Agenda of Planning Committee

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

The engagement approach and proposed options for the Auckland Plan Refresh

File No.: CP2017/03805

Purpose

1. To provide information on the options to refresh the Auckland Plan, seek approval for option 2 – streamlined spatial plan and approval for an engagement and consultation approach.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan acts as the common platform for getting agreement on and working towards Auckland’s long-term future. Legislatively required, it must set a 20-30 year strategic direction for Auckland’s growth and development, integrating social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives.

3. The current plan was adopted in 2012 and has provided direction in some significant areas, including the development of the Unitary Plan. The Auckland Plan has proven to be an important and useful document, but has shortcomings which have become evident during implementation. These shortcomings include outdated data, outdated population growth projections, limited integration, a complex structure, too much low-level content, limited prioritisation, and a weak monitoring and reporting framework. In addition, the plan is in hard copy form and therefore cannot be easily updated or accessed.

4. Three options have been identified to address these problems through a refresh of the plan. Option 2 (a streamlined spatial approach) is recommended on the basis that it provides appropriate focus on spatial components while ensuring these are strongly connected to the achievement of high-level social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives. It also most closely aligns to the legislation that governs the plan. The option structures the plan around a small number of inter-linked themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. Option 2, estimated at $2.69 - $3.42 million (which includes budgeted internal staff costs), has the least expensive range of cost estimates for the options identified in this report.

5. All stakeholders need to be engaged in the development of the plan. The communities of Auckland are defined in the legislation as one stakeholder. It is proposed that early engagement with the communities of Auckland on the big issues facing Auckland takes place from May to June 2017.

6. Other stakeholders, for example central government and infrastructure providers, will be engaged throughout the development of the plan during March to October 2017. Feedback received will inform the development of the draft refreshed Auckland Plan.

7. Formal consultation on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan, through a legislatively required Special Consultative Procedure (SCP), is proposed for February to March 2018. Under the SCP, the council is required to develop a statement of proposal to provide the basis for consultation with the community.

8. It is proposed to run the SCP for the draft refreshed Auckland Plan at the same time as the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 SCP in February/March 2018. There is potential to combine or align consultation events. Working with other planning processes is considered to be an effective use of resources and is designed to avoid competing engagements and consultation fatigue.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve option 2, outlined in the agenda report, to refresh the Auckland Plan as a streamlined spatial plan.

b) approve the approach for early engagement with the communities of Auckland on the refresh of the Auckland Plan.

c) approve the approach for engagement with other key partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

d) approve the use of the Special Consultative Procedure on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan, concurrent with the draft Long-term Plan, in 2018.

Comments

Why have an Auckland Plan

9. Auckland Council is legislatively required to develop a spatial plan for Auckland. The plan performs a critical function by agreeing a common long-term plan for Auckland’s future and using this as a basis for engaging with multiple partners and stakeholders. It must set a 20-30 year strategic direction for Auckland that integrates social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives and outline a high-level Development Strategy (spatial component) that will achieve that direction and objectives.

10. The plan provides the ability to coordinate and align land use and infrastructure planning and provision to match the rapid growth in Auckland. It gives greater certainty to other parties (e.g. central government, infrastructure providers) for the investment decisions they need to make.

11. The consistent direction set in the plan needs to be expressed through various statutory and operational plans and decisions. Attachment A ‘Auckland Plan’s relationship with other plans’ depicts these relationships.

Why refresh the Auckland Plan

12. The current Auckland Plan was adopted in 2012 and was an important and useful document for its time. Consistent with international best practice, there was a commitment to review the plan after six years in recognition of the large number of ‘unknowns’ at that very early period in the life of the new council, including the rate at which Auckland would grow.

13. Over the past five years, the plan has provided direction in some significant areas. For example, it set the growth model for Auckland. The Unitary Plan took its direction from this and enabled the model through its zoning. It also built the strategic case and the momentum for the City Rail Link. Inclusion of this in the plan was not simply about agreeing a project but about creating the framework for Auckland’s future transport strategy.

14. While these are significant achievements, the plan has shortcomings which have become evident through implementation (see Table 1). This means that, in its current state, the current plan cannot adequately continue to provide the support for decision-making the legislation intends.

Table 1: Issues with existing Auckland plan

Problem	Description
Out of date data	· Majority is based on 2006 data · Does not reflect strategic work carried out since the plan was adopted
Integration/Development Strategy	· Development Strategy sits separately from other strategic directions
Complex structure	· Contains too many layers and components · People find it hard to work with, which affects implementation · Limited integration between different components
Mixed content	· Includes range of strategic and operational content · Detailed content better addressed in other plans and processes
No prioritisation	· Does not prioritise across the large number of strategic directions in the plan
Hard copy document	· Unable to update document to reflect significant changes
Targets	· Too many targets and many unmeasurable · Unclear ownership of targets · Difficult to track progress as a result

15. To illustrate the point, the rate of population growth has exceeded the growth projections of the 2012 Plan with significant implications for Auckland if the projections continue to be used into the future. Figure 1 below shows the difference between the 2012 projections – used in the current plan – and the Statistics New Zealand updated 2017 projections. For instance, the new projections see around 100,000 more people over the next 10 years compared to the Auckland Plan projections (high growth scenario). A refreshed Auckland Plan will help to build a better understanding of how to plan for and fund this level of growth.

Figure 1: Rate of population growth

Options description

16. Three options to address the shortcomings of the current plan have been identified.

Option 1: Full update

· Update all facts and figures

· Rewrite all chapters in their current form to address new strategic content and new issues

· Rewrite Development Strategy to reflect Unitary Plan decisions; Infrastructure Strategy; strategic work on urban, rural and future urban development areas; National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements; and create new growth model

· Amend targets using existing measurement framework

· Create new hard copy plan of similar size (a digital plan is less viable with current structure)

Option 2: Streamlined spatial (Recommended)

· Update facts and figures

· Use small number of organising and inter-linked themes around Auckland’s key challenges

· Set high level objectives (spatial and non-spatial) in these theme areas with brief narrative

· Create a limited number of high level indicators to track progress and measures to guide work programmes

· Focus on Development Strategy to reflect Unitary Plan decisions; Infrastructure Strategy; strategic work on urban, rural and future urban development areas; National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements; and create new growth model

· Create a digital plan

Note

· Excludes any further non-spatial initiatives, narrative or detail and removes more detailed operational directives

· Removes all other material in existing plan

Option 3: Streamlined spatial and non-spatial

· Option 2 plus more detailed non-spatial initiatives and narrative (somewhat similar to current plan) but within new plan structure

Options assessment

17. Each option has been assessed against the problems identified with the current plan.

18. Option 1 would use the updated data to review and rewrite the entire plan, including the Development Strategy. The plan would retain the existing structure and large volume of narrative. This would not result in any gains in achieving a less complex and more accessible plan. Since it retains the existing structure, converting to a digital plan would be problematic, costly and provide limited advantage.

19. Option 2 (recommended) would provide an appropriate focus on spatial components of the plan while ensuring these are strongly connected to the achievement of articulated high-level social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives. It would be a substantially smaller document than the existing plan. By structuring it around a small number of themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges, it would ensure the plan is strategic, spatial and well integrated across these objectives. It would not contain large volumes of detailed initiatives and narrative. This option creates a more effective monitoring and reporting framework that enables better tracking of progress. The themed approach works more effectively on a digital platform, increasing the ability of Aucklanders to engage with the plan.

20. Option 3 would continue with spatial and non-spatial components. The inclusion of non-spatial components at a more detailed level (compared to option 2) would detract from the strategic nature of the plan. It would also create a large body of content, some of which should more appropriately be contained in other strategies, policies and plans. Notwithstanding this, it would be a substantially smaller document than the existing plan.

21. Attachment B depicts the proposed structure of the plan under option 2 and Attachment C depicts what a more streamlined spatial plan framework might look like.

Costs

22. There are four parts to the cost of the options outlined in this report: (i) early engagement (ii) formal consultation with our partners, stakeholders and communities, (iii) staff costs in preparing the plan, and (iv) development of the digital plan/production costs for a hard copy plan.

Table 3: Options - costing

Option	Developing the content	Consulting				Producing the updated plan	Total costs
	Cost for existing staff	Budgeted in Annual Plan 2016/17 and 2017/18
		Targeted community engagement	Stakeholder engagement & formal consultation on draft Plan		Production costs
Option 1: Full update (Development Strategy and 13 Chapters)	$2,800,000 – $3,300,000	$110,000		$481,000 - $514,000		Hard copy $460,000	$3,851,000 - $4,384,000
Option 2: Streamlined spatial (recommended)	$1,900,000 - $2,300,000	$110,000		$481,000 - $514,000		Digital plan $200,000 - $500,000	$2,691,000 - $3,424,000
Option 3: Streamlined spatial and non-spatial	$2,300,000 - $2,800,000	$110,000		$481,000 - $514,000		Digital plan $200,000 - $500,000	$3,091,000 - $3,924,000

23. These costs are best estimates at this point. Unforeseen circumstances mean that, as the project develops, additional work may be required. This could result in additional cost and staff time. For example, the degree to which stakeholders may want to engage could result in higher costs.

Approach to engagement and consultation

24. The objectives of consultation and engagement for the Auckland Plan Refresh are outlined in the table below:

Table 4: Auckland Plan Refresh consultation and engagement objectives

Objectives
Influence Auckland’s future	· Inform Aucklanders, including our partners and stakeholders, that Auckland has a 30 year strategic plan for its development · Give people a say in Auckland’s future plans · Develop the plan with partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders
Align implementation efforts	· Ensure partners and stakeholders understand the role they play in implementing the plan · Seek feedback from partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders to inform what role council should play in implementing the plan · Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s ongoing decisions and policies
Shape the priorities for the Long-term Plan	· Provide input to the options in the Long-term Plan 2018-28 · Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s investment decisions

Objectives

Influence Auckland’s future

· Inform Aucklanders, including our partners and stakeholders, that Auckland has a 30 year strategic plan for its development

· Give people a say in Auckland’s future plans

· Develop the plan with partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders

Align implementation efforts

· Ensure partners and stakeholders understand the role they play in implementing the plan

· Seek feedback from partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders to inform what role council should play in implementing the plan

· Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s ongoing decisions and policies

Shape the priorities for the Long-term Plan

· Provide input to the options in the Long-term Plan 2018-28

· Help people make the connection between the outcomes being sought for Auckland and council’s investment decisions

25. Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy is based on the following principles:

· conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and give effect to its identified priorities and outcomes in an efficient and effective manner;

· make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities;

· take account of the diversity of the community, and the community's interests; and the interests of future as well as current communities; and the likely impact of any decision on them;

· provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes; and

· ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets.

Engaging with elected members

26. Engagement with elected members recognises the responsibilities and accountabilities for decision-making through the shared governance model. Engagement will occur on an ongoing basis throughout the preparation and development of the plan through Planning Committee workshops to which local board representatives are invited.

27. The Planning Committee will recommend the final plan to the Governing Body for approval. Elected members also have a key role in engagement and consultation with stakeholders and communities.

Figure 3: Elected members’ engagement

28. There are four main phases to the engagement and consultation plan:

Phase 1: Early engagement with communities of Auckland	May-June 2017
Phase 2: Stakeholder engagement	March-October 2017
Phase 3: Formal consultation (SCP)	February-March 2018
Phase 4: Closing the loop	April-June 2018

Phase 1: Early engagement with communities of Auckland (May – June 2017)

29. This phase involves targeted community engagement on the “big issues” and high level strategic direction of the refreshed Auckland Plan. It provides an opportunity to provide input before a draft plan is prepared.

30. Early engagement prior to formal consultation is considered best practice and contributes to meeting legislative requirements to involve Auckland’s communities in the preparation and development of the plan.

31. The early engagement process is likely to include the provision of summary information on the opportunities and challenges Auckland faces over the next 30 years. This could form the basis for feedback for any gaps identified, opportunities and priorities for Auckland in the future. The feedback received through this process will be used to inform the drafting of the refreshed plan and reported to the Planning Committee at appropriate times.

32. A combined approach for consultation with the Special Consultative Procedure with local board plans was considered but the document production deadlines no longer permit such an approach.

33. Targeted early community engagement, running from May – June 2017 would involve eliciting public views and input through channels such as online surveying or questions put to the People’s Panel. It would also include combined workshops of community group representatives. Council will also be working with the expertise and networks of the advisory panels in engaging with the communities of Auckland in this early engagement phase.

Note

Section 80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to involve stakeholders, including the “communities of Auckland”. There is no prescribed way of carrying out this engagement and “communities of Auckland” is not defined. The key, however, is that communities must be involved, in some form, throughout the preparation and development of the amended plan and council must be able to document how this engagement has occurred. This is in addition to formal consultation prior to adoption of an amended plan.

Phase 2: Stakeholder engagement (March – October 2017)

34. Legislation requires council to “involve central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, the rural sector, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the plan”.

35. The purpose of involving partners and stakeholders is to:

· continue the conversation on Auckland’s long-term future

· tell the story of what has changed since the plan was adopted in 2012, seek their early feedback and any additional perspectives they may have

· share evidence and identify challenges and future direction

· seek their input into the drafting of the plan

· recognise the critical implementation and partnering role they will play.

36. This engagement needs to commence at the early stages of the Auckland Plan Refresh to provide opportunities for early input into the direction of the plan. It will continue throughout the year at various milestone points in the drafting of the plan.

37. Engagement will occur through a variety of channels. The intention is to use existing events/forums where possible rather than create additional events and meetings.

