside Living zone.

B. The Panel recommends the inclusion of provisions that allow for minimal environmental benefits to be accepted in exchange for rural-residential subdivision

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The provisions would enable potentially inappropriate subdivision of the rural area with the minimal environmental gains.

· The provisions enable subdivision of sites with Significant Ecological Area (SEA) factors as opposed to identified SEAs. The SEA factors are not suitable to be used for rural subdivision assessment as they:

i. Were made for a different purpose (assessing significance for vegetation protection – not for assessing whether the ecological value of an area would mitigate rural subdivision).

· The provisions will enable a potentially significant increase in the number of rural-residential lots that can be generated (particularly in relation to wetland and revegetation planting subdivision).

C. The Panel’s absence in recommending specific site sizes for Countryside Living subdivision in the Caldwells Road area in Whitford.

· The minimum site size for the Caldwells Road area was agreed with the submitter (Camperdown Holdings Limited) during the hearings process as an appropriate alternative mechanism to a Precinct.

· The Panel’s report is silent on this matter and it may be an omission.

6.13 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 075 – Waitakere Ranges, July 2016

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends replacing prohibited activity status with non-complying activity status for subdivision in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay

B. The Panel recommends deleting the over-arching Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area precinct and replacing it with a new overlay

C. The Panel recommends conversion of precincts into two new rural zones – the Waitakere Ranges zone and the Waitakere Ranges Foothills zone

D. The Panel recommends rezoning of areas previously subject to precincts and relying instead on the underlying core PAUP zone

E. The Panel recommends removal of some activities where they are managed by bylaws, where they are unnecessary or where they are managed by other rules

F. The Panel recommends double-tagging [rp/dp] the activity tables in the Rural – Waitakere Ranges Foothills zone and the Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone Sites

Policy Matter

A. The Panel recommends replacing prohibited activity status with non-complying activity status for subdivision in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay

I. The Council position

Subdivision in the Heritage Area in the PAUP was managed within the precincts which contained specific plans identifying subdivision patterns. Subdivision beyond the density specified was a prohibited activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel considers that non-complying activity status is appropriate within the context of an overall policy framework that seeks to limit subdivision. Further, that retaining a prohibited status for subdivision imposes a high cost on applicants who wish to challenge the status quo. Overall the Panel considers that a non-complying status for subdivision beyond that which is allocated is more enabling for people and communities and that any proposals for subdivision are required to be assessed under sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act and sections 7 and 8 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

III. Staff comments – Accept – staff support the Panels’s recommednaiton on this matter and agree with the reasons provide by the Panel.

a. Provisions protecting the Heritage Area are retained and will achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

Technical matter

B. The Panel recommends deletion of the over-arching Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area precinct and replacing it with a new overlay

I. The Council position

The over-arching Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area precinct contained objectives and policies that managed subdivision, use and development within the Heritage Area and gave effect to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting the over-arching precinct and replacing it with a new overlay which applies to the area identified in Schedule 1 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

The Panel believes that the introduction of the overlay, which applies to all zones within the Heritage Area and contains all of the subdivision provisions based on earlier plan changes and structure plans, is the most effective method to ensure that the impacts on the Heritage Area as a whole are considered. The Panel also believes that by including the subdivision provisions in one layer, they are easier for Plan-users to locate and it enables additional sites to be added to the schedule at a later date following site-specific analysis and evaluation.

III. Staff comments – Accept – Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provide by the Panel.

a. Provisions protecting the Heritage Area are retained and will achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

C. The Panel recommends conversion of precincts into two new rural zones – Waitakere Ranges zone and Waitakere Foothills zone.

I. The Council position

The council position adopted a precinct-approach to manage area-specific provisions. It considered that a precinct-approach was the best way to reflect bespoke legacy rules and give effect to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. It also considered that a single zone may not deliver the outcomes required for the Heritage Area.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting the precincts and applying two new rural zones. Any sub-precincts which the precincts contained and which provided site-specific subdivision rules are moved to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay as scheduled subdivision areas.

The Panel considers that the new Waitakere Ranges zone, which replaces the Waitakere Ranges and Bush Living precinct, mirrors the provisions of the Rural Conservation zone and provides limited opportunity for growth and development. The Panel considers that the new Waitakere Ranges Foothills zone mirrors the Countryside Living zone but recognises the rural character of the foothills and its importance in providing a buffer between the urban area and the natural landscapes of the Ranges. Even though the two new zones mirror the existing rural zones as described, the objectives and policies that apply to the new zones are specific to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. Further, the Panel considers that the introduction of two new zones is the best method to manage land use and activities in the area in favour of the precinct-approach which they consider only manages a few activities that are different to those provided for in the Rural Conservation zone or the Countryside Living zone.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Provisions protecting the Heritage Area are retained and will achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

D. The Panel recommends rezoning of areas previously subject to precincts and relying instead on the underlying core PAUP zones

I. The Council position

The notified PAUP provided for a number of precincts, sub-precincts and policy areas throughout the Heritage Area which reflected the specific requirements for subdivision, use and development. Precincts were also applied over the “Large Property Management Areas” – Bethells, Wainamu and Te Henga.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting most precincts (with the exception of Bethells, Wainamu, Te Henga and Oratia Village), all sub-precincts and all sub-policy areas and instead relying on underlying core zones. Precincts removed are: Titirangi/Laingholm and Titirangi Village, the Coastal Villages and Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

The Panel considers that the main function of the Titirangi/Langholm precinct, sub-precincts and policy areas (including Titirangi Village) was subdivision control and that, once these provisions are transferred to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay, the underlying zones (namely the Large Lot zone and the Local Centre zone) will provide an appropriate management framework which has little difference to that of the underlying zones.

The Panel considers that the Coastal Villages Precinct was similarly unnecessary and rezoned it to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. It also recommended that several sites were rezoned from Rural Conservation zone to Neighbourhood Centre zone to better reflect the existing use of these sites and to enable the activities provided for under this zone.

The Panel considers that the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park Precinct should be removed as it is more appropriately managed by its open space zoning.

III. Staff comments - Accept – staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. Provisions protecting the Heritage Area are retained and will achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

E. The Panel recommends removal of some activities where they are managed by bylaws, where they are unnecessary or where they are managed by other rules

I. The council position

The council’s position reflected the numerous activities that were provided for in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and many were not defined in the PAUP.

II. The Panel recommendation and reasons

The Panel considers that many activities should be deleted as there are other methods under which they are regulated (such as ‘expansion of lawfully established activities’ which is controlled under section 10 of the Resource Management Act, or by bylaws).

III. Staff comments - Accept – staff support the Panel’s recommendations on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

Provisions protecting the Heritage Area are retained and will achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

F. The Panel recommends double-tagging [rp/dp] the activity tables in the Rural – Waitakere Ranges Foothills zone and the Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone Sites

I. The council position

The activity tables for the precincts within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area did not include any tagging for regional matters.

II. The Panel recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends the tagging of specific sections or provisions of the PAUP as being part of the regional policy statement, the regional coastal plan or the district plan. The Panel has tagged the activity tables for both new zones (Waitakere Ranges and Waitakere Ranges Foothills) with Regional Plan and District Plan.

III. Staff comments – Reject – staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel for the following reasons:

a. as a result of this, the activity tables for both of the recommended new zones is now a regional plan rule or an unspecific part of the activity table is a regional plan rule, which leads to uncertain interpretation.

b. any activities tagged as “rp” but which do not relate to functions of a regional council are arguably ultra vires

c. the tagging of the entire activity table will result in significant consequences for landowners generally and requiring authorities in particular.

The elevation of the activities contained in the activity table were not the subject of any submission, hearing or assessment under section 32AA.

6.13.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 075 – Waitakere Ranges, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTER

A. The Panel recommends double-tagging [rp/dp] the activity tables in the Rural – Waitakere Ranges Foothills zone and the Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone sites

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· As a result of the Panel’s recommendations, the activity tables for both of the recommended new zones is now a Regional Plan rule or an unspecific part of the activity table is a Regional Plan rule, which leads to uncertain interpretation.

· Activities tagged as “rp” but which do not relate to functions of a regional council are arguably ultra vires

· Tagging the entire activity table will result in significant consequences for landowners generally and requiring authorities in particular.

6.14 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 080/081 – Rezoning and precincts (Geographical areas/specific precincts) and 016 and 017 Rural urban boundary, July 2106”

IHP – 080 Rezoning and precincts (General), and 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographic areas) and 016 and 017 – Rural urban boundary

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

South

A. The Panel recommends removal of the Rural Urban Boundary at Crater Hill and Pukaki Peninsula, Puhinui

B. The Panel recommends extension of the Rural Urban Boundary to include Pararēkau and Kuahingahinga Islands

C. The Panel recommends rezone Pararekau (northern) Island from Countryside Living to Single House

D. The Panel recommends the underlying zoning of Clevedon Waterways to be changed from the Rural Coastal zone to Rural Settlement, Neighbourhood Centre and Informal Recreation zones and a new precinct

West

E. The Panel recommends extension of the Rural Urban Boundary into the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and Waitakere Foothills Zone at the following locations:

• 7–11 Christian Road, Swanson (rezone to Residential – Large Lot)

• 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley (rezone to Residential - Single House)

• 121-123 Parrs Cross Road, Oratia (rezone to Residential - Single House)

F. The Panel’s absence of recommending mechanisms within the Redhills precinct relating to the provision of transport infrastructure

G. The Panel’s absence of recommending the inclusion in the Westgate precinct of the indicative roading pattern required to achieve an effective transport network

Rodney

H. The Panel recommends extension to the Rural Urban Boundary in the following areas:

• North of Hatfields Beach

• West of Orewa from the Grand Drive motorway interchange and south to Wainui;

• Pine Valley Road area;

• Land at the intersection of Kahikatea Flat Road and Dairy Flat Highway;

• Dairy Flat east of the motorway to include an area around and to the north of the Penlink designation.

I. Rezoning of part of the Wainui Future Urban zone to urban zones

J. The Panel’s absence of recommending new mechanisms within the new Wainui precinct for the provision of transport infrastructure

K. The Panel recommends extension to the Rural Urban Boundary in the following areas:

• North-East of Warkworth comprising 180 ha of land east of Matakana Road, and on both sides of Sandspit Road

• West of Warkworth, Future Urban zoning has been extended to the alignment of the Puhoi to Warkworth Motorway designation on the western side of the Mahurangi River and the Viv Davie Drive and Francis Place country side living area .

L. The Panel recommends rezoning of Warkworth Future Urban zones to live zones (Light Industry and General Business):

• Warkworth North bounded by the Showgrounds, Great North Road and Goatley Road rezoned to Light Industry

• Warkworth West on the corner of Hudson Road and Great North Road rezoned to General Business.

M. The Panel recommends the rezoning of the Kumeu Showgrounds from Mixed Rural to Countryside Living

N. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Riverhead 2 and Riverhead 4 precincts and the rezoning of part of the land (389ha), adjoining Riverhead, under the former precinct rezoned from Future Urban Zone to Rural - Countryside Living Zone.

O. The Panel recommends the addition of a new precinct at Hatfields Beach

P. The Panel recommends the application of the Large Lot zone at 47-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach

North

Q. The Panel recommends extension of the Rural Urban Boundary north of the Vaughans Road ridgeline into the Okura catchment at a location to the east of Okura village.

R. The Panel recommends the application of a new precinct to the land north of Vaughans Road, Okura and rezoning approximately 130ha of land from Countryside Living to Mixed Housing Suburban, Large Lot, Open Space Conservation and Open Space – Informal Recreation.

S. The Panel’s absence of recommending mechanisms within the Okura precinct relating to the provision of transportation infrastructure and the Panel’s absence of recommending how the spatial extent of recommended sub-precincts A and B apply to the land.

T. The Panel recommends the deletion of the precinct and reliance upon the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) designation (Designation 6010)

U. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Takapuna 2 precinct and reliance upon the provisions of the underlying zones (Terraced House and Apartment Buildings and Business – Metropolitan)

V. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Milford 2 precinct

W. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Gulf Harbour precinct and the rezoning of areas from Mixed Housing Suburban zone to Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone.

Central

X. The Panel recommends deletion of the Sylvia Park Precinct

Discussion – South

Policy Matters

A. The Panel recommends the removal of the Rural Urban Boundary at Crater Hill and Pukaki Peninsula, Puhinui

I. The Council position

The above area was outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP. This area and the wider Puhinui area had a Precinct Plan which was the result of detailed structure planning.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends removing the Rural Urban Boundary from the precinct, including from the Pukaki peninsula and around Pukaki Crater and Crater Hill.

The Panel does not support Council’s proposed zonings for Sub-precincts C and, H (Crater Hill and Pukaki peninsula) but recommends a Future Urban Zone for Sub-precinct C and Pukaki peninsula; and a mix of residential and open space zoning for new Sub-precinct I – Crater Hill.

The Panel is satisfied the residential zonings and provisions proposed by submitters for Crater Hill are appropriate, while ensuring that the feature itself is protected.

Pukaki peninsula is described as a rural island whose soils are not significant in terms of their ability to sustain food production.

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Crater Hill area is not suitable for urban development because it lies within the Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF) overlay, it is a significant geological feature and has significant cultural heritage and landscape value to Mana Whenua. It also contains prime soils.

b. The Pukaki Peninsula is not suitable for urban development because it has significant cultural heritage and landscape value to Mana Whenua, lies partly within the ONF overlay for Pukaki Crater, and contains significant areas of elite soils, all of which would be extensively compromised by urban development.

c. Part of the Pukaki Peninsula is under the proposed High Aircraft Noise Area (HANA) and Moderate Aircraft Noise Area (MANA) for the future northern runway as proposed by Auckland International Airport. These noise areas restrict the establishment of urban activities sensitive to aircraft noise such as dwellings.

B. The Panel recommends the extension of the Rural Urban Boundary to include Pararekau and Kuahingahinga Islands

I. The Council position

The above areas were outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel considers that leaving the islands outside of the Rural Urban Boundary will result in the under-utilisation of land which is suitable for a greater urbanisation. The islands more logically form an extension to the urban area given the urban development that surrounds them, rather than retaining them as rural or ‘countryside living’.

The Panel were of the view, that due to the islands’ location and the nature of the existing urban development surrounding them, enabling more urban development here will assist in creating a quality compact urban form.

The rural and coastal character of the islands, the landscape amenity values that arise from that character, ecological, heritage and cultural values are not of such significant value to prevent urban development, and those values can be managed through appropriate planning controls in the PAUP, including the zoning and precinct provisions. The Panel notes that the islands are not covered by any scheduled overlays.

Coastal erosion and sea level rise matters have been addressed to the Panel’s satisfaction.

The Panel considers that the islands are able to be served by all necessary public infrastructures.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

C. The Panel recommends rezoning Pararēkau (northern) Island from Countryside Living to Single House

I. The Council position

Pararēkau Island was zoned Countryside Living in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel considers that a Single House zone for Pararēkau Island is appropriate, as the zone has been applied to the residential land on the adjacent mainland and is consistent with the larger lot sizes shown on the concept plan that had been prepared.

The Panel’s view is that the Single House zone would also avoid the prospect of future infill subdivision, which may not be appropriate in the context of coastal land that is not located close to an existing centre.

The recommended provisions give effect to the controlled development of the Pararēkau Island for urban residential purposes, while protecting those features of the natural and cultural environment, in particular those relating to Kopuahingahinga Island.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

D. The Panel recommends the underlying zoning of Clevedon Waterways to be changed from the Rural Coastal zone to Rural Settlement, Neighbourhood Centre and Informal Recreation zones

I. The council position

At the hearings Council did not support the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP as the inclusion of the precinct was considered to result in significant adverse cultural, landscape, and water quality effects.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has recommended accepting the landowner’s submission and has recommended the rezoning of 540 North Road from Rural Coastal zone to Rural Coastal Settlement zone, Neighbourhood Centre zone and Informal Recreation zone. The Panel also recommends a new precinct generally reflecting the relief sought by the submitters.

The recommended Clevedon Waterways Precinct is to enable canal housing. The Panel considers the recommended precinct, and zone, achieves the Regional Policy Statement direction and that the proposal's adverse cultural, landscape, and water quality effects can be managed by way of a resource consent.

With regard to the cultural effects the Panel considers that Ngai Tai’s unwillingness to engage and silence on the development does not provide grounds for rejecting the proposal. The panel considers that a resource consent process will enable Nga Tai to engage with the landowners with regard to their concerns.

The Panel is satisfied that landscape effects can be addressed through design and mitigation, required by the recommended provisions and will not lead to significant adverse landscape effects.

The Panel is satisfied that the issues in relation to water quality can be managed by way of future resource consents and notes that the submitters' evidence identified and considered the water quality issues.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The addition of the precinct and changes to zoning enables development that will have significant adverse cultural effects. It is not consistent with the Regional Policy Statement Mana Whenua provisions, is inconsistent with sections 6(e) and 7(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, and does not address the Deed of Settlement between Nga Tai and the Crown (7 November 2015) which identifies the Wairoa River as a Statutory Acknowledgement area. The recommended precinct provisions are considered inadequate in recognising and addressing cultural matters, there is no direct provision in the precinct for the active involvement of Mana Whenua in sustainable management and overall the precinct provisions do not promote a meaningful participation of Nga Tai.

b. The recommended precinct provisions and recommended zoning do not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, and are inconsistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 with respect to having significant adverse effects on natural character, the coastal environment, landscape and amenity

c. The proposed precinct will introduce a substantial urban element which will break through the coastal edge of the site, impacting adversely on natural character of the site, its river margins and the coastal environment beyond the site. The Panel relies on proposed mitigations which include substantial areas of slow growing native re-vegetation to achieve a level of visual integration of development into the coastal margin. The type of re-vegetation proposed will be slow to mature and result in adverse effects on the coastal environment.

d. The precinct is also considered to result in adverse effects on water quality. The recommended precinct provisions do not adequately address the concerns raised in the Council’s evidence regarding potential antifouling / water quality effects.

e. Concerns are also held that the precinct provisions address a number of matters which are not considered to be ‘resource management’ issues. Objectives and policies include the establishment and on-going responsibilities of a body corporate. This is not a resource management issue and furthermore there are no assessment criteria that can be translated into a condition of consent to address the implementation of those policies.

Discussion – West

Policy Matters

E. The Panel recommends the extension of the Rural Urban Boundary into the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and Waitakere Foothills zone at the following locations:

a. 7–11 Christian Road, Swanson (rezone to Residential – Large Lot)

b. 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley (rezone to Residential - Single House)

c. 121-123 Parrs Cross Road, Oratia (rezone to Residential - Single House)

I. The Council position

The above areas were outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel Recommendation and reasons

The Panel considers that 7-11 Christian Road should be included in the Rural Urban Boundary because of its proximity to the Swanson train station, the submitter’s evidence and concept plan showing that residential development can provide a contrast between the urban area and the rural character of the foothills, and the Residential – Large Lot Zone recognises the landscape quality of the area and provide outcomes consistent with the intent of the Ranges Heritage Area Act.

The Panel is satisfied with the submitter’s evidence that 112 Simpson Road is suitable for residential development and inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary because of its easy access, the indicative development plan, the ridgeline protection overlay, and the landscape evidence showing how the site could be developed in a manner that achieves the purpose of the Ranges Heritage Area Act.

The Panel is satisfied that 121-123 Parrs Cross Road should be included in the Rural Urban Boundary on the basis of the submitter’s evidence that this property is suitable for urban development with a Residential – Single House zone within the Ranges Heritage Area Overlay because it is serviced and has good access and forms a logical extension of the existing urban area.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

F. The Panel’s absence of recommending mechanisms within the Redhills precinct relating to the provision of transport infrastructure

I. The council position

Council’s position at the hearing did not support the submissions seeking urban zoning of the Redhills land due to unresolved infrastructure issues.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel supports a new precinct at Redhills, west of Westgate Metropolitan Centre and recommends the adoption of changes proposed by submitters. The Panel considers that the area known as Redhills should be live zoned.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. While the urban zoning and the creation of a precinct is accepted, the specific provisions relating to transport infrastructure provision need to be revised, and associated text amended to clarify the transport requirements for Redhills, both within the area and in the context of the wider transport networks.

G. The Panel’s absence of recommending the inclusion in the Westgate precinct of the indicative roading pattern required to achieve an effective transport network

I. The council position

Council supported the retention of Westgate precinct, and also supported removing the sub precinct from the light industrial land, as the council considered that the zone adequately manages activity in that area and the sub-precinct was not required.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel supports the removal of sub-precinct F as it believed the underlying zone adequately provides controls in relation to trade suppliers.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

While Council supports the removal of sub-precinct F, its removal has had the effect of deleting the indicative roading pattern for this part of Westgate. The indicative roading pattern is vital to achieve an efficient and effective transport network, and therefore should be re-included in the precinct. As a consequence, text in the precinct requires amendment to correctly reference the re-instated indicative roads.

Discussion – Rodney

Policy Matters

H. The Panel recommends an extension to the Rural Urban Boundary in the following areas:

a. North of Hatfields Beach

b. West of Orewa from the Grand Drive motorway interchange and south to Wainui;

c. Pine Valley Road area;

d. Land at the intersection of Kahikatea Flat Road and Dairy Flat Highway;

e. Dairy Flat east of the motorway to include an area around and to the north of the Penlink designation.

I. The Council position

The above areas were outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel Recommendation and reasons

The Panel is recommending the extension of the RUB in these areas because these areas meet the Panel’s recommended criteria in the Regional Policy Statement for shifting the Rural Urban Boundary.

The Panel considers that the areas will form a substantial new urban area which will assist in meeting demand for growth north of the city. The land is typically of easy topography and is close to the motorway. The overall area is contained by the motorway to the east (excepting for that portion east of the motorway) and by steeper hill country to the west. The areas can provide for large scale development and can be planned and developed in a coherent manner, linking with the existing urbanised areas

III. Staff Comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

I. The Panel recommends the rezoning of part of the Wainui Future Urban zone to live zones: (Single House zone, Mixed Housing Suburban zone, Mixed Housing Urban zone, Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, Neighbourhood Centre zone, Local Centre zone, Open Space - Informal Recreation zone and Open Space - Conservation zone).

I. The Council position

This area of Wainui was zoned Future Urban in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The submitter has a total landholding of 223 hectares at Wainui consisting of the Wainui East Special Housing Area and surrounding properties. The land has road access to State Highway 1 through the Wainui Road interchange and is not reliant on the Silverdale interchange.

The Panel considers that infrastructure issues have been appropriately considered through the structure planning undertaken by Redvale Quarry Limited and that further issues can be resolved through the staging of subdivision and development and the application of the relevant zone and Auckland-wide provisions.

The Panel also considers that an opportunity exists to build upon the Wainui East (Argent Lane) Special Housing Area within a timeframe that will meet the expected demand for future development in this locality and the required infrastructure can be funded and constructed.

III. Staff Comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

J. The Panel’s absence of recommending new mechanisms within the new Wainui precinct for the provision of transport infrastructure

I. The council position

At the Hearing, the council did not support a precinct and did not support urban zoning of the area.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel supports the precinct and has recommended that the provisions requested by Redvale Quarry Limited be adopted with modifications. The Panel notes in the precinct description that: “The key considerations to be addressed through the Wainui Precinct are the servicing of the development, including water, wastewater and integration with the wider transport network, and details on how servicing will be staged and funded and provided in a timely manner”.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

The specific provisions should be amended to clarify that wider transport network upgrades and staged development may be necessary. The principal reason that these amendments are required is that the evidence presented by the council to the Panel demonstrates the Wainui precinct has transport infrastructure constraints including the need to connect to an already at or very near capacity transport network. A range of significant projects including, upgrades to State Highway 1 that are currently unplanned and unfunded, may be required to service development within the precinct.

Amended precinct provisions would make it clear that wider transport network upgrades may be required to service development in the precinct and that subdivision, building or development needs to be staged in accordance with the availability of the necessary bulk infrastructure including the wider transport network. They would also ensure that an ITA is prepared that will assist to determine the extent of the transport infrastructure required to service the development proposed.

K. The Panel recommends an extension to the Rural Urban Boundary in the following areas:

a. North-East of Warkworth comprising 180 ha of land east of Matakana Road, and on both sides of Sandspit Road

b. West of Warkworth, Future Urban zoning has been extended to the alignment of the Puhoi to Warkworth Motorway designation on the western side of the Mahurangi River and the Viv Davie Drive and Francis Place country side living area .

I. The Council position

The above areas were outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified Plan.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel considers the amendments will help ensure sufficient feasible future urban land is provided to meet the population and employment needs of the town.

The land areas forming the extension are readily developable, provide for substantial growth to meet demand and options for local growth. The areas are contiguous with the existing urban development, thereby supporting the development of a compact urban form, and can be provided with the required infrastructure to support significant extensions to the settlement of Warkworth.

The extensions avoid areas identified as having significant values, those including Māori, natural character and landscape values along with areas affected by natural hazards.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The revised Rural Urban Boundary uses the new motorway boundary, and the Warkworth Golf course/limestone quarry as urban boundaries.

L. The Panel recommends the rezoning of Warkworth Future Urban zones to live zones (Light Industry and General Business):

a. Warkworth North bounded by the Showgrounds, Great North Road and Goatley Road rezoned to Light Industry

b. Warkworth West on the corner of Hudson Road and Great North Road rezoned to General Business

I. The Council position

The Future Urban zone was applied to these areas in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

Goatley Block: The Panel considers that the land is suitable for business use as these land uses will cope with the transport effects of the proposed motorway interchange, and the development of the Matakana bypass route through this area. This land is comprised of flatter contours which are suitable for business purposes.

New Centre site: The Panel considers that due to the rezoning of the Stockyard Falls site to Light Industry, it is appropriate that a replacement site in a better located location be provided for. The land has flat contours and is well located with regards transport connections.

III. Staff comment - Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

M. The Panel recommends the rezoning of the Kumeu Showgrounds from Mixed Rural to Countryside Living

I. The council position

The council’s position at the Hearing supported a precinct for the Kumeu Showgrounds to enable activities provided for by the Kumeu District Agricultural and Horticultural Society Act 1991. The Act states that the objectives of the Society shall be to “promote, organise, and conduct shows, exhibitions, meetings, and other events or activities for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, scientific, industrial, and manufacturing purposes.” The Mixed Rural zone was applied to

the Showgrounds in the notified PAUP as the activities in that zone enabled the uses of the Showground.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has accepted the position of council as presented in evidence that the precinct be supported in the form agreed between the council and the submitter (the Kumeu Agricultural and Horticultural Society) .

However, the Panel has changed the underlying zoning of the precinct from Mixed Rural to Countryside Living as part of a wider area of rezoning.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The resulting change in underlying zoning has resulted in many activities provided for under the Kumeu District Agricultural and Horticultural Society Act, which align with the objectives of the Society, being given a more restrictive activity status. This undermines the objectives of both the precinct, and the Society.

b. For example, the activity of ‘Markets’ was addressed in the council’s evidence. The council agreed this activity should be permitted in the precinct, however, ‘Markets’ was not included in the precinct activity table because it is a permitted activity in the underlying Mixed Rural zone. The precinct is therefore silent on the activity of ‘Markets’ and rather than be permitted in the precinct, the new underlying Countryside Living zone now makes this activity Discretionary.

The Society was the only submitter on the precinct. The Society sought inclusion of the precinct to provide for the activities enabled by the Act.

I. The council position

The council supported a precinct for both Riverhead 2 and 4.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the precincts be deleted from the PAUP as notified, but recommends rezoning part of the land (389ha) as Rural - Countryside Living Zone. The rezoning recognises that the zoning in the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Unitary Plan is not appropriate for the anticipated future use of the land, based on the evidence.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The deletion of the Riverhead 2 and 4 Precincts is accepted and the zoning of part of the site to Rural – Countryside Living zone is accepted because the land use provisions sought by the submitter were determined to need more attention before any particular approach in the PAUP could be confirmed. Current forestry and future activities on the site can be appropriately addressed through a structure plan.

O. The Panel recommends the addition of a new precinct at Hatfields Beach which covers a 183.8 hectare block of rural land and provides for lifestyle blocks within 9 clusters of development ranging from 2000m2 to 1 hectare.

I. Council position

Council maintained at the hearing that the proposed rural coastal zoning of the area was appropriate and that precinct provisions would result in inappropriate subdivision.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel considers that the positive environmental outcomes that will be achieved from the retirement of this land from farming, the protection and enhancement of the natural features, consistent with the precinct provisions that recognise and address the significant landscape and coastal values while enabling the achievement of significant beneficial ecological outcomes, is the most appropriate way to enable the development of the proposed precinct site and to give effect to the regional policy statement and achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The precinct will provide mitigation of development and subdivision, and protection of natural and landscape values by setting aside areas within the precinct for protection, enhancement and protecting existing areas of native bush and revegetating new areas with native bush including land retired from farming.

b. The recommended precinct contains building design and landscaping standards to ensure buildings are not visually prominent and are in keeping with the landscape character and the precinct also has potential to provide public benefits by enabling an off-road walking trail linking Hatfields Beach with Waiwera.

P. The Panel recommends the application of the Large Lot zone at 47-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach

I. Council position

Council maintained at the hearing that the site should be zoned Single House.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel has not discussed their reasons for zoning this site Large Lot.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The land at 47-61 Dawson Road has very recently been rezoned to Medium Intensity Residential in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) as part of Private Plan Change 179.

b. The Medium Intensity Residential in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) is most directly equivalent to the Single House zone.

c. Any wastewater and stormwater management issues and urban design and landscaping matters can be adequately addressed by the Single House and Auckland-wide standards.

Discussion – North

Policy Matters

Q. The Panel recommends an extension of the Rural Urban Boundary north of the Vaughans Road ridgeline into the Okura catchment at a location to the east of Okura village.

I. The Council position

The above area was outside of the Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel considers that the Ōkura Estuary tributary should be the western edge of the Rural Urban Boundary at Ōkura.

The Panel indicates that the structure planning undertaken by Ōkura Holdings Ltd and the evidence supporting the proposal was comprehensive and consistent with the approach contemplated by the Regional Policy Statement.

With respect to adverse effects on the biodiversity of the Ōkura Estuary and on the functioning of the Marine Reserve, the evidence on behalf of Ōkura Holdings Limited was preferred to the evidence presented by other parties. The primary reasons given by the Panel for this are that the Ōkura Holdings Limited evidence has been based on the specific National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research modelling work for the Ōkura Holdings Limited land, and the erosion and sediment control experience gained from the recent Long Bay development.

With respect to transportation and other infrastructure capacity issues, the Panel envisages that the upgrades and appropriate funding can be reprioritised once the PAUP is operative and the Council’s Long-term Plan is reviewed.

The Panel have made an overall judgement that the inclusion of the Ōkura land within the Rural Urban Boundary would be the most appropriate way to achieve the Regional Policy Statement objectives relating to quality urban growth, protecting historic heritage, historic character and natural heritage, addressing issues of significance to tangata whenua, and sustainably managing the coastal environment.

III. Staff comment – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

Extensive evidence was presented on behalf of the Council addressing the above matters and (with the exception of transport infrastructure) the relevant issues have been considered and addressed. The transport infrastructure issue is addressed below in the Okura Precinct.

Okura

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

S. The Panel recommends no mechanisms within the precinct relating to the provision of transportation infrastructure.Recommends no spatial extent to the recommended sub-precincts A and B.

I. The council position

At the Hearing, the council did not support a precinct and did not support the relocation of the RUB or applying urban-zoning of the area.

II. IHP Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel supports this precinct as requested by Ōkura Holdings Limited. The Panel has however recommended that the precinct be amended to only relate to the 130 hectares of land owned by Ōkura Holdings Limited and to exclude the 20 hectares of land not owned by Ōkura Holdings Limited.

As discussed above (RUB Okura) the Panel has agreed with Ōkura Holdings Limited that it is appropriate to relocate the Rural Urban Boundary and the Panel also recommends applying an urban zone to approximately 130 hectares. In particular the Large Lot and Mixed Housing Suburban zones have been applied to approximately 75 hectares of land and the Conservation and Informal Recreation Open Space zones have been applied to approximately 55 hectares of land.

The Panel states the purpose of the precinct is to introduce additional provisions to enable a particular stream management approach; to require additional stormwater and earthworks management measures; to ensure the establishment and master planning of land zoned open space; to provide flexibility for limited commercial development and informal public open space within the residential area; and to enable construction of the primary road network.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on these two matters for the following reasons:

a. The recommended Ōkura Precinct does not include appropriate provisions to address transportation infrastructure requirements.

b. Special information requirements for an Integrated Transport Assessment to identify the appropriate transport infrastructure / staging of wider network improvements that will be required to service the urbanisation, and associated amendments to the objectives, policies, and rules, are required as a result of the evidence presented to the Panel by the Council and submitters.

c. A joint statement about the transport infrastructure issues was prepared by the Council's and Ōkura Holdings Limited's transportation experts. The joint statement identifies that significant upgrades to the road network that currently have no committed funding, will be required to service the residential development proposed in the Ōkura precinct.

d. Where significant transport infrastructure upgrades are likely to be required to service development there should be the inclusion of precinct provisions to ensure that subdivision and development is restricted until the necessary infrastructure is available. This is required to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement and to ensure that the potential adverse traffic effects of the proposed development in the Ōkura precinct are adequately avoided, remedied and mitigated.

e. The precinct text refers to Sub-precinct A and Sub-precinct B, but there are no sub-precincts identified in either the of the two precinct plans, nor identified in the GIS viewer. The spatial extent of the sub-precincts needs to be clarified for the precinct provisions to be workable.

T. The Panel recommends the deletion of the AKoranga precinct and reliance upon the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) designation (Designation 6010)

I. The council position

In the notified PAUP a precinct and the Tertiary Education zone applied to the AUT site at Akoranga. Through the hearing process council proposed the deletion of the Tertiary Education Zone and the replacement of this with an underlying zone of Business-Mixed Use Zone. The precinct enables the development and operation of a range of activities to cater for the diverse requirements of the student population, employees and visitors as well as providing for community facilities.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel have recommended the zoning of the precinct area be Mixed Use and that the precinct provisions referred to as ‘Akoranga 1’ be deleted.

The Auckland University of Technology Designation enables a tertiary education facility and the use of land for education and ancillary purposes. In light of the scope that designation provides and the application of the Mixed Use Zoning the Panel considers that the precinct is not required to enable the outcomes sought to be enabled by council.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The removal of the precinct removes important enabling aspects and controls that were important to the ongoing use of the site.

b. The inclusion of the precinct will ensure integrated development of the precinct, particularly in the instance that the land is not needed by Auckland University of Technology and is divested.

c. The precinct provides for a range of activities within the site, including complementary tertiary activities which are not accessory to tertiary education and, therefore, are not provided for by the designation. It also enables additional building height which is important to support the development within the precinct. The provisions proposed to be included in the precinct will enable potential adverse effects on the amenity and function of nearby town centres of Northcote and Takapuna and on the local road network to be considered through more directive assessment enabled by the inclusion of the precinct.

U. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Takapuna 1 precinct and reliance upon the provisions of the underlying zones (Terraced House and Apartment Buildings and Business – Metropolitan)

I. The council position

The council supported a precinct which catered for four development areas (A & B provided for 4 storeys, Area C 6 storeys and Area D 8 storeys) and ‘bonus’ height provision where certain prerequisites are met. The specific provisions provided for intensive development anticipated around the Takapuna metropolitan centre.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel considers the precinct unnecessary as a result of the recommended changes to the core zones. It agrees with submitters who recognised Takapuna as a key metropolitan and concerns regarding urban design and spatial form can be addressed through the relevant provisions”

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons.

a. Deletion of the precinct means that less intensive development is provided for, contrary to the intent of the Panel’s recommendation to provide for intensification around the Takapuna metropolitan centre. It is also contrary to the recommended provisions of the RPS, and is inconsistent with the application of Height Variation Controls across the rest of the THAB zone surrounding the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre.

V. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Milford 2 precinct.

I. The council position

In the notified PAUP a precinct was applied to the Milford 2 area to recognise recent Environment Court appeal decisions.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel recommends that that the precinct be deleted from the PAUP as notified, because additional height for buildings at the Milford centre can be achieved through the height variation control in the PAUP without a precinct. The Panel also considers that other aspects of future development at Milford can be managed through the PAUP provisions. These include the additional height assisting with the intensification sought.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

Additional height at Milford town centre, beyond the 18m standard height across parts of the town centre adjoining or with street frontage to residential zones, can be achieved in parts of the centre that are away from residential areas, and over the northern parts of the centre (the mall site) where impacts from additional height are on or within the centre rather than on residential neighbours. The additional height is provided for through the Height Variation Control in the recommended PAUP and therefore the precinct is not considered to be necessary. The recommended height of 32.5m across the bulk of the mall site is considered acceptable as it reflects the large size and depth of this northern block of the centre, having generally limited direct effects on adjacent residential zones.

W. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Gulf Harbour precinct and the rezoning of areas from Mixed Housing Suburban zone to Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone.

I. The council position

The council included a precinct for Gulf Harbour in the notified PAUP and supported its retention at the hearings.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the precinct be deleted. They consider that the development cap is unnecessary, as is the maximum density in terms of net site area of Sub-precincts B, C and D, discouraging of the conversion of existing houses into two by imposing a non-complying activity status, the modification to the minimum site area required for subdivision and the limit on the conversion of existing houses into two dwellings.

They also consider that the retention of Sub-precinct F is unnecessary. This sub-precinct was to have a standard stating that the purpose of the land was for a golf course. However, the golf course is privately owned and such a standard is considered unnecessary .

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. The deletion of the Gulf Harbour precinct is accepted because Watercare evidence on behalf of Auckland Council confirmed during the Hearing that there is a project underway to upgrade the outfall pipe from the Army Bay Treatment Plant at the end of the Whangaparāoa Peninsula. This will increase the capacity of the flows able to be discharged, reducing the need to throttle flows in the network.

b. Resource consents are in place for Sub-Precincts B, C and D either side of The Anchorage and for Sub-precinct D north of Pinehurst Drive.

c. Although the Penlink road connection is not yet constructed, the deletion of the precinct will not have any significant change to the development capacity at Gulf Harbour given that it is largely developed and there are consents in place for development.

Discussion – Central

Policy Matters

X. The Panel recommends deletion of the Sylvia Park precinct and reliance on the underlying zone (Business – Metropolitan Centre)

I. The council position

Council supported the retention of a precinct for Sylvia Park which reflected the recent plan change 235 in 2010 and which provides the most recent district plan provisions reflecting Sylvia Park as an emergent metropolitan centre in the Auckland Plan.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel does not support the precinct proposed and recommends its deletion. underlying zoning for the precinct remains Business - Metropolitan Centre.

The Panel considers that there is no particular planning merit in the precinct provisions proposed. It considers that the Business - Metropolitan Centre Zone (and broader PAUP) provisions will enable consideration of the matters of concern raised and ensure that further development of buildings is designed, located and orientated appropriately with respect to its planned context and function.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Sylvia Park has undergone a recent plan change which incorporates the most up to date provisions that provide for the ongoing development and operation of the site as well as site-specific development and land-use standards. A number of provisions in the precinct are more enabling and cannot be controlled by overlays.

b. Removing the precinct provisions removes the delivery of three separate height areas that provide a more granular approach to bulk on the site.

c. Removing the precinct provisions also removes specific information requirements.

d. In removing the precinct, Appendix 11.2.2 Sylvia Park is also deleted and this contains statutory provisions that form an interrelated and fundamental part of the precinct.

6.14.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 080/081 – Rezoning and precincts (Geographical area/specific precincts) and 016 and 017 Rural urban boundary, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

POLICY MATTER

SOUTH

A. The Panel recommends the removal of the Rural Urban Boundary at Crater Hill and Pukaki Peninsula, Puhinui

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Crater Hill area is not suitable for urban development because it lies within the Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF) overlay, it is a significant geological feature and has significant cultural heritage and landscape value to Mana Whenua. It also contains prime soils.

· The Pukaki Peninsula is not suitable for urban development because it has significant cultural heritage and landscape value to Mana Whenua, lies partly within the ONF overlay for Pukaki Crater, and contains significant areas of elite soils, all of which would be extensively compromised by urban development.

· Part of the Pukaki Peninsula is under the proposed High Aircraft Noise Area (HANA) and Moderate Aircraft Noise Area (MANA) for the future northern runway as proposed by Auckland International Airport. These noise areas restrict the establishment of urban activities sensitive to aircraft noise such as dwellings.

B. The Panel recommends the underlying zoning of Clevedon Waterways be changed from the Rural Coastal zone to Rural Settlement, Neighbourhood Centre and Informal Recreation zones

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The addition of the precinct and changes to zoning enables development that will have significant adverse cultural effects. It is not consistent with the Regional Policy Statement Mana Whenua provisions, is inconsistent with sections 6(e) and 7(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, and does not address the Deed of Settlement between Nga Tai and the Crown (7 November 2015) which identifies the Wairoa River as a Statutory Acknowledgement area.

· The recommended precinct provisions are considered inadequate in recognising and addressing cultural matters, there is no direct provision in the precinct for the active involvement of Mana Whenua in sustainable management and overall the precinct provisions do not promote a meaningful participation of Nga Tai.

· The recommended precinct provisions and recommended zoning do not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, and are inconsistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 with respect to having significant adverse effects on natural character, the coastal environment, landscape and amenity.

· The proposed precinct will introduce a substantial urban element which will break through the coastal edge of the site, impacting adversely on the natural character of the site, its river margins and the coastal environment beyond the site.

· The precinct is also considered to result in adverse effects on water quality. The recommended precinct provisions do not adequately address the concerns raised in the Council’s evidence regarding potential antifouling / water quality effects.

· Concerns are also held that the precinct provisions address a number of matters which are not considered to be ‘resource management’ issues. Objectives and policies include the establishment and on-going responsibilities of a body corporate.

WEST

C. The Panel recommends no mechanisms within the Redhills precinct relating to the provision of transport infrastructure

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· While the urban zoning and the creation of a precinct is accepted, the specific provisions relating to transport infrastructure provision need to be revised, and associated text amended to clarify the transport requirements for Redhills, both within the area and in the context of the wider transport networks.

D. The Panel recommends no inclusion in the Westgate precinct of the indicative roading pattern required to achieve an effective transport network

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· While the Council supports the removal of sub-precinct F, its removal has had the effect of deleting the indicative roading pattern for this part of Westgate. The indicative roading pattern is vital to achieve an efficient and effective transport network, and should therefore should be re-included in the precinct. As a consequence, text in the precinct requires amendment to correctly reference the re-instated indicative roads.

RODNEY

E. The Panel recommends no mechanisms within the new Wainui precinct for the provision of transport infrastructure

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The specific provisions should be amended to clarify that wider transport network upgrades and staged development may be necessary. The principal reason that these amendments are required is that the evidence presented by the Council to the Panel demonstrates the Wainui precinct has transport infrastructure constraints including the need to connect to an already at or very near capacity transport network. A range of significant projects, including upgrades to State Highway 1 that are currently unplanned and unfunded, may be required to service development within the precinct.

F. The Panel recommends the rezoning of the Kumeu Showgrounds from Mixed Rural to Countryside Living

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The resulting change in underlying zoning has resulted in many activities provided for under the Kumeu District Agricultural and Horticultural Society Act, which align with the objectives of the Society, being given a more restrictive activity status. This undermines the objectives of both the precinct and the Society.

· The Society was the only submitter on the precinct. The Society sought inclusion of the precinct to provide for the activities enabled by the Act.

G. The Panel recommends the application of the Large Lot zone at 47-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The land at 47-61 Dawson Road has very recently been rezoned to Medium Intensity Residential in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) as part of Private Plan Change 179.

· The Medium Intensity Residential in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) is most directly equivalent to the Single House zone.

· Any wastewater and stormwater management issues and urban design and landscaping matters can be adequately addressed by the Single House zone and Auckland-wide standards.

NORTH

H. The Panel recommends no mechanisms within the new Okura precinct for the provision of transport infrastructure; and recommends no spatial extent to sub-precincts A and B.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The recommended Okura Precinct does not include appropriate provisions to address transportation infrastructure requirements.

· Special information requirements for an Integrated Transport Assessment to identify the appropriate transport infrastructure / staging of wider network improvements that will be required to service the urbanisation, and associated amendments to the objectives, policies, and rules are required as a result of the evidence presented to the Panel by the Council and submitters.

· A joint statement about the transport infrastructure issues was prepared by the Council's and Okura Holdings Limited's transportation experts. The joint statement identifies that significant upgrades to the road network that currently have no committed funding, will be required to service the residential development proposed in the Okura precinct.

· Where significant transport infrastructure upgrades are likely to be required to service development there should be the inclusion of precinct provisions to ensure that subdivision and development is restricted until the necessary infrastructure is available. This is required to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement and to ensure that the potential adverse traffic effects of the proposed development in the Okura precinct are adequately avoided, remedied and mitigated.

· The precinct text refers to Sub-precinct A and Sub-precinct B, but there are no sub-precincts identified in either the of the two precinct plans, nor identified in the GIS viewer. The spatial extent of the sub-precincts needs to be clarified for the precinct provisions to be workable.

I. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Akoranga precinct and reliance upon the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) designation (Designation 6010)

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The removal of the precinct removes important enabling aspects and controls that were important to the ongoing use of the site.

· The inclusion of the precinct will ensure integrated development of the precinct, particularly in the instance that the land is not needed by Auckland University of Technology.

· The precinct provides for a range of activities within the site, including complementary tertiary activities which are not accessory to tertiary education and, therefore, are not provided for by the designation. It also enables additional building height which is important to support the development within the precinct.

· The provisions proposed to be included in the precinct will enable potential adverse effects on the amenity and function of nearby town centres of Northcote and Takapuna and on the local road network to be considered through more directive assessment enabled by the inclusion of the precinct.

J. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Takapuna 1 precinct and reliance upon the provisions of the underlying zones (Terraced House and Apartment Buildings and Business – Metropolitan)

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Deletion of the precinct means that less intensive development is provided for, contrary to the intent of the Panel’s recommendation to provide for intensification around the Takapuna metropolitan centre.

· It is also contrary to the recommended provisions of the RPS, and is inconsistent with the application of Height Variation Controls across the rest of the Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone surrounding the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre.

CENTRAL

A. The Panel recommends deletion of the Sylvia Park precinct and reliance on the underlying Metropolitan Centre zone

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Sylvia Park has undergone a recent plan change which incorporates the most up to date provisions that provide for the ongoing development and operation of the site as well as site-specific development and land-use standards. A number of provisions in the precinct are more enabling and cannot be controlled by overlays.

· Removing the precinct provisions removes the delivery of three separate height areas that provide a more granular approach to bulk on the site.

· Removing the precinct provisions also removes specific information requirements.

· In removing the precinct, Appendix 11.2.2 Sylvia Park is also deleted and this contains statutory provisions that form an interrelated and fundamental part of the precinct.

· Retaining the precinct will ensure a better overall outcome for the long-term development of Sylvia Park.

2. Part D Hearing Topics where staff are recommending technical changes only

For the following topic reports staff are recommending some technical amendments to the Panel’s recommendations in order to enable the efficient use of the PAUP and the integration of its provisions.

7.1 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 022 – Natural hazards and flooding and 026 General others, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends changes to the status of activities within Flood Hazard areas.

B. The Panel recommends replacing the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard with the 2 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard in urban areas;

C. The Panel recommends no controls for buildings within floodplains to prevent the exacerbation of flood hazards;

D. The Panel recommends no controls to manage a change of use to vulnerable activities existing buildings within floodplains;

E. The Panel recommends amending the definition of coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 metre of sea level rise to not include to maps

F. The Panel recommends no consent requirement for new buildings in the activity table for the coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance (AEP) probability plus 1 metre of sea level rise area.

Discussion

Technical Matters

A. The Panel recommends changes to the status of activities within Flood Hazard areas.

I. The council position

Council’s proposed rules required that in developed areas more vulnerable activities were able to locate in floodplains where risks could be managed and were subject to a consent assessment. In other areas (away from centres) the accommodation of more vulnerable activities in floodplains would be subject to a non-complying activity status. This approach was proposed to manage risks through managing the exposure of people (and property) to the flood hazard.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel is not convinced about the degree of restriction on use and development in existing built up areas and recommends that the policy approach to flooding should be more flexible in managing risks, and recommends that more consideration be given to enabling site-specific design-led solutions.

The Panel considers that defining risk from flood hazards is complex and is dependent on the nature of the hazard. The Panel discusses whether land use planning is the most suitable method for addressing all types of flood risk, in contrast to other methods such as the Building Act which the Panel considers to be more appropriate to manage aspects of built design (such as floor levels) for flood hazard areas. As a result the Panel recommends the use of a Restricted Discretionary activity status for more vulnerable activities with limited matters of control or discretion.

III. Staff Comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

a. While the non-complying activity status has been recommended to be replaced with a Restricted Discretionary assessment this does not remove the ability for council to require a risk assessment and consideration of risks when locating more vulnerable activities within floodplains. The recommended provisions include the ability to consider the nature of the hazard, the activity and risks to be mitigated through consideration of location within the site, mitigations within the site and evacuation route options. These matters are not covered by the Building Act. This approach provides opportunity for assessment and risks to be mitigated as far as practicable.

B. The Panel recommends replacing the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard with the 2 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard in urban areas.

I. The council position

Council identified the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard event as the appropriate event to manage flood hazards in the PAUP. This floodplain is mapped by council and included in the Geomaps viewer accessible to the public.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel considers there was little evidence presented on the actual effects of flooding and how those effects related to either a 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) or a 2 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event. Furthermore the Panel considered there was no good reason to set a minimum floor level in the PAUP above that required by the Building Code.

However, the Panel accepts there is jurisdiction to include rules in the PAUP to control the development of land (rather than existing sites) through subdivision and structure planning recommending that the appropriate flood design level in those circumstances should be based on the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event. The Panel also includes controls for other activities within the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain in relation to fences, storage of goods and surface parking areas.

The Panel accepts that the appropriate design level for managing coastal storm inundation (CSI) risks should be based on the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event.

In every other situation, including buildings on existing sites, the Panel considers that the most appropriate design approach is to use levels based on the 2 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event, consistent with the requirements of the Building Code.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons.

a. It is recommended that reference to the 2 per cent event be replaced with reference to the 1 per cent event in order to appropriately manage risks and align with the general approach of identifying and managing natural hazard and flood risk.

b. Although not explicitly discussed it could be interpolated that the amendment to replace the 1 per cent event with the 2 per cent event is intended to align with the Building Code's flood design levels.

c. The policy direction proposed by the Council (and supported by the Panel) seeks to not increase risk within urban areas and avoid risk in greenfield areas. The 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard is identified as posing a level of risk warranting management in the Auckland region. This was supported by the majority of relevant experts during the hearing process.

d. A main concern is off-site effects; the displacement of flood waters onto adjoining properties from buildings in floodplains, and changes to flood depths and velocities experienced by upstream and downstream properties. These are matters that go beyond the Building Code.

e. Managing flood hazards on a 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event basis in the PAUP aligns with the Council's current management approach. The Council's ‘best practice’ approach recognises the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) hazard event as the standard, has mapped this in the GIS system (the 2 per cent is not mapped or spatially identified by council) and applies this across a number of areas including its consideration of hazards under the Building Act when imposing notices under section 71-74 of that Act. Recognition of the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) event is generally considered best practice at the national level.

C. The Panel recommends no controls for buildings within floodplains to prevent the exacerbation of flood hazards

I. The council position

Council provided for structures such as fences and buildings of up to 10m²in floodplains subject to controls and dependent on the depth of flood waters. Buildings containing flood tolerant activities up to 100m²were provided for as such activities were generally associated with rural and recreation use (such as sports clubs and facilities in public reserves) and have lesser potential to result in cumulative displacement effects. Buildings larger than these dimensions were subject to assessment to consider specifically the impact on flood plain function and exacerbation of flood hazards.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends that the rules address the effects of surface flooding and that people are able to use land within flood hazard areas in a way that addresses the risks to occupants and does not exacerbate flooding on other properties.

The Panel recommends that more consideration be given to site-specific design-led solutions using controlled or restricted discretionary activity status, with appropriately limited matters of control or discretion, and clear / succinct assessment criteria which give effect to the objectives and policies for natural hazards and flooding. For that reason the Panel has amended the activity status of a number of activities generally as set out by a number of submitters.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Generally the Panel’s recommendation to manage effects on other properties is agreed. However there appears to be an omission with how this approach is applied in Chapter E36 Natural Hazards and Flooding. The Panel's recommended text provides for the management of fences, storage of goods, above ground parking and hazardous substances within the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain area but does not provide a management response for buildings or structures within these areas.

D. The Panel recommends no controls to manage a change of use to more vulnerable activities in existing buildings within floodplains

I. The council position

Council includes controls applying to the establishment of more vulnerable uses in both new and existing buildings as opportunities to mitigate risks, and to achieve the RPS policy direction. These are applicable both for new buildings and changes of use within existing buildings.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends including provisions applying to new buildings only (not existing buildings) containing more vulnerable uses (residential uses).

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel's recommended rule remains silent on the change of use within existing buildings. It is unclear from the report that this is an intentional omission or otherwise but the result is the creation of a PAUP workability issue.

b. Amending these provisions will ensure that the control applies to both new buildings and structures as well as to a change of use in an existing building to accommodate a more vulnerable activity and not be in conflict with the Building Act in respect of controlling specific aspects of building works.

E. The Panel recommends amending the definition of coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability plus 1 metre of sea level rise to not include reference to maps

I. The council position

Reference to the maps or other relevant information in definitions accurately reflects the maps or included material.

II. IHP Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends including the coastal storm inundation area 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) reference to the maps in the definition. The reference to the maps should be in the definition of coastal storm inundation plus 1m sea level rise.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. An amendment is sought to the definitions for coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) and Coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1m sea level rise to ensure that they align with the Panel's recommended inclusion of the Coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1m sea level rise maps. Activity table for the coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 metre of sea level rise area

F. The Panel recommends no consent requirements for new buildings in the activity table for the coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 metre of sea level rise area

I. The council position

Both new buildings and substantive additions to existing buildings are provided for within coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 metre of sea level rise areas where floor levels of habitable areas are located above inundation levels. This provides increased resilience to the effects of coastal hazards overtime (including a rise in sea level) and assists in the mitigation of risks.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends addressing coastal inundation and associated sea level rise on the basis of a projected 1 metre sea level rise within 100 years (i.e. to 2115). This is consistent with Policy 25 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

The Panel accepts that this issue is not affected by the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code because the scope of the building regime does not extend to managing land use in terms of the anticipated effects of climate change.

The Panel have supported the inclusion of a Policy 9 which requires:

“ …habitable areas of new buildings and substantial additions, alterations, modifications or extensions to existing buildings located in coastal storm inundation areas to be above the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) coastal storm inundation event including an additional sea level rise of 1m.”

The Panel have included a rule permitting minor additions and alterations within this coastal inundation area but requires consent for more substantive additions and alterations. The rule does not apply to new buildings.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel's recommended rule requires Discretionary Activity consent for additions and alterations to existing buildings. However, no consent requirements are included for new buildings within the same area (of any size). This is inconsistent with the Policy (9) which refers to both new buildings and substantive alterations to existing buildings.

b. The application of the rule to only additions and alterations to existing buildings and not new buildings will pose problems for implementing the policy and rule framework. No explanation of this is given in the Panel's report. Given the issues that the rule in its current form will cause when applied to development within this area, an amendment is proposed to ensure it applies consistently. Reverting back to Council’s position and the use of a Permitted Activity standard is proposed to address this. This approach is considered consistent with the policy direction and aligns with council’s position at the hearing.

7.1.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council topic – 022 Natural hazards and flooding and 026 General others, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends replacing the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard with the 2 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard in urban areas.

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood hazard is identified as posing a level of risk warranting management in the Auckland region. This was supported by the majority of relevant experts during the hearing process.

· Off-site effects - the displacement of flood waters onto adjoining properties from buildings in floodplains, and changes to flood depths and velocities experienced by upstream and downstream properties. These are matters that go beyond the Building Code.

B. The Panel recommends no controls for buildings within floodplains to prevent the exacerbation of flood hazards

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel's recommended text provides for the management of fences, storage of goods, above ground parking and hazardous substances within the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain area but does not provide a management response for buildings or structures within these areas.

C. The Panel recommends no controls to manage a change of use to more vulnerable activities in existing buildings within flood plains

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel's recommended rule remains silent on the change of use within existing buildings. It is unclear from the report that this is an intentional omission or otherwise but the result is the creation of a Plan workability issue.

· Amending these provisions will ensure that the control applies to both new buildings and structures as well as to a change of use in an existing building to accommodate a more vulnerable activity and not be in conflict with the Building Act in respect of controlling specific aspects of building works.

D. The Panel recommends amending the definition of coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability plus 1 metre of sea level rise to not include reference to maps

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The definitions for coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) and Coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1m sea level rise should be amended to ensure that they align with the Panel's recommended inclusion of the Coastal storm inundation area 1per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1m sea level rise maps.

E. The Panel recommends no consent requirements for new buildings in the activity table for the coastal storm inundation 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 metre of sea level rise area

Reason for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel's recommended rule requires Discretionary Activity consent for additions and alterations to existing buildings. However, no consent requirements are included for new buildings within the same area (of any size). This is inconsistent with the Policy (9) which refers to both new buildings and substantive alterations to existing buildings.

· The application of the rule to only additions and alterations to existing buildings and not new buildings will pose problems for implementing the policy and rule framework. No explanation of this is given in the Panel's report. Given the issues that the rule in its current form will cause when applied to development within this area, an amendment is proposed to ensure it applies consistently.

7.2 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 025 – Trees, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearings except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Trees which does not comply with section 76(4A)-(4D).

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Tree with no explanation or reasoning

C. The Panel recommends the trimming of up to 20 percent of notable tress live growth as a permitted activity, subject to complying with specific standards.

Discussion

Technical Matters

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of 85 scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Trees which do not comply with section 76(4A)-(4D) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

I. The council position

The Schedule of Notable trees was largely made up of 2642 scheduled items which identify over 6000 trees and groups of trees for protection. These trees or groups of trees were “rolled over” for protection within the PAUP from the operative Auckland Council District Plan (excluding the Hauraki Gulf).

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

In accordance with section 76(4A) – (4D) of the Resource Management Act 1991 which came into effect 4 September 2015, the Panel has recommended removing all items from the schedule that do not identify the particular tree or group of trees with the requisite accuracy. For example, in the south, descriptions limited to ‘native’ or ‘exotic trees’ are too general and therefore items described in this way have been deleted. In other cases, such as the pohutukawa located on coastal cliffs on the North Shore, the Panel has retained the items but clarified the entries by identifying the properties individually in the schedule and on the maps.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. For 85 of the trees recommended to be deleted the Council does have the required information and had, in error, left that information out of the PAUP. Where corresponding entries in Auckland Council District Plan schedules identify species present in a scheduled tree grouping, these details can be used to reinstate deleted entries to make them compliant with 76(4A)-(4D) of the RMA.

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of 18 scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Tree with no explanation or reasoning.

I. The council position

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel does not specifically address the deletion of these 18 trees from the Schedule of Notable Trees.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. This appears to be an omission as the deletion of these trees is not supported by evidence and no reasons have been given by the Panel.

C. The Panel recommends the trimming of up to 20 per cent of a notable tree’s live growth as a permitted activity, subject to complying with specific standards.

I. The council position

The Council supported trimming up to 10 percent of a notable tree’s live growth, subject to complying with specific standards, as a permitted activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends increasing the permitted activity threshold to 20 percent.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Council’s closing statement position permitted up to 10 per cent of a notable tree’s live growth, subject to complying with specific standards.

b. Increasing, as a permitted activity, the trimming of up to 20 percent of a notable tree’s live growth may have adverse effects on the health and viability of notable trees.

7.2.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council topic 025 – Trees, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of 85 scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Trees which do not comply with section 76(4A)-(4D) of the Resource Management Act 1991

Reason for rejecting the recommendation is:

· 85 of the trees recommended to be deleted have the required information which was inadvertently left out of the PAUP.

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of 18 scheduled items from the Schedule of Notable Tree with no explanation or reasoning

Reason for rejecting the recommendation is:

· This appears to be an error as the deletion of these trees is not supported by evidence and no reasons have been given by the Panel.

C. The Panel recommends the trimming of up to 20 per cent of a notable tree’s live growth as a permitted activity, subject to complying with specific standards.

Reason for rejecting the recommendation is:

· Increasing as a permitted activity, the trimming of up to 20 percent of a notable tree’s live growth may have adverse effects on the health and viability of notable trees.

7.3 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 038 – Contaminated land, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of contaminated land in the accidental discovery control provisions.

B. The Panel recommends changes to rules for discharges of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants.

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of the definition of land containing elevated levels of contaminants

Technical matters

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of contaminated land in accidental discovery control provisions.

I. The Council position

The provisions in the notified PAUP included contaminated land in an accidental discovery protocol rule in Chapter G. The Council’s case position sought to move the part of the rule addressing contaminated land into the contaminated land section as a Permitted activity standard.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reason

The Panel’s recommendation proposes a single combined accidental discovery activity standard for human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts/taonga tuturu, protected New Zealand objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975, contaminated land and lava caves applying to both regional and district plan land disturbance controls. The Panel recommended this approach because land disturbance is the activity most likely to trigger the need to activate the accidental discovery provisions and because the standard should apply to all land disturbance activities and not just permitted activities in relation to contaminated land.

III. Staff comments – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel recommendation on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Contaminated land is not sensitive material that requires inspection from Heritage New Zealand and/or Mana Whenua representatives.

b. Inclusion of contaminated land in accidental discovery control has created an overlap between responses to the discovery of human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts/taonga tuturu, protected New Zealand objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975, and lava caves, and the management of discharges from contaminated land.

B. The Panel recommends changes to rules for discharges of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants.

I. The Council position

The Council position sought to remove the need for domestic scale land disturbance of land containing elevated levels of contaminants to get discharge consents and focussed consent requirements on projects involving large amounts

of land disturbance. It recommended an increased maximum volume of disturbed soil permitted standard that exempts small scale earthworks, allow separate projects to occur concurrently, and provides for shallow trenching in roads, highways, motorways and rail corridors as permitted activities.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel’s recommendation changes the Permitted activity standard of soil disturbed to 25m³ per 500m² of site area and deletes the Permitted activity standards for utilities and total volume controls which triggered the need for consents.

III. Staff comment - Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel’s recommended Permitted activity standard will allow very large amounts of contaminated soil disturbance on large sites with no contaminant discharge controls. This may lead to significant adverse effects from discharges to the environment and ineffective management of contaminated land. It will also mean small amounts of soil disturbance on small sites that are very unlikely to have more than minor adverse effects will require discharge consents.

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of the definition of land containing elevated levels of contaminants

I. The Council position

The notified PAUP included a definition of land containing elevated levels of contaminants to differentiate between background levels of contaminants, Permitted activity soil acceptance criteria for in-situ soil and contaminated land under the RMA.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommended deleting this definition but gave no specific reason.

III. Staff comment – Reject – Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Land containing elevated levels of contaminants is a unique definition that is necessary for the use and interpretation of the rules. The definition recognises that discharges from land with low levels of contamination above background levels does not need to be subject to expert assessment and oversight through regulations in the PAUP.

7.3.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 038 – Contaminated land, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends the inclusion of contaminated land in accidental discovery control provisions

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Contaminated land is not sensitive material that requires inspection from Heritage New Zealand and/or Mana Whenua representatives.

· Inclusion of contaminated land in the accidental discovery control has created an overlap between responses to the discovery of human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts/taonga, protected New Zealand objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975, and lava caves, and the management of discharges from contaminated land.

B. The Panel recommends changes to rules for discharges of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommended Permitted activity standard will allow very large amounts of contaminated soil disturbance on large sites with no contaminant discharge controls. This may lead to significant adverse effects from discharges to the environment and ineffective management of contaminated land.

· It will also mean small amounts of soil disturbance on small sites that are very unlikely to have more than minor adverse effects will require discharge consents.

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of the definition of land containing elevated levels of contaminants

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Land containing elevated levels of contaminants is a unique definition that is necessary for the use and interpretation of the rules.

· The definition recognises that discharges from land with low levels of contamination above background levels do not need to be subject to expert assessment and oversight through regulations in the PAUP.

7.4 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 039 – Hazardous substances and industrial and trade activities, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel have recommended amendments to the definition of clean fill material which removes differentiation between clean fill and managed fills.

Discussion

Technical matter

A. The Panel has recommended amendments to the definition of clean fill material which removes differentiation between clean fill and managed fills.

I. The Council position

Council’s position supported an amendment to the definitions of cleanfill material and managed fill material so that the definitions were certain, easy to apply and to understand.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel’s report supports the agreed amendments to the definitions of cleanfill material and managed fill material. However the recommendations definition in the PAUP has been amended by deleting a number of the details in the definition for cleanfill material that are necessary for applying the definition.

III. Staff comment – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The changes recommended by the Panel undermine the effectiveness and differentiation between cleanfill and managed fill material which may result in issues and ambiguity in determining human health and environmental risks.

7.4.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 039 - Hazardous substances, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel has recommended amendments to the definition of clean fill material which removes differentiation between clean fill and managed fills

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The changes recommended by the Panel significantly undermine the effectiveness and differentiation between ‘cleanfill’ and ‘managed fill’ material which may result in issues and ambiguity in the determining human health and environmental risks.

7.5 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic – 041 – Earthworks and minerals, July 2016

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of Kauri dieback provisions

Discussion

Policy Matter

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of Kauri dieback provisions

I. The council position

Kauri dieback is managed in the notified PAUP as a regional matter in terms of vegetation management provisions, and land disturbance. The PAUP included Permitted activity controls on the disposal of soil from around a kauri tree, and provided matters of discretion where the Permitted activity controls cannot be met.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends deletion of the Permitted activity control and matters of restricted discretion from both the regional and district land disturbance chapters. The Panel considers that kauri dieback is primarily a biosecurity issue to be regulated under the Biosecurity Act 1993, as with other plant-borne diseases such as Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae (PSA) in kiwifruit.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. It is internationally recognised that pathogens responsible for kauri dieback are spread by movement of soil. It is important that there are

b. clear standards for development and earthworks around kauri trees, and a mechanism for council to manage the spread of the disease as a regional biodiversity matter.

7.5.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 041 - Earthworks and minerals, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of kauri dieback provisions

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· It is internationally recognised that pathogens responsible for kauri dieback are spread by movement of soil. It is important that there are clear standards for development and earthworks around kauri trees, and a mechanism for the Council to manage the spread of the disease.

7.6 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 042 – I nfrastructure, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of the High land Transport Noise Overlay and associated provisions

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation Overlay and associated provisions

D. The Panel recommends the deletion of a policy referring to the avoidance of designations in the road corridor.

E. The Panel recommends increasing the extent of the National Grid corridor depicted in the National Grid Overlay

F. The Panel recommends no objective to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure in the District Plan provisions for infrastructure

G. The Panel recommends the tagging of the infrastructure objectives and policies as regional coastal provisions

H. The Panel recommends electric vehicle charging stations should be permitted activities in roads

I. The Panel recommends deletion of the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading in the standards for activities in roads

J. The Panel recommends no default activity status for minor infrastructure upgrading where an upgrade to an existing network utility exceeds the specified standard.

K. The Panel recommends increasing the permitted threshold for the trimming and alteration of trees in streets and public open spaces subject to meeting specific standards including an agreed tree management plan.

L. The Panel recommends extending standards on vegetation removal within a SEA to roads.

M. The Panel recommends the inclusion of standards relating to earthworks (filling) within a floodplain associated with road works

N. The Panel recommends the inclusion of standards relating to earthworks (filling) within overland flow paths associated with road works

O. The Panel recommends limitations on earthworks within overlays for road network activities

Technical Matters

A. The Panel recommends the deletion of the High land Transport Noise Overlay and associated provisions

I. The council’s position

The overlay applies to land adjoining heavily trafficked roads or rail lines. Strategic land transport infrastructure, such as rail lines, state highways and other heavily trafficked roads generate high levels of transport noise which can affect community health and well-being, particularly in urban areas. These provisions require new or altered activities sensitive to noise within the overlay to undertake mitigation so that occupants are not exposed to transport noise levels above World Health Organisation guidelines.

The overlay also avoids the reverse sensitivity effects that can occur when activities sensitive to noise are located in proximity to strategic land transport infrastructure.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends the deletion of the overlay in its entirety. The Panel considers that there is lack of a rigorous cost – benefit assessment, including no assessment of who should bear the costs involved.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. There is an opportunity to investigate alternative methods outside the PAUP and to monitor outcomes.

B. The Panel recommends the deletion of the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation Overlay and associated provisions

I. The council’s position

The Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay applies to identified strategic traffic routes in urban Auckland. The width of the overlay varies depending on the volume of traffic carried by particular roads, or particular stretches of road.

The purpose of the overlay is to avoid adverse air quality effects of vehicle emissions on land use activities involving people with particular sensitivities to these emissions. Young children are identified as a group with high sensitivity to the adverse effects of vehicle emissions in terms of their health and overall well-being

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends the deletion of overlay in its entirety. No specific explanation apart from a general statement in the overview where the Panel was concerned there was insufficient evidence to justify the approach.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. There is an opportunity to advocate to central government regarding more stringent controls on vehicle emissions.

C. The Panel recommends the deletion of a policy referring to the avoidance of designations in the road corridor.

I. The council’s position

The Council’s case position supported the use of a policy framework to ensure that designations in the road corridor are used only where necessary.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends the deletion of policy framework in its entirety. The Panel considers the deletion removes the risk of establishing a higher threshold than those required by section 171 of the RMA (recommendations of requiring authority on designations). The ability to designate within the road corridor is retained, unencumbered by the process constraints and complexities outlined within the policy framework under C1.3.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel.

D. The Panel recommends increasing the extent of the National Grid corridor depicted in the National Grid Overlay

I. The council’s position

The Council supported a national grid corridor as follows:

a. 12m either side of the centreline (24m total) of the national grid electricity transmission lines

b. 12m in any direction from the overhead national grid support structure.

c. Restrictions on activities sensitive to effects of transmission lines (e.g. dwellings)

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel recommends increasing the spatial extent of the Natural Grid corridor as sought by Transpower as follows.

a. National Grid overlay consists of:

a) National Grid Yard (12m from outer edge of support structure and 12m each side of centreline of national grid line).

b) National Grid Corridor (area outside the National Grid Yard)

i. 32m each side of centreline of 110kV overhead line (64m total)

ii. 37m each side of centreline of 220kV overhead line (74m total)

iii. 12m of the site boundary of National Grid substation;

iv. Within road carriageway on road identified in planning maps.

To avoid increasing risks to public health and safety and to enable the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing national grid assets, the Panel recommends that the National Grid Corridor overlay be increased to the extent sought by Transpower.

The Panel supports a more stringent rule regime to ensure risks associated with sensitive activities locating within the National Grid Corridor are not increased and to manage new activities to minimise reverse sensitivity (especially in areas that will be urbanised in the future).

The corridor rules for activities outside the National Grid Yard do not restrict land use. The rules are designed to manage subdivision. This includes ensuring electricity transmission lines and conductor swing are taken into account at the time of subdivision, orientating building platforms to minimise reverse sensitivity effects and considering options for siting roads, services and open space within the corridor.

The status of subdivision within the National Grid Corridor is generally the same as the status of the type of subdivision within the relevant zone. The main implications are that either an additional matter (effects on the national grid) has been added for

consideration of restricted discretionary subdivisions, or that additional relevant policies will apply to non-complying activities.

The Panel’s recommendations give effect to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission and the Regional Policy Statement.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. Changes to the National Grid Yard aligns with Council’s position of restricting the establishment of sensitive activities in urban zones; and any new building platform in Rural and Future Urban zones.

b. The widened National Grid Corridor (area outside the National Grid Yard) relates to the potential for line swing, and is based on conservative calculations for Auckland conditions as calculated by Transpower. While the spatial extent of the corridor has been widened, there are no new provisions to restrict land use activities within this widened corridor. Instead the rules are designed to manage subdivision (does not alter subdivision activity status), by including impact on the electricity transmission lines as another matter for consideration amongst all other matters already part of the subdivision chapter.

E. The Panel recommends no objective to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure in the District Plan.

I. The council’s position

A number of policies in E26.2.2 seek to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure but these are not supported by an objective.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

There are no reasons given for the Panel’s recommendation.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. An objective seeking to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure at a District Plan level is necessary to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.

F. The Panel recommends the tagging of the infrastructure objectives and policies as Regional Coastal Plan provisions

I. The council’s position

The infrastructure objectives and policies should not be tagged as Regional Coastal Plan provisions.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel agreed with Council that the Auckland – wide infrastructure objectives and policies should not be included as Regional Coastal Plan provisions.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Auckland – wide infrastructure objectives and policies are not Regional Coastal Plan provisions.

G. The Panel recommends electric vehicle charging stations should be Permitted activities in roads

I. The Council’s position

Electric vehicle charging stations in roads to be a Restricted Discretionary activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel has recommended that electric vehicle recharging stations be provided for as Permitted activities in roads and all zones subject to standards.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. On arterial roads the use of road space requires careful management. Allowing Electric Vehicle Charging status as a permitted activity would remove the ability to manage location to enable efficient use of arterial roads.

H. The Panel recommends deletion of the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading in the standards for activities in roads

I. The council’s position

Standards for minor infrastructure upgrading are fundamental to the implementation of the PAUP.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

The Panel has recommended that the definition of minor infrastructure upgrading be deleted. As a consequential amendment, the Panel has included the

parameters formally included within the definition as new Permitted activity standards.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. There are no standards for minor infrastructure upgrading within roads and unformed roads. This results in an unworkable provision.

I. The Panel recommends no default activity status for minor infrastructure upgrading where an upgrade to an existing network utility exceeds the specified standard.

I. The council’s position

The recommended Permitted activity standards for minor infrastructure upgrading need to outline the default activity status where an upgrade to an existing network utility exceeds the specified standard.

II. The Panel’s recommendation and reasons

There are no reasons given for the Panel’s recommendation.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The proposed amendment is fundamental to the implementation of the PAUP, to ensure that any upgrade works or activities beyond the specified standards for minor infrastructure upgrading will be treated as equivalent to a new application for the same activity.

J. The Panel recommends increasing the permitted threshold for the trimming and alteration of trees in streets and public open spaces subject to meeting specific standards including an agreed tree management plan.

I. The council position

The Council's position was that no more than 20 per cent of live growth of a street tree or a tree within a public open space could be trimmed as a Permitted activity.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and reasons

The Panel has recommended the permitted threshold of the trimming of trees in streets and open space zones can be increased to 30% per cent under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified arborist and if there is an agreed tree management plan.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. While the increase in the permitted threshold is accepted, the requirement for an agreed tree management plan introduces an element of discretion into a Permitted activity and should be deleted.

K. The Panel recommends extending standards on vegetation removal within a SEA to roads.

I. The council position

The council position is the same as council’s case position on 042 Infrastructure and 023 SEA and vegetation management i.e. for the vegetation removal standard not to apply within the formation width of the road.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendation is to apply a 20m² limit on vegetation removal within an SEA, as a Permitted activity standard, and extending this standard over roads. No specific reasons are referenced in the relevant recommendations report.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel recommendations do not sufficiently recognise that roads run through many SEAs and the works required to maintain, repair and renew those roads.

L. The Panel recommends the inclusion of standards relating to earthworks (filling) within a floodplain associated with road works

I. The council position

The council position is the same as council’s case position on 042 Infrastructure which proposed to exempt road network activities from earthworks within the flood plain.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendations prevent, as a Permitted activity, the filling required in rehabilitation, renewal, resurfacing, repair and minor upgrading of roads, including for safety and stormwater management purposes. No specific reasons are referenced in the relevant recommendations report.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel’s recommendations do not sufficiently recognise the function roads perform as drainage systems for stormwater management and flood management. Standards for earthworks (including filling) within a 100 year AEP flood plain should exclude road network activities, as roads are also stormwater management systems.

M. The Panel recommends the inclusion of standards relating to earthworks (filling) within overland flow paths associated with road works

I. The council position

The council position is the same as council’s case position on 042 Infrastructure which proposed to exempt road network activities from earthworks within overland flow paths.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendations prevent, as a Permitted activity, the changes to overland flow paths in roads that may be required in rehabilitation, renewal, resurfacing, repair and minor upgrading of roads, including for safety and stormwater and flood management purposes. No specific reasons are referenced in the relevant recommendations report.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel’s recommendations do not sufficiently recognise the function roads perform as drainage systems for stormwater management and flood management.

b. Standards for earthworks (including filling) within overland flow paths should exclude road network activities, as roads are also stormwater management systems and overland flow paths. This would not prevent a network discharge consent being required for alternative stormwater discharges.

N. The Panel recommends limitations on earthworks within overlays for road network activities

I. The council position

The council position is the same as council’s case position on 042 Infrastructure which proposed to exclude road maintenance, repair and renewals, and minor infrastructure upgrading from the relevant earthworks standards.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendations limit earthworks within overlays to an extent that much routine road repair, renewal, rehabilitation and minor upgrading would require resource consents. No specific reasons are referenced in the relevant recommendations report.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel recommendations do not sufficiently recognise the overall area that roads cover.

b. Earthworks area and volume limits are insufficient for routine road network activities within the road, including maintenance of water tables, renewal of road and resealing.

7.6.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 042 - Infrastructure, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends no objective to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure in the District Plan provisions for infrastructure

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· An objective seeking to manage the adverse effects of infrastructure at a District Plan level is necessary to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.

B. The Panel recommends the tagging of the infrastructure objectives and policies as regional coastal provisions

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Auckland-wide infrastructure objectives and policies are not Regional Coastal Plan provisions.

C. The Panel recommends electric vehicle charging stations should be Permitted activities in roads

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Allowing electric vehicle charging stations as a Permitted activity on arterial roads would remove the ability to manage their location and ensure the efficient use of arterial roads

D. The Panel recommends deletion of the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading in the standards for activities in roads

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· There are no recommended standards for minor infrastructure upgrading within roads and unformed roads. This results in an unworkable provision.

E. The Panel recommends no default activity status for minor infrastructure upgrading where an upgrade to an existing network utility exceeds the specified standard.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· Any upgrade works or activities beyond the specified standards for minor infrastructure upgrading should be treated as equivalent to a new application for the same activity.

F. The Panel recommends increasing the permitted threshold for the trimming and alteration of trees in streets and public open spaces subject to meeting specific standards including an agreed tree management plan.

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· While the increase in the permitted threshold is accepted, the requirement for an agreed tree management plan introduces an element of discretion and should be deleted.

G. The Panel recommends extending standards on vegetation removal within a Significant Ecological Area to roads

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel recommendations do not sufficiently recognise that roads run through many Significant Ecological Areas and the works required to maintain, repair and renew those roads.

H. The Panel recommends the inclusion of standards relating to earthworks (filling) within a floodplain associated with road works

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel recommendations do not sufficiently recognise the function roads perform as drainage systems for stormwater management and flood management. Standards for earthworks (including filling) within a 100 year AEP flood plain should exclude road network activities, as roads are also stormwater management systems.

I. The Panel recommends specific limitations on earthworks within overlays for road network activities

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommended earthworks area and volume limits are insufficient for routine road network activities within the road, including maintenance of water tables, renewal of roads and resealing.

· The PAUP should recognise the different effects of depth of earthworks within roads in the different overlays.

7.7 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 043/044 Transport, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends amending the parking rates – (Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre and Mixed Use zones and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone) to remove maximum and minimum parking rates for all activities within these zones with the exception of retail and commercial service activities (minimum parking rate only).

B. The Panel recommends a graduated approach for non-residential parking rates in the City Centre of 1:125m² for non-residential activities within a proposed ‘Outer core’ parking area while applying a rate of 1:200m² within a proposed ‘Inner core’ parking area. A maximum rate of 1.5 car parks per dwelling (regardless of dwelling size) is proposed for residential activities

Discussion

Technical matter

A. The Panel recommends amending the parking rates – (Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre and Mixed Use zones and Terrace Housing and Apartment

A. Building zone) to remove maximum and minimum parking rates for all activities within these zones with the exception of retail and commercial service activities (minimum parking rate only).

I. The Council’s position

Proposed that a maximum parking rate with no minimum parking requirements apply in the Metropolitan, Town and Local Centre zones and the Mixed Use zone.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

That a minimum parking requirement of 1 car park per 30m² GFA apply in these zones for Retail and Commercial Service activities (with no maximum). For all other activities there is no maximum and no minimum parking requirement.

The Panel was of the view that the recommended approach of no parking maximum or minimum will provide greater flexibility for non- retail and commercial activities to intensify (including residential activities) in these higher order centres.

III. Staff comments – Accept. Staff support the Panel’s recommendation on this matter and agree with the reasons provided by the Panel:

a. The inclusion of parking minimums for retail and commercial service activities is intended to address effects associated with spill-over parking.

b. Implications of the recommended standards can be monitored and addressed through a potential subsequent Plan Change if required.

I. The council position

The council position is the same as council’s case position on Topic 043/044 Transport i.e. flat maximum parking rate for accessory parking of 1 per 200m² GFA and graduated parking rate for residential dwelling of 0.7 per <75m² GFA ,1.4 per ≥75 and < 90m² GFA 1.7 per ≥90m² GFA.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel’s recommendations are for a graduated approach for non-residential parking rates in the City Centre of 1:125m² for non-residential activities within a proposed ‘Outer core’ parking area while applying a rate of 1:200m² within a proposed ‘Inner core’ parking area.

The Panel’s recommendations note that maximums for accessory car parking in the city centre and its fringes continue to be useful to moderate transport congestion. It was persuaded to provide a graduated maximum rate from the inner core of the city centre out to the fringe. No reason is given for particular maximum parking rates chosen.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The Panel’s recommendations will provide more accessory parking and residential parking in the City Centre Zone, which is an already congested road network with high levels of public transport accessibility. The Panel’s recommendations are also higher than the rates currently applied and are considered to be less efficient and effective in achieving transport objectives around managing travel demand in the City Centre.

7.7.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 043/044 - Transport, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, except for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel’s recommended parking rates for non-residential activities in the City Centre zone

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The Panel’s recommendations will provide more accessory parking and residential parking in the City Centre zone, which is an already congested road network with high levels of public transport accessibility.

· The Panel’s recommendations are higher than the rates currently applied and are considered to be less efficient and effective in achieving transport objectives around managing travel demand in the City Centre.

7.8 Panel report entitled “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 046/047/048/049 – Water quality and quantity, lakes, rivers and streams, aquifers and ground water and discharges of stormwater and wastewater, July 2016”

The Panel’s recommendations are largely consistent with the council’s position at the hearing except for the following:

A. The Panel recommends deleting Permitted activity land use rule for stormwater runoff into the stormwater network and combined sewer network

B. The Panel recommends amending a Permitted activity status for sites that do not discharge to a stream or discharge below RL 2m in a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

C. The Panel recommends amending the activity status for roads within a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

D. The Panel recommends deleting the default activity status for roads/motorways within a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF) not meeting the standards

E. The Panel recommends amending to general standards in E10.6.1 1 and associated rules (E10.6.3.1) to refer to “site” which, as defined, does not include a road

F. The Panel recommends amending the hydrology mitigation requirements for some roading projects.

G. The Panel recommends deleting of the definition “Redevelopment of a road”.

Discussion

Technical matters:

A. The Panel recommends deleting Permitted activity land use rule for stormwater runoff into the stormwater network and combined sewer network

I. The Council position

Stormwater runoff to a stormwater network was addressed as a diversion rule. Runoff from impervious areas was managed using a land use rule such that any increase in flow in the combined sewer network required Restricted Discretionary activity consent.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel deleted the diversion rule and introducing a permitted activity land use rule for stormwater runoff into the stormwater network and combined sewer network.

No specific reasons are given but overall the Panel’s preference appears to be that where appropriate control and management of stormwater entering the Council’s stormwater network should be managed through the Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw.

III. Staff comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. The recommended rule allows stormwater to be discharged to the combined sewer without control. The policy position that has been recommended by the Panel (consistent with council’s case position) is that land use should be required to avoid increasing discharges to the combined network unless they are minor and there is no practicable alternative (E1.3 (20)).

b. In addition, diverting more stormwater to the combined sewer network will reduce the capacity of the combined sewer network and the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. It may lead to an increase in combined sewer overflows with resulting adverse effects on the community and the environment.

B. The Panel recommends amending to a Permitted activity status for sites that do not discharge to a stream or discharge below RL 2m in a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

I. The council position

Some SMAF activities were a Permitted activity (subject to controls) to reduce regulatory requirements.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

The Panel found the SMAF rules overly complex, very prescriptive and difficult to interpret. In simplifying the rules, the Panel has reclassified most SMAF activities that were a Permitted activity in the council’s position to a Restricted Discretionary activity.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. This blanket reclassification has resulted in a situation where a Restricted Discretionary consent would still need to be obtained but due to site or discharge circumstances no stormwater management or mitigation is required.

b. This situation is not considered to be efficient or effective and will require consents to be obtained when there is no mitigation or environmental benefit.

C. The Panel recommends amending to the activity status for roads within a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

I. The council position

The council’s position provided for roads up to 5000m² and roads greater than 5000m² as a controlled activity if hydrology mitigation requirements and other controls were met.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

In simplifying the rules, the Panel has introduced more stringent consent requirements for all activities. Roads greater than 5,000 m² of new impervious area are required to get Discretionary consent even where specified mitigation is met (in contrast, this is Restricted Discretionary for private sites). There does not appear to be any basis for this different activity status, which is inconsistent with the Panel’s view and recommended changes on other stormwater management rules (e.g. diversion/discharge).

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. It is not effective to require a Discretionary activity resource consent where the required standard of mitigation is met. Discretionary consent is required, however, where the required standard of mitigation is not achieved and this is considered appropriate.

D. The Panel recommends deleting the default activity status for roads/motorways within a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF).

I. The Council position

The default activity status for roads/motorways (and other impervious areas) was a Restricted Discretionary activity in the Council’s position.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

In making the rules more stringent, the Panel has made the default activity status for private sites that do not meet hydrology mitigation requirements a discretionary activity. However, a similar default activity status for roads/motorways greater than 5,000 m² of new impervious area has not been provided. There does not appear to be any basis for this difference.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. It is more efficient to include a default activity status in the Activity Table for roads/motorways that is consistent with other activities.

E. The Panel recommends amending to general standards in E10.6.1 1 and associated rules (E10.6.3.1) to refer to “site” which, as defined, does not include a road.

I. The council position

The rules in council’s position generally referred to existing and new areas of road and discharges to the same “drainage network point” to reflect that a road is not a “site” but linear infrastructure that cross multiple sub-catchments.

II. The Panel’s Recommendations and Reasons

Panel was concerned that the SMAF rules were too complex and difficult to interpret and that there should generally not be a difference between public and private activities. However, in simplifying the rules, the Panel has applied the term “site” to roads in the general standards in E10.6.1 and the subsequent rules. The definition of “site” does not include a road and it is not clear how the rules pertaining to a “site” would be applied to roads.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. A minor change is required to clarify the intention of the rules in respect of a road/motorway to reduce confusion regarding the application of the rules to roads and motorways.

F. The Panel recommends amending the hydrology mitigation requirements for some roading projects.

I. The council position

The rules in the council’s position for stormwater runoff from impervious areas discharging into streams required a stormwater management device to meet hydrology mitigation requirements (volume reduction and temporary storage) to reduce stormwater volumes within SMAF areas.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel changed the hydrology mitigation requirements for some roading projects. The Panel’s recommendation report recognised the potential difficulty in meeting the hydrology mitigation requirements for roading projects in some circumstances.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. To recognise the Panel’s recommendation that certain roading projects may have difficulty in meeting hydrology mitigation requirements, the hydrology mitigation requirement in Rule E8.6.4.1 specifying volume reduction and temporary storage should be removed and replaced with a reference to Table E10.6.3.1.1 Hydrology mitigation requirements.

G. The Panel recommends deleting the definition of” redevelopment of a road”

I. The Council position

The Council’s position included a definition that recognised routine maintenance, repair and renewal works on roads.

II. The Panel’s Recommendation and Reasons

The Panel recommends deleting the definition of ‘redevelopment of a road’. No specific reason has been given for this change. The Panel has recommended retaining the related definition of ‘redevelopment of impervious area’, which does not include roads by virtue of referencing the definition of ‘site’ (which excludes roads). Therefore roads are excluded from the definition of ‘redevelopment of impervious area’. As a consequence routine road maintenance, pothole repairs and resurfacing of a road are not provided for as a Permitted activity.

III. Staff Comments – Reject. Staff do not support the recommendation of the Panel on this matter for the following reasons:

a. Reinserting the definition of “redevelopment of a road” in line with the recommended amended rules provides for the ongoing routine maintenance, repair and resurfacing of roads.

7.8.1 Recommendation

That the Auckland Development Committee recommends that the Governing Body:

Accepts all the recommendations from the Independent Hearings Panel as contained in the Panel report entitles “Report to Auckland Council Hearing topic 046-049 - Water, July 2016” as they relate to the content of the PAUP and also the associated recommendations as they appears in the plan and the maps, expect for the recommendations outlined below which it rejects:

TECHNICAL MATTERS

A. The Panel recommends deleting Permitted activity land use rule for stormwater runoff into the stormwater network and combined sewer network

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· The recommended rule allows stormwater to be discharged to the combined sewer without control. The policy position that has been recommended by the Panel (consistent with council’s case position) is that land use should be required to avoid increasing discharges to the combined network unless they are minor and there is no practicable alternative.

· Diverting more stormwater to the combined sewer network will reduce the capacity of the combined sewer network and the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. It may lead to an increase in combined sewer overflows, despite current initiatives undertaken by Watercare Services, with resulting adverse effects on the community and the environment.

B. The Panel recommends amending to a Permitted activity status for sites that do not discharge to a stream or discharge below RL 2m in a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· This blanket reclassification has resulted in a situation where a Restricted Discretionary consent would still need to be obtained, but due to site or discharge circumstances, no stormwater management or mitigation would be required.

· This situation is not considered to be efficient or effective and will require consents to be obtained when there is no mitigation or environmental benefit.

C. The Panel recommends amending the activity status for roads within a Stormwater Management Areas Flow (SMAF)

Reasons for rejecting the recommendations are:

· It is not effective to require a Discretionary Activi

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