Agenda of Planning Committee - 13 February 2018

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Komiti Whakarite Mahere /

Planning Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

(Quorum 11 members)

Kalinda Gopal

Senior Governance Advisor

8 February 2018

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.

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr J Watson has 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 Monday, 5 February 2018 as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Public Input - Ben Ross - The Southern Airport Line, Airport to Botany Rapid Transit

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Ben Ross will speak to the committee regarding the Southern Airport Line, Airport to Botany Rapid Transit, and the importance of completing it as soon as possible.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Ben Ross regarding the importance of completing the Southern Airport Line, Airport to Botany Rapid Transit, as soon as possible and thank him for attending.

Attachments

a Southern Airport Line background information ................................... 175

5.2 Public Input - Harriet Gale - Regional rapid rail

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Harriet Gale will speak to the committee about regional rapid rail.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input presentation from Harriet Gale regarding regional rapid rail and thank her for attending.

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

13 February 2018

Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) 2013 - Decision to make the plan fully operative

File No.: CP2018/00458

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to update and make fully operative the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) 2013 (‘the plan’) following the Environment Court’s final resolution of appeals.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. On 19 September 2013, Auckland Council resolved to declare the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) ‘operative in part’.

3. While the remaining appeals to the plan were being resolved, an exclusions schedule identified those parts subject to challenge, and therefore not made operative. On 22 May 2017 the Environment Court released its final decision, [2017] NZEnvC 074, on the last of the appeals (Attachment A).

4. The decision on the appeals between Thumb Point Station Limited, Huruhe Station Limited, Man O’War Farm Limited, Man O’War Station Limited, South Coast Station Limited and Auckland Council resolves the last of the parts under appeal, meaning that the exclusions schedule can now be removed, and the plan made fully operative.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) authorise the General Manager - Plans and Places to complete the necessary statutory processes required to update the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) and to make the plan fully operative in accordance with Clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki / Context

Background

5. In 2005 the former Auckland City Council began a review of the first-generation Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 1996. The formal statutory phase of the review commenced with the notification of the Proposed Plan on 11 September 2006. Submissions were heard between July 2007 and November 2008, with the Hearing Panel’s decision publicly notified on 4 May 2009. From 4 May 2009 until 27 July 2009, the Environment Court received 45 appeals to these decisions.

6. Since November 2009, the council has been working to resolve appeals to the plan. By the time the plan was made operative in part in September 2013, all but three appeals had been resolved.

7. At its meeting on 19 September 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee approved resolution RDO/2013/178, declaring that the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands 2013) be made operative in part, pursuant to Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Following statutory processes under Clause 20(1) of Schedule 1, the plan then became operative in part on 7 October 2013, replacing the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 1996.

8. The provisions of the plan that remained under challenge were not made operative and were listed in an exclusions schedule, to be removed once the remaining appeals were resolved.

9. The provisions of the plan currently remaining in the exclusions schedule are:

Part 10a - Land units, objectives, policies and activity tables

(i) 10a.2 Landform 1 (coastal cliffs); 10a.3 Landform 2 (sand flats only); 10a.6 Landform 5 (productive land); 10a.7 Landform 6 (regenerating slopes); 10a.8 Landform 7 (forest and bush areas); 10a.26 land unit – Pakatoa

Part 10c - Development controls for land units and settlement areas

(ii) Table 10c.5 Development controls Pakatoa and Rotoroa as they relate to Pakatoa Island only

Part 11 - Assessment matters

Part 12 - Subdivision

(iii) 12.8 Discretionary activities; 12.9 General assessment criteria for discretionary activities; 12.10 Specific assessment criteria for discretionary activities

Part 14 - Definitions

Appeal history

10. The Environment Court released its decision in relation to the appeals on 22 May 2017. The decision explains that the appeals have had a long and complex history, with related appeals taken to the High Court, as well as a separate appeal taken to the Court of Appeal in relation to the higher order Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) introducing policy provisions for outstanding natural landscapes.

11. The Environment Court’s interim decision of 13 August 2014 addressed some aspects under appeal, with leave reserved to await the outcome of the aforementioned Man O’War appeal on the ARPS. This in part affected the timeliness of the subject appeals being resolved.

12. The Environment Court’s final decision on the outstanding matters of appeal between Thumb Point Station Limited, Huruhe Station Limited, Man O’War Farm Limited, Man O’War Station Limited, South Coast Station Limited (Appellants) and Auckland Council (Respondent) addressed the following topics: (Thumb Point Station Limited v Auckland Council [2017] NZEnvC 074)

A. Whether there is scope to include “alterations and additions” in the new restricted discretionary rule for non-production-related buildings in Landform 5

B. Whether the new “construction and relocation rule” applies to all visitor accommodation (of whatever size) in Landform 5.

C. The wording of an additional assessment criterion relating to multiple dwellings and Landforms 6 and 7.

D. Whether a specific (additional) non-notification rule is required for the new multiple dwelling rule.

13. The Environment Court’s final decision on these topics is annotated in the plan’s text, attached to this report as Attachment A.

14. The annotated text from the Environment Court decision needs to be incorporated into the plan. Once the text and tables are updated, the exclusions schedule summarised in paragraph 10 is no longer necessary and can be removed. The plan can then be declared fully operative.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

15. The Waiheke and Great Barrier local boards have been updated on the final decision of the Environment Court, and they will be further informed when the plan is updated and made fully operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. Making part or all of a plan operative under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act is the final step in the plan-making process, but is largely administrative in nature. The impact of the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) 2013 on Māori was taken into account throughout the preparation of the plan, from initial drafting through to the resolution of the appeals.

17. In terms of future district plan provisions for the Hauraki Gulf Islands, there will be an opportunity for renewed engagement with Māori through the incorporation of the islands subject to the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) 2013 into the Auckland Unitary Plan. A recommended process and timeframe for this work will be brought to the Planning Committee for approval in March or April this year.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. There are administrative costs associated with updating the plan to make it fully operative; these costs are provided for within the existing Plans and Places department budget. As this report relates to the resolution of the last of the appeals to the plan, there are no further costs required for litigation.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. The recommendations in this report are a result of an Environment Court decision and are procedural. They do not result in substantive changes to existing policy. Therefore, there is a low level, if any, of risk associated with making the plan fully operative and removing the exclusions schedule. Having the plan fully operative will allow for more efficient and effective processing of resource consents.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. The next step is updating the plan on the council website, notifying the date on which the plan becomes fully operative and advising stakeholder users of the update.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environment Court Decision	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Joao Machado - Team Leader Planning - Central/Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Decision to Make Additional Parts of the Plan Operative

File No.: CP2018/00284

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The Planning Committee further considered this matter on 10 October 2017 and made those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that were not subject to appeal at that point in time, operative.

4. Since the 10 October 2017, additional appeals have been resolved and further parts of the Unitary Plan can be made operative.

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

6. Attachment A to this report provides a summary of the appeals that have been resolved, withdrawn or otherwise determined since the 10 October 2017 report. These are highlighted in bold type.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

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

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

Horopaki / ContextUpdate on Appeals

7. In September 2016, Auckland Council received 108 appeals against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. 67 appeals were lodged with the Environment Court and 41 with the High Court, raising questions of law. Five additional Environment Court appeals (ENV-2017-AKL-000096, ENV-2017-AKL-000110, ENV-2017-AKL-000155, ENV-2017-AKL-000156 and ENV-2017-AKL-000167) have arisen from High Court proceedings. In addition, eight judicial review applications were filed in the High Court against the council’s decisions. Of the 113 (108 plus the additional 5) appeals, only 31 remain currently active, and 8 of these have been partially resolved.

High Court

8. 34 High Court appeals have been settled. Three additional appeals have been partially resolved/withdrawn.

Environment Court

9. 48 Environment Court appeals have been resolved. Five have been settled in part/partially withdrawn. The remaining appeals are either awaiting a decision from the court, or are the subject of continuing settlement discussions, or awaiting hearing dates.

Update on judicial reviews

10. Of the eight judicial reviews, six have been determined or discontinued.

Parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan to be made operative

11. Details of each appeal can be found on the Auckland Unitary Plan website via the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-appeals/Pages/updates-on-auckland-unitary-plan-appeals.aspx

12. As appeal files were closed, and confirmation received from the courts, the associated appeal annotations in the Auckland Unitary Plan were removed. As a result, those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan were no longer shown as under appeal and deemed to be “approved” under section 152 of the LGATPA.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14. This report deals with a procedural matter – making operative those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are no longer subject to appeal. No analysis or additional advice is therefore required.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. The cost of making the Unitary Plan operative is covered by the Plans and Places department’s operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. Delaying making further parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan fully operative would have cost implications for the council and the community, as development would continue to be subject to the provisions under both the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) and the legacy Regional and District Plans.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19. Following the Planning Committee’s decision, staff will publish a public notice advising of the date on which further parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan will be made operative.

20. A final report will be presented to the Planning Committee when the last remaining appeals are resolved. It is expected that this will occur in mid-2018. This report will seek that the Auckland Unitary Plan is made Operative (in full).

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of Auckland Unitary Plan appeals resolved - February 2018	45

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

Renewing Auckland Council's commitment to quality urban design to deliver a world-class city

File No.: CP2017/24523

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is three-fold. It aims to:

a) outline Auckland Council’s commitment to providing quality urban design solutions for the built environment challenges faced by the growing city.

b) highlight that the known and developing policy direction from central government represents a unique opportunity to achieve a new level of collaboration regarding urban design aspects of agreed urban development priorities for Auckland.

c) to signal the need for a series of initiatives to promote and achieve quality urban design thinking and practices across all of Auckland, including a framework for collaboration with key stakeholders.

Executive summary

2. The value added to places by quality urban design thinking and approaches is being clearly demonstrated in Auckland, cities around New Zealand (like New Plymouth and Wellington) and in many global cities (such as London, New York, Paris, Melbourne, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Barcelona).

3. While Auckland is benefiting from improved urban design and place-making decisions in many places, notably the City Centre and Waterfront, and including regional exemplars in Hobsonville, Newmarket, Takapuna, and New Lynn, there is still much to do to before Auckland can say it is achieving a consistent approach to quality built environment outcomes across the city region.

4. Auckland is growing at its fastest rate for decades. With this growth comes many challenges and opportunities. The city is responding by enabling intensification through the Auckland Unitary Plan promoting quality compact urban form, facilitated by targeted public transport investment (such as the City Rail Link, Mass Transit and improved bus, ferry and cycling networks and services). However, accommodating all the people that Auckland expects will require a concerted effort to manage growth. This means achieving higher quality urban design outcomes which create opportunities for making places of lasting value. Undertaken poorly, we will create environments which do quite the opposite.

5. The council group, private, government and not-for-profit sectors, have been instrumental in driving up standards of urban design across the city. The public has come to expect quality urban design outcomes that improve Auckland’s economic, social, environmental, and cultural performance whilst raising our global competitiveness and lifting our ability to attract and retain the best talent. This commitment to design quality is already being achieved through the cross-sector/cross-council implementation of the design-led city programme.

6. The significant changes and uplift in quality occurring in the City Centre in particular, are the result of a sustained political, public and private sector commitment (including a dedicated targeted rate) to achieving quality urban design over several decades. The successful approach in the City Centre could be adapted and applied to other parts of the region so that all Aucklanders gain the benefit of improved places.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) acknowledge the work under way across the council group to drive world-class urban design outcomes across the region.

b) acknowledge the critical role being played by the private sector in achieving our collective design-led aspirations for the city.

c) reaffirm the importance of Auckland Council’s commitment to quality urban design across the Auckland region.

Comments

Background

7. Half of the world’s population lives in cities, yet they cover only one per cent of the world’s surface area. Cities also consume some 70 per cent of the world’s energy and emit over 80 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, it is estimated that 70 per cent of the world’s population will live in cities and that the number of cities will double. Simply put, the future viability of the planet will hugely depend upon the way we plan, build and design our cities.

8. Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand and by 2040 its population is estimated to be 2.5 million. It has one-third of the population of the country and produces over 37 per cent of the nation’s GDP. Auckland continues to be New Zealand’s city and region of choice for people to live, work, play, prosper and migrate to.

9. Cities are highly complex and consist of many different components but fundamentally, they are places where people come together to trade goods and where ideas flourish. Growing cities must be planned and managed to ensure equality of opportunity that they bring.

10. Urban design is the skill and experience of managing different components of the built environment to create sustainable, human-scaled and people-centric buildings and places. It is an intentional act, which considers the form, function and feel of places. It is primarily focused on understanding:

· the spaces and connections between neighbourhoods and buildings

· the relationship between buildings and spaces in terms of size, appearance and uses

· how the various elements of cities work together with a focus on the public realm

· how people interact and move through an area or place

11. A number of international studies have revealed the wide benefits of good urban design. These support the findings of the 2005 report Value of Urban Design by the Ministry for the Environment. (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/value-of-urban-design-full-report-jun05_0.pdf)

Strategic case for leadership in urban design

12. Council is in the early stages of its second (six-yearly) comprehensive strategic planning cycle. The Mayor’s vision sets a new ambitious direction for Auckland as a World-Class City, emphasising the importance of Auckland competing successfully with other global cities for talent while protecting and enhancing the things that already make Auckland special and which Aucklanders value. The ability to deliver successful place-making projects at all scales, and in ways that reflect our unique points of difference, will be a key enabler of this vision.

13. The Auckland Plan refresh and the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 will provide the high-level policy and spatial framework for investment and development. The 10-year investment programme will provide the funding and timetable to deliver actual services, infrastructure and other place-based investments. Collaborative design-led place-making projects will help to ensure these investments come together seamlessly and optimally.

14. As recognised in the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize in 2016, Auckland has achieved a degree of integration in regional governance that is enabling it to move rapidly on key strategic issue such as improving public transport and rezoning for development. Auckland Council also has the scale and influence to drive positive change in the whole delivery system for infrastructure and housing.

15. This scale and influence can also be applied to the challenge of achieving quality urban design. Making the most of our size is one of council’s organisational priorities and is key to ensuring that town centres, streets and places across the region benefit from the urban design and place making approach.

16. The known and developing policy direction from central government also represents a unique point-in-time opportunity to achieve a new level of collaboration on agreed urban development priorities for Auckland and achieving quality urban design is an important component.

17. Council can proactively engage with central government on these issues and this report recommends a renewed commitment to quality urban design to help move this engagement forward at pace toward actual development issues and opportunities.

18. Collaborative design-led approaches to urban development have the potential to save time and reduce overall development costs. Getting the design process right also helps to prevent future unwanted costs when developments fail to deliver needed outcomes.

19. Across Auckland, the local boards also have a key role to play in urban design leadership and place-making. Every local board area has significant urban design issues, challenges and opportunities. Many cities have centres that are renowned for their quality and beauty, but not many are renowned for achieving quality across the whole of their urban environment. Auckland, by virtue of its unique governance arrangements, has an opportunity to work toward such a goal by making best use of the influence and expertise that every local board is able to bring to this challenge in the interest of their local communities.

The state and direction of urban design in Auckland

20. To maintain and build momentum at a time of unprecedented growth and opportunity, Auckland Council and its family of Council-Controlled Organisations will need to uphold quality outcomes through a renewed commitment to urban design and the concept of “place champions”. This is to ensure that what we develop today will have a lasting value for Auckland, as a world-class design-led city.

21. To date, the strongest and most visible focus on quality design in Auckland has been in the City Centre and the Waterfront, including regional exemplars in Hobsonville Point, Newmarket, Takapuna and New Lynn.

22. With broad public sector and stakeholder support, the award-winning City Centre Masterplan 2012 and the associated Waterfront Plan 2012, established and then cemented a compelling vision of an increasingly design-led and people-first City Centre.

23. The partly-complete Pedestrian Laneway Circuit programme demonstrates that when spaces are turned over to people, while still accommodating access and servicing by vehicles, pedestrian numbers and retail sales increase.

24. Investment in high-quality public realm improvements have been widely lauded and heavily utilised by citizens and visitors. Temporary space activation, such as the artificial lawn and deck chairs in Lower Queen Street for Auckland Anniversary Day and Griffiths Gardens in Wellesley Street, provide innovative, low-cost ways of making spaces inviting for people.

25. There are clear opportunities to take some of the learnings from the City Centre and apply them more broadly across the Auckland region. Panuku Development Auckland’s Design and Place Directorate is leading this in areas such as Onehunga, Takapuna, Northcote and Manukau. The Auckland Design Office is working more closely with them particularly around areas of Māori Design and Universal Access in housing for older persons.

26. Projects such as Ōtāhuhu Station, Te Oro Arts and Dance Centre and the Kopupaka Reserve Wetland Park demonstrate how respect for Māori Design can enrich projects.

27. Outside of the City Centre, urban design focus has been strongest in areas which have been subject to detailed structure planning based on creating mixed-use communities with a strong focus on urban design, around a defined and clear street grid network, prioritising walking and cycling, and connected by quality public transport.

28. The often-cited examples in Hobsonville Point and Talbot Park demonstrate council’s long-term partnership with central government working together to create a complete community. In the case of Hobsonville Point, a single land owner, Hobsonville Land Company (now Homes Land Community, a subsidiary of Housing New Zealand) was established. Its focus on public value, created through a long-term view of investment, means that high-quality urban design can be delivered at medium-density and at scale. New development was integrated with social infrastructure, public transport service and local retail delivered at an early stage of development. Other masterplanned developments planned and delivered by the private sector, such as Stonefields in Mt Wellington, Kensington Park in Orewa, Vinegar Lane in Ponsonby, Beaumont Quarter in the city fringe, and The Isaac in Grey Lynn, have demonstrated that quality urban design can also be market-attractive in an outer suburban context.

The role of a Place Champion

29. A Place Champion is a promoter of the city and an embodiment of our collective ambition for a world-class city. The idea is not to pull focus from high-profile projects but to integrate better design into decision-making across the board. The key purpose of the Place Champion is to ensure that council provides a vision and strategy for delivering quality design across council.

30. Place Champions promote the benefit and value of good design in delivering quality place-making to communities. They provide leadership, local knowledge and commitment to good urban design outcomes and build this into local board projects and investments.

31. A Place Champion will be able to coordinate efforts across the local board, focusing on delivering a quality built environment.

32. The Place Champion will ensure local board processes promote the delivery of quality place-making and development.

33. A political Place Champion will provide leadership, a voice for good design in decision-making, generate enthusiasm for a design-led city approach and promote the value of good design as adding economic (financial, environmental and social) value.

34. The Officer Design Champion, with the Auckland Design Office (ADO), will support the network and political champion by providing a visible point of contact for council and for external organisations.

Proposal for a renewed commitment to quality urban design

35. The Planning Committee is the body responsible for setting policy for Auckland Council on urban planning and design matters. This report provides the committee with an opportunity to recommit to its 2011 pledge for quality urban design across the city - see Attachment A: Tools for Creating a Liveable City.

36. An Elected Members’ and Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) Place Champion Network could help officers and the committee develop policy and have a lead role in urban design advocacy. Members of such a network would be Place Champions within their respective local boards and within IMSB.

37. There needs to be effective co-ordination with other council programmes and agencies to deliver on the promise of a high-quality built environment. The Auckland Council group of organisations all have a part to play in delivering quality urban design for Aucklanders and the Auckland Design Office will continue to collaborate with these teams. (see Attachment B: Auckland Design Office (ADO)…enabling a design-led city strategy) The Auckland Design Office will encourage a network of senior-level Place Champions in all Council-Controlled Organisations.

38. Council can proactively engage with central government on these issues. A renewed commitment to quality urban design will help move this engagement forward to actual development issues and opportunities.

39. Figure 1 (below), is a Potential Urban Design Stakeholder Framework that can be used as a basis for engagement with key stakeholders. For the purposes of this report, it should help in the understanding of the stakeholder issues informing the recommendations in this report.

Figure 1. Potential Urban Design Stakeholder Framework

Consideration

Local board views and implications

40. Local boards are identified as a key stakeholder and the proposed period of stakeholder engagement will be an opportunity to engage directly with local boards on the ideas and recommendations in this first report.

41. The intent of this report is to increase opportunities for local boards to use the advice and support of the Auckland Design Office, to develop urban design advice for the Planning Committee and participate in a renewed commitment to quality urban design in shaping their own programmes and influencing development outcomes in their respective areas.

42. As a component of the Elected Member Development Programme “Kura Kawana”, Local Boards Services have undertaken surveying of Elected Members to better understand their expertise, their needs and any gaps. High on the agenda for local board members has been a desire for enhanced urban design and place-making skills and so there is an opportunity for Auckland Design Office and Local Board Services to partner and to support the local board members (and Local Board Place Champions Network) in this crucial area.

Māori impact statement

43. Ngā Aho, a network of Māori design professionals, have met with Mana Whenua and are engaging with other stakeholder groups and will be involved in the development of further design advice. The Auckland Design Office has a growing leadership capability in Māori design advice and this report identifies the promotion of Māori “Te Aranga” Design Principles as one of the key opportunities for council in promoting quality urban design outcomes.

Implementation

44. The key implementation action from this report is a period of targeted stakeholder engagement which will inform further advice to the committee on initiatives to support a renewed commitment to quality urban design. It is envisaged that this engagement would take place between this committee meeting and February 2018, allowing a further report to be submitted to the committee in March 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tools for Creating a Liveable City, Regional Development and Operations Committee, 12 April 2011	55
b ⇩	The Auckland Design Office (ADO)…enabling a design-led city strategy	105

Signatories

Author

Ben vanBruggen - Manager Urban Design Strategy

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

PDF Creator

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project - Phase One Report

File No.: CP2018/00114

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on the Congestion Question Project (the project), formerly known as the Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project, at the conclusion of Phase One.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project recommended establishing a smarter transport pricing project (a pricing system that reflects the actual cost of travel) to substantially improve Auckland’s transport network performance and reduce congestion.

3. The Governing Body supported this recommendation and terms of reference establishing the project were agreed and signed by participating agencies in mid-2017.

4. An update on the project was provided to the 4 July 2017 Planning Committee meeting where the committee confirmed delegation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to lead council’s political input into the project.

5. Phase One of the project included:

· the preparation of baseline evidence

· the evaluation methodology

· an engagement plan.

6. Phase One was completed and, as a key milestone, is now being reported back to the Planning Committee.

7. The outcomes of this work are included in the Phase One Report. The following are among the main conclusions of the report:

· Due to high population and economic growth, Auckland’s congestion has worsened over recent years, and is expected to become more widespread. Foreseeable transport network investments will be insufficient to avoid increased congestion. Aucklanders’ access to jobs, education and other opportunities is therefore expected to deteriorate.

· Internationally, congestion pricing is being used successfully; however, a bespoke approach reflecting Auckland’s specific characteristics will be required to replicate such success.

· While a scheme that applies across the entire road network may be the best long-term solution, a staged implementation starting with smaller scale options and evolving over time is likely to be the best approach.

8. The report includes a high level analytical framework that sets out how each pricing option will be assessed against the objectives and key considerations in the terms of reference.

9. The report also includes an outline of a communication and engagement strategy to guide public involvement in subsequent phases.

10. On balance, the report concludes that smarter transport pricing has the potential to reduce congestion in Auckland. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor have, in accordance with their delegation, reviewed and signed-off the report and, in concert with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, have agreed that the project should proceed to phase two.

11. The focus of Phase Two of the project is to develop options for smarter transport pricing. Staff will engage with the Planning Committee and local board chairs at appropriate points and again report back to the Planning Committee at the end of Phase Two.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Phase One Report of the Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project, pursuant to resolution PLA/2017/74 c) of the 4 July 2017 Planning Committee.

b) note that the Congestion Question Project, formerly known as the Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project, has been approved to proceed to Phase Two.

Horopaki / Context

Background

12. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) was jointly done by Auckland Council and Central Government during 2015 and 2016. ATAP outlined a recommended strategic approach to develop Auckland’s transport system over the next 30 years.

13. ATAP modelling showed that if motorists paid closer to the actual cost of their travel through a smarter transport pricing system, this would generate a step-change in Auckland’s transport network performance.

14. Smarter transport pricing was found to have a greater potential impact on Auckland’s transport network performance than any transport infrastructure project modelled. ATAP therefore recommended establishing a dedicated project to examine whether smarter transport pricing should be applied in Auckland.

15. A multi-agency project, consisting of the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the NZ Transport Agency, State Services Commission, Treasury and the Ministry of Transport was formally established in mid-2017. As outlined in its terms of reference, the purpose of the project is:

“to undertake a thorough investigation sufficient to support a decision on whether or not to proceed with introducing pricing for demand management purposes in Auckland”.

16. Local board chairs were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the terms of reference and on 4 July 2017 the Planning Committee resolved to (Resolution number PLA/2017/74):

“a) note that the Terms of Reference for the Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project have been agreed, giving effect to the Auckland Transport Alignment Project’s recommendation.

b) confirm the delegation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to provide political oversight and to make formal decisions to progress through the various phases of the Smarter Transport Pricing Project (in accordance with section 6.1 of the Smarter Transport Pricing Project Terms of Reference), consistent with the model used for the development of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and the implementation of the City Rail Link Heads of Agreement.

c) request that key project milestones be reported to the Planning Committee.”

17. With the completion of the Phase One Report in December 2017, the project has reached a key milestone and is consequently being reported to committee.

Note on project naming

18. The project was originally known as the ‘Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing Project’. As part of the project’s communications and engagement workstream, a public facing name and brand for the project was developed: “The Congestion Question”. The project will be referred to as “The Congestion Question” from hereon to align with the public facing branding of the project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Conclusions of the Phase One Report

19. The project is being undertaken in three phases with the Phase One Report setting out, as defined in the terms of reference, the:

“baseline evidence, evaluation and analytical methodology for assessing different options against the project objectives, a comprehensive plan for engagement with the public and stakeholders, and recommendations for the appropriate timing and nature of possible demonstrations and pilots.”

20. The report fulfils these requirements and is included as Attachment A. Its main conclusions are that:

· Auckland’s congestion has worsened over recent years, and is expected to become more widespread over the next 30 years even after the significant programme of investments in public transport, roading and active modes recommended in the ATAP refresh report of August 2017

· without congestion pricing, Aucklanders’ access to jobs, education and other opportunities is projected to deteriorate

· internationally, congestion pricing is being used successfully to influence travel demand and ease congestion. There are many lessons to be learned from overseas (a full list is included in section 3.2 of the report), such as the importance of:

o establishing clear objectives

o the availability of complementary measures, such as public transport

o public understanding and communications

o balancing the competing design demands of a simple, easy to understand scheme with one which targets congestion

· a bespoke approach reflecting Auckland’s geographic, social and transportation characteristics will be required to replicate international successes. Consequently, it will not be possible to simply replicate an existing international scheme in Auckland

· technology is not a constraint to implementation in Auckland, but any scheme design will need to be flexible to adapt to future technology changes.

21. A high level analytical framework setting out how each potential smarter transport pricing option will be assessed against the objectives and key considerations in the terms of reference is included in the Phase One Report. This framework will be refined and applied in more detail as phases two and three progress, and the possible scheme options themselves are developed and become more detailed.

22. The evaluation framework will be an important tool in terms of identifying the potential advantages, disadvantages and impacts of any smarter transport pricing option.

23. The report noted that a shift to a form of smarter transport pricing could increase the cost of travel for some users and reduce it for others, depending on the time and location of their travel.

24. In developing possible smarter transport pricing schemes, it will be important to fully understand where travel cost increases occur so that equity impacts can be assessed and compared to the relative equity of the current system.

25. The terms of reference state that Phase One includes “recommendations for the appropriate timing and nature of possible demonstrations and pilots”. However, work to date indicated that this cannot occur until the possible options are better understood. Any recommendations on demonstrations and pilots would therefore be made at a later stage of the project.

26. On balance, the report concludes that smarter transport pricing has the potential to reduce congestion in Auckland and that there is no compelling reason not to undertake further evaluation of possible options. It therefore recommends that the project proceeds to Phase Two.

27. As provided for by the delegation of the Planning Committee, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have reviewed and signed-off the report and, in concert with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, have agreed that the project should proceed to Phase Two.

28. As mentioned above, building public understanding and acceptance is critical to successfully implement any congestion pricing solution. The report includes an outline of a communication and engagement strategy to guide public and stakeholders involvement.

29. It is anticipated that during Phase Two stakeholders will provide input/feedback on findings of the evaluation process. Benchmarking research also may be undertaken to gauge the public understanding and acceptability of smarter transport pricing.

Future phases

30. The focus of Phase Two is to develop, evaluate and narrow down smarter transport pricing options.

31. Key activities of Phase Two include:

· identification, design and assessment of potential pricing options for demand management purposes in Auckland

· high level identification of scheme components including development, indicative timeframes for implementation, capital and operating costs

· any demonstrations and pilots as appropriate

· assessment of shortlist of options based on evaluation results (including cost benefit analysis)

· recommendations of options to take to Phase Three.

32. The project will seek to engage with the Planning Committee and local board chairs at appropriate points and formally report back to the Planning Committee at the conclusion of Phase Two.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

33. There may be different sub-regional impacts from smarter transport pricing options.

34. As Phase Two of the project proceeds, the views of relevant local board chairs (or their delegates) will be canvassed on the options identified.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. As a smarter transport pricing scheme may increase the cost of travel at different times and in different places, there are important equity and household cost implications that will need to be considered. These may impact upon Auckland’s Māori population.

36. These factors are important elements of the project’s evaluation framework and will be initially evaluated in Phase Two and comprehensively evaluated in Phase Three.

37. The project will seek to engage with Māori during phases two and three.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

38. The project will continue to require council staff resourcing over the next year. It is not anticipated that there will be any other significant additional budget implications for council as it is primarily an evaluation project.

39. Phase Three of the project would identify the likely cost implications (and revenue generation) of implementing any recommended smarter transport pricing scheme, and this would be reported as part of any final recommendation.

40. Implementing any smarter transport pricing scheme depends upon decisions made at the conclusion of the project and would depend on recommendations made and subsequently adopted.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

41. There are no risks of the recommendation to receive the report and note the project proceeding to Phase Two.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42. The project will proceed to Phase Two and undertake the work previously outlined in paragraph 31 of this committee report.

43. Implementing any smarter transport pricing scheme would require legislative change and would be a significant new project in its own right in terms of resourcing and budgetary requirements.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	The Congestion Question Phase 1 Report	113

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Alastair Cribbens - Principal Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

PDF Creator

Planning Committee

13 February 2018

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 13 February 2018

File No.: CP2018/00542

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The following information items are attached:

· Planning Committee work programme (Attachment A)

· Schedule of workshops February and March 2018 (Attachment B)

4. The following memos have been circulated:

· 17 January 2018 – Auckland Council’s final submission on Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Private Plan Change Request from Karaka and Drury Limited – Auranga B1(Attachment C)

5. The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

· 16 November 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh 22 (Attachment D)

· 1 February 2018 – Confidential Unlock Panmure High Level Project Plan (no attachment)

6. This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

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

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

7. Note that 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.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings – 13 February 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning Committee forward work programme 13 February 2018 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Schedule of February and March Planning Committee workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Council final submission on Private Plan Change Request from Karaka and Drury Limited – Auranga B1 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Plan refresh workshop 22 minutes (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

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