Agenda of Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

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

· Relevant regional strategy and policy

· Infrastructure strategy and policy

· Unitary Plan

· Spatial plans

· Plan changes to operative plans

· Housing policy and projects

· Special Housing Areas

· City centre development

· Tamaki regeneration

· Built heritage

· Urban design

· Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

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

Activities of the following Council Controlled Organisations:

o Panuku Development Auckland

o Auckland Transport

o Watercare Services Limited

Powers

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

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

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

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

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

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr L Cooper 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 Tuesday, 5 February 2019 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 - Howick Youth Council - Auckland Transport investigating a transit lane on Pakuranga Highway

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Ben Fraser, Deputy Chair of the Howick Youth Council, will speak to the committee about Auckland Transport investigating a T2 Lane on Pakuranga Highway from Lloyd Elsmore Park to the intersection of Ti Rakau Drive and Pakuranga Highway.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from the Howick Youth Council which requests Auckland Transport investigate a transit (T2) lane on Pakuranga Highway from Lloyd Elsmore Park to the intersection of Ti Rakau Drive and Pakuranga Highway, and thank them for attending.

Attachments

a Howick Youth Council Consultation on T2 Bus Lane and Park & Ride ......................................................................................................................... 387

5.2 Public Input - Northern Reclamation Yacht Clubs Working Group - Auckland Marina Strategy development

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tony Skelton and Ron Copeland will speak to the committee about the development of an Auckland Marina Strategy.

2. The Northern Reclamation Yacht Club Working Group comprises the Ponsonby Cruising Club, Richmond Yacht Club, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and the Westhaven Marina Users Association.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from Tony Skelton and Ron Copeland about the development of an Auckland Marina Strategy and thank them for attending.

5.3 Public Input - Auckland Community Housing Providers Network - the potential role of council in the delivery of affordable housing

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Hope Simonsen, Dominic Foote and David Zussman will speak to the committee on behalf of the Auckland Community Housing Providers Network about the role of council in the delivery of affordable housing.

2. The Auckland Community Housing Providers Network has 20 members which are named in the background information (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from the Auckland Community Housing Providers Network about the role of council in the delivery of affordable housing and thank them for attending.

Attachments

a Background information - ACHPN delivering affordable housing in Tamaki Makaurau......................................................................................... 395

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input - Albert Eden Local Board - Private Plan Change Request by Southern Cross Hospitals

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Peter Haynes, Chairperson Albert-Eden Local Board, will speak to the committee about the private plan change request by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone land at Brightside Road and Gillies Avenue, Epsom.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Albert-Eden Local Board regarding the private plan change request by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone land at Brightside Road and Gillies Avenue, Epsom and thank Chairperson, Peter Haynes for attending.

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.”

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Government and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth

File No.: CP2019/00800

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To ask the committee to endorse the Terms of Reference for the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Improving housing affordability in Auckland by increasing the supply of housing is a key strategic priority of the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda and Auckland Council’s Auckland Plan 2050.

3. On September 14, 2018 Mayor Goff, Deputy Mayor Cashmore and Cr Darby met with Minister Twyford and Minister Parker to discuss greater collaboration to deliver better housing and urban development outcomes for Auckland.

4. The parties agreed to a formalised arrangement with an agreed programme of work overseen by a Political Governance Group.

5. This report asks the committee to endorse the Terms of Reference including the initial workstreams and projects. Most of the workstreams and projects are not new in that Council and/or the Crown is already progressing work in these areas, and in most cases the Council and Crown are already collaborating. By formalising the arrangements, the programme will ensure a more coordinated effort where officials believe “greatest value add” can be achieved by working collaboratively to:

· remove blockages/enable faster delivery of private and public projects in multiple locations where planning is already well advanced

· focus on areas where Council and Crown agencies are strongly aligned

· avoid spreading Council and Government resources too widely.

6. As reported to the Planning Committee on 27 November 2018 as part of the Auckland Plan update report, a key element of the programme is a spatial focus – based on the Auckland Plan Development Strategy – for joint action to unlock development.

7. The initial programme has seven workstreams, some of which have more than one project within the workstream. The workstreams are:

· Auckland Development Programme

· Affordable housing

· Infrastructure funding and financing

· Urban planning

· Spatial planning

· Urban development agency

· Removing barriers to efficient delivery of housing.

8. The initial programme focuses on actions which can be delivered within a 12-month timeframe. It is envisaged that workstreams and projects will change over time as actions are delivered and new initiatives identified.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the Terms of Reference for the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth, including the initial workstreams and projects shown as Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) request the Deputy Mayor to write to Hon Phil Twyford to inform him of the committee’s decision to endorse the Terms of Reference for the Joint Work Programme and request that he seeks a similar endorsement from central government.

Horopaki

Context

9. Improving housing affordability in Auckland by increasing the supply of housing is a key strategic priority of the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda and Auckland Council’s Auckland Plan 2050.

10. The Government’s Urban Growth Agenda has the primary outcome “To improve housing affordability, underpinned by affordable urban land.” It is supported by wider objectives to:

· improve choices for location and type of housing

· improve access to employment, education and services

· assist emission reductions and build climate resilience

· enable quality built environments, while avoiding unnecessary urban sprawl.

11. Auckland Council’s Auckland Plan 2050 has a “Homes and Places” outcome “Aucklanders live in secure, healthy and affordable homes, and have access to a range of inclusive public places”, achieved by:

· developing a quality compact urban form to accommodate Auckland’s growth

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

· shifting to a housing system that ensures secure and affordable homes for all

· providing sufficient public places and spaces that are inclusive, accessible and contribute to urban living.

12. The Auckland Development Strategy sets out how Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years to become a place that Aucklanders love and are proud of, a place they want to stay in or return to, and a place that others want to visit, move to or invest in.

13. The Auckland Plan has other outcomes which work together to achieve Auckland’s vision in the urban growth area. “Transport and Access” focuses on Aucklanders being able to access opportunities more easily. The “Environment and Cultural Heritage” outcome uses growth and development to protect and enhance Auckland’s natural environment. These are aligned to the wider objectives of the Urban Growth Agenda outlined above.

14. On September 14, 2018 Mayor Goff, Deputy Mayor Cashmore and Cr Darby met with Minister Twyford and Minister Parker to discuss greater collaboration to deliver better housing and urban development outcomes for Auckland. Following the meeting, Deputy Mayor Cashmore requested a formalised arrangement with an agreed programme of work overseen by a Political Governance Group.

15. Minister Twyford agreed to this approach and directed officials from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) and Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to work with Council officers to develop a joint programme of work.

16. The Political Governance Group will meet quarterly. Membership is as follows:

Auckland Council

Government (most relevant portfolios)

Mayor Goff

Deputy Mayor Cashmore

Cr Darby - Chair of Planning Committee

17. Cr Hulse - Chair of Environment and Community Committee

Minister Twyford - Minister of Housing and Urban Development and Minister of Transport

Minister Parker - Minster for the Environment and Minister for Economic Development

Minister Salesa - Minister of Building and Construction

18. Minister Mahuta - Minister of Local Government and Minister for Maori Development

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. This item asks the committee to endorse the proposed Terms of Reference including the initial workstreams and projects (Attachment A).

20. The terms of reference specify the purpose of the joint work programme as:

· aligning and prioritising objectives

· effective co-ordination and delivery

· improving ways of working together

· supporting new/amended policies, legislation and tools.

21. The overarching objectives are:

· increased and accelerated provision of quality, affordable housing

· increased range of housing choices (type, location, tenure and price points)

· achieving quality intensification

· growth and development that supports climate resilience and New Zealand’s climate change obligations and protects and enhances the natural environment

· funding and financing tools to enable infrastructure delivery

· coordination of Crown and Council infrastructure investment (including location of government services) to support urban growth

· integrated and well-located employment growth

· the costs of growth are understood, and existing infrastructure and zoning is optimised.

22. Most of the workstreams and projects are not new in that Council and/or the Crown is already progressing work in these areas, and in most cases the Council and Crown are already collaborating. For example, the council has been working on Affordable Housing initiatives as discussed in a report on this agenda, and officers have had discussions with MBIE staff as part of this. By formalising the arrangements, the programme will ensure a more coordinated effort where officials believe “greatest value add” can be achieved by working collaboratively to:

· remove blockages/enable faster delivery of private and public projects in multiple locations where planning is already well advanced

· focus on areas where Council and Crown agencies are strongly aligned

· avoid spreading Council and Government resources too widely.

23. The initial programme focuses on actions which can be delivered within a 12-month timeframe. It is envisaged that workstreams and projects will change over time as actions are delivered and new initiatives identified. The joint programme must also have some flexibility and agility to deal with pressing issues the Political Governance Group might agree need to be addressed.

24. As reported to the Planning Committee on 27 November 2018 as part of the Auckland Plan update report, a key element of the programme is a spatial focus – based on the Auckland Plan Development Strategy – for joint action to unlock development.

25. The joint programme does not affect other BAU activities. This includes efforts to deliver other growth areas in Auckland such as Henderson.

26. There are seven workstreams in the initial programme:

Workstream	Projects	Summary of actions

1. Auckland Development Programme

Southern growth area (immediate focus Drury)

· understanding cost and implications of releasing future urban land sooner

· identifying and securing social infrastructure

· providing catalysts for job growth

City Centre to Māngere LRT urban growth areas

(including the Auckland Housing programme in Māngere, Mt Roskill, and Oranga, and Transform Onehunga)

· clarify current infrastructure capacity situation

· develop infrastructure funding and investment plans with asset owners and HLC/HNZC

· identifying and securing social infrastructure

· targeted changes to the Unitary Plan to provide for greater intensification in appropriate areas

Transform Manukau

· complete joint business case

· review investment approach and redevelopment timing of HNZC land

CRL development opportunities

(Aotea, Karangahape and Mt Eden)

· develop a delivery framework and pursue opportunities to leverage CRL investment

Workstream	Projects	Summary of actions

2. Affordable housing		· identify new non-regulatory and regulatory interventions in the housing system which increase affordable housing
3. Infrastructure funding and financing		· test application of alternative financing and funding tools within priority development areas · develop with Crown Infrastructure Partners a long-term pipeline of projects
4. Urban planning	Quality intensification	· pilot study with developers to understand any RMA or Unitary Plan road blocks to fully utilising the Unitary Plan Terrace Housing and Apartment zone · use Auckland case studies to test national direction options for quality intensification
	Costs and benefits of growth	· work together to better understand and quantify the wider costs and benefits of urban development, in order to inform planning and investment decisions and other work programmes
5. Spatial planning		· use Auckland Plan experience to test and inform options to strengthen spatial planning in New Zealand
6. Urban development agency		· regular reporting on legislative process · identify potential locations for UDA and Council to work together
7. Removing barriers to efficient delivery of housing	Building Act and Building Code and efficient consenting processes	· progress the introduction of tools and process improvements to the efficiency and performance of building consent processes at Auckland Council
	Optimal utilisation of zoning and related infrastructure capacity	· investigate mechanisms that encourage optimal utilisation of zoning and infrastructure capacity

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The work programme involves the wider council family including Panuku, Watercare, Auckland Transport and to a lesser extent ATEED. The Political Steering Group will be supported by an Executive Steering Group. Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town will represent the council group on this Executive Steering Group.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

28. The programme includes workstreams and projects with local benefits/impacts. No specific consultation has been undertaken with local boards in developing the joint work programme, however normal processes for working with local boards will continue to be utilised at the project level. For example, Panuku works closely with local boards on all its development projects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. The Auckland Plan ‘Homes and Places’ outcome has a focus area to invest in and support M āori to meet their specific housing needs.

30. The programme includes workstreams and projects of interest to Māori because of their potential to deliver affordable housing and economic development opportunities as well as their potential environmental and cultural impacts. For example, the Affordable Housing report on this agenda considers how affordable housing initiatives could contribute to the Kāinga Strategic Action Plan under the “do more” option (Option 3).

31. No specific consultation has been undertaken with Māori in developing the joint work programme however processes for working with Māori will continue to be utilised at the project level. For example, the team developing the Drury Structure Plan have held regular hui with representatives from Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Huakina Development Trust, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Tamaoho, and Te Ākitai Waiohua to help inform the development of the plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The joint work programme signals a more formal working relationship with government on existing workstreams and projects. Although some of the proposed actions are new, most of the programme is already underway in some form and will be funded from existing budgets at this stage.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. The Political Governance Group will oversee and manage programme risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. The Political Steering Group will oversee the joint work programme once endorsed by the Planning Committee and central government/Crown and the Planning Committee will receive regular updates on progress.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Terms of Reference for Government and Auckland Housing Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Catherine Syme - Programme Mgr Urban Growth & Housing

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Director Urban Growth and Housing

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Auckland Council's position and role in affordable housing - affordable homes for all

File No.: CP2019/01778

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide on Auckland Council’s position and role in affordable housing.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1. Housing is increasingly unaffordable for a growing number of households in Tāmaki Makaurau. One third of Auckland renters spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs. They are ineligible for social housing and cannot afford to buy their own home. They are trapped in the ‘intermediate housing market’.

2. On 27 November 2018 the Committee agreed (PLA/2018/122) to use the snapshot report “Affordable Housing in Auckland” for engagement with key stakeholders to develop a “position and role” report for this meeting.

3. Four options on council’s position and role were considered, with each option building on the previous one. Option 1 – statutory requirements, would involve doing less than the status quo and is not presented for consideration.

4. Three options are presented for consideration:

· Option 2 – partner and influence. This is status quo. Council would continue to partner with others and influence government within existing policy and plan settings.

· Option 3 – intervene and lead. This is ‘doing more’ by investigating levers (e.g. inclusionary zoning) and incentives, and leading and partnering for stronger collaboration.

· Option 4 – directly deliver. This is ‘doing a lot more’ by directly providing affordable housing.

5. Option 2 – partner and influence, has the least impact on the affordable housing problem and is not recommended.

6. Staff recommend Option 3 – intervene and lead. It has the least cost for increased impact on the affordable housing problem, and best manages complexity.

7. The key trade off with Option 4– directly deliver, is that it would have greater direct impact on the affordable housing problem, there is greater cost and uncertainty about implementation.

8. The key risk with the recommended option is reputational. If the investigated initiatives do not progress, council will be criticised for raising expectations, and not implementing its preferred position. This will be mitigated through engagement with stakeholders and communication with Aucklanders during the investigation of initiatives.

9. If the recommended option is approved staff will start investigating affordable housing levers between April - December 2019. Insights and update reporting will occur between January - June 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree that Auckland Council’s preferred position and role in affordable housing is Option 3 – intervene and lead including:

i) modelling inclusionary zoning, other planning mechanisms and incentives

ii) improving council processes for affordable housing outcomes

iii) concessions or grants for community housing providers

iv) partnerships with government, iwi, community housing providers and developers

v) retained affordability mechanisms and rental tenure security for renters

vi) the experience and needs of people in the intermediate housing market.

Horopaki

Context

Background

Advice requested on a position and role for council to address affordable housing issues

10. In June 2017, the Mayoral Housing Taskforce Report called for the council to collaborate with central government and housing sector groups to address housing affordability issues.

11. On 27 November 2018 the Committee received “Affordable Housing in Auckland: a snapshot report”. This report introduced the problem, key themes from the literature, international experience, and current and planned Auckland initiatives.

12. The Committee agreed (PLA/2018/122) to endorse the use of the snapshot report for engagement with key stakeholders to develop a ‘position and role’ report for this meeting.

13. The scope of this report is focussed specifically on affordable housing levers and initiatives not the wider housing system (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Affordable housing scope of report within the wider housing system

Problem definition

Growing numbers of Aucklanders are trapped in the ‘intermediate housing market’: rental costs are unaffordable, and they are unable to buy their own home

14. Affordable housing is defined as ‘a home that a household could occupy for less than 30 per cent of its income whether purchasing or renting’.

15. This definition summarises the relationship between household incomes and the prices (or rents) of homes. Prices and rents in turn reflect the balance between demand for, and supply of homes.

16. Over 40 percent of Auckland households now rent. 30 per cent of renting households spend more than that 30 per cent of their income on housing, and three quarters of them cannot afford to buy their own home. They are ineligible for social housing and are stuck in the intermediate housing market.

17. Multiple factors are causing the decline in housing affordability. Global financial trends, immigration and tax policy have all contributed to a rapid increase in demand for houses. Meanwhile land use planning, infrastructure provision and consenting, construction sector productivity and capacity, and bank lending criteria have constrained supply. This has led to rapid house price increases which has outstripped growth in Aucklanders’ income.

18. As a result, Māori, Pacific Island people, sole parents and retired renters are forced into lower quality homes, overcrowded situations, and onto the social housing waiting list. There is a sharpening divide in the incomes and wealth of renters and home owners.

19. Broad brush polices are necessary but not enough to alleviate the housing stress experienced by people in the growing intermediate housing market.

20. More targeted policies and programmes common overseas are required to:

· increase the supply of lower cost homes

· assist households in the private rental market

· assist partial or progressive home ownership.

21. Secure, healthy and affordable housing is critical for whānau and tāmariki wellbeing. A lack of affordable housing brings long term costs to wellbeing.

22. The snapshot report highlighted there are no short-term, low-cost solutions to the systemic issues identified and no agency can solve Auckland’s affordable housing problem alone.

23. The snapshot report also identified affordable housing policies and initiatives that warrant further investigation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Policies and initiatives that provide affordable homes for the intermediate market

Government and council joint work programme on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth

24. Government plays the principle role in housing policy and the provision of social housing.

25. Many of the housing system settings (or enablers) are controlled by central government or are part of the wider economy. They include:

· immigration policy

· finance legislation and bank lending practices

· tenancy legislation

· construction sector productivity and practice.

26. Government has signaled that the new Housing and Urban Development Authority will consolidate three agencies: Housing New Zealand, HLC (Homes. Land. Community.) and KiwiBuild. This authority may have a range of statutory powers that will impact on the provision of affordable housing and the role of council.

27. Council also influences the wider housing system settings through:

· planning, consenting and building control mechanisms

· provision of infrastructure and development contributions

· utilising council owned land

· partnering and advocacy.

28. Auckland Council and government have developed a Joint Programme on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth to deliver shared housing and urban growth priorities. The committee will consider the joint work programme at this meeting.

Council can explore levers and initiatives to contribute to the joint work programme with government to get people into affordable homes

29. There is an affordable housing workstream within the joint government/council programme. Deciding the council position and role will provide clear direction for council’s contribution to the joint affordable housing workstream.

Current status

The Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes set the direction for affordable homes for all

30. The Auckland Plan 2050 Homes and Places outcome seeks improved housing and rental choices, tenure security and housing quality for Aucklanders (Focus Areas 1,2 and 3).

31. This sets a clear direction for affordable homes for all Aucklanders.

32. Current council activities that support the aspiration of affordable homes include:

· ‘transform’ and ‘unlock’ to deliver a mix of housing types on council surplus land

· Haumaru housing portfolio delivers affordable rental housing for older people

· under the Contributions Policy 2019 “social housing developers” are offered extended payment times for development contributions on a case by case basis (CP2018/24409)

· work with government and non-government partners to develop and implement a regional cross sectoral homelessness plan - Kia Whai Kāinga Tātou Katoa

· economic modelling and research on development feasibility

· grants, assistance to Iwi/Māori trusts to support Papakāinga and Māori housing

· support in principle for the Kāinga Strategic Action Plan.

Stakeholders believe council can play a stronger role in affordable housing

33. Engagement for this report took place with advisory staff from:

· Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

· Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB)

· Property Council

· Auckland Community Housing Providers Network

· Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te iwi Trust (a Māori housing organisation).

34. Stakeholders supported an enhanced role for council in affordable housing and signalled a willingness to work with council on affordable housing solutions.

35. Community housing providers play a key role in managing retained affordable housing. At a workshop with the Auckland Community Housing Providers Network in January 2019 they gave three examples of where council could take a stronger role:

· the strategic use of council assets (Barrowcliffe Place is an example of effective partnership between council, Panuku, community housing providers and iwi)

· changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to include inclusionary zoning for (retained) affordable housing

· reviewing the costs of development contributions and consenting fees for community housing providers delivering affordable housing.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for Auckland Council’s position and role in affordable housing

36. Four options on the council position and role have been assessed by staff and three are presented for consideration:

· Option 2 – partner and influence: ‘status quo’ option, where council continues to partner with others and influence government within existing policy and plan settings

· Option 3 – intervene and lead: ‘do more’ option, where council investigates changes to levers (e.g. through an inclusionary zoning provision) and initiatives, and leads partnerships through a strengthened collaborative approach

· Option 4 – directly deliver: ‘do a lot more’ option, with council becoming a direct provider of affordable housing.

37. Option 1 – statutory requirements would involve doing less than the status quo. It is the least responsive to the affordable housing problem and has not been presented for consideration.

38. Each option incorporates the option before and increases the role for council in addressing affordable housing. The cost and complexity of implementation increases with each option (see Figure 3). Implementation of specific affordable housing initiatives would be subject to future decision-making.

Option 2 – Position: partner and influence

39. Option 2 - partner and influence: ensures council is working towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and enhances its contribution to affordable housing through partnerships and influence. Current work and relationships provide a platform for further work on affordable housing problems and initiatives.

Role

Continue with current activities - use current work programme to partner with central government and others on a case-by-case basis. This is the status quo as described in paragraph 34.

Strengths

· Goes some way to enhancing and improving affordable housing outcomes.

· Processes to deliver are already in place, and council has the capacity and capability to continue.

· Potential new partnering opportunities.

Risks

· Impact on affordable housing outcomes over the longer term is unknown, and current work is unlikely to be enough to address the current problem.

· Does not meet partner expectations for council to do more.

Option 3 – Position: intervene and lead

40. Option 3 - intervene and lead: would require council to maintain the status quo and begin the process of strengthening levers and initiatives (policy, planning, controls, budgets, council land and incentives). Council would form stronger partnerships and lead in some areas. This option would leverage existing capability in council.

Role

Option 2 + strengthen levers and initiatives, and further develop and lead partnerships. This would include investigating:

· modelling inclusionary zoning, other planning mechanisms and incentives

· improving council processes for affordable housing outcomes

· concessions or grants for community housing providers

· partnerships with government, iwi, community housing providers and developers

· retained affordability mechanisms and rental tenure security for renters

· the experience and needs of people in the intermediate housing market.

Strengths

· Greater impact on affordable housing outcomes and the problem.

· Council has the capability to analyse, model and design policy and plan changes.

· Strong support from partners for council to do more.

Risks

· Impact on affordable housing outcomes is unknown.

· Potential opposition to council investigating inclusionary zoning.

· Any future regulatory work i.e. inclusionary zoning may be complex and time consuming with high cost.

Option 4 – Position: directly deliver

41. Option 4 - directly deliver: council would assess and decide what services to deliver to be directly involved in affordable housing provision in partnership with others. This is balanced by high potential costs for delivery (in a financially constrained environment).

Role

Option 3 + directly provide affordable and social housing through changes to the planning mechanisms and controls in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This would involve doing a lot more, and would include investigating:

· purchasing, or making existing council land available for affordable housing

· delivery of social housing directly, through subsidies/incentives to community housing providers

· supporting progressive home ownership schemes such as rent-to-buy, shared equity or co-housing

· partnerships to deliver build-to-rent developments.

Strengths

· More levers to have a greater direct impact on affordable housing outcomes.

· Leverages existing asset base (landholdings within our control).

· Community housing providers support a strengthened partnership.

· International evidence suggests a strong partnership model between local and central government and the non-governmental sector offers a promising opportunity to deliver affordable housing at scale.

Risks

· As a new service, costs to council are unknown, but would be high.

· Requires significant budget through future Annual Plan or Long-term Plan and significantly changes to Panuku mandate

· Significant investigative work would be required to understand costs and benefits, including alternative sources of funding. Seeking funding from private capital markets to invest could bring additional risks.

· Time would need to be invested in strengthening partnerships.

· May encroach on central government’s role in housing provision.

· Community housing providers may have limited capacity to manage a large affordable housing portfolio.

42. The options are assessed in Table 1 below against the following criteria:

· impact on delivering affordable housing: contribution to provision of affordable housing

· managing complexity: tools and approaches that respond to system complexity

· opportunities for collaboration: meaningful collaboration with partners to deliver affordable housing solutions

· flexibility of approach: flexibility to respond to new opportunities or take new directions if/when government and/or market conditions shift

· cost effectiveness: good value for the potential cost of implementation.

43. The criteria have been developed from the snapshot report analysis and engagement with stakeholders. The criteria reflect those variables that were considered critical in delivering affordable housing for all Aucklanders within the current uncertain context.

Table 1: Assessment of options against criteria

Criteria

Option 2 - Partner and influence

Option 3 - Intervene and lead

Option 4 - Directly deliver

Impact in delivering affordable housing

üü

üüü

Managing complexity

üü

üüü

Opportunities for collaboration

üü

üüü

Flexibility of approach

üüü

üü

Cost effectiveness

üü

Key

Alignment with criteria

Low

Medium

üü

High

üüü

Staff recommend Option 3 – intervene and lead to increase council’s contribution towards addressing affordable housing

44. Option 2 - partner and influence, has the lowest cost, but the least impact on the problem, and overall lowest alignment with the criteria. It is not recommended.

45. Options 3 - intervene and lead, and Option 4 - directly deliver, have the same overall alignment when scored against the criteria.

46. The Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Kāinga Strategic Action Plan identifies outcomes that would improve the supply and quality of affordable housing for Māori and actions for Auckland Council. Implementing these actions will be explored in the next phase of work, should council endorse Option 3 - intervene and lead, or Option 4 – directly deliver.

47. The key trade-off between the two options is the potential cost.

48. Option 4 – directly deliver, signals to the community that council will take a big step up from the current approach. It has greater direct impact on affordable housing, but there is greater cost and uncertainty about implementation.

49. Staff recommend Option 3 - intervene and lead. This means continuing and increasing our current activities through investigating levers and initiatives, including inclusionary zoning. This option allows us to increase our impact on the affordable housing problem within our current capability and with greater certainty about potential costs. It presents a managed progression towards increasing our impact and provides flexibility for council to step towards Option 4 - direct delivery, in the future.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50. The impact on the council group depends on both the position and role selected. Option 3 - intervene and lead, and Option 4 – directly deliver, represent the greatest potential future impact on existing council group roles.

51. The nature and scale of impact will be determined by future council decision-making about levers and initiatives to implement the preferred position and role.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

52. Affordable housing is a critical issue across Tāmaki Makaurau. Making more affordable housing available in Tāmaki Makaurau will have a positive impact, particularly in local board areas with high numbers of people trapped in the intermediate housing market.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53. Affordable housing is a critical issue for Māori. Māori rates of home ownership have declined over the past 25 years and Māori are much more likely than European/Pākeha to be renters in Tāmaki Makaurau.

54. The snapshot report discussed the continual displacement of Māori on the housing ladder: as more affluent households are renting, some whānau are displaced into insecure, unhealthy rental housing and are at risk of continued transience and homlessness.

55. Making more affordable housing available in Tāmaki Makaurau, particularly good quality rental accommodation, will have a significant impact on Māori wellbeing. Focus area 4 of the Homes and Places outcome in Auckland Plan 2050 identifies investing in and supporting Māori to meet their housing aspirations.

56. Māori make up over half of the client base of community housing providers but the number and size of Māori community housing providers is very small. Growing their number, size and capability could be a focus activity of future partnership building with the sector.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57. The financial implications for council of the options identified are:

· Option 2 - partner and influence: activities are within existing budget

· Option 3 - intervene and lead: investigation work is within current budget and implementation of future initiatives with financial implications can be considered through future Annual Plan and Long-term Plan processes

· Option 4 - directly deliver: investigation work within current budget. Potential for new services with significant budget implications requiring business case development. Funding considered through future Annual Plan and Long-term Plan processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. Risks and mitigation measures for the recommended Option 3 – intervene and lead are:

Risk identified	(High/ Medium/ Low)	Mitigation
There is an implementation risk that any future planning changes may be controversial, complex and costly.	M	Complexity of implementation and the costs of these initiatives will be addressed in the investigation and modelling work.
There is a reputational risk that if investigated initiatives do not progress, council will be criticised for raising expectations, and not implementing its preferred position and role.	M	Engagement with stakeholders and communication with Aucklanders during the investigation of initiatives.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. The next steps for the recommended Option 3 – intervene and lead are:

A close up of text on a white background

Description automatically generated

60. If Option 4 - directly deliver is chosen, staff will report back in July 2019 with a work programme scope and timeline for implementation decision-making.

61. Specific initiatives will be considered by the appropriate committee for decision-making.

62. Updates will be provided as part of the progress reporting for the Joint Programme on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth.Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Chaudhry - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Deborah Edwards - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Approach to marinas

File No.: CP2019/02056

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the committee’s endorsement of an approach to developing principles to assist council when it needs to make decisions related to marinas, particularly council-owned marinas.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. There are 12 marinas in the Auckland Region. Six are owned by Auckland Council. From time to time council needs to make decisions about individual marinas as proposals for the use of marina land or the improvement of facilities and services are made.

3. The three central city waterfront marinas – Westhaven, Viaduct and Silo – are well covered in terms of development plans, planning provisions and ongoing waterfront development processes. This provides a robust framework for decision making.

4. The other three council owned marinas – Gulf Harbour, Westpark (aka Hobsonville) and Half Moon Bay - do however not have the same well-canvassed future development plans. Some guiding framework is needed for council to make decisions when presented with proposals and opportunities related to these three marinas.

5. Decisions regarding use and development of the six privately owned marinas – Bayswater, Pine Harbour, Milford, Sandspit, Mahurangi and Ōrākei – are made through consenting processes as provided for in the Unitary Plan. There are council-owned parcels of land (e.g. open space or transport related) associated with these marinas, but council has no additional jurisdiction over these private land holdings other than in its regulatory capacity.

6. There have been two Planning Committee workshops to consider the best way forward for dealing with marinas and the various concerns of different user groups and communities.

7. To address the above it is proposed that a set of principles be developed that will serve as a framework for decisions on Gulf Harbour, Westpark and Half Moon Bay marinas. The principles will be generic to all three marinas, but will also be ‘tailored’ to each marina through a second level of detail. The principles could also be used to guide decisions council may need to make on council owned land associated with private marinas.

8. Principles will be developed involving representatives from all users of the marina and marina land, surrounding communities and mana whenua. As a starting point, cross-council databases will be used to identify and invite groups to be involved in the process. Relevant local boards will also be asked to assist in identifying community-based groups to be involved in the process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the approach of developing principles to guide future decision-making for council owned marinas, focusing on Gulf Harbour, Westpark and Half Moon Bay marinas.

b) endorse the development of principles through a process involving all marina users, surrounding communities and mana whenua.

c) request staff to report back at the end of the process with the aim of adopting the principles.

Horopaki

Context

9. There are 12 marinas in the Auckland. The function of marinas is foremost to provide marina related facilities (moorings) and services related to those facilities. They however also provide for other activities that require access to the water and provide amenity for surrounding communities and others.

10. Six of the region’s marinas are owned by the council:

· Gulf Harbour	· Half Moon Bay	· Westpark, also known as Hobsonville
· Westhaven	· Viaduct	· Silo

11. Six marinas are privately owned:

· Bayswater	· Pine Harbour	· Milford
· Sandspit	· Mahurangi	· Ōrākei

12. Various marina user groups, communities and others with a link to marinas have expressed divergent views and concerns on the future of individual and/or all marinas.

Council owned marinas

13. Council owned marinas assets are currently held by Panuku Development Auckland. Panuku manages the relevant operational aspects of the marinas, for example administering lease agreements. They also have responsibility for future development of the marinas.

14. Proposals about the future use of council marinas are considered by the council prior to any decision being made. However, there isn’t always sufficient (and recent) context within which decisions can be made – particularly for Gulf Harbour, Westpark and Half Moon Bay marinas.

15. There are currently leaseholder development proposals for Westpark Marina as well as some public transport matters that need to be addressed. At Gulf Harbour, an Environment Court decision (regarding a lease agreement) needs to be given effect to and the long-term security of the ferry service needs to be considered. There is thus some urgency to have a framework in place against which decisions can be made.

16. On the other hand, the three central city waterfront marinas – Westhaven, Viaduct and Silo – have significant development plans and there are ongoing waterfront development processes that provide enough context and avenues for decision making.

17. Three of council’s marinas therefore need a framework for making decisions, three already have such a framework.

Privately owned marinas

18. All development on the six privately owned marinas are managed through resource consent processes, provided for in the Unitary Plan. As this is a Resource Management Act process, the council has no additional ‘jurisdiction’ over these private land holdings.

19. There are council-owned land parcels of varying size associated with all the private marinas in the form of public open space or transport related activities such as ferries and parking.

20. It may be helpful to have some additional context for decision-making about these publicly owned land parcels, but there is no immediate urgency or current need.

A region-wide issues based, demand driven marina strategy

21. The Auckland Marina Users Association (AMUA), a group formed in June 2018 representing marina users – primarily berth holders – proposed that the council should develop a region-wide issues based, demand driven marina strategy, involving all stakeholders.

22. The stated purpose is:

“The marina strategy will incorporate the concerns and future expectations of the major stakeholders and local communities and identify the long term goals over at least the next 50 years of Council and the Community for the region’s marinas and related and neighbouring land and identify the broad steps and actions necessary to achieve these goals over that time frame”. [November 2018]

23. In November 2018 all committee members received a letter from AMUA detailing their proposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Staff recommend that the most targeted and cost-effective decision-making framework can be created through a set of ‘marina principles’ for the three marinas where it is needed most urgently.

25. Principles can be created by working with those with a direct interest in marinas. Together, a set of principles can be developed that apply to all marinas and that broadly describe the outcomes people would like from marinas. For ease of reference, this can be referred to as Level 1 principles.

26. A more detailed description, specific to each individual marina, can be added. This can address specific issues and opportunities of each marina, referred to as Level 2 principles.

27. Theoretical examples could be:

Level 1	Provides amenity/public open space for communities
Level 2	For X marina this means:	· Public spaces that are safe and accessible for all users
		· An unobstructed boardwalk along the entire water edge
		· Large grassed and treed areas for multi-use
		· Etc.

Level 1	Safeguards access as a current or future public transport interchange
Level 2	For X marina this means:	· Busses that are able to meet ferries
		· Sufficient bus parking and turning
		· A convenient, weather-proof ferry terminal
		· Etc.

28. Such a set of principles could then be used:

· by council to evaluate proposals or opportunities, understanding the view of users, surrounding communities and mana whenua

· by Panuku to test proposals that come to them or that they might develop themselves

· by Auckland Transport to evaluate land-use and/or investment decisions

· as a guide to / additional information for council should it have to consider matters at other council owned marinas or its land associated with private marinas. Only level 1 principles will be applicable in this case.

Options

29. Other options were considered.

Option 1	Develop principles for Gulf Harbour, Westpark and Half Moon Bay marinas	As set out in this report. Staff recommend this option.
Option 2	Develop principles for all council marinas	Council exercises control over council owned marinas (within existing lease agreements). Developing principles for all council marinas is therefore an option. However · there are comprehensive plans and processes in place for the 3 central city waterfront marinas · the Level 1 principles proposed can be applied to these 3 marinas as additional information should there be a need. Staff do not recommend this option.
Option 3	Develop principles for private marinas (in addition to council marinas)	Private marinas are part of Auckland’s marina ‘offering’ and provide a service to many. Principles could be developed for these marinas. However: · there is no imperative for private land owners to adhere to or take note of such principles. They could do so voluntarily · as with option 2, the Level 1 principles proposed can be applied to these marinas and/or to the council owned land associated with these marinas. Staff do not recommend this option.
Option 4	Develop a region wide marina strategy	The Nelson Marina Strategy has been suggested as a good example. A similar approach could be taken for Auckland’s marinas. The AMUA proposal essentially consists of a vision and regional principles and priorities; regional and individual marina options; implementation plans for individual marinas. However: · there is no imperative for private marinas to participate in or give effect to such a strategy. Still, they may volunteer to do so. · the Nelson strategy took around two years to finalise. This was for 1 marina – the proposal is that the Auckland strategy should cover all 12 marinas. Time-wise this will not help to address relatively urgent matters. · the cost of such as strategy would be prohibitive – even with contributions from others – and will have to be budgeted for. Further, the reasoning for a comprehensive exercise is compelling. However, given the time and resources such an exercise would require, the approach could be viewed as too narrow. The bigger issue that affects many more Aucklanders is their future access to water (in all its forms). Marinas are only one part of that equation. A comprehensive strategy should arguably deal with the ‘access to water’ issue, rather than just marinas. Staff do not recommend a regional marina strategy. Developing principles as proposed does not rule out a strategy in the future. Staff also recommend that any future strategy should be broader and concern itself with ‘access to water’.

Process for developing principles

30. The process to develop principle for the 3 council marinas can be simple yet effective as broadly outlined in diagram 1.

31. There are essentially 4 steps:

Step 1:	Setting up the process and logistics; identifying and inviting participants	3 weeks
Step 2:	Developing principles (L1 & L2) through workshops for each marina; then finalising L1 principles	8 weeks
Step 3:	Getting feedback on L2; then finalising L2 principles	6 weeks
Step 4:	Closing the loop with all participants	1 week

32. The aim would be to complete the work by the end of June 2019. The approximate duration of each step is shown above. Steps two and three are however dependent on the number of participants and the degree to which the process needs to accommodate their needs.

33. Draft Level 1 principles will be provided simply to start the process and to help participants to ‘get going’ at workshops. Draft principles are shown in Attachment 1. The Auckland Plan 2050 was used as a framework given it has six outcomes that were recently consulted on with a lot of community support. The final result may look very different.

Who participates?

34. All users of marinas should be offered the opportunity to participate in the process.

35. Some users or groups are easily identified – mooring owners, the industries and service organisations associated with boating, lease holders, recreational or sports organisations with a presence at the marina, recreational boat users etc. Existing databases will be used to identify and invite these organisations or users to participate. They will also be asked to identify others where there may be gaps.

36. Users others than the above are harder to identify. This is where local boards have local knowledge and may be able to help identify organisations that would represent the interest of these users.

37. Te Ao Māori incorporates the interrelatedness of people, land and sea and therefore the responsibility of people to the marine environment. Also, decisions, and therefore the framework that guides decisions (i.e. principles), need to be understood in the context of Treaty Settlement negotiations.

38. Marinas will be important to all mana whenua authorities and an invitation to participate will be extended to all Auckland mana whenua authorities.

39. The communities that surround marinas are equally important. The marina is part of their ‘neighbourhood’, and the activities that occur at the marina impact on them both positively and negatively. The local community voice therefore needs to be in the mix. This can be achieved through local boards and representative community groups being invited.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. This matter affects both Panuku – as the asset holder – and Auckland Transport as it relates to public transport services at marinas.

41. While this matter is being considered and, if endorsed, the process run, all decisions related to marinas are on hold.

42. Both organisations appreciate that decision makers need a context / framework to be able to make informed decisions.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

43. Marinas are often an integral part of and used by a local community. They also attract users or visitors from outside the area. For these reasons local boards within whose areas the respective council owned marinas fall have a high interest in future decision making on their marinas.

44. Local boards need to be involved in creating the framework that will guide decisions. The proposed process provides for local board involvement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. The foreshore is important to Māori, both historically and today. In the past, travel by sea and other waterways was an important and necessary means of transport, especially in Auckland. The foreshore also provided sustenance for Auckland’s hapū and iwi as many whakatāuki attest to. Te Ao Māori incorporates the interrelatedness of people, land and sea and therefore the responsibility of people to the natural environment.

46. Auckland’s three harbours are subject to Treaty Settlement negotiations, which once completed are likely to have implications for Auckland Council.

47. Decisions on marinas need to be understood in this context. The nature of Auckland’s geography means that marinas will be important to all mana whenua authorities. Involving mana whenua in the process is imperative and the proposed approach provides for this.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. Work on marinas is not included in any council work programme and will have financial implications. The table below shows estimated budgets that will be required for the options shown.

49. Costs are for external project management and facilitation resources, and for venue hire, materials etc.

Principles for 3 x Council marinas(recommended)	~ $75k
Principles for 3 x Council marinas + 6 Private marinas (as 3 council marinas already have frameworks for decision making)	~ $183k
Principles for 6 x Council marinas + 6 Private marinas	~ $210k
Region-wide marina strategy	See below

3 x Council marinas

50. Because this option is small in scale, staff can facilitate workshops. This option does therefore not include facilitator costs. This, and the lesser number of venues needed / analysis for feedback to be done account for the large difference in cost compared with other options.

51. Also, it is likely that this option can be done for less than ~$75k. Again because of its scale, project support staff could help, thereby significantly reducing the hours required from an external project manager. In that case funding for a part time project manager can be found from existing budgets.

Region-wide marina strategy

52. Costs have not been done for a regional marina strategy. Based on experience it would be significantly more than the estimated $210k to develop principles for 12 marinas.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

53. The following risks are identified.

Risk	Mitigation
There are differing views on how this matter should be addressed. Not all organisations will agree with the recommended approach. The risk is that they may lobby, through their members, prior to and after council makes a decision.	This can be addressed by involving them in the process as is proposed.
Delaying all decisions on marinas poses a risk, particularly for Panuku and Auckland Transport, as there are current issues that need to be dealt with.	This can be mitigated by ensuring council is able to make decisions as soon as possible. The recommended option puts this within a reasonable timeframe.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. Should the committee endorse the recommended option, the next action would be for staff to proceed with the steps set out in the process diagram.

55. Should the committee decide on a different option, the next step would be to scope that process. Staff would also have to prepare a budget bid to resource the work as it cannot be funded from existing budgets. Alternatively, current work will have to be stopped and staff redirected to do this work. The impacts of this will only be known once it is clear what the option entails.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Marina Principles	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Orakei Point Private Plan Change Request Report from 5 February meeting	59
b ⇩	Further information on private plan change to rezone land at Orakei Point, Orakei	185

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone land at 3 Brightside Road and 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, Epsom

File No.: CP2019/01291

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider a private plan change request from Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone land at 3 Brightside Road and 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, Epsom from Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House Zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital Zone; remove the special character overlays from the sites; and amend transport provisions to specify the parking requirement for the hospital.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 1 February 2019 from Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone privately-owned land at 3 Brightside Road and 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, Epsom from Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone; remove the special character overlays from the sites; and amend transport provisions to specify the parking requirement for the hospital.

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. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and notified for submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to accept the private plan change request by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited to rezone land at 3 Brightside Road and 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, Epsom from Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone; remove the special character overlays from the sites; and amend transport provisions to specify the parking requirement for the hospital included as Attachment A to the agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act for the following reasons:

i) having regard to relevant case law the request does not meet the limited grounds for rejection under clause 25(4);

ii) it is more appropriate to accept the request than ‘adopt’ it or treat it as a resource consent application.

b) delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act.

Horopaki

Context

Sites and Surrounding Area

5. The sites subject to the request comprise four properties and are owned by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited. These include 3 Brightside Road and 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue. The total combined area of the sites is 9,273m².

6. The site at 3 Brightside Road has a total land area of 5,245m² and contains a three-storey hospital, known as Brightside hospital, which has operated since the late 1990s. There is a large Pohutukawa tree located towards the eastern side of the site. The tree is scheduled as a notable tree in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The site is currently zoned Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban.

7. Properties at 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue adjoin 3 Brightside Road to the east. They were purchased by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited between 2015 and 2017. The sites are all zoned Residential – Single House zone and are subject to the Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential. The Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential seeks to retain and manage the special built character values of specific residential areas.

8. 149 Gillies Avenue is square in shape and has a total area of 2,208m². It contains a two-storey building and is currently occupied by Everdell Guest House. The site adjoins residential properties at 30, 30A, 32A Owens Road and 147 Gillies Avenue to the north.

9. 151 Gillies Avenue has a total area of 971m² and is occupied by a two-storey house located towards the rear of the site. 153 Gillies Avenue is the smallest site with a total area of 849m². It is located at the corner of Brightside Road and Gillies Avenue and is also occupied by a two-storey house. 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue have an old stone boundary wall interfacing Brightside Road and Gillies Avenue. Both dwellings are currently vacant.

10. The surrounding properties to the subject sites comprise a mix of residential dwellings with different styles and periods, including older character dwellings, more recent detached houses and a number of multi-unit flats. The area to the south of the subject sites, around Shipherds and Marama Avenue, is predominantly occupied by detached dwellings built before 1940. The area is an established urban area characterised by large mature trees.

11. There are a number of healthcare facilities located in the vicinity of the proposed plan change area, including Dilworth Hearing Epsom at 160 Gillies Avenue, Endoscopy Auckland at 148 Gillies Avenue, One Six One Medical Group at 161 Gillies Avenue and Auckland Medical Specialists at 183 Gillies Avenue.

12. Brightside Road is a short local road that runs between Gillies Avenue and Owens Road. It provides access to residential properties on Brightside Road and Shipherds Avenue. Gillies Avenue is a busy arterial road that connects Epsom to Newmarket and the City Centre.

13. The subject sites are affected by the volcanic viewshafts and height sensitive area overlays. Viewshafts E14 (to Mount Eden) impose height restrictions between 12.5m (3 Brightside Road only) up to 40m (see Figure 3). The underlying zones permit height up to 9m in both Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban zones.

Figure 1: Locality Plan - 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue and surroundings

Private Plan Change Request

14. The request was lodged on 1 February 2019 (refer to Attachment A). It seeks to rezone 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, remove a special character areas overlay on 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, and amend transport provisions to specify parking requirements as 1 space per 64m².

15. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited has provided the following documents in support of the request:

· Private plan change report with a section 32 analysis and assessment of environmental effects

· Brightside hospital growth analysis report

· Design statement and mass analysis

· Traffic assessment

· Civil engineering assessment for stormwater, wastewater and water supply

· Visual effects assessment

· Urban design assessment

· Special character assessment

· Acoustic assessment

· Information on other healthcare facility and hospital zoned sites

16. Further information has been requested from the applicant in relation to visual effects and special character assessments.

17. It is considered that the information lodged is sufficient for the Council to consider the request under clause 23(6) given the scale and significance of the actual and potential effects anticipated from the development through the private plan change.

Figure 2: Existing zoning of 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue under the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part)

	Boundary of subject sites
	Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
	Residential – Single House Zone
	Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
	Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone
	Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone
	Business – Mixed Use Zone
	Special Character Overlay – Residential

Figure 3: 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue and Mount Eden and Mount Wellington viewshafts that apply on the subject sites

Volcanic viewshafts

Note: The line that goes across the subject sites is the edge of Mount Eden (E14) viewshafts.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act 1991

18. 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.

19. 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. 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).

20. 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:

a) adopt 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) accept 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) reject 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) decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).

21. 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

22. 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. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.

23. 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.

Option 1 – Reject the request

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

24. 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, hospital growth, special character, visual amenity, urban design, transport, acoustic and infrastructure. The plan change aims to amend the plan provisions to better provide for the existing use on 3 Brightside Road and to better enable extension of this hospital use on the adjoining sites at 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue. These aims are not considered frivolous or vexatious.

25. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis of this ground of rejection.

Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the last two years?

26. 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. The zoning and special area overlay provisions have been operative on the sites from November 2016. Various provisions relating to the zones and special character area overlay have been considered by the council since becoming operative but none are material to this request. Therefore, the substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years.

27. 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?

28. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request being the rezoning of land at 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.

29. 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?

30. The term “sound resource management practice” 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.”

31. The private plan change request includes a number of technical reports, which support the proposed rezoning. The proposed rezoning of the site to the Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital is considered sound as the zone is currently included in the Auckland Unitary Plan which applies to several of Auckland’s hospital and healthcare facilities. The zone enables a range of healthcare related activities.

32. The applicant has considered the alternative options for the sites and concluded that the proposed rezoning will enable a hospital development that will contribute to the social, economic, health and wellbeing of people in Auckland, while adverse effects of future development can be managed through the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

33. Having reviewed the applicant’s planning and specialist reports and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change on the basis that it is contrary to sound resource management practice.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

34. 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 will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

35. 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?

36. 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 more than two years. The proposed rezoning was not subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process. As the proposal relates to a zone change, provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan that were made operative in part on 15 November 2016 will not be affected.

37. 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 more than two years.

38. It is concluded that the council not reject the private plan change request based on the grounds for rejection under option 1.

Option 2 - Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

39. 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 the subject sites from Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, remove the special character areas overlay and amend transport provisions. Rezoning, uplifting of the overlay and amendments to the parking provisions cannot be achieved through a resource consent process.

40. 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

41. The council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. 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.

42. There is no public interest in these provisions that would make the council adopt the request nor the applicant has requested that the council adopts the request. If the council adopts the request it would be responsible 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

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.

Conclusion

46. The private plan change request by Southern Cross Hospitals Limited seeks to rezone land at 3 Brightside Road, 149, 151 and 153 Gillies Avenue, Epsom from Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban and Single House zones to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, remove the special character overlays from the sites and amend transport provisions to specify the parking requirement for the hospital. The plan change is supported by comprehensive technical reports.

47. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council accepts the plan change request and notifies it for submissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

Wastewater and Water supply

48. The applicant’s infrastructure report indicates that there are no water or wastewater issues associated with the proposal. Watercare has been sent a copy of the private plan change request and has not raised any issues.

Stormwater

49. The proposed rezoning will allow for an increased total maximum impervious area across the sites. The residential zone has a maximum impervious area of 60% whereas the Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone has a maximum impervious area of 80%. Healthy Waters has advised that the applicant’s infrastructure report adequately addresses the key matters in relation to stormwater management and flooding.

50. The effects on water quality and quantity and the mitigation of these specific to the future development can be addressed through the resource consent process.

Transport

51. Auckland Transport has advised there are no significant issues of concern in relation to the private plan change request. Generally, Auckland Transport supports the proposed amendments to the transport provisions which specify one parking space per 64m² gross floor area of the hospital. This means the proposal will result in less onsite parking as the minimum onsite parking requirement for hospitals in the Auckland Unitary Plan is one parking space per 50m².

52. Auckland Transport has raised a number of issues relating to construction traffic and general traffic effects from the proposed hospital extension and suggests that these matters be addressed at the resource consent stage.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

53. The applicant has advised that they met and provided information on the proposed private plan change request and potential future resource consent application for the future hospital development to the Albert-Eden Local Board in October 2018. The local board raised some matters including consideration of alternative sites, traffic, noise, building height and construction effects. The applicant indicates in their private plan change request that some of these questions are addressed by the information provided in the private plan change request.

54. Council’s planners presented the private plan change information to the Albert-Eden Local Board on 12 February 2019. The board indicated it did not support the request. The board preferred a resource consent approach where the proposal would need a non-complying resource consent so that the public is able to discuss the merits of the proposal. The board reluctantly supported the staff recommendation to accept the private plan request but strongly opposed the merits of the application and want to be part of a council submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. 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, it is not required to complete any additional pre-notification steps.

56. The applicant advises that it has engaged the relevant 11 iwi groups within the plan change area (see below). The proposed rezoning information including plans were sent to the iwi groups via email, providing opportunity for queries and feedback on 17September 2018, before the plan change request was lodged with the council. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have no objection to the proposal. No responses have been received from other iwi groups to date.

Mana Whenua Group	Feedback
Ngāti Pāoa	Defer to other Mana Whenua groups
Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara	Defer to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	No objection
Ngāti Maru	No response
Ngāti Tamaoho	No response
Ngāti Tamaterā	No response
Ngāti Te Ata	No response
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei	No response
Te Ākitai Waiohua	No response
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua	No response
Waikato - Tainui	No response

57. If the council accepts the private plan change for notification, the iwi groups engaged by the applicant will have the opportunity to make submissions on the private plan change on issues that are important to them.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58. If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. The only risk associated with the recommendations made in this report are a judicial review of the process by a third party. This risk is considered to be very low and mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60. If the private plan change is accepted, the implementation of this decision will be that the process set out in clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA will follow. 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachment A it has been published

under separate cover at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Planning Committee 5 March 2019 >

attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Private Plan Change Request (101 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Extract from Clause 25 RMA	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Panjama Ampanthong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Woolworths New Zealand Limited at 2 Te Napi Drive, Conifer Grove

File No.: CP2019/02094

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider a private plan change request from Woolworths New Zealand Limited to rezone land at 2 Napi Drive, Conifer Grove from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 31 December 2018 from Woolworths New Zealand Limited. The request seeks to rezone 1.92ha of land at 2 Napi Drive, Conifer Grove from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business – Local Centre in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

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) reject 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) decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).

4. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and notified for submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) accept the private plan change request by Woolworths New Zealand Limited for the rezoning of land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Conifer Grove (comprising 1.92ha) included as Attachment A to the agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA for the following reasons:

i) having regard to relevant case law the request does not meet the limited grounds for rejection under clause 25(4); and

ii) it is more appropriate to accept the request than 'adopt' it or treat it as a resource consent application.

b) delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Woolworths New Zealand Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 to the RMA.

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

5. The site subject to the request is located on part of 2 Te Napi Drive, Conifer Grove, at the corner of Te Napi Drive and Great South Road (refer to Figure 1). The site contains an area of 1.92 hectares and is currently vacant and grassed. The land is generally flat, with a gentle slope towards the northern boundary.

6. The site is defined by a drainage reserve with an engineered channel at the northern boundary, which sits between the site and the road reserve of Great South Road. The eastern boundary of the site adjoins the existing Manurewa - Takanini northern on and offramps to State Highway 1. West of the site is Te Napi Drive, a recently constructed road and to the south is Periko Way, a new road currently under construction.

7. Currently, the site is bounded by industrial and commercial activities on Great South Road, the State Highway 1 motorway interchange to the east, and the Papakura Stream to the northwest. Beyond the immediate surrounds lies established residential suburbs of Conifer Grove, Wattle Downs and Manurewa.

8. Once complete, a key component of the surrounds will be the Waiata Shores residential development located southeast of the site. The applicant notes that this development will eventually accommodate 2,000 or more residents in 650 - 750 dwellings, in a mix of detached and medium density attached housing.

9. The site is served by public transport, including Te Mahia Train Station located some 450m walking distance from the site, and various bus routes that operate on Great South Road.

Figure 1: Locality Plan - subject site and surrounds

Private Plan Change Request

10. The request was lodged on 31 December 2018 (see Attachment A) and seeks to rezone part of 2 Te Napi Drive, Conifer Grove from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre. No further amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) are sought.

11. The applicant has provided documentation relating to the following in support of the request:

· Private Plan Change Request

· Certificates of Title

· Proposed plan change zone map

· Section 32 evaluation report

· Integrated Transport Assessment

· Retail Impact Assessment

· Urban Design Statement

· Acoustic Assessment

· Site Development Plan

· Landscape Strategy

12. The private plan change seeks to establish Business - Local Centre zone to provide an appropriately scaled commercial centre to provide for the needs of the surrounding residential catchment, in terms of retail offering, commercial services, community focus and amenity, and employment opportunities.

13. The proposed rezoning of land at 2 Te Napi Drive is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Proposed rezoning of land at 2 Te Napi Drive under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act

14. 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. 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.

15. Under clause 23(6), 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

16. 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:

a) adopt 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) accept 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) reject 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) decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).

17. 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

18. 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. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.

Option 1 - Reject the private plan change request, in whole or in part (clause 25(4))

19. 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.

20. 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?

21. The private plan change request contains a comprehensive section 32 report evaluation, including a robust assessment of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) objectives and policies, and a sufficiently detailed assessment of environmental effects. The request is also accompanied by a range of specialist assessments in relation to the key matters considered to be material to the request, including transport, economic effects and urban design. The request enables the nature of the plan change and its effects to be reasonably understood.

22. 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?

23. 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. A similar request (to rezone the same land to the Business - Mixed Use Zone) was considered during the Auckland Unitary Plan hearings process. However, it has been more than two years since the council made its decisions in response to the recommendations made by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

24. 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?

25. 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, being rezoning land from a residential to a business zone does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.

26. 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?

27. 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. "

28. The private plan change request includes a number of technical reports, which support the proposed rezoning. The council's specialists consider that the potential effects of the rezoning can be resolved through the notification and hearings process.

29. Having reviewed the applicant's planning and specialist reports and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change on the basis that it is contrary to sound resource management practice.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

30. 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 will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

31. 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?

32. 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 more than two years.

33. 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 more than two ·years.

Option 2 - Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

34. 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 the site from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre zone. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for commercial development of the site is through a plan change process.

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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, officers do not recommend 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

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.

Conclusion

42. The private plan change request by Woolworths New Zealand Limited seeks to rezone 1.92ha of land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Conifer Grove from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre zone. The plan change is supported by comprehensive technical reports.

43. 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 staff would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44. Veolia Limited has advised that in principle there do not appear to be any water or wastewater constraints that would prevent the rezoning of the site.

45. Auckland Transport have reviewed the private plan change request and have not identified any fundamental constraints preventing the plan change from being accepted.

46. Healthy waters have reviewed the request and consider that further information is required in relation to overland flow paths and stormwater quantity and quality. However, these concerns are not considered material to the decision to accept the plan change, and can be resolved through hearing of this plan change request, and through subsequent resource consent processes.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

47. The applicant engaged in workshops with the Papakura and Manurewa Local Boards on 13 and 14 February 2019 respectively.

48. The Papakura Local Board provided a memo following the workshop, supporting the private plan change request being accepted for the following reasons:

· Currently Waiata Shores residents travel to Manurewa or Takanini via Great South Road or other residential streets to go to the supermarket;

· A local centre at this location would effectively create a noise barrier for the residential subdivision; and

· Potential issues related to transport, noise and stormwater can be resolved at the resource consent stage.

49. The Manurewa Local Board provided a response on 21 February 2019, noting their support for the private plan change for the following reasons:

· The proposed development will bring economic and employment opportunities for residents; and

· It is anticipated that there will be opportunities to work with the developers to improve access to transport in the area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. 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 the Council.

51. The applicant has advised that it has engaged with nine iwi groups to determine whether they wish to provide feedback on the private plan change. Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Ākitai Waiohua confirmed they wished to be engaged with and subsequently attended a hui with the applicant on 31 January 2019. A further workshop between the applicant and the interested iwi groups is to be organised.

52. If the council accepts the plan change for notification, council staff will work with the applicant to ensure that all potentially affected iwi groups are provided with a draft of the plan change prior to notification, and that any feedback received is considered and reflected in the final version of the association section 32 evaluation report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53. If accepted, the council's costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54. The only risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is a judicial review of the process by a third party. This risk is considered to be very low and is mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55. 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change Request Report	213
b ⇩	Excerpt from Clause 25 RMA	245

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sanjay Bangs - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) - proposed private plan change request - Smales Farm business park, Takapuna

File No.: CP2019/01845

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider a private plan change request from Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd to change the Auckland Unitary Plan to accommodate residential and ancillary activities at the Smales Farm business park in Takapuna.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Northcote RD1 Holdings Limited has made a private plan change request (plan change) to modify the Smales 1 Precinct provisions applying to the Smales Farm business park (Smales Farm). The site is at the corner of Northcote and Taharoto Roads, Takapuna and is just under 11 hectares in area, immediately adjacent to the Smales Farm bus station on the northern busway. Refer to Attachment A (private plan change request); Attachment B (North Shore context); Attachment C (Concept masterplan); Attachment D (aerial of concept masterplan).

3. The plan change would enable a significant amount of residential development, along with a proportionate increase in ‘ancillary’ floor space, including retail, to provide for the needs of workers and new residents at Smales Farm. No reduction in office floor space is proposed from that presently provided for. The plan change request is supported by a number of expert reports and an assessment of environmental effects. Refer to Attachments F to L (Note: the A3 size ‘Urban Design And Landscape Assessment Drawing Package’ Annexure 6 to the plan change is available electronically on request; it is too large to attach).

4. Various high rise buildings are to be provided for, in order to achieve the intensity of land use intended to achieve a ‘mixed use transit oriented’ form of development. The concept masterplan is indicative only of how the development might unfold over a 20 to 30 year period under the modified Smales 1 Precinct (refer Attachments A, C and D).

5. The council is required to make a decision under clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to either adopt it as a council plan change, accept the plan change for processing, reject it, or require it to be subject to resource consent processes.

6. The council decision at this stage is largely a process one and does not involve a full evaluation of the merits of the plan change. However, part of the decision involves being satisfied that the request does not fail on grounds the Act sets out enabling its rejection: The most pertinent in this case is being ‘not contrary to sound resource management practice’.

7. An analysis has concluded that the plan change should not be rejected; it need not be adopted by council nor made subject to resource consent processes.

8. If the plan change is accepted, it would be prepared for notification, and then proceed to a hearing, at which point the detailed merits of the plan change would be fully evaluated.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) agree to accept the private plan change request by Northcote RD1 Holdings Limited for various changes to the Smales 1 Precinct of the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

i) having regard to relevant case law the request does not meet the limited grounds for rejection under clause 25(4);

ii) it is more appropriate to accept the request than ‘adopt’ it or treat it as a resource consent application.

b) authorise the Manager North, West and Islands to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the Smales Farm business park plan change request by Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

General context

9. The Smales Farm business park site is a strategic one on the North Shore of Auckland, located adjacent to the Northcote interchange of the northern motorway, and adjoining the Northern Busway and Smales Farm Station. This location supports a high intensity of development. The site is currently developed to no more than 40 percent of its footprint potential.

10. Northcote RD1 Holdings Limited has made a request to modify the Auckland Unitary Plan’s (operative) “Smales 1 Precinct” provisions applying to Smales Farm (a plan change). The Smales Farm business park site at 68-94 Taharoto Road is immediately adjacent to the Smales Farm bus station on the northern busway. The site is approximately 11 hectares in area, is zoned “Business Park”. See Attachments A and C.

11. Neither the Business Park zoning nor the Smales 1 Precinct provide for residential accommodation (other than ‘visitor accommodation and boarding houses’) and this is the primary purpose of the plan change – to enable residential, apartment type developments, in addition to the office and ancillary uses currently enabled.

12. The locality is best described as a mixed use corridor, with a variety of non-residential uses nearby, including the North Shore Hospital, Westlake Girls’ High School and health-related businesses and services (refer to aerial photo below). The applicant considers that the lack of nearby residential areas creates the opportunity for greater land use intensity and height with little or no potential for adverse effects.

13. The wider locality has shopping centres, light industrial, employment and recreational areas and the social and physical infrastructure needed to accommodate a greater intensity of both workers and residents at the site. The Taharoto Road and Shakespeare Road corridors have extensive areas zoned Business - Mixed Use and this zoning provides for a mix of commercial and residential uses, but to a lesser intensity than what is provided for in Takapuna and Milford or as proposed under the requested plan change (refer to Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of locality below).

Statutory and planning context

14. The council is required to make a process decision under clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to either adopt the private plan change as a council plan change, accept it for processing, reject it, or require it to be subject to resource consent processes. Council is required to have particular regard to the evaluation report lodged with the application, setting out the purpose of, and reasons for the plan change.

15. This process decision does not involve a full evaluation of the planning merits of the provisions of the plan change (and its intended environmental outcomes). Primarily, the council must be satisfied that the plan change is not inappropriate (as to timing or purpose) and does not fail on various grounds the Act sets out.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The Act provides that council may adopt the plan change as its own. This would generally only be appropriate where wider public interest factors are at stake, or significant public benefits might accrue, and the processing costs can justifiably be borne by the council. While the plan change for a ‘mixed use transit oriented development’ at this site is consistent with a ‘compact city’ vision, it is not considered to have broader public interest value. The benefits would accrue principally to the landowner/developer and so it should remain a private plan change with the costs of processing borne by the applicant. Accordingly, ‘adoption’ of the plan change is not recommended.

17. At the other end of the spectrum is a ‘reject’ decision. The Act provides that the council may reject the plan change, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4) of the First Schedule to the Act. An applicant is able to appeal against a ‘reject’ decision to the Environment Court.

18. The limited and specific grounds for rejection of a requested plan change under clause 25(4) are: -

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 (sustainable management); 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?

19. The request is also not considered frivolous or vexatious. It is a new consideration for the site and the plan change has been well researched and is supported by various technical reports prepared by experts in environmental planning. The purpose of and reasons for the plan change are considered by staff and council experts to be aligned in principle with the strategic directions of the relevant planning documents.

Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council with the last two years or given effect to by regulations?

20. The Auckland Unitary Plan became substantially operative on 15 November 2016 and the request has not been considered (or given effect to or rejected) in the last two years, by the Independent Hearings Panel or the council, nor given effect to by ‘regulations’.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice or would it make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

21. The key test in this case is whether the plan change in accordance with sound resource management practice, but also whether it would render the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with part 5 of the Act (sustainable management).

22. The statements in the plan change application that the proposal is generally consistent with the regional policy statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan are accepted by staff and council’s experts and are not disputed. A transit oriented, mixed use development at the site is considered by the applicant to be in line with numerous urban growth objectives and priorities, thereby promoting a ‘compact city’ (refer to Attachment E for the key provisions of relevance, from the regional policy statement and the district plan sections of the Auckland Unitary Plan - operative in part).

23. The plan change would also promote some key ‘directions’ and ‘focus areas’ of the newly adopted Auckland Plan 2050. The Auckland Plan reflects the earlier Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan which defines a ‘Greater Takapuna strategic growth and development opportunity area’, as depicted below, where the Smales Farm business park and bus station are an important north western ‘bookend’:

24. Accordingly, the plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice and consistent with part 5 of the Act.

Should the request be considered as if it were an application for resource consent?

25. The final consideration under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule to the Act is whether the request should be subject to resource consent processes. The proposal is for a long term, mixed use development of a large strategically located site. The applicant’s ‘concept masterplan’ is but one development scenario. In the same way that Smales Farm has developed over many years but departed from its original concept layout, the same is likely to happen in the future. It is ‘sound resource management practice’ for a large, long term development proposal that will occur in stages to be enabled by Auckland Unitary Plan provisions where each significant stage is subject to a resource consent application and detailed evaluation in terms of structuring elements, urban design criteria and residential and business park amenity factors. A plan change is the appropriate process to set up this framework.

26. The conclusion therefore is that the plan change should be accepted so as to proceed to notification and a detailed assessment of its planning merits.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The relevant council departments and agencies, including Auckland Transport, have reviewed the requested plan change for adequacy of information and have not identified any insurmountable issues at this stage. There are issues that will require to be closely analysed as part of a merits assessment, a key one being the fact that the site is on a very busy road corridor (as well as a rapid transit corridor). However, at this stage Auckland Transport is not opposed in principle to the land use concept the proposed change aims to enable at this site.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

28. Bearing in mind that the committee’s decision is a process one and not a detailed merits or outcomes one, it is nevertheless appropriate to note that the applicant and council’s experts have identified that the plan change could have a range of potential environmental effects, both positive and negative. These would impact both locally and further afield and include visual, landscape, urban design, transport and economic matters. All matters would be fully evaluated in the course of processing the plan change (if it is accepted).

29. Of note is that the plan change provides for residential apartment structures up to 75 metres in height, with some parts of these structures up to 100 metres in height (akin to the Sentinel in Takapuna central). This is a significant difference to the current 25 metres (6 to 7 storeys) enabled under the operative provisions. The visual dominance and design of tall structures, and their assessment under the plan change provisions, is but one of many important factors that a greater intensity of development at Smales Farm gives rise to, necessitating careful consideration.

30. The Devonport-Takapunal Local Board considered the plan change request at its meeting on 19 February 2019 and passed the following resolutions:

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) Advise the Planning Committee that the private plan change request by Northcote RD1 Holdings Limited for Smales Farm should be accepted in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 (DT/2019/8)

b) Notes that if the plan change is accepted by the Planning Committee, it will be prepared for public notification as outlined within the agenda report at paragraph 7 (item 11, file number CP2019/00076).” (DT/2019/9)

31. The board will have the opportunity to comment on the merits of the plan change once it is notified (if it is accepted by the committee).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. There are 13 mana whenua groups that have an interest in the locality in which Smales Farm is located. These are:

a) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

b) Te Patukirikiri

c) Ngāti Paoa

d) Te Ākitai Waiohua

e) Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

f) Ngāti Whanaunga

g) Te Kawerau Ā Maki

h) Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

i) Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

j) Ngāti Tamaterā

k) Ngāti Te Ata

l) Ngāti Maru

m) Ngāti Tamaoho

33. The applicant wrote to all of these groups in November 2018. To date the applicant advises that there have not been any responses. Any response that comes forward prior to the committee meeting will be tabled or reported verbally.

34. The Act’s relatively new clause 4A to the First Schedule anticipates that a draft plan change will be pre-circulated to all mana whenua groups (iwi authorities) for comment, giving adequate time to consider the plan change before it is formally notified and submissions called for. This process will be followed in consultation with the applicant.

35. It is also anticipated that if the plan change is ‘accepted’ there will be discussions with the applicant about the extent to which Te Aranga Design Principles can be incorporated into the provisions of the plan change. This may however need to be the subject of a council submission.

36. If the plan change is notified, it is expected that any interested group will make known its concerns by way of a formal submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. There are no significant financial implications for council arising from this plan change process decision. If the plan change is ‘accepted’ all actual and reasonable costs of processing the plan change are recoverable from the applicant.

38. In the event of a ‘reject’ decision, which is appealable by the applicant, there may be legal costs in defending the decision at the Environment Court.

39. The other potential cost is in respect of a possible council submission on the plan change, once it is notified. This would involve some unrecoverable costs to council. A potential submission would be reported to the Planning Committee.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. There are not considered to be any significant risks other than Environment Court costs to council in the event of a ‘reject’ decision, as identified above.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. If the recommendation to ‘accept’ is supported, the council and the applicant will work together to prepare for public notification. The Act provides four months for this. Following notification and submissions the matter proceeds to a hearing and a determination, at the applicant’s expense. If the plan change succeeds, it would be reported back to the council for final confirmation and the setting of a ‘plan change operative’ date. The plan change cannot have any interim or other legal effect until the day it is made operative.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachments F - L they have been published

under separate cover at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Planning Committee 5 March 2019 >

attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Smales Farm - Application (private plan change request)	257
b ⇩	Smales Farm - North Shore context	281
c ⇩	Smales Farm - Concept masterplan	283
d ⇩	Smales Farm - Aerial of concept masterplan, looking east	285
e ⇩	Smales Farm - Key Unitary Plan provisions	287
f ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 1, Planning AEE (80 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 2, Geotechnical report (21 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 3, Engineering report (21 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 4, Transportation report (90 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 5, Urban Design report (64 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 7, Landscape Visual report (22 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Smales Farm - Annexure 8, Economics report (28 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ewen Patience - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Development of Papakāinga in Rural Areas

File No.: CP2019/01311

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Planning Committee on discussions with the Independent Māori Statutory Board regarding the manner in which the Auckland Unitary Plan provides for papakāinga in rural areas.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In October 2018 the Planning Committee considered a proposed plan change to limit urban activities in rural areas. A consequence of this was that papakāinga would have its activity status changed from Discretionary to Non-Complying on general rural land. The Independent Māori Statutory Board raised concerns with this and several meetings were held with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and the Chair of the Independent Māori Statutory Board. They have jointly agreed to request the Committee to ask staff to investigate a proposed plan change to provide for papakāinga as a discretionary activity in rural zones.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) request staff to consider whether papakāinga can be provided for as a discretionary activity in rural zones in response to submissions on the rural activities plan change.

b) request staff, in the event that papakāinga cannot be provided for as a discretionary activity in response to submissions on the rural activities plan change, to prepare a draft plan change to achieve this outcome.

Horopaki

Context

3. In the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the Council’s default position for any land use activity not included in any zone was one of a non-complying activity. The Independent Hearings Panel recommended changing the default position to a discretionary activity. In response Council modified the zone land use tables in the decision version of the Auckland Unitary Plan so that any activity not provided for is a non-complying activity, but unfortunately changes to the rural zone land use table were missed.

4. The effect of this has been that unintended urban land uses such as industrial activities and retirement villages are being approved in rural areas.

5. The Council therefore initiated a proposed Rural Activities plan change to limit such activities in rural areas by making them non-complying rather than discretionary. As papakāinga is not listed in the Rural Zones activity table, the proposed plan change would see papakāinga treated as an activity not provided for on general rural land, and would therefore have its activity status changed from discretionary to non-complying. Papakāinga provisions on Treaty Settlement land and in the Māori Purposes Zone remain unchanged.

6. At the 2 October 2018 Planning Committee meeting, concerns about this change in activity status were raised by the IMSB representatives and the Planning Committee resolved to:

a) Approve the notification of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to make activities not provided for in rural zones a non-complying activity and replace references in the rural chapter to “residential activities” with “dwellings” as Attachment A on the agenda report subject to a further consideration on whether papakāinga should remain a discretionary activity in rural zones.

b) Endorse the section 32 evaluation report as Attachment B on the agenda report

c) Delegate to the chair, deputy chair and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve any final changes to the plan change and section 32 evaluation report prior to notification.

7. Since then several meetings have been held with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and the Chair of the Independent Māori Statutory Board towards accommodating concerns. On 1 February 2019 the delegated group agreed as follows:

i) That the Rural Activities plan change be publicly notified together with the section 32 report as tabled on 1 February 2019.

ii) That staff be requested to prepare a scoping report in consultation with the Independent Māori Statutory Board to the 5 March Planning Committee proposing that a draft plan change be prepared to enable papakāinga to be developed in rural areas.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. Papakāinga in rural zones on Māori land or Treaty Settlement land is currently:

· A permitted activity for one dwelling per hectare, with no more than ten dwellings per site;

· A restricted discretionary activity for one dwelling per 4,000m2, with no more than 20 dwellings per site

· A discretionary activity for integrated Māori development which can include a greater number of dwellings, amongst other things.

9. There is also a Māori Purposes zone which applies to 21 marae, seven of which are within the rural area, which also allows for dwellings as a permitted or discretionary activity.
However, no specific provision is made for papakāinga on general title in rural areas.

10. Relevant documents include:

· The Auckland Plan 2050 contains a section on ‘Homes and Places’ with an outcome to:

Invest in and support Māori to meet their specific housing aspirations, and one identified measure for doing this is ensuring regulatory and consenting processes are effective and responsive to Māori developers and iwi organisations.

· The Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (RPS) contains an objective seeking that mana whenua be able to occupy, deliver and use their land within their ancestral rohe and an associated policy direction that:

Papakāinga, marae, Māori customary activities and commercial activities be provided for across urban and rural Auckland to support Māori economic, social and cultural well-being.

11. These policies recognise that there is little Māori land remaining in Auckland and that it is also necessary to provide for mana whenua and mataawaka to support their aspirations through development on land held in general title.

12. It is important to note that these RPS provisions apply to ancestral land whether they be Māori land or in general title. There is no explicit policy direction for papakāinga in the district planning provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

13. The option of doing nothing would mean that it will be more difficult for Māori to develop papakāinga on general rural land.

14. A more enabling approach as envisaged by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and the Chair of the Independent Māori Statutory Board is to continue to explore the issue in the context of submissions on the Rural Activities plan change, and to carry out further work to prepare a draft plan change for the consideration of the Planning Committee if necessary. The draft plan change would need to provide specific objectives, policies and rules for papakāinga in rural areas while at the same time ensuring that the compact city model is retained, elite soils are preserved and other environmental matters taken into account.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. As part of any further work, Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd. will be consulted.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

16. Should a proposed plan change be necessary and supported by the Planning Committee, all rural local boards will be consulted prior to the proposed plan change being brought back to the Planning Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. The Independent Māori Statutory Board is concerned that the Rural Activities plan change makes it more difficult for Māori to develop papakāinga on general rural land. The IMSB, mana whenua and other Māori organisations and individuals will have an opportunity to make a submission on the Rural Activities plan change. This may provide the scope to consider the matter further during the hearings process.

18. Should an additional plan change be necessary, in accordance with the Resource Management Act, all iwi authorities will be provided with a copy of the draft plan change and given the opportunity to provide feedback prior to public notification. They will also be notified as a directly affected party.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

19. This work can be carried out within the existing Plans and Places budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

20. There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

21. The first step is to determine whether there is scope within the submissions and hearings process to give further consideration to the manner in which papakainga is provide for in rural zones. Should this not be possible, a draft plan change will be prepared and brought back to the committee for further consideration.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

05 March 2019

Making operative parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan - Plan Change 4 - Administrative Plan Change

File No.: CP2019/00307

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make additional parts of Plan Change 4: Administrative Plan Change operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 4: Administrative Plan Change (‘Plan Change 4’), sought to correct technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. In September 2018, the Committee resolved to make proposed amendments under Plan Change 4: Administrative Plan Change, operative in part (Resolution: PLA/2018/85). However, proposed amendments subject to appeal, and those that relate to the regional coastal plan, were not made operative.

4. Two appeals were received on Plan Change 4, from Pine Harbour Marina Limited and Housing New Zealand Corporation, on separate matters.

5. Following discussions with Pine Harbour Marina Limited, all parties have agreed that this appeal can be settled by consent. Subsequently, the Environment Court issued a consent order to amend the following development standards I431.6.4 and I431.6.7 in Chapter I431- Pine Harbour Precinct.

6. The relevant parts of Plan Change 4 can now be made operative.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve further parts of Plan Change 4 as they relate to the consent order on the appeal by Pine Harbour Marina Limited (ENV-2018-AKL-000148), as identified in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which these further parts of Plan Change 4 become operative as soon as practicable.

Horopaki

Context

7. Plan Change 4: Administrative Plan Change (‘Plan Change 4’) sought to correct technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

8. Technical errors and anomalies include matters such as incorrect references and provisions that led to nonsensical outcomes. Any remedies of an error or anomaly that require a shift in policy position, or where the solution to an error is unclear; were excluded from the scope of Plan Change 4.

9. In September 2018, the council received two Environment Court appeals on the proposed amendments in Plan Change 4. These appeals were from Pine Harbour Marina Limited (‘PHML’) and Housing New Zealand Corporation (‘HNZC’).

10. In September 2018, the Planning Committee (the ‘Committee) resolved to make proposed amendments in Plan Change 4, operative in part (Resolution number PLA/2018/85).

11. Proposed amendments subject to appeal and amendments to the regional coastal plan, are not yet operative.

12. The appeal from PHML is now resolved following appeal discussions. Council will be required to update the Auckland Unitary Plan in line with the consent order from the Environment Court (Attachment A).

Appeal from Pine Harbour Marina Limited

13. PHML is a landowner within the Pine Harbour Marina Precinct. PHML’s appeal relates to various provisions in Chapter I431 – Pine Harbour Precinct. In its submission, PHML proposed changes that were not proposed for change under Plan Change 4.

14. Staff did not support the proposals put forward by PHML as these were outside the scope of Plan Change 4. Also, some of the proposals required more comprehensive consultation with affected parties.

15. In its decision report, the Hearings Commissioners agreed with staff, that submission points from PHML were not within the scope of the Plan Change and should be pursued as a separate plan change. PHML appealed this decision.

16. Pine Harbour Parade Residents Action Group became party to this appeal under s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991, against PHML.

17. Following discussions on the issues under appeal, all parties reached an agreement about the basis upon which they consider the appeal can be settled. Parties then sought the Court’s approval to amend two development standards in Chapter I431- Pine Harbour Precinct.

18. Accordingly, the consent order by the Environment Court amends the following development standards in Chapter I431- Pine Harbour Precinct:

· Standards I431.6.4 – that relate to ground floor and footpath distances

· Standard I431.6.7- that relate to yard setbacks

19. These amendments are minor wording adjustments that seek to clarify the application of these standards and do not adversely affect any other parties.

20. A copy of the consent order from the Court is contained in Attachment A.

Proposed amendments that are not yet operative

21. The proposed amendments under Plan Change 4 that cannot be made operative yet include:

· provisions subject to an ongoing appeal from Housing New Zealand Corporation

· the proposed amendments to the regional coastal plan provisions, awaiting Ministerial approval.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. As this report is procedural in nature, no further analysis and advice is required.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. Relevant organisations within the council group have been involved in the development of Plan Change 4. This consent order requires a minor wording amendment and does not impact the wider council group.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

24. Staff will update the Franklin Local Board on the resolution of the PHML appeal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Consultation and engagement with iwi authorities had been conducted as part of Plan Change 4. This consent order requires a minor wording amendment and does not have specific impacts on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. There are no financial implications associated with making the relevant parts of the plan change operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. There are no risks associated with making the relevant parts of the plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Following a resolution from this Committee, staff will publicly notify the date on which the relevant parts of the plan change become operative and update the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part), in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Consent order from the Environment Court ENV-2018-AKL-000148 Pine Harbour Marina Limited	297

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Planner

Sisira Jayasinghe - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	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 Paul Young
	Cr Penny Hulse

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee workshop schedule March 2019	303
b ⇩	Auckland Monthly Housing Update February 2019	305
c ⇩	Memo on Court of Appeal Decision North Eastern Investments Limited and Heritage Land Limited v Auckland Council	323
d ⇩	Memo on Government and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth	355
e ⇩	Memo on Venue Development Strategy and stadia	357
f ⇩	1 February letter to Minister for Transport about increasing public transport patronage in Auckland	359
g ⇩	14 February Letter from the Minister for Transport regarding public transport in Auckland	361
h ⇩	Regional Public Transport Plan workshop minutes	363

Author	Bruce Young - Principal Planner
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Author	Kalinda Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy