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.

Planning Committee

10 October 2017

Port Future Study

File No.: CP2017/20682

Purpose

1. The Port Future Study was received by the Auckland Development Committee in July 2016 (Attachment A). This report fulfils that committee’s resolution to refer the Consensus Working Group Recommendations Report, and the supporting consultants’ report to the incoming (2016-2019 term) council.

2. Over the last few months the Planning Committee has worked through a review of the City Centre and Waterfront areas. This included the Central Wharves Strategy, a proposed staged delivery of additional waterfront public space and new ferry infrastructure, and the need for further cruise infrastructure in the medium to long term. At its 5 September 2017 meeting, the committee considered the “City centre and waterfront planning refresh” report and resolved a number of matters (Resolution number PLA/2017/110). The continuation of this work and upcoming discussions with the Ports of Auckland Limited are part of other council processes underway to confirm a solution to short and medium-term berth constraints at multi-cargo and cruise.

3. It is therefore opportune to discuss the port related aspects of this. The next step towards this is to deal with the Port Future Study.

4. The purpose of this report is to:

i. present the recommendations of the Port Future Study Consensus Working Group for a long-term strategy to accommodate Auckland’s demand for sea-based freight and cruise

ii. table the Recommendations Report of the Consensus Working Group (Attachment B)

iii. table the supporting report by the consortium of consultants, prepared for the Consensus Working Group (Attachment C – available online at: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/)

iv. request the chief executive to scope;

a) a process for investigating alternative port locations

b) a process for identifying and monitoring port constraints

v. note that there are other council processes underway to confirm a solution to short and medium-term berth constraints at multi-cargo and cruise.

Executive summary

5. The Port Future Study was initiated in May 2015 as an independent, Māori and stakeholder collaborative process with the objective of making recommendations to council for a long-term strategy to accommodate Auckland’s demand for sea-based freight and cruise.

6. A Consensus Working Group and wider Reference Group were set up to achieve this purpose. Both groups were chaired by an Independent Chair, Dr Rick Boven. The Consensus Working Group engaged a consortium of consultants (led by Ernst & Young) to undertake technical work and produce an associated report.

7. The Consensus Working Group completed its task and submitted a Recommendation Report to the council in July 2016. Both reports were received by the Auckland Development Committee in July 2016 and referred to the incoming council. No further steps were taken by the committee. The Consensus Working Group made four recommendations to be read as a package, along with the group’s notes and findings.

8. The Consensus Working Group found that the port cannot remain on its current consented footprint for the long term.^{^[1]} It recommended that an option be created to relocate the port should relevant ‘relocation triggers’ be ‘pulled’. There is some urgency to enact a process to create the option given both the lead times involved as well as the inter-relationship of necessary short-term decisions and the longer-term location of the port. The Consensus Working Group’s recommendations acknowledge this.

9. Given the Consensus Working Group’s finding that the port cannot remain on its current consented footprint for the long-term, and based on the assumption that it cannot expand its current footprint into the harbour to meet its long-term capacity needs, the options essentially are:

· decide now to move the port to another location, understanding that the process to move the port will take at least 20 to 25 years, or

· decide to move the port based on capacity constraints (various reports broadly align, indicating capacity may be reached between 2035-2045, depending on growth rates and other assumptions made. The mid-point of the Port Future Study Consultants’ analysis indicates a move being required in 2055), or

· decide to move the port based on other constraints (referred to as ‘triggers’ in the Consensus Working Group recommendations), such as when the financial and non-financial benefits of relocation are greater than the financial and non-financial costs of relocation (‘non-financial’ benefits and costs may include benefits and costs to the wider economy from a change in use and character of the port and surrounds, as well as the aesthetic and amenity benefits and costs of other uses).

10. All of the above options require a new location to be identified and once done, the decision to protect the land for future port use would follow. The second and third options require constraints to be established and monitored.

11. Options two and three align with the Port Future Study.

12. It is acknowledged that a commercial proposition may also give rise to a port relocation, regardless of any other constraints.

13. Attachments A and B provide a comprehensive description of the Port Future Study process

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the July 2016 Consensus Working Group report and recommendations, and the supporting consultants’ report, on the Port Future Study, and

b) request the chief executive to consider the Consensus Working Group’s recommendations and propose to this committee:

i) a scope for a process to investigate location area options identified in the Consensus Working Group and consultants’ reports in the Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames, noting that:

a) the process may include opportunity to investigate further alternative options, including options that may emanate from central government

b) to the extent possible, the scope is to provide indicative costs for its implementation

c) the process is to include engagement with central government on a relocation option.

ii) recognising the potential for commercial opportunities to give rise to a port relocation, a scope for identifying and monitoring port constraints on an ongoing basis to inform the execution of a relocation option, based on the matters included in the Consensus Working Group and consultants’ reports.

Comments

Background

14. The Port Future Study was initiated in May 2015 as an independent, Māori and stakeholder collaborative process with the objective of making recommendations to council for a long-term strategy to accommodate Auckland’s demand for sea-based freight and cruise.

15. A Consensus Working Group and wider Reference Group were set up to achieve this purpose. Both groups were chaired by an Independent Chair, Dr Rick Boven.

16. The Consensus Working Group completed its task and submitted a recommendation report to the council in July of 2016. This report, as well as the supporting consultants’ report, was received by the Auckland Development Committee in July 2016. No further steps were taken by the committee. The Consensus Working Group made four recommendations to be read as a package, along with the group’s notes and findings.

Study process

17. Attachments A and B provide a comprehensive description of the Port Future Study process.

18. The Consensus Working Group Recommendations Report (Attachment B) includes detail on the establishment and methodology of the Port Future Study. In summary:

i. In April 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port Future Study.

ii. In May 2015, a collaborative Māori and stakeholder process was established to investigate the long-term future of Auckland’s port. A Consensus Working Group of 16 members and wider Reference Group was established for this purpose.

iii. An Independent Chair of both groups was appointed in May 2015.

iv. The Port Future Study did not include elected representatives or staff membership.

v. The Consensus Working Group engaged a consortium of consultants in September 2015 to deliver on the scope of the study authored by the Consensus Working Group. That report was completed in June 2016.

vi. The Consensus Working Group and consultants’ reports describe the methodology of the Port Future Study in detail. Broadly, the Consensus Working Group used three types of inputs in its consideration and development of their Recommendations Report. These were:

- the work of the Consensus Working Group itself, including meetings and deliberations

- the feedback the Consensus Working Group received from the study’s Reference Group

- the interim and final reports prepared by the consultants.

vii. The Consensus Working Group submitted its Recommendations Report to the Auckland Development Committee in July 2016.

19. It is to be noted that:

i. The study produced recommendations for a long-term (50-100 years) strategy. Short-term was defined as 0-25 years. Medium-term was defined as 25-50 years. The timeframe is important and instructive in understanding the Consensus Working Group’s recommendations.

ii. The study did not purport to have formally consulted any stakeholders or mana whenua iwi. It did, however, aim to develop a consensus recommendation to the council from amongst a wide range of mana whenua iwi and stakeholders.

iii. Karen Wilson, Consensus Working Group member representative of the Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance, withdrew support for the consensus recommendations presented in July 2016 on grounds that the final report did not adequately incorporate cultural criteria in the study’s Multi-Criteria Analysis or recognise issues of significance to mana whenua including co-governance arrangements or the impact of impending Treaty Settlement Claims.

iv. The Consensus Working Group Recommendations Report makes clear that further investigation of alternative sites must include assessment of Mana whenua values, views and opportunities for each of the potential sites identified.

v. Further detail on the appointment of members of the Consensus Working Group and wider Reference Group is available in the Consensus Working Group Recommendations Report (Attachment B).

Study membership

20. The Consensus Working Group membership is shown below. Note that the members of the Consensus Working Group were representative of wider sector groupings and mana whenua groupings within the Reference Group and not solely their own organisation. Those groupings were: environmental advocacy groups, community groups, businesses that trade directly with the port, recreational marine user groups, specialist professional interest groups, specialist commercial interest groups, Ngāti Whātua iwi group, Marutūahu iwi group, Waikato-Tainui, Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance and Ports of Auckland Ltd.

Stakeholder representatives

Michael Barnett Auckland Chamber of Commerce

Luke Christensen Generation Zero

Noel Coom International Container Lines Committee

Richard Didsbury Committee for Auckland

Jenni Goulding Independent (Community)

Rangimarie Hunia Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei Whai Rawa Ltd.

Alan MacDonald Employers and Manufacturers Association

Greg McKeown Independent

Julie Stout Urban Auckland

Shane Vuletich Society for the Protection of Auckland Harbours

Annabel Young NZ Shipping Federation

Mana whenua iwi representatives

Ngarimu Blair Ngāti Whātua iwi group

Nathan Kennedy Marutūahu iwi group

Maxine Moana-Tuwhangai Waikato-Tainui group

Karen Wilson Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance iwi group

Ports of Auckland Ltd. representative

Tony Gibson Ports of Auckland Ltd

Findings and Recommendations of the Consensus Working Group

21. The recommendations of the Consensus Working Group are made in the context of three key issues identified by the group and a number of key findings. The three issues agreed by the Consensus Working Group as foundations for the Port Future Study were:

i. Capacity will constrain the port’s ability to meet future freight and cruise demands, which may limit economic growth in the long term

ii. Tension between, and competition for, limited resources for the CBD and Ports of Auckland Limited will lead to sub-optimal outcomes for one or both

iii. Port activities create environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts which need to be understood and addressed.

22. The key findings are:

In considering the options— 1) constrain the port, 2) downsize the port, 3) relocate trade volume, 4) grow the port, 5) build a new port—the Consensus Working Group’s key findings reached by consensus are:

A. Based on Ernst and Young’s findings, the existing port will not be able to accommodate the long term freight task and cruise on the current footprint.

B. That no further reclamation beyond what is already consented in the port precinct is required for freight purposes in the short to medium term.

C. There is a need to secure sufficient berth length in the multi-cargo area for the short to medium-term.

D. Short-term pathways need to be created to enable the port to continue to operate efficiently prior to a planned new port being established due to the substantial lead times involved. In this regard, the Consensus Working Group identifies that additional berth length needs to be provided to fulfil the short and medium-term capacity requirements of the port in response to cruise and multi-cargo requirements.

E. Retaining the bulk of port functions provides a more feasible and superior outcome for Auckland, rather than shedding cargo elsewhere or downsizing Auckland’s freight task, in the short to medium-term. Shedding or downsizing freight operations may weaken the case for moving the port.

F. In the long term, other existing North Island ports will be unable to cope with the totality of the Auckland freight task together with their own capacity requirements.

G. Cruise industry facilities should be retained and improved in Auckland’s city centre.

H. Two possible new port locations, Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames, have been identified as warranting more detailed investigation.

I. The triggers for a move would comprise economic, social, environmental and cultural triggers that make a move beneficial or demand/economic triggers that make a move necessary to achieve long-term outcomes for Auckland.

23. The Consensus Working Group made its recommendations to council based on these findings. Note that the Consensus Working Group further states that its recommendations “are offered as an integrated package. Adopting some recommendations while not implementing others is likely to lead to adverse unintended consequences”.

24. The Consensus Working Group recommends that:

i. A port relocation option is established for freight, noting:

- If the port is moved, then cruise ships should continue to be accommodated near the CBD.

ii. Comprehensive investigation of the identified location area options - Manukau Harbour and the Firth of Thames - is undertaken to decide which specific option is chosen, noting that investigation to identify the specific relocation option should include consideration of at least:

- The long term engineering requirements, navigability, safety and availability of the Manukau and Firth of Thames options.

- The effect of a west coast versus east coast location on shipping and the competitiveness of the Auckland port and the national supply chain.

- The wider and long-term implications of west coast versus east coast locations including on Auckland’s long term transport strategy, land use development, land-side freight routes and the potential for a super-port.

- Mana whenua values, views and opportunities for each of the potential sites identified.

- The environmental impacts of the new site and analysis of consenting pathways.

- How and when any new port could be funded.

iii. Regular monitoring of relocation triggers is undertaken to identify the time at which the port relocation option should be exercised, noting:

- The port may move when the social, environmental, cultural, economic, urban development or other conditions indicate that moving the port is beneficial for the city centre, or Auckland or New Zealand.

- The port may move when expected demand growth, expected capacity growth and the time required to complete the move indicate that moving the port has become necessary.

- It is possible that Auckland’s future unfolds in a way that neither of the triggers for the beneficial or necessary cases will be “pulled”, which would mean that the port would accommodate long term demand at the current site.

iv. Subject to confirmed and credible commitment to establishing a port relocation option and to establishing sufficient additional berth length to accommodate expected growth in large cruise and multi-cargo vessels, the port should not expand beyond its current footprint, noting:

- The work done so far for the Central Wharves Strategy implies the need for additional cruise berths and the consultants’ report endorses Ports of Auckland Limited’s case that additional long berths are required to accommodate expected short and medium-term growth in cruise and multi-cargo operations.

- The consultant has recommended a northern east-west berth at Bledisloe Wharf and the Consensus Working Group is in agreement that a northern berth presents a viable short-term option. Exact specifications to meet future berth demand will be worked through.

- The Consensus Working Group recognises mana whenua and community opposition to any further extension of port operations into the harbour and that deciding the plan to provide the required berth capacity will require rigorous identification and evaluation of alternative options.

- The Port Future Study is a study to provide a long term strategy for the location of the port and there are established processes for short-term berth provision decisions.

Next Steps

25. This report fulfils the Auckland Development Committee’s resolution of July 2016 to refer the Consensus Working Group recommendations and report, and the supporting consultants’ report to the incoming (2016-2019) council.

26. It is to be noted that :

· the Port Future Study was a one-off project for completion in mid-2016

· upon receiving the recommendations of the Consensus Working Group the project is completed

· there are no implementation steps currently underway.

27. The recommendations in this report request the Chief Executive to scope the next steps necessary to implement the Consensus Working Group’s recommendations, at which time this committee would make decisions regarding implementation. The recommendations in this report provide for the scoping of:

a) a process to identify an alternative port location,

b) a process for monitoring port constraints, recognising that commercial opportunities may also give rise to a port relocation regardless of any other constraints, and

noting that there are other council processes underway to confirm a solution for a short and medium-term berth constraint at multi-cargo and cruise capacity requirements.

28. The scoping of next steps will be done with existing resources. The recommendations in this report do not initiate or fund those next steps. That depends on subsequent decisions made by this committee and the allocation of funding.

29. The following section of the report provides further background on the package of recommendations proposed to committee.

Investigation

30. In order to create an option for relocation of the port, an alternative location must be identified through a detailed investigation process. The Consensus Working Group identified locations in the Manukau Harbour and the Firth of Thames for further investigation. Further detail is available in Attachment B.

31. Note that the Consensus Working Group recommended that the process to investigate alternative port location areas should include consideration of at least:

· The long term engineering requirements, navigability, safety and availability of the Manukau and Firth of Thames options

· The effect of a west coast versus east coast location on shipping and the competitiveness of the Auckland port and the national supply chain

· The wider and long term implications of west coast versus east coast locations including on Auckland’s long term transport strategy, land use development, land-side freight routes and the potential for a super-port

· Mana whenua values, views and opportunities for each of the potential sites identified

· The environmental impacts of the new site and analysis of consenting pathways

· How and when any new port could be funded.

32. The elements above will be considered as part of the scope for a process to investigate location area options to be brought to this committee in the future. Any central government initiated options will also be considered as part of the scope.

Monitoring

33. The Consensus Working Group identified regular, periodic monitoring and forecasting of various data sets as essential to the long-term strategy. A comprehensive monitoring framework that enables projection is critical given the considerable and predictable delay between the point at which a constraint has a material impact on port operations and the point at which a new port location becomes operational (Attachment B).

34. There are three broad categories in the monitoring framework:

· At current site (illustrative examples: impacts of operation such as noise and traffic generation, container growth, multi-cargo growth etc.)

· At identified alternative site (illustrative examples: price of land, including construction costs and movement costs)

· Market (illustrative examples: population growth & container trade nationally and globally, market trends, ship length etc).

35. Ongoing monitoring in either scenario (current and alternative sites) allows for regular reassessment of the necessity or benefits of a move, which allows calibration of a relocation date. This allows any relocation decision to be flexible and respond to as-yet-unknown or un-monitored factors.

36. Monitoring informs potential relocation, but is not a decision in itself and does not necessarily ‘force’ any action – these are separate processes. Also, a relocation decision may be taken at any time if deemed appropriate, for example, should a favourable commercial proposition be presented.

‘Necessary’

37. In a ‘necessary’ move scenario, capacity constraints at the current site are the key driver of a move (figure 1). In order to monitor for this scenario, a monitoring regime should consider at least:

· growth in trade at the port,

· efficiencies of port operations,

· growth in traffic movements around port location (associated with port and other drivers)

Figure 1: A 'necessary move' scenario

‘

‘Beneficial’

38. In a ‘beneficial’ move scenario, the outcomes of relocation to an alternative site are valued more highly than maintaining operations at the current site (figure 2). In order to monitor for this scenario, a monitoring regime should consider at least:

· impacts of port activity (traffic, noise, vibration etc.)

· the value of any alternative land use and incentives for investment at the port’s current location,

· value of use of current port location for port activity

· costs to deliver operational port at alternative location

· potential for coordination with other major projects

Figure 2: A 'beneficial move' scenario

39. In developing a monitoring framework to identify constraints, the Consensus Working Group recommended that consideration should be given to matters raised in the consultant’s report, for example but not limited to:

a) physical capacity constraints of port footprint and configuration against forecast demand for freight by trade type. Monitoring and reporting would likely include yard capacity, port productivity/efficiency, customer population growth and TEU per capita forecasts

b) the port’s physical externalities. Monitoring and reporting would likely include impacts on port environs such as light, noise and dust externalities, vehicle movements by vehicle type and congestion impacts

c) economic incentives for investment at current or new port location. Monitoring and reporting would likely include net present value of investment and associated benefit at current or alternate locations, and construction delivery estimations

d) social and cultural impacts and community feedback. Monitoring likely to include public expression of vision for Auckland, potentially expressed via elected members, through Long-term Plan processes or direct engagement

e) environmental impacts. Monitoring and reporting likely to include research or information on impact of footprint and operations at current or alternative locations.

40. The elements above will be considered as part of the scope for a process to monitor constraints for consideration by this committee.

Berth solution

41. The port must continue to operate efficiently prior to a planned new port being established, hence the recommendation to develop a process to confirm a solution to short and medium-term berth constraints at multi-cargo.^{^[2]}

42. The Consensus Working Group recommended that that the port should not expand beyond its current footprint, subject to a confirmed and credible commitment to establishing a port relocation option, and to establishing sufficient additional berth length to accommodate expected growth in large cruise and multi-cargo vessels.

· The Consensus Working Group identified that additional berth length needs to be provided to fulfil the short and medium-term capacity requirements of the port in response to cruise and multi-cargo requirements.

· The consultants to the Port Future Study recommended an east-west northern berth at Bledisloe Wharf as a solution.

· The Consensus Working Group agreed that the solution recommended by the consultants presents a viable short-term option.

· The Consensus Working Group did not specifically recommend a wharf extension at Bledisloe as the solution. Confirmation of a solution will require rigorous identification and evaluation of alternative options.

43. The Consensus Working Group recommended that the multi-cargo ‘bottleneck’ should not be solved without a commitment to investigating an alternative port site and monitoring port constraints.

44. Council is continuing discussions and considerations around the short and medium-term berth constraints at multi-cargo and cruise. These processes are led by the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45. The purpose of this report is to refer the Consensus Working Group recommendations and report, and the supporting consultants’ report to the incoming (2016-2019) council.

46. The views of local boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of this report, other than the extent to which they were accounted for in previous committee resolutions during the Port Future Study.

Māori impact statement

47. The purpose of this report is to refer the Consensus Working Group recommendations and report, and the supporting consultants’ report to the incoming (2016-2019) council.

48. The Auckland Development Committee report of 6 July 2016 contains a substantive Māori impact statement (Attachment A). That statement is not repeated here but applies equally to this report.

49. As noted earlier, Ngāti Whātua iwi group, Marutūahu iwi group, Waikato-Tainui and Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance were all represented on the Consensus Working Group. Also, given the nature of the matters associated with this topic, and especially the identification of an alternative site, the processes proposed in the recommendations of this report will include engagement of mana whenua and as appropriate, mataawaka.

Note: Due to the size of Attachment C it has been made available under separate cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	06 July 2016 Auckland Development Committee Port Future Study report	23
b ⇩	Consensus Working Group Recommendations Report July 2016	35
c ⇨	Consultant's report to the Port Future Study submitted July 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard - Strategy Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

10 October 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - feedback from local boards

File No.: CP2017/20343

Purpose

1. To report feedback from local boards on draft Auckland Plan content to inform the final draft of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. In June and July 2017 all local boards considered high-level summary information on the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed Auckland Plan. Resolutions and feedback from local boards were reported to the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017.

3. During September 2017, local boards held workshops to review more detailed information, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy.

4. Local boards subsequently passed formal resolutions at these September 2017 business meetings for consideration as part of the proposed Auckland Plan. As at 2 October, resolutions from 16 local boards were received and are appended to this report as Attachment B. Any further resolutions received will be tabled at the Planning Committee on 10 October.

5. Feedback from local board resolutions is largely in the form of general comments or in response to each individual outcome area, the Development Strategy, and/or integration of the whole plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive and consider the local board feedback on the six outcome areas and Development Strategies in the development of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Comments

6. Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues, to ensure the plan continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland

7. On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan is intended to be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the Development Strategy.

Local board involvement in the refresh

8. Local boards have been involved in the refresh of the Auckland Plan throughout 2017, including through representation at Planning Committee workshops, cluster local board workshops, and individual board business meetings and workshops.

9. A summary of local board engagement on the Auckland Plan Refresh is provided in Attachment A.

10. Local board feedback is summarised below, and a complete set of formal resolutions from 16 local boards is provided in Attachment B.

General Comments

11. A number of local boards provided general feedback about the plan. These include:

· general support for the purpose and intent of the six outcome areas, and their proposed strategic directions, and focus areas. However, it’s important that the plan continues to fully contribute to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being

· support for the outcome areas and themes in the plan, because they align with, and complement those in local board plans

· support for an ambitious, aspirational 30-year plan, and suggestion that it could be bolder and more ambitious to respond to the challenges facing Auckland

· support for a plan that steers multiple stakeholders in the same direction

· recommendation that language is succinct and clear

· support for a more simple measures framework that can align with those of local boards.

Belonging and Participation

12. There were a number of comments about Belonging and Participation related to its scope and relationship to other outcome areas, including:

· strong support for the plan to be more explicit about the health benefits of parks and open spaces, including support for community sports hubs in locations

· note that community infrastructure and events play a role in creating a sense of belonging

· support for ‘community-led’ outcomes whereby council and partner organisations empower communities to support themselves

· recognition that we need to plan for and develop social infrastructure at the beginning of a development to support belonging and participation in our communities

· recognise the diversity of both demographically and geographically diverse communities

· provide a clearer definition of ‘communities most in need’.

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

13. Local boards support the general intent and direction of this outcome area, which has been introduced since their previous engagement.

14. It has been recommended that the plan also considers how mataawaka as well as mana whenua are enabled to thrive and develop their sense of identity and mana in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Environment and Cultural Heritage

15. There was broad support for this outcome, including linking the environment with cultural heritage. Additional feedback includes:

· support for considering water quality and putting measures in place to manage and mitigate impacts of, for example, growth and development

· suggest that the outcome could be broadened to include a cultural environment that retains and attracts people who are crucial to achieving the outcome of prosperity

· concern that cultural heritage needs to be broadly focussed to reflect all of the cultural groups who have contributed to Auckland’s heritage

· recommend that the meaning of cultural heritage is clarified

· support for the significant role of productive soils

· recommend more focus on the implications of coastal erosion.

Homes and Places

16. Feedback for this outcome includes:

· support quality development as an outcome for all housing, including existing and rental housing

· the need for public spaces in urban areas and more efficient use of these should be expanded to specifically include the provision of open spaces and recreation areas in tandem with growth

· recommend that a ‘Warrant of Fitness’ should be required for rental properties, to ensure a minimum quality standard of housing provision

· recommend greater emphasis on neighbourhoods and public places to support social networks, enhanced placemaking, provide for greater community resilience and ensure people feel safe

· support the greater recognition that more residents (both in number and proportion) will be long-term renters, and the need for dwellings that allow for that over one’s lifetime

· a couple of local boards noted that the focus on urban living may not resonate with some rural communities

· recommend greater recognition of our ageing population and their particular needs.

Access and Connectivity

17. There was strong support for this outcome, including the view that it is a priority outcome. Some of the feedback received from local boards includes:

· recommend a mode share target for increasing active transport in Auckland and a target of reducing single occupancy vehicles coming into the city centre be included in the plan

· note the importance of rail to the airport

· concern that access and connectivity should support all transport modes.

Opportunities and Prosperity

18. Feedback regarding this outcome was largely supported, with the following recommendations:

· recognise the need for youth training that addresses current housing development needs as well as future proofing our workforce for further housing development demands over the next 30 years

· include support for strong local businesses and more quality local jobs

· recommend inclusion of economic development in this outcome, which is also in Māori Identity and Wellbeing.

· recommend addressing the issue of employment location given its capacity to have positive benefits for growing local communities and relieving pressure on transport infrastructure.

Development Strategy

19. There was support for the Development Strategy, including the following points:

· support for integration between the Development Strategy and with the six outcome areas

· recommend greater emphasis is placed on the impact of growth felt in outlying rural areas and smaller towns subject to growth

· support the Development Strategy’s importance in terms of identifying future development and requirements to plan for and sequence infrastructure.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the Governing Body and providing input to regional strategies, policies, and plans.

21. Local board views have been sought throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Māori impact statement

22. The council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

23. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes of the plan. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

24. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the plan. The outcome describes the application of te ao Māori values to the region, acknowledges the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau and acknowledges the foundational role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

25. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, and relevant Māori community groups has been undertaken to develop the draft plan.

Implementation

26. Feedback from local boards will be considered in the development of the draft plan. Approval by the Governing Body of the draft plan for formal public consultation will be sought on 14 December. Consultation will commence on 28 February 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of local board engagement AP Refresh	67
b ⇩	Auckland Plan Refresh - feedback from local boards September 2017	69

Signatories

Author

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

10 October 2017

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Decision to make additional parts of the Plan operative.

File No.: CP2017/20363

Purpose

1. To make those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan) that are no longer subject to appeal “operative” under clause 20 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Executive summary

2. On 29 September 2016 it was reported to the Governing Body that a total of 106 appeals had been filed in relation to the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Of those 106 appeals, 65 were appeals to the Environment Court and 41 were appeals to the High Court.

3. The vast majority of those appeals have now been resolved, with a current total of only 38 active appeals (discussed in further detail below).

4. In accordance with section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA), any part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that was not subject to appeal was deemed to have been approved by the council either from the expiry of the original appeal period (which was 16 September 2016), or the date on which any appeal is withdrawn or determined. As a result, large parts of the Unitary Plan were made “operative in part” in November 2016, with the parts under appeal remaining “proposed” in the meantime.

5. The parts of the Unitary Plan that are now no longer subject to appeal can be made “operative” under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) (i.e. the final formal procedural step in the plan-making process).

6. Section 160 of the LGATPA requires that the council publicly notify the date on which the Unitary Plan, or each part of the Unitary Plan, as the case may be, will become operative in accordance with clause 20. A formal resolution is required, after which the council will publicly notify that further parts of the Unitary Plan (that were formerly under appeal) will now become operative.

7. Attachment A to this report provides a summary of the appeals that have now been resolved, withdrawn or otherwise determined.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to make operative, under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, those parts of the Unitary Plan that are no longer subject to appeal (as identified in Attachment A to this report).

b) request that staff complete the necessary public notice requirements as soon as practicable.

Comments

Update on appeals

8. In September 2016, the Council received a total of 108 appeals against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Of those 108 appeals only 38 remain currently active:

High Court

9. 10 active matters are High Court appeals, of which the council is currently awaiting three decisions and the withdrawal of one appeal.

Environment Court

10. 28 active matters are Environment Court appeals, of which two appeals were heard during the last two weeks of September (relating to Okura), five have been set down for hearings before Christmas, eight will be heard in early 2018 (relating to Rural Subdivision), two are on hold pending the outcome of related High Court proceedings and the remaining 11 are either the subject of continuing settlement discussions or awaiting hearing dates.

Update on judicial reviews

11. In addition to the 108 appeals filed in September 2016, eight applications for judicial review were filed in the High Court. Of those eight judicial reviews, only three remain active (one awaiting a hearing date and two to be withdrawn).

Parts of the Unitary Plan to be made operative

12. Attachment A lists the Environment Court and High Court appeals that have been resolved, withdrawn or otherwise determined. The parts of the Unitary Plan associated with those appeals can now be made operative under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

13. Details of each appeal can be found on the Unitary Plan website via the following link http://temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Pages/paupappeals.aspx.

14. As appeal files were closed (and confirmation received from the courts), the associated appeal annotations were removed from the Unitary Plan. As a result, those parts of the Unitary Plan were no longer shown as under appeal and deemed to be ‘approved’ under section 152 of the LGATPA.

15. It is those parts of the Unitary Plan (that were formerly under appeal) that can now be made operative under clause 20. Section 160 of the LGATPA requires that the council notify the date on which the Unitary Plan, or each part of the Unitary Plan, will become operative in accordance with clause 20 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. In order to complete that process, this report seeks a resolution from the Planning Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. Local Boards have been involved in the development of the Unitary Plan since mid-2012. Local Board views were not sought for this report as the clause 20 process is an entirely procedural step.

Māori impact statement

17. The final step in making parts of the Unitary Plan operative is a procedural matter only and therefore does not have any impact on Māori. Impacts on Māori have been considered throughout the process of developing the Unitary Plan and resolution of the appeals.

Implementation

18. Following the Planning Committee’s decision, staff will publish a public notice advising of the date on which the provision will be made operative. All costs associated with this are provided for within existing budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - List of Unitary Plan Appeals Resolved	91

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

10 October 2017

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Draft Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change

File No.: CP2017/20535

Purpose

1. To approve engagement with the public on the draft Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change (the draft Plan Change).

Executive summary

2. The draft Plan Change amends the operative Hobsonville Corridor Precinct text, and inserts new Sub-Precinct text and a Transport Plan for the Sub-Precinct. The draft Plan Change introduces assessment criteria for buildings and development along Hobsonville Road and identifies preferred future road alignments. Together these amendments seek to achieve a better transport network and land use and built form outcomes within Hobsonville Corridor. Development within the draft Plan Change area will also rely on operative Auckland Unitary Plan (operative Unitary Plan) precinct, zone and overlay provisions where applicable.

3. The draft Plan Change area consists of the existing Hobsonville Corridor precinct (the precinct) in the operative Unitary Plan in addition to a new proposed sub-precinct southwest of Brigham Creek Road (Sub-Precinct C). The draft Plan Change amends the planning maps to add Sub-Precinct C, insert a new precinct plan and new provisions for Sub-Precinct C, and amends the operative Unitary Plan provisions for the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct.

4. The area covered by the new proposed Sub-precinct C was originally part of the precinct in the proposed version of the Auckland Unitary Plan (as Sub-precinct A). These provisions were recommended to be deleted by the Independent Hearings Panel. The effects of this deletion were not fully understood at the time the council made its decisions in 2016 and the draft Plan Change seeks to improve the workability of the provisions and the matters that are managed by the operative Unitary Plan.

5. The preparation of the draft Plan Change has involved input from Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport supports the draft Plan Change and the engagement process. This collaboration has ensured that the provisions of the draft Plan Change will enable the delivery of objectives shared by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport for the Hobsonville Corridor area.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the draft Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change for pre-notification public comment from 24 October to 10 November 2017.

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

c) request that council staff report back to the Planning Committee for a decision on the final form of the Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change and notification, once feedback on the draft plan change has been considered.

Comments

Draft plan change area

6. The existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located between Hobsonville Road and the Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18) and extends from Brigham Creek Road eastwards to Memorial Park Lane alongside the Hobsonville Domain. The draft Plan Change seeks to add a new sub-precinct C to the existing Hobsonville Corridor precinct. The new Sub-precinct C would extend the precinct southwest from Brigham Creek Road to end at Rawiri Stream. The draft Plan Change area is shown in Precinct Plans 1-3 in Attachment A.

7. The area within Sub-Precinct C was originally included as Sub-precinct A within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (September 2016). The Independent Hearings Panel agreed with submissions that sought deletion of this sub-precinct on the grounds that the underlying Light Industry Zone and associated plan provisions rendered a sub-precinct unnecessary.

Zoning and precinct

8. The land that is within Sub-Precinct C is zoned Light Industry in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The land within the existing precinct area is zoned Mixed Use and Local Centre. All of these zonings are operative.

9. The purpose of the precinct is to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to development and transport outcomes within Hobsonville Corridor. The existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct provisions require high standards of design and landscaping to provide active, pedestrian-orientated frontages along roads within Hobsonville Corridor Sub-Precincts A and B. This does not, however, apply along Hobsonville Road southwest of Brigham Creek Road where frontages face residential properties on the other side of the road, or along the boundaries of Hobsonville Primary School.

10. The draft Plan Change seeks to amend the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct provisions to include a new sub precinct C. Specific provisions include amendments to:

· insert standards requiring new buildings and subdivision to provide for roads to connect to Strategic Access Points, as indicated on Precinct Plan 3 (Attachments A and B)

· apply a Restrictive Discretionary activity status to buildings along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School within Sub-precinct C (Attachment B)

· apply standards outlining a more restrictive height in relation to boundary control alongside Hobsonville Primary School (Attachment B)

· add assessment criteria relating to the design of buildings along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School (Attachment B)

· clarify existing operative precinct provisions and provide consistency with the approach to precincts in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Attachment B).

11. The new sub-precinct C will apply to the land bordered by State Highway 18, Brigham Creek Road, Hobsonville Road and Rawiri Stream. The draft plan change includes inserting an additional diagram, Precinct Plan 3, relating specifically to transport matters in proposed sub-precinct C. The proposed indicative roading amendments in the new Precinct Plan 3 relate to the need to ensure the delivery of a transport network throughout the Sub-Precinct and to achieve an appropriate level of amenity along Hobsonville Road. These reasons align with the purposes of the existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct and it is appropriate that this land be included as a new sub-precinct rather than as a new stand-alone precinct. Draft Precinct Plan 3 is included within Attachment A and shows:

· indicative future road connection from Whenuapai

· preferred future road alignments

· indicative strategic access points

· existing road alignments.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. A workshop seeking the local board’s views on the draft Plan Change will be held on 2 November 2017. Their views will be taken into consideration and will be reported to the Planning Committee when approval is sought to notify the plan change.

Māori impact statement

13. All iwi groups with interest in the area will be contacted at the beginning of the engagement process and meetings arranged where they request these to occur. They will also be invited to the public events that will be held during the engagement period. This will further identify any impacts of the draft plan change on Māori.

14. Following this pre-notification engagement, iwi will be provided a copy of the draft plan change for their review and be asked whether it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner who understands tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū. All of this will be done in accordance with the recent Schedule 1 amendments and will be reported to the Planning Committee, along with the decision to publicly notify the proposed plan change.

Implementation

15. It is proposed that consultation on the draft Plan Change occurs from Monday 23 October to Friday 3 November. The following engagement events are proposed:

· a drop in session in the Hobsonville area, with invitations sent to iwi, landowners and occupiers

· a weekend stall at the Hobsonville Centre

· meetings with developers and other key stakeholders.

16. Feedback received from the engagement will be reviewed and taken into consideration when preparing the draft proposed Hobsonville Corridor Plan Change for formal notification under Schedule One of the Resource Management Plan 1991. The draft proposed plan change will be reported to the Planning Committee. Formal notification of the proposed plan change will commence shortly after being approval by the Planning Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Precinct Plan 1	97
b ⇩	Attachment A - Precinct Plan 2	99
c ⇩	Attachment A - Precinct Plan 3	101
d ⇩	Attachment B - Draft Precinct Provisions	103

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

10 October 2017

Update on affordable housing in Special Housing Areas

File No.: CP2017/20868

Purpose

1. To receive an update on relative affordable and retained affordable dwellings consented under the Auckland Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas.

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 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. Under the Accord, 154 Special Housing Areas were identified by council and approved by the Minister of Building and Construction and were disestablished under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 between 16 September 2016 and 19 May 2017.

5. Between 2013 and 2016, the Housing Accord provided the following:

· 37,716 dwellings and sites consented by September 2016 (97 per cent of the Accord target of 39,000)

· An additional 9077 dwellings and sites were consented in the extended Accord period by May 2017, providing a total of 46,793 dwellings and sites.

6. Developments of 15 dwellings or more were required to provide either 10 per cent relative affordable dwellings (targeted to first home buyers) or five per cent retained affordable (targeted to social housing providers) or a combination of both.

7. The Development Programme Office has carried out further investigation and analysis on the affordable housing provided through the Special Housing Area process.

8. This analysis covers consenting data between 1 October 2013 (the beginning of the Accord period) until 30 June 2017 (the end of the Accord Monitoring Report period).

9. To date, 1353 relative affordable sites/dwellings have been consented through the qualifying development resource consent process in Special Housing Areas. Of those, 202 have had building consents issued. Of the 202 with building consents, 104 relative affordable dwellings are under construction and 98 have been completed with code of compliance certificates issued.

10. 106 completed statutory declarations from properties sold to first home buyers have been provided to council.

11. In regards to the retained affordable dwellings, 2077 retained affordable dwellings have been consented through the qualifying development resource consent process in Special Housing Areas. Of these, 696 dwellings have building consents issued. Of the 696 with building consents, 214 are under construction and 482 have been completed with code of compliance certificates issued.

12. This report provides a detailed update on the relative affordable and retained affordable dwellings that have been consented under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

Recommendation

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the update on relative affordable and retained affordable dwellings consented under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

Comments

13. The Development Programme Office provided an update on the Auckland Housing Accord at the Planning Committee meeting on 1 August 2017. In response to questions raised at the meeting, the Development Programme Office has continued further analysis on the affordable houses that have been consented, completed, and sold within the Special Housing Areas.

14. The analysis covers qualifying development resource consenting under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act and building consenting data between 1 October 2013 (beginning of the Accord period) until 30 June 2017 (the end of the Accord Monitoring Report period).

15. Since the 1 August 2017 Planning Committee meeting, the Development Programme Office has undertaken:

· A review of Special Housing Area qualifying developments data to confirm consented number of dwellings and affordable dwellings

· A review of building consent data and linking back to Special Housing Area qualifying development consents to determine how many affordable dwellings are completed or under construction ^{^[3]}

· A meeting with council’s Resource Consents team to confirm how many qualifying development consents are still being processed

· Contacted developers to provide completed statutory declarations from purchasers of relative affordable units to determine the total number of relative affordable dwellings sold

· Confirming status of inactive Special Housing Areas to determine whether developments were consented through the Resource Management Act process or no activity is occurring at all

· Liaised with Housing New Zealand Corporation to determine the activity status and confirm yield of Housing New Zealand developments within Special Housing Areas.

Special Housing Areas - Affordable Housing Recap

16. The Order in Council which formally established the Special Housing Areas 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).

17. 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 (75 per cent of the Auckland median house price); or

· Criteria B, where 5 per cent of the development is retained affordable (monthly mortgage payments do not exceed 30 per cent of the Auckland median household income); or

· A combination of criteria A and B.

18. The criteria for the purchasers under relative and retained affordable dwellings are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Relative and retained affordable dwelling purchaser criteria

Relative affordable dwellings purchaser criteria

Retained affordable dwelling purchaser 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.

· The dwelling is purchased with a 10 per cent deposit

· The balance of the purchase price is financed by a 30-year reducing loan, secured by a single mortgage over the property, at a mortgage interest rate equal to the most recent average two-year fixed rate. This interest rate used is that published most recently by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, in relation to the relevant date.

Statutory declaration that they meet these requirements is required from the purchaser

Statutory declaration is not required

Examples of relative and retained affordable developments occurring in Special Housing Areas

Relative affordable dwellings at Hobsonville Point

19. Hobsonville Point has its own affordable housing scheme for first home buyers. The Axis Series homes are administered through a ballot system.

20. The criteria for the purchasers of the Axis series homes are slightly different to those set in the Special Housing Areas, including different salary cap requirements, and the requirement for the buyer to live in the house for a minimum of two years instead of three years.

21. The criteria for the purchasers under the Axis Series are:

· Must be New Zealand permanent residents or citizens

· Must be a first home buyer, or in the same financial position as a first home buyer as deemed by Housing New Zealand

· Cannot put the home in the name of a Family Trust, company or nominee

· Must have a gross household income no higher than $85,000 for a single purchaser and no more than $130,000 per annum, where there is more than one purchaser

· Have proof of finance to complete a purchase of an Axis Series home

· Will agree to live in the house for a minimum of two years.

22. The Axis Series homes are deemed to meet the affordable housing requirements and these homes are counted towards the relative affordable dwelling numbers.

23. Statutory declarations are also required to be completed by the purchaser of the Axis Series homes. To date Auckland Council has received 30 statutory declarations for Axis Series houses at Hobsonville Point. This number has been included in the total number of statutory declarations received by Auckland Council.

Retained affordable homes at Waimahia Inlet (Weymouth Special Housing Area)

24. The development at Waimahia Inlet has been undertaken through a formation of a partnership between the Tāmaki Collective, the Māori Trustee, Community of Refuge Trust Community Housing and the New Zealand Housing Foundation.

25. Like the Axis Series homes, the purchasers of the homes at Waimahia Inlet must meet a number of criteria, some of which differ to the criteria required under the Special Housing Areas.

26. The current criteria for purchasers at Waimahia Inlet are as follows:

· Purchaser is committed to owning their own home

· At least one member of the household must be in full-time employment

· Purchaser must be a permanent New Zealand resident

· The purchaser is not a current homeowner in New Zealand or overseas (they are a first home buyer)

· Total household income is between $75,000 and $95,000 per annum

· Low debt (less than $5000)

· A minimum deposit of $10,000 is required (Kiwisaver funds can be used)

· Purchaser must live and/or work in, or near the local area

· The household is made up of four or more persons

· The number of cars the household has matches the available parking.

27. The Waimahia Inlet developer has two housing programmes available to residents. The first being an Affordable Rental Programme where the Housing Foundation has implemented a rent to buy scheme, the second being the Affordable Equity Programme where the purchasers buy a share of the home.

28. This arrangement at Waimahia Inlet is deemed to satisfy the requirements of retained affordable under the Special Housing Areas.

29. To date 241 retained affordable houses have been completed at Waimahia Inlet with a further 26 under construction.

Overview of consented relative and retained affordable dwellings in special housing areas

30. Table 2 provides an overview of the number of relative and retained sites or dwellings approved, building consents issued and Code of Compliance certificates issued during the Housing Accord period. This is compared with the total number of dwellings consented and completed within the Special Housing Areas.

Table 2. Overview of consented, completed and under construction dwellings in Special Housing Areas, 1 October 2013 – 30 June 2017

Description	Total in Special Housing Areas	Relative Affordable	Retained Affordable
Sites or dwellings approved through the qualifying development process	16,132	1353	2077
Sites/dwellings currently being processed through the qualifying development process	3116	238	718
Dwellings with building consent issued	5661	202	696
o Dwellings under construction	2504	104	214
o Dwellings with code of compliance certificates issued (completed dwellings)	3157	98	482

31. An overview of the status of each Special Housing Area has been included as Attachment A to this report.

Statutory declarations

32. As shown in Table 1 of this report, the purchaser of the relative affordable dwellings must complete a statutory declaration which is to be provided to the council when the property is sold. To date, Auckland Council has received 106 statutory declarations.

33. The investigation carried out by the Development Programme Office shows that 59 of those statutory declarations are for completed dwellings and 47 for dwellings still under construction (note that developers tend to sell dwellings before construction has commenced/completed in order to finance the development).

34. In addition, the Development Programme Office estimates that a further 40 relative affordable dwellings are completed and sold and have owners living in them, but statutory declarations are still to be provided to council.

35. Therefore it is estimated that to date, 147 relative affordable dwellings have been sold to first home buyers.

Update on Housing New Zealand developments in Special Housing Areas

36. Of the 47 Housing New Zealand Special Housing Areas, qualifying developments have been consented in 38 Special Housing Areas. Housing New Zealand has advised that the majority of these homes will be retained in Housing New Zealand ownership.

37. Table 3 below provides an overview of the Housing New Zealand dwellings that have been consented and constructed.

Table 3. Overview of Housing New Zealand consented and constructed dwellings, 1 October 2013 – 30 June 2017

Description	Count
Sites or dwellings approved through the qualifying development process	2006
Sites or dwellings currently being processed through the qualifying development process	819
Dwellings with building consent issued	396
o Dwellings under construction	188
o Dwellings with code of compliance certificates issued (dwellings completed)	208

Summary of typology of relative affordable dwellings where statutory declarations have been received.

38. Attachment B to this report shows the count of the typology being produced as relative affordable dwellings where statutory declarations have been provided to council.

39. To date, the majority of the relative affordable dwellings that have been sold to first home buyers are one-bedroom dwellings located in apartment buildings; however this is closely followed by two and three-bedroom dwellings in a mix of terraced houses/duplexes and stand-alone houses.

Summary of Typology of retained affordable dwellings

40. Housing New Zealand Corporation is the main developer providing the retained affordable dwelling. It is anticipated that the typology that has been provided reflects Housing New Zealand’s tenant demand.

41. The Waimahia Inlet development as a whole provides dwellings between 1.5 bedrooms up to 5 bedrooms in size. The dwellings that are currently available for purchase at Waimahia Inlet are 4-bedroom dwellings.

Affordable housing price point by local board comparison

42. House prices in Auckland for the 2013-2017 period have trended upwards. The average median house price for 2017 in Auckland is currently at $817,119 compared to $530,345 for 2013.

43. As at 30 June 2017, the affordable dwelling price point to meet the Special Housing Area relative affordability criteria for a specified proportion of homes to be sold at 75 per cent or less of the Auckland median house price was $618,750.

44. Attachment C shows the median price point per local board from 2013 to 2017 against the affordable housing price point within Special Housing Areas over the same period.

45. This shows that for a great majority of local boards, the relative affordable homes provided through the Special Housing Area process are below the median house price in that location.

Inactive Special Housing Areas

46. At the 1 August 2017 Planning Committee meeting, the Development Programme Office advised that 25 Special Housing Areas did not have any consenting activity carried out before the Special Housing Areas were disestablished.

47. Since the August Planning Committee meeting, the Development Programme Office have contacted a number of the developers of these Special Housing Areas, and compared the sites with the resource consent and building consent data.

48. The number of inactive Special Housing Areas has been reduced from 25 to 20 as it was found that five of these Special Housing Areas had gone through the Resource Management Act process.

49. The reasons provided for no activity occurring in these Special Housing Areas can be summarised as follows:

· The development did not stack up economically, (for example, cost of construction was too high)

· Deals with development partners did not progress

· Sites have been sold

· The developer has prioritised other developments.

Update on Iwi Special Housing Areas

50. Alexander Crescent, Ōtara – This development at Alexander Crescent, Otara did not progress through the Special Housing Area process. Kokiri Trust has been in discussions with the Development Programme Office’s Māori Housing Unit and has advised that the Trust is in the initial stages of the design process.

51. Ōrākei (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei) – The development at Kupe Street, Ōrākei by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Limited had a qualifying development consent approved for 30 dwellings to be retained in the ownership of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trustee Limited. These 30 dwellings are constructed and completed.

52. Hillary Cres, Belmont - Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Limited have a framework plan approved for 334 dwellings with 33 of those to be relative affordable. No building consents have yet been issued for this development at this stage.

53. Restall Road, Woodhill – The development at Restall Road, Woodhill did not progress through the Special Housing Area process. The Development Programme Office’s Māori Housing Unit advised the Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust that the initial development could continue to proceed through the Resource Management Act process through the Unitary Plan Treaty Settlement overlay, which enabled better development opportunity than the Special Housing Area process. As such, resource consent was lodged for 30 dwellings in July 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

54. Local board views were sought during the establishment phase of each tranche of Special Housing Areas. The Governing Body considered each tranche with feedback from local boards when determining which Special Housing Areas were to be recommended to the Minister of Building and Construction. Local board members were also appointed to the hearings panels considering plan changes.

Māori impact statement

55. As developers, mana whenua and mātāwaka have been involved in the Special Housing Area programme to build homes for their own use or for commercial purposes. Special Housing Areas provide an opportunity for such organisations to improve housing outcomes to meet the specific needs of their communities. Five Special Housing Areas have been established in response to requests from Māori organisations and have been approved at Alexander Crescent, Ōtara; Kahawai Point, Glenbrook Beach; Hillary Crescent, Belmont; Kupe Street, Ōrākei and Restall Road, Woodhill.

56. Council has also made provision for Special Housing Areas on Māori special purpose land, and for Māori 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.

57. Mana whenua feedback on Special Housing Areas was focussed on improving the quality and supply of housing for Māori communities. In later stages of the Special Housing Areas consenting process, cultural impact assessments were commissioned by developers to determine the potential effects of those developments on mana whenua values. Several hearings occurred for greenfield Special Housing Areas and commissioners with expertise in tikanga Māori were appointed to hear three applications at Hingaia, as well as applications at Scott Point, Kahawai Point, and Oruarangi (Māngere), as these sites involved coastal land or where there are sites of significance to Māori. All plan variation applications and qualifying developments complied with information requirements for cultural impact assessments.

Implementation

58. The further review on affordable housing was undertaken by the Development Programme Office, with assistance from Regulatory Services.

59. The delivery of the housing described in this report will require the upgrade or provision of the requisite infrastructure, funding for which comes from a variety sources (including rates and development contributions).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Special Housing Area dashboard - October 2017	139
b ⇩	Typology of completed relative affordable dwellings	143
c ⇩	Average and median house prices by local board area	145

Signatories

Author

John Dunshea - General Manager Development Programmes Office

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

[1] For the purpose of the Port Future Study, long-term is defined as beyond 2065, medium-term as 2040 to 2065 and short term as now to 2040.

[2] Multi-cargo cargo refers to break-bulk (timber, steel, ‘high and heavy’ machinery/trucks etc.), bulk (gypsum, cement, sand and aggregates, wheat, iron sand etc.), vehicles (new and used cars).

[3] Completions are defined as dwellings that have received a final building inspection or obtained a Code of Compliance Certificate. Completion numbers may understate the number of dwellings inhabited as residents may occupy a dwelling prior to the certificate of Code of Compliance being issued. Although this may not be lawful, it can occur in practice.

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 October 2017 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Schedule of October 2017 Planning Committee Workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Waterfront planning memo – climate change assumptions (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Supporting material for September Auckland Plan Refresh Workshops (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh Memo (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Update on East West Link Board of Inquiry Processes (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 14 documents (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 15 minutes (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 16 minutes (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 17 minutes (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 18 minutes (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Kalinda Gopal – Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy