I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 28
November 2017
9.30am
Reception
Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
|
|
Planning Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
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
|
|
(Quorum 11 members)
|
|
|
Kalinda Gopal
Senior Governance Advisor
23 November 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 367 2442
Email: kalinda.gopal@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
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
28 November
2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 7
2 Declaration of
Interest 7
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 7
4 Petitions 7
5 Public Input 7
6 Local Board
Input 7
7 Extraordinary
Business 8
8 Notices of
Motion 8
9 Approval of
draft Auckland Plan for consultation 9
10 Endorsement of the
Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan 353
11 Auckland Unitary Plan
(Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from King’s College to
rezone land at Māngere and Hospital Road, Otāhuhu 389
12 Auckland Unitary Plan
(Operative in Part) – Private Plan Change Request from Goodman Property
Trust – 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie 403
13 Auckland Council's
quarterly monitoring report on the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development Capacity 425
14 National Policy Statement
on Urban Development Capacity initial assessment results (Covering report) 455
15 Summary of Planning
Committee information memos and briefings - 28 November 2017 457
16 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration
of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Planning Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 7 November 2017, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
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.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had
been received.
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
28 November
2017
|
|
Approval of
draft Auckland Plan for consultation
File No.: CP2017/22113
Purpose
1. To
approve the draft Auckland Plan for formal public consultation.
Executive
summary
2. This
report seeks approval of the draft Auckland Plan (Attachment B) for formal
public consultation which commences on 28 February 2017.
3. The
draft Auckland Plan has been developed over the course of 2017 under the
direction of the Planning Committee.
4. It
has been informed through two phases of engagement with our partners and
stakeholders.
5. An
integrated spatial plan, it sets a 30 year direction and addresses the key
issues facing Auckland and Aucklanders. This is done through six outcomes that
integrate social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives.
6. As
a spatial plan, providing direction on Auckland’s future development, how
and where communities form and how infrastructure may be provided to support
them to prosper, is critically important to our ability to plan for the future.
7. The
draft plan therefore also contains Auckland’s Development Strategy which
sets out where and when development is expected to occur and where investment
in infrastructure needs to be made to meet the significant growth that is
anticipated.
8. The
draft plan includes maps that identify a range of infrastructure investments
required across 30 years. This gives infrastructure funders and providers a
basis from which to do their own planning. The first decade of growth and
investment is understandably more certain than the following two decades.
Monitoring actual on-the-ground growth and development is therefore essential
so that informed adjustments can be made as is needed.
9. Measuring
progress is fundamental to successful implementation. The draft plan includes
33 measures which will provide an ongoing evidence base for aligning
implementation and the regulatory plans and funding programmes of Auckland
Council and other stakeholders.
10. The refreshed
Auckland Plan is digital which will enable the plan to reflect updated data and
evidence more easily and therefore remain relevant over time.
11. The digital
plan will be the primary platform for formal public consultation.
12. This report
also seeks approval of the Draft Auckland Plan: Overview (Attachment D).
This document provides a summary of the draft plan and will be used to support
consultation.
13. The Planning
Committee has previously agreed to a joint consultation process for the
Auckland Plan and 10-year Budget 2018-28. The consultation document, including
specific questions, will be approved by the Governing Body on 7 February 2018.
14. Public
consultation runs from 28 February to 28 March 2018.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Planning Committee:
a) approve
the draft Auckland Plan for public consultation, commencing on 28 February
2018, as shown in Attachments B and C of the agenda report.
b) approve
the Draft Auckland Plan: Overview document, which will be used to support
consultation, as shown in Attachment D of the agenda report.
c) recommend
to the Governing Body that there is a question for each outcome and for the
Development Strategy in the joint Auckland Plan and 10-year Budget
consultation document.
d) thank
stakeholders for their involvement and feedback in the development of the
draft Auckland Plan and that this be communicated.
e) extend
the existing delegation of authority to the Chair of the Planning Committee,
the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Environment and Community Committee, the
Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee, and a member of the
Independent Māori Statutory Board; to review and
approve any final changes and corrections to the draft Auckland Plan for
consultation and the Overview document, including visual material under
development as part of the digital Auckland Plan; and to review the
consultation questions prior to approval by the Governing Body.
|
Comments
Context
15. Auckland
Council is legislatively required to develop a spatial plan for Auckland and
must involve stakeholders and partners in its preparation.
16. 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 in the plan.
17. In March
2017, the Planning Committee agreed (PLA/2017/30) to refresh the Auckland Plan
as a streamlined spatial plan, and to create a digital platform for the plan.
18. The Planning
Committee also agreed to three main stakeholder engagement phases:
a. early engagement with
the communities of Auckland
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
consultation for the 10-year Budget 2018-28.
19. This report
seeks the Planning Committee’s approval of the draft Auckland Plan
(Attachment B) for the third engagement phase.
Political
direction
20. The Planning
Committee and local board chairs provided direction to the development of the
refreshed Auckland Plan through a series of workshops during 2017.
21. The workshops
canvassed:
· challenges
and opportunities for Auckland
· development
of a strategic framework for the refreshed plan
· refinement
of draft content
· how
to measure progress against the plan
· the
prototype of the digital Auckland Plan.
22. Feedback from
stakeholder engagement and how this informed development of the draft plan was
also communicated at these workshops.
Stakeholder
engagement
23. Stakeholders
and partners have been involved throughout the preparation of the draft plan
and have provided feedback during two main engagement phases.
24. During May
and June 2017, stakeholders were asked to comment at a high level on a working
model of the refreshed plan. The results of this first phase of engagement were
reported to the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017. There were 924 items of
feedback received from engagement with 86 stakeholders.
25. Overall,
stakeholder feedback endorsed the need for a refresh of the Auckland Plan and
the general strategic direction proposed.
26. Housing,
transport and a healthy natural environment were seen as fundamental to the
future wellbeing of Auckland. The lack of affordable housing and the negative
impact that has on people’s sense of belonging, employment opportunities,
and health and education outcomes was a shared concern across all groups.
27. This feedback
informed the development of the strategic framework which was used as the basis
for engagement during the second phase from July to November 2017. Stakeholders
were asked to consider a proposed set of strategic directions and focus areas.
28. There were
1620 items of feedback received from engagement with 97 stakeholders during
this phase. The results of this engagement were reported to the Planning
Committee on 7 November 2017.
Draft
Auckland Plan for approval
29. The framework
and content of the refreshed Auckland Plan have been informed by:
·
the current Auckland Plan
· emerging
issues at a global and local level
· research
and analysis
· strategic
work completed since the original plan was adopted
· engagement
with stakeholders.
30. The refreshed Auckland Plan is a digital plan. However, it is
presented to the Planning Committee for review in a traditional printed format.
In this format, there is a range of contextual information placed at both the
front and back of the draft plan. The digital Auckland Plan will provide access
to some of this information directly from the landing page and from other
relevant points across the plan.
31. There is also detailed supporting information for each outcome area
and the Development Strategy. This information will be accessed via a
“click-through” from the relevant high-level content, balancing
greater readability with the need for more explanatory information.
32. The Planning Committee approved content for the Belonging and
Participation and Transport and Access outcomes areas on 7 November 2017. Some
changes have been made to that content following the meeting in response to
feedback. For completeness, the full draft plan is included in Attachment B for
approval.
Outcomes
33. All
components of the draft Auckland Plan are inter-dependent. Successfully
delivering the plan requires us to make substantial progress towards achieving
all outcomes.
34. The plan
includes six outcomes that integrate social, economic,
environmental and cultural objectives to set a 30 year strategic direction for
Auckland. Each outcome has a set of high level directions and key focus
areas.
35. Attachment
A provides a description of the essence of each outcome.
Development Strategy
36. Auckland
is anticipated to grow significantly over the next 30 years. The scale of
growth requires us to work together and ensure we have a clear understanding of
where and when investment in planning and infrastructure needs to be made.
37. The
draft Development Strategy, a core component of the Auckland Plan, provides
this understanding.
38. Attachment
A provides a description of the essence of the development strategy.
Maps
39. As
a spatial plan, the legislation requires both text and visual illustration of
how Auckland may develop in the future and how infrastructure may be provided.
It also requires the spatial identification of a range of activities and
services, significant recreational and ecological areas, and environmental
constraints on development. Maps illustrating how Auckland will develop and
grow are found at Attachment C, maps 15-28.
40. In
addition, there are 14 maps which spatially represent information relevant to
the achievement of the six outcomes in the draft plan. For example, the number
of jobs in advanced industries across Auckland is mapped as a means of
illustrating the importance of developing skills and talent for the changing
nature of work.
41. The
digital platform of the plan enables interaction with some maps. These
are able to provide multiple views/layers and show increasing detail.
42. Final
changes to the maps are underway to reflect feedback from the elected member
drop-in session on 15 November and the Planning Committee workshop on 16
November. These changes will be incorporated into the digital Auckland Plan for
consultation.
Other elements of the
draft plan
43. In
addition to the outcomes and Development Strategy, the plan also includes a
number of contextual elements, some of which will be accessed directly from the
landing page. These are:
· About
the Auckland Plan
· About
Auckland
· Te
Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi
· Auckland
Plan values
· Implementation
· Measuring
progress
Visual information
44. The
digital Auckland Plan will incorporate a range of graphics such as tables,
charts, photos, infographics and other illustrations. These will be designed to
aid understanding and improve accessibility. The visual material will be
developed as part of building the website.
Digital
Auckland Plan
45. During
September and October 2017, a prototype was developed to craft the visual
design, determine technical specifications and carry out user testing for the
digital Auckland Plan.
46. The structure
of the digital plan, number of digital pages and layers, and links between
content is determined by the draft content of the plan, including maps and
graphics.
47. The full
website is now under development to support formal consultation which commences
on 28 February 2018.
Overview
of draft Auckland Plan
48. A summary
document which provides an overview of the draft Auckland Plan is attached for
the Committee’s review and approval (Attachment D). This document will be
used to support the formal consultation and will be translated into five languages
and an easy-read version. The overview will be available on the Auckland Plan
website and in libraries, service centres and local board offices.
Consultation
questions
49. The approach
to joint formal consultation on the Auckland Plan and the 10-year Budget
2018-28 was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 November
2017.
50. The
consultation questions for the draft Auckland Plan were discussed at the Planning
Committee workshop on 16 November. There was general support for a question for
each outcome and the Development Strategy based around the key issues. Further
work is being carried out to develop the questions which will be included in
the joint consultation document. The final questions will be approved by the
Governing Body on 7 February 2018.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
51. The decision-making responsibilities of local boards include
providing early input into regional strategies policies and plans such as the
Auckland Plan.
52. Local boards were involved in, and made a significant contribution
to, the refresh of the Auckland Plan during 2017. This involvement included
representation at Planning Committee workshops, local board cluster workshops
and individual board business meetings and workshops.
53. There were two opportunities for local boards to pass resolutions on
the draft plan’s development. These resolutions, reported to the Planning
Committee on 1 August and 10 October 2017, have been used to inform further
refinement of the plan.
54. A memo has been prepared for local boards to advise how their
feedback has been addressed in the draft plan.
Māori
impact statement
55. 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.
56. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the
draft Auckland Plan. The outcome focuses on advancing Māori wellbeing;
promoting Māori success, innovation and enterprise; recognising and providing
for te Tiriti o Waitangi outcomes; and showcasing Auckland’s Maori
identity and culture. In addition, matters of direct relevance to Māori
are identified and appear throughout the plan, for example in the Homes and
Places outcome.
57. Six hui with
mana whenua were held over the course of the year. The hui focused on key
challenges and opportunities facing Auckland, and how the plan can best address
these.
58. Feedback
included the need:
· for
the plan to protect and advance the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of
iwi
· for
the plan to uphold the Treaty partnership
· to
protect mana whenua cultural sites and places, harbours and productive soils
· to
plan for infrastructure to uplift and drive Māori values.
59. Engagement
with mataawaka was carried out through working with Māori
organisations. These organisations used their networks to provide
informed feedback, which has included:
· the
need to work towards equity in Māori wellbeing in the urban context
· the
importance of Auckland Council’s role and leverage in public health
policy, planning and regulation that impacts on Māori wellbeing
· the
need for dwellings that are healthy and that can cater for multi-generational
needs.
60. The
Independent Māori Statutory Board provided formal
feedback on early drafts of the plan including the proposed measures. This
feedback has been addressed in the finalisation of the draft plan. A formal
response has been prepared for the board.
Implementation
61. Development
of the Auckland Plan website will advance during December to February to meet
consultation deadlines.
62. Questions for
the Auckland Plan consultation will be approved by the Governing Body on 7
February 2018 as part of the joint consultation document.
63. Formal
consultation will run from 28 February to 28 March 2018.
64. Feedback will
be considered and the updated Auckland Plan will be reported to the Planning
Committee on 5 June 2018.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Outcomes and development strategy description
|
15
|
|
b⇩
|
Draft Auckland Plan
|
19
|
|
c⇩ 
|
Draft Auckland Plan: maps
|
307
|
|
d⇩
|
Draft Auckland Plan: Overview
|
337
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice
|
|
Authorisers
|
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and
Research
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
Endorsement of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura
Integrated Area Plan
File No.:
CP2017/23584
Purpose
1. To
seek approval of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan.
Executive summary
2. The
purpose of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan (area plan) is
to provide a planning framework to guide how the area grows and develops over
the next 30 years.
3. Area
plans are a key mechanism to help implement the outcomes and aspirations of the
Auckland Plan expected at a local level. The Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura
corridor is identified as one of nine Spatial Priority Areas in Auckland
Council’s Long-term Plan (2015 – 2025). These spatial priority
areas align with the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy and six
transformational shifts.
4. The
area plan is a non-statutory, spatial plan that was developed collaboratively
with the Arts, Community and Events department and The Southern Initiative team
with input from key internal and external stakeholders including mana whenua on
behalf of both the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards. It has also been
prepared in consultation with the wider community and their feedback has helped
shape the content at every stage in the development of the document.
5. Initial
community engagement on the area plan occurred through various methods and
events from mid-December 2016 through until March 2017. Community feedback then
informed the draft area plan which was the subject of further community
engagement during April-May 2017.
6. During
the community engagement periods feedback was received from over 5000
respondents. Comments received during the engagement periods and feedback
from internal council and external stakeholders has also been taken into
account to finalise the area plan.
7. The
Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards adopted the final plan at their meetings on
the 19th and 25th October respectively. Following consideration by the Planning
Committee the final plan will be produced and published.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Planning Committee:
a) endorse
the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan as set out in Attachment
A of the agenda report.
b) delegate
authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to approve minor
editorial changes to the plan if necessary prior to publication.
|
Comments
Background
8. The
Great South Road Corridor running through Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura is
identified as one of nine Spatial Priority Areas in Auckland Council’s
Long-term Plan (2015 – 2025).
9. Five
key themes formed the basis for the preparation of the area plan.
· protecting
our future
· love
your centre
· celebrate
the story
· make
way for the people
· a
voice for youth.
10. The
outcomes in relation to these five themes have a physical or spatial aspect and
when realised will make a transformational contribution to making the area of
Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura and its surrounding areas a great place to
live, work and visit. The five themes were developed and approved for
consultation at the joint local board and mana whenua workshop on 23 November
2016.
11. Feedback
has been received in relation to the five themes and more generally about the
future of the Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura centres. The five themes
were then used to inform the draft area plan which was approved for
consultation at the Manurewa Local Board business meeting on 16 March 2017 and
at the Papakura Local Board business meeting on 22 March 2017.
Community Engagement
12. The
area plan has been prepared in collaboration with the Manurewa and Papakura
Local Boards, Arts, Community and Events department, The Southern Initiative
team and other key internal and external stakeholders including mana whenua. It
has also been prepared in consultation with the wider community and their
feedback has helped shape the content at every stage in the development of the
document.
13. For
this plan a key focus was to connect with existing community networks and
engage locals who do not usually engage with the council, and to ask them what
they want to see in the Manurewa, Papakura and Takanini areas, now and in the
future. In addition to the use of more conventional consultation and
engagement techniques/approaches, a digital platform ‘Share Your
Ideas’ was launched in partnership with the Manurewa Youth Council to
make it easier for people to contribute to the ideas for making these places
better.
14. The
development of the area plan has included two community engagement phases
– initial engagement from mid-December 2016 through until March 2017 and
consultation on a draft plan from 3 April for a 6 week period until Friday 12
May 2017.
15. Two
highlights from the series of engagement events held in relation to the draft
area plan included:
· "Streets
to Places" event in Papakura. To celebrate the launch of the engagement,
the project team in conjunction with the Papakura Local Board and Papakura
Business Association closed part of Broadway on Saturday 8 April to provide for
a fun-filled street event. The street closure event provided a platform
to celebrate Papakura and promote the potential to make Broadway a permanent
shared space for the community.
· "Rewa
– Love our Centre" cultural event in Southmall Shopping Centre,
Manurewa was held on Saturday 6 May. This event gave an opportunity to
explore the potential to revitalise Manurewa, promote the town centre identity
and showcase art/culture in the centre.
16. In
addition a series of targeted stakeholder engagement events were held,
including meetings with the Manurewa and Papakura Business Associations,
workshops with the youth councils and online engagement with youth, meetings
with resident and ratepayer groups, a pacific fono event and a lesson on town
planning and place making with approximately 40 students at the Takanini
School.
17. Overall,
more than 5000 pieces of feedback from members of the community were received
via a mixture of hard copy/online forms and through digital platforms.
Based on the analysis of the feedback collected, the largest ethnic group of
respondents was NZ European at approximately 36 per cent followed by Māori
at approximately 30 per cent, with the highest response received from those
aged between15 and 34.
18. The
following provides a list of the most common ideas that emerged for the three
areas from the engagement:
a. improve and
upgrade use of existing spaces
b. beautify our
town centre
c. promotion of
heritage in our town centre
d. safety and
security
e. community/social
hubs
f. introduce
more free/affordable initiatives, events and festivals
g. address
social issues
h. better
roads, cycle ways and transport connections
i. access
to the waterfront in respect of Takanini and Papakura.
19. This
feedback was then used to further develop the area plan and to work with
stakeholders to prioritise the key actions that responded to the feedback from
the community. This will help to transform the areas over the next 30 years.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
20. The
area plan covers two local board areas, namely Manurewa Local Board and
Papakura Local Board.
21. The
Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards guided the development of the area
plan. A number of workshops and meetings have been held with the boards
and with mana whenua during the preparation of the area plan.
22. A
joint workshop with mana whenua representatives was held on 23 November 2016 to
discuss the draft themes on which the area plan is based. Following this
workshop a number of changes to the draft themes were made.
23. On
1 March 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and mana whenua
representatives was held to present an overview of the draft area plan and a
summary of the feedback received to date which had shaped the draft area
plan. The draft area plan was then endorsed for public consultation on 16
March 2017 at the Manurewa Local Board business meeting and subsequently on 22
March 2017 at the Papakura Local Board business meeting.
24. On
13 July 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and mana whenua
representatives was held to provide an opportunity to consider the implications
of the feedback received, provide feedback/ideas on the delivery of the final
area plan including an implementation plan and provide direction on how the
area plan and its delivery might shape up.
25. On
20 September 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and to which mana
whenua representatives were also invited, was held to work through the project
priorities and seek to finalise the priorities / key projects.
26. The
local boards both individually and together will play a significant role in
realising the area plan’s future vision for the three respective centres
and the corridor as a whole. The local boards’ roles may take many forms
depending on the action, from direct investment in public works to advocating
for positive changes.
27. The
area plan has been reported to the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards and was
adopted at their business meetings on the 19th and 25th October respectively.
Key actions within the area plan have been aligned with those in the emerging
local board plans. The two local boards have recommended that the Planning
Committee endorse the draft area plan contained in Attachment A for final release.
Māori impact statement
28. The
process of engagement on the area plan with mana whenua and mataawaka in the
region has been developed in collaboration with The Southern Initiative team
and the Arts, Community and Events department. The project team has been
responsive to the requests of mana whenua in the development of the draft area
plan.
29. An
initial hui was held with representatives from Ngāti Tamaterā,
Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Ahiwaru on 14 September
2016. At this hui it was requested that specialist staff from across the
council group be invited to a hui to discuss specific areas of interest (i.e.
water quality, community facilities and transport). The project team
acknowledged this request and set up the hui for 31 October 2016 with the
relevant specialist staff present. Feedback from both of these hui including
input sought from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki shaped the draft themes and
subsequently the project priorities on which the draft area plan is based.
30. Mana
whenua representatives have been sitting as a partner at the table with local
board members at the workshops. The first joint workshop with mana whenua
representatives and local board members was held on 23 November 2016 at which
the draft concepts were presented. This joint approach continued with all
subsequent joint local board workshops (to which all iwi groups with interest
in the area were invited). At each of these an update on progress and
presentation of a summary of the details of the draft area plan were provided.
There is a commitment to continue this approach throughout the implementation
stage.
Implementation
31. Area
plans are a key mechanism to implement the Auckland Plan and provide a greater
level of detail in terms of outcomes and aspirations expected with a specific
area.
32. Working
towards achieving the area plan’s five key themes has required input from
across the council group and beyond. A collaborative and inclusive
process to the development of the area plan will ensure there is a commitment
to deliver on the aspirations and actions once the area plan is adopted. To
implement the actions of the area plan will require commitment from a multitude
of parties, including Auckland Council, Council Controlled Organisations, the
local community, landowners, and developers. Ultimately both local boards
will have a key advocacy role to play in driving actions forward.
33. The
delivery of the key projects is supported by a project prioritisation schedule.
These projects will help transform Manurewa Takanini and Papakura over the next
30 years. The plan shows where work will be focussed and will support ongoing
alignment between the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan, Unitary Plan and projects
of other infrastructure investors.
34. The
implementation and prioritisation of actions in the area will inform the
Long-term Plan and help to shape the forward work programmes for the council,
council controlled organisations and other key delivery partners. The area plan
will be subject to review and reporting on progress on actions to both local
boards and the Planning Committee in conjunction with key stakeholders and
delivery partners.
35. The
recommendation to endorse the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Area Plan is
consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and the Auckland
Plan.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated
Area Plan
|
359
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Michael Luong - principal planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans
and Places
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November 2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private
Plan Change Request from King’s College to rezone land at Māngere
and Hospital Road, Otāhuhu
File No.: CP2017/24074
Purpose
1. To consider a private plan change request from King’s College to rezone land adjoining Māngere Road from
Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
(THAB) and land adjacent to Hospital Road from THAB and Single House zones to
Special Purpose – School in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
Executive summary
2. This
report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 31
October 2017 from King’s College. The request seeks to rezone land
adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace
Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and land adjacent to Hospital Road from
THAB and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School.
3. Under
clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),
the council is required to make a decision that either:
a) adopts the
request as if it were a proposed plan made by the
Council, which must then be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part
1 of Schedule 1 (clause 25(2)(a)); or
b) accepts the
private plan change request, in whole or in part, which then triggers a
requirement to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25
(clause 25(2)(b)); or
c) rejects the
private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the
limited grounds set out in clause 25(4); or
d) decides to
deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
(clause 25(3)).
4. Given
the unique characteristics of the request, and for the more detailed reasons
discussed in this report, it is recommended that the private plan change
request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and notified for submissions.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Planning
Committee:
a) agree
to accept the private plan change request by King’s College for rezoning of land at Māngere and Hospital
Road, Otāhuhu, included as Attachment A
to the agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:
i) the
proposed rezoning of land on Māngere Road to Terrace Housing and
Apartment Buildings is consistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan zoning
purpose which encourages land adjacent to centres and near the public
transport network to be efficiently used for high-density urban living that
increases housing capacity.
ii) the
proposed rezoning of land on Hospital Road to Special Purpose – School
zone will enable King’s College to use land for educational activities
adjacent to the main campus – this loss of land currently zoned Terrace
Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House is offset by the increased
housing capacity on the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings land proposed
on Māngere Road.
iii) the
rezoning of these parcels of land was not considered through the Unitary Plan
submission and hearing process.
iv) accepting
the private plan change request will not create inconsistencies with the
Auckland Plan and Auckland Unitary Plan’s strategic directions.
v) having
regard to relevant case law and the limited grounds for rejection under
clause 25(4), none of the limited grounds for rejection apply to the request
and it is more appropriate to accept the request than ‘adopt’ it
or treat it as a resource consent application.
b) authorise
the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification
and statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change
request by King’s College for rezoning
of land at Māngere and Hospital Road, Otāhuhu pursuant to Schedule
1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.
|
Comments
A BACKGROUND
Site and Surrounding Area
5. King’s
College’s land holding comprises of approximately 24.2ha. It has
frontages to Māngere Road, Middlemore Road, Golf Avenue, and Hospital
Road. The main entry to the College is from the southern end of Golf
Avenue.
6. King’s
College main campus adjoins Otāhuhu College to the north and the Royal
Auckland Golf Club to the east. Middlemore Hospital is located on
Hospital Road, approximately 250m south-east of King’s College.
Land use surrounding the site is comprises predominantly residential with low
to medium density suburban housing of one to two storeys.
7. The main campus contains the school playing fields and main school
buildings. The school buildings are between one and three storeys in height and
are grouped together in the southern extremity of the site.
Private Plan Change Request
8. On
31 October 2017, King’s College lodged the request to rezone two land
parcels, one to the north east of the main campus and the other to the south of
the main campus, namely:
· the
Māngere Road land parcel (3.11 ha) located north east of the main school
campus and fronting Māngere Road. This is proposed to be rezoned
from Special Purpose – School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings (THAB); and
· the
Hospital Road land parcel (1.55ha) adjoining the southern end of King’s
College main campus which is currently owned by the Royal Auckland Golf Club
and contains an existing clubhouse and parking. This is proposed to be
rezoned from THAB and Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone.
9. The request is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.
Figure 1: King’s College
site and its surroundings and land parcels subject to rezoning
10. The
applicant has provided documentation relating to the following in support of
the request (Attachment B):
· Private
plan change report with assessment of environmental effects
· Section
32 evaluation
· Urban
design report
· Transport
report
· Infrastructure
report
· Iwi
consultation letter
· Ngāti
Whanaunga response on private plan change
· Zoning
and location
· Concept
schemes
· Certificate
of titles
11. The
purpose of rezoning the Māngere Road land parcel from Special Purpose
– School to THAB is to enable residential development of a density that
optimises the efficient use of land that has become surplus to school
requirements. The rezoning of the Hospital Road land parcel from THAB and
Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone will enable various
education activities to occur in an integrated and consolidated manner with the
adjacent main campus.
12. Existing
zoning of the Māngere Road and Hospital Road land parcels is shown in
Figure 2 and the requested zoning is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2: Existing zones of
the Māngere Road and Hospital Road parcels under the Auckland Unitary Plan
(Operative in Part)
Figure 3: Proposed zones of
the Māngere Road and Hospital Road parcels under the proposed Private Plan
Change
Auckland Plan
13. The
Auckland Plan is the council’s spatial plan for Auckland and contains a
30-year high level development strategy for the region. The proposed
rezoning will assist in enabling an increase in housing supply in the Otāhuhu area and to continue providing a
quality education facility for present and future generations. It would
be consistent with the Auckland Plan’s strategic directions in relation
to an increase in housing supply for Auckland, promoting of a quality compact
urban form and provision of social and community infrastructure for present and
future generations.
Auckland Unitary Plan
14. The
Auckland Unitary Plan is the council’s primary land-use document prepared
under the RMA. It contains objectives and policies that encourage a quality
compact urban form, higher residential densities and provision of social
facilities meeting the needs of people and communities.
15. The
proposed rezoning will provide for approximately 1.56ha of residential zoned
land in a location close to the Otāhuhu town centre, community facilities
and transport nodes. The rezoning will also enable the efficient use of
land for educational purposes meeting the need of communities. The
private plan change will therefore assist in achieving the objectives and policies
of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Wastewater
16. Future
redevelopment of the Māngere Road site from the existing Special Purpose -
School Zone into a more intensive residential THAB zoning would increase the
infrastructure demand compared with the existing situation. The
applicant’s Engineering Infrastructure Report indicates that given
intensive zoning of THAB and Mixed Use around the proposed site on Māngere
Road, there is unlikely to be fundamental wastewater constraints that will
prevent the rezoning of the site. The availability of wastewater
networks in the surrounding area to service rezoning of the site has been confirmed by Watercare. Watercare have also confirmed that specific
capacity assessments would be undertaken when detailed site development
proposals are submitted.
Water Supply
17. The
proposed THAB zoned site can readily be connected to the existing Watercare
reticulation in Māngere Road where watermains are located on both sides of
the road. Any future development of the site will require an extension to
the public roading network with new public watermains installed within the new
road reserve.
Stormwater
18. The
proposed THAB zoning will likely increase the impervious area on the site from
its current situation. The applicant acknowledges that this will require
appropriate stormwater mitigation measures to be implemented on-site at the
resource consent stage, and this has been confirmed by the council’s
stormwater specialists.
Transport
19. Transport
infrastructure upgrades will be required to manage future vehicle access and
traffic effects associated with the new development on Māngere Road.
In-principle, Auckland Transport has no objection to the proposed zoning and
notes that the required traffic engineering and road safety mitigation measures
identified in the submitted Integrated Traffic Assessment (ITA) will need to be
further investigated at the detailed design stage.
B STATUTORY
ANALYSIS
Resource Management Act
20. The
process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made to the appropriate local
authority by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1.
21. After
a request has been lodged, a local authority can request further information
under clause 23, and modify a request under clause 24, but only with the
applicant’s agreement.
22. If
an applicant refuses to provide any requested further or additional
information, a local authority that considers it has insufficient information
to enable it to consider or approve the request, may reject the request or
decide not to approve the plan change requested under clause 23(6).
23. Under
clause 25, after receiving the request, receiving all required information and
modifying the request (where relevant), the local authority is required to make
a decision that either:
a) adopts the request as if it
were a proposed plan made by the council, which must then be processed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1 (clause 25(2)(a)); or
b) accepts the private plan
change request, in whole or in part, which then triggers a requirement to
notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25 (clause 25(2)(b));
or
c) rejects the private plan
change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds
set out in clause 25(4); or
d) decides to deal with the
request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).
24. See
Attachment B for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the RMA.
Options available to the
council
25. The
next sections of this report assess the various options available to the
council under clause 25. Council staff consider that the applicant has
provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and so
do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) to be available.
Option 1 - Reject the private
plan change request, in whole or in part (clause 25(4))
26. The
council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in
part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4). If the
private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant has the
ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of
Schedule 1.
27. The
grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
a) the request or part of the request
is frivolous or vexatious; or
b) within the last two years, the
substance of the request or part of the request:
i) has been considered and
given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court;
or
ii) has been given effect to by
regulations made under section 360A; or
c) the request or part of the
request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or
d) the request or part of the
request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or
e) in the case of a proposed
change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been
operative for less than two years.
Is the request frivolous or
vexatious?
28. The
private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation and
a planning report containing a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering
a wide range of issues including housing capacity, neighbourhood built
character, residential amenity, transport, infrastructure, ecology and natural
resources and cultural values. The proposal is for a simple rezoning that
is consistent with the adjacent zoning pattern.
29. It
is therefore recommended that the council cannot reject the private plan
change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
Has the substance of the
request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within
the last two years?
30. These
provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests
that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and
the community.
31. The
requested rezoning was not subject to submissions or hearing during the
development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The opportunity for
King’s College to acquire land on Hospital Road only arose in 2016 which
was after the hearings of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Therefore the
substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within
the last two years.
32. It
is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the
basis of this ground of rejection.
Has the substance of the
request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?
33. Section
360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending
regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request or part of the
request does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.
34. It
is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the
basis of this ground of rejection.
Is the request in accordance
with sound resource management practice?
35. The
term “sound resource management practice” is an often used planning
term but is not defined in the RMA. The High Court in Malory Corporation
Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572), where the issue on
appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause 25(4), considered this
term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and stated:
“… the words “sound
resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any
coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. I
agree too with the Court’s observation that the words should be limited
to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which
does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the
threshold for acceptance or adoption.”
36. The private
plan change request includes numerous technical reports which all support the
proposed rezoning. Advice from Auckland Transport has indicated that the
proposed THAB zoning on Māngere Road is generally appropriate due to the
proximity of the site to the Otāhuhu Town Centre and Mixed Use area along
Great South Road and accessibility to existing public transport.
Watercare Services Ltd staff are not in a position to provide detailed comments
on water and wastewater capacity issues until a particular development proposal
is provided, however, no significant concerns have been raised at this
stage. The proposed rezoning does not raise any issues in terms of
natural hazards such as flooding.
37. Consultation
undertaken with mana whenua to date has not identified any matters that are
unable to be resolved.
38. The applicant
has considered the zoning options for both Māngere Road and Hospital Road
land parcels and concluded that the proposed rezoning will increase housing
capacity close to Otāhuhu Town Centre and enable the expansion of the
King’s College campus on the adjacent land while ensuring that
environmental effects of future development proposals are avoided, minimised or
mitigated.
39. The
private plan change request is therefore considered to be in accordance with
sound resource management practice and it is therefore recommended that the
council not reject the private plan change
Would the request or part of
the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the
RMA?
40. Part
5 sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA,
including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the
sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The private plan change
request is generally consistent with the direction provided in the Auckland
Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and as a result, is not inconsistent with part
5 of the RMA.
41. It
is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan
change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the
Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
Has the district plan to which
the request relates been operative for less than two years?
42. The
district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant to this request
were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been
operative for less than two years and the council could reject the private plan
change request on that basis. However, case law has suggested that this ground
for rejection must be exercised in a principled manner having regard to the
purpose of the RMA. It is important to note that the wording of clause 25(4)
provides that the council may reject a private plan change request if
one of the grounds under clause 25(4) exists.
43. The
proposed rezoning was not subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing
process. As the proposal only relates to zone changes, provisions in the
Auckland Unitary Plan that were made operative in part on 15 November 2016 will
not be affected.
44. Given the specific circumstances of the request and for reasons
previously discussed, it is therefore recommended that the council not
reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts
of the Auckland Unitary Plan have been operative for less than two years.
Option 2 - Decide to deal with
the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
45. The
council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change
request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this
case, the private plan change request seeks to rezone two parcels of land and
involves a large area of rezoning along Māngere Road for higher
intensification. It is considered that the most appropriate process for
achieving rezoning for higher intensification is through a plan change process.
46. It
is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the
request as if it were an application for resource consent.
Option 3 - Adopt the request,
or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council
itself
47. The
council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were
a council-initiated proposed plan change. A decision to adopt triggers
the process set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, which would then require the
council to consult as required in clauses 3 to 3C of Part 1.
48. Following
consultation, the council would then need to notify the proposed plan change
for submissions and conduct a hearing into submissions, if required. If a
request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan change would rest with
the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant has not requested that
the council adopts the private plan change.
49. Given
that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the request and
that the council would need to account for all costs associated with the
adopted request, it is recommended that the council does not decide to
adopt the private plan change request.
Option 4 - Accept the private
plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or
part of the request, under clause 26
50. If
the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must then notify the
request, or part of the request under clause 26. After the submission period
has closed, the council would need to hold a hearing to consider any
submissions, and a decision would then be made by the council in relation to
the request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. All costs
associated with the request (including notification and any hearing) would rest
with the applicant.
51. This
is the only remaining option and is supported on the basis that the request
does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to
the RMA, having regard to relevant case law, and it is more appropriate to
accept the request than adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.
In particular:
· the
rezoning of the Māngere Road land parcel to THAB will not be inconsistent
with the Auckland Unitary Plan zoning purpose which encourages land adjacent to
centres and near the public transport network be efficiently used for
high-density urban living that increases housing capacity.
· the
rezoning of the Hospital Road land parcel for the Special Purpose –
School zone will enable King’s College to use land for educational
activities adjacent to the main campus. While the rezoning would result
in land zoned THAB and Single House being used for non-residential purposes,
this loss is offset by the increased housing capacity on the THAB land proposed
on Māngere Road.
· accepting
the private plan change request will not create inconsistencies with the
Auckland Plan and Auckland Unitary Plan’s strategic direction.
52. It
is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan
change request.
C CONCLUSION
53. The
private plan change request by King’s College seeks to rezone 3.11ha of
land within King’s College on Māngere Road from Special Purpose
– School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and
1.55ha of land within the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Course from THAB and
Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone. The plan change has
been supported by comprehensive technical reports.
54. The
private plan change, if accepted and if successful, would increase housing
capacity near the Otāhuhu Town Centre and better enable the use of
King’s College land for an integrated educational campus.
55. Having
carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA
and associated case law, it is recommended that council decides to accept
the request and notify it for submissions. If accepted, a further assessment
will take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
56. After
the lodgement of the request by King’s College on 31 October 2017, the
private plan change documentation was sent to both
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards formally
seeking their views on the private plan change. On 2 November, comments
were received from Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board that the local board has
no issues in relation to the request.
57. The
request information has been previously
presented to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board on various
occasions and a separate meeting was held with King’s College
representatives. The local board’s comments received on 2 November
confirm that they support the request.
Māori
impact statement
58. The
applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with mana whenua groups
and has received feedback from Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society and
Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua in conjunction with the development of the private
plan change for King’s College.
59. In
August 2017 Ngaati Whanaunga gave a response to the applicant stating that they
supported the proposed rezoning. Ngaati Whanaunga have identified some
issues that are important to them including landscape, costal marine area,
discharges to the sea and streams to be considered at the development stage.
60. Ngāti
Te Ata Waiohua have responded to the applicant and indicated that they wish to
be engaged at the development stage of the sites subject to rezoning under the
private plan change.
61. On
17 April 2017 a number of amendments to the RMA came into force which place an
increased focus on engagement and consultation with iwi authorities as part of
various plan-making processes. This is particularly the case for plan
change processes that are initiated or adopted by a council. In relation to
private plan change requests, although engagement with mana whenua and relevant
iwi authorities is encouraged before lodgement under clause 21, it is not clear
whether it is a mandatory requirement under Part 2 of Schedule 1. If the council
accepts a private plan change request for notification, no additional
engagement with iwi or mana whenua is required prior to notification. Iwi
authorities and individuals will be able to make a submission on the plan
change once it is publicly notified.
Implementation
62. If
the private plan change is accepted for notification, the implementation of
this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified within four months
of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in accordance with section
37 of the RMA. As previously discussed, the council’s costs associated
with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
Note: Due
to the size and complexity of Attachment A it will be available under separate
cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Private Plan Change Request Report (Under Separate
Cover)
|
|
|
b⇩
|
Extract from Clause 25 Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA)
|
401
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Nicholas Lau - Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) –
Private Plan Change Request from Goodman Property Trust – 614-616 Great
South Road, Ellerslie
File No.: CP2017/24073
Purpose
1. To consider a private plan change request from Goodman Property
Trust to rezone 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park zone to
Mixed Use zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
Executive
summary
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request)
received on 5 October 2017 from Goodman
Property Trust (Goodman) (Attachment A). The request seeks to rezone a 3867m² site spread across three allotments held in two
titles from Business Park to Mixed
Use. The request also seeks the removal of the, 47,000m² Gross Floor Area
(GFA) cap from the site (Attachment B).
3. Under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA), the council is required to make a decision that either:
a) adopts the
request as if it were a proposed plan made by the
Council, which must then be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part
1 of Schedule 1 (clause 25(2)(a)); or
b) accepts the
private plan change request, in whole or in part, which then triggers a
requirement to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25
(clause 25(2)(b)); or
c) rejects the
private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the
limited grounds set out in clause 25(4); or
d) decides to
deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
(clause 25(3)).
4. Given the unique characteristics of the request, and for the more
detailed reasons discussed in this report, it is recommended that the private
plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2) (b) and notified for
submissions.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Planning Committee:
a) agree
to accept the private plan change request by Goodman Property Trust
for 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie included as Attachment A to the
agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for the following reasons:
i) the
limited extent of the site (3867m²) makes
development of the site in a manner that aligns with the Business Park zone
objectives and policies very difficult to achieve.
ii) the presence of the 47,000m² Gross Floor Area cap related to
the Business Park zoning of the site makes it extremely difficult to develop
the site in a manner that would ensure the efficient use of physical
resources.
iii) the
proposed change to Mixed Use zoning for the site aligns better with the
Auckland Unitary Plan’s regional policy statements objectives and
policies and with sound resource management practice;
and
iv) the constraints on developing this particular site under the
current Business Park zoning and associated Gross Floor Area cap were not
discussed in submissions or evidence considered by the Auckland Unitary Plan
Independent Hearings Panel.
v) having
regard to relevant case law and the limited grounds for rejection under
clause 25(4), it is more appropriate to accept the request than
‘adopt’ it or treat it as a resource consent application.
b) authorise the Manager Central and South
Planning to undertake the required notification and
statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change
request by Goodman for 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie pursuant to
Schedule 1 to the RMA.
|
Comments
A BACKGROUND
Site and Surrounding Area
5. The land to the plan change request is located in a commercial part
of Ellerslie on Great South Road, south west of the Southern Motorway (see
Figure 1 below). The site contains two buildings plus accessways and car
parking. The total site area is 3867m² spread across three allotments held
in two titles. The applicant Goodman owns the site.
6. Formerly Goodman also owned the Millennium Centre located
immediately north-west of the site at 600-612 Great South Road (see Figure 1).
As the applicant has now sold the Millennium Centre, 614-616 Great South Road
is separated from the existing office park and can no longer be developed as
part of the centre. The Millennium Centre itself consists of seven multi-storey
offices, and a multi-storey car park. These buildings are of a much larger
scale and dominate those on the site. The
Millennium Centre site also has higher ground elevation (Attachment C).
Figure
1, Locality map site 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie
Figure 2 Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of
614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie and surrounding area
7. To the north, and bordering the rear boundary of the site is
Ellerslie School. Screening from the school is provided
by several well established trees on the Ellerslie School grounds. The school
buildings are all located some distance from the site, towards Kalmia Street.
To the south east of the site is a single storey commercial building, occupied
by a Wendy’s fast food outlet. Similar lower scale commercial buildings
are located at the rear of the Wendy’s site and further south along Great
South Road. On the opposite side of the road is a three storey building.
The school, the Wendy’s site and the sites on the opposite side of Great
South Road are all zoned Mixed Use. West along Waiohua Road is Mixed House
Urban zoning.
8. As the site is now separated from the Millennium Business Park, the
potential of the size, configuration and physical disconnection from the larger
property, undermine the efficient development of the site for Business Park
purposes.
9. The recent zoning history of the site is:
· Formerly
under the legacy Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus section) the site had
a Business 4 zone. This allowed for a range of business activities (Attachment
D).
· Under
the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) 614-616 Great South Road was proposed
to be zoned Light Industry.
· Goodman
and the Auckland Council both supported Mixed Use zoning in their evidence to
the Independent Hearings Panel.
· The
Independent Hearings Panel recommended the site to be Business Park zone. The
Panel did not provide reasons for individual zoning decisions.
· The
combined sites of 600-612 Great South Road (Millennium Centre) and 614-616
Great South Road, Ellerslie has a Business Park Office GFA cap of 47,000m²
in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
· Goodman
has advised that this cap is in fact exceeded by the existing development on
the Millennium Centre site and there is no remaining GFA for office development
on 614-616 Great South Road. Office development on the site would have a
non-complying activity status.
Private Plan Change Request
10. The request was lodged on 5 October 2017 and seeks to rezone land at
614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park to Mixed Use with a
consequential amendment to remove the Business Park Zone Office GFA Control of
47,000m² from the site.
11. The applicant has provided documentation relating to the following
in support of the request:
· Description
of the plan change request;
· Strategic
framework;
· Assessment
of environmental effects;
· Section
32 evaluation report; and
· Consultation.
Auckland Plan
12. The Auckland Plan seeks the development of a quality compact
Auckland. A more compact form of growth will require greater intensification in
both new and existing urban areas. The private plan change aligns with these
objectives with Mixed Use Zoning encouraging residential intensification along
transport corridors.
Auckland Unitary Plan
13. The chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement
seeks to:
(5) Enable higher residential
intensification: (a) in and around centres; (b) along identified corridors; and (c) close to public transport, social facilities
(including open space) and employment opportunities.
14. The Business Park zoning encourages the development of a
“campus like” environment. The 614-616 Great South Road site is
comparatively small and not well connected to the larger Millennium Centre
site. This raises concerns in relation to the Business Park zoning and
whether the site can be part of an integrated “campus like” office
development.
15. Development of the 614-616 Great South Road site is also restricted
by the Business Park Office GFA cap. Goodman indicates the GFA cap of
47,000m² has already been maximised by the Millennium Centre which would
mean that further office development on this site would be a non-complying
activity (Attachment D).
16. The rezoning of the site from Business Park to Mixed Use would allow
for the more efficient and effective development of the
site. The site is located on a main transport corridor and close to the
Ellerslie railway station. The Mixed Use Zoning was considered more appropriate for this site
in Council submissions to the Independent Hearings Panel as it reflected the
existing use and has the ability to support a mix of residential and employment
activities.
Other Plans
17. 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie is located in the Maungakiekie
–Tāmaki Local Board area and is included under the auspice of the
Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board Plan. A key outcome for the
Local Board Plan is:
“working with partners and
developers and advocating for a built environment that creates and strengthens
communities, is environmentally friendly, integrates public transport and
facilitates walking and cycling.”
18. There
are no other planning documents, such as area plans, structure plans related to
the site.
Analysis of Private Plan
Change Request
19. The private plan change request for 614-616 Great South Road,
Ellerslie seeks a change of zoning from Business Park zone to Mixed Use
zone. Consequent to the change of zoning the applicant also seeks the
removal of the existing Business Park Zone Office Control of 47,000m² GFA
from the site.
20. The Business Park zone and the Business Park Office GFA Control
relates both to the 600-612 Great South Road, Ellerslie (Millennium Centre) and
614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie sites. The Business Park Zone Office GFA
Control of 47,000m² was based on the existing GFA of the sites.
21. Goodman has recently advised that the net
leasable area of the Millennium Centre is 43,609m². It is commonly
accepted that an additional 10 per cent of net leasable area equates to GFA.
Auckland Council calculations based on coverage and floor levels indicate
nearly 50,000m² of GFA is currently occupied by the Centre. On this
basis, the Millennium Centre has already exhausted the cap, which affects the
site’s development potential. Rezoning and removal of the GFA cap over
the site would address this issue.
22. As the Millennium Centre and the site are not well connected there
are significant constraints to establishing an integrated development and
meeting the Business Park objective for a “campus style”
development. The ground level of the Millennium Centre is also significantly
higher than the site. Development as part of the Millennium Centre could
require the site to be raised to match the Millennium Centre and may add cost
to any development. (Attachment C).
Infrastructure
23. Auckland Transport has stated that in-principle
it has no objection to the proposed rezoning. Watercare
Services has indicated the wastewater and water networks have serviceability for potential developments on the site.
Consultation
24. A summary of consultation undertaken was
submitted with the private plan request. This indicated consultation with
the neighbours:
· Ellerslie
School,
· 620
Great South Road (Wendy’s restaurant),
· 381
Great South Road, Ellerslie, and
· 600-612
Great South Road, the Millennium Centre (owned by the Oyster Group).
25. The applicant has also sought comment from mana
whenua and the Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local
Board. The response of these organisations is outlined in Attachment A.
Correspondence has been received from the Ellerslie School Board of Trustees
stating they have a neutral view on the proposal at this stage. A letter of support from the Oyster Group has also been received.
B STATUTORY
ANALYSIS
Resource Management Act
26. The process for considering private plan change
requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made
by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1 and is required to include the
information set out in clause 22. After a request has been lodged, a local
authority can request further information under clause 23, and modify a request
under clause 24, but only with the applicant’s agreement.
27. If an applicant refuses to provide any requested
further or additional information, a local authority that considers it has
insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request, may
reject the request or decide not to approve the plan change requested under
clause 23(6).
28. Under clause 25, after receiving the request,
receiving all required information and modifying the request (where relevant),
the local authority is required to make a decision to either:
· adopts
the request as if it were a proposed plan made by the council, which must then
be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1 (clause
25(2)(a)); or
· accepts
the private plan change request, in whole or in part, which then triggers a
requirement to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25
(clause 25(2)(b)); or
· rejects
the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the
limited grounds set out in clause 25(4); or
· decides
to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
(clause 25(3)).
. See
Attachment E for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the RMA.
Options available to the
council
29. The next sections of this report assess the various options
available to the council under clause 25. Council staff consider that the
applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be
considered, and so do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) to
be available.
Option 1 - Reject the private
plan change request, in whole or in part (clause 25(4))
30. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request,
in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in
clause 25(4). If the private plan change request is rejected by the council,
the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court
under clause 27 of Schedule 1.
31. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
a) the request
or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or
b) within the
last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:
i) has
been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the
Environment Court; or
ii) has been
given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or
c) the request
or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management
practice; or
d) the request
or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent
with Part 5; or
e) in the case
of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or
plan has been operative for less than two years.
Is the request frivolous or
vexatious?
32. The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32
evaluation report and a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering a
range of issues including storm water management, wastewater and water,
transport and traffic and urban design. The transport analysis
incorporates an Integrated Transport Analysis (ITA) which considers three
different development options for the site. The applicant also provides
detailed analysis of relevant policies including the Auckland Unitary Plan
Business Park and Mixed Use zones objectives and
policies.
33. It is therefore recommended that the council cannot reject
the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
Has the substance of the
request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within
the last two years?
34. This provision largely seeks to discourage repetitive private plan
change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to
the council and the community.
35. The change to a Mixed Use zoning was considered in evidence by the
Independent Hearings Panel during the development of the Auckland Unitary
Plan. Council in its evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel supported
the rezoning of the 614-616 Great South Road to Mixed Use with consequential
removal of the GFA cap.
However, the Independent Hearings Panel did
not hear evidence relating to:
· the
difficulties of developing the 614-616 Great South Road site with the Business
Park zoning and Business Park Zone Office Control, which would result in
any future office development being a non–complying activity;
· this
control means that the site cannot be developed in a way that would allow for
“the efficient use and development of natural and physical
resources”; and
· the
difficulties of developing the 614-616 Great South Road site as a separate site
from 600 -612 Great South Road in relation to Business Park zoning objectives
and policies.
36. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the
request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
Has the substance of the
request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?
37. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional
coastal plans in relation to aquaculture activities. The substance of the
private plan change request does not relate section 360A of the RMA. It is
therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the
basis of this ground of rejection.
Is the request in accordance
with sound resource management practice?
38. The term “sound resource management practice” is an
often used planning term but is not defined in the RMA. The High Court in
Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572),
where the issue on appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause
25(4), considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and
stated:
“… the words “sound
resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any
coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. I
agree too with the Court’s observation that the words should be limited
to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which
does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the
threshold for acceptance or adoption.”
39. The private plan change request aligns with the purposes and
principles of the RMA 1991. The change in zoning to Mixed Use at the site and
the removal of the Business Park Zone Office Control cap will allow for the
more efficient resource management and sustainable development of the site.
40. The constraints of size and land configuration (Attachment C) of the
614-616 Great South Road site do not align well with the Business Park zoning
objectives and policies. This does not encourage sound resource management
practice as it is unlikely the landscape and amenity controls can be achieved
on the site. Similarly, the exhausting of the Business Park Office GFA cap
means that office development would require non-complying resource
consent. The proposed Mixed Use zoning provides for residential
intensification around town centres and transport corridors. It also allows for
a compatible mix of residential and employment activities.
41. The private plan change request is therefore considered to be in
accordance with sound resource management practice and it is therefore
recommended that the council not reject the private plan change.
Would the request or part of the
request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?
42. Part 5 sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created
under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect
to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
43. The
request to re-zone the site Mixed Use and remove the Business Park Office GFA
cap from the site would not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with
Part 5 of the RMA 1991. The development options for the small (3867m²) and
disconnected site do not align with the Business Park zoning objective and
policies including the campus style development. The proposed Mixed Use
zoning aligns with the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statements
allowing for residential intensification and business around town centres and
centres and transport corridors. The Mixed Use zoning would give effect to the
sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The necessary infrastructure
to service the proposed change of zoning is available and this has been
supported by correspondence received from Watercare Services, Healthy Waters
and Auckland Transport.
44. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the
private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request
would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
Has the district plan to which
the request relates been operative for less than two years?
45. The district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant
to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have
therefore been operative for less than two years and the council could reject
the private plan change request on that basis. However, case law has suggested
that this ground for rejection must be exercised in a principled manner having
regard to the purpose of the RMA to promote the sustainable management of
natural and physical resources. It is important to note that the wording of
clause 25(4) provides that the council may reject a private plan change request
if one of the grounds under clause 25(4) exists.
46. Given the specific circumstances of the request, the fact that
relevant matters were not presented to the Independent Hearings Panel and for
the reasons listed below,
· the
size and configuration of the site
· the
limitations of the Business Park Office GFA and its restrictions on possible
office development
· the
lack of capacity to provide for an integrated development that meets the
Business Park zones objectives and policies,
It is therefore recommended that the
council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the
relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan have been operative for less than
two years.
Option 2 - Decide to deal with
the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
47. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a
private plan change request as if it were an application for resource
consent. However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to
rezone 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park to Mixed Use and
to remove the 47,000m² GFA cap from the site. The most appropriate process
for achieving the rezoning from Business Park to Mixed Use and to remove the
47,000m² GFA cap from the site is a plan change.
48. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to
deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
Option 3 - Adopt the request,
or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council
itself
49. The council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as
though it were a Council-initiated proposed plan change. A decision to
adopt triggers the process set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, which would then
require the council to consult as required in clauses 3 to 3C of Part 1.
50. Following consultation, the Council would then need to notify the
proposed plan change for submissions and conduct a hearing into submissions, if
required. If a request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan
change would rest with the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant
has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change.
51. Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts
the request and that the council would need to account for all costs associated
with the adopted request, it is not recommended that the council decide
to adopt the private plan change request.
Option 4 - Accept the private
plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or
part of the request, under clause 26
52. If the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must
then proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause
26. After the submission period has closed, the council would need to
hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and a decision would then be made
by the council in relation to the request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the
RMA. All costs associated with the request (including notification and any
hearing) would rest with the applicant.
53. This is the only remaining option and is supported on the basis that
the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of
Schedule 1 to the RMA, having regard to relevant case law, and it is more
appropriate to accept the request than adopt it or treat it as a resource
consent application. In particular:
i) the limited extent
of the site (3867m²) makes development of the site
in a manner that aligns with Business Park zone objectives and policies hard to
achieve;
ii) the presence of the of
the 47,000m² GFA cap related to the Business Park zoning of the site makes
it difficult to develop the site in a manner that would ensure the efficient
use of physical resources;
iii) the proposed change to Mixed Use zoning for the site at 614-616
Great South Road, Ellerslie aligns better with the chapter of the Auckland
Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement: objectives and policies and with sound resource management principles.
54. It
is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan
change request.
C CONCLUSION
55. The Goodman private plan change request for 614-616 Great South
Road, Ellerslie seeks to rezone 3867m² of land from
Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone with a consequential amendment to remove
the Business Park Zone Office Control 47,000m² cap from the site.
Mixed Use zoning will allow for the efficient use and development of the site
and be in alignment with the strategic direction of the Auckland Unitary
Plan.
56. As part of this request the applicant Goodman has undertaken
consultation with neighbouring property owners, mana whenua and the
Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board. Watercare Services, Auckland Transport
and Healthy Waters have indicated that the existing infrastructure is able to
manage the development that would be enabled by the proposed plan change.
57. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters
set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council
decide to accept the request and notify it for submissions. If accepted,
a further assessment by council officers would take place prior to and during
the course of the subsequent hearing.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
58. The applicant has sought the views of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Local Board and provided the Local Board with the private plan change document.
The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has indicated that it does not have
any issues or comments in regard to the proposed plan change at this stage.
Māori
impact statement
59. Goodman through their planning consultants has undertaken
consultation with mana whenua. This is outlined in the Consultation Summary
(Attachment A). Mana whenua contacted were: Ngāi
Tai ki Tāmaki; Ngāti Maru; Ngāti Paoa; Ngāti Tamaoho;
Ngāti Tamaterā; Ngāti te Ata; Ngaati Whanaunga; Ngāti
Whatua Orakei; Te Ãkitai Waiohua; Te Kawerau ā Maki; Te
Patukirikiri; Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua; Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara; Waikato‐Tainui; and Te Ahiwaru.
60. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki advised they had no further interest in
the application;
61. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei advised they had no comment to make on the application;
and
62. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua supported the proposal.
63. Ngāti te Ata have requested that they would like to be further
involved in the consultation process and the Iwi have been contracted by the
applicant to prepare a cultural response report on the private plan change.
64. In the case of Waikato-Tainui a letter was sent to Waikato-Tainui
outlining the proposal. Waikato-Tainui requested that the proposal be assessed
against the Waikato-Tainui Iwi Management Plan and details of consultation with
mana whenua is provided. The applicant has assessed the private plan change against the Waikato-Tainui Iwi Management Plan and this was provided
to Waikato-Tainui. A key aspect of the assessment was consideration of the
ecological impact of the proposal. Waikato Tainui have indicated they have no
further issue with this request but would like to be updated on the progress of
the application.
Implementation
65. If the private plan change is accepted for notification, the
implementation of this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of
Schedule 1 of the RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified
within four months of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in
accordance with section 37 of the RMA. As previously discussed, the
council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change
request would be met by the applicant.
Note: Due
to the size and complexity of Attachment A it will be available under separate
cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Request For Plan Private Change 614-616 Great South
Road, Ellerslie (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b⇩
|
Business Park Office Control Cap
|
415
|
|
c⇩
|
Site relationship
|
417
|
|
d⇩
|
Auckland Unitary Plan (OiP) Zoning Activity Status
|
419
|
|
e⇩
|
Resource Management Act 1991
|
421
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Roger Eccles - Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
Auckland Council's quarterly monitoring report on the
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity
File No.: CP2017/24207
Purpose
1. To
receive the first housing monitoring quarterly report required under the
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.
Executive
summary
2. The
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) became
operative in 2016. The policy requires quarterly monitoring reports on housing
and business land.
3. The
first quarterly report is attached for information. The key findings include:
· detached
dwellings remain the dominant type of housing consented which makes up more
than half of the total number of dwellings consented
· the
12-month consents for attached dwellings have grown by 18 per cent at the end
of the September 2017 compared to the same period in 2016
· three
quarters of all consented residential dwelling growth is within
Auckland’s urban area
· average
residential sale prices have declined in recent months
· understanding
the distribution of sale prices is important; there is major price variation by
type and location
· most
residential properties (39 per cent) are sold to individuals that own multiple
properties
· average
rents vary considerably throughout Auckland and by dwelling type
· large
amounts of non-residential floor space have been consented
4. Future
reports will be provided to the Planning Committee for information.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Planning Committee:
a) receive
the first quarterly monitoring report on the National Policy Statement on
Urban Development Capacity.
b) circulate
the quarterly monitoring report to all local boards for
information.
|
Comments
5. National
Policy Statements are a legislative tool in the Resource Management Act
1991. They are a means for central government to prescribe objectives and
policies for matters of national significance which all local authorities must
implement within their planning framework.
6. The
NPS-UDC came into effect in December 2016. Its purpose is to enable urban
environments to grow and change in response to the changing needs of the
communities and to provide enough space for their populations to live and work.
7. NPS-UDC
has four objectives. These are:
· outcomes
from planning decisions
· evidence
and monitoring to support planning decisions
· responsive
planning
· coordinated
planning evidence and decision-making.
8. Each
objective has an associated set of policies.
9. The
evidence and monitoring objectives require a robustly developed, comprehensive
and frequently updated evidence base to inform planning decisions.
10. Local
authorities are required to monitor a range of housing and land indicators on a
quarterly basis. These include:
· prices
and rents for housing
· residential
land and business land by location and type
· indicators
of housing affordability
· building
and resource consents
· price
differentials and price efficiency.
11. Councils are
encouraged to publish the results of their monitoring reports.
12. The Quarterly
Monitoring Report focuses on the region. However, the data can be analysed at
different scales e.g. the number of residential dwellings consented in town
centres, and RIMU can do further analysis as may be requested.
13. Future
quarterly reports will be provided to the Planning Committee for information.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
14. There has
been no engagement with local boards in preparing this report. The report
includes data and information disaggregated to local boards which provides an
insight into the markets of those areas. Further analysis at this scale can be
provided on request.
Māori
impact statement
15. There has
been no engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka in preparing this report.
16. Vulnerable Māori are extremely sensitive to housing affordability.
The report monitors changes in the housing market and identifies areas that are
adversely affected by the decline in housing affordability.
Implementation
17. There are no
directly related implementation actions stemming from this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity
Quarterly Monitoring Report
|
427
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Chad Hu – Growth Analyst, Research and
Evaluation
|
|
Authorisers
|
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and
Research
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
|
Planning Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
National Policy Statement on Urban Development
Capacity initial assessment results (Covering report)
File No.: CP2017/24995
Purpose
1. To
receive the preliminary high level results of the housing demand capacity
assessment required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
Capacity.
Executive
Summary
2. This
is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report
was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to
the 28 November 2017 Planning Committee meeting.
Recommendations
3. The
recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.
|
Planning
Committee
28 November
2017
|
|
Summary of Planning Committee information memos and
briefings - 28 November 2017
File No.: CP2017/24119
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:
· Auckland
Council’s final submission on the proposed Northland Regional Plan
(Attachment A)
· Planning
Committee Forward Work Programme (Attachment B)
· Schedule
of December 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Attachment C)
4. The
following workshops/briefings have taken place:
· 30
October 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh 21 (Attachment D)
· 1
November 2017 – Confidential Ports of Auckland (no attachment)
· 16
November 2017 – Confidential Enhancements Plan Change (no attachment)
5. 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”.
6. 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 – 28
November 2017.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Auckland Council's final submission on the proposed
Northland Regional Plan (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b⇨
|
Planning Committee Forward Work Programme 28 November
2017 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
c⇨
|
Schedule of December 2017 Planning Committee workshops
(Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
d⇨
|
Auckland Plan refresh workshop 21 minutes (Under
Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Kalinda Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
