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

Apologies from Cr R Clow and Cr S Stewart have 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, 10 October 2017 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.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been approved.

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 - Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - Proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna

Purpose

1. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Chair, Grant Gillon, will make a presentation to the Planning Committee regarding the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) thank Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Chair, Grant Gillon, for his presentation regarding the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna and thank him 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

07 November 2017

Auckland Plan refresh: Report on targeted engagement

File No.: CP2017/23065

Purpose

1. To provide a summary of how feedback received from targeted engagement with partners and stakeholders has been addressed in the development of the proposed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. There has been a range of engagement activity with partners and stakeholders throughout the refresh of the Auckland Plan.

3. The targeted phase between July and October 2017 sought feedback on the proposed strategic framework and the high-level areas of the Development Strategy. Engagement material included a proposed set of strategic directions and focus areas for each of the six outcome areas together with summary information.

4. This report outlines feedback received during the targeted engagement phase and notes how this feedback has been addressed in the development of the Auckland Plan (Attachment B).

5. There were 2600 items of feedback received from engagement with 105 stakeholders (Attachment A).

6. Phase one draft content for the Auckland Plan refresh is presented for the Planning Committee’s review and approval through another item on today’s agenda. The remaining draft content (phase two) will be presented to the committee for review and approval on 28 November 2017.

7. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and central government officials is ongoing. Further feedback received will be communicated to the Planning Committee at its meeting on 28 November 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the feedback from targeted engagement with local boards, partners and stakeholders for the Auckland Plan refresh and note how the feedback has been addressed in the development of the Auckland Plan.

b) note that staff will report back to stakeholders on how their feedback has been incorporated into the draft plan.

Comments

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

9. The committee also agreed to the following three main stakeholder engagement phases:

a. early engagement with the communities of Auckland on the refresh of the Auckland Plan

b. engagement with other key partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed plan

c. use of the Special Consultative Procedure for the draft refreshed plan, concurrent with consultations on the proposed content for the Long-term Plan 2018-28.

10. The first phase of engagement with communities of Auckland, partners and stakeholders occurred during May and June 2017. A report summarising feedback from this engagement was submitted to the 1 August 2017 Planning Committee meeting (PLA/ 2017/13025). That feedback served as early input into the direction of the draft plan.

11. This report provides a summary of feedback received from targeted engagement with partners and stakeholders between July and October 2017.

12. This phase sought feedback at a more technical, detailed level on the proposed strategic framework and high-level areas of the Development Strategy. Engagement material included summary information on each outcome area, and a proposed set of strategic directions and focus areas for each of the six outcome areas together with summary information, once this had been developed.

13. Engagement with partners and stakeholders occurred via workshops, meetings, hui and written correspondence. A list of the partners and stakeholders engaged is shown in Attachment A. Stakeholders that were engaged in this phase but not engaged during the early phase in May and June are highlighted.

14. Just over 2600 items of feedback were received by the time this report was compiled. This feedback was considered through the development and finalisation of the strategic framework, the narrative and other supporting material of the Auckland Plan.

15. While reports on feedback from local boards have already been provided to the Planning Committee, for completeness, this report also includes feedback from local boards.

16. Local boards will be advised how the feedback they provided was considered after the committee has made decisions on the draft content.

17. The key themes of the feedback and how the feedback has been reflected in the proposed draft plan that will be submitted to the committee for its consideration are shown in Attachment B. A high level summary of the feedback is shown in Attachment C.

18. Phase one draft content for the Auckland Plan is presented for the Planning Committee’s review and approval through another item on today’s agenda. The remaining draft content (phase two) will be presented to the committee for review and approval on 28 November 2017.

19. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka organisations, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and central government is ongoing. This report records all the feedback that had been considered by agenda close. Subsequent feedback will be highlighted to the committee at its meeting on 28 November 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. 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.

21. Formal resolutions provided by local boards were presented to the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017 (CP2017/14323) and 10 October 2017 (CP2017/20343).

22. For completeness this report includes all local board feedback.

Māori impact statement

23. The Auckland Plan and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori. The plan sets a comprehensive long-term strategy for Auckland’s growth and development.

24. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the draft refreshed Auckland Plan. The outcome focusses on advancing Māori well-being; promoting Māori success, innovation and enterprise; recognising and providing for Te Tiriti o Waitangi outcomes; and showcasing Auckland’s Māori identity and culture. In addition, matters of direct relevance to Māori are identified and appear throughout the plan, such as housing for example.

25. Engagement with mana whenua commenced in March 2017. There have been six hui held over the course of the year, focussing on key challenges and opportunities facing Auckland, and how the plan, including the Development Strategy, can best address these.

26. The feedback from this round of mana whenua engagement included the need for the plan to protect and advance the social, economic and cultural well-being of iwi, and the need for the plan to uphold the Treaty partnership. Other feedback included the need to protect mana whenua cultural sites and places, harbours and productive soils, and the need to plan for infrastructure to uplift and drive Māori values.

27. There has been engagement with mataawaka. This was based on engaging with Māori organisations, which in turn used their networks to provide informed feedback. Engagement with mataawaka organisations continues.

28. The feedback from this round of mataawaka engagement included the aims of the network of public health agencies to work towards equity in Māori well-being in the urban context, and the importance of Auckland Council’s role and leverage in public health policy, planning and regulation that impacts on this. Other feedback included the need for dwellings that are healthy and that can cater for multi-generational needs.

29. The feedback received continues to be considered in the development and finalisation of the narrative and other supporting material of the draft refreshed Auckland Plan.

30. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has provided formal feedback on early drafts of the proposed Auckland Plan. This feedback is being considered as the plan is finalised and a response will be provided.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: AP Refresh partners and stakeholders engaged July - October 2017	13
b ⇩	Attachment B: Summary Targeted Feedback	17
c ⇩	Attachment C AP Refresh Summary targeted feedback July-October 2017	45

Signatories

Authors

Azeem Khan - Principal Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Denise O’Shaunessy – Manager Strategic Avice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Digital Auckland Plan and approval of draft content

File No.: CP2017/22112

Purpose

1. To approve phase one draft content of the Auckland Plan, so that the digital plan can be built and delivered in time for public consultation starting 28 February 2018.

Executive summary

2. At its 28 March 2017 meeting the Planning Committee made initial decisions on the scope of the Auckland Plan refresh.

3. The direction to staff was to develop a streamlined, spatial plan and to undertake targeted pre-engagement with stakeholders.

4. The decision was also made that the new Auckland Plan would be a digital plan.

5. Since then staff have workshopped all aspects of the Auckland Plan refresh with the Planning Committee and local board representatives.

6. During September and October 2017, digital prototypes were developed to show elected members what a digital Auckland Plan will look like, and to assist with user testing and other technical testing, before the full build of the digital plan begins.

7. The Planning Committee workshop on 30 October 2017 provided elected members with the opportunity to discuss some phase one draft content. The workshop also included a quick tour of a digital prototype so that elected members could see and understand the initial design, structure and usability of the digital plan.

8. To make sure the draft Auckland Plan is ready for formal public consultation which starts on 28 February 2018, building of the full digital plan must start now (Attachment A sets out the digital plan build timeline).

9. To support this, some phase one draft content of the plan is presented to the committee today for review and approval (Attachment B).

10. Phase one draft content includes the Transport and Access and Belonging and Participation outcomes, together with some supporting information.

11. Remaining draft content (phase two) will be presented to the Planning Committee at its 28 November 2017 meeting for review and approval, and to the Governing Body on 14 December 2017.

12. Public consultation, which runs from 28 February 2018 to 28 March 2018, will inform both the final content of the Auckland Plan and any final digital design, web and mobile technical requirements or user specifications.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Auckland Plan phase one draft content for the Transport and Access, and Belonging and Participation outcomes as shown in Attachment B of the agenda report.

b) note the building of the digital Auckland Plan will start in November to ensure it is ready for public consultation commencing 28 February 2018.

c) delegate authority to the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of Environment and Community Committee and the Chair of Finance and Performance Committee, to review and approve any changes to the draft Auckland Plan for consultation which are required as a result of feedback from this meeting or the 28 November 2017 Planning Committee meeting.

Comments

Context

13. Auckland Council is legislatively required to develop a spatial plan for Auckland and, as a plan for Auckland, must involve stakeholders and partners in its preparation.

14. The first Auckland Plan, adopted in 2012, made a commitment to review the plan after six years. This decision recognised that whilst the Auckland Plan had a 30-year horizon, rapid change and growth in Auckland was likely to result in new challenges and opportunities, which would need to be reflected.

15. It was agreed by the Planning Committee on 28 March 2017 that the scope of the Auckland Plan refresh would encompass the delivery of a streamlined spatial plan and that the new Auckland Plan would be a digital plan.

16. There have been significant changes across Auckland since 2012, including population change and growth, greater environmental pressures, and increasing levels of deprivation. During this period the current Auckland Plan provided direction in some significant areas, such as setting the growth model for Auckland, which in turn provided direction to the Unitary Plan. The Auckland Plan also built the strategic case and momentum for the City Rail Link.

17. In addition, over the last six years lessons have been learned from implementing the current Auckland Plan. This includes what works well, such as the high level direction it provides on Auckland’s growth, and what could be more effective, e.g. a simpler and more accessible structure and the ability to update the plan in real time.

18. A digital Auckland Plan will address some of these limitations, by enabling a more flexible and responsive plan. For example, when new 2018 census data becomes available in early 2019 the digital Auckland Plan can be updated to include the most current data.

19. The refreshed Auckland Plan has been developed in consultation with elected members and key stakeholders. As a result, the new Plan includes:

· context information that outlines what the Auckland Plan is, Auckland’s role in New Zealand, and the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to Auckland.

· six outcomes that integrate social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives to set a 30 year strategic direction for Auckland;

- Belonging and Participation (people)

- Transport and Access (transport)

- Homes and Places (housing)

- Environment and Cultural Heritage (environment)

- Māori Identity and Wellbeing (Māori)

- Opportunity and Prosperity (economy, education, skills and jobs)

· a high-level Development Strategy that sets out how Auckland will grow and develop over the next 30 years. The new development strategy also includes development capacities and the sequencing of development in response to the legislative requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

· implementation approach

· measures.

20. All of the key elements of the Auckland Plan, including directions and focus areas, the development strategy, measures and implementation, have been workshopped with the Planning Committee and local board representatives between February and October 2017.

21. During 2017, there has also been engagement with central government, mana whenua and mataawaaka, infrastructure providers and business and community partners to inform the development of the plan.

Prototype digital Auckland Plan

22. During September and October 2017, prototypes were developed to craft the visual design, determine technical specifications and carry out user testing for the digital Auckland Plan.

23. The Auckland Plan mihi is included at the start of the homepage. This recognises the significance of the gift of the mihi to Auckland, and also provides an important welcome to people as they first enter the digital plan.

24. Key design elements from the existing Auckland Plan, such as the journey lines and the Auckland Plan logo have been incorporated into the digital plan, creating continuity between the plans. This reflects that the Auckland Plan is a plan for all Auckland, not simply an Auckland Council plan, and acknowledges the contribution made by the many Aucklanders and organisations to the first Auckland Plan.

25. The initial prototype was used for a short period of user testing in mid-October to inform digital plan specifications and the second prototype.

26. The second prototype was presented and workshopped with the Planning Committee and local board representatives on 30 October 2017.

Phase one draft Auckland Plan content

27. To make sure the digital plan is ready for consultation from 28 February 2018, staff must start building the full digital plan website. A detailed timeline of the digital plan build programme is provided as Attachment A.

28. The structure of the digital Auckland Plan, number of digital pages and layers, and links between content is determined by the draft content of the plan, including maps and graphics. Unlike a printed plan this information is required well in advance to inform the structure, technical requirements and coding of the digital plan.

29. To enable the build of the digital plan for consultation, some phase one draft content is presented to the committee today in printed format for review and approval (Attachment B).

30. Phase one draft content includes information for the Transport and Access and Belonging and Participation outcomes, together with supporting information. The content reflects all stakeholder engagement to date.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan as co-governors of Auckland Council, and by communicating local views to the Governing Body, providing input into regional strategies, policies, and plans.