38. The table below is an outline of how these groups will be engaged.

Table 5: Stakeholder engagement

Partner/ Stakeholder Group	How they will be engaged
Central Government	· An agreed terms of reference on how council and central government will work together · Input to the development of strategic content
Mana whenua and mataawaka	· Co-designed engagement approach with mana whenua · Channels for engaging mataawaka groups and individuals
Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB)	· IMSB staff contribute to the development of strategic content for Māori outcomes through involvement in technical workshops · IMSB members on the Planning Committee
Advisory panels	· Build awareness of Auckland Plan Refresh, process and timing at induction workshop in April 2017 · Workshops on the strategic content in April 2017 · Seeking advice on community groups, opportunities to engage, and community forums
Sector groups (Rural, Infrastructure and Private)	· Leverage existing forums and meetings where possible to engage · Input to the issues/options and direction as key influencers in the Auckland region
Neighbouring Councils	· Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) forum · Leverage existing forums and meetings to engage
Council controlled organisations	· Input to the development of strategic content · Contribute to technical workstreams

39. The feedback received from stakeholders will be used to inform the drafting of the plan and will be reported to the Planning Committee at appropriate times.

Phase 3: Formal Consultation on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan (February – March 2018)

40. Under the legislated SCP, the council is required to develop a statement of proposal to provide the basis for consultation with the community.

41. Formal consultation, through a SCP, on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan is proposed for February to March 2018. It will involve public consultation, stakeholder events, analysis and reporting.

42. Formal consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 is proposed to occur at the same time. There are tightly specified legal requirements around the long-term plan consultation, requiring separate consultation material for the two plans, but there would be potential to combine or align consultation events.

43. This approach is considered to be an effective use of resources and is designed to avoid competing engagements and consultation fatigue.

44. The Planning Committee will meet on 5 June 2018 to make final decisions on the refreshed Auckland Plan. The Governing Body will meet to adopt the final refreshed Auckland Plan on 26 June 2018.

Phase Four: Closing the loop (April – June 2018)

45. The council must ensure that people who provided views on the Auckland Plan Refresh have access to a clear description of the decisions with supporting material. This information will be made available on the council website and communicated by:

· e-mailing people who have participated in the process

· Our Auckland and council digital and social channels

· media release

· print and online advertising.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

46. The Auckland Plan provides high-level strategic direction to achieve Auckland-wide outcomes. Local boards use the direction when preparing their local board plans to support better alignment between local and regional investment and activities.

47. All local board chairs are invited to the Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan. To date, local board chairs have generally indicated support for a refresh of the plan. Given the dynamic nature of growth, views have included that the plan needs to be a living document; that there is a pressing need to update information, particularly for high-growth local boards following the Unitary Plan decisions, the refresh of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Feedback also included the need to review the underlying growth assumptions, projections and development strategy and assess how we are tracking to identify areas for improvement and/or focus. The need to continue to work with Auckland Transport and Watercare on the refresh of the plan was also noted. Support was also expressed for a digital plan that would allow greater accessibility to information.

48. Briefings on the Auckland Plan Refresh to local board members were held on 20 and 27 February 2017. A further cluster workshop with local boards is planned for 10 April 2017. Additional workshops will be scheduled to ensure the involvement of boards throughout all phases.

Māori impact statement

49. One of the outcomes of the Auckland Plan is “a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The Auckland Plan Refresh and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori. The plan’s development will, amongst others, be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance and the Māori Plan.

50. There has been no engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka on the options for refreshing the Auckland Plan.

51. All options proposed in this report incorporate the general retention of principles/outcomes of the current plan as well as inclusion of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in the context-setting part of the plan. In addition, issues of significance and outcomes identified in the Māori Plan would be considered throughout the development of thematic areas in all options.

52. Key issues of interest to Māori are likely to include Māori housing, accessible and affordable transport to employment in the West and South, papakāinga and marae development, rangatahi skills development and pathways to employment, Māori business development, protection and management of waahi tapu and initiatives affirming Māori cultural identity.

53. Mana whenua may also be interested in the role they can play in the development of Auckland and the opportunities this presents, for example, development partnerships or future large-scale infrastructure projects.

54. There will be engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka on the development of the content of the refreshed plan. Engagement with mana whenua will be undertaken through a co-designed approach. This is currently being considered and an initial discussion on an engagement approach was held on 20 March 2017 at a mana whenua chairs’ hui. Engagement with mataawaka will take place during the early engagement phase. The approach to mataawaka engagement is yet to be confirmed.

Implementation

55. A decision to approve the option for refreshing the Auckland Plan and approval for the consultation and engagement approach is required at this meeting.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Plan relationship to other strategic documents	21
b ⇩	Proposed structure of refreshed Auckland Plan	23
c ⇩	Streamlined spatial plan framework	25

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Auckland City Centre Masterplan (2012): Delivery and Implementation Progress Update

File No.: CP2017/04311

Purpose

1. To seek endorsement from the Planning Committee on the proposed approach to updating the Implementation Plan for the Auckland City Centre Masterplan (the Masterplan).

Executive summary

2. The Masterplan was published in 2012, setting out a bold 20 year vision for Auckland’s city centre:

“By 2032 Auckland’s City Centre will be highly regarded internationally as a centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living – all with a distinctively ‘Auckland’ flavour.”

3. The Masterplan identifies eight transformational Moves and these have informed the projects that have and will take place in the city centre to deliver the vision. The Moves are shown below.

4. The Masterplan is a unique cross-cutting document that allows multiple organisations to work towards delivering this vision. The Masterplan is highly regarded for being well-illustrated, accessible and engaging. In 2012 it won the New Zealand Institute of Architects Urban Design Award in the Envisaging Projects category.

5. A timely update is needed to the Implementation Plan in order to ensure that it can continue to deliver these Moves and integrate with the work planned in the Waterfront area. Three projects are proposed to deliver this update:

a) Victoria Linear Park and Midtown East–West Public Transport

b) Quay Street Harbour Edge Boulevard and Hobson Street Flyover

c) Queen Street - Issue Identification and Project Implications

6. Costs for the programme will be approximately $380,000 with at least 40% of this being budgeted internal staff costs. Other departments and Council Controlled Organisations will also need to allocate resources at various times.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree the proposed approach and timeline for updating the Implementation Plan for the Auckland City Centre Masterplan for the following three projects:

i) Victoria Linear Park and Midtown East–West Public Transport

ii) Quay Street Harbour Edge Boulevard and Hobson Street Flyover

iii) Queen Street - Issue Identification and Project Implications.

Comments

7. The Masterplan sets out a vision for the future of the city centre. This vision is consistent with the Auckland Plan’s overall ambition of creating the world’s most liveable city.

8. Looking back at the city’s achievements, it is important to take stock of Auckland’s transformation. This time last year, Metro Magazine opined that:

“It’s become so common to be proud of Auckland that we forget how recent the feeling is. But even 10 years ago the prevailing feeling was cynicism.”

Simon Wilson – Metro Magazine March 2016

9. Perception of a city does not change in isolation – this shift in discourse has occurred on the basis of multiple, related steps over time. The Masterplan is structured around eight transformational Moves; each one of these containing a sub-set of projects. It also proposed a number of place-based plans within the city centre, for example Aotea Quarter.

10. Progress in the city centre since 2012 includes the following:

Construction has started on City Rail Link; this is the single most important transport project in Auckland. It will increase the two hour morning peak rail capacity by 150% and mean that no part of the city centre is more than 10 minutes from a railway station.

10.1. The city centre is an increasingly popular place to live. In 2012, its population of 27,000 was expected to reach 45,000 by 2032. This figure is in fact likely to be reached in 2017; a full 15 years ahead of predictions. The city centre population is forecast to grow by a further 30,000 over the next 10 years. This is equivalent to 50% of the population of Rotorua relocating to within Auckland’s inner motorway.

10.2. The city centre is an increasingly popular place to live. In 2012, its population of 27,000 was expected to reach 45,000 by 2032. This figure is in fact likely to be reached in 2017; a full 15 years ahead of predictions. The city centre population is forecast to grow by a further 30,000 over the next 10 years. This is equivalent to 50% of the population of Rotorua relocating to within Auckland’s inner motorway.

10.3. The growth in residential population has taken place alongside business growth. Over 10,000 jobs have been created in the city centre since 2012 and more than 100,000 people now work there. This has driven down office vacancy rates to 2.4% (for Grade A properties) – this is a record low.

10.4. Auckland’s highest value commercial land uses (finance, property, investment, legal services, primary retail etc.) take place in a distinct ‘Engine Room’ centred on the northernmost stretch of Queen Street. Since 2012 this has grown stronger and has spilled north and west towards Britomart, Victoria Street West and Wynyard Quarter. Here, former industrial land has been transformed and high-quality public realm is matched by adaptive re-use of old buildings. The development of new Grade-A office space (e.g. ASB headquarters) has contributed to Wynyard’s status as the fastest-growing employment centre in Auckland.

10.5. Significantly, the growth of Auckland city centre has also taken place against a flat lining in private car traffic. More people now live in the city centre than travel in by car. Public transport and active travel have accounted for all increases in trips and now constitute the majority of peak trips into the city centre. This is similar to observed trends in comparable waterfront cities such as Melbourne, Vancouver and Helsinki.

10.6. Investment decisions made since 2012 will see this trend continue. Inbound morning peak public transport capacity is forecast to increase from 35,000 people per hour to more than 60,000 by 2026.

10.7. A similar level of transformation has occurred with regard to cycling. The opening of the Lightpath in 2013 marked a significant increase in ambition and investment. High-quality protected cycle infrastructure has subsequently been delivered along Quay Street, Beach Road and Nelson Street, with other projects to follow, such as Skypath.

10.8. The public realm in central Auckland has had to be rethought in order to enable it to work harder. Once-radical streetscape interventions have now entered the mainstream. Shared space treatments have transformed streets like O’Connell Street into prestigious city centre addresses and inspired confidence in the overall quality of Auckland as a place to live, work and visit. The continued development of the Laneway Circuit will contribute to this. Other achievements include the refurbishment and enhancement of Myers Park in 2015 for its centennial.

10.9. Auckland City Centre has developed over the past five years to provide a unique offer within New Zealand. Its package of a high-quality, high-density urban environment has exceeded all expectations and reflects the underlying strength of the Masterplan.

11. In order for this work to continue, an update to the Masterplan implementation plan is needed. There are four main reasons for doing this work now.

11.1 The project provides critical input to current projects under construction, including Commercial Bay, the New Zealand International Conference Centre and City Rail Link’s city centre stations.

11.2 It informs projects that are currently in detailed planning, including:

· The east-west bus corridor options

· Downtown bus interchange

· Light rail planning

· Central Wharves Strategy

· Downtown Public Space Project

· Waterfront Plan refresh.

11.3 It informs the Long-term Plan resource allocation.

11.4 The Masterplan includes provision for refreshing the document every six years in order to keep its content relevant and up to date. An update of the Implementation Strategy will help to assess whether a 2018 refresh is required and to what extent or scope. At this time any implications from the Auckland Plan refresh can be considered.

12. Auckland Transport has undertaken an extensive review of the city centre transport networks in the light of emerging travel and transport projects. Known as the City Centre Network Plan (the Network Plan), the proposals for the coming 10 years will result in the reallocation of around 8km of City Centre traffic lanes to walking and cycling, and around 15km of traffic lanes to public transport. Schemes include:

· New Bus Network with supporting bus corridors

· Light rail in Queen Street and Custom Street

· City Rail Link stations

· New cycleways

· Additional pedestrian space, especially around public transport nodes.

13. Although Auckland Transport remains committed to supporting the aspirations of the Masterplan, the emerging analysis from Auckland Transport has identified potential conflicts with three key projects adopted in the Masterplan. These are:

13.1 Victoria Street Linear Park: This connection forms a critical link in the city centre’s “Blue-Green Park Network” - a public space connecting the waterfront to the middle of the city and linking Victoria and Albert Parks via Victoria Street. AT’s view from updated analysis is that more lanes need to be initially retained to support east-west movement than indicated in the Masterplan but Auckland Transport is committed to working with Council on improving both streets.

13.2 Quay Street Harbour Edge Boulevard: This project forms the backbone to the “Harbour Edge Stitch”, a Move to unite the waterfront with the city centre. Auckland Transport’s plans include a requirement for some bus movements which were not present when the Masterplan was developed.

13.3 Hobson Street Flyover removal: This is another proposal within the Harbour Edge Stitch. The existing structure mars the area, creates an unattractive environment and detracts from potential redevelopment of adjacent land such as the Downtown Car Park. Auckland Transport’s analysis recommends converting the flyover to a two-way link with pedestrian and cycle facilities, to enable public transport to operate beneath it.

Scope

14. The updated Masterplan Implementation Strategy proposes three projects. Two of these are integrated design studies to unlock the conflict between these projects and the Network Plan. The third will be a high-level exercise to provide critical guidance in this area. These studies will consider the underlying objectives of the Masterplan and Network Plan together - identifying options that retain both documents’ intentions.

15. A summary description of each project is provided overleaf. Further details on project components and delivery are provided in the Appendix.

Project 1: Victoria Linear Park and Midtown East-West Public Transport

Working title: Midtown Great Streets

16. The purpose of this project is to undertake reference design studies to identify preferred option for Wellesley and Victoria Streets. This project will be delivered alongside Auckland Transport’s Learning Quarter Bus Project Consultation.

17. Outcomes

17.1 The reference design process will provide the detailed level of operational assessment and economic, financial and commercial analysis required by New Zealand Transport Agency for an Auckland transport project (as prescribed by the Detailed Business Case process).

17.2 Urban Design analysis, including assessment of the options against the benefit to land use and economic development opportunities.

17.3 Illustrated public realm design options allowing an informed, objective and transparent assessment of the options.

18. Timeframe and Costs

18.1 Timeframe: 7 months

18.2 External resource costs: $100,000

Project 2: Quay Street Harbour Edge Boulevard and Hobson Street Flyover

Addressing network changes as part of the Harbour Edge Stitch

19. The purpose is to undertake reference design study to investigate a design-led outcome for the Quay Street Boulevard and Hobson Flyover that includes a wider study area inclusive of the bus public transport and light rail transit network.

20. Outcomes

20.1. Updated vision for high quality, well-connected public realm in this part of Auckland city centre, working within existing decision frameworks, resources and budgets.

20.2. Coordinated delivery of public transport network with high quality public realm to Lower Queen Street, Lower Albert Street, Federal Street and Britomart East and West.

21. Timeframe and Costs

21.1 Timeframe: 3 months.

21.2 External resource costs: $50,000

Project 3: Queen Street - Issue Identification and Project Implications

Background

22. The City Centre Network plan introduced the proposal of light rapid transit into Queen Street and AT is now developing plans for this. A further supporting project is proposed to examine its implications for cross-city connectivity impacts and opportunities, informing the above projects. This first phase will be a high-level study.

23. Outcomes

23.1 A diagrammatic map showing high-level connectivity implications with a brief supporting report to summarise key issues, risks and opportunities.

23.2 Outline of series of potential different approaches for solutions.

23.3 Recommendations for reconfirmation or otherwise of any affected City Centre Masterplan and Targeted Rate projects.

24. Timeframe and Costs

24.1 Timeframe: 4 months.

24.2 External resource costs: $30,000

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25. The city centre is within the Waitemata Local Board area. There will be deep and ongoing engagement with the local board throughout the update.

26. The specific method for engagement may vary based upon the differences between the each project. For example, examination of the urban design options for the Victoria St/east-west bus corridor may take place alongside ongoing work to understand the movement and place functions of this corridor, which includes various council family stakeholders and the universities. Only one working group will therefore be needed.

27. For Quay Street, the Waitemata Local Board may similarly consider choosing to elect representatives for the project working group. The Quay Street and flyover design study could be undertaken as a special focus team within the existing Downtown Infrastructure Development group.

28. The existing business working group includes Waitemata Local Board representation.

Māori impact statement

29. The Masterplan implementation and its contribution to Māori well-being is of interest to Māori. Mana whenua will be involved both in the proposed projects and an engagement programme for partnering with Mana whenua will be established.

30. The update to the Masterplan implementation plan will be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance and the Māori Plan (and its report on outcome indicators). Additional advice will be provided by the Māori Design Leader.

Implementation

Consultation and Engagement

31. Targeted engagement will take place with key partners and stakeholders, including:

· Mana whenua

· Heart of the City

· Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

· Residential Groups

· Panuku Development Auckland

· New Zealand Transport Authority

· Precinct Properties Ltd.

· Cooper and Co. Ltd.

· New Zealand International Conference Centre design team.

Costs

32. The total cost for the update to the City Centre Masterplan Implementation Strategy is approximately $380,000. 40% of this cost is existing staff salaries. The balance is external resource which has been identified against each project. These costs can be covered by existing budgets and it is also proposed to investigate whether any of the City Centre targeted rate budget can be used. It is noted that other staff across the Council family will be asked to input into the work at various times.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Appendix to Auckland City Centre Masterplan (2012): Delivery and Implementation Progress Update	35

Signatories

Author

George Weeks – Principal Urban Designer, City Centre Design Unit

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Update on Panuku Work Programme

File No.: CP2017/03149

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) priority location work programme and to seek committee endorsement for Avondale to formally move from the ‘Support’ to the ‘Unlock’ category.

Executive summary

2. Late in 2015, council’s Auckland Development Committee endorsed the 19 priority development locations included in the Panuku work programme and their categorisation (as Transform, Unlock or Support).

3. The past year has involved a significant amount of establishment planning at Panuku. We are now at a stage where many of our location-based plans are moving into implementation phase.

4. Council has now approved High Level Project Plans for Takapuna, Northcote, Manukau and Housing for Older Persons. The Planning Committee will soon receive the plans for Onehunga, Henderson and Papatoetoe to approve.

5. Implementation of sites is occurring in a number of priority locations contemporaneously with the planning phase, where there are clear opportunities to deliver on objectives and the developments will not reduce long term strategic options for the centre.

6. Site disposals and development agreements for housing and commercial development have been advanced successfully in the City Centre and Wynyard Quarter, Whangaparāoa, Hobsonville, Avondale, Ormiston Town Centre, Flat Bush, and Papatoetoe. Projects are in the pipeline in a number of locations including Manukau, Takapuna and Henderson.

7. Avondale has been approved by the Panuku Board to move from a ‘Support’ to an ‘Unlock’ project. Monitoring the market indicates that some private development sites may become available. There is an opportunity to work with Hobsonville Land Company (HLC)/Housing New Zealand Corporation to integrate their development plans with the town centre. There is also significant internal and external support for an optimisation approach to deliver a community centre, library and possibly a recreation centre in the heart of Avondale. The scale of opportunity positions Avondale as an “Unlock”.

8. This report also includes a brief update on funding for priority development locations and tools that are needed by Panuku to aggregate land and progress urban renewal more quickly, essential components of successful brownfields regeneration. A workshop is proposed to consider these issues.

Recommendation

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the inclusion of Avondale in the Panuku work programme as an “Unlock” location and note that, accordingly, a High Level Project Plan will come to the Planning Committee later in the year for approval.

Background

9. The 18 priority development locations included in the Panuku work programme (listed below), and their categorisation (as Transform, Unlock or Support) was included in the report to council’s Auckland Development Committee, 8 December 2015 “Priority Locations and Panuku Development Auckland Programme.” In this report it was noted that the programme would be dynamic, subject to opportunities, priorities and resourcing.

· “Transform” locations – Manukau Metropolitan Centre & Surrounds and Onehunga Town Centre and Port, in addition to the Wynyard Quarter and Tamaki, where Panuku is working with the Tamaki Regeneration Company who are responsible for leading delivery

· “Unlock” locations – Takapuna, Northcote, City Centre, Henderson Town Centre, Old Papatoetoe Town Centre, Hobsonville, Ormiston Town Centre and nearby sites in Flatbush and Housing for Older People Villages

· “Support” locations – Mt Eden (Dominion Rd), Whangaparoa (Link Road), New Lynn, Avondale, Pukekohe, Stonefields (Morrin Rd, Merton Rd), Howick (Fencible Drive and Otahuhu.

10. The categories are defined as follows:

· Transform locations – Panuku is the lead agency for major urban regeneration and transformation in select locations

· Unlock locations - Panuku acts as a facilitator to create and unlock development opportunities for private sector investment in town centres, by addressing barriers and working with others.

· Support projects - Panuku enables residential and mixed-use development of surplus council-owned land (typically discrete sites), supporting the intensification objectives of the Auckland Plan and achieving returns to council.

Progress

11. The following table provides an update on the Panuku work programme and progress in priority locations in relation to planning and to change on the ground.

Project	Progress
Transform Manukau	Through the redevelopment of multiple sites in Manukau, and improvements in the public realm and other initiatives, Panuku is seeking to bring about the long term social, economic, environmental and cultural transformation of Manukau into a vibrant and thriving centre. The High Level Project Plan was approved by the Auckland Development Committee in April 2016. Implementation planning is underway and development of programme business case. There has been significant engagement with the Crown Agencies through a Joint Liaison Body to align aspirations and development programmes. Residential development on six council sites could support around 2,600 new housing units and increase the population by 5,300. A Request for Proposal will be advanced for some key sites in the centre this year to facilitate private investment. . Panuku is also exploring a pilot housing project for the 5 Ha site at 20 Barrowcliffe Place with an affordability emphasis. There has been recent market interest in the area that Panuku has been supporting to ensure that private investments in hotels, apartments and housing are all in line with the Framework Plan. Panuku is working with council on the opportunity to deliver the Hayman Park playground earlier. Panuku has received a positive response for the low level activation in the square that has been underway since August.
Transform Onehunga	Preparing the high level project plan for Onehunga has been challenging with strategic changes taking place in relation to the East-West Connection project and the Panuku purchase of the port. The High Level Project Plan (HLPP) was approved by Board in November and is on this Planning Committee agenda. The plan proposes the continuation of the regeneration of Onehunga with an early focus on the town centre and mitigation of the issues presented by the east-west connection. Panuku will then work on the port and seaward side of Onehunga in the longer term. The Transform Onehunga project area includes Oranga where Panuku is looking to partner with Housing New Zealand (HNZC). The scope of the redevelopment intentions over the next 10 years are yet to be confirmed. The HLPP will seek mandate for Panuku to transact with specific council-owned sites in the town centre. This will be contingent on getting Auckland Transport agreement on transport outcomes on the significant number of at-grade car parking sites which make up a large part of the development opportunities in Onehunga. Panuku is working closely with Auckland Council family on the submission to the NZTA East-West connection and engagement with stakeholders.
Transform Wynyard Quarter	Significant construction progress is being made in Wynyard Central where there will be 600 apartments, a 200 room 5-star hotel and 48,000sm commercial space. The redevelopment of the character Mason Brothers building on Pakenham Street has been completed and tenants have moved in. The first residents will arrive in Wynyard Central in late 2017. Panuku continues to deliver place activation across the waterfront and to proactively manage the high level of construction activity within the quarter including street and utility upgrades. As discussed at the committee workshop on 10 March 2017, a refresh of planning for Wynyard Quarter and the Central Wharves has commenced as part of an integrated council process. See separate agenda report which sets out the process and key issues. The plans will integrate a number of interdependent projects in the area to ensure that much-needed infrastructure can be delivered in a co-ordinated way.
Tamaki Redevelop-ment	Panuku represents Auckland Council's 41% shareholding in the Tamaki Regeneration Company. TRC’s purpose is to undertake Social, Economic, Spatial and Housing regeneration activities in the Tamaki area. Panuku provides a leadership and coordination role on behalf of the Auckland Council family in the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme. Regeneration initiatives include: · Continuing Procurement for Phase One of Tamaki Large Scale Development, to find a development and investment consortium for staged redevelopment of approximately 1000 social houses into 2500 mixed tenure residences. Proposals are due in May 2017. · Working with Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board on the Tamaki Open Space Network Plan, as the basis of reconfiguring open space to achieve better outcomes. The Plan is due for delivery in April 2017. · Continuing involvement with Government and other agencies to deliver innovation in service delivery, improve communication and commit to shared outcomes for Tamaki people. · Panmure Town Centre, which is now in the frame with AT releasing sites.
Unlock Takapuna	The Takapuna High Level Project Plan was approved by the Auckland Development Committee in March 2016. The focus of this plan is the development of two existing car park sites (Anzac Street and Gasometer) that have the potential to enable Takapuna to develop a more connected, vibrant and attractive town centre as well as creating new residential development opportunities (for around 200-400 units). Panuku has been working closely with Auckland Transport (AT) on the future transport services for the centre, particularly off street parking and bus interchange facilities. This work is on track for Panuku and AT to have an aligned view on parking provision and site development for car parking in the next two months. Community engagement is currently focused on the major AT/council Hurstmere Road street works project. As components of the unlock project take shape, further community engagement will unfold. The Devonport Takapuna Local Board established a Community Reference Group in 2016 to provide a wide cross section of interest group views on the centre’s development. The output from this group is most useful in providing confidence to Panuku that the intentions of the Unlock project are well founded in terms of community expectations.
Unlock Northcote	The High Level Project Plan was approved by Auckland Development Committee in March 2016. The focus is now on preparation of a business case to determine financial outcomes and funding requirements, development scheduling and the integration of Panuku’s proposed plans with other council family and third party activity in the area. The new infrastructure necessary for the circa 2,000 new housing units is scheduled to start in several months (Trunk Sewer 8) with major storm water works scheduled to begin in October 2018. In order to improve the scale and speed on redevelopment, we are examining the underlying ownership with many tenancies. Panuku has recently acquired five ground leases in the Town Centre to take control of the central retail block for redevelopment. Panuku and Hobsonville Land Company, working on behalf of HNZC, are continuing to work closely to regenerate Northcote, and will shortly open a public information kiosk. Panuku-led place activation has included the Chinese and Korean New Year celebrations in January and Panuku is working closely with local leaders.
Unlock Henderson	Unlock Henderson seeks to catalyse and reinvigorate wider private development potential in Central Henderson through three broad stages of development on specific council landholdings. Unlock Henderson as a project was brought forward in the priority locations programme when Auckland Transport confirmed its exit from council’s Waitakere Central office buildings as an anchor tenant from October 2017. There has been significant engagement with Corporate Property and AT in relation to the need to accommodate council services and staff over the medium term and future proof the site for future CRL platform development. The High Level Project Plan will come to Planning Committee for approval on 2 May 2017. This report will seek mandate for Panuku to transact with specific council-owned sites in the town centre, a number of which are at-grade carparks and will need to be released by Auckland Transport. The HLPP will include the council’s Central One building and its associated car parks, a HfOP and housing project and medium term opportunities potentially associated with the at-grade carparks, known as The Falls and Alderman carparks. The film studios site and Corban Estate are long term prospects for investigation. The Henderson-Massey Local Board, Ward councillors, Business Association and large land owners are strongly supportive of development of council sites and new investment in Henderson.
Unlock Papatoetoe	Old Papatoetoe is a town centre with both character and growth potential and there is wide support for revitalization and investment. Work on the refurbishment of the Papatoetoe Mall commenced in February and will be completed in 2 stages - Stage 1 in July 2017 and Stage 2 in January 2018. Foodstuffs will start work on the new supermarket in July 2017. The supermarket will remain open during the transformation which will take 8-12 months. The 1 Ha site called “Tavern Lane” was recently taken to the market and discussions are continuing with interested parties to deliver housing. Development of High Level Project Plan is underway and will come to the Planning Committee for approval in May. This report will seek mandate for Panuku to transact with additional specific council-owned sites in the town center, to enable housing development. Engagement including site visits, with the Otara Papatoetoe Local Board, Mana Whenua and key stakeholders has been undertaken.
Unlock Hobsonville	The successful development of Hobsonville has continued at pace. The Airfields Masterplan was adopted by the Auckland Development Committee in November 2015 and is guiding the delivery of infrastructure and housing on 14 Ha and employment on 6 Ha that remains in council ownership. Panuku confirmed AV Jennings as the housing developer for the first stage in 2016 which will deliver 102 standalone and terrace homes, with building scheduled to begin in the next few months. Avanda and its building partners will develop more than 500 homes in Stage Two, of which a minimum of ten per cent will be affordable housing. Housing will be delivered within an agreed timeframe. Avanda was chosen after a competitive tender process was undertaken, with strong interest received from six potential developers. Avanda has commenced detailed design to obtain the necessary resource consents for infrastructure works so that housing can be developed.
Unlock City Centre	Panuku works closely with other parts of the council group on city centre opportunities. The main project that Panuku leads is the Civic Administration Building (CAB): · Following council decisions to seek private sector investment to restore the CAB, Panuku has entered into a development agreement with Civic Lane Limited to restore this Category A heritage building and develop the surrounding land. In total the project will deliver 250 new homes and a 150-room hotel. The scheme will have an activated ground floor area to provide retail, food and beverage and cultural /arts spaces. The developer is planning to commence construction works on the CAB later this year. The proposed scheme includes a building on the edge of Aotea Square that RFA has an interest in occupying. This will be addressed in more detail with this committee in the near future. · The nearby development opportunity adjacent to Q Theatre and council owned Queen Street heritage buildings, referred to as South Town Hall site, is not actively being progressed at present. This opportunity has been discussed with RFA and council officers and may best be progressed when the CAB scheme is unconditional. · Panuku has supported council officers in finalising the Commercial Bay development scheme that includes the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square. The focus here is now on council providing the new waterfront public space. The new Commercial Bay development, including a section of the CRL rail tunnels is on track - the retail centre will open in October 2018 and the new office tower in mid-2019.
Unlock Ormiston Town Centre and Flat Bush	The Ormiston Town Centre will be the vibrant heart of Flat Bush. The 19ha site on Auckland Council-owned land at Ormiston Road began construction in 2013 and completion of the entire Ormiston development is expected between 2019 and 2022. The centre will include 500-700 apartments and town houses as well as 35,000 sm of retail and commercial space and community facilities. Delivery of the Town Centre by Todd Property is progressing well. Stage 1 includes 63 terraced houses. We are moving to the delivery of the second stage of terrace housing with Fletcher Residential. A 2 Ha site in Flatbush was recently sold for housing to Neil’s Construction who will be on-site shortly. Panuku will negotiate three other lots in Flat Bush over the next 12 months.
Unlock Housing for Older People (HfOP)	The HLPP for the HfOP portfolio of 62 villages, and the first five year plan (the High Level Development Plan) was approved by the Auckland Development Committee in August 2016. The business transition and operational set up of the new joint venture company is progressing well. The Panuku role is leading the redevelopment of the portfolio in consultation with the new company. The resource consent application for the 40 unit Wilsher Village development was reviewed by the Auckland Urban Design Panel in February and the business case will go to Panuku Board shortly. This will include selling the balance of the site which could accommodate around 100 residential units. Panuku is working closely with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on demand for housing for older persons and the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) services in Auckland, for which a submission to the RFP has been made.
Progress on support locations:	· Mt Eden – a mixed use development for a site on Valley Road has resource consent. · Whangaparaoa - McConnell Property is developing 60 new homes and a 2700m2 public reserve, including a children’s playground at 20 Link Crescent. · New Lynn – Investigating opportunities in terms of the remaining council sites in the town centre.

Avondale

12. Avondale was categorised as a Support location in November 2015 based on the Auckland Council assessment criteria and Panuku further criteria. The report recommended that it be a support location “at least until significant partnership opportunity presents itself”.

13. Development on 24-26 Racecourse Parade is progressing well. Ockham Residential is building 72 homes spread over three buildings including a six level apartment building. The development will be a great example of well-designed medium to high density housing to help meet the requirements of the area and trigger further regeneration in the neighbourhood. Panuku has been working with internal and external stakeholders to identify future opportunities and is starting work on the High Level Project Plan, which will come to the Planning Committee for approval later in 2017. Panuku is working with Housing New Zealand Corporation/Hobsonville Land Company on an integrated masterplan for the wider area and is exploring potential acquisitions to enable comprehensive development opportunities.

14. The Panuku Board agreed to re-categorise Avondale as an Unlock project because:

· Housing New Zealand Corporation/Hobsonville Land Company are advancing the redevelopment of their neighbouring site on Racecourse Parade and are interested in undertaking integrated masterplanning

· Panuku is monitoring the market and some private development sites may become available and there may be new opportunities for partnerships

· There is significant internal and external support for an optimisation approach to deliver a community centre and library in the heart of Avondale

15. This report seeks the Planning Committee’s approval to move Avondale from the Support to the Unlock category. As an Unlock location it is proposed to prepare a High Level Project Plan for approval by the Planning Committee.

Funding options

16. Facilitating market interest in the redevelopment of town centres is unlikely to be successful without some amenity improvements and activation, especially to support a living environment. Panuku intends to include a number of public good projects into the Long-term Plan process. These will be formed as both specific and placeholder funding. Other funding options are being considered including the ability to reinvest all or part of capital receipts in ‘Unlock’ areas for spending on public good projects (as currently takes place in ‘Transform’ locations).

Tools for urban redevelopment

17. Panuku has been established to drive urban transformation of town centres at speed and at scale. Many of the centres are struggling, have poor built form, limited market interest and surplus-council development sites are small and disaggregated. Within agreed boundaries Panuku will need to be able to lead and fund the strategic acquisitions of sites for comprehensive urban renewal, much in the same way that Auckland Transport and watercare can acquire sites for infrastructure. Compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act to aggregate land and progress urban renewal more quickly, are essential components of successful brownfields regeneration. Panuku will seek future dialogue with the shareholder on this and the options for funding urban renewal.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Panuku works closely with the Local Boards in the priority locations on the development of the plans and frameworks. We take a tailored approach with local board engagement having identified best practice on a board by board basis in collaboration with those boards. In Transform and Unlock locations engagement is usually monthly at a minimum. Transform locations have negotiated or in the process of negotiating, terms of reference for engagement between the board and Panuku. HLPPs and Framework plans have significantly informed the content of local board plans going out for community consultation in the next quarter and in play over the next three year period.

19. The Whau Local Board strongly supports the re-categorisation of Avondale as an Unlock location.

Māori impact statement

20. One of the key outcomes for the Panuku priority locations is to improve Māori outcomes. Panuku has established clear processes for working with 19 Mana Whenua on the priority locations. A formalised programme of governance meetings and project meetings have been set up and are working well. Increasingly Panuku plans have been enhanced with a strong cultural narrative and opportunities for cultural outcomes are identified in planning. Mana whenua have not specifically been consulted on this report but are regularly updated on the Panuku work programme.

Implementation

21. Panuku High Level Project Plans for Onehunga, Henderson and Papatoetoe will come to the Planning Committee for approval within the next three months and Avondale soon after.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Brenna Waghorn - Manager Strategic Planning

Authorisers

David Rankin - Director Strategy & Engagement

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Onehunga High Level Project Plan

File No.: CP2017/00321

Purpose

1. To outline the content and seek Planning Committee adoption of the High Level Project Plan for Onehunga Town Centre and its surrounds (Transform Onehunga) and endorsement of the actions to implement the approach on the High Level Project Plan.

Executive summary

2. The Transform Onehunga story has evolved through this High Level Project Plan process, which started in earnest in February 2016. The Panuku Development Auckland Board decision to put the HLPP on hold in May 2016 in order to fully consider the impact of the East West Link (EWL) proposal on Onehunga, proved to be beneficial as it has meant that our understanding of the issues and complexities of this project is now quite advanced. This puts Panuku in a good position to move quickly into Framework and Implementation Planning in a targeted area in the Town Centre. Whilst we will be able to act on short-term opportunities, we will need to keep abreast of changes over time, including the medium-term opportunities presented through the redevelopment of Onehunga Wharf.

3. There are still uncertainties that exist, particularly due to future major infrastructure investments in the area – including the upgrade of Mangere Bridge, the impact of EWL and any future Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). However, through our stakeholder engagement to date it is clear that there is a high level of expectation and enthusiasm in the community and Mana Whenua that the long term transformation of Onehunga will deliver a range of community benefits such as additional housing supply, retention of heritage, increased accessibility to local amenities and an improvement in the quality of the waterfront environment.

4. The Transform vision for Onehunga outlined in the High Level Project Plan connects the suburb to its past, its communities and the environment, including the Manukau Harbour. The vision themes provide the overarching direction for the Onehunga transformation programme and reflect the key themes drawn from early Mana Whenua and stakeholder engagement.

5. The Transform Programme proposes four goals and five strategic moves to achieve the emerging vision:

· The four goals are: enhance and restore the natural environment; a sustainable, enabled, connected community; a step change in housing, stimulate local growth, investment and innovation

· The strategic moves are to: restore, reconnect, retain, respond and revitalise

6. The Framework Plan process will be the vehicle for taking the vision, goals and strategic moves into more detail in a spatial context at a precinct and project level.

7. The costs have been estimated for public realm improvements over the initial 10 year transformation period at approximately $45 million. Costs attributable to the redevelopment of the existing Council sites planned for realisation will be funded through the Strategic Development fund with costs recovered through the sale of sites. Costs attributable to the additional site purchases have not been calculated. These will be assessed through a business case for each proposed acquisition.

8. The proceeds from site realisations, estimated to be $24 million, will be reinvested in the Transform Onehunga public realm projects. The timing of the works will need to be co-ordinated with the site development. These financial decisions will need to be made by Finance and Performance Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) adopt the Onehunga High Level Project Plan.

b) endorse Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) as the lead council agency for the Onehunga regeneration project, given its status as a Panuku Transform location.

c) note that the Finance and Performance Committee will need to approve the disposal of the five Auckland Council properties within the Transform project area listed below and referenced in the Onehunga High Level Project Plan, to contribute to achieving the outcomes in the Onehunga High Level Project Plan and with the objective of achieving urban regeneration, urban renewal and housing:

i) 3 Paynes Lane, Onehunga (NA43B/710, NA717716)

ii) 45 Waller Street, Onehunga (NA717717)

iii) 61-65 Selwyn Street, Onehunga (NA320/187, NA349/112, NA51B/525)

iv) Lots 3 and 4, DP 60645 Waiapu Lane, Onehunga (NA20A/51, NA20A/52)

v) 230 Onehunga Mall, Onehunga ( NA714641)

vi) 1 Waiapu Lane, Onehunga (NA43D/1068, NA679/89, NA591/224, NA591/221, NA591/222, NA43D/1066, NA320/70)

vii) 9-21 Waller Street, Onehunga (NA394690, NA928/267, NA271015);

· subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes.

· subject to agreement with Auckland Transport on the transport outcomes required for the sites listed in vi) and vii).

d) note that the Finance and Performance Committee will need to approve the reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of development sites in the Transform project area, into projects and initiatives that progress the intent of the Onehunga High Level Project Plan and Framework Plan in line with the reinvestment approach in Transform areas.

e) note that Panuku will consider service properties and community facilities in the Transform project area as part of the Framework Planning exercise, will engage with the business owners and Local Board and seek further approval from the council if it recommends optimisation of these properties.

f) note that Panuku will enter into a more formalised governance arrangement or partnership with Crown entities and other parties as necessary to provide leadership and accountability in the implementation of the project.

Comments

9. Onehunga was chosen as a Transform location as it has number of key attributes:

· There was high level of Local Board planning, political and community support for change in this area

· It is a strategic town centre location, with good accessibility to public transport and is infrastructure-enabled

· It has strategic Council and Crown landholdings that can be used to catalyse private sector investment and redevelopment

· There are a range of Council facilities that can be optimised to create value for reinvestment into the area

· There is a good level of market attractiveness for residential development, with market demand for different housing types (terrace, apartments)

· It has been a recipient of significant public investment in the past, including a major recreational asset – Taumanu Reserve (Onehunga Foreshore project)

· Its location on the Manukau Harbour and future potential around Onehunga Wharf will provide increased connectivity to the water.

Onehunga snapshot

Landholdings in HLPP Boundary

10. The geographical extent of the HLPP is represented in the Figure 2. Auckland Council public land holdings within the Transform Area, in Figure 3, have a potentially developable property area totalling approximately 12 hectares, over the course of the project:

· Auckland Council (6.15ha)

· Auckland Transport owned or managed on behalf of Auckland Council (1.92)

· Ports of Auckland Land (4 ha)

Figure 2: Transform Onehunga Boundary (for HLPP) Figure 3: Ownership in Transform Boundary

11. A full list of the Auckland Council publicly owned and potentially developable properties (as of November 2016) are located in Appendix One of the attached HLPP.

Project Influencers

12. Based on our understanding of the project to date, the development strategy in Transform Onehunga will mostly likely be influenced by the following:

· Landholdings: The Council family landholdings are not contiguous. While there is a concentration within the town centre area, there are several sites that could be considered independently of each other, and each of these will have differing drivers and constraints. In Onehunga, a strategy for acquisition of properties to create scale of opportunity will be needed, as well as facilitating land swaps.

· Connectivity: As noted in the HLPP document, there are a range of physical barriers that have been created by regional infrastructure that have impacted on quality connections to the town centre, surrounding neighbourhoods and the harbour (North-South stitch). Infrastructure planning and investment by other agencies (NZTA, AT and Transpower) will have an impact on timing and sequencing of development across the different precincts. Future major infrastructure projects are in the planning stages and include the East West Link, MRT connections to the airport, and an upgrade of the old Mangere Bridge.

· Community voice: There is a strong community voice that is currently galvanising over infrastructure plans and investment. Their desire is for a co-ordinated approach to investment, particularly across the Mangere Inlet.

· Changes to the socio-economic structure of Onehunga: From a housing perspective this will likely result in an increased future demand for retirement living and aged care. From a social infrastructure point of view it will put increased pressure on existing community facilities and schools. From a business and economic perspective it will mean that the workforce is likely to better align with the adjoining industrial use (services sector) and offer more local work opportunities.

Onehunga Transformation

13. The vision and vision themes, principles and goals for Onehunga have been drawn from a range of current and legacy documents and have been tested through engagement with Mana Whenua and key stakeholders over the course of the project to date. The Framework Plan process will be the vehicle for developing the detail and taking the vision, goals and strategic moves into more detail at a precinct and project level.

HLPP Vision for Onehunga

14. Te Puāwaitanga o Onehunga: A flourishing Onehunga that is well connected to its past, its communities and the environment, including the Manukau Harbour

HLPP Goals for Onehunga

· Enhance and Restore the Natural Environment: This Goal recognises the importance of ensuring the optimum health of the mauri (life force) of the natural environment and ensuring tributaries, the foreshore and Manukau Harbour is a place valued for its natural, cultural and spiritual values, and physical connection.

· A Sustainable, Enabled, Connected Community: This Goal is about planning for a diverse, integrated community and designing a people orientated built environment that creates and strengthens connections between people and place. The Goal is for Onehunga to become a community where people of all ages and demographics want to live, learn, work and play. Investment needs to deliver on community needs and aspirations.

· A Step Change in Housing This Goal is about the delivery of a range of housing types suitable to the market of Onehunga and Oranga and to the character, scale and amenity of the area. This Goal is also about a commitment to sustainable design in our built form.

· Stimulate Local Growth, Investment and Innovation: This Goal is about looking for opportunities for growth and innovation. It will mean everyone working together locally, including fostering interaction between entrepreneurs, encouraging job creation and growth in emerging sectors, and encouraging youth participation and innovation in their own communities.

Principles to apply across all Onehunga projects

15. Panuku has committed, through its key strategic and policy documents to a certain process that enables projects to be completed^{^[1]}. Eight principles have been developed which will be applied to Panuku Transform projects.

16. The principles are outlined in full in section 4 of the HLPP and outline our commitment to leadership, quality place-led design, facilitating housing choice, integrating sustainability, working with Mana Whenua, place-led engagement and strategically creating value from assets.

The Transform Onehunga Programme

Strategic moves

17. The Transform Programme proposes five strategic moves to achieve its transformational vision and that is to: Retain, Respond, Revitalise, Reconnect and Restore – collectively represented in Figure 4 and detailed further in the HLPP attached (section 6).

Figure 4: Summary of Strategic Moves

Building on existing community strengths

This Strategic move is about retaining the essential place character of Onehunga and enhancing the already strong town centre offerings. There is an opportunity to create an even greater main street and a civic core, by re-interpreting existing public spaces, prioritising pedestrian movement, creating green landscaping and facilitating mixed use development in adjoining blocks.

18. This move is about using our landholdings, partnership opportunities and a demand-led market to spur development. Panuku will focus in on the Town Centre Core opportunities in the short to medium term. Panuku will have to work closely with Auckland Transport and AC Community facilities to unlock the opportunities in the Town Centre. It may be necessary to acquire sites within the Town Centre to create further development potential. Starting in the Town Centre is supported by local businesses and landowners and the Panuku place making team are also ready to work with this group and the community to initiate some quick wins.

Encourage smart growth and quality connected communities

This Strategic move is about responding to growth projections with progressive long term resolutions that are integrated with future transport and land-use plans. Encourage development of quality, diverse communities interconnected via a network of green corridors.

19. Onehunga is experiencing a change in demographics. As a market-ready locale with high appeal for residential use, its population is set to increase. However, the local housing stock lacks choice and affordable options. This creates an opportunity to work with Housing New Zealand on its landholdings, and with the private sector through Special Housing Areas, to achieve an integrated range of new housing that is well connected to community services and facilities.

Celebrate industrial character and foster local productivity

This Strategic move is about revitalising Onehunga’s industrial grittiness and recognising its important role and contribution to the national economy. There is an opportunity to explore ways to support an evolved appreciation of the generative, enterprising history of the area, embracing adaption, re-use and interpretation of industrial character forms through hosting productive and creative pursuits.

20. Onehunga has an industrial past and present and it will be important to recognise the role and contribution of industry and look into ways to support local enterprise in this area. To the west of the Town Centre is an area that has industrial character and is undergoing reuse and reinterpretation through mixed use development. To the east of the centre, the industrial area, is likely to change over time, given its strategic location and likely enhanced access through the completion of the EWL.

Reconnect: Integrate Onehunga with the Manukau Harbour

This Strategic move is about reconnecting the spectacular waterfront with central Onehunga by providing a series of enhanced and new public access routes that will achieve greater integration, strengthen place values and figuratively weave the water asset inland.

21. It is essential to the area’s transformation to work towards creating a healthy, activated foreshore environment and to integrate Onehunga with the Manukau Harbour. The actions in this strategic move will in part be reliant on the mitigation offered through the EWL through better pedestrian and cycle connections. Construction of the whole EWL project is expected to complete in 2025. The full benefits of the project can then be felt in the Onehunga area, including Mangere Village, particularly with regard to improvement in local transport connectivity.

Restore: Create a heathy activated foreshore environment

This Strategic move is about restoring Onehunga’s waterfront by improving the quality of the coastal environment, enabling the exercise of kaitiakitanga by Mana Whenua and developing destination areas, such as Onehunga Wharf, to attract increased community use and enjoyment.

22. This Strategic move can be achieved through purchasing and redevelopment of Onehunga Wharf to provide a new destination for the community and to provide for public access to the water’s edge and water space. This key move can be achieved through working with the Council family, Mana Whenua and the community projects that enhance biodiversity and access along the foreshore. As with the Reconnect Move, timing of this will be reliant on the completion of the EWL.

Development Precincts and Staging

Strategic approach to delivery

23. For Panuku, the proposed delivery strategy is one that builds on existing strengths and preserves future options. In particular:

· Building on existing strengths means an immediate focus on the Town Centre, where Auckland Council owns land and community facilities. It will be important to demonstrate that Panuku can mobilise as the lead agency in the Town Centre, and as mentioned above, we are in a good position to get the community engaged in this area.

· Preserving future options means being actively involved in processes and projects that will play out over the medium to long term. This is specifically the case for the resource consent process for the EWL (that will be heard by an independent Board of Inquiry) to ensure that future conditions, including mitigation are negotiated and translated into agreements that respond to local community needs and aspirations and will be benefitial to future development in Onehunga.

· Playing an active role in the strategic acquisition of sites for development is also a key strategy for Onehunga. The HLPP has identified sites that could be acquired to assist with site amalgamation and scale of development, particularly in the Town Centre. Other acquisition sites could assist with improvement of connections to community facilities and open space.

24. As outlined in Figure 5, there are a number of key precincts that have been identified within the Transform Onehunga Boundary. Information on these precincts and development approach is summarised in this reported provided in detail in the HLPP attached (section 8 of the attachment).

Figure 5: Development Precincts

Town Centre Core

25. Onehunga Town Centre features retail (mostly along Onehunga Mall or in the Dress Smart centre), commercial and light industrial businesses. It has a train station and good access to local buses, including an airport bus, and reasonable access to SH20.

26. The town centre core has been split into five precincts:

· Dress Smart block

· Waiapu Lane Block

· Municipal Block

· Waller Street Block

· Station Block

27. Panuku recommends focusing its activity on the town centre for the short to medium term to help achieve the Strategic Move of Building on Existing Strengths (Retain).

28. Most Auckland Council-owned town centre sites are suitable for mixed-use development, including commercial, residential, community amenities and car parking. For simplicity, we have divided the Town Centre Core into the five blocks outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Onehunga Town Centre

Site location	Number of sites	Potential uses	*Estimated Residential development potential (Dwellings)*	*Commercial and retail development potential (Sqm)*	Land area (Sqm)	Estimated timing (ready for development)
Dress Smart Block	2	Mixed use	65	2,200	2,900	1 – 2 years
Waiapu Lane Block	4	Mixed use / Civic space	230	7,900	10,700	2 – 5 years
Municipal Block	5	Mixed use / Community facilities	115	3,900	10,828	2 – 5 years
Waller Street Block	2	Mixed use	60	1,900	2,582	7+ years
Station Block	1	Transit-oriented development	180	Refer footnote^{^[2]}	10,512	7+ years
Total council land holdings	14				37,552	`
Potential new dwellings			*650*

29. The development potential is estimated at this early stage to be about 650-660 new dwellings and 16,000 to 20,000sqm of commercial and retail space.

30. General notes from Table 8.

· These figures need testing through the Framework Plan process

· Economic rentals need testing regarding viability, particularly for the proposed commercial and retail space

· Development potential does not take into account of the potential development on adjoining sites that Panuku could purchase

· Development timing is subject to Auckland Transport (AT) deeming the sites it manages to be surplus to requirements. AT will undertake a parking study, which will inform a parking strategy for Onehunga early in 2017

· A needs assessment of community facilities to inform the optimisation strategy and Framework Plan process is required.

Town Centre West

31. There are no council sites in this area so the role of Panuku will be in coordinating the public realm infrastructure needed to catalyse revitalisation of the area and working with developers to assist in the redevelopment of sites. Of note is that there has been an SHA approved over a large block in this area, but there is no co-ordinated view on how this will evolve within this block. In this area, the opportunity is for Panuku to work with developers to get the best outcome possible, including improving amenity and connectivity to the harbour while improving the interface between new developments and the public realm. There are currently pockets of light industrial or mixed use land that could be purchased by Panuku to create our own or assist private development outcomes.

32. Auckland Transport and NZTA are currently assessing the potential mode and route for a mass rapid transit (MRT) connection through Onehunga, connecting to the airport. The future MRT alignment is likely travel past this block providing an excellent opportunity for development near to any potential MRT stop.

Onehunga Wharf

33. Onehunga Wharf is a key site for carrying out the Strategic Move to Create a Healthy, Activated Foreshore Environment (Restore). The community’s desire is for this site to be developed for a mix of uses, providing public access to the water’s edge and water space. The development will need to retain and enhance the heritage character and commercial fishing operations.

34. When Onehunga was selected as a Transform location and the HLPP process began, the opportunity around the redevelopment of Onehunga Wharf from an industrial port to a mixed use development was envisaged to occur within a 5-7 year timeframe (e.g. completed around 2023) – which included necessary works, the exit of some leaseholders, consultation, framework planning, business case development, plan change and construction.

35. If consented, the EWL project does mean that this opportunity is delayed, moving it to more of a medium term opportunity. Although actual works on the wharf will not be able to occur within the original timeframe, engagement and planning for this transition could start in the shorter term, within the Framework Plan process, depending on the terms confirmed within the Heads of Agreement.

Foreshore East

36. This area is to the southwest of the town centre where council has substantial commercial land holdings of 12.4 hectares. The sites are zoned for heavy industry. Due to previous uses, a number of these sites are heavily contaminated. Adjoining this block to the east is Waikaraka Park.

37. The future development precinct will contribute to the Strategic Move Revitalise: Celebrate Industrial Character and Foster Local Productivity. With several of the sites being impacted by the EWL, the timing of this precinct is long term. Given the improved property access delivered through the EWL, visibility and large amount of currently underutilised land and proximity to the town centre, over time this precinct may likely change to higher amenity uses.

Value Creation

Non - Commercial Value Creation

38. Framework Planning will establish a number of key indicators and a baseline for these indicators that will enable the broader benefits of Transform Onehunga to be monitored and reported on at key milestones of the project. This will consider each of the four well-beings of environment, economic, social and cultural. It will give specific consideration of Mana Whenua values and aspirations and the recognition of Mana Whenua identity and footprint in Onehunga.

Commercial Value Creation

39. A desktop assessment of the baseline existing value has been undertaken for 15 properties currently owned within AC - both service and non-service is at an estimated value of $24 million, as outlined in the development precinct section.

Table 2: Existing Value of Council properties

Precinct	No. of properties	Net realisation assessment
1. Town Centre Core:
· Dress Smart	2	$2,000,000
· Waiapu	4	$8,740,000
· Municipal	5	$3,540,000
· Waller	2	$1,800,000
2. Foreshore East	2	$8,000,000
3. Total	15	$24,080,000

Funding

40. The Transform Onehunga project will require significant funding for both operational and capital works. The project will require access to a number of funding sources:

· The reinvested funds from sale proceeds for OPEX associated with preparing the HLPP and undertaking the subsequent Engagement Plan, Framework Plan, Implementation Plan and Development Realisation Strategy.

· The utilisation and reprioritisation of existing Council budgets towards delivering the key moves.

· Funds made available through the optimisation of service properties.

· Possible access to funds arising from a partnership approach with government.

41. There are possible supplementary OPEX and CAPEX funding options available to Panuku. This strategy will be developed following approval of the HLPP.

Costs of Transformation

Table 3: Costs of Transformation

Precinct	Includes	Costs
Town Centre Core	Public realm improvements – including enhanced pedestrian streetscapes & laneways; Infrastructure upgrades; new civic space; proposed replacement recreation centre	$30,430,000
HNZC Precincts – Oranga/Onehunga	Planning. Public realm improvements; community facilities assessment & upgrade; increased street connectivity; Potential land exchanges	$2,600,000
Town Centre West	Public realm improvements, including enhanced pedestrian street-scapes, Onehunga lagoon improvements; Infrastructure upgrades	$8,050,000
Onehunga Wharf	Planning, Plan change and implementation plan design	$2,000,000
Foreshore East	Planning, Infrastructure improvements	$2,400,000
Total		45,480,000

Operational Budget

42. We have built in two review points within the programme, particularly for the Framework Plan where progress must be considered prior to proceeding with any further budgeted expenditure.

· The first review point in May 2017, will occur on completion of the technical studies diligence (including review of parking studies and community facilities)

· The second review point in August 2017, will occur following the preliminary due and commercial viability assessment.

Engagement Approach

43. As noted in this report and the HLPP there is a highly engaged community, particularly at a business level and they have strong political links. We want to build on these relationships and create new ones. There are a number of baseline engagement initiatives that will apply to the Transform Onehunga project.

· Cross Council Engagement Working Group: We have established a location specific cross council working group. This group will develop and implement the location specific Engagement Plan

· Monthly Project Meetings: A monthly LB-Panuku meeting will be set up for each location to ensure clear lines of communication are established early in the Framework Planning phase

· Terms of Reference Agreement: We will determine respective roles, responsibilities and reasonable expectations around delivering on an agreed vision during the Form Relationships phase through a Terms of Reference Agreement

· Place-Led Stakeholder Engagement Plan: A location specific Stakeholder Engagement Plan will support the Framework Planning and Implementation Phase of the regeneration.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. As noted above, the project started in earnest in February 2016. Monthly workshops were held through the course of 2016 with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. Through these workshops material was gathered that informed the crafting of the narrative of the HLPP and the vision, goals, strategic moves and the engagement approach moving forward.

45. Commitment has been made by Panuku to the Local Board chair that there will be detailed involvement in the development of the Framework Plan, including discussions on the aspirations for the sites and reinvestment within the area.

46. Both the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local board were engaged as part of the EWL discussions as issues were directly raised about accessibility from the town centre to Onehunga Wharf and foreshore.

Māori impact statement

47. A formalised programme of governance meetings and project meetings has been set up for Transform Onehunga. Mana Whenua, through the Kaitiaki Working Group, have had direct involvement in the creation of the cultural narrative for the Transform Onehunga HLPP. Through a number of Hui, Mana Whenua discussed the intention and wording of the vision, goals, principles and strategic moves for the HLPP.

48. As a subset of this project Mana Whenua, Auckland Council, NZTA and Panuku have held Hui specifically relating to the East West Link. The intention being to gather a joint level of understanding about the opportunities and impact of the EWL as it relates to land and water, particularly the interface with Mangere Inlet.

49. Mana whenua have not specifically been consulted on this report but are regularly updated on the Panuku work programme and milestones for reporting.

Implementation

50. A number of general external dependencies; such as market conditions, stakeholder alignment and statutory clearance or land use controls; continue to impact on all of Panuku projects to varying degrees. For Onehunga in particular Panuku’s programme dependencies can be summarised as:

· Council mandate, seed funding and business case approval

· The timing the release of Auckland Transport parking sites

· The robust review of community facilities

· East-West Link alignment and timing

· Residual land availability following negotiations with NZTA

· HNZC project alignment and timing

· Alignment of/with Council and CCO planned project and funding programmes.

51. A number of coordinated responses are underway across the organisation to manage these dependencies, including on-going dialogue with the shareholder and central government, focussed stakeholder management processes, and active participation in cross-agency group and forums.

Mandate

52. The HLPP seeks from the Panuku Board and the Planning Committee, approval to proceed with the following mandate:

· Confirm Panuku Development Auckland as Council’s lead agency in Onehunga with respect to regeneration initiatives

· Develop a Framework Plan document that will assess and prioritise projects and initiatives in the public realm and, in partnership with the private sector, development sites

· Develop an Implementation Plan that will outline prioritised development initiatives in greater detail and will inform the “go to market’ document

· Develop an Engagement & Communications Plan that will outline the process of engagement with the community and key stakeholders throughout the programme

· Dispose of sites that are either surplus to requirement or can be developed, in partnership, by others (noting that these decisions will need to be made by the Finance and Performance Committee)

· Reinvest proceeds of any asset sales into the Onehunga Transform programme and seek funding from the shareholder where appropriate for projects (noting that these decisions will need to be made by the Finance and Performance Committee).

Approvals programme

Table 5: Approvals programme

Approval	Authority	Date
HLPP workshop	Planning Committee	March 2017
HLPP report and recommendations	Planning Committee	March 2017
HLPP recommendations	Finance and Performance Committee	April/May 2017
Completion of Engagement Plan	Panuku Board	April 2017
Completion and adoption of Framework Plan	Panuku Board	November 2017
Completion and adoption of Implementation Plan	Panuku Board	February 2018
Implementation Plan adoption	Planning Committee	March 2018

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Onehunga High Level Project Plan	65

Signatories

Author

Fiona Knox, Strategic Projects Manager, Panuku

Authorisers

David Rankin - Director Strategy & Engagement, Panuku

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Draft Whenuapai Plan Change - Approval and Public Engagement

File No.: CP2017/01631

Purpose

1. To seek approval to make the Draft Whenuapai Plan Change available for pre-notification public comment, from 10 April to 14 May 2017.

Executive summary

2. The purpose of this report is to gain approval to consult on the draft Whenuapai Plan Change (the draft Plan Change). The draft Plan Change begins the implementation of the Whenuapai Structure Plan, which was approved by the Auckland Development Committee on 15 September 2016.

3. The draft Plan Change area consists of the part of Whenuapai that is able to be serviced by bulk infrastructure providers in the next ten years, the lifetime of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The draft Plan Change comprises a map of the zoning changes in the area, a precinct plan that provides indicative locations for matters such as the infrastructure requirements and the stream network, and precinct provisions that manage issues that are unique to Whenuapai and are therefore not currently managed in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). Development in the draft Plan Change also relies on existing Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) provisions where necessary.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the Draft Whenuapai Plan Change for pre-notification public comment from 10 April to 14 May 2017.

b) delegate to the General Manager Plans and Places and the Manager North West Planning the power to approve minor editorial amendments to the Draft Whenuapai Plan Change if these are required in advance of its public release for comment.

c) request that council staff engage with iwi, stakeholders and the public about the draft Whenuapai Plan Change.

d) request that council staff report back to the Planning Committee for approval to publicly notify a revised Plan Change under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments

4. The development of the Whenuapai Structure Plan was the first of many structure plans that will be prepared under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). Whenuapai is an area of land that is primarily zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). It is an important green field area in the north west of Auckland that is identified for urban growth in both the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

5. A structure plan for this area was approved in September 2016, identifying the future land use pattern for the area. The Structure Plan sets out the appropriate form of development in Whenuapai including the provision of the transport network, underground services and social infrastructure that will serve the future population. It identifies areas for residential development (at various densities), the location of retail centres and business land, and the relationship between these areas and public open space, community facilities and the Upper Waitemata Harbour. The Structure Plan also identifies some constraints on urban development, in the form of the capacity of the transport network and other infrastructure, and environmental matters such as the management of storm water. The draft Plan Change begins the implementation of the Whenuapai Structure Plan.

6. Whenuapai is mainly located within the Albany Ward and Upper Harbour Local Board area. The area has strong transport links and long standing community ties to West Auckland including the Waitakere Ward as well as some land located within the Henderson-Massey Local Board. Whenuapai also shares a boundary with the Rodney Local Board.

7. A structure plan for the whole Whenuapai area was approved by the Auckland Development Committee on 15 September 2016. Resolution number AUC/2016/117.

8. The next step is to rezone land within the structure plan area to become urban zones that enable subdivision and land use to occur. This rezoning is accompanied by a precinct that manages specific environmental issues and constraints. The Whenuapai Political Reference Group met on 6 March 2017, and provided valuable feedback on the process and content of the draft Plan Change being considered by this committee.

Draft plan change area

9. The draft Plan Change area is land that was previously identified as Stages 1A-1E in the Whenuapai Structure Plan. The draft Plan Change area is approximately 360 hectares, and comprises 82 hectares of commercial land (providing employment for approximately 2750 people) and has development capacity for approximately 4,500 - 6,000 houses in the land zoned for residential activities. Some small portions of New Zealand Defence Force land on its southern boundary (that is not included within the designation for the Whenuapai Airbase) is part of the draft Plan Change.

10. As a comparison, the Special Housing Area in Whenuapai (known as Whenuapai Precincts 1 and 2) will provide approximately 850 houses over the next eight years. As a further comparison, there will also be over 4000 houses at Hobsonville Point by the time construction is completed there.

Zoning and precinct

11. Only those parts of the structure plan area that can be readily developed are proposed to be rezoned in the draft Plan Change. It is not considered appropriate to rezone land that cannot be serviced by infrastructure within the ten year life of the Auckland Unitary Plan (i.e. 2016 – 2026). The infrastructure required to service Stages 1F and 2 of the Whenuapai Structure Plan is not currently funded, and so it is not able to be provided in the next ten years. As a result of this, these areas have not been included in this draft Plan Change. This approach aligns with the Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy approved for consultation by the Planning Committee on 7 March 2017. The land to be rezoned was determined in consultation with both Auckland Transport and Watercare, and is identified in the zoning map in Attachment A.

12. Zones from the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) have been applied to the area within the draft Plan Change, and these generally accord with the residential densities in the Whenuapai Structure Plan. These zones provide for a mixture of dwelling types and employment land. Specific zones (in the form of Single House which has a lower residential density than those applied elsewhere) have been applied to the sensitive coastal environment, properties on Clark Lane and on the boundary of the Whenuapai Airbase.

13. Two precinct plans (refer to Attachments B and C) support the zoning map. The following matters are shown in the Precinct Plan 1:

a) Indicative arterial and collector roads.

b) Existing roads that are to be upgraded.

c) Indicative open space – a ten hectare sports park, a suburb park and neighbourhood parks.

d) Permanent and intermittent streams. This will assist in raising awareness of any development constraints associated with these.

e) Indicative coastal esplanade reserves.

14. The following matters are shown in the Precinct Plan 2:

a) Staging locations.

b) Indicative intersection upgrades.

15. The precinct provisions can be found in Attachment D. The following matters are covered in these provisions.

General Matters

A precinct description and geographic specific objectives and policies for the area within the draft Plan Change.

Transport

a) Staging of development – the transport network upgrades needed within Stages 1A – 1E

b) Triggers for the upgrade of roads and intersections where appropriate.

c) Text in the form of a note that identifies developer responsibility for transport upgrades.

d) Auckland Transport has advised that further work will be required to refine the infrastructure requirements and triggers for inclusion in the formal notification under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Stormwater

a) Provisions that contribute to the outcomes being sought by the Whenuapai Stormwater Management Plan, including a new rule requiring riparian planting along streams.

b) A new rule and assessment criterion enabling covenants to be applied to protect riparian planting that is to be applied when stream corridors are to remain in private ownership.

c) Text relating to the design and placement of coastal storm water outfalls to ensure appropriate consideration is given to managing their adverse effects on the coast.

Biodiversity

a) Objectives and policies seeking an integrated transport network that supports biodiversity outcomes.

b) Text to recognise that the location of the precinct is part of the North-West Wildlink, thereby encouraging ecological corridors and enhancing natural linkages.

c) Standards relating to how riparian margins are to be planted.

Whenuapai Airbase

a) Provisions to avoid or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on the safe operation of the Airbase (this is a New Zealand Defence Force concern).

Engagement

16. It is proposed that engagement on the draft Plan Change will occur from Monday 10 April 2017 until Sunday 14 May 2017. A series of engagement events are planned for the draft Whenuapai Plan Change including (in no particular order)

a) continued engagement with iwi and mataawaka.

b) evening drop in sessions at Whenuapai and Hobsonville Primary Schools.

c) Saturday drop in sessions at Northwest Shopping Mall and Hobsonville Village Centre.

d) Hobsonville Point Farmers stall at the market on a Sunday morning.

e) West Harbour Ferry terminal flyers in the morning commuter peak.

f) meetings with developers, land owners and other key stakeholders.

17. Feedback received from the engagement will be reviewed and taken into consideration when preparing the Whenuapai Plan Change for formal notification under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. That plan change will be reported to the Planning Committee. Formal notification of the plan change will occur shortly after approval by the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Both the Upper Harbour and Henderson Massey Local Boards have been briefed on the approved Structure Plan and the draft Plan change provisions. Both local boards are supportive of the draft Plan Change.

Māori impact statement

19. All iwi groups with interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the structure plan process. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau ā Maki worked in partnership with council to develop the structure plan. Te Kawerau ā Maki has provided a cultural values assessment for the area and a cultural values assessment is anticipated from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara prior to notification of the plan change. The draft Plan Change has responded to the Cultural Values Assessment by providing for the management of storm water using riparian planting to maintain the water quality within the Upper Waitemata Harbour. Should archaeological sites of interest be discovered, the Auckland Unitary Plan already manages this through the operative provisions.

20. All iwi groups with an interest in the area will be invited to the public events that will be held during the engagement period.

Implementation

21. The preparation of the draft Plan Change has incorporated input from across the council and its council controlled organisations. Having a collaborative and inclusive process in the development of the draft Plan Change will ensure that the land that will be zoned for subdivision and development is able to proceed in an efficient manner. The formal plan change is proposed to be notified in approximately August 2017 and the Resource Management Act process to implement the plan change will begin.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Draft Whenuapai Zoning Map	147
b ⇩	Attachment B Draft Whenuapai Precinct 3 Plan 1	149
c ⇩	Attachment C Draft Whenuapai Precinct 3 Plan 2	151
d ⇩	Attachment D Whenuapai Precinct 3 Text	153

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Development of Plan Change to Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section): Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua

File No.: CP2017/03510

Purpose

1. To seek approval to engage with mana whenua and landowners on the 270 nominated sites of significance to mana whenua in order to prepare a plan change to the Auckland Council Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) and the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (HGI).

Executive summary

2. The Heritage team, within the Plans and Places Department, initiated a Māori Cultural Heritage Programme in 2014, in close collaboration with mana whenua, to improve the understanding and protection of Māori cultural heritage within the region.

3. The programme involves working alongside 19 mana whenua entities to understand the cultural values, both tangible and intangible, and the significance of sites to mana whenua. As part of the programme approximately 270 new sites, places and landscapes have been nominated by mana whenua for consideration.

4. Staff have reviewed the AUP and HGI provisions as they apply to these sites. Staff are of the view that while the two plans offer some level of consideration to be given to new sites nominated by mana whenua (e.g. through different overlays in the AUP), the current provisions do not provide adequate recognition and protection to the sites from future development.

5. Staff consider that inclusion of sites within the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua schedule and overlay, or amendments to other schedules and overlays, is the most appropriate method to recognise and provide for protection of these sites.

6. The next step is to engage with mana whenua and landowners on the detail of each site in order to develop a draft plan change.

7. Staff will report back to this committee on feedback from mana whenua and landowner engagement, the confirmed number of sites proposed to proceed through the RMA Schedule 1 process and the proposed plan change provisions for public notification.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve engagement with mana whenua and landowners for the 270 nominated Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua in order to develop a draft plan change to the Auckland Council Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section).

b) request that staff report back to the Planning Committee on mana whenua and landowner feedback and provisions of a proposed plan change for notification.

Comments

8. The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions to their ancestral lands, sites, waterways, wāhi tapu and other taonga is of national importance under the RMA.

9. The threat to Māori cultural heritage from development was recognised by some legacy plans within the Auckland region. These Plans identified and provided protection to numerous known wāhi tapu sites within the region. The Plans however noted that there were other sites within the region that were at risk as they were not in the Plan or on the public record, but only known to kaumātua (elders) and kaitiaki (guardians).

Māori Cultural Heritage Programme

10. The Heritage team, within the Plans and Places Department, has initiated a Māori Cultural Heritage Programme in 2014-15, in close collaboration with mana whenua. The purpose of the programme is to identify Māori cultural heritage sites and cultural landscapes. The programme is intended to improve the understanding of Māori cultural heritage and to provide appropriate planning responses to its long-term protection and management.

11. The programme involves working alongside 19 mana whenua entities. The programme anticipates that sites and places of significance to mana whenua will be managed through statutory or non-statutory methods (e.g. voluntary covenants or other agreements) and that there will be an ongoing series of plan changes to add sites to the AUP schedules and overlays. The programme relies heavily on mana whenua as only they can nominate and identify the cultural values associated with sites and places of significance. The process set out for mana whenua involves:

a. Nomination of site(s).

b. Identifying the spatial extent for nominated site(s).

c. Assigning cultural values to the site(s).

d. Assessing the threat to the site(s) from future development.

The process set out for Auckland Council involves:

a. Collating public records for archaeological and historical information for nominated site(s).

b. Identifying management options for nominated site(s).

c. Initiating mana whenua wānanga (discussion forums) for nominated sites.

d. Organising landowner consultation and site visits with mana whenua.

e. Initiating work on statutory and non-statutory methods for management.

12. As part of the programme for 2014-17, approximately 270 new sites, places and landscapes have been nominated by mana whenua for consideration.

13. Staff are of the view that the information provided by mana whenua on most nominated sites is sufficient for the Council to initiate detailed work on collating historical and archaeological information and identifying statutory and non-statutory methods for management of future development and for the purpose of meeting the AUP and HGI plan statutory requirements under section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (evaluation of alternatives, costs and benefits).

14. The following sections of the report provide details on the current provisions of the Plans and outline issues and next steps.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and Independent Hearing Panel’s recommendation

15. After the 2010 amalgamation of the legacy councils, the Council initiated work on a Unitary Plan for the region. However this work did not include amending the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section).

16. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) proposed a two tiered approach to management of sites of Māori origin. 61 Sites and Places of Significance and 3600 Sites and Places of Value were identified for protection in the PAUP.

17. While the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) supported the approach of having two distinct layers of management for sites with which mana whenua have ancestral relationships, its recommendation concluded that there was not sufficient evidential basis for the scheduling of all the sites proposed^{^[3]}.

18. The IHP therefore recommended the deletion of the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua Overlay and supported the inclusion of Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay for sites where there was sufficient information.

19. The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) filed an appeal with the High Court (CIV-2016-404-002261) challenging the council’s decision (adopted from the IHP’s recommendation) to delete of the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua Overlay.

20. The recent High Court decision of Justice Wylie concluded that the deletion of the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua Overlay, and associated provisions, does not compromise, or have the potential to compromise, the Council’s compliance with the various statutory obligations imposed on it by the Resource Management Act 1991.

21. The IMSB has 20 working days to file an appeal to the Court’s decision. Staff will update the committee on the status of the appeal at the meeting.

Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section)

22. Māori Heritage is specifically identified in the HGI under Chapter 7.13. The Plan sets out objectives, polices, rules and specific assessment criteria for activities within an area scheduled as a Māori heritage site. The plan however does not identify any sites in a schedule or map for the inner or outer islands.

23. Mana whenua have nominated sites on the inner and outer islands.

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

24. The AUP contains 75 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua. Of the 75 scheduled sites, 46 sites were rolled over from the legacy plans and 29 sites were identified by mana whenua during the plan development and hearings process and recommended by the IHP for inclusion.

25. The objectives, policies and associated rules are contained within D21: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay and the sites are listed under Schedule 12 of the AUP.

26. The AUP provides protection to scheduled sites through the rules by requiring consent for most activities as a Discretionary Activity, with exceptions provided for minor activities as Permitted Activities. The AUP identifies some sites as ‘site exception’ which provides for most network utility works as a restricted discretionary activity, rather than discretionary activity consent.

27. In addition to the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay, the following overlays of the AUP also provide consideration to be given to mana whenua values.

· Outstanding Natural Landscapes overlay (D10)

· Outstanding Natural Features overlay (D10)

· Outstanding Natural Character overlay (D11)

· High Natural Character (D11)

· Volcanic Viewshafts (D14)

· Significant Ecological Areas overlay (D9)

· Historic Heritage overlay (D17)

28. While mana whenua values are identified as a matter for discretion within each of the above overlays, no assessment of mana whenua values has been undertaken. Consideration will be given through this work programme to whether information gathered should also be included in corresponding schedules to fill any gaps in understanding of mana whenua values and to support the protection of the sites.

Issue and Scope of the Plan Change

29. Having reviewed the AUP and HGI provisions as they apply to these sites, staff are of the view that the current provisions do not provide adequate recognition and protection to the nominated sites from future development.

30. While the two Plans offer some level of consideration to be given to new sites nominated by mana whenua through different overlays, staff consider that the inclusion of sites within the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua schedule and overlay or other schedules is the appropriate method to recognise and manage future development of these sites.

Next Steps

31. Staff will commence reviewing the assigned cultural values provided by mana whenua for completeness and robustness and engage with mana whenua and landowners. Staff note that some information on cultural values has been withheld by mana whenua as they consider it to be of too sensitive a nature to be made publically available. Staff will discuss the risk of proceeding with a plan change without robust information on sites with all mana whenua groups.

32. In addition to cultural values associated with the sites, staff will also initiate researching the historic and archaeological information available for these sites.

33. Staff will report back to this committee on the following:

a. discussions with mana whenua on the preferred management option for site(s);

b. discussions with landowners on the preferred management option for site(s);

c. number of sites proposed to proceed for schedule 1 process; and

d. draft provisions of the plan change for notification.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. The views of Local Boards have not been sought for the purposes of this report. All Local Boards will be briefed and consulted on the plan change document prior to notification.

Māori impact statement

35. This report addresses matters that relate to a plan change to protect and manage new nominated Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua. All iwi groups have participated and contributed to the Māori Cultural Heritage Programme.

36. Staff will organise wānanga (discussion forum) with all participating iwi groups to discuss the management options available through the statutory process. Staff will also organise site visits with iwi and landowners to better understand the values associated with the site and confirm the extent of the significance for mapping purposes.

37. All iwi groups will also be briefed and consulted on the plan change prior to notification in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Act.

Implementation

38. There are no significant implementation issues. Costs associated with the engagement process and preparation of the plan change have been allocated in the Plans and Places budget.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Vrinda Moghe - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Assessment of errors to produce the first two administrative plan changes

File No.: CP2017/03851

Purpose

1. To seek Planning Committee approval to progress the first Administrative Plan Change to correct errors, anomalies and technical matters identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

2. This report also seeks approval to progress a review of the notable trees schedule in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) that will lead to a second plan change – Corrections to the Notable Trees Schedule.

Executive summary

3. In 2016, the Governing Body resolved (GB/2016/201) to “direct the Chief Executive to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any further technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan and report back to the incoming Council, no later than March 2017.”

4. Since the notification of the decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (Plan), council staff and the public have identified a number of potential errors, anomalies and technical matters for correction in the Plan. These are errors to the text and the maps.

5. Council can amend and correct such errors in the Plan through Clause 20A of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and/or via a plan change process to the Plan. The scope to fix errors through Clause 20A is narrow and these corrections should not change the intent or application of the provision.

6. Staff recommend that one of the first plan changes to the Plan should be an administrative plan change to correct errors, anomalies and technical matters that are not able to be corrected by Clause 20A but do not trigger a substantive shift or change in policy.

7. In addition to the above, an assessment of potential errors to date has highlighted that the Notable Trees Schedule 10 in the Plan would benefit from a systematic and wider review and as such, should be separated out into a separate work project to the first administrative plan change. Various errors have been identified throughout the Schedule and these are causing ambiguity for the consenting process and are having an impact on the protection of notable trees.

8. Staff recommend that a comprehensive review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule in the Plan is undertaken and any corrections required to the schedule are addressed in a second plan change process.

9. A cut-off date of Thursday 13 April 2017 is proposed for any new errors to be raised to the council’s Unitary Plan email address (unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz). After this date, all new errors will be recorded and processed in a separate timeframe.

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to develop the first administrative plan change to correct technical matters and anomalies identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

b) agree to develop a second plan change to make corrections to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

c) request that staff report the proposed administrative plan change and corrections to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule plan change to the Planning Committee for approval for public notification, under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

d) note the possibility that future plan change/s may be required to address matters that are outside the scope of the first administrative plan change to enable the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) to be effective.

Comments

Background

11. In 2016, the Governing Body resolved (number GB/2016/201):

That the Governing Body:

a) direct the Chief Executive to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any further technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan and report back to the incoming Council, no later than March 2017.

12. Since the notification of the decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, a number of potential errors within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) have been identified. Council staff have formed a project workstream to initiate and assess these potential errors and the result of the assessment will feed into the first administrative plan change.

Statutory considerations

13. The council can amend and correct errors in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) through two processes via the Resource Management Act 1991:

· Clause 20A of Schedule 1: A local authority may amend, without using the process in this schedule, an operative policy statement or plan to correct any minor errors

· A plan change/s to the operative Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

14. Any errors that are identified to a section of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) subject to appeals will be resolved via the appeal process provided there is scope.

Assessment of errors and outputs considered

15. Council staff are currently undertaking a review of all identified potential errors and considering an appropriate course of action for each of the errors. Through the assessment of the errors, one of the following courses of action will be recommended:

a) correct the error through Clause 20A of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

b) the error is beyond the scope of clause 20A but should be amended through a plan change as a technical matter or anomaly

c) the error requires further investigation and review that may lead to a future potential plan change

d) requires no further action as the ‘error’ is not seen to be an error and the assessment has concluded nothing further needs to happen

e) monitor the error in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) as it may be less substantive and/or not considered to be a significant issue that warrants an immediate change. As such, these errors will be monitored to see if they warrant any amendments in the future. These errors will be added to a list and reviewed part of the Council’s monitoring programme (once set up).

16. Once the assessment is complete, Council staff recommend that any errors that fall within b) above should be addressed first and processed through the proposed administrative plan change.

Scope of Clause 20A matters

17. Errors that can be fixed through Clause 20A are minor errors where intent / content matter is not changed and the amendment is not debatable in any way or form, such as:

a) correcting spelling, punctuation, plurals and grammatical errors

b) correcting numbering

c) deleting words duplicated in text

d) correcting cross referencing to the intended provisions e.g. change of cross reference from precinct plan 2 to precinct plan 1 when there is no precinct plan 2 for that particular precinct

e) deleting item from a schedule where the item does not exist and it was not included in the maps

f) correcting the zone of a tiny piece of a site e.g. a sliver of land that has been incorrectly zoned and the zone selected is that of the adjacent property where there is no debate

g) correcting the zoning on a diagram with the zoning in the GIS viewer, or vice versa

h) correcting the boundaries of a precinct plan to align with the boundaries on the GIS viewer to match with new subdivision boundaries, where this does not change the zone, control or precinct itself.

18. Council staff have established the Clause 20A process in-house. It will be carried out in coordinated tranches (every two months) and will be signed off by a Tier 4 manager in the Plans and Places department under existing delegated authority.

First Administrative Plan Change

19. It is recommended that the first administrative plan change has a narrow focus in terms of the errors included, and as such the scope of this first administrative plan change should include:

a) Corrections where it is clear from the Independent Hearings Panel (Panel) recommendations that their intentions have not been carried forward into the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part); and

b) corrections to reflect agreements reached between a submitter and the Council through mediation where the Panel accepted the agreements and recommended they be implemented but this is not reflected in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part); and

c) amendments to the provisions to correct information where it does not change the policy or intent of the provision; and

d) corrections to an overlay, precinct, zone or control where the spatial application has clearly been applied to the wrong land / coastal marine area (and this is clearly seen to be an error and does not lead to a substantive argument / debate in any form); and

e) corrections to the schedules where there is clear discrepancy between Council’s closing statement evidence and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) and the matter has been agreed between the parties and/or is silent in terms of the Panel’s recommendations; and

f) updating the GIS viewer to land recently vested as open space, roads and other types of reserve e.g. utility reserves.

20. Any errors that are proposing a change in text and/or maps that leads to a policy discussion or a debate on the merits are recommended not to be included in this first administrative plan change.

Future Plan Change/s

21. Council staff may identify future stand-alone plan change/s that may be required subsequently to address matters outside the scope of the first administrative plan change. These will be prioritised by their level of importance and need to amend provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) to enable the functionality and implementation of the Auckland Unitary Plan to be effective. Any such future plan change/s will be reported back to the Planning Committee for approval for public notification.

Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule

22. The assessment of potential errors to date has highlighted that Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule (Schedule) in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) would benefit from a systematic and wider review and as such should be separated out into a separate work project to the first administrative plan change. Council staff have found mapping issues (e.g. tree identification is mapped at the wrong location), incorrect information in the schedule (e.g. address and/or legal description is incorrect, the number of trees is missing/incorrect, the botanical and common names are incorrect or do not align), or items missing from the schedule or included by mistake. These errors are causing ambiguity for the consenting process and are having an impact on the protection of notable trees

23. Council staff recommend that a comprehensive review of the schedule is undertaken and any corrections required to be made to the schedule is addressed in a second plan change process. This review is to ensure that the schedule text and maps align, and that the information is correct and up to date.

24. The timeframes for undertaking the assessment and delivering this plan change will be longer than the administrative plan change as it will require additional resourcing, geospatial analysis, site visits and expert inputs. It is anticipated that this plan change could be publicly notified in mid-2018.

25. A number of nominations for trees to be added to the Schedule are received from time to time. It is proposed that nominations do not form part of the plan change process for the Schedule. Nominations will be considered as a separate matter at a later date.

Timeframes for assessment of errors and first administrative plan change

26. Council staff are currently undertaking a review of all identified potential errors and recommending an appropriate course of action for each of the errors. This assessment will be completed in late April.

27. All customer enquiries and potential new errors are to be directed to the Council’s Unitary Plan email address (unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz). All new errors raised must be sent to the inbox by Thursday 13 April 2017. After this date, all new errors will be recorded and dealt with in a separate timeframe.

28. In May, Council staff will reply in writing to all customers who raised errors in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) on council’s assessment of the proposed error and inform them on the outcome of the assessment. Council staff will also prepare and complete any clause 20A memos, and then start on the preparation of the first administrative plan change following the RMA statutory processes.

29. An indicative timeline for the first administrative plan change is included as Attachment 1.

30. An indicative timeline for the corrections to the Notable Tree Schedule plan change is included as Attachment 2.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. There are a number of errors identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) that fall with various Local Board areas across the region. These are errors identified in text (e.g. precinct provisions, schedules) and on the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) GIS viewer (e.g. zoning, precinct boundaries, overlay, controls, mapping of schedule items).

32. Council staff will be sending a memo to all Local Boards to advise them of the errors assessment and schedule review. At this stage, council staff have not sought any input or consulted with any Local Boards. However, should any changes be supported as a result of the assessment and fall within the recommended actions outlined in this report, a careful analysis of any impacts to Local Boards will be undertaken and where applicable, the Local Board will be consulted.

33. The Local Boards can raise any potential new errors that they consider to be in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) to the Council’s Unitary Plan email address (unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz). All new errors raised must be sent to the inbox by Thursday 13 April 2017. After this date, all new errors will be recorded and dealt with in a separate timeframe.

Māori impact statement

34. There are a number of errors identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) that affect Māori provisions in the Plan. These are errors identified in the text (e.g. Regional Policy Statement B6 Mana Whenua) and schedules (e.g. Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule). A number of these errors (such as the Regional Policy Statement policy) have been raised as a result of established staff contacts with iwi and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Council staff will continue to engage and consult with mana whenua on these and other errors that have an impact.

35. Mana whenua and mataawaka can raise any potential new errors that they consider to be in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) to the Council’s Unitary Plan email address (unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz). All new errors raised must be sent to the inbox by Thursday 13 April 2017. After this date, all new errors will be recorded and dealt with in a separate timeframe.

Implementation

36. The costs associated with the assessment and production of the plan changes will be managed from within existing department budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Indicative timeline for the first administrative plan change	177
b ⇩	Indicative timeline for the corrections to the Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule plan change	179

Signatories

Authors

Gurv Singh - Planner

Phill Reid - Hearings Panel Planning Manager

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

28 March 2017

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Future Plan Changes and processing of Private Plan Changes

File No.: CP2017/03861

Purpose

1. To highlight possible future plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (council initiated), outline the private plan change process and seek endorsement of criteria for staff to determine whether or not to reject future private plan changes over the two years post the Auckland Unitary Plan becoming operative in part (i.e. until November 2018).

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part on 15 November 2016. Work on possible plan changes has commenced. These include corrections to notable tree schedule, Whenuapai Structure Plan, additions to Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua, and an administrative plan change.

3. Staff within the Plans and Places Department have identified further potential council-initiated plan changes and are aware of a number of possible private plan change requests as a result of enquiries.

4. Section 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act (RMA) outlines the situations where a Local Authority may reject a request for a private plan change. This includes whether within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court, or in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

5. Under the Auckland Council Combined Chief Executive Delegation Register (23/06/11) the powers and functions under First Schedule to the RMA have been delegated to Tier 4 Managers. This includes the authority to reject a request for a private plan change. To guide the consideration of private plan change requests over the two years post the Auckland Unitary Plan becoming operative in part, additional criteria are recommended. This includes alignment with key strategic documents/plans such as the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the Auckland Plan.

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the following criteria to be used by council staff to determine the appropriateness of any private plan changes requested during the two years post-15 November 2016 (i.e. the date on which the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part):

i) any matter specified in Section 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991;

ii) whether the outcomes of any plan change:

- align with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, and

- give effect to the Auckland Plan, and

- follow Appendix 1 – Structure Plan Guidelines of the Auckland Unitary Plan for any structure planning related plan change, and

- give effect to the environmental outcomes expected and effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

b) endorse staff investigating potential future plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and reporting them back to the Planning Committee for any decision to proceed.

Comments

Potential Council-initiated Plan Changes

6. The Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part on the 15 November 2016. Four Plan changes are currently under development:

· Administrative Plan Change (which corrects errors in the text and maps and also incorporates an update to land recently vested as open space, roads and other types of reserve e.g. utility reserve);

· Notable Tree Schedule Corrections Plan Change;

· Sites of Significance to mana whenua

· Whenuapai Structure Plan Change;

These plan changes are reported on in more detail separately at this meeting.

7. The four units that make up the Plans and Places Department (Heritage, Auckland – wide, Central/South and North/West) are also investigating the potential council-initiated plan changes discussed below. If it is concluded that a plan change is indeed the most appropriate way of addressing the issue, these potential plan changes will be reported back to this committee during the course of 2017. Further investigations into the list of plan changes recommended by the Independent Hearings Panel are also underway.

Heritage

· Heritage Plan change to add approximately 70 sites to the Historic Heritage Schedule;

· Heritage Plan Change to add four Historic Heritage Areas;

· Heritage assessments to include additional Special Character areas have been undertaken but these are on hold pending the outcome of the Housing NZ appeal; and

Auckland–wide

· Update to land recently vested as open space, roads and other types of reserve e.g. utility reserve (also potentially includes asset disposals);

· Aquaculture – the Government will introduce new national direction on aquaculture in the next few months. The Council may be required to change the activity status for renewing existing marine farm consents;

· Sea Change – the marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf sets out a range of actions that may require plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan including new provisions for aquaculture and for discharges; and

· Changes may be required in response to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill and National Policy Statements.

North/West

● Omaha Beach – yard rules;

· Transferable rural sites subdivision – sub-division within the Waitakere Ranges;

· Westgate – indicative roading layout

· Panuku – Hobsonville airfields – rezone land in line with approved resource consents; and

· Incorporating the Hauraki Gulf Islands into the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Private Plan Changes

8. Under Section 73(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, any person may request a territorial authority to change a district plan, and the plan may be changed in the manner set out in First Schedule of the Act.

9. The request must:

· be in writing

· explain the purpose of and reason for the change

· describe any anticipated environmental effects of the proposed change, taking into account the matters listed in the Fourth Schedule of the Act

· include an evaluation report under Section 32 for any objectives, policies, and/or rules or other methods proposed.

10. The applicant can also provide information on:

· the mitigation of adverse environmental effects

· consultation

· site-specific details, including information on services.

11. After receiving the request for a private plan change, the council can request further information from the applicant within 20 workings days of lodgement. After receiving all the necessary information, the council has 30 working days to decide whether to adopt or accept the request in whole or in part, convert the request to a resource consent application, or reject the request.

The First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991

12. Section 25 of the First Schedule to the RMA outlines the situations where a Local Authority may reject a request for a private plan change. These are:

(a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request—

(i) has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

(ii) has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

(d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

(e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

13. The three main criteria likely to be relied upon through until 15 November 2018 are clauses (b) (i), (c) & (e). The limited grounds for rejection reflect the presumption that private plan change applications will be determined on their merits (through the local authority or private plan change process) unless one of the grounds above applies.

Additional Criteria

14. The following additional criteria are recommended to assist with considering whether a private plan change should be rejected under staff delegation, or proceed to the Committee to be adopted, accepted, converted to a resource consent application or rejected.

15. The outcomes of the private plan change:

· align with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, and

· give effect to the Auckland Plan, and

· that any structure planning and subsequent plan changes follow Appendix 1 – Structure Plan Guidelines of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and

· gives effect to the environmental outcomes expected and effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Current Delegations

16. Under the Auckland Council Combined Chief Executive Delegation Register (23/06/11) the following Resource Management Act 1991 delegation is held by Tier 4 managers.

· All powers, functions and duties under Schedule 1 except for the power to approve a proposed policy statement or plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1. (This power cannot be exercised by any Council officer or Hearings Commissioner).

17. Private Plan change requests fall within Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. Private plan change requests that meet the recommended criteria above would be reported to this committee for consideration. Requests that do not meet one or more of the criteria will be rejected by staff under delegated authority. Any exercising of this delegated power will be recorded on a six monthly basis for information purposes to the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Local Boards played an essential role in the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. All significant proposed Auckland-wide plan changes will be discussed with Local Boards prior to being recommended to the Planning Committee for endorsement. Locally significant plan changes will be discussed with the relevant Local Board (or Boards) prior to being recommended to the Planning Committee for endorsement.

Māori impact statement

19. The Council engaged extensively with Māori (in particular mana whenua) during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auckland Unitary Plan has benefitted significantly from this engagement. Māori (in particular mana whenua) will undoubtedly have a strong interest in the on-going development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Staff have engaged, or are currently engaging with Māori on a number of possible plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Tony Reidy - Team leader Unitary Plan

Phill Reid - Hearings Panel Planning Manager

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

[1] These documents include the Statement of Intent, Business Plan, Corporate Responsibility Framework and Māori Engagement Framework and associated action plans.

[2] In calculations of possible gross floor area, the Station Block of the Town Centre Core has been excluded due to the wider infrastructure unknowns, including the Rapid Transport Network and East West Link.

[3] IHP Recommendation Report – Topics 036 and 037 - Māori Land and Treaty, and Mana Whenua sites

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Denise Lee
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr John Watson
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Penny Hulse
	Cr Mike Lee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	2/3/2017 - Staff submission on the Telecommunication Act Review: Post-2020 Regulatory Framework for Fixed Line Services (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	22/3/2017 - Auckland Council East West Link Submission (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	22/3/2017 - Auckland Council Northern Corridor Improvements Project Submission (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	20/3/2017 - Structure Plans memo to Planning Committee members (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	15/2/2017 - Future Urban Land Supply Strategy Refresh workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	1/3/2017 - CRL Briefing documents (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	1/3/2017 - Auckland Plan Refresh Workshop 3 documents (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	7/3/2017 - City to Airport Briefing documents (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	10/3/2017 - Central City Waterfront Planning Workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	15/3/2017 - Auckland Plan Refresh Workshop 4 documents (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Elaine Stephenson - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy