Agenda of Planning Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:

· Relevant regional strategy and policy

· Infrastructure strategy and policy

· Unitary Plan

· Spatial plans

· Plan changes to operative plans

· Housing policy and projects

· Special Housing Areas

· City centre development

· Tamaki regeneration

· Built heritage

· Urban design

· Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

· Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

Activities of the following Council Controlled Organisations:

o Panuku Development Auckland

o Auckland Transport

o Watercare Services Limited

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii) The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

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

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Planning Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 4 July 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Public Input - Transpower - Update regarding Transpower's network development plans and response to growth and demand in Auckland

Purpose

1. David Knight, General Counsel, Transpower, will be present to provide a general update to the Planning Committee on Transpower’s approach to developing its network plans in response to growth and demand in Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the update from David Knight, General Counsel – Transpower, regarding Transpower’s network development plans and response to growth and demand in Auckland.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input - Kaipātiki Local Board - Plans and Places Work Programme

Purpose

1. Kaipātiki Local Board Chair, Danielle Grant, will make a presentation to the Governing Body regarding the Plans and Places Work Programme at the item.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) thank Kaipātiki Local Board Chair, Danielle Grant, for her presentation regarding the Plans and Places Work Programme and for her attendance.

6.2 Local Board Input - Franklin Local Board - Structure Planning

Purpose

1. To provide the Franklin Local Board Deputy Chair, Andrew Baker, with the opportunity to speak regarding structure planning.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) thank Franklin Local Board Deputy Chair, Andrew Baker, for his presentation regarding structure planning and for his attendance.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Planning Committee

01 August 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - feedback from local boards

File No.: CP2017/14323

Purpose

1. To receive local board feedback on high-level, strategic themes and focus areas for the proposed strategic framework for the draft refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. Over the last six months local boards have been involved in Auckland Plan Refresh Planning Committee workshops and local board cluster meetings as part of their shared governance role. Early feedback from local boards and key stakeholders was used to develop the themes and focus areas for the Plan.

3. Local boards are currently considering feedback received on their draft local board plans. This has been used to inform further advice on the Auckland Plan Strategic Framework. During June and July 2017 resolutions were formulated at local board business meetings.

4. This report summarises the formal feedback from eight local boards that has been received by close of the agenda, and focuses on common themes. As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. A complete list of local board resolutions is included in Attachment A. Additional detailed feedback provided by local boards can be found in Attachment B.

5. In general, local boards’ feedback focused on what will be required to cope with the demands of Auckland’s projected population growth, development and intensification. The key themes include:

· housing affordability; highlighted as a key challenge facing local communities and the wider region

· the need for integrated infrastructure to support growth and development, including various stormwater, wastewater and transport improvements, particularly public transport, roading and rail priorities, and the need for well-connected networks

· the need for more emphasis on providing local employment across the region thereby reducing the need for local residents to travel to the city

· the provision and efficient use of open space and community facilities (including multi-use sports and recreation facilities, sports fields and pools) to accommodate growth

· addressing environmental concerns, such as coastal erosion, pest and weed management and water quality issues

· the need to reflect the importance of Māori and the strength of our diverse communities.

6. Feedback in this report will be considered in the next iteration of the Strategic Framework as part of the ongoing development of the draft plan. There will be opportunities through to early October for the local boards to provide input into the development of the draft plan. Approval of the draft plan for consultation will be sought at the 28 November Planning Committee meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive local board feedback on the challenges, opportunities, strategic themes and focus areas of the proposed refreshed Auckland Plan.

Comments

7. Local board views are summarised below. Resolutions and further detailed feedback in full is included in Attachments A and B.

General comments

8. A small number of local boards provided general comments about the plan. These include:

· the Auckland Plan needs to be more about how to position Auckland in accordance with an overall, aspirational vision leveraging future opportunities, positive growth and inter-generational benefits

· the themes and underlying topics relate to the challenges and opportunities facing local residents and align with local board priorities outlined in the draft local board plans

· legacy inequity and the current situation of uneven distribution of the benefits from growth should be reflected across the plan including access to open space, recreation and aquatic activities

· role and influence of council-controlled organisations in determining the future of Auckland.

Belonging and participation

9. A number of local boards recognised that this theme required further development. Key issues include:

· support for greater access and distribution to those in need to significantly shift the quality of life of those most disadvantaged

· need for provision of meeting places such as parks and open spaces, plazas and community and recreation facilities to create “inclusive, resilient and thriving communities”

· need for sports fields and better use of community facilities, including schools

· a lack of emphasis on new open spaces and local parks in metropolitan areas

· need for procurement of space to cater for a rapidly growing population

· reflection of the importance of Māori and the strength of our diverse communities

· recognition of Auckland as the largest Polynesian city in the world and reflect New Zealand’s historic, long-standing relationships with Pacific nations and the role of Pacific people as citizens in the plan – ‘our past and our futures are intertwined’

· reflection of the importance of diversity and what this means for sense of connection to place, culture and heritage

· recognition, value and tapping into an increasingly diverse population across age, culture, ethnicity and ability

· support for a strategy that champions a culturally collaborative future that recognises Māori and their culture and our indigenous heritage

· need for public health to be included, especially in areas where the council can have an impact.

Homes and places for people

10. There was general agreement with the focus on housing as a key issue and increased supply will lessen the housing crisis. It was felt that the council and/or central government need to consider how it can build houses itself on a large scale. Key issues raised include:

· housing affordability was highlighted as a key challenge facing local communities and the wider region

· while some local boards have embraced the Special Housing Areas, others felt that they have failed in requiring landowners to build affordable and/or council housing (where this requirement was removed)

· retaining public ownership of land prevents the privatisation of public land and profiteering

· local boards have a key role in place shaping and building communities at the neighbourhood level

· include reference to community safety

· some felt that the council should be more proactive in facilitating the renewal of urban centres

· provide a quality living environment to support further residential intensification while also actively responding to community and family needs

· future planning requires a balance between accommodating population growth and planning for neighbourhoods through investment in social infrastructure and access to services (e.g. parks, shops and amenities)

· quality urban design and planning should be at the forefront of new urban and commercial development to ensure “urban areas that work”

· put in place strategies to ensure housing quality that encourages sustainable design and green architecture

· focus on sustainable residential growth – Auckland can lead and model the way forward on renewable energy initiatives, learning from other world cities (e.g. Henderson as an exemplar).

Access and connectivity for everyone

11. Some local boards highlighted concerns at the lack of investment and emphasis on improving public transport provision to address congestion. There is a need for an efficient, affordable and a sound connected network to link people to key destinations.

12. A key challenge is the lack of employment close to where people live, necessitating time-consuming travel across the region. Key issues raised include:

· support safe and improved connections to and from arterial links and suburban town centres and parking facilities to accommodate the growth in commuting in key locations

· need for co-ordinated investment for planned infrastructure to support growth in key locations

· role of rail in supporting the regional significance of Manukau as a major centre of employment for the south, including public transport linking the local workforce to the airport – timeframes for the real link to the airport should be brought forward

· including a heavy rail link along the small stretch from Puhinui was proposed as an immediate solution to peak congestion given that the light rail option from Dominion Road may be some years away

· need for central government investment in a third trunk line for freight to retain and attract industry while reducing travel demand.

Protect and Enhance

13. Local boards in the west proposed that this theme should be given more prominence. It was felt that there was a need for more developed thinking on the place of the natural environment in the plan overall. It was argued that the intrinsic value of the natural environment should be the foundation for developing a focus area around this theme and any economic or social benefit should be a secondary consideration.

14. Other local boards were supportive of this theme, highlighting that it is also a high priority reflected in their draft local board plans. Key issues raised include:

· the natural environment includes the functions of protection and extending habitat, protection of endangered species, pest animal and pest plant control, kauri dieback and clean water in our waterways, lagoons and beaches

· although the theme recognises that ‘environmental indicators are poor and declining, which indicates that current approaches to protect the natural environment are insufficient’, it was felt that Auckland’s wider natural environment was at risk in being viewed ‘solely through the lens of human activity and/or development’

· tension between the development strategy identifying areas that need to be protected for their natural beauty or cultural significance and as a ‘map and plan of how we want to grow and develop’. The focus on existing urban areas, future urban areas, rural areas and infrastructure was questioned

· note that much of the Auckland area extends beyond natural suburban/rurally developed boundaries

· elevate the regional significance of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area as “the lungs of Auckland” from local communities’ perspective, “linking us to our roots through the natural environment”. The area is recognised as a place of importance to mana whenua, provides green space, amenity and fresh water to Auckland residents, and the need for stewardship of a “unique and fragile ecosystem”. Strategic oversight and funding needs to be addressed at a much more fundamental level than is the practice currently

· support Aucklanders to take up opportunities to make the most of their local environment in developing their own a unique place in Auckland

· enhance the water quality, status and environmental significance of the Manukau Harbour

· coastal erosion is a regional priority

· support climate change being prominently acknowledged

· restore continuation of historic environmental monitoring around air quality, water quality and park usage amongst other matters.

Opportunities and prosperity for all

15. A number of local boards proposed that there be more emphasis on providing local employment across the region, thereby reducing the need for local residents to travel to the city. Providing local employment opportunities increases local employment, boosts productivity, improves social outcomes for families in the south and provides families and communities with more quality time through reduced commuting.

16. Local boards in the west highlighted the need to plan to address the distribution of employment alongside connections to employment. Identifying demand for local skills and supporting providers to identify educational pathways enables local employment. Key issues raised include:

· recognise that every metropolitan centre needs a strong local economy to share prosperity across the region and to promote a diversified economy

· supporting local employment growth in specific areas would open up opportunities

· recognise opportunities to support clusters of diverse businesses including increased collaboration in marketing and growing international connections

· note that some areas of Auckland currently have low resilience to change and a high dependence on specific markets

· highlight Manukau’s strategic role as an economic powerhouse serving the south, its significance as a major food processing and industrial hub and its proximity to Auckland International Airport. Its large and growing young population presents opportunities for Auckland’s future around employment

· consider the role of Manukau as an education hub and growing need to support investment in education, trades and pathways for young people/rangatahi. Opportunities/funding should be channelled to areas of high growth and high need.

Māori identity and wellbeing

17. A number of local boards noted that the special relationship with Māori as tangata whenua should be recognised throughout the plan. Involving Māori in co-governance arrangements and promoting participation in decision-making are key to supporting Māori wellbeing.

Development Strategy

18. Some local boards felt that actions to achieve the Unitary Plan’s target of 70% urban growth need to be strengthened in the plan. It was noted that the plan plays a key role in signalling the council’s investment priorities to the market and community. The Auckland Plan needs to strongly state that the council will assess development against its aspirations for appropriate levels of greenfield and brownfield development, when making infrastructure decisions and setting the timeframe for investment. Key issues raised include:

· strong commitment to concentrate growth along existing and future rail lines and rapid public transport networks

· ongoing investment in essential infrastructure is required to keep up with population growth, including investment in stormwater, sewerage, roading and public transport over the next 30 years

· with intensification, there needs to be much stronger prioritisation of the provision of open space, especially in those areas zoned through the Unitary Plan and where council work has shown existing under-provision

· the focus should be on the south and the whole of the west, rather than just the northwest. There is an increasing disparity between rapid growth in housing, the levels and timing of infrastructure provision and the development of local economic opportunities. There is an opportunity to establish a west version of the Southern Initiative to support these new communities to be successful

· retain the focus on the Southern Initiative and the wider South Auckland area

· Manukau plays a more important role in the economy than other metropolitan centres such as New Lynn or Botany. It forms part of the Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga ‘golden’ triangle. It produces 20% of Auckland GDP, equal to the Auckland CBD. It therefore contributes to the social and cultural life of South Auckland and the wider Waikato region

· a lot of the industrial areas in the isthmus will move further south. The bottleneck at Mount Wellington and the South Western motorway means that it is harder for commuters travelling from the south into the city

· South Auckland is already an educational hub. Growth will see further increases in the student population. The need for the southern spur line cannot be overlooked

· future plans for the renewal of small town centres also need to be reflected in the plan.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Over the last six months local boards have been involved in Auckland Plan Refresh Planning Committee workshops and local board cluster meetings as part of their shared governance role. Their input was used to develop the themes and focus areas for the Plan. Local board views and feedback have been provided in this report.

Māori impact statement

20. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board feedback is based on the draft local board plans, which have been developed through engagement with the community, including Māori. The Auckland Plan Refresh has identified Māori identity and wellbeing as a separate theme with aspects woven through all themes.

Implementation

21. Feedback in this report will be considered in the next iteration of the Strategic Framework as part of the ongoing development of the draft plan. There will be opportunities through to early October for the local boards to provide input into the development of the draft plan. Approval of the draft plan for consultation will be sought at the 28 November Planning Committee meeting.

22. The draft Auckland Plan is an aspirational plan for the next 30 years, which guides the growth and development of Auckland. Following adoption in June 2018, the ability and timeframe for the council to implement specific aspects of the plan is dependent on the level of funding available through the council’s Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Resolutions by local board	17
b ⇩	Attachment B - feedback by local board	19

Signatories

Authors

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 August 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh: Feedback on early engagement with communities of Auckland and proposed strategic framework

File No.: CP2017/13025

Purpose

1. To report on feedback provided by communities of Auckland and other partners and stakeholders during early engagement on the Auckland Plan refresh.

2. To seek ‘in principle’ approval of the proposed Auckland Plan strategic framework to support ongoing stakeholder engagement and enable drafting of the refreshed plan.

Executive summary

3. At its 28 March 2017 meeting, the Planning Committee resolved (PLA/2017/30) to refresh the Auckland Plan as a ‘streamlined spatial plan’ and agreed to three main stakeholder engagement phases.

4. This report covers:

· the proposed strategic framework that will deliver a more ‘streamlined spatial plan’

· how the early engagement with the communities of Auckland, key partners and stakeholders has informed the process to date

· how the feedback from the July 17 and 20 Planning Committee workshops was incorporated into the proposed strategic framework.

5. Overall, stakeholder feedback endorsed the need for a refresh of the Auckland Plan and the general strategic direction proposed. Housing, transport and a healthy natural environment were seen as fundamental to the future well-being of Auckland. The lack of affordable housing and the negative impact that has on people’s sense of belonging, employment opportunities, and health and education outcomes was a shared concern across all groups. The challenges that the Auckland Plan is seeking to address were accepted although there was comment that ‘uneven distribution of growth benefits’ should be stated more clearly as ‘addressing growing inequality’.

6. Informed through feedback and the supporting evidence base, the following six outcomes will set the aspiration for the plan:

· Belonging and Participation for All Aucklanders

· Opportunities and Prosperity for All

· Homes and Places for People

· Environment and Cultural Heritage Valued by All

· Access and Connectivity for Everyone

· Māori Identity and Wellbeing

7. ‘In principle’ approval of the proposed framework will enable drafting of the plan to commence and engagement with stakeholders to continue.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the feedback from the targeted engagement with communities of Auckland, partners and stakeholders on the challenges, opportunities, strategic themes and focus areas of the proposed refreshed Auckland Plan.

b) approve ‘in principle’ the proposed strategic framework for the refreshed Auckland Plan to support ongoing stakeholder engagement and enable drafting of the refreshed plan.

Background

8. The purpose of the Auckland Plan is to contribute to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being through a comprehensive and effective long-term (20- to 30-year) strategy for Auckland’s growth and development.

9. An effective Auckland Plan creates a shared understanding of the key challenges and opportunities that Auckland faces and provides direction to the roles of different stakeholders in addressing them.

10. To that end Section 80(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010 states “The Auckland Council must 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 spatial plan.”

11. The Planning Committee agreed at its 28 March 2017 meeting, (PLA/2017/30) to refresh the Auckland Plan as a ‘streamlined spatial plan’.

12. The Planning Committee also agreed to three main stakeholder engagement phases:

I. Early engagement with the communities of Auckland on the refresh of the Auckland Plan.

II. Engagement with other key partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

III. Use of the Special Consultative Procedure on the draft refreshed Auckland Plan, concurrent with the draft Long-term Plan, in 2018.

Development of the refreshed Auckland Plan

13. The refresh of the Auckland Plan commenced with consideration of mega-trends that may have an impact on Auckland and New Zealand over the next 30 years.

14. Three major challenges were identified:

· scale of growth

· greater environmental pressures

· uneven distribution of growth benefits.

15. To address these challenges, early thinking on the refreshed Auckland Plan was organised around a ‘working model’ of five inter-linked themes and the Development Strategy (see Table 1). This approach also responded to the decision to create a streamlined spatial plan.

Table 1: Working model

Strategic Themes	Skills and Jobs: Recognising the importance of skills and jobs in enabling prosperity and individual community well-being.
	Belonging: Enabling participation in society to underpin a sense of belonging. Aucklanders’ willingness to live and work together and invest in Auckland’s future is based on trust, tolerance and mutual respect.
	Homes and Places: Enabling successful urban environments. Homes and places influence Aucklanders’ health, safety and wellbeing, living standards and financial position.
	Protect and Enhance: Acknowledging the impacts of growth and development on Auckland’s natural environment, cultural and built heritage, and their contribution to broader outcomes for Auckland.
	Access & Connectivity: Enabling Aucklanders to get where they want to go through connections between Auckland, other parts of New Zealand and the world, both in the physical sense and by digital means.
Development Strategy	The Development Strategy takes a long-term, spatial view of Auckland’s future. It identifies how the region could grow, what new infrastructure will support communities and this growth, and what areas need to be protected for their significance. This helps to guide and prioritise investment.

16. This working model was the basis for targeted engagement with stakeholders during May and June 2017. (See Attachment A – Auckland Plan Refresh Early Engagement Summary Report that includes the list of stakeholders) The purpose of this engagement was to provide opportunities for early input into the direction of the plan before formal consultation. It helped test whether the identified challenges and proposed direction of the plan were valid and whether the refresh was focusing in the right areas. Each of the strategic themes contained three to five areas of focus that provided detail on how a particular theme could be advanced and what the priorities for that theme might be.

17. Three key questions were asked:

· Are we focussing on the right things to be successful?

· Do the areas of focus within the working themes provide the right direction?

· Are the themes a good way to respond to the challenges and opportunities Auckland faces?

Overview of feedback on the strategic themes

18. Overall, feedback endorsed the need for a refresh of the Auckland Plan and the general strategic direction proposed. The feedback was wide ranging. It covered the overall approach, the working themes of the plan and a number of detailed issues and opportunities within those themes.

19. There were areas of common interest across the different stakeholders. For example, the lack of affordable housing and the impact that it has on different outcomes (belonging, employment, health and education) was an area of concern. It was noted that rising household costs means people are forced to move around for schools and jobs which reduces achievement and access to opportunities.

20. There was also concern about inequity, inequality and lack of opportunity. Feedback was that people need equity of access to jobs; access to public transport; access to culture; access to accommodation; and access to information. In particular there was feedback on the need for focusing on developing opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Some other key points shared by stakeholders include:

· concerns about population growth and the impacts of growth on infrastructure

· recognition that jobs are being displaced through technological change and the speed of this change will increase

· the core values and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi need to be recognised more prominently

· there is a need to acknowledge the current state of the natural environment and cultural heritage, and that effective action is required just to “catch-up” to an acceptable level

· there was acknowledgement that increasing diversity will pose challenges, particularly around cohesion, but also that these challenges will be easier to surmount if communities value diversity

· there is a role for central and local governments in creating systemic change in housing policy through areas such as: regulation/legal incentives in home ownership; construction pipelines; and other interventions to achieve broader social outcomes (e.g. apprenticeships in the construction market)

· there needs to be greater security of rental tenure and recognition that a large proportion and greater number of Aucklanders will rent over a long term

· focus more on public transport, particularly on: creating an integrated 24/7 network that is punctual, reliable, affordable and safe; and considering inter-regional connectivity

· heritage areas need to be identified and protected, including providing adequate funding and the enforcement of regulations.

21. There was also feedback on how to continue engagement on the refreshed plan. This will inform on-going engagement with stakeholders.

22. A summary of all feedback and examples of how it was used to inform the proposed strategic framework is provided in Attachment A.

Overview of general feedback on the structure of the plan

23. The approach and need for a more streamlined spatial plan was generally accepted. Some considered that content specific to their area of interest in the current plan had been superseded by other companion plans and therefore had a greater degree of comfort in the potential reduction of information in their area. For example ‘Healthy Auckland Together’ produced through a coalition of 21 organisations including Auckland Council is considered the lead document for grappling with future health issues for Auckland.

24. Other groups were concerned to retain specific reference to their particular area of interest in the plan. There were two reasons for this: (i) it was perceived to give further weight to that area and/or (ii) there is currently no supporting plan that effectively captures the content that may be removed.

25. A number of groups felt that the lack of Māori-specific content provided during engagement meant a decrease in emphasis on the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau in the refreshed plan. As a result of this feedback a Māori identity and wellbeing outcome is included in the proposed strategic framework.

26. Some feedback questioned why the scope of the Auckland Plan is for all of Auckland and not a plan specific to Auckland Council.

Planning Committee workshops

27. A draft strategic framework was presented to members of the Planning Committee and local board chairs at two Planning Committee workshops on July 17 and 20. The presentation included discussion on how stakeholder feedback has informed the framework.

28. Discussion through the workshops predominantly covered the strategic framework and some future implementation challenges and included the following points:

· Drafting of the content for the refreshed plan must ensure appropriate hooks/linkages remain for those areas that are no longer as prominent in the proposed streamlined structure, e.g. public health.

· With the changing demography of Auckland, the plan needs to remain relevant for all. This has implications on how we engage in the future, how the plan is written, language etc.

· There will be an ongoing need to continue to emphasise that the Auckland Plan is a plan for the whole of Auckland and that its successful delivery is dependent upon collaboration across multiple stakeholders. This has implications for how the plan will be funded and broader implementation tools. It requires identifying where the council and others have specific levers and their differing roles.

· Discussion revolved around the integration of environment and heritage in the initially titled ‘nature and culture valued by all’ outcome. The rationale for the integration approach was reiterated with further evidence. This led to a decision to re-title the outcome ‘Environment and cultural heritage valued by all’ and to develop more explicit strategic directions. These reflect the importance of the environment and how the environment sustains everything within it, encapsulating society, culture and the economy.

29. There was a range of other feedback relating specifically to the text/definitions of the strategic directions and focus areas. The response to this has been reflected in the proposed strategic framework below. Attachment B provides the list of track changes resulting from the workshops.

Proposed strategic framework

30. The proposed strategic framework is shown below. It has been developed incorporating feedback from the targeted early engagement, the Planning Committee and local board cluster workshops, and ongoing development of the evidence base.

31. The proposed strategic framework provides more focus on the outcomes we want to deliver through creating stronger linkages between the core components of the plan.

32. The outcomes, strategic directions and focus areas help inform the Development Strategy, specifically how those elements impact Auckland in a spatial sense. For example, how might the changing nature of jobs play out over the next 10, 20 and 30 years in regard to the provision of business land?

33. The strategic framework is intended to provide high-level direction only. Specific implementation programmes and interventions will sit outside the plan, as agreed through the streamlined approach.

34. Content for the strategic framework is as follows:

Outcomes	Strategic Directions	Focus Areas
Belonging & Participation for All Aucklanders	· Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs. · Reduce disparities in opportunities and living standards for all Aucklanders.	· Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life. · Provide diverse, accessible services and social infrastructure that are flexible in meeting people’s different and evolving needs. · Focus investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need. · Support and work with communities to develop local leadership and the resilience to thrive in a changing world. · Nurture an evolving and diverse Auckland identity with Māori as its cultural essence.
Opportunities & Prosperity for All	· Create the conditions for innovation, raised productivity and a resilient economy. · Support an environment that retains and attracts skills, talent and investment. · Develop skills and talent to meet the changing nature of work and opportunities for life-long achievement.	· Leverage Auckland’s position to support growth in exports and a competitive New Zealand economy. · Use regulatory and other mechanisms to support innovation and economic growth. · Increase ongoing learning and training in new and emerging areas, with a focus on those most in need. · Harness emerging technologies and ensure equitable access to high quality digital services. · Advance Māori employment and create the environment for Māori business and iwi organisations to be a powerhouse in Auckland’s economy.
Homes & Places for People	· Develop a quality, compact city to accommodate Auckland’s growth. · Accelerate the construction of homes that meet Aucklanders’ changing needs and preferences. · Address systemic housing issues linked to Aucklanders’ life chances, especially those most in need. · Provide inclusive and accessible public spaces that respond to greater demand and changing lifestyles.	· Enable quality development at scale through targeted, coordinated investment and support that delivers a range of typologies at different price points. · Address issues with the housing system that impede the delivery of housing, particularly housing that is affordable. · Address the systemic issues associated with different tenure types and life chances. · Improve the built quality of existing and rental housing. · Support Māori to meet their specific housing needs. · Use public land and transport corridors efficiently to create multi-functional, urban public places and amenity. · Focus investment in multi-functional public spaces in areas of highest population densities and areas of greatest inequity.
Environment and Cultural Heritage Valued by All	· Value, protect and enhance our environment for future and current Aucklanders. · Promote te ao Māori as foundational to protecting and restoring taonga tuku iho of Tāmaki Makarau. · Utilise growth and redevelopment to restore degraded environments and create new resources. · Future-proof infrastructure for a changing and future Auckland.	· Ensure our growth, development and living decisions reflect the diverse ways that Auckland’s environment supports and sustains our communities, identity and economy. · Protect the significant environments, cultural heritage and taonga tuku iho of Tāmaki Makaurau from further loss. · Support and enable Aucklanders to be stewards of our natural and cultural heritage. · Ensure development accounts for key impacts and emerging threats such as water quality and climate change. · Use green infrastructure and low impact design to deliver greater resilience, long-term cost savings and quality environmental outcomes.
Access and Connectivity for Everyone	· Create an integrated transport system that efficiently connects people, places, goods and services. · Increase real travel choices to support a vibrant, equitable and healthy city. · Minimise harm from the transport system on people and the environment.	· Make better use of existing transport networks, including a greater focus on influencing travel demand. · Target new transport investment to the most significant challenges to support key long-term outcomes. · Maximise the benefits of existing, new and emerging transport technology. · Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred travel choices for many more Aucklanders. · Better integrate land-use and transport decisions to support quality urban living. · Move to a safe transport network free from death and serious injury. · Develop a resilient transport system with least environmental and health impacts.
Māori Identity & Wellbeing	· Realise the visible and lived identity of Tāmaki Makaurau through te ao Māori values. · Enable Māori to thrive through provision of culturally enabling social services and whānau-centric community facilities. · Promote Māori cultural innovation and enterprise which contribute to social and environmental success. · Recognise rangatiratanga and support mana whenua in their unique role as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau.	· Reflect mana whenua tikanga and Māori design principles in the future design of natural and urban landscapes. · Celebrate Māoritanga and recognise te reo Māori as a cultural taonga. · Invest and support marae to be self-sustaining and prosperous hubs for Māori and the wider community. · Mentor rangatahi to participate in decision-making and to take advantage of educational and employment opportunities. · Advance sustainable and transformational opportunities for Māori that enhance inter-generational wealth. · Realise Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi in the management of natural resources and acknowledge customary rights · Recognise and support mana whenua in leading and making decisions for the future of Tāmaki Makaurau

Outcomes

Strategic Directions

Focus Areas

Belonging & Participation for All Aucklanders

· Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs.

· Reduce disparities in opportunities and living standards for all Aucklanders.

· Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life.

· Provide diverse, accessible services and social infrastructure that are flexible in meeting people’s different and evolving needs.

· Focus investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need.

· Support and work with communities to develop local leadership and the resilience to thrive in a changing world.

· Nurture an evolving and diverse Auckland identity with Māori as its cultural essence.

Opportunities & Prosperity for All

· Create the conditions for innovation, raised productivity and a resilient economy.

· Support an environment that retains and attracts skills, talent and investment.

· Develop skills and talent to meet the changing nature of work and opportunities for life-long achievement.

· Leverage Auckland’s position to support growth in exports and a competitive New Zealand economy.

· Use regulatory and other mechanisms to support innovation and economic growth.

· Increase ongoing learning and training in new and emerging areas, with a focus on those most in need.

· Harness emerging technologies and ensure equitable access to high quality digital services.

· Advance Māori employment and create the environment for Māori business and iwi organisations to be a powerhouse in Auckland’s economy.

Homes & Places for People

· Develop a quality, compact city to accommodate Auckland’s growth.

· Accelerate the construction of homes that meet Aucklanders’ changing needs and preferences.

· Address systemic housing issues linked to Aucklanders’ life chances, especially those most in need.

· Provide inclusive and accessible public spaces that respond to greater demand and changing lifestyles.

· Enable quality development at scale through targeted, coordinated investment and support that delivers a range of typologies at different price points.

· Address issues with the housing system that impede the delivery of housing, particularly housing that is affordable.

· Address the systemic issues associated with different tenure types and life chances.

· Improve the built quality of existing and rental housing.

· Support Māori to meet their specific housing needs.

· Use public land and transport corridors efficiently to create multi-functional, urban public places and amenity.

· Focus investment in multi-functional public spaces in areas of highest population densities and areas of greatest inequity.

Environment and Cultural Heritage Valued by All

· Value, protect and enhance our environment for future and current Aucklanders.

· Promote te ao Māori as foundational to protecting and restoring taonga tuku iho of Tāmaki Makarau.

· Utilise growth and redevelopment to restore degraded environments and create new resources.

· Future-proof infrastructure for a changing and future Auckland.

· Ensure our growth, development and living decisions reflect the diverse ways that Auckland’s environment supports and sustains our communities, identity and economy.

· Protect the significant environments, cultural heritage and taonga tuku iho of Tāmaki Makaurau from further loss.

· Support and enable Aucklanders to be stewards of our natural and cultural heritage.

· Ensure development accounts for key impacts and emerging threats such as water quality and climate change.

· Use green infrastructure and low impact design to deliver greater resilience, long-term cost savings and quality environmental outcomes.

Access and Connectivity for Everyone

· Create an integrated transport system that efficiently connects people, places, goods and services.

· Increase real travel choices to support a vibrant, equitable and healthy city.

· Minimise harm from the transport system on people and the environment.

· Make better use of existing transport networks, including a greater focus on influencing travel demand.

· Target new transport investment to the most significant challenges to support key long-term outcomes.

· Maximise the benefits of existing, new and emerging transport technology.

· Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred travel choices for many more Aucklanders.

· Better integrate land-use and transport decisions to support quality urban living.

· Move to a safe transport network free from death and serious injury.

· Develop a resilient transport system with least environmental and health impacts.

Māori Identity & Wellbeing

· Realise the visible and lived identity of Tāmaki Makaurau through te ao Māori values.

· Enable Māori to thrive through provision of culturally enabling social services and whānau-centric community facilities.

· Promote Māori cultural innovation and enterprise which contribute to social and environmental success.

· Recognise rangatiratanga and support mana whenua in their unique role as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau.

· Reflect mana whenua tikanga and Māori design principles in the future design of natural and urban landscapes.

· Celebrate Māoritanga and recognise te reo Māori as a cultural taonga.

· Invest and support marae to be self-sustaining and prosperous hubs for Māori and the wider community.

· Mentor rangatahi to participate in decision-making and to take advantage of educational and employment opportunities.

· Advance sustainable and transformational opportunities for Māori that enhance inter-generational wealth.

· Realise Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi in the management of natural resources and acknowledge customary rights

· Recognise and support mana whenua in leading and making decisions for the future of Tāmaki Makaurau

35. Ongoing refinement of the strategic framework will continue as engagement continues. Such changes will be shared with the Planning Committee as the plan is developed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. Local board cluster briefings for local board members were held in February, April and July 2017. The February 2017 briefing provided an initial introduction to the refresh. In April 2017, the high-level summary of content developed through the April Planning Committee workshops was presented. Early feedback from local boards was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas. The results of these workshop discussions fed into an information report distributed to elected members on 2 May 2017.

37. Local boards received a report seeking their feedback on the working model that was considered either through workshops or their business meetings between June and July. Resolutions from those meetings are contained in a separate report on this agenda.

38. Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan Refresh.

Māori impact statement

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

40. Mana whenua were engaged in two workshops in March and in June 2017.

41. The content for engagement included challenges, opportunities and high-level focus areas related to Māori wellbeing. This material was not yet available at the time of broader stakeholder engagement with communities of Auckland.

42. Engagement has also taken place with Māori communities / mataawaka organisations. This includes response from Te Whanau o Te Waipareira, Hapai te Hauora, members of Te Ora o Manukau and from Ngāti Porou. Feedback received to date is summarised below and will be considered during the drafting of the plan.

43. Key points are as follows:

· There is support for the Māori Plan as a primary resource for this work from those who have assessed and are familiar with the document. Council is also guided to utilise Māori organisations’ strategic plans where available and relevant to the kaupapa.

· The plan should reflect our young population with rangatahi at the centre of civic participation and design of the future city.

· In terms of homes and places, there is a desire to see multi-generational housing development, strong neighbourhood design with whanau centric support networks, marae, gyms, youth hubs, neighbourhood connectivity, a preference for integrated mixed-tenure for social housing, and high standard of sustainable development with positive environmental outcomes.

· With reference to belonging, the Te Aranga Design model is explicitly supported by some, with desire for it to be implemented and reflected across the city.

· All groups support Te Reo promotion and celebration, and desire to see more Māori design and visible cultural presence, with Te Ao Māori tikanga and waka as the connecting point for all other cultures. Māori in the South and the West feel a strong sense of belonging and connection to their community. They desire to see this supported by strong local economic development, local employment opportunities, improved amenity, affordable housing, public transport and connectivity.

· There is support for Auckland promoting a high level of health and education, pathways to employment skills and strong support for the local economy through local procurement.

· There is strong support for Māori entrepreneurship, partnership and skills development, digital sector employment, and digital innovation, including digital tourism and tourism development. Also for attracting and retaining Māori staff through specialist career pathways, such as Māori urban design and architecture.

44. Additional engagement with Māori communities / mataawaka is planned throughout August and September, with all material to be incorporated into drafting during this time where appropriate.

Implementation

45. Staff will commence writing the draft refreshed Auckland Plan and continue engagement with partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the plan through to October 2017 as per the timeline below. After this a formal consultation process will be followed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Plan Refresh Early Engagement Summary Report - May - June 2017	35
b ⇩	Changes to strategic framework from Planning Committee workshops	59

Signatories

Authors

Richard Hughes - Team Leader Auckland Plan

Denise O’Shaughnessy – Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 August 2017

Review and update on the Auckland Housing Accord

File No.: CP2017/14720

Purpose

1. To receive a review on the Auckland Housing Accord, and request a review of all Special Housing Area files to ascertain how many retained and relative affordable houses have been provided pursuant to the Auckland Housing Accord by October 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Housing Accord (the Accord) was established on 3 October 2013, between Auckland Council and the government. It was intended to increase housing supply, including the increased availability of land, as well as improved housing affordability, until the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative.

3. The Accord provided a target of 39,000 new sites and dwellings to be consented, across Auckland, either under existing regulations (e.g. Resource Management Act 1991) or through the application of the new tools enabled through the Accord (e.g. Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013), over a three year period.

4. The intention was to increase both greenfield and brownfield housing supply by facilitating residential developments that were consistent with the notified Unitary Plan, through a more flexible process for development approvals and consenting.

5. Under the Accord, 154 Special Housing Areas (SHA) were identified by council and approved by the Minister of Building and Construction. Table 1 in Attachment A outlines the number of SHAs established under each tranche.

6. Within approved SHAs developers with qualifying developments had the option of applying for resource consent under the Resource Management Act or under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.

7. Within SHAs, qualifying development consents submitted to council were approved under new flexible powers established by Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act to streamline and fast track resource consents and plan variations,

8. As part of the SHA process, developments of 15 dwellings or more were required to provide either 10 percent relative affordable dwellings (targeted to first home buyers) or five per cent retained affordable (targeted to social housing providers) or a combination of both.

9. The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act disestablished all 154 SHAs between 16 September 2016 and 19 May 2017. In addition, the Minister of Building and Construction had the powers to disestablish SHAs should he deem them to not meet one or more of the mandatory criteria: ‘demand to build’, ‘demand for housing’, or ‘that infrastructure exists or is likely to exist.’ No SHAs in Auckland were disestablished through the powers of the Minister of Building and Construction.

10. Of the 154 SHAs, 25 did not have any consenting activity carried out before the SHAs were disestablished.

11. In summary, Auckland Council met the target of 39,000 new sites and dwellings to be consented within the period of the Accord:

· 37,716 dwellings and site consented by September 2016

· an additional 9,077 dwellings and site consented by May 2017 (total of 46,793)

· 2,262 hectares of land was zoned for urban development

· 5,527 dwellings within SHAs issued with building consents (by June 2017)

· 3,105 dwellings within SHAs have been completed (by June 2017)

12. Work has commenced on the areas of ‘joint action’ to be carried out between the council and government. Regular monitoring of the Accord was carried out with the final report due to be completed in August 2017. A quarterly monitoring report was produced in collaboration with the council and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and publicly released by the Minister Building and Construction.

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the review on the Auckland Housing Accord, as outlined in the agenda report.

b) request that staff report back to the Planning Committee in October 2017 on:

· the number of relative affordable and retained affordable dwellings consented under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas and with Code of Compliance Certificates issued

· whether all the statutory declarations for the relative affordable dwellings have been provided to Auckland Council.

c) note that a report on Auckland housing data will be provided to the Planning Committee on a quarterly basis providing information on resource consents for land supply, subdivision, building and resource consents and affordable housing that have been issued and completed.

Comments

Land and Housing Supply – Housing Accord targets and delivery

13. The Accord sets a target of 39,000 dwellings and sites to be consented across Auckland, under both the existing regulations and the SHA process over a three year period.

14. At the three year mark (September 2016) 37,716 sites and dwellings (97.7 per cent of the Accord target) was achieved. The Accord was then extended to May 2017 when a total of 46,793 sites and dwellings had been consented.

15. The 154 SHAs that were established under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act has enabled a much larger number of dwellings in the future with a theoretical estimated capacity of over 66,000 dwellings in both the greenfield and brownfield SHAs over a period of 20-25 years.

16. To date, of the estimated 66,000 dwellings, 15,303 dwellings and sites have been consented as qualifying developments under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act in the SHAs.

17. As of June 2017, 5,527 dwellings have been issued with building consents within SHAs. 3,105 dwellings have been completed in SHAs. We are not yet able to separate out how many of these building consents were approved under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act or the normal Resource Management Act processes. This will require further work.

18. The Auckland Housing Accord has enabled 2,262 hectares of land to be rezoned providing a theoretical estimated yield of 30,323 sections and dwellings.

19. The response to the demand for housing is still in its early days (first three years of the 30 years of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy). The initial years’ estimated land supply enabled by SHAs meets and exceeds the initial potential demand. The pace of creating sections and consenting buildings is currently meeting the forecast housing demand for the next 30 years. The Unitary Plan is now in place to take over and continue to meet ongoing demand.

20. The immediate constraint is not land supply, but infrastructure to support developments that have been created to meet that supply.

Benefits of Special Housing Area process

21. There were a number of benefits of qualifying as a Qualifying Development including;

· the ability to consider the application under the provisions of the notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, before the plan was fully operative

· streamlined consenting and plan change timeframes

o 20 working days for non-notified applications

o 70 working days for limited notified applications

o 130 working days for plan changes.

· the ability to process resource consents and plan changes concurrently (plan variations for greenfield areas also required submission of an application for consent for at least 50 dwellings in order to become a Qualifying development).

· limited notification provisions only (limited to adjacent landowners), no public notification

· limited appeal rights

· an independent Hearings Panel, appointed by council, to hear submissions and make decisions on plan changes and Qualifying developments.

22. It should be noted that developers always had an option to either use the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act process, or go through the Resource Management Act process to obtain resource consent. They were not forced to use the SHA process if they were located in a SHA.

23. The benefits derived from falling within a SHA and being a qualifying development application were probably greater in greenfield areas than brownfield. This was because the greenfield areas benefited from a fast track change to residential zoning in accordance with the Unitary Plan, in addition to the streamlined consenting and limited notification and appeal rights.

24. For a qualifying development in a greenfield area, once consent was obtained, the confirmed zoning was then carried through to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in the precinct provisions. Thus the greenfield site secured a residential zoning more quickly than might have happened through the standard process of Structure Planning and Plan Changes in accordance with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Affordable Housing

25. The Orders in Council which formally established the SHAs specified the proportion of dwellings in developments of 15 dwellings or more that were to be either retained affordable (provided by social housing providers) or relative affordable (targeted to first home buyers).

26. In accordance with this, the Council established the following affordable housing criteria for developments of 15 or more dwellings:

· Criteria A, where 10 per cent of the development is relative affordable; or

· Criteria B, where five per cent of the development is retained affordable; or

· A combination of criteria A and B.

Relative Affordable Housing

27. For relative affordable dwellings, the developers are required through the conditions of consent to provide a statutory declaration from the purchaser that they meet the following criteria:

· Have a gross household income, as at the date of the declaration, that does not exceed 120 per cent of the Auckland median household income as set at the relevant date

· Have paid a price for the affordable dwelling which is not more than that defined in the Order in Council

· Intend to own and occupy the affordable dwelling exclusively as their residence for no less than three years after gaining title to the dwelling

· Be a first home buyer and never have owned any other real property

· Be a natural person purchasing the affordable dwelling in their own name and not in the name of any other person.

28. To date, Auckland Council has consented 1,336 relative affordable dwellings through the qualifying development process and received 49 statutory declarations from purchasers of completed relative affordable dwellings. It is not known whether the 49 statutory declarations are an accurate representation of what has been completed. Further work will be required to be carried out to determine this.

29. It should also be noted that these numbers only take account of those developments that have been completed. There are still a significant number of developments that have not been completed, or even started, particularly in the greenfield areas, where some developments have 20-25 year build out timeframes.

Retained Affordable Housing

30. There are 1,541 dwellings issued with consent that qualify as retained affordable housing. These are provided by social housing providers such as Housing New Zealand. Statutory Declarations were not required for the retained affordable dwellings, given they were largely being provided by social housing providers (refer Chart 1 in Attachment A).

Affordable Housing - general comments

31. These requirements were carried across into the Unitary Plan precincts through the SHA plan variation process where the majority of the sites would be developed post the Accord. The affordable housing requirements were also applied through conditions of consent on qualifying developments. The affordable housing provisions have not been carried over to the Unitary Plan for the brownfield SHAs but have been identified on the consented plans by a condition of consent or through a consent notice.

32. Should the developer choose not to implement the affordable housing requirements as consented under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act, the consent holder may be able to apply to have the relevant conditions varied (e.g. eligibility criteria for purchasers). The application would need to demonstrate the appropriateness of these variations.

33. Should the consent holder wish to fundamentally change the consented affordable housing in a brownfield site, a new consent application may be required to be submitted. As the SHAs have been disestablished this new application would be assessed under the Resource Management Act and the current provisions of the Unitary Plan – Operative in Part.

34. For greenfield SHAs the affordable housing requirements have been ‘rolled over’ to the Unitary Plan for most SHAs that required a plan variation. Therefore developers would still need to comply with the affordable housing requirements or apply for an infringement to the rule through the consenting process.

35. Whilst consents issued provided for affordable housing, either through identification on the development plans or a condition on the consent notice, at this stage it has not been possible to determine exactly how many relative affordable or retained affordable dwellings have been constructed without reviewing all the application files. With the recent addition of Newcore across the region, this work will be easier and staff have commenced this review.

36. There were two SHAs that received their rezoning through the Auckland Unitary Plan submission process – Redhills (expected estimated yield, 4,000) and Wainui (expected estimated yield 2,400). Once the rezoning at these locations was confirmed through the Auckland Unitary Plan process the plan variations submitted under the SHA process were withdrawn. As a result of this, 6400 will not be provided through the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act but will instead come through the Resource Management Act process. As a result, the affordability provisions that would have been applied under the SHA process have not been included in the Auckland Unitary Plan at these locations.

Disestablishment of Special Housing Areas

37. Under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act, all SHAs were intended to be disestablished on 16 September 2016, three years after the legislation came into force, regardless of whether or not any consents or construction had occurred.

38. The Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act legislation was subsequently amended in 2016 so that SHAs created in the year up to 16 September 2016 were given an extension of 12 months from the date on which they were established by Order in Council. In addition, outside of Auckland, the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act legislation was extended for another three years to 16 September 2019.

39. In conjunction with the above changes, the Auckland Housing Accord which was set to come to an end on 30 September 2016, three years after notification of the Unitary Plan, was extended to 31 December 2016 and then to 22 May 2017 (see the 29 November 2016 Planning Committee report, included as Attachment C).

40. The extensions were to allow a number of existing SHA applicants that were yet to complete their plan variation to their zoning which was incorporated into the Unitary Plan, to continue under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act legislation. It was not to establish new SHAs.

41. Table 2 in Attachment A shows the date of disestablishment of each tranche of SHAs in accordance with the legislation and the 2016 amendment, together with the number of SHAs associated with that date.

42. All 154 SHAs were disestablished on or before the 19 May 2017. Of the 154 SHAs 25 were disestablished without a qualifying development application being lodged.

43. Consenting and construction of development is able to occur after the date of disestablishment but construction must be completed within two years of any consent being issued if an adequate application has been made and granted to extend the consents lapse period.

Review of ‘Areas of Joint Action’

44. Under the Accord the council and government agreed to coordinate efforts on other issues impacting the provision of Affordable Housing including:

· The cost of building materials

· Industry skills and training

· Exploring options for timely financing and delivery of core infrastructure

· Compliance costs, including but not limited to regulatory costs, and investigating the development of an on-line building consenting process.

Mayor’s Housing Task Force

45. The Mayor’s Housing Task Force was brought together to look at barriers and constraints to the increase in the supply of housing in Auckland and to identify options and recommendations to achieve such an increase. Government had an observer role only on the task force. The task force report was published in June 2017 and addresses a number of the issues covered in this report.

46. The Mayor’s Housing Task Force Report made a number of recommendations to increase housing supply in Auckland. These were grouped under the following themes – “Develop at Scale and build through the dips; Unlocking the availability of land with appropriate zoning and infrastructure; Efficient and certain planning, consenting and risk management.” The recommendations can be read in the report.

Addressing cost of building materials

47. It is difficult for the council to influence the cost of building materials but, the Chief Economist’s unit has undertaken a review of past studies that look at the key reasons for the high degree of market concentration in the residential building materials industry.

48. In particular, the report reviewed:

· The 2013 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment market study of the residential construction sector

· The Commerce Commission’s 2014 investigation into Winstone plasterboard’s alleged abuse of market power

· The Productivity Commission’s report on the Housing Affordability Inquiry of 2012.

49. The review identified economic, market structure, regulatory, legal/liability and behavioural factors that may be contributing to high barriers to entry into the construction materials sector and consequently to’ above competitive’ pricing. It also identified ways in which existing suppliers can engage in practices that may not be anti-competitive as per the Commerce Act but that have the effect of making it harder for new entrants to compete in the New Zealand building materials market.

Address Industry skills and training

50. There are a number of joint initiatives between Auckland Council and central government to address the industry skills and training issues. These include (but are not limited to)

· The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement, launched in January 2015, is collaboration between Immigration New Zealand, Auckland Council, and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, who have a shared interest in attracting and retaining migrants with the skills and inward investment Auckland needs.

· The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development co-chair the Auckland Labour Market Forum, which is designed to bring together key central and local government agencies to establish a shared view of Auckland’s labour market priorities and opportunities for joint focus.

· CBD Jobs and Skills Hub has been developed through close collaboration between Auckland Council and government departments and major industry partners leading CBD projects. The CBD Jobs and Skills Hub responds to the significant need for labour to support major commercial and residential projects currently underway in central Auckland.

51. The Southern Initiative, one of Auckland Council’s place-based initiatives, has identified young Māori and Pasifika training and employment as a critical priority. To address this, the council is delivering the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training programme. The programme is part of a government initiative to assist Māori and Pasifika, aged 16-40 years, to gain qualifications through training and apprenticeships that will lead to sustainable employment with opportunities for progression.

52. Much of the pre-employment training has been developed through consultation with an employer consortium established to support the programme. Following the training the participants receive assistance to find jobs. They and their employers receive post-employment support to ensure that any challenges are managed. In 2015, a majority of participants received full-time employment or apprenticeships following their training.

Timely delivery of infrastructure

53. There are a number of options being explored and/or progressed in relation to the timely funding and delivery of core infrastructure.

54. The council’s revenue and financing policy had been changed to allow for the use of targeted rates and the relaxation of the development contribution cap to fund growth infrastructure. These will be considered on a case by case basis and include the potential for creating Special Funding Areas to allocate the infrastructure growth costs to specific growth areas.

55. In addition the council has been working with government on the Housing Infrastructure Fund and a Special Purpose Vehicle (Crown Infrastructure Partners) for the financing of bulk infrastructure to support housing development. Under the Housing Infrastructure Fund the government had made $1 billion available for councils across New Zealand through an off-balance sheet mechanism that will enable Councils to finance the construction of bulk infrastructure. The council was recently awarded $300 million dollars from the fund to invest in bulk infrastructure in the north-west of Auckland.

56. Another option on which the council has been consulted by the government is the potential for the creation of Urban Development Corporations. These would create an independent entity with the requisite Public Works Act, Resource Management Act and Local Government Act powers to accelerate development in an identified locality. This development would include the provision of infrastructure.

Compliance and regulatory costs

57. In terms of the costs of compliance, substantial work has been undertaken by Auckland Council’s Regulatory Services directorate to improve the consenting process to provide an easy and efficient experience for customers. The new “Consenting made Easy” process has now been introduced with four streams of service – Premium, Custom, Streamlined and Qualified Partner – provided for customers.

58. In addition an online consent application form has been introduced and Service Level Agreements are being agreed across the council family organisations to standardise processes. However, it should be stated that a well prepared application for consent, with all the relevant information, is the best way of ensuring the application is delivered efficiently and compliance costs are minimised.

59. Underlying these improvements in service is the NewCore system. As of June 2017 the NewCore system provides a single digital system for the whole of the Auckland region for the recording, processing, storing and retrieval of consenting data.

Monitoring and Review of Accord

60. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Accord required the Joint Housing Steering Group to monitor and review the implementation and effectiveness of the Accord. A review of the first 12 months under the Accord was carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and provided to Joint Officials Steering Group as part of the fourth Monitoring Report.

61. Auckland Council worked collaboratively with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to produce the quarterly Auckland Housing Accord Monitoring Reports. This involved regular liaison amongst the Officials Working Group with respect to approvals on monitoring the Auckland Housing Accord and consenting under the accord, progress in implementing the accord and other areas of joint action.

62. The reports were delivered quarterly to the Joint Housing Steering Group throughout the Accord timeframe. This reports that have been released by the Minister are available on the Auckland Council website.

63. In summary, there have been nine reports approved and published; two are approved and awaiting publication by the Ministers office (December 2016 and March 2017; and one report is currently being prepared.

Next Steps

64. The following further work is to be carried out by staff and the findings will be reported back to the Planning Committee in October 2017.

· The number of relative affordable and retained affordable dwellings consented under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas and with Code of Compliance Certificates issued.

· Determine whether all the statutory declarations for the relative affordable dwellings have been provided to Auckland Council.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

65. Local board views were sought during the establishment phase of each tranche of SHAs. The governing body considered each tranche with feedback from local boards and either approved or rejected creating specific SHAs. Local board members were also appointed to the hearings panels considering plan changes.

Māori impact statement

66. As developers, mana whenua and mātaawaka have been involved in the SHA programme to build homes for their own use or for commercial purposes. SHAs provide an opportunity for such organisations to improve housing outcomes to meet the specific needs of their communities. A number of SHAs have been established in response to requests from Māori organisations. Five SHAs were sought by Māori organisations and approved at Alexander Crescent (Ōtara), Kahawai Point (Glenbrook Beach), Hillary Crescent (Belmont, North Shore), Kupe Street (Ōrākei cluster) and Restall Road (Woodhill).

67. Council has also made provisions for SHAs on Māori special purpose land, Māori-owned land and treaty settlement land outside the Rural Urban Boundary on the basis that the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning allows residential and papakainga development within these locations.

68. Consultation with mana whenua on SHAs was limited due to matters of commercial sensitivity and timing, dictated by legislation. Mana whenua feedback was focussed on improving the quality and supply of housing for Māori communities. In later stages of the SHA assessment process, cultural impact assessments were commissioned by developers to take account of the potential effect of those developments on mana whenua values. Several hearings occurred for SHAs and commissioners with expertise in tikanga Maori were appointed to hear three applications at Hingaia, Scott Point, Kahawai Point, and Oruarangi (Māngere), as these sites involved coastal land or were sites of significance to Māori. All plan change applications and qualifying developments complied with information requirements for cultural impact assessments.

Implementation

69. The Affordable Housing review will be undertaken by the Development Programme Office, council’s Research and Evaluation unit, and the Regulatory Services directorate.

70. The quarterly housing data reports will be led by the Research and Evaluation unit, with support from the Development Programmes Office and Regulatory Services.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Housing Accord data	73
b ⇩	Special Housing Area status dashboard	77
c ⇩	Auckland Housing Accord Extension report to Planning Committee - 29 November 2016	81

Signatories

Author

John Dunshea – General Manager Development Programme Office

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit – Director Regulatory Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 August 2017

Place-based Spatial Planning Update and Future Programme

File No.: CP2017/14852

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· inform the Planning Committee of progress to date with implementing the five adopted local board-scale ‘area plans’

· approve a three-year place-based spatial planning programme for the existing urban area

· approve the preparation of ‘structure plans’ for the Warkworth, Silverdale West-Dairy Flat, Drury and Paerata-Pukekohe future urban areas and approve the formation of a Structure Planning Political Reference Group to provide feedback on and finalise these four draft structure plans for public feedback

· agree that the sequencing for the supply of development-ready greenfield land set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme should be paramount in providing for development in the Future Urban zone.

Executive summary

2. Place-based spatial planning applies the outcomes and directions of the Auckland Plan at a local level. A number of place-based spatial plans have been completed since the council was formed in November 2010. These include:

· five local board-scale ‘area plans’

· a number of ‘centre plans’

· plans such as the City Centre Masterplan and Karangahape Road Plan

· a ‘structure plan’ for the Whenuapai future urban area.

3. These plans are currently being implemented through actions being undertaken across the council group and community organisations.

4. Implementation of the five local board-scale area plans has been steady. Of the many actions contained in these 30-year plans, 12 per cent have been completed, 67 per cent are in progress and 21 per cent have yet to start. A number of the actions are aspirational and not currently funded.

5. A place-based spatial planning programme for existing urban areas has been developed for the next three years. The programme takes into account the Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan and requests from local boards for place-based spatial planning gathered during workshops in May and June 2017. It is recommended that this programme replaces the local board-scale ‘area plan’ programme adopted by the Auckland Future Vision Committee in 2012.

6. In addition to the three-year programme for place-based planning within existing urban areas, it is recommended that four ‘structure plans’ are undertaken over the next two years for future urban areas. The location of the four ‘structure plans’ is consistent with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy adopted by the Planning Committee in July 2017.

7. The final matter addressed in this report relates to privately-initiated ‘structure plans’, private plan change requests and non-complying resource consent applications to develop land zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. These proposals have the potential to undermine the goals set out in the Auckland Plan, the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the intent of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. It is therefore recommended that the committee agrees that the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme should be paramount in providing for development in the Future Urban zone.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the following place-based spatial planning programme for existing urban areas:

Year 1	Years 2 and 3
Mass Rapid Transit Spatial Planning Programme	Waiheke and Great Barrier Planning Review
Albert-Eden Local Transformation Programme	Takapuna West (Barrys Point) Local Plan
Parnell Local Plan	Glenfield Centre Plan
Sunnynook Centre Plan	Mairangi Bay Centre Plan

b) request a review of the place-based spatial planning programme for existing urban areas in the second half of 2018 to take account of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

c) note the progress with implementing the five adopted local board-scale ‘area plans’, as shown in the area plan monitoring report in Attachment B of the agenda report

d) refer the area plan monitoring report to the relevant local boards to assist with the completion of local board plans, and to relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations to assist with the preparation of the Long-term Plan 2018-28.

e) note the priorities of local boards and requests for new place-based spatial plans summarised in Attachment C of the agenda report.

f) approve the preparation of structure plans for the Warkworth, Silverdale West-Dairy Flat, Drury-Opaheke and Paerata-Pukekohe future urban areas.

g) approve the formation of a Structure Planning Political Reference Group comprising:

· Planning Committee chair

· Planning Committee deputy chair

· Rodney Ward councillor

· Franklin Ward councillor

· Rodney Local Board member

· Franklin Local Board member

· Representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board

to provide feedback on the contents of these four structure plans.

h) delegate to the Structure Planning Political Reference Group the authority to approve the draft structure plans for public feedback.

i) agree that the sequencing for the supply of development-ready greenfield land set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme should be paramount in providing for development in the Future Urban zone.

Comments

Overview of place-based spatial planning

8. Place-based spatial planning integrates the environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects of places. Place-based spatial plans set out a long-term strategy and a series of actions to achieve a wide range of outcomes. The Auckland Plan 2012 is the spatial plan for all of Auckland. Place-based spatial plans apply the Auckland Plan at the local level. They are also influenced by other council plans including local board plans, the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Long-term Plan.

9. Actions identified in place-based spatial plans are normally developed in conjunction with, and are generally delivered by, a range of council departments and Council Controlled Organisations. Central government, other agencies, mana whenua and community groups can also be responsible for delivering actions contained in place-based spatial plans. The actions are normally sequenced and prioritised according to the likelihood and timing of funding being available.

Framework of place-based spatial plans

10. A number of place-based spatial plans have been adopted since the council was formed in November 2010. The location of these plans is shown on the map at Attachment A. They include five ‘area plans’ generally at a local board scale, centre plans for metropolitan and town centres, local plans for discrete areas within urban Auckland and the Whenuapai Structure Plan.

11. A number of place-based spatial plans are being completed in 2017. These include the Howick Centre Plan, the Kumeu-Huapai Centre Plan and the Manurewa-Takanini-Papakura Integrated Area Plan.

12. Spatial Priority Areas were identified in the Long-term Plan 2015-25 as being priority locations where coordinated planning and delivery effort and investment would be focused. The Spatial Priority Areas are also shown on the map at Attachment A. It is likely that the Spatial Priority Areas will continue to be priority areas for public and private investment.

13. Panuku Development Auckland has focused its place-based spatial planning in locations where council property could be developed as a catalyst for wider transformation. These include ‘transform’ and ‘unlock’ locations in the City Centre (including Westhaven and Wynyard Quarter), the centres of Manukau, Onehunga, Northcote, Takapuna, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Otahuhu, Avondale and Ormiston. The ‘unlock’ and ‘transform’ locations are also shown on the map at Attachment A.

14. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) 2015 has been reviewed and the refreshed strategy was adopted by the Planning Committee at its July meeting. Consistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan, the FULSS notes that structure plans need to be prepared before land can be rezoned from Future Urban’ to appropriate urban zones. The council’s Plans and Places department will lead the preparation of structure plans with support from a range of council departments, council-controlled organisations, local boards, mana whenua and communities.

15. The Auckland Plan refresh process was endorsed by the committee in April 2017 and will be completed in mid-2018 following community consultation. The Auckland Plan should continue to drive the priorities and location for place-based planning. It is proposed that the place-based spatial planning programme discussed in this report is reviewed in the second half of 2018 to ensure alignment with the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Implementation of local board-scale ‘area plans’

16. ‘Area plans’ are a non-statutory second tier of spatial planning beneath and delivering on the Auckland Plan at a local board scale. The concept of an ‘area plan’ programme was endorsed by the Auckland Future Vision Committee in September 2011. The plan sequence and governance were approved in February 2012.

17. Since that time, five ‘area plans’ have been adopted. Four plans cover entire local board areas – Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Devonport-Takapuna, and Ōtara-Papatoetoe. One plan is location-specific (Pukekohe) within the large Franklin Local Board area.

18. A summary of progress with implementing the actions in adopted ‘area plans’ up to early 2017 is at Attachment B. This attachment does not cover the Pukekohe Area Plan, as the focus of this spatial plan was on determining an appropriate zoning to inform the Auckland Unitary Plan process.

19. Overall, steady progress has been made with implementing actions proposed for the next 20-30 years in the four completed ‘area plans’. Of the 365 actions listed in these plans, 12% have been completed, 67% are in progress and 21% have yet to start.

20. This information will be useful in informing the upcoming review of the Long-term Plan and the preparation of final local board plans and agreements. Progress with implementing the other place-based spatial plans adopted since 2010 has been reported to the relevant local boards over the course of 2016/17 financial year.

Proposed programme of place-based spatial planning for existing urban areas

21. Now that the bulk of the work relating to the preparation of the Auckland Unitary Plan has been completed, the council’s Plans and Places department is in a better position to undertake and oversee the implementation of place-based spatial plans. This requires working with other council departments, council controlled organisations, local boards, mana whenua and communities to develop high-quality plans with actions to improve and positively transform places across Auckland.

22. A review of the council’s current programme of place-based spatial planning projects has been undertaken. An assessment has also been made about the types of plans and planning activities that are required, where and when, over the next three years and beyond. The review was informed by a stock-take of all existing place-based spatial plans, with specific reference to their implementation to date and their fitness for purpose in terms of addressing the stated issues and opportunities.

23. Criteria were developed to help prioritise the locations where spatial planning would be advisable and the type of plan that would be required. These include the following:

· Auckland Plan and any emerging refresh priorities (urban growth locations)

· Long-term Plan priorities and budget allocations including Spatial Priority Areas

· Significant Auckland Unitary Plan zoning capacity locations (centres, transport corridors, etc.)

· Local Board aspirations (existing and draft Local Board Plans)

· Major infrastructure investment locations (e.g. City Rail Link station hubs, Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative)

· Market, government and other agency-driven opportunities

· Community requests and community-driven initiatives.

24. The proposed programme was discussed with local boards through workshops in May and June 2017. The outcomes of these workshop discussions are shown at Attachment C. The proposed programme has been assessed in the context of the resources currently available within the organisation.

25. The proposed programme of place-based spatial planning for existing urban areas is shown in the table below and at Attachment D.

Year 1	Years 2 and 3
Mass Rapid Transit Spatial Planning Programme	Waiheke and Great Barrier Planning Review
Albert-Eden Local Transformation Programme	Takapuna West (Barrys Point) Local Plan
Parnell Local Plan	Glenfield Centre Plan
Sunnynook Centre Plan	Mairangi Bay Centre Plan

26. The reason for including a plan in the programme is noted in the table at Attachment D along with the status of the plan being a local or strategic activity, determining its decision-making body as a local board, the Governing Body, or both.

‘Area plan’ programme

27. The focus of place-based spatial planning work is considered to be more relevant and effective in priority locations and not local board areas in general. These locations include within Spatial Priority Areas, metropolitan and town centres, and future urban areas where ‘structure plans’ lead to rezoning through plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

28. Therefore, rather than continuing with the local board-scale ‘area plan’ programme adopted by the Auckland Future Vision Committee in February 2012, it is recommended that the type of plan best-suited to the location should be developed, in preference to continuing with the local board-scale ‘area plan’ programme. If a local board-scale ‘area plan’ is the most suitable type of plan to achieve the outcomes of the Auckland Plan and local board plans in a particular location, then the ‘area plan’ technique can still be used.

Structure planning process

29. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy sets out a clear programme of ensuring that sufficient greenfield land is rezoned in the Auckland Unitary Plan from Future Urban to appropriate urban zones and provided with the necessary bulk infrastructure in a logical manner that keeps ahead of Auckland’s population growth. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy focuses on the infrastructure needs and timing of that infrastructure investment. A key reason for having a Future Urban Land Supply Strategy is that it is unaffordable (to Auckland Council, the Government or the private sector) to provide all the bulk infrastructure needed in the greenfield areas at the same time. There are three key steps that need to be taken before greenfield land should be made available for urban development:

i) a structure plan (typically for a large geographic area) needs to be undertaken – Appendix 1.1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan outlines the requirements for a structure plan;

ii) a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan is required to rezone land from Future Urban’ to appropriate urban zones;

iii) the bulk infrastructure required to service the structure plan area is either in place or the necessary funding is confirmed. Funding can be confirmed in a number of ways, including through the council’s Annual Plan, Long-term Plan, Developer Funding Agreements, Development Contributions or through investment by the Government.

30. The reasons for requiring a sequencing of development-ready land and the above steps include:

· Future Urban zoned land in the Auckland Unitary Plan is sufficient land to accommodate the greenfields share of Auckland’s forecast growth over the next 30 years

· it is not affordable to service this land with bulk infrastructure without sequencing over the next 30 years;

· the development of one piece of land has consequences on surrounding land, often in the form of the take-up of existing infrastructure capacity, connections and physical access. Accordingly, a structure plan should generally consider a large geographic area.

· a structure plan enables a joined-up and strategic outcome for the wider area

· it allows the council to meet the requirements for the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity in understanding future supply of land

· it allows the council to consider the balance between the development of brownfield and greenfield land and ensure that the majority of Auckland’s growth is located within the existing urban area.

Privately-initiated ‘structure plans’

31. A number of landowners/developers are considering preparing their own ‘structure plans’ and lodging private plan change requests or non-complying resource consent applications to develop land within the Future Urban zone. In the lead-up to and since the adoption of the updated Future Urban Land Supply Strategy by the committee last month, several developers have lodged non-complying resource consent applications to subdivide land within the Future Urban zone, and one developer has lodged a combined structure plan and private plan change request to rezone land in the Auckland Unitary Plan from Future Urban to a range of urban zones. These proposals have the potential to undermine the goals set out in the Auckland Plan, the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the intent of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

32. Given the considerable effort and resources that have gone into preparing these strategies and plans, the critical importance of ensuring high quality environmental outcomes, aligning development with the efficient and effective provision of infrastructure, and focusing the council’s effort and resources in a coordinated way, it is considered that a very high bar should be set for the acceptance of privately-initiated ‘structure plans’, private plan change requests and non-complying resource consent applications to develop land zoned ‘future urban’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

33. Clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act allows the council to automatically reject a request for a private plan change because the Auckland Unitary Plan has been operative for less than two years.

34. Any private plan change request received relating to the Future Urban zone will be presented to the committee for a decision on whether or not to adopt it, reject it or accept it for processing. Even so, staff request agreement from the committee that, as a general principle, the sequencing of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme should be paramount in providing for development of the Future Urban zone.

Proposed programme of ‘structure planning’ for future urban areas

35. Council staff including relevant staff from council controlled organisations have recently commenced background technical investigations for Paerata-Pukekohe and Drury Structure Plans, in line with the work programme set out in the updated Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

36. This work follows the development of the structure plan for Whenuapai which was the first of many structure plans to be completed for the Future Urban zoned areas around Auckland. In addition to the southern structure plans, structure planning for two areas in the north - Warkworth and Silverdale West-Dairy Flat is proposed to commence over the next year. The four areas are zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. As for the Whenuapai structure plan, the structure planning for the Paerata-Pukekohe, Drury, Warkworth North and Silverdale West-Dairy Flat future urban areas will be consistent with the requirements of Appendix 1.1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

37. Once finalised, the structure plans will provide a sound basis for determining future land uses such as residential and business activities and the provision of open space. They will also set out the preferred staging of development in each area, taking into account the constraints and opportunities for infrastructure provision. Maps of the structure plan areas are shown in Attachment E. Attachment F shows the relevant Future Urban Land Supply Strategy maps for these areas.

38. The strategy identifies Paerata and Silverdale West-Dairy Flat to be development ready between 2018-2022, Warkworth North and Drury West Stage 1 to be development ready by 2022, Pukekohe 2023-2027, Drury West Stage 2 and Opaheke-Drury 2028-2032.

39. The Supporting Growth project (formerly known as Transport for Future Urban Growth (TFUG)), a joint project between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency, has included the four areas as part of its assessment for new and improved road corridors, as well as improved public transport infrastructure and services.

Political oversight for structure plans

40. To ensure opportunities for political feedback at various stages through the structure plan preparation process, it is recommended that a Structure Planning Political Reference Group is established. This group should ideally comprise a mix of Planning Committee members and representatives from the relevant local boards.

41. The role of the group would be to provide feedback to staff and approve the draft structure plans for community consultation. However, approval of the final structure plans would remain with the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

42. Local boards have a decision-making role for place-based spatial plans in non-strategic locations and also jointly with the Governing Body for local board-scale ‘area plans’. The views of local boards are also essential in guiding the development of spatial plans in strategic locations such as Spatial Priority Areas and future urban areas.

43. In developing the proposed place-based spatial planning programme for existing urban areas, the current and draft local board plans were reviewed for references to new spatial plan initiatives and for delivery of actions from adopted spatial plans. In most cases a Local Development Initiative budget contribution is proposed.

44. Staff from the council’s Plans and Places department also attended local board workshops in May and June 2017. Place-based spatial planning and proposals for plans for their areas in the next three years and beyond were discussed. Outcomes of these workshops are shown at Attachment C.

45. Some local boards requested that new plans be considered for inclusion in the three year programme. This has been possible in some cases where there is a clear driver or reason for progressing the work, where there has been a long-standing expectation for a plan to be prepared, or where appropriate budgets have been or will be allocated to assist the plan process.

46. With respect to the proposed programme of structure planning for future urban areas, including local board representatives on the proposed Structure Planning Political Reference Group will ensure that the views of local boards are considered.

Māori impact statement

47. The proposed place-based spatial planning programme for existing urban areas has been derived from core council strategies and plans including the Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan and local board plans. These strategies and plans were developed through engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka in Auckland.

48. When place-based spatial plans are initiated, engagement strategies are prepared to describe how and when mana whenua and mataawaka will be involved and what the particular partnership and governance relationships will be.

49. As the content of plans is developed, further involvement and response is sought to ensure the content of themes, outcomes, key strategies and actions reflect the values and interests of Māori.

50. With respect to the proposed programme of structure planning for future urban areas, staff met with a number of mana whenua governance representatives who attended the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on 20 July 2017. A general overview was provided on the structure planning programme. The representatives gave preliminary feedback on how they wanted to engage at a strategic level with the work programme. Further time will be sought with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum on a regular basis.

51. Members of the group also indicated that each mana whenua groups would decide their involvement on a case by case project level.

52. The structure planning for all four areas will involve significant engagement with Māori, in addition to wider public engagement, as an integral part of the process.

Implementation

53. Place-based spatial planning is a core function of the council’s Plans and Places Department, however these plans cannot be developed without input from a wide range of council departments and considerable involvement of the CCOs. Analysis to date indicates that the proposed programmes for existing urban and future urban areas can be managed within existing council budgets.

54. It is a standard requirement to include implementation plans either within or alongside place-based spatial plans. These identify the actions developed and agreed by the contributing departments and agencies, their timescales for delivery and whether budgets are allocated or subject to future funding processes through local board plans, local board agreements and the Long-term Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Spatial Plan Map	105
b ⇩	Area Plan monitoring report	107
c ⇩	Proposed place-based spatial planning programme – local board workshop outcomes May/June 2017	113
d ⇩	Proposed Plans and Places three-year place-based spatial planning programme	117
e ⇩	Structure Planning boundaries	119
f ⇩	Future Urban Supply Strategy Maps	123

Signatories

Authors

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner

Craig Cairncross - Principal Planner

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 August 2017

Proposed Auckland Council submission on the National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture

File No.: CP2017/14180

Purpose

1. To approve the Auckland Council submission to central government’s proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture.

Executive summary

2. On 14 June 2017, the Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for the Environment initiated consultation on a proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (the Standard).

3. The overall objective of the Standard is to develop a more consistent and efficient regional planning framework for the management of existing marine aquaculture activities and on-farm biosecurity management, while supporting sustainable aquaculture within environmental limits. The three problems the Standard addresses are:

a) replacement consenting processes are complex and inefficient;

b) risk for investment, productivity, innovation and the community; and

c) biosecurity risks.

4. The proposed Standard is generally aligned to the current Auckland Unitary Plan approach for marine aquaculture (Attachment A). The proposed Standard and Auckland Unitary Plan both apply a restricted discretionary activity status for re-consenting of existing marine farms. The Auckland Unitary Plan would however need to be updated to reflect the Standard, as directed by s44A of the Resource Management Act 1991. This would require provisions to be inserted into the plan to reflect the Standard. This change would be an administrative task for council staff with no ability for a public or council committee consultation process.

5. The draft submission (Attachment B), proposes that Auckland Council agree with the overall intent and approach taken in the Standard for re-consenting, re-alignment, change of species for existing marine farms and support the key biosecurity objectives. However, Auckland Council staff have concerns about aspects of the proposed Standard. These are:

a) specified non-notification for re-consenting of existing farms, farm boundary realignment and some changes of farmed species

b) the limited matters of discretion, particularly the exclusions of ‘high natural character areas’, ‘significant ecological areas’, water quality, mana whenua values and ecology of the wider area

c) the role of council in approving and ensuring compliance with on-farm Biosecurity Management plans and the timeframe for implementing these.

6. The proposed council submission:

a) supports the objective of the proposed Standard to achieve efficient and consistent re-consenting of existing marine farms nationally and for a coordinated and effective framework to manage biosecurity risks from marine farms

b) supports the restricted discretionary activity classification for re-consenting activities

c) seeks that the standard Resource Management Act (RMA) tests for notification be applied

d) seeks that the matters of discretion be expanded

e) advocates for a Domestic Marine Pathway Management Plan to manage the risk of inter-regional vector movements that the on-farm Biosecurity Management Plans would not adequately address

f) notes concerns with implementation of the Biosecurity Management Plans, including the lack of capability in both industry and regional councils to support effective implementation and the delayed timeframe for requiring Biosecurity Management Plans to be in place.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the Auckland Council submission, shown in Attachment B to the agenda report, on the draft National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture with any required amendments.

b) delegate final approval of the Auckland Council submission on the draft National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture to the Chairs of the Planning Committee and the Environment and Community Committee.

Comments

7. On 14 June 2017, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment initiated consultation on a proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (the Standard).

8. These ministries and the Department of Conservation have worked together to develop the proposed Standard. A reference group was consulted in developing and testing the draft proposal. The reference group included representatives from the aquaculture industry, Te Ohu Kaimoana, Environmental Defence Society and some regional councils.

9. Auckland Council provided no formal input into the process, however periodic discussions between staff from the council and MPI on proposed approaches to re-consenting and biosecurity issues took place over the past 18 months.

10. The overall objective of the Standard is to develop a more consistent and efficient regional planning framework for the management of existing marine aquaculture activities and on-farm biosecurity management, while supporting sustainable aquaculture within environmental limits.

11. In summary, the proposed Standard would:

a) provide for most replacement consents for existing farms to be processed as non-notified, restricted discretionary activities;

b) provide for certain types of species changes for existing marine farms to be non-notified restricted discretionary activities;

c) provide limited matters of discretion for replacement consents for existing farms, while still managing the farm’s activities within environmental limits;

d) provide for small scale realignments of existing marine farms, particularly where realignment would reduce adverse effects on the environment; and

e) require all marine farms (existing and new) to prepare, implement and keep up to date Biosecurity Management Plans by no later than 31 January 2025.

12. The aquaculture industry has a target, supported by central government, to achieve $1 billion sales value by 2025. Certainty on the ability to continue operating is needed for marine farms to invest in the innovation and development required to meet this target. Most current marine farms have permits that expire on 31 December 2024.

Aquaculture in the Auckland region

13. Auckland has 80 active marine farms that are distributed across the Firth of Thames (19 per cent), Great Barrier Island (10 per cent), Kaipara Harbour (5 per cent), Mahurangi Harbour (55 per cent) and Waiheke Island (11 per cent). The bulk of the consents for these active marine farms expire on 31 December 2024.

14. Of Auckland’s 1.1 million hectares of coastal marine area, 320 ha is used for marine aquaculture farming. In this area, 60 per cent is for used for Pacific oyster farming, 29 per cent for green-lipped mussel farming and 11 per cent for marine farms which contain both species. Auckland has no finfish farms in the coastal marine area.

15. The recently developed Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan^{^[1]}, identifies aquaculture as a key strand of mahinga kai / pataka kai – replenishing the food basket for the Hauraki Gulf, and anticipates further growth of the industry. The aquaculture roundtable group for Sea Change engaged with local communities, iwi and other stakeholders to address key challenges facing aquaculture in the region. One challenge highlighted was the lack of certainty for existing consent holders.

16. The management of aquaculture activities was considered during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Council issued its decisions on the Plan in November 2016 and there were no appeals on the aquaculture provisions. The appeals on other parts of the regional coastal plan component of the Auckland Unitary Plan have recently been resolved and will soon be sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

17. The Auckland Unitary Plan provides for re-consenting of existing aquaculture as a restricted discretionary activity, which is consistent with the approach proposed in the Standard.

18. However, the Auckland Unitary Plan has broader matters of discretion and is more restrictive when activities occur in overlays (e.g. significant ecological areas). Notification for all aquaculture activities would have the standard Resource Management Act test applied under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

19. Another area of difference between the proposed Standard and the Auckland Unitary Plan, is how re-consenting applications that also seek to change or add species to an existing farm would be processed. Under the proposed Standard, certain changes in species could be considered as part of the re-consenting process.

20. A summary of the differences between the proposed Standard and Auckland Unitary Plan provisions is set out in Attachment A. An overview of the proposal, the full discussion document and technical reports that have been used to develop and assess the proposed Standard are available on: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations/proposed-national-environmental-standard-for-marine-aquaculture

Auckland Council proposed submission

21. The proposed Auckland Council submission notes support for the objectives of the Standard and that the Standard is generally aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan in the treatment of re-consenting as a restricted discretionary activity.

22. The Auckland Unitary Plan applies the standard test for notification for all aquaculture activities and Auckland Council seeks that the same approach is taken in the Standard. As proposed, the Standard has some scenarios for re-consenting being non-notified, while some have the usual notification tests applied.

23. An issue with the proposed Standard is the limited matters of discretion for both re-consenting of existing farms and re-consenting where there is also a change in species.

24. The approach taken in the proposed Standard for matters of discretion for areas identified as ‘outstanding areas’ should also be applied for areas identified as having ecological or biodiversity significance in terms of the section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act and Policy 11 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. These areas are important to the ongoing biological diversity and ecological health of coastal habitats and can be adversely affected by marine farming activities.

25. The proposed Standard further lacks consideration of impacts on ecological function, water quality, mana whenua values, and cumulative effects that farms may have. These are important considerations within the Auckland Unitary Plan matters of discretion relating to re-consenting marine farms.

26. The proposed council submission supports the government’s overarching objective of having effective and nationally consistent biosecurity measures for each marine farm to mitigate against biosecurity risks. The submission also:

a) supports having provisions under the Standard along with comprehensive guidance material and training to help industry prepare Biosecurity Management Plans, as this will create consistency and a more user-friendly, efficient and streamlined consenting process for not only local authorities, but also industry. This will also mitigate the risks associated with biosecurity and potential impacts on environmental, social, cultural and economic values

b) notes that Biosecurity Management Plans do not address the risk of inter-regional vector movements and strongly advocates for a Domestic Marine Pathway Management Plan to address these risks

c) notes issues with implementation of the Biosecurity Management Plans, such as lack of provisions requiring workers on aquaculture farms to undertake training on basic monitoring practices, including marine pest identification

d) recommends that Biosecurity Management Plans require marine farms to detail specific mitigation against regionally specific marine pests which are not formally outlined in Regional Pest Management Plans

e) supports external professionals being engaged to certify, audit and enforce the Biosecurity Management Plan implementation due to major resourcing constraints

f) advocates for species records to be required, reported and compiled into one central database

g) disagrees with the 31 January 2025 timeline (prepare, implement and maintain Biosecurity Management Plans) and suggests an earlier date due to the ability of local authorities under section 43A (1)(f) of the RMA, being able to require consent reviews at any time during a consent period. Therefore, a Biosecurity Management Plan could be required through this process when the Standard is approved.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. Local boards were notified about the Standard consultation, via the relationship managers, on 19 June 2017, with a request for any feedback from local boards to be received before 7 July 2017. Council staff received no formal feedback at the time of preparing this agenda report and proposed council submission.

Māori impact statement

28. The relationship with and the use and health of water is of critical importance to Māori. The proposed Standard may affect this relationship and this is one of the reasons why the council’s proposed submission requests that a case-by-case notification decision is made on each application for realignment or species change, rather than automatic non-notification as proposed by the Ministry.

29. Mana whenua within the Auckland region were notified by council staff about the Standard consultation on 7 July 2017, noting the opportunity to make their own submission directly to the Ministry of Primary Industries, or to input into council’s submission. Mana whenua also have the opportunity to attend a hui that will be run by the Ministry of Primary Industries in Auckland on 25 July to hear the full proposal and have the ability to ask any questions or raise queries on how the Standard may affect their particular iwi.

30. At the time of preparing this agenda report and proposed council submission, council staff received no formal feedback from mana whenua.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Comparison between proposed Standard for Marine Aquaculture and Auckland Unitary Plan	131
b ⇩	Auckland Council submission to the Ministry for Primary Industries on the Proposed National Environmental Standard: Marine Aquaculture	135

Signatories

Authors

Paula Vincent – Senior Analyst, Natural Environment Strategy

Lissy Fehnker – Analyst, Natural Environment Strategy

Kath Coombes - Principal Planner, Plans and Places

Authorisers

Dave Allen – Principal Analyst, Natural Environment Strategy

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

[1] As at May 2017 Auckland Council’s Planning Committee has acknowledged the high level vision of Sea Change and the shared aspirations it has for the Hauraki Gulf.

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, CNZM, 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 ⇨	Planning Committee Forward Work Programme 1/8/17 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Schedule of August 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	24 May 2017 - Auckland Transport Design Manual and Roads & Streets Framework workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	14 June 2017 Airport Transport Workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	21 June 2017 - AT/NZTA/IS Workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	26 June 2017 - Auckland Plan Refresh (9) workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	27 June 2017 - Auckland Plan Refresh (10) workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

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