32. Local board views have been sought throughout the preparation and development of the digital Auckland Plan.

33. Reports were presented to the 1 August and 10 October 2017 Planning Committee meetings outlining local board feedback and views.

Māori impact statement

34. The Auckland Plan and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori. The plan sets a comprehensive long-term strategy for Auckland’s growth and development. The council provides opportunities for Māori engagement and supports 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.

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

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

37. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has provided formal feedback on earlier versions of the draft Auckland Plan content. Staff are reviewing and responding to this feedback and will provide a full response to the Board once the review is complete.

Implementation

Next steps

38. Remaining draft content (phase two) for the new Auckland Plan will be presented to the Planning Committee at the 28 November 2017 meeting for review and approval.

39. Content will be presented in printed format. This will include:

· overall contextual information

· the remaining four outcomes areas (Homes and Places, Environment and Cultural Heritage, Māori Identity and Wellbeing, Opportunity and Prosperity)

· all sections of the Development Strategy

· the implementation approach

· measures.

40. There will also be a short summary or overview document for approval which will be used to support public consultation.

41. The Planning Committee has previously agreed to consultation on the draft Auckland Plan being undertaken concurrently with the draft Long-term Plan 2018. The approach to this will be discussed with the Finance and Performance Committee on 15 November.

42. The topics and draft questions for the Auckland Plan consultation will be presented for review and approval at the 28 November Planning Committee meeting.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Digital Auckland Plan Timeline	57
b ⇩	Phase one draft content	59

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Avondale High Level Project Plan

File No.: CP2017/17513

Purpose

1. To outline the content and seek Planning Committee adoption of the Unlock Avondale High Level Project Plan (HLPP).

Executive summary

2. The HLPP seeks to unlock the considerable potential of Avondale. It is the central project initiation document used to undertake a strategic analysis of an area and develop specific goals, key strategic moves and project initiatives. The HLPP builds on earlier work and current plans including the Whau Local Board Plan 2017 and the Avondale Action Plan 2013.

3. Avondale represents a major intensification and revitalisation opportunity for Auckland. The town centre occupies a strategic location with good infrastructure, services and facilities. The area has a number of large development-ready sites and there is market demand for different housing types including terraces and apartments. The Avondale Train Station is an important transport asset supporting redevelopment as it provides convenient access to the city’s train network.

4. Panuku will play a lead role in orchestrating the urban regeneration of Avondale. We will utilise surplus council land and strategic acquisitions to facilitate development that creates momentum for change in the area. This includes enabling development on 1815 – 1823 Great North Road (existing resolution to dispose) and 93 and 99 Rosebank Road (resolution to dispose sought).

5. We will create the environment to bring the private sector and the Crown together to achieve a suitable mix of housing, public realm improvements and services. This will support the vitality of the centre and grow local business. Panuku will work with council to relocate and update the community facilities and to improve public spaces and connections. Our place activation, working with the community, will help us deliver on the vision of a strong vibrant centre in which growing communities want to live, work and play, building on Avondale’s good accessibility, train station, schools and environment.

6. Development opportunities identified within the HLPP have the ability to create significant additional residential capacity. The final number of housing units will depend on design, typology and market demand. Development of these sites for housing will increase amenity, vibrancy, safety, connectivity and economic sustainability of the town centre and demonstrate to the wider development industry that quality medium density developments in a suburban location can be successfully achieved.

7. Avondale is one of the 10 Spatial Priority Areas identified in the Auckland Plan. It will contribute to Strategic Directive 10 of the Auckland Plan by increasing the number of dwellings in the area and creating a well-connected, quality town centre that local residents take pride in.

8. Panuku, through its development partners, has a track record of enabling quality development in Avondale on surplus council sites. This includes the construction of 72 apartments at 24-26 Racecourse Parade (including 7 affordable houses), 33 homes at 1 Trent Street (including 21 affordable houses) and a further 102 social houses proposed at 96 St George Street by Housing New Zealand. The HLPP will drive the urban regeneration of Avondale Town Centre. To have a real and lasting strategic impact the scale of development will need to be significantly increased.

9. Panuku seeks to continue to work with Housing New Zealand to achieve quality outcomes in Avondale. Housing New Zealand is a major land owner in the area and has indicated that it is looking to develop its large sites. As part of a co-ordinated, holistic approach to development we are seeking resolutions to enable Panuku to initiate the reserve revocation and road stopping processes to better organise open space and existing roads within the Highbury Triangle area.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the Unlock Avondale High Level Project Plan as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) endorse Panuku as Auckland Council’s lead delivery agency for Avondale.

c) authorise Panuku to dispose the Auckland Council owned property listed below should this site be no longer required for community facilities:

i) 93-99 Rosebank Road, Avondale (Lot 1 DP 68893 - CT NA25A/557 and Pt Lot 26 DP 177, Pt Lot 26 Allotment 7 Parish of Titirangi, Pt Lot 1 DP 8900 – CT NA133/52, NA133/53, NA218/152 (All Part-Cancelled))

ii) subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes and agreement that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

d) authorise Panuku to initiate the process of revoking the reserve status of the Tait Park (103-109 Rosebank Road Pt Lot 1 & Lot 2 DP 21092 NA475/232, NA46A/901) and the road stopping of Community Lane to enable better development outcomes, subject to statutory processes.

e) note that the Finance and Performance Committee will need to approve the disposal of the property in c) above and as referenced in the High Level Project Plan.

Comments

10. The geographical scope of the project covers the central Avondale area, more specifically:

· The primary retail area of Great North Road and the commercial area to the east between the retail strip and the Avondale Train Station;

· The Avondale central block which contains the Central Reserve, Housing New Zealand owned land on Racecourse Parade and other key development sites;

· The Highbury Triangle block which is bordered by Rosebank Road, Ash Street and Great North Road and contains the existing library and community centre, Housing New Zealand land and a vacant council owned residential site; and

· The Avondale Racecourse.

11. The Council has a number of landholdings within the Avondale town centre as illustrated on the attached map. The yellow shading indicates properties owned by council, green indicates council owned reserves, dark pink shows large development sites owned by Housing New Zealand and the orange highlights important development sites currently in private ownership. The total project area is 68 ha.

12. Avondale was chosen for regeneration as an unlock location due to the suitability of the area for intensification and the potential benefits that urban development would have in this location. To achieve this potential the following issues need to be addressed:

· The large site in the middle of the town centre (1909-1949 Great North Road also known as the Bai site) has been vacant since the late 1990’s. This results in a lack of continuity of the town centre and a perception that the centre lacks vibrancy.

· The existing community facility on Rosebank Road is not fit for purpose and the library is unlikely to be able to cater for future growth in the catchment.

· There is a weak connection between the Avondale Train Station and the main street.

· There is a disconnected local street network.

· There is insufficient council owned recreation space.

· The connection between the Whau River and the town centre could be improved.

13. A number of Strategic Moves have been developed for Avondale. These draw from previous planning work on the centre and move the project from strategy to implementation.

Strategic Move 1: Enliven the heart of Avondale town centre

14. We will seek out opportunities to bring new life to under-utilized land, upgrade the town square and develop a multi-use community facility.

15. To enable regeneration there is a need to address the identified gap in activity on Great North Road and refocus the Avondale town centre. There is also a need to encourage the development of large vacant or underutilised sites that degrade the overall quality of the town centre. The following initiatives are proposed:

· Seek good development outcomes on the central development sites (1909 – 1949 Great North Road and 1907 Great North Road) through advocacy, negotiation or acquisition.

· Support the building of a new multipurpose community facility in Avondale. This is an opportunity to create a vibrant heart where the Avondale community can access many services including the library, community centre, active recreation, and local events.

· Support the upgrading of existing open space areas including an upgraded town square, facilitate improvements to open space within the Highbury Triangle area and an upgrade of facilities within the Central Reserve.

16. Council has supported a business case for the relocation of the library and community centre to a central Avondale location. Once funding for this facility is secured through the Long Term Plan, Panuku will seek to confirm an appropriate site for this facility. This would then create an opportunity to enable development on 93 & 99 Rosebank Road to secure a financial return and support urban regeneration. A resolution is sought to dispose of this site should it no longer be required for community facilities.

17. These initiatives would help to bring focus to the town centre and better align the town centre with the Avondale Train Station. They will also provide a catalyst to attract and support quality development within the wider Avondale area.

Strategic Move 2: Create high quality residential neighbourhoods

18. We will champion the building of quality new residential areas through the development of council owned land and working with other land owners.

19. Avondale has the ability to contribute significantly to Auckland housing needs by enabling additional housing stock and demonstrating how this stock can be provided in a way that supports wider strategic aims including intensification. Primarily this will be through a medium density housing type model, which is not the current predominant form of development in the area. To ensure quality housing is delivered at pace it is important that Panuku creates momentum for change and developers are given support and guidance by council agencies. Developing a delivery programme will be critical to the speed and quality of house construction.

20. The successful regeneration of Avondale will require effective and aligned decision making by a number of landowners. A group of key council and crown agencies was assembled to work on an update of the existing concept plan. Mode Architects were jointly instructed by Panuku and Housing New Zealand Corporation and workshops were held to better understand the needs and development aspirations of these parties. The process has been very useful for enabling open communication, identifying development aspirations, opportunities for collaboration, important road linkages and enabling early funding discussions. Options to relocate open space and roads to improve overall development option are also being explored and a resolution is sought to authorise Panuku to initiate this process should an appropriate agreement be reached with Housing New Zealand. This engagement will continue throughout the project.

21. Panuku, through its development partners, has a track record of enabling quality development in Avondale on surplus council sites. This includes the construction of 72 apartments at 24-26 Racecourse Parade (including 7 affordable houses), 33 homes at 1 Trent Street (including 21 affordable houses) and a further 102 social houses proposed at 96 St George Street by Housing New Zealand.

22. Panuku will continue to utilise its landholdings to create positive development opportunities. This includes the site at 1815 -1823 Great North Road. The existing dwellings on this site have been removed and due diligence completed. There is an existing council resolution to sell the site. Once amalgamated titles have been obtained Panuku will be taking this site to market.

The Avondale Racecourse

23. The Avondale Racecourse is well located to the town centre and it provides an attractive outlook and contributes to the character of the area. The Avondale Jockey Club has subdivided and sold a number of different parcels of land from the original landholding to enable racing to continue on the site. The horse racing element of the racecourse has however been in decline for some time and may not be sustainable in the medium term.

24. There is a risk that this land could continue to be sold and developed in a piecemeal way that does not support community aspirations or the regeneration and housing objectives of the HLPP. For example sale of the land for bulk retail activities or standalone housing product would not optimise the opportunity for Avondale. It is also important that the recreational uses such as access to sports fields is secured long term. Continued sale of sections of land from the overall land holding will degrade the strategic value of the site and make a quality master planned form of development harder to achieve.

25. Panuku will look for opportunities to secure certainty over the long term future of the Avondale Racecourse and the playing fields leased by the council, by continuing to work with key stakeholders such as the Avondale Jockey Club and the council family to seek positive outcomes.

Strategic Move 3: Strengthen connections with the town centre

26. We will work with key stakeholders to improve the physical links between the town centre and activity hubs including the train station and cycleways.

27. It is important that the town centre maximises the benefit of existing and planned investment in transport infrastructure and considers the long term development pattern for the area. The Avondale Train Station is a key strategic asset for the area and there is an opportunity to improve pedestrian access to it. There is also a need to work with key stakeholders to improve the local street network in a way that takes into account any future development of the Avondale Racecourse. The following initiatives are proposed;

· Pedestrian and cycle connection improvement to the northern side of Crayford St West to strengthen legibility and access between the train station and the town centre on Great North Road.

· Extension of Crayford St West as a two-way street along the Central Reserve, to improve the activation of this area, support new community facilities if located here, and future connection to the racecourse.

· Incorporate new street links in HNZ and Council development sites to optimise the walkability of an intensified residential neighbourhood.

· Pedestrian and cycle connection improvement on Wingate Street to strengthen legibility and access between the Avondale main street and Te Whau pathway.

· Future proof connections into the Avondale Racecourse to improve the permeability of this large urban block.

Strategic Move 4: Foster the growth of local businesses

28. We will work in partnership with the local board and community to implement a retail strategy that attracts new businesses, increasing diversity of products and services.

29. Regeneration requires strong local business investment to improve the viability of the retail offer. Strong local businesses and an interesting town centre that meet the needs of new and existing residents will be an important factor to providing a town centre that is fit for purpose and provides enduring benefits for the existing community. The following initiatives are proposed:

· Deliver place-making and other initiatives to improve town centre perception and business growth.

· Demonstrate leadership by introducing new retail and commercial spaces to activate important public spaces.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. On-going consultation with the Whau Local Board has been undertaken to ensure the Unlock Avondale HLPP and subsequent projects are consistent with the views of the Local Board. The Whau Local Board has formally endorsed the Avondale High Level Project Plan.

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua will play an integrated cultural, social and economic role in unlocking the potential of Avondale. Engagement with mana whenua has contributed to defining the strategy. Mana whenua have a strong historical footprint in Avondale and seek to build on this association through involvement in development which recognises their values and draws on Te Aranga design principles. Increasingly, as Treaty Settlements are reached, mana whenua through cultural and commercial redress can be leaders in the revitalisation and place making. It is important that their input into decision-making processes enables these opportunities for mana whenua contribution within the market and does not foreclose them. Opportunities may extend to joint ventures, land purchase and development.

32. The 12 Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua iwi and hapū listed below have interests in the broader Avondale area. Panuku will endeavour to work in partnership with these iwi/hapū towards best care for land, water and people throughout planning and implementation of land development in Avondale.

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti te Ata

· Ngaati Whanaunga

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Rehua

· Waikato-Tainui

· Te Ahiwaru

33. Mana whenua engagement on the Unlock Avondale project has resulted in the articulation of a cultural narrative specific to the area. The cultural narrative provides a very high level touch point on the association of mana whenua with Avondale and the wider surrounding area. It is envisaged that the cultural narrative provides context for on-going discussion with the mana whenua as part of future implementation and in particular through:

· The expression of mana whenua cultural associations

· Pursuing development consistent with Te Aranga Design, in conjunction with mana whenua principles and guidance.

· That a people-centred environment is favoured that supports community building and an awareness and respect for the natural environment.

· That improved stormwater management should be an integral and visible part of the projects.

Implementation

34. A number of specific projects have been identified through the development of the HLPP. These projects relate to the management of council’s property portfolio in the area. They detail how the sale of excess council land could be used to facilitate positive regeneration outcomes and detail sites where acquisition may be appropriate.

35. To protect the Council’s position in any future property negotiations a number of these projects remain confidential at this stage and are not included in this open report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Unlock Avondale High Level Project Plan	113
b ⇩	Project Area	137

Signatories

Author

John Carter - Senior Project planning Leader

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Auckland Council's submission on the proposed Northland Regional Plan

File No.: CP2017/22797

Purpose

1. To endorse a draft submission on the Proposed Northland Regional Plan and to delegate authority to the Planning Committee Chair and Environment and Community Committee Chair to review and approve council’s final submission.

Executive summary

2. The Northland Regional Council has notified the Proposed Northland Regional Plan (‘the Plan’) for submissions. The Plan sets out policies and rules for managing fresh water, land, air and the coast in Northland.

3. As the natural environment does not recognise local government administrative boundaries, where practical, similar cross boundary approaches are important to ensure that wider catchment effects are appropriately managed.

4. A draft submission has been prepared by council staff. The draft submission generally supports the Plan and identifies several key themes of effects arising from activities or natural processes within the Northland region that could cross or migrate into the Auckland region. They are:

· Genetically modified organisms. In the event that genetically modified organism provisions are incorporated into the Plan through the submissions process, that the provisions align with those within the Auckland Unitary Plan, and Auckland Council be given the opportunity to comment and respond to these provisions.

· Spreading of invasive marine pests. The inclusion of rules regarding hull bio-fouling and in-water vessel hull and niche area cleaning are supported, as a similar approach was taken in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Clarification is sought regarding the exception for the Kaipara Harbour. It appears to have a more permissive approach than the rest of the region.

· Open air burning of potentially toxic compounds. A number of potentially toxic compounds and materials are included in the rule for ‘Outdoor burning - non-complying activity.’ There is no explicit policy recognition of the impact on human health and the environment from outdoor burning of such materials. Given that the open burning of such materials can lead to the release of air pollutants and hazardous by-products, staff consider this issue to be a cross-boundary matter and that they should be a prohibited activity.

· Vegetation clearance. The Plan permits any amount of vegetation clearance outside margins of natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and streams, coastal hazard management areas, and highly erodible land. Up to 5000m²of woody indigenous vegetation per year on highly erodible land may be cleared, subject to standards managing the risk of flood flows, and receiving water quality. Much of the mapped areas of ‘highly erodible land’ within the Northland region are along coastal margins, or near a water body which could drain to the Kaipara Harbour. This represents a potentially significant cross-boundary issue for the Auckland region.

5. To provide greater clarity and workability of the Plan, staff also suggest the definition of ‘coastal hazard management area’ be amended. The inclusion of ‘hazard’ in the definition gives an impression that it defines the area of ‘hazard’.

6. Staff support the following provisions in the Plan:

i) matters in the Plan which respond to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and take a generally consistent approach to the Auckland Unitary Plan and so provide for integrated management of the coastal environment across regional boundaries

ii) the inclusion of stock exclusion rules, particularly the exclusion of stock from the coastal marine area, as this will exclude stock from the Kaipara Harbour foreshore and consequential cross boundary sedimentation in the Kaipara Harbour

iii) reference to Auckland Council’s GD05^{^[1]}best practice guideline for earthworks as a required standard for permitted earthworks in the Northland region, as this will clarify expectations for large-scale earthworks design and management which cross the Northland and Auckland region boundaries.

7. Attachment A provides a draft submission on the Proposed Northland Regional Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the draft Auckland Council submission as council’s response to the Proposed Northland Regional Plan;

b) authorise the Planning Committee Chair and the Environment and Community Committee Chair to review and approve council’s final submission on the Proposed Northland Regional Plan.

Comments

Background

8. Prior to the notification of the Proposed Northland Regional Plan, Auckland Council staff provided feedback on the draft Northland Regional Plan in October 2016.

9. The Proposed Northland Regional Plan represents Northland Regional Council’s approach to managing Northland’s fresh water, land, air and the coast. This new single regional plan replaces the current three regional plans on air quality, coastal plan and water and soil plan. Northland Regional Council has taken the position that the purpose of the Plan is a rule book with policies to guide resource consent processes. It contains little optional content such as issues, explanations, methods (other than rules) and assessment criteria.

10. The Plan could impact on Auckland’s land, air, fresh water and coastal water resources adjoining the northern boundary of the Auckland region.

Submission

11. Auckland Council’s submission generally supports the Plan and seeks amendments on the following key themes that arise from activities or natural processes within the Northland region that may potentially cross or migrate into the Auckland region.

Genetically modified organisms

12. It is acknowledged that the Plan does not contain provisions regulating genetically modified organisms as there are active appeals on the proposed genetically modified organism provisions in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland; and that the Northland Regional Council will review whether a plan change (to the regional plan) is necessary once the appeals have concluded.

13. However, as the natural environment does not recognise local government administrative boundaries, the release of genetically modified organisms into Northland and potential effects arising from migration of genetically modified organisms across the regional boundary into Auckland is an important issue.

14. It is proposed that, in the event that genetically modified organism provisions are incorporated into the Plan through the submissions process, such provisions be based on the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions and that Auckland Council be given the opportunity to comment and respond to these provisions.

Spreading of invasive marine pests

15. Marine pests are a potential cross-boundary issue as invasive species could spread between regions through vessel movement. The inclusion of rules regarding hull bio-fouling and in-water vessel hull and niche area cleaning are supported, as a similar approach was taken in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

16. It appears that if a vessel is entering Northland in the Kaipara Harbour, it is a permitted activity if a vessel had no more than light fouling the last time it was in the harbour, with no limit on how long it has been away or on where it has been in that time. If the intention of the clause is that it applies to vessels that stay within the harbour, but leave Northland by going into the Auckland part of the harbour, it is suggested that this be made clearer in the Plan.

17. It is also suggested that clarification should be made regarding Rule C.1.7.6 which specifies that the discharge of contaminants through passive release of biofouling from a vessel hull and niche areas, is a discretionary activity, unless it is a permitted activity or authorised under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The Plan does not actually state that a discharge authorised under the Biosecurity Act is a ‘permitted activity’ although that is implied.

Open air burning of potentially toxic compounds

18. It is a concern that a number of potentially toxic compounds and materials are included in rule C.7.1.9 ‘Outdoor burning - non-complying activity.’ There is no explicit policy recognition of the impact on human health and the environment from outdoor burning of such materials. Given that the open burning of such materials can lead to the release of air pollutants and hazardous by-products, staff consider this issue to be a cross-boundary matter.

19. Open burning of agricultural plastics can lead to the release of heavy metals, dioxins and furans. The last two groups are of the greatest concern because they are formed in instances of low combustion temperatures (such as those associated with open burning). These chemicals are a health concern even in very small quantities, being associated with endocrine disruption, heart disease, cognitive and motor disabilities, as well as being a known human carcinogen. Exposure to these pollutants occurs not only through direct inhalation but also through ingestion of contaminated plants or animals.

20. Staff are particularly concerned about air pollution as a result of discharge of farm plastics (agriwraps and chemical containers) given that typical farms produce tonnes of waste on a yearly basis and this represents a potentially significant cross-boundary issue for the Auckland region.

21. It is suggested that any open air burning of toxic compounds is an activity that should be prohibited rather than non-complying. Staff are of the opinion that providing for the burning of farm plastics and other potentially toxic compounds as a non-complying activity does not adequately promote the alternatives for recycling that are increasingly available.

22. Changing the activity status for the outdoor burning of materials as listed under proposed rule C.7.1.9 from non-complying to prohibited would better reflect the awareness and understanding of the damage to health and environment that this presents.

Vegetation clearance

23. More permissive rules within the Northland region for the clearance of (indigenous) vegetation within coastal hazard management areas, and clearance of native woody vegetation on ‘highly erodible land’ may present cross boundary issues with the Auckland region. The Auckland Unitary Plan permits the removal of up to 250m² indigenous vegetation across all rural areas, over a 10 year period. This is a positive measure to retain areas of indigenous biodiversity outside identified ecological overlays, and to recognise the ecosystem services that vegetation provides in retaining soil, reducing erosion and water runoff.

24. The Plan permits any amount of vegetation clearance outside of the margins of natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and streams, coastal hazard management areas, and highly erodible land. Up to 5000m² of woody indigenous vegetation per year on highly erodible land may be cleared, subject to standards managing the risk of flood flows, and receiving water quality. Much of the mapped areas of ‘highly erodible land’ within the Northland region are along coastal margins, or near a water body which could drain to the Kaipara Harbour. This represents a potentially significant cross-boundary issue for the Auckland region.

25. Staff suggest that the threshold to clear native woody vegetation on highly erodible land (if the cleared area is not replanted with woody vegetation) should be amended from 5000m² to 200m² (consistent with the permitted threshold for clearance near freshwater bodies in the Plan). Clarity is also sought on the relationship between ‘Highly erodible land’ as defined in the Plan and ‘erosion prone land’, in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland.

Improve workability of the Plan

26. Staff suggest that the definition of ‘coastal hazard management area’ be amended as the inclusion of ‘hazard’ in the definition gives an impression that it defines the area of ‘hazard’. A more relevant term would be ‘dune protection area’ or ‘coastal riparian management area’.

Support for various matters

27. Staff support the inclusion of matters in the Plan which respond to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and take a generally consistent approach to the Auckland Unitary Plan and so provide for integrated management of the coastal environment across regional boundaries.

28. The inclusion of stock exclusion rules, particularly the exclusion of stock from the coastal marine area, is supported as this will exclude stock from the Kaipara Harbour foreshore and consequential cross boundary sedimentation into the Kaipara Harbour. Exclusion of stock from the coastal marine area is supported as it is not covered in the stock exclusion regulation currently being developed by the Ministry for the Environment.

29. Reference to Auckland Council’s GD05^{^[2]}best practice guideline for earthworks as a required standard for permitted earthworks in the Northland region is supported as this will clarify expectations for large-scale earthworks design and management which cross the Northland and Auckland region boundaries.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Local Boards were informed that the Proposed Northland Regional Plan was notified for submissions and that Auckland Council would potentially submit on cross boundary issues. The project team received a request from the Rodney Local Board to view the draft submission and provide comments. Rodney Local Board advised that they did not have any substantive feedback. Board Member Brenda Steele noted that she supports the submission.

Māori impact statement

31. A memo outlining the high-level staff analysis of the Plan was sent to Mana Whenua representatives in September 2017. The memo invited Mana Whenua to provide their observations that they wanted included in council’s submission. One Mana Whenua representative advised that they would provide further observations for the Auckland Council submission. To date no comments have been provided to the project team.

32. From extensive engagement undertaken throughout the preparation of the Auckland Unitary Plan, Mana Whenua identified concerns that processes and activities relating to land, air, freshwater and the coast can adversely affect the relationships of Mana Whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral taonga. Issues of concern include:

· air quality e.g. adverse effects of contaminants on important food processes, in particular puha and watercress

· effects of land disturbing activities adjacent to waterbodies

· degradation of water quality e.g. sewage and stormwater discharges into waterways

· protection of coastal resources e.g. birds and fish.

These issues of concern have been used as a reference point to assist in identifying matters within the Plan that could be submitted on.

Watercare Services Limited

33. Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) owns and operates the public water and wastewater assets in Auckland and is responsible for water supply and wastewater services to the majority of Aucklanders. Watercare is also required to maintain the long-term integrity of its assets to ensure safe and reliable water supply and wastewater services.

34. Watercare acknowledges Northland Regional Council’s Proposed Regional Plan and would like to confirm that it does not have any concerns with this proposed plan.

Implementation

35. It is recommended that the final submission be provided to the Chairs of Planning and Environment and Community Committees for review and approval prior to lodging with the Northland Regional Council on 15 November 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Auckland Council submisson to the Northland Regional Plan	145

Signatories

Author

Debra Yan – Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Historic Heritage Schedule (Errors, Anomalies and Information Update)

File No.: CP2017/22693

Purpose

1. To seek approval to publicly notify a proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps to amend 145 historic heritage places to correct errors and anomalies, and update information.

Executive summary

2. A plan change is proposed to Chapter L Schedules, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps (Schedule 14) of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).

3. The proposed plan change seeks to correct errors and anomalies, and to update information for 145 already scheduled historic heritage places, by amending information in Schedule 14 and/or the GIS viewer/planning maps.

4. The places subject to the proposed plan change are recognised primarily for their built heritage values.

5. The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) provides for a rule in a proposed plan to have immediate legal effect in certain circumstances, including if the rule protects historic heritage^{^[3]}. The council can resolve to delay the point at which heritage-related plan changes have legal effect, however staff do not consider that there are any reasons why the council should depart from the standard process under the Act.

6. Staff have not contacted the owners and occupiers of the properties to which the proposed plan change relates, however the owners and occupiers will receive a letter at the point the proposed plan change is notified, informing them of the proposed plan change, and will be able to make a submission should they choose to do so.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the public notification of the proposed plan change to amend 145 historic heritage places in Schedule 14 to correct errors and anomalies, and to update information, included as Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to the agenda report.

b) endorse the section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment 4 to the agenda report.

c) agree that the proposed plan change should have immediate legal effect from the date of public notification.

d) endorse the decision to notify owners and occupiers of land affected by the proposed plan change at the same time as the proposed plan change is publicly notified.

e) delegate to the Heritage Manager the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change, if required, in advance of public notification

Comments

Background

7. The AUP contains objectives, policies and rules to protect significant historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. The AUP method to achieve this protection is primarily focused on Schedule 14, which identifies and recognises historic heritage places, and includes these places in the Historic Heritage Overlay. Historic heritage places are also mapped in the GIS viewer/planning maps.

8. Council staff and the public have identified errors in the AUP. In 2016, the Governing Body directed staff to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any technical matters and property anomalies relating to the AUP (GB/2016/201).

9. In response, council staff undertook a systematic review of Schedule 14 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. Where there was scope, council amended errors through Clause 16 and 20A of Schedule 1 of the Act (e.g. spelling, grammar, referencing and numbering errors).

10. In March 2017, the Planning Committee approved the first Administrative Plan Change to the AUP in order to progress the correction of technical matters and anomalies beyond the scope of the Clause 16 or Clause 20A processes of the Act (PLA/2017/40)^{^[4]}. The committee noted the possibility that future plan change/s may be required to address matters outside the scope of the Administrative Plan Change to enable the AUP to be effective. Places with errors that are outside the scope of that plan change are the subject of this plan change.

11. Historic heritage places identified in the overlay predominantly for their archaeological or Māori heritage values are subject to a different work programme and are expected to be the subject of future plan change processes.

12. Not all historic heritage places with known errors are included in this plan change. Furthermore, it is anticipated that errors will continue to be identified and will require correction through future plan change processes.

13. The plan change seeks to correct errors and anomalies, and to update information for 145 historic heritage places in the AUP, by amending the information in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage (Schedule 14.1) and/or the GIS viewer/planning maps.

14. Each historic heritage place included in the plan change has, as part of a previous process, been evaluated for its historic heritage significance (RPS Policy B5.2.2.(3)). These places are already included within the AUP Historic Heritage Overlay, and identified in Schedule 14.1 and the GIS viewer/planning maps.

15. Schedule 14.1 of the AUP was created by historic heritage places being “rolled over” from the schedules in legacy Council plans, or introduced through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process to Schedule 14.1. Schedule 14.1 contains over 2,200 historic heritage places.

16. While many legacy errors and anomalies were corrected through the PAUP process and the creation of Schedule 14.1, some legacy errors were rolled over and some new errors were introduced. These errors have been identified by council staff and the public.

17. The errors include:

· the extent of place shown in the GIS viewer/planning maps is incorrect,

· primary features and/or exclusions are not identified or are incorrect,

· category A places have no primary feature identified, and

· a place has duplicate entries in Schedule 14.1 that should be merged.

18. In addition to errors, some places require amendment to align with Council’s property information, including legal descriptions and street addresses. Some places also require amendments to ensure consistency with how similar places are identified in Schedule 14.1. Some places were subject to the interim category of A* and as part of the plan change work have been confirmed as Category B historic heritage places.

19. Places introduced into the legacy Auckland Council District Plan – Operative North Shore Section 2002 through Plan Change 38 also require amendment in the proposed plan change. These places are within the Historic Heritage Overlay but are identified by a dot only in the GIS viewer/planning maps. The plan change proposes the addition of an extent of place to 62 of these places.

20. The section 32 evaluation report (Attachment 4) found that a plan change to the AUP is the most efficient, effective and appropriate option for correcting errors and anomalies in Schedule 14.1 and the GIS viewer/planning maps.

Consultation on the draft plan changes

21. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ) is identified as an interested party for the proposed plan change. Their interest is in protecting New Zealand’s significant heritage places, with a particular interest in the protection of places on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (NZHL/RK).

22. For the purposes of notification, Heritage NZ is considered directly affected by the proposed plan change only where places are on the NZHL/RK. They were consulted on the proposed plan change in July 2017, with no response received.

23. The Heritage Advisory Panel was advised of the proposed plan change at its 26 September meeting. No feedback was received from the Panel on the proposed plan change.

24. Relating to the correction of errors and anomalies, the proposed plan change has not been subject to any community consultation.

Consultation with iwi

25. Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the Act states that local authority shall consult, through iwi authorities, with tangata whenua of the area who may be affected during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan. The historic heritage places included in the plan change are located across the Auckland region. Due to this, all iwi authorities associated with the Auckland region have been consulted.

26. On 24 July 2017, Council staff informed iwi authorities about the proposed plan change and advised that a draft copy would be provided for feedback. Four out of the 19 iwi authorities indicated an interest in the proposed plan changes and were provided further information.

· Ngati Whatua o Orakei requested plan change documentation

· Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust requested a list of places in Rodney that were in the proposed plan changes

· Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust sought a meeting to gain information about the proposed plan changes. Staff met with representatives of these authorities jointly and provided information about the proposed plan changes, particularly in relation to places in their rohe, and about the process to evaluate and schedule historic heritage places/how the AUP protects historic heritage. Further information was provided after the meeting about the process to schedule historic heritage places, and about Māori heritage in Whenuapai.

27. A draft copy the proposed plan change was provided to the 19 iwi authorities of the Auckland region on 18 September 2017. No feedback was received.

Notification of proposed plan change and legal effect of rules

28. Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act requires local authorities to publicly notify a proposed policy statement or plan or provide limited notification (Clause 5A), where all persons directly affected by a proposed plan change are able to be identified. Given the general public interest in heritage, full public notification (as opposed to limited notification) is considered to be the most appropriate pathway.

29. Schedule 14 is a rule in the AUP that protects historic heritage. Unless the council resolves otherwise, rules in a proposed plan change can have immediate legal effect from the date of notification of the plan change where the rule protects historic heritage, under section 86B(3)(d) of the Act. Staff do not consider that there are any reasons why the council should depart from the standard approach to the timing of the proposed plan change having legal effect.

30. This committee holds the delegation to approve the notification of proposed plan changes to the AUP. Staff also seek delegated authority to the Heritage Manager to enable minor editorial changes prior to notification. The form, content, intent and scope of the plan change will remain unchanged.

31. In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Act, the submission period will be 20 working days, followed by a further submissions period. Hearings on the proposed plan change will be held by a panel of planning commissioners. The timetable for a hearing will depend on the submissions received. Following the hearings and deliberations, the panel will make their final decisions on the proposed plan change.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

32. Relating to the correction of errors and anomalies, the proposed plan change has not been subject to local board consultation.

33. Prior to notification, local boards will be advised of the proposed plan change and invited to provide views. Comments received will be considered alongside the submissions and hearing process.

Māori impact statement

34. Schedule 14.1 includes places of significance or interest to Māori. However, this proposed plan change includes built heritage that is scheduled for reasons other than significance to Māori. A separate review of archaeological sites in Schedule 14.1 is underway, and amendments proposed as a result of that review are expected to be of greater interest to Mana Whenua.

35. As part of Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Act, feedback on the draft amendments has been sought from iwi authorities prior to public notification. As previously noted, no feedback was received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Index of proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1	171
b ⇩	Proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1	181
c ⇨	Proposed amendments to Unitary Plan GIS maps (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇩	Section 32 Analysis of the amendments plan change	195

Signatories

Author

Tanya Sorrell - Team Leader Built & Cultural Heritage Policy

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 7 November 2017

File No.: CP2017/22876

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

3. The following information items are attached:

· Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Attachment A)

· Schedule of November 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Attachment B)

4. The following memos are attached:

· 10 October 2017 – Auckland City Centre and Waterfront next stage video and summary sheets (Attachment C)

5. The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

· 9 October 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh 19A and 19B (Attachment D)

· 11 October 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh 20 (Attachment E)

· 12 October 2017 – Airport to City Mass Transit Spatial Planning 1 (Attachment F)

6. This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings – 7 November 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Schedule of November 2017 Planning Committee Workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland City Centre and Waterfront next stage video and summary sheets memo (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshops 19A and 19B minutes (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 20 minutes (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Airport to City Mass Transit Spatial Planning 1 workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

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

Planning Committee

07 November 2017

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Planning Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Avondale High Level Project Plan - Confidential

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains financial information that may affect council's ability to undertake negotiations and reference to commerical agreements which are subject to confidentiality agreements.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Addition of Historic Heritage Places

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

In particular, the report involves decisions about Historic Heritage places that are not yet legally protected. Historic Heritage is a s6 matter of national importance under the Resource Management Act and disclosure of plan change materials or deliberations before a plan change is notified may result in the loss of heritage places before they are considered for scheduling.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

[1] Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, known as GD05

[2] Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, known as GD05

[3] Section 86B(3)(d) of the Act provides for a rule in a proposed plan to have immediate legal effect if the rule protects historic heritage.

[4] Of the errors identified that relate to Schedule 14.1, 21 are proposed to be corrected as part of the Administrative Plan Change.

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
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