Agenda of Planning Committee

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

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, 2 April 2019, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Public Input - PricewaterhouseCoopers - findings of Urban Competitiveness Project

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Geoff Cooper, Chief Economist PricewaterhouseCoopers will speak to the committee about the findings of the Urban Competitiveness Project report. The report tracks the economic competitiveness changes of 6 New Zealand Cities and 4 Australian cities over the last decade and highlights some of the challenges that Auckland and NZ’s second tier growth cities face in an increasingly urbanised global economy.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from the Chief Economist PricewaterhouseCoopers about the findings of the Urban Competitiveness Project report.

5.2 Public Input - Tree Council - Paturoa Road Kauri tree protection

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Dr Mels Barton will speak to the committee on behalf of the Tree Council about protecting kauri trees on Paturoa Road, Titirangi.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from the Tree Council about protecting kauri trees on Paturoa Road, Titirangi and thank them for attending.

Attachments

a Tree Council, presentation................................................................................... 229

b 30 April Tree Council letter to the Mayor of Auckland regarding a plan change to protect Auckland trees....................................................................... 247

c Statement from Te Kawerau a Maki in support of a permanent enforcement order................................................................................................. 253

5.3 Public Input - Save Our Kauri Trust - Paturoa Road Kauri tree protection

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Steve Abel will speak to the committee on behalf of Save Our Kauri Trust about protecting kauri trees on Paturoa Road, Titirangi.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from Save Our Kauri Trust about protecting kauri trees on Paturoa Road, Titirangi and thank them for attending.

5.4 Public Input - Te Taou/Ngati Whaatua - Paturoa Road Kauri

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Chris Pairama will speak to the committee on behalf Te Taou/Ngāti Whaatua about the Paturoa Road kauri and its importance to mana whenua.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from Chris Pairama on behalf of Te Taou/Ngāti Whaatua about the Paturoa Road kauri and its importance to mana whenua and thank them for attending.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input - Albert Eden Local Board - delays to suburban trains at level crossings and stations

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Graeme Easte, Albert-Eden Local Board Member, will speak to the committee about prolonged delays to suburban trains at level crossings and stations.

2. A summary paper is provided as Attachment A and Member Easte’s Notice of Motion for the Albert-Eden Local Board meeting on 1 May is included as Attachment B.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Albert-Eden Local Board input regarding delays to suburban trains at level crossings and stations and thank Member Graeme Easte for attending.

Attachments

a Summary document, Unnecessary Delays on the Auckland Suburban Train Network......................................................................................................... 257

b Graeme Easte Notice of Motion for 1 May Albert-Eden Local Board meeting.................................................................................................................... 261

6.2 Local Board Input - Rodney Local Board - Warkworth Structure Plan

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Beth Houlbrooke, Chair Rodney Local Board, will speak to the committee about the Warkworth Structure Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Rodney Local Board input regarding the Warkworth Structure Plan and thank Chair Beth Houlbrooke for attending.

6.3 Local Board Input - Franklin Local Board - Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Andrew Baker, Deputy Chair Franklin Local Board, will speak to the committee about the Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Franklin Local Board input regarding the Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan and thank Deputy Chair Andrew Baker 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

04 June 2019

Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan

File No.: CP2019/07684

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To outline the content and seek Planning Committee approval of the High Level Project Plan for Pukekohe Town Centre and its surrounds known as Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan (HLPP) will catalyse and reinvigorate wider private development potential in Pukekohe and its surrounding area. The HLPP takes a cross-council, centre wide view of property opportunities to potentially facilitate and enable a high quality, jobs focused development strategy.

3. In working with the Franklin Local Board, Auckland Council whānau, local mana whenua and Auckland Transport, Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe has an emerging draft vision of:

“Pukekohe is growing up, with city smarts while celebrating our country hearts”

Pukekohe will be a vibrant and dynamic satellite town offering a range of employment and residential opportunities, with excellent transport connections, infrastructure, open space and recreation facilities, and a thriving local economy.

(Pukekohe Area Plan Vision)

4. This vision focuses on the town centre and its immediate surrounds in Pukekohe where Panuku will focus its efforts. Pukekohe is an already bustling centre that services a large catchment which extends into southern Tāmaki Makaurau and northern Waikato. This wider area is experiencing unprecedented growth.

5. The Planning Committee received a presentation on Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe programme on 9 May 2019. The presentation received positive feedback from the councillors in attendance.

6. Pukekohe was chosen as an Unlock location because there are many strategic landholdings controlled by council that can be leveraged to enable growth and achieve the vision. There is also the potential to benefit from growth in the wider area, market attractiveness, favourable Unitary Plan zoning and good infrastructure along with strong community support for change.

7. Through discussions and collaboration with our partners and key stakeholders, themes have emerged for the future direction of Pukekohe. Through this engagement process, we identified that the community are wanting to see Pukekohe thrive as a competitive, safe and attractive, accessible, energetic and self-sufficient town centre, for future generations to enjoy. Maintaining a strong and proud identity of Pukekohe’s culturally rich and diverse community also emerged as a strong theme.

8. Key themes from mana whenua engagement included; Whenua (acknowledging the whenua as a mode of education, common ground and creating independence and acknowledging the unique relationship iwi have with the whenua), Economy (reinvesting in Pukekohe so that whānau can spend more time here), Culture (celebrating identity and history and enabling culture sharing in spaces as a way of establishing strong communities) and Mokopuna (meeting the needs of our mokopuna to grow and thrive in Pukekohe).

9. Within the HLPP area there is a good concentration of Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Crown-owned land. Panuku will work together with our partners and community to lead the urban regeneration of Pukekohe and undertake property redevelopment, public realm projects and placemaking to achieve the vision and outcomes.

10. The property portfolio for Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe comprises 27 properties that are made up by eight surface car parks, a range of small open spaces, three commercial properties (with tenants) and the Auckland Council offices at 82 Manukau Road. Combined, they represent approximately 5.5ha of land valued at approximately $27 million (based on 2017 capital valuations) excluding the Auckland Council offices at 82 Manukau Road.

11. The ability for Panuku to development this portfolio is reliant on support from Auckland Transport and the community for change to parking services and this includes some behavioural change.

12. These properties are geographically spread throughout the town centre and wider suburban area. However, there are several large sites that are strategically located within the town centre with significant opportunity for redevelopment for integrated mixed use and employment outcomes. These are contained within three connected precincts which is where we will focus our efforts called; The Edinburgh Street Superblock, The Eastern Gateway and The Station Precinct.

13. Within the HLPP project area we have developed principles that are focused around precinct development, public realm investment, partnerships and placemaking. These principles will guide the programme to achieve four outcomes below:

· Outcome 1 – A competitive town centre is achieved by leveraging our property portfolio to initiate regeneration, attracting new visitors, residents and quality employment opportunities. This will help meet the needs of a growing population and increased competition that will arise through the development of new centres in the surrounding growth areas.

· Outcome 2 - A safe, walkable and vibrant town centre is achieved through prioritising people in streetscape, intersection and redevelopment projects. This will then encourage new investment and housing choices within the town centre.

· Outcome 3 - Better access to employment, education and healthcare opportunities by leveraging strategic sites within the portfolio to attract these critical services and quality job opportunities.

· Outcome 4 - The culture and diversity of Pukekohe’s communities will be celebrated by reflecting the place and its people with an emphasis on recognising the Maori, Chinese, Indian and European communities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan.

b) approve Panuku Development Auckland as Auckland Council’s lead urban regeneration and delivery agency for Pukekohe within the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe boundary.

c) recommend to the Finance and Performance Committees the disposal of the following properties, subject to the conclusion of any required statutory processes, to enable delivery of the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan objectives:

Panuku managed properties on behalf of Auckland Council:

i) 27 Tobin Street, Pukekohe being Lot 1 DP 134911, held in NA79C/588;

ii) The land adjacent to 35 Tobin Street, Pukekohe being Lot 17 DP 117297 held in NA 66C/942;

iii) 172 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Section 2 SO 440667 held in RT 599298;

iv) 174 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Section 8 SO 440667 held in RT 599299;

v) 176 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Section 6 and 9 SO 440667 held in RT 599300;

vi) 180 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Section 4 SO 440667 held in 599301;

vii) 182 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Section 11 SO 440667 held in 599297;

Auckland Transport managed properties on behalf of Auckland Council:

subject to agreement with Auckland Transport on the transport and parking outcomes for the town centre for the properties listed viii)- xvi)

viii) 1 Roulston Street, Pukekohe being Lot 2 DP 70196 held in NA25D/1435;

ix) 3 Roulston Street, Pukekohe being Lot 18 DP 7997 held in NA199/173;

x) 29 and 29a Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe being Lot 3 DP 78584 held in NA 91D/796 and Lot 12 DP 7997 held in NA380/104;

xi) 4 Tobin Street, Pukekohe being lot 3,4 and 5 DP 136696 Pts Lot 12 DP 4216 held In NA80/405, NA80C/406, NA80C/407, NA191/285 and NA 188/159;

xii) 9 Tobin Street, Pukekohe being Lot 1-9 DP 54202, Pt Lot 1 DP 4688 and Pt Lot 24 DP 4216 held in NA8B/881, Lot 1 DP 89841 held in NA46D/1063 and Lot 3 DP 92280 held in NA48D/877;

xiii) 7 Massey Avenue, Pukekohe being Lot 1 DP 80851 held in NA37C/583, Pt Lot 2 DP 32793 held in NA51D/1059, Lot 1 DP 51778 held in NA48C/248 and Pt Lot 2 DP 6976 (also known as Pt Allotment 30 Suburban Section 2 Pukekohe Parish) held in NA1077/34;

xiv) 24 Hall Street, Pukekohe being Lot 2 DP 89699, Lot 2 DP 107822, Lot 21 DP 9934, Lot 3 DP 97270, Lot 3 DP 98490, Lot 20 DP 9934, Lot 3 DP 91272, Lot 2 DP 134717, Lot 4 DP 134717 held in NA46D/648, NA60A/686, NA351/111, NA53A/590, NA53C/1091, NA364/221, NA48B/958, NA79C/168, NA79C/170;

xv) 9 Hall Street, Pukekohe being Section 1 SO 489697 held in RT 717226;

xvi) 2 Golding Road, Pukekohe being Section 2 SO 476438 held in 682560;

Auckland Council managed properties:

Subject to completion of the reserve revocation process for properties listed xxi) to xxii).

xvii) the land adjacent to 603 Buckland Road, Pukekohe being Lot 1 DP 55095 held in NA7B/54;

xviii) 42 Seddon Street, Pukekohe being Lot 3 DP 133175 held in NA76D/465;

xix) 22 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe being Lot 2 DP 154963 held in NA92C/446;

xx) The land adjacent to 176 Princess St West, Pukekohe being Section 1 SO 430835 held in RT 556921;

xxi) The land adjacent to 995 Paerata Road, Pukekohe being Lot 6 DP 16500 held in NA425/287 (cancelled);

xxii) 67 East Street, Pukekohe being Lot 2 DP 88435 held in NA592/145 (cancelled).

d) note that Panuku will also dispose of the following properties previously approved for disposal, to enable delivery of the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan objectives:

i) 82 Manukau Road, Pukekohe being Lot 1 DP 99706 held in NA54B/1241;

ii) 17 Massey Avenue, Pukekohe being Lot 3 DP 49318 held in NA1984/70;

iii) 21 Massey Avenue, Pukekohe being Pt Lot 3 DP 30052 held in NA91D/796;

iv) 33 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe being Lot 2 DP 48584 held in NA34C/957;

v) The land adjacent to 1173 Paerata Road, Pukekohe being Parts Allotment 79 Parish of Karaka held in NA767/242 and NA 38A/69.

e) note that as part of this project, together with the council’s Service Strategy and Integration team and the Franklin Local Board, Panuku Development Auckland will consider other council owned properties that are currently providing a service to the community. Panuku Development Auckland will seek further approval from the Franklin Local Board if it recommends the optimisation of any of these properties.

f) note that Panuku Development Auckland’s existing engagement strategy to give early notification to Mana Whenua of intent to divest council property will be implemented in this area.

Horopaki

Context

14. Pukekohe was identified as an Unlock location as it: is market attractive; has good transport infrastructure from which to leverage; a significant amount of council land with development potential; strong community support for change; good zoning and the potential ability to partner successfully with others, including mana whenua, the local board and the Crown.

15. The specific Pukekohe attributes are outlined in the following table:

Strategic landholdings	Auckland Council controls a range of properties in the Pukekohe area, approximately 27 of which we consider having some potential for development within the area of the High Level Project Plan. These properties can play a strategic role in sparking private sector investment and redevelopment, and financially supporting broader development within Pukekohe.
Growth potential	Pukekohe town centre is strategically located within a wider 1,300ha of future urban zoned land which will generate substantial residential and commercial growth which the town centre is well placed to service. The town itself is also well located to benefit from wider growth with connections to Northern Waikato and links to the Bay of Plenty.
Market attractiveness	The Pukekohe property market has a good demand for mixed use residential, industrial, and retirement properties, while retail and office space are growing alongside population growth.
Strong community support for change	The Pukekohe community is a proud one, with a rich heritage and a culturally diverse population. Feedback from the community to previous plans such as the Unitary Plan, Pukekohe Area Plan and local board plans support investment to improve the town centre and its transport connections.
Population ready	Pukekohe has a large resident working-age population. There is scope to develop increased and diverse employment opportunities in the town, with employers having access to a ready pool of local workers and residents enjoying a greater range of job options.

Favourable zoning and infrastructure ready

The Town Centre zoning allows for a wide range of activities and enables buildings of between 4 – 6 storeys. The town centre area is also well serviced for stormwater, water supply, waste, transport options and good community facilities.

16. Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe focuses on the town centre, an already bustling centre that services a large catchment which extends into southern Tāmaki Makaurau and northern Waikato. This wider area is experiencing unprecedented growth.

17. Pukekohe’s population of 23,600 people (2013 Census) is forecast to grow to over 50,000 people by 2040. The community is also an aging one, which the town centre will need to respond to and accommodate into the future. A high proportion of current residents travel outside of Pukekohe for employment, healthcare services and learning. This is only likely to increase as the area grows.

18. Given the wider growth in southern Tāmaki Makaurau and northern Waikato in areas such as Drury, Paerata, Te Kauwhata, Pokeno, Opaheke and Hingaia it is important that the town centre retains its identity which is shaped by its rural setting, multi-cultural communities, historic character and strong local business network.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The HLPP has been developed in partnership with the Franklin Local Board, Auckland Council whānau, some mana whenua and Auckland Transport, with support from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development.

20. Through korero with our partners and key stakeholders we saw strong themes emerging that had synergy across the varied backgrounds and world views. In short people want to see Pukekohe thrive as a competitive, safe and attractive, accessible, energetic and self-sufficient town centre, for future generations and our mokopuna to enjoy. Whilst we have an eye on the future it also came across strongly that the future of Pukekohe needs to be anchored in the strong and proud identity of its culturally rich and diverse community.

21. The HLPP sets out a draft vision for Pukekohe;

Pukekohe Area Plan Vision

“Pukekohe is growing up, with city smarts while celebrating our country hearts.”

A refined vision will be progressed with the aspirations, narrative and guidance of mana whenua.

22. Panuku will use the tools we have from Council to progress towards this vision using our strengths in property development, public realm investment associated with council properties, a focus on partnering with others, and placemaking with the community.

23. Applying these strengths the HLPP has identified several principles that will guide the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe programme;

Precinct/Property redevelopment	Redevelop surplus council sites to unlock the potential of Pukekohe Town Centre and accommodate residential and commercial growth. Work to facilitate strategic outcomes on selected flagship council owned sites to help achieve the vision and seek to balance strategic and commercial outcomes.
Public realm investment	Invest in the public realm improvements and prioritise projects that create the greatest value towards achieving the vision. Take inspiration and guidance from local people, needs and themes to catalyse distinctive place-led design and development of strategic projects that are specific to Pukekohe and will showcase the unique character of the area.
Partnership	Work closely with the Franklin Local Board, Auckland Council whānau, mana whenua, Auckland Transport and the Pukekohe community.
Placemaking	Apply approaches known as “test before we invest” and “do, learn, do”. This helps to guide our activities to focus on development sites in the centre and public realm where future capital projects are proposed and where alternate uses on strategic sites, such as carparks, can be tested prior to development.

24. The HLPP scope will enable four outcomes to be achieved:

· Outcome 1 – A competitive town centre is achieved by leveraging our property portfolio to initiate regeneration, attracting new visitors, residents and quality employment opportunities. This will help protect it from increased competition that will arise through the development of new centres in the surrounding growth areas.

· Outcome 2 - A safe, walkable and vibrant town centre is achieved through prioritising people in streetscape, intersection and redevelopment projects. This will then encourage new investment and housing choices within the town centre.

· Outcome 3 - Better access to employment, education and healthcare opportunities by leveraging strategic sites within the portfolio to attract these critical services and quality job opportunities.

· Outcome 4 - The culture and diversity of Pukekohe’s communities will be celebrated by reflecting the place and its people with an emphasis on recognising the Maori, Chinese, Indian and European communities.

25. We will achieve these outcomes by adopting the following high-level development strategy:

· focus on the most valuable properties within the portfolio that are located within the town centre

· collaborate with Auckland Transport to navigate the necessary process to achieve regeneration of the three development precincts

· prioritise effort on three redevelopment precincts of the Edinburgh Street Superblock, the Eastern Gateway and the Station Precinct, as they have the greatest influence on achieving the outcomes

· prioritise attracting quality employment creation, education providers and healthcare services

· catalyse new housing choices in the town centre integrated with non-residential uses

· leverage the remainder of the portfolio outside of the town centre for housing and optimal financial return

· align timing and priority of adjacent public realm projects with the development site sales.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. The project principles and goals proposed as part of the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe HLPP are aligned with the overarching themes in the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part 2016 and Auckland Plan 2050.

27. Currently Auckland Council’s Plans and Places team are focusing on the new growth areas that are outside the town centre through the Pukekohe-Paerata Draft Structure Plan 2019. The HLPP is focused on the town centre that is outside these areas but has been developed to respond to this growth.

28. Ongoing consultation with the council whānau has been undertaken to ensure the principles, goals, proposed initiatives and management of landholdings are consistent with the views shared across the Council whānau.

29. The Auckland Council Corporate Property team are working with Panuku on the wider Corporate Property Office Strategy. This includes the sale of the council offices site at 82 Manukau Road. The Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe HLPP sets the wider planning context for the divestment of this site.

30. This is a key site in the Station Precinct redevelopment key move. The goal is to partner with a developer on this site to seek a transformational outcome, leveraging the recent investment in the train station. The future of the site aspires to offer an anchor destination with a range of activities that attracts pedestrians and shoppers down the mainstreet and towards the Station. The future use should also prioritise an activity that provides quality jobs, potentially supporting one of the key needs in the area being education and/or healthcare services outcomes.

31. Auckland Transport (AT) including the Southern Growth Alliance (SGA) has been engaged throughout the formation of the HLPP to understand the future of parking and transport outcomes for the wider town centre in relation to the potential redevelopment and regeneration programme. This has included exploring opportunities for potential redevelopment of eight carparks, five industrial sites as well as one rural property all held previously for roading projects.

32. Looking forward as Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe moves into implementation, Panuku acknowledges that AT needs to assess and approve the release of carparks. We will also work with AT on all matters related to the road corridor. We will work together to achieve the optimal transport outcomes that support the committee approved HLPP and vision.

33. Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) has been engaged on opportunities focused primarily on how the properties and public realm reinvestment programme identified can support increased access and availability of quality local jobs and learning.

34. Auckland Council Parks, Community Services and Healthy Waters have been engaged regarding six open spaces and any opportunities on Community Facilities sites for optimisation. We will work with them potential projects and outcomes that support the vision.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. Partnering with the Franklin Local Board has been an integral part to the development of the HLPP. The principles and goals proposed as part of Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe HLPP reflect those within the Franklin Local Board Plan 2017 and Pukekohe Area Plan 2014.

36. Regular workshops and interactions helped to ensure that the processes we took to develop the Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe HLPP are consistent with the views of the Franklin Local Board. This has been reflected in their support the outcomes and content of the HLPP.

37. Through our engagement process, we identified that the community is seeking:

· Better connections between the train station, the town centre, schools, retirement villages and the places that families visit for recreation

· More art initiatives, such as the performing arts, and fine art facilities

· Strengthened working relationships and partnerships between Panuku, Maori and other community groups

· Protection of the fertile volcanic soils located in a unique frost free micro climate close to consumer markets, so that Pukekohe can continue to produce and process high-value produce for New Zealand and the world

· Job creation, tertiary education and employment opportunities, so that locals can grow the economy.

· A variety of parking options, so that local businesses are not negatively affected and people can still easily access the town centre.

38. The HLPP has taken these views into account wherever possible, noting that some aspects either relate to land outside the town centre, or matters that our outside the mandate of Panuku. We expect that implementing the HLPP will have a positive impact on the local community.

39. The Franklin Local Board endorsed the HLPP on 16 April. Positive feedback from the Planning Committee workshop on 9 May was also received from councillors in attendance.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. We anticipate that mana whenua will play an integrated cultural, social and economic part in the unlocking of Pukekohe. Exploring a genuine partnership and tikanga based approach with local mana whenua will help define the overall approach and narrative of the project.

41. We are seeking to authentically hear the Māori voice and support the development of outcomes defined in their own terms. We are in the early stage of co-design a partnership framework with mana whenua in part by using a wānanga engagement methodology – a culturally appropriate and effective way of engagement that uses Māori cultural concepts and protocols to seek constructive input into solution design. Wānanga frames issues / problems in the context of participants’ own experiences. We understand that doing things properly may take more time up front, however it will provide more surety and lead to better outcomes.

42. Early engagement has highlighted the importance of mana whenua being able to practise kaitiakitanga roles and responsibilities towards sustainable management of land and water where possible across this project. Additionally, the importance of upholding the cultural values of the place and its narrative and designing for people has emerged through early korero.

43. Opportunities for mana whenua may extend to joint ventures, land purchase and development, as well as material involvement in capital project design and overall master planning.

44. The partnership strategy will also expressly look at how Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe will stand to benefit mataawaka and urban Māori; the broader Māori population.

45. Panuku will work in partnership with mana whenua towards high quality outcomes through planning and implementation of Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe which will see the enhancement of mauri (the life essence of place and people) and opportunities to strengthen their role in the programme.

46. Panuku has also undertaken preliminary engagement with the Independent Māori Statutory Board to identify opportunities to support this programme.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe will require funding for capital projects and adequate resourcing to progress the programme. The Transform and Unlock programme, approved by Auckland Council, is funded in the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 by the reinvestment of the proceeds of property sales across the wider Panuku portfolio.

48. Panuku will seek to partner with others, combining funding and resourcing with a number of other council organisations, and community groups to get the best value out of the programmes funding envelope. Potential partners include Franklin Local Board, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development to explore any potential reprioritisation of existing budgets and integrate and align funding towards agreed project priorities. These funding strategies will be developed following the adoption of the HLPP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. Looking ahead the main consideration to work through is in relation to the future of public parking in the town centre. In particular, the community expectation in regard to parking and whether the identified car park sites are approved for disposal by the Auckland Transport Board.

50. We will manage this dependency in partnership with our stakeholders, which may include the development of a parking and community communications strategy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. After the Finance and Performance Committee, Panuku will progress a parking strategy with Auckland Transport and Franklin Local Board to determine the agreed approach to future parking provision. More detailed planning will begin for the key town centre sites and priority investment project. Interim placemaking will commence with planning for a potential trial relocation of the farmers market from one of the carparks into the town square. One of the first properties that will go to market is the Council offices site at 82 Manukau Road. This will be done under the Corporate Property programme which has already achieved approval to dispose of this site.

52. The key milestones that are planned prior to formally starting the programme from 1 July 2019 are set out in the following table:

Reporting Body	Target approval dates to meet SOI
1. Local Board and Council approval to scope Kia Puāwai/Unlock Pukekohe	October and November 2018
2. Mana whenua Governance Forum	1 April
3. Franklin Local Board – endorsement of HLPP	16 April
4. Planning Committee – workshop on HLPP content	9 May
5. Independent Māori Statutory Board – involvement	May
6. Panuku Board – approves HLPP progressing to council	28 May
7. Planning Committee – approves the HLPP	4 June
8. Finance and Performance – approves the property disposals	18 June

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kia Puawai/Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan	21
b ⇩	Kia Puawai/Unlock Pukekohe Property Map - full extent	69
c ⇩	Kia Puawai/Unlock Pukekohe Property Map - zoomed in	71
d ⇩	Kia Puawai/Unlock Pukekohe Full Property Schedule	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Richard Davison - Senior Project Planning Leader, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku Development Auckland

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Adoption of Warkworth Structure Plan

File No.: CP2019/07446

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the adoption of the Warkworth Structure Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland is growing rapidly and to accommodate a portion of the region’s growth Warkworth has been identified as a satellite town and earmarked to support significant future business and residential development. Around 1,000ha of land immediately surrounding Warkworth has been zoned Future Urban. Before any urban development of the Future Urban zone can occur, the land must be structure planned. The Warkworth Structure Plan sets out the pattern of land uses and the supporting infrastructure network for the Future Urban zoned land around Warkworth.

3. The structure plan has been prepared in the context of the existing town of Warkworth and seeks to weave the new development areas back into the fabric of the existing urban area. The structure plan builds on the opportunities and constraints in and around the Future Urban zone. It also has taken on board feedback from a number of public engagement phases, including community workshops in June 2018 to generate ideas on how Warkworth’s Future Urban zone could be laid out, and public feedback on a draft version of the plan in February/March 2019. It also responds to feedback from two hui with the relevant iwi.

4. The structure plan map is shown in Figure 1 below and some of the key high-level features of the draft Warkworth Structure Plan include:

· ecological and stormwater areas are set aside from any built urban development

· the new residential areas across the Future Urban zone enable around 7,500 dwellings and offer a range of living types from spacious sections around the fringe to more intensive dwellings such as town houses and apartments around the new small centres and along public transport routes

· Warkworth’s local and rural character is protected through various measures including provisions to protect the bush-clad town centre backdrop by the Mahurangi River and retaining the Morrisons orchard as a rural feature of the town

· new employment areas are identified, comprising land for new industry (e.g. warehousing, manufacturing, wholesalers, repair services) and land for small centres (e.g. convenience retail, local offices, restaurants/cafés). The existing Warkworth town centre by the Mahurangi River will remain as the focal point of the town.

5. The land uses are supported by infrastructure including:

· prioritising active transport in Warkworth through a separated walking and cycling network providing connectivity to new and existing centres, employment areas, schools and public transport stations

· a roading network including a potential southern interchange on Ara Tūhono – Pūhoi to Warkworth (south facing ramps only)

· a public transport network built upon the recently introduced ‘New Network for Warkworth’ which in the long term has a bus station/interchange in Warkworth’s southern local centre and a Park and Ride near the potential Ara Tūhono – Pūhoi to Warkworth southern interchange

· other infrastructure providers for utilities such as wastewater, water, power supply, telephone, broadband, community facilities, schools, and healthcare have plans underway to service the planned growth of Warkworth.

6. The development of Warkworth’s Future Urban zone will occur over the long-term and is sequenced in stages over the next 20 years as bulk infrastructure capacity allows.

Figure 1: Warkworth Structure Plan

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) adopt the Warkworth Structure Plan as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) authorise the Manager North, West and Islands to make any minor amendments to the Warkworth Structure Plan in order to improve its legibility and correct any errors.

Horopaki

Context

7. Around 1,000ha of land immediately surrounding Warkworth has been zoned Future Urban as shown on Figure 2 below. Before any urban development of the Future Urban zone can occur, the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part 2016 (‘Unitary Plan’) requires that land must be structure planned. The Warkworth Structure Plan is the response to that requirement and sets out the pattern of land uses and the supporting infrastructure network for the Future Urban zoned land around Warkworth

Figure 2: Future Urban zoned land around Warkworth (the structure plan study area)

8. The Warkworth Structure Plan process began in December 2017 and contained seven phases. Detail on each phase can be found in section 2.5 of the Warkworth Structure Plan document in Attachment A and each phase is briefly described below:

· Phase 1: A series of technical ‘Topic Reports’ were prepared to understand the existing environment within the study area and the opportunities and constraints for development.

· Phase 2: The initial public consultation for the project in April 2018. The purpose of this consultation was to promote awareness of the project, receive comments on the topic reports, and gain a local perspective on what is valued in Warkworth and potential opportunities and constraints associated with its growth.

· Phase 3: The community structure plan workshops in June 2018. The purpose of the workshops was to involve the public in ‘hands-on’ sessions to generate ideas on how the Warkworth Structure Plan could look in terms of a land use layout and supporting infrastructure.

· Phase 4: The structure plan team then reported back to the community in August 2018 through two open days to summarise the outcomes of the workshops.

· Phase 5: Developing the draft plan for consultation. The draft plan was shaped using inputs from the topic reports (opportunities and constraints), consultation feedback (from April 2018), iwi feedback, the community workshops ideas, and internal specialist workshops.

· Phase 6: Consultation with the community to receive feedback on the draft Warkworth Structure Plan during February and March 2019. A copy of the draft Warkworth Structure Plan map is shown on Figure 3 below.

· Phase 7: Reviewing the public feedback in April/May 2019 and making any required changes to the draft plan.

Figure 3: DRAFT Warkworth Structure Plan

9. Mana whenua engagement and discussions have been ongoing throughout the structure plan project and four hui were held. The feedback from the hui was generally supportive of the process and the overall structure plan direction, particularly the Green Network concept.

10. At key phases of the process, the Structure Plan Political Reference Group set up by the Planning Committee provided guidance on the plan and authorised the release of the draft plan for feedback. The plan is now ready for adoption by the Planning Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. A draft version of the Warkworth Structure Plan was put out for public feedback during February and March 2019. The consultation on the draft plan included drop in days at the Warkworth Town Hall, an event stand and sausage sizzle outside Warkworth New World supermarket, and a number of community group meetings. A total of 219 pieces of feedback on the draft plan were received.

12. Overall, there was an even level of support and opposition on the draft Warkworth Structure Plan. The general comments on the plan were mainly around transport, the scope of the plan, open space provision, new facilities sought, business land, and generally ensuring infrastructure is provided before growth is enabled.

13. There was strong feedback on some specific elements of the plan including opposition to the industrial land. There was a desire that it be reduced and be more clustered. There were also concerns about the interface between industry and residential areas and/or streams. There was support for the indicative parks shown in the draft plan and two-thirds support for the retention of the Morrison’s Orchard.

14. There were 83 site specific requests covering zonings, overlays/controls and staging. Of these, 34 supported the indicative zonings, mainly around the proposed Single House zoning for the Viv Davie-Martin Drive area and Warkworth North East. A total of 49 requests opposed the indicative zonings shown in the draft structure plan and requested changes. The most common areas where changes were requested were the Viv Davie-Martin Drive area (to lower density zones) and 89ha of the 90ha of industrial land (to residential, mixed use or general business).

15. There were 31 requests on site or area specific matters around the Green Network and these mostly commented that the mapping was incorrect. There were 22 requests seeking to add, remove, amend or support various overlays/controls shown in the plan.

16. There were 25 requests that related to site or area specific staging matters. The majority of these were supporting the Viv Davie-Martin Drive area being sequenced for development in 2022 as shown in the draft structure plan. There were also requests seeking that the Warkworth North East area be brought forward to the first stage (2022).

17. Further details on the feedback on the draft structure plan are included in the Engagement Summary on the draft plan in Attachment B.

18. Based on the feedback, a number of changes have been made to the draft structure plan. Generally, rezoning requests were accepted where a compelling case was made to show that the rezoning was suitable in light of any site specific issues while also being consistent with the zoning principles in the plan and the overall land use layout sought for the of the wider town. Other rezonings were not supported because they did not demonstrate adherence to the above matters.

19. The key areas where zone changes have occurred between the draft structure plan and the final structure plan are explained below and identified on the map in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Key areas of change between the draft and final structure plans

· Area 1: Various changes including a change from Large Lot to Single House (with an overlay to increase the minimum site size from 600m² to around 1,000m², landscape controls and planting) around the northern edge of Warkworth and increased residential density enabled around the Warkworth Showgrounds.

· Area 2: A new small Neighbourhood Centre enabled in the northwest to service the needs of a relatively constrained catchment, being the northern part of the residential area to the west, and the industrial zones to the east.

· Area 3: Increased residential density enabled around the new small centre.

· Area 4: Retention of the Single House zone but the addition of an overlay to increase the minimum site size from 600m² to somewhere around 1,500m² – 2,500m² (to be determined at the plan change stage). This is to reflect the compromised nature of this area to achieve standard urban development and also acknowledges the current spacious residential amenity of the area.

· Area 5: Shifting the western Neighbourhood Centre further south to the other side of Woodcocks Road, in light of the additional centre in the north west.

· Area 6: Changing from Orchard to Large Lot as this steep land is not required for the orchard operation and it is part of the knoll feature in the south of Warkworth that has the Large Lot zone and landscape overlay on it.

· Area 7: Change from Light Industry to Mixed Housing Suburban reflecting the general opposition to the amount of industrial land proposed in the draft plan, the visual impacts of industrial development in this area, the topography of the land making feasible industrial development difficult, the ability to use the ridgeline to demarcate an industrial/residential boundary, and the still high overall future local employment anticipated for Warkworth. The land adjoins other Mixed Housing Suburban zoned land.

· Area 8: Change from Single House to Mixed Housing Suburban to be consistent with a granted resource consent that allows for a type of development (lot sizes) more in keeping with the Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

· Area 9: Change from Single House to Large Lot to reduce the number of urban neighbours along this rural/urban interface to mitigate the possibility of reverse sensitivity issues arising. A landscape screening area along this boundary is also indicated on the structure plan.

20. The final structure plan has shown the zone boundaries in a more general way than in the draft plan. This is because the structure plan zonings are high-level and indicative only and are likely to be refined through a later (more detailed) plan change process.

21. There was also feedback requesting changes to the staging of the development areas in the draft Warkworth Structure Plan. This was mostly seeking that areas sequenced for later on (2028 onwards) be brought forward to be part of the first stage in 2022.

22. The final Warkworth Structure Plan does not propose to change the sequencing to bring forward any areas as requested through feedback. This is due to the significant infrastructure funding issue combined with the council’s quality, compact city approach set out in the Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy. The staging in the Warkworth Structure Plan remains the same as that identified in the council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

23. Various text changes have been made to the structure plan document to update it in light of the zone changes above and in response to other feedback.

24. A separate report has been prepared that outlines a number of the main themes/requests from the feedback and explains why the final structure plan incorporates some changes from feedback and not others. This ‘Response to feedback on the draft plan’ report is included in Attachment C.

25. The final structure plan map for adoption is shown in Figure 1 and some of the key high-level features of the draft Warkworth Structure Plan include:

· ecological and stormwater areas are set aside from any built urban development

26. The land uses are supported by infrastructure including:

· a roading network including a potential southern interchange on Ara Tūhono – Pūhoi to Warkworth (south facing ramps only)

27. The development of Warkworth’s Future Urban zone will occur over the long-term and is sequenced in stages over the next 20 years as bulk infrastructure capacity allows.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Watercare and Auckland Transport have representatives on the Warkworth Structure Plan project team and on the Structure Plan Steering Group.

29. The council’s structure plan team have worked closely with the Supporting Growth Alliance. This is a collaboration between the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council. The purpose of the Supporting Growth Programme is to identify and protect the transport networks to support Auckland’s planned greenfield growth over the next 30 years.

30. The council’s Warkworth Structure Plan team has also been working with various internal council teams including parks, healthy waters, and community facilities, as well as external infrastructure providers such as the Ministry of Education, Transpower, Vector, Waitemata District Health Board, and Chorus.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. Rodney Local Board has been briefed a number of times during the project (22 February 2018, 24 May 2018, 7 March 2019 and 4 April 2019). The last briefing outlined the main feedback themes on the draft plan. The Rodney Local Board is supportive of the structure plan project and has not raised any significant concerns around the plan or process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. The Warkworth Structure Plan team sought an ongoing dialogue with mana whenua to meet the needs and aspirations of iwi authorities and strengthen the structure plan. Warkworth sits within the area of interest of approximately 13 mana whenua groups.

33. In July 2017, the structure planning programme was introduced by the Plans and Places senior leadership team at a meeting with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum of mana whenua governance to socialise the structure planning programme and seek guidance on engagement.

34. In January/February 2018, letters were sent to the 13 mana whenua groups to further introduce the structure plan process and to gauge their interest in participating. Of these, the following five mana whenua groups indicated that they would like to be involved in the Warkworth Structure Plan project:

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngaati Whanaunga

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whatua

· Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

35. Mana whenua engagement and discussions have been ongoing throughout the structure plan project and four hui have been undertaken. Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara attended all the hui while the other iwi groups listed above attended the initial hui.

36. The first of these was held in April 2018 in Warkworth. The purpose of this initial hui was to introduce the project, establish an ongoing relationship with mana whenua, and understand how they wanted to be involved in the project.

37. Following this hui, iwi were invited to provide a cultural assessment of the area prior to drafting of the plan. Two cultural values assessments were received from Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara.

38. A second hui was held in July 2018 to discuss responses to the two cultural values assessments, Treaty settlement information, and to undertake a planning exercise akin to the community workshops. The iwi represented at the hui preferred not to undertake the mapping exercise but rather outline key principles that they wanted the structure plan to consider.

39. A third hui was held in September 2018 where the council presented some of the key ideas being developed for the preliminary draft structure plan and demonstrated how the principles outlined at the July hui had influenced this early version of the plan.

40. A fourth hui was held in March 2019 where the council presented the draft structure plan and sought feedback on it. Overall, the feedback was generally supportive of the draft structure plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41. The adoption of the Warkworth Structure Plan has no direct significant implications for the council. However, the next stages of developing the Future Urban zone around Warkworth will include, in due course, a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan and the provision of various forms of infrastructure. The costs of a plan change will be met from the operating budget of the Plans and Places Department. The infrastructure identified in the structure plan will have implications for the budgets and long term planning of various council departments that provide infrastructure (e.g. parks, community facilities) as well as Watercare and Auckland Transport.

42. Subsequent reports will be presented to the relevant committee(s) in relation to the provision of infrastructure within Warkworth and other structure plan areas.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. There are not considered to be any significant risks in adopting the Warkworth Structure Plan. The structure plan is a non-statutory document and therefore cannot be appealed. The next stage of notifying a plan change to implement parts of the structure plan will enable the structure plan to be challenged through a hearing and possible appeals.

44. The plan does create public expectations that rezoning will occur soon, but that risk is an unavoidable consequence and can be mitigated with key messaging around staging/the provision of bulk infrastructure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Following the adoption of the Warkworth Structure Plan, its implementation starts with the preparation of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to change the current Future Urban zone to appropriate urban zones. This will be done in stages as guided by the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (2017) and therefore the Warkworth North area will be the subject of the first Plan Change. This work could commence when it is clear that the appropriate funding for infrastructure is confirmed.

46. The plan changes will be prepared in accordance with the first schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). During the plan change process more detailed matters will be determined and there will be opportunity for residents, key stakeholders and mana whenua to be involved.

47. The implementation of the structure plan will also occur through various parts of council, Auckland Transport, Watercare and other organisations including the identified infrastructure projects in their long-term budgets.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachments A to C they have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 4 June 2019 > Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Warkworth Structure Plan (164 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Response to Feedback on the Draft Plan (May 2019) (42 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Engagement summary on the draft plan (122 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Auckland Council Submission to the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga Bill

File No.: CP2019/08043

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks retrospective approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In February 2019, Treasury released a Cabinet paper outlining the government’s final proposal to establish a new independent infrastructure body, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga.

3. The Cabinet paper noted that legislation would be needed to establish the commission. This legislation, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill (the bill), was introduced into Parliament on 8 April 2019 and referred to the Select Committee.

4. Public submissions on the bill opened on 15 April 2019 and closed on 17 May 2019.

5. Auckland Council’s submission (Attachment A) supports the establishment of the new infrastructure advisory body, but requests changes to the bill to clarify the role of the commission in relation to infrastructure owned and/or managed by local government.

6. As there was insufficient time to take a submission to the Planning Committee prior to the closing date, the draft submission was circulated to all elected members and key council and CCO staff on 2 May 2019 with a request for feedback.

7. The feedback received informed Council’s final submission, which was subsequently endorsed by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Planning Committee Chair and Deputy Chair prior to the submission closing date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission dated 17 May 2019 to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill.

Horopaki

Context

8. In August 2018, Cabinet agreed in principle to establish a new independent infrastructure body.

9. A discussion document on the proposal was released for consultation in October 2018. Treasury received nearly 130 submissions. No submissions opposed the proposal to establish an infrastructure body.

10. Auckland Council’s submission supported the proposal but sought clarification on how infrastructure prioritisation would be undertaken and expressed views around how the new body could best support project delivery (Resolution number GB/2018/176). A copy of the council’s submission on the proposal can be accessed here: https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-02/niib-subm-4037521-auckland-council.pdf

11. Treasury released a Cabinet paper titled Establishing a New Independent Infrastructure Body on 20 February 2019. The paper outlined the government’s final proposal for the new entity and noted that legislation would be needed to establish the commission. The Cabinet paper can be accessed here: https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/information-release/cab-paper-establishing-new-independent-infrastructure-body

12. The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill was introduced into Parliament on 8 April 2019 and referred to Select Committee. The bill can be accessed here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/52SCFE_SCF_BILL_86603/new-zealand-infrastructure-commissionte-waihanga-bill

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The bill seeks to establish the commission as an autonomous Crown entity governed by a board of directors. The intended purpose of the commission is to co-ordinate, develop and promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure, and services that result from the infrastructure, that improves the well-being of New Zealanders.

14. The commission is proposed to serve an advisory function only. It would not fund infrastructure.

15. The bill proposes that the commission has powers to require information from central government agencies, but it does not propose this power extends to local government.

16. A key output of the commission would be the development of a 30-year long-term infrastructure strategy.

17. Council staff worked with Watercare Services Limited, Auckland Transport and Pānuku Development Auckland in developing the council’s submission, which is attached to this report (Attachment A).

18. Auckland Council’s submission:

· seeks greater recognition and clarification of the role of local government in relation to the commission

· supports extending the commission’s information-gathering powers to local government

· expresses views around the governance of the commission.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Feedback on the draft submission was received from a range of Auckland Council staff with roles in infrastructure planning and delivery. Pānuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport broadly supported Council’s final submission.

20. Watercare Services Limited made its own submission on the bill. Its policy position is consistent with that of Auckland Council, but seeks that the commission’s strategy report has a view out to 50 years, rather than 30 years. Council’s submission is silent on this issue.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The draft submission was circulated to all elected members, including local board members on 2 May 2019, along with a supporting memo inviting feedback on the draft submission. No feedback was received.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The commission will be advising on future infrastructure needs and building consensus around a longer-term pipeline of infrastructure projects. This is an opportunity to build a better platform for partnership, as this long-term view is more aligned with a Te Ao Māori intergenerational worldview.

23. The purpose of the commission, as set out in the bill, has an emphasis on well-being. This aligns well with the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau, which also uses a well-being lens (the four pou). Council’s submission seeks to strengthen the well-being focus in the bill and link it more explicitly with the Local Government Act.

24. The establishment of the commission as a Crown entity governed by a board of directors would have an impact on the relationship between the Crown and iwi, and local government and Māori.

25. The draft submission was circulated to all Independent Māori Statutory Board members on 2 May 2019, along with a supporting memo inviting feedback on the draft submission. No feedback was received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The commission would have an advisory role only. There would not be any change to the decision-making responsibilities of local or central government, as such, there are no direct financial implications on council from supporting this bill.

27. However, the commission would provide potential opportunities to identify and deliver better value for money from both council and central government infrastructure work programmes.

28. The commission would have the ability to embed its staff into agencies to provide support for infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. If Council’s submission is withdrawn the Select Committee will not be informed of or take into consideration Auckland Council’s position on this bill.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. The government intends to have the commission operational by 1 October 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council Submission on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill	91

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Luke Carey - Growth and Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2018/2019 Allocations

File No.: CP2019/01805

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the grant recommendations for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2018/2019 funding round.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme aims to incentivise best practice, increase understanding and encourage community involvement in the care of regionally significant heritage sites and places. It is focused on funding projects that benefit historic heritage places and outcomes that are relevant to all of Auckland.

3. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was established through the Community Grants Policy adopted in December 2014. In March 2016, the Auckland Development Committee adopted the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework which outlined the regional significance criteria and assessment criteria for the grant applications. This framework has been included as Attachment A.

4. The Regional Historic Heritage Grant fund has a total of $83,640 available for allocation in the 2018/2019 financial year, as approved through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. In total, 25 applications were received for the 2018/2019 funding round, requesting a total of $428,171.90. One application did not meet grant programme eligibility criteria.

5. Following the assessment of applications, it is recommended that six applications are supported with grants totalling $83,640, ranging in value from $5,900 to $18,640 with an average grant of $13,940. It is also recommended that a further 15 applications are declined for the reasons outlined in Attachment B of this report.

6. Applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical, following confirmed allocation. Successful grant recipients will then have 12 months to complete the project work. At the end of this grant term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the grant allocations for the 2018/2019 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round, as listed in the table below:

Organisation/Individual	Amount recommended
Point Chevalier Social Enterprise Trust	$12,420.00
Patrick and Elizabeth Gailer	$13,118.00
Joseph Bulbulia	$18,562.00
Warkworth Lions Charitable Trust	$18,640.00
Michelle Taylor	$5,900.00
Anglican Parish of Avondale	$15,000.00

b) decline the other 15 applications for the reasons identified in Attachment B of the agenda report

Horopaki

Context

7. The Community Grants Policy, adopted by Auckland Council in December 2014, recognises regional grant funding programmes as a key tool by which council can support communities to implement the regional visions and aspirations, as set out in the Auckland Plan and other regional strategic documents.

8. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, established through the Community Grants Policy, supports the following outcomes:

· regulations in the Auckland Unitary Plan are supported by incentives to protect and conserve significant historic heritage places

· Auckland Council, mana whenua, community organisations, and property owners work together to support kaitiakitanga and stewardship of historic heritage

· Aucklanders see Council investment in historic heritage

· historic heritage grants unlock private and community investment in heritage conservation.

9. To be eligible for funding through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, projects need to meet one of the following eligibility criteria for regional significance:

· historic heritage places that are included in one of the schedules of the Auckland Unitary Plan, including the Historic Heritage Schedule, Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua, contributing sites within a Historic Heritage Area and contributing buildings within a Special Character Area.

· historic heritage places that are unscheduled but demonstrated to be of regional significance, subject to evidence that the site has interim protection through heritage covenants as well as a letter from the applicant confirming support for scheduling the site under the relevant heritage overlay.

10. For the 2018/2019 funding round, the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme welcomed grant applications that aligned with the following programme priorities:

· conservation of regionally significant historic heritage places

· repairing and maintaining at-risk historic heritage places

· supporting kaitiakitanga of Māori cultural heritage

· preserving heritage and character in town centres.

11. We also consider applications for other services, projects, events and activities. However, these may be considered a lower priority. The following activities are identified as lower priorities for 2018/2019:

· heritage interpretation

· conservation of moveable heritage (i.e. objects in museums)

o movable heritage items subject to evidence that the object would be stored and exhibited within the Auckland region in a manner that will ensure its long-term protection.

12. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was promoted through a number of existing processes and networks including Auckland Council’s website and social media sites, publications, hui, local board networks and emails to historic heritage stakeholders and partners. Workshop presentations were held where applicants could be supported through the application process and request advice from council staff.

13. Applications for the 2018/2019 funding round were assessed by staff with subject matter expertise using the weighted assessment criteria as set out in Table One below.

Table One – Regional Historic Heritage Grants Assessment Criteria

Criteria	Weighting
Alignment with strategic priorities for 2018/2019	40%
Project significance	30%
Funding necessity	15%
Public access and education	15%

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Each application had an assessment score out of 100 which was used to rank applications from highest to lowest. Grant recommendations were developed and moderated by council staff considering the application assessment score, project budget, items that the funding was requested for and the level of funding that would maximise outcomes and value for money.

15. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme provides individual grants between $5,000 to $20,000 per annum, but there is provision to award smaller grants for projects that meet the criteria for regional significance but only require moderate support.

16. As a funding principle, grants through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme are provided to leverage the community’s ‘match’ of an equal value in volunteer labour, cash, or donated goods and services. While there is no set match requirement for this fund, council will generally consider a 50 per cent match desirable.

17. This is the fourth annual funding round of the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme. Funding round metrics from the 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 rounds are provided in Table Two below. Compared with the 2017/2018 round, the 2018/2019 funding round received the same number of applications, but the amount of funding requested increased. The number of grants allocated and grant sizes are similar.

18. Since its establishment, the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme has been oversubscribed. Heritage Unit staff have investigated options for a budget increase.

19. Applicants that have not received a grant through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme in the previous three rounds were given priority over those that have.

20. The applications recommended for funding in the 2018/2019 financial year align strongly with the outcomes and priorities established for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme. The applications recommended for funding represent a variety of project types related to scheduled historic heritage places across the region, ranging from conservation plans to physical works which will contribute to their long-term survival.

21. Two applications recommended for funding are for projects at privately-owned residences. Both properties are scheduled historic heritage places and are visible from a public place. The nature of the projects strictly pertains to the heritage fabric of the building and both projects have significant applicant contributions to the total project costs (over 50 per cent). Both places have well-known and documented interest from the public.

22. Grant recommendation amounts are only less than the requested amount in cases where applicants have stated that a smaller Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme contribution would still be helpful for their project. The recommended amount is based on the amount the applicant has specified in their application as being a helpful contribution.

23. In most instances, applications that are recommended for decline have merit. Because the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is oversubscribed, lower scoring applications were not recommended for funding. In other instances, applications are recommended for decline due to issues with best practice identified during the assessment process.

Table Two – Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Metrics

	2015/2016 funding round	2016/2017 funding round	2017/2018 funding round	2018/2019 funding round
Budget	$80,743	$80,744	$82,000	$83,640
Number of applications	27	42	25	25
Total value of grants requested	$336,914	$573,559	$383,833	$428,171.90
Number of applications recommended for funding	Seven applications supported, 19 declined and one ineligible	Seven applications supported, 33 declined and two ineligible	Eight applications supported, 15 declined, one withdrawn and one ineligible	Six applications supported, 18 declined, one ineligible
Value of grant allocations	Range: $3,375 to $20,000 Average: $11,998	Range: $2,248 to $20,000 Average: $11,534	Range: $4,000 to $20,000 Average: $10,250	Range: $5,900 to $18,640 Average: 13,940

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. There are no council group impacts or views identified for the allocation of the 2018/2019 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local heritage projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa. Information on the successful grant applicants will be provided to all relevant local boards, following the approval of the Planning Committee.

26. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was promoted through local board networks via internal memo. The memo addressed the key role local boards play in promoting funding available to their constituents, community networks and contacts. The grant round was also promoted via the local boards’ social media page.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. All grant programmes aim to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations which deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua department provided input and practical support towards the development of the Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme.

28. Promotion of the 2018/2019 funding round included provision of information to heritage stakeholders which included mana whenua, Māori community groups and individuals.

29. Supporting kaitiakitanga of Māori cultural heritage is an identified priority for this grant programme and all applications were assessed as to their alignment with this priority.

30. Applicants were asked to demonstrate how Māori outcomes will be evident in the results of their project. Of the 24 applications received, seven applications were submitted in which the applicant identified the project as contributing to Māori outcomes.

31. The application from Point Chevalier Social Enterprise Trust which is recommended for funding has been identified as contributing to Māori outcomes. The Māori Hall has a history of supporting Māori and their well-being and its owners have made a commitment to continue supporting Māori in the future.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. The funding recommendations presented in this report fully allocate the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme budget for the 2018/2019 financial year, as approved through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

33. The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme has a total budget of $83,640 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

34. In this Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2018/2019 round a total of 25 applications were received with a total requested amount of $428,171.90. Given the four year pattern of significant oversubscription, options to increase the total funding pool are being explored by council staff.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The assessment process undertaken identifies any risks involved with funding each application. The risks are mitigated by:

· special clauses in the funding agreement which allows the grant to be uplifted only when conditions are satisfied

· accountability requirements oblige grantees to submit a project report at the end of their grant period. The project report details how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Following the Planning Committee resolution allocating funding for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, council staff will notify the applicants of the committee’s decision.

37. Successful grant recipients will receive an agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the grant. The recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements. Should these projects either not proceed or not fully utilise allocated funding all unspent funds will be returned to council.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Guidelines 2018/2019	107
b ⇩	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Application Summaries 2018/2019	111
c ⇩	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Accountability Reporting 2015/2016 and 2016/2017	117

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Mary Kienholz - Senior Specialist Community Heritage

Robert Walsh - Grants Advisor

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space

File No.: CP2019/04897

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To identify options for using road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) as open space and to highlight some of the potential issues that could be involved.

2. To recommend the most appropriate mechanism(s) for investigating potential conversions of road reserve and unformed legal road to open space.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. At its 7 August 2018 meeting, the Planning Committee:

(c) requested staff report back to the Planning Committee before the end of the year on the issues and options associated with reclassifying and rezoning pieces of road reserve and public owned paper roads as recreation reserves and open space. The report should also assess whether pedestrian only accessways should be zoned as open space.
(Resolution number PLA 2018/72)

4. In responding to the Planning Committee’s request, staff have investigated whether additional open space could be secured for the public by converting portions of unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) to open space. This could be undertaken either with or without “stopping” the road. The process for “stopping a road” is specified in the Local Government Act 1974. Formed and sealed roads are shown as “road” in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). Unformed legal roads are shown in a variety of ways, depending on the approach that was used in the legacy district plans.

5. In some cases, portions of road reserve and unformed legal roads are already used informally as open space, for example, walkways to reserves or formal and informal recreation areas within the road reserve. Many existing parks and reserves include unformed paper roads. Some “road ends” abutting the coastal marine area do not have a formed carriageway and appear to be open space. Road stopping procedures would be required to “stop” these roads. These areas appear to operate successfully under their current land classification and zoning arrangements.

6. Pedestrian accessways linking roads are shown as “road” under the AUP. This approach was supported by Auckland Transport (AT), Parks and Plans and Places departments when developing the plan, and endorsed by the relevant council committees. They are managed and maintained by AT. Many of these are vested as local purpose reserve – walkway.

7. The advantages of securing additional open space via road reserve or unformed legal road are that the overall amount of land classified as open space is increased in a cost-effective manner and there is a positive public perception associated with this. The disadvantages include the costs of “stopping” roads, including potential Environment Court costs, the need for a stopped road to be offered back to the former owners, the need in some cases to maintain access to private property and the more enabling provisions of an open space zone (in comparison to “road”).

8. Auckland Council currently uses a number of tools to identify additional open space and recreational opportunities. These include greenway plans (now part of the Auckland Paths project), open space network plans, area plans, centre plans, structure plans and “regeneration” plans. The greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans, in particular, are already used to identify opportunities to utilise road reserve and unformed legal road and/or pedestrian accessways as open space, and if there are advantages to do so, change their land classification and zoning.

9. Adopting a “global” approach to converting road reserve or unformed legal road to open space would run a high risk of overlooking local and site-specific issues. Following the non-statutory and statutory processes available to the council and assessing each location on a case by case basis, enables the advantages and disadvantages to be clearly identified before determining the most appropriate approach.

10. The most significant opportunities to utilise road reserve and unformed legal road for open space/recreation purposes are as part of the Auckland Paths project. This project represents a $900 million capital investment in Auckland’s walking and cycling network over the next 10 years.

11. Innovative ways of providing open space and/or opportunities for recreation activities in urban areas are not limited to road reserves or unformed paper roads. The wider issue therefore, is what innovative approaches could be used to provide additional areas of open space and/or recreational opportunities? In addition to the information requested in the
7 August 2018 Planning Committee resolution, this paper also provides some examples of innovative approaches used in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand and around the world.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note that unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) are already an open space resource.

b) note that unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) do not necessarily need to be “stopped” and/or rezoned to open space to be used as open space, and that the road stopping process is complex, expensive and can be a protracted process.

c) note that the most significant opportunities to utilise road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) for open space/recreation purposes are as part of the Auckland Paths project which represents the largest ever capital investment in active travel in Auckland.

d) endorse the approach that where unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) are utilised for open space / recreation purposes, this is in addition to the open space provision standards for a local board area.

e) request that when the parks and open space acquisition policies are next reviewed, consideration is given to specifically referencing the opportunity that unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) provide in adding to open space outcomes.

f) endorse the use of existing mechanisms such as the preparation, implementation and review of the Auckland Paths project, existing greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans as the primary tools for identifying future open space opportunities.

g) request staff when undertaking the preparation, implementation or review of the Auckland Paths project, existing greenway plans and open space network plans, and the preparation of structure plans in conjunction with local boards, give further consideration to:

i) where appropriate, using unutilised road reserve and/or unformed legal roads (paper roads) as open space; and

ii) investigating innovative ways of providing additional open space and recreational facilities such as the Lightpath (in accordance with the Auckland Council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013, the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 and the Auckland Plan 2050).

h) endorse the existing Auckland Unitary Plan approach for pedestrian accessways, which is that pedestrian accessways linking roads are shown as “road”, and those linking roads to open space are shown as “open space”.

Horopaki

Context

Previous Resolution

12. At its 7 August 2018 meeting, the Planning Committee:

13. The above resolution of the Planning Committee arose out of its consideration of the Open Space Plan Change (PC13), where land that had been vested or purchased over the preceding year, was to be rezoned to one of the five AUP open space zones.

Problem or Opportunity Definition

14. In established urban areas, it is difficult and hugely expensive to acquire additional public open space. As parts of Auckland become more intensively developed, existing open spaces will need to be used more efficiently and innovative ways of increasing access to open space or providing recreation opportunities may be required.

15. There are portions of road reserve and unformed legal road that are currently, or potentially could be, used as open space. Additional open space could be secured by converting or utilising road reserve as open space. This could be undertaken either with or without “stopping” the road and changing its notation in the AUP.

16. Many existing open spaces/reserves include unformed legal (paper) roads. Some of these are shown as road in the AUP while others are zoned the same as the surrounding open space. The public are generally not aware of these paper roads. Road stopping procedures would be required to “stop” these roads. There is little to be gained and potentially significant costs involved if these unformed legal (paper) roads are “stopped”. In addition, if land is no longer required for a public work, it must be offered back to the former owners under the Public Works Act 1981.

17. Pedestrian walkways linking roads are shown as “road” under the AUP. They are owned and maintained by Auckland Transport. Many of these are vested as local purpose reserve – walkway.

Unformed Legal Roads (or Paper Roads)

18. An unformed road is as much a legal road as the formed roads that make up Auckland’s public road network. Unformed legal roads may only be recorded on survey plans and not always readily identifiable on the ground (which is why they are often referred to as “paper roads”). Most have never been developed due to there being no access requirements, impractical topography, lack of funding priority or unsuitable environmental conditions. Ownership lies with either a territorial authority or the crown. Road Controlling Authority powers are exercisable over them in the same way as other roads. This means that in Auckland, unformed legal roads are under the control of Auckland Transport. Unformed legal roads are an important component of the transport and recreation network envisaged in the Auckland Council Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013.

19. Most unformed legal roads were established during the early days of settlement, particularly in the period of provincial government (1854 – 1876). Before crown land was sold, land was set aside as roads to ensure public access would be available once the land was developed. Roads were shown on survey plans, but not frequently built or used.

20. The functions and powers of Auckland Transport are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – particularly sections 45 and 46. These provisions provide that Auckland Transport manages and controls the Auckland transport system (including unformed legal roads).

21. Public users have rights of free passage on unformed legal roads as they do with public formed roads. However, unlike formed roads, unformed roads may in places not be traversable due to the condition of the surface, unsuitable terrain, dense vegetation and other natural hazards.

22. Rights of free passage must also be balanced against potential damage to the environment, and Auckland Transport has the right to restrict vehicle movements on unformed legal roads for the purpose of protecting the environment or the public.

23. Some of the unformed legal roads throughout the Auckland region are already used by recreational users for such activities as walking, mountain biking, horse riding, hunting and to reach outdoor destinations such as rivers, lakes and beaches.

The Use of Roads (Including Unformed Roads)

24. Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 enables road controlling authorities to make certain bylaws. Auckland Transport has a Traffic Bylaw (2012) which sets the requirements for vehicle and road use, parking and enforcement powers on roads under the care, or management of Auckland Transport.

Methods for Removing the Status of Legal Road

25. There are two methods for removing the status of a legal road:

i) By a process referred to as “road stopping” under the Local Government Act 1974 – see Attachment A (as opposed to temporary road closures where the underlying status of being a road returns after the closure), or

ii) By the Minister for Land Information who may stop a road under section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981.

26. Auckland Transport can stop roads by following the procedure set out in Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, which involves public notification. If the road is in a rural area, the consent of the Minister for Land Information must be obtained for the road to be stopped. If there are objections to the road stopping these will need to be determined by the Environment Court.

27. Assessment of whether a road should be stopped is based on a number of factors (including current and possible future use) to determine whether the need for the road for public use is outweighed by the need for the stopping.

28. Once a road has been stopped, it must be offered back to the former land owners under the Public Works Act 1981. If they (or their successors) are not interested in acquiring the land, Auckland Council is responsible for determining how the land will be used or disposed of. In practice, the purpose of the road stopping often determines how the land will be used.

29. Stopped roads bordering waterways must become esplanade reserves. Under the AUP, stopped roads are to be zoned the same as the adjacent zone and do not need to go through a plan change process.

30. Network utilities also have rights to access roads. If there are any utilities in the roads to be stopped, negotiations with these parties will be required to either relocate those assets or provide a legal mechanism for them to remain in the open space.

31. If road is stopped or proposed to be stopped, issues and or past interests in the underlying land can resurface and need to be addressed. For example, issues such as past confiscation and/or alienation of the land are not uncommon.

32. The general public along with community and sporting or recreational groups utilise many unformed roads as recreational trails for walking, mountain biking and coastal access to beaches. Changing the status of the road could potentially raise objections from those groups, although this could be mitigated by an open space zoning.

33. Auckland Transport also has no obligation to form any unformed legal roads, and currently has no forward capital works programme to form or improve unformed roads. However, Auckland Transport will consider applications from adjacent property owners, developers and interest groups to construct carriageways, cycle tracks, bridle paths and footpaths within unformed legal roads at the applicant’s expense where this is vital for development or where significant public access benefits are clearly demonstrated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Auckland Unitary Plan Approach

34. The different ways roads, including unformed legal roads are shown in the AUP are listed in the table below. Apart from pedestrian walkways where a consistent approach was adopted throughout the region, these largely reflect the legacy District Plan approaches.

Road Status	Unitary Plan Zone
Road – formed and sealed	All shown as road
Unformed legal (paper) road	Some shown as road, some have the same zoning as adjacent land, some are zoned open space (e.g. if they lie within a park/reserve)
Pedestrian walkway linking road to road	All shown as road
Pedestrian walkway linking road to open space	All zoned as the same open space zone as the reserve it provides access to

Examples of the Different Unformed Legal Roads

35. Attachment B provides examples of the different ways unformed legal roads and pedestrian accessways are dealt with in the AUP. These include:

a) Road reserve “ends” that are shown as road (e.g. Brett Ave, Takapuna, Ellett Road and Kidd Road, Karaka) but are effectively used as open space;

b) Unformed legal road shown as road (e.g. Kauri Point Domain, unnamed road off Piha Road);

c) Unformed legal road shown as open space (e.g. Omana Reserve, Maraetai);

d) Unformed legal road shown as the same zoning as the adjacent land (e.g. Krippner Road, Puhoi);

e) Pedestrian accessway from road to road (View Road and The Esplanade, Campbells Bay);

f) Pedestrian accessway from road to reserve (Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay);

Number of Road Ends, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways

36. The Plans and Places GIS team undertook an analysis of the number of instances unformed legal roads occur adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and the number of pedestrian accessways shown as road.

37. The table below contains the results of that analysis.

Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways	Number	Approximate Area (ha)
Instances of unformed legal roads adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area	512 (Total)	638 (Total)
- Instances of unformed legal road zoned as road adjacent to the CMA and not in Parks asset database	271	308
- Instances of unformed legal road adjacent to the CMA which are in the parks asset database but are not zoned as open space	241	330
Instances of legal road zoned as open space	172
Pedestrian accessways shown as road	465

38. Potentially there are 512 unformed legal roads adjacent to the CMA that could be rezoned to increase the area of open space zoned land. Of these, 271 are not currently in the Parks asset database and 241 are in the database. This information is portrayed on a map in Attachment C.

39. In addition, there are 465 pedestrian accessways in the Auckland region that are shown in the Unitary Plan as “road”. These are located between roads. Pedestrian accessways that provide access from a road to a park (or open space) typically have the same zoning as the adjacent open space.

Relevant Auckland Council Plans and Strategies Relating to Open Space Acquisition

i. The Auckland Plan 2050

40. The outcomes, focus areas and directions from the Auckland Plan 2050 that are relevant to open space are contained in Attachment D.

41. The Auckland Plan 2050, Homes and Places outcome recognises that “As Auckland's population increases and becomes more urbanised, our public places and spaces will become even more important to our wellbeing. This is particularly the case in areas of high growth, increased density and socio-economic need. This has implications for the number, size and location of our public places. It is also an important reason why we need to think differently about what we consider to be a public place and how we conceive its use. We also need to think differently about how we design and deliver them”.

ii. Parks Acquisition Strategies and Policies

42. The acquisition of parks is guided by the Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013, the Parks and Open Space Acquisitions Policy 2013 and the Open Space Provision Policy 2016. The role and function of these documents is outlined in Attachment E.

Tools Available to Identify and Deliver Open Space and Recreation Opportunities

Open Space Network Plans

43. The Open Space Acquisitions Policy identifies tools for identifying future open space and parks. These include two key tools - open space network plans and greenway plans.

44. Open Space Network Plans set out the actions needed to deliver a sustainable quality open space network for a local board area that will respond to the anticipated growth and provide the community with access to a range of recreational, social, cultural and environmental experiences. They sit under the Open Space Strategy, providing high level direction for improvements to the open space network, specific to each Local Board area.

45. The current status of Open Space Network Plans for Auckland Council’s local boards is outlined in Attachment J.

46. The plans assist Auckland Council to prioritise its spending for parks and open space development by identifying projects for prioritisation through the local board plan, long term plan and annual plan processes.

Greenway Plans

47. Auckland’s Greenway Plans are a series of linked, visionary plans being developed from the “ground up” by local boards and their communities with the long-term aim of improving walking, cycling and ecological connections across the region.

48. Greenway Plans aim to provide cycling and walking connections which are safe and pleasant while also improving local ecology and access to recreational opportunities. To achieve this, greenways may cross existing areas of parkland and follow street connections between parks. The network typically follows natural landforms such as streams and coastlines as well as man-made features such as streets and motorways.

49. The status of Greenway Plans for each local board area is outlined in Attachment K. Greenway Plans have recently been superseded by the Auckland Paths project.

Structure Plans

50. Appendix 1 – Structure Plan Guidelines, of the AUP identifies the provision of open space, the integration of green networks with open space and pedestrian and cycle networks and the layout of the transport network and facilities as matters that a structure plan must identify, investigate and address.

51. Open space network plans, greenway plans and structure plans are/can be an effective tool in identifying future open space opportunities associated with road reserves and unformed legal road.

Examples from Other Cities of Road Reserve/Closed Roads Being Converted to (or Considered as) Open Space

52. Like Auckland, other cities in Australasia are recognising the open space benefits of roads or road reserves. Attachment F highlights examples from Sydney, Melbourne and Christchurch which illustrate this point.

Other Innovative Approaches

53. Innovative ways of providing open space and/or opportunities for recreation activities in urban areas are not limited to road reserves or unformed paper roads.

54. The Auckland Plan 2050 Homes and Places outcome (in Direction 4) states “we need to think differently about what we consider to be a public place and how we conceive its use. We also need to think differently about how we design and deliver them”.

55. There are a number of examples of innovative ways of providing open space and recreational opportunities in Auckland, other parts of New Zealand and overseas. Attachment G provides some examples of these. Existing mechanisms such as the Auckland Paths project, existing greenway plans, open space network plans, area plans, centre plans, structure plans and “regeneration plans” can be used to explore innovative responses to the need for additional open space/recreation facilities, particularly in established urban areas.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Options

56. Attachment H identifies possible options associated with converting road reserve, unformed legal roads and pedestrian accessways to open space and assesses the advantages and disadvantages. The three scenarios discussed at the Planning Committee meeting of 7 August 2018 are assessed. These are:

· road ends (which are effectively the end portions of road reserve or unformed legal roads)

· paper roads (or unformed legal roads)

· pedestrian accessways.

57. Attachment H also provides an initial scoping of likely costs and benefits. If a plan change was to be pursued, a more detailed section 32 report of the costs and benefits would need to be prepared.

58. In summary, the key advantages of zoning unformed legal roads to open space potentially are:

· increases the amount of land zoned open space

· there is a positive public perception.

59. The key disadvantages are:

· the costs of the process of stopping roads (if they are to be stopped)

· the possibility of Environment Court costs and delays if road stopping is appealed

· in some cases, unformed legal roads provide access to adjacent private land, so access would need to be maintained

· stopped roads may need to be offered back to the former land owner under the Public Works Act 1981

· issue of maintenance responsibility (e.g. Auckland Transport or Parks)

· an open space zoning is generally more enabling than road reserve (in terms of allowing buildings and structures) so there could be opposition to any rezoning from potentially affected persons.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

Views of Auckland Transport

60. All roads, including unformed roads are ‘owned’ by Auckland Council. Auckland Transport, as the road controlling authority, manages the road network for Auckland Council. If the function of a road, including unformed roads, is to change, Auckland Transport would need to support this change in function. If an unformed road was to be used for a public access purpose, like a pedestrian way/cycleway – this would not be a change of function – but there would be funding needed to develop unformed roads for this type of public access.

61. Auckland Transport staff agree that there are opportunities to convert some road reserves and unformed legal roads (paper roads) into open space, particularly in coastal areas. However, they consider that these situations need to be considered on a case by case basis. They also advise that road stopping is a difficult and expensive process and are of the view that a joined-up cross-Council management approach, without the “stopping of roads”, may be able to achieve the same outcomes.

Views of Auckland Council Parks and Recreation Policy Unit

62. The Council’s Parks and Recreation Policy Unit also agree that there are opportunities via road reserve and unformed legal road to expand and enhance the open space network. These are being identified through the Auckland Paths project and the development of open space network plans. In addition, an evaluation of the network plans in the future will be able to identify further opportunities. Parks and Recreation Policy staff are of the view there is not a great deal of value in closing unformed legal roads where they are located in existing parks and already have an open space zoning, as there is no impact in terms of additional open space. They also advise that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission frequently utilises unformed legal roads to develop walking and cycling trails.

63. Parks and Recreation Policy staff also advise that converting all unutilised or unformed legal roads to open space may not accord with council policy and could have significant resource and financial implications. The Council’s Open Space Provision Policy identifies six specific open space typologies:

· Pocket parks

· Neighbourhood parks

· Suburb parks

· Destination parks

· Civic space

· Connection and linkage open space^{^[1]}

64. Some unutilised or unformed legal roads could provide connection and linkage open space, particularly those adjoining existing parks or esplanade reserves. However, each site would need to be assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013). Undertaking these assessments would have resource implications in terms of staff time. Auckland Council would need to acquire any assets from Auckland Transport based on net book value in accordance with the internal asset transfer policy. The governing body would need to consider the trade-offs between this expenditure and the acquisition of new open space.

65. Parks and Recreation Policy staff support the current approach to pedestrian accessways whereby those that link roads are shown as “road” and those that link to open space/parks have the same zoning as the park/open space. They point out that should pedestrian accessways linking roads be converted to open space this may raise maintenance issues for parks.

Views of Auckland Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation Department

66. The Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation department staff consider that the most significant opportunities to utilise road reserve and unformed legal road are as part of the Auckland Paths project. This project represents a $900 million capital investment in Auckland’s walking and cycling network over the next 10 years. This is the largest ever capital investment in active travel in Auckland. This project is being delivered by NZTA, Auckland Transport and the Council’s local boards, with the potential for third party investment through corporate sponsorship.

67. In new growth areas, the acquisition of open space is guided by the open space provision guidelines. In existing urban areas, the emphasis is on improving the quality of existing open spaces. In many cases, “road ends” are currently being used for open space/recreation purposes. There is always potential to add more but these need to be considered on a case by case basis. Where existing infrastructure is repurposed (e.g. Te Ara I Whiti – the Lightpath, and the Highline in New York), there is significant potential to add to open space and recreational assets.

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

Local impacts and local board views

68. Consultation has not yet occurred with local boards. If the recommendations of this report are supported, consultation would occur with the respective local boards through the Auckland Paths project and the development, implementation and future review of open space network plans and structure plans.

69. Representatives of the Devonport-Takapuna and Hibiscus and Bays Local Boards attended a workshop on the issue of converting road reserve and unformed legal road to open space. Email correspondence was also received from the Albert Eden Local Board. The key point made by all three boards was the need to ensure that where road reserve and unformed legal road is utilised as open space and/or for recreation purposes, this is in addition to the normal open space provision standards for a local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

70. Any proposed road stopping would involve engagement with iwi.

71. Under section 40 of the Public Works Act, where land is no longer required for a public work it must be offered back to the former land owner or their successors. If that owner does not want the land it potentially becomes available for Treaty Settlements with iwi having the first right of refusal.

72. Under section 41 of the Public Works Act 1981, where former Māori land is not required for a public work it must be offered back to the former owner(s).

73. Māori are also potentially impacted through the Auckland Paths project and the development of open space network and structure plans. The development of these plans includes engagement with relevant iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74. Costs are associated with any road closure and/or plan change process, including possible appeal costs and opportunity costs (loss of the opportunity for council staff to work on other projects). These costs need to be considered alongside the benefits.

75. In addition, the Finance department advises that the transfer of road reserve to open space would need to be paid for by the council at net book value.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

76. A number of greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans have been completed recently. If these planning tools are the primary means by which additional open space opportunities are identified and they did not explore or identify all options, there is a risk that opportunities to secure additional open space by way of road reserve and/or unformed legal roads will not be realised for some time when these plans are next reviewed. This risk is mitigated to some extent by opportunities that will be created through the Auckland Paths project.

77. Any “global approach” to converting road reserve or unformed legal road to open space would overlook local and site-specific issues. Following the non-statutory and statutory processes available and assessing each location on a case by case basis will enable potential advantages and disadvantages to be identified before determining the most appropriate approach.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

78. An initial assessment of converting unformed legal road and/or pedestrian accessway to an open space zone indicates there are both advantages and disadvantages. The exact nature and degree of these will depend on the context. They therefore need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

79. Auckland Council already has suitable mechanisms and processes underway – the Auckland Paths project, existing greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans, for identifying opportunities for additional open space across local board areas (see Attachment I for examples). These planning processes already include the assessment of whether road reserve or unformed legal roads could be appropriately converted to or used as open space. The implementation of these plans is the next step in the process. Other innovative approaches to securing open space could also be explored.

80. The Auckland Paths project represents a significant opportunity to add to Auckland’s open space and recreational resources. This project will utilise both road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads).

81. Auckland Transport would need to be closely involved in any proposal to convert unformed legal roads to open space as they are the road controlling authority on behalf of Auckland Council.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government Act 1974 (Roading Stopping)	145
b ⇩	Examples of the Different Ways Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways are Dealt With in the Auckland Unitary Plan	149
c ⇩	Map of Unformed Legal Roads	157
d ⇩	Auckland Plan 2050 - Outcomes, Focus Areas and Directions Relating to Open Space	159
e ⇩	Parks Acquisition Strategies and Policies	161
f ⇩	Examples From Other Cities of Road Reserve/Closed Roads Being Converted to or Considered as Open Space	165
g ⇩	Examples of Innovative Ways of Providing Open Space and Recreational Opportunities	167
h ⇩	Options, Advantages and Disadvantages of Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Road and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space	181
i ⇩	Greenway and Open Space Network Plan Examples	183
j ⇩	The Current Status of Open Space Network Plans for the Auckland Region's Local Boards	187
k ⇩	The Status of Greenway Plans for Each Local Board Area	189

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Counties Racing Club to rezone land at Pukekohe Park

File No.: CP2019/07343

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider a private plan change request (the request) from Counties Racing Club to rezone 5.8ha of land at 222-250 Manukau Road, Pukekohe (Pukekohe Park) from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Business – General Business zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and remove the rezoned land from the Pukekohe Park Precinct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The request seeks to rezone 5.8ha of land in Pukekohe Park from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Business – General Business in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) and remove the rezoned land from the Pukekohe Park Precinct. The proposed plan change area (the site) is located on the north-western corner of Pukekohe Park fronting Manukau Road, and is surplus to the needs of the club for providing its primary activities being horse racing and motor racing.

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 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 Counties Racing Club for Pukekohe Park, included as Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

i) 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 by Counties Racing Club for Pukekohe Park pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

5. The site is 5.8ha and forms the north-western corner of Pukekohe Park, a 73ha horse racing, motor racing and events facility owned by Counties Racing Club (CRC) (refer to Figure 1). It is approximately 2km south of Pukekohe Town Centre. The site is zoned Special Purpose - Major Recreation Facility and is subject to the Pukekohe Park Precinct.

6. The site is largely an open grassed area, which is occasionally used for overflow event parking. Two businesses, Kia and Versatile Pukekohe occupy a relatively small area at the north-western corner of the site, facing Manukau Road.

7. The site is adjoined by the environs of Pukekohe Park to the east and south. To the north are businesses which include a car yard, commercial vehicle servicing and a large storage facility. The Pukekohe Mega Centre is located at the north-eastern corner of the site. Manukau Road adjoins the site to the west.

8. The wider surrounding environment is comprised of a variety of land uses and zones. To the north along both sides of Manukau Road are light industrial and commercial activities zoned either Business – General Business or Business – Light Industry. Large areas to the east and west are zoned Future Urban and are dominated by large grassed areas and farmland. Horticultural activity on Rural – Rural Production zoned land occurs beyond the Future Urban zone to the west. The southern train line runs along the full length of Pukekohe Park’s eastern boundary, with the Franklin Trotting club being located on the opposite side. The Buckland township is an established low-density residential area located to the south.

9. Much of the surrounds are currently part of council’s Pukekohe Structure Plan process. The application of business zoning is currently being anticipated for the surrounding Future Urban zoned area.

Figure 1: Locality Plan – plan change area in red and Pukekohe Park in yellow

Private plan change request

10. The request was lodged on 29 March 2019 (see Attachment A) and seeks to rezone 5.8ha of Pukekohe Park from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Business – General Business and to remove the rezoned land from the Pukekohe Park Precinct. No further amendments to the AUP are sought.

11. The purpose of the plan change is to allow commercial development. CRC have for some time been considering the financial sustainability of their operation, especially considering the broad challenges facing the racing industry. They have concluded that the proposed rezoning will enable them to make the best use of surplus land and ensure the longer-term sustainable operation of Pukekohe Park for horse racing and motor racing. CRC intends to maintain ownership of the land, and following the plan change, the club would be able to lease the land for commercial tenants. This will provide the club with an additional revenue stream for the long term without affecting their existing activities.

12. The existing zoning of the site is shown in Figure 2 while the proposed zoning is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Existing zones under the AUP – plan change area in red

Figure 3: Rezoning proposed by the private plan change – plan change area in red

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

· Private plan change request

· Certificates of Title

· Section 32 (S32) evaluation report

· Integrated transport assessment

· Economic impact assessment

· Urban design statement

· Acoustic assessment

· Infrastructure and stormwater report

· Ecology report.

14. Further information has been requested from the applicant. None of the information requested is material to this stage of the plan change process. The information being sought is primarily to determine whether the proposed zone is the most appropriate and to provide a reasonable degree of certainty for how effects can be managed. Once received, this information will inform the merits assessment to follow.

15. It is considered that the information lodged is sufficient for the council to consider the request under clause 23(6).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act 1991

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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:

· 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

· 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

· 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

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

19. 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

20. Council staff consider that the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) (insufficient information) to be available. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.

Option 1 – Reject the request, in whole or in part

21. 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.

22. 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?

23. The plan change aims to establish a Business – General Business zone to provide for commercial development in an area which is now surplus to Pukekohe Park’s needs. The plan change includes a S32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments for key matters such as transport, flooding and ecology, acoustics, economics and urban design. Following the plan change, the CRC will likely lease the land for commercial tenants. This substance of the plan change and its aim of enabling commercial development are not considered frivolous or vexatious.

24. It is therefore recommended that the council not 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?

25. 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.

26. A similar rezoning request was considered during the Auckland Unitary Plan hearings process. At the time, the applicant had not provided sufficiently detailed information for the rezoning to be adequately considered. In any case, 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.

27. It is 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 does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.

29. It is 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 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.”

31. The request includes a number of specialist reports, which all support the proposed plan change. Council has consulted Auckland Transport (AT) and Watercare and engaged experts to consider the plan change. While there are aspects of the private plan change request that need to be tested through the submission and hearings process, the scope and extent of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered at this stage.

32. 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?

33. 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 proposal to rezone Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Business – General Business zone will not make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

34. 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 AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

Has the district plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?

35. The district plan provisions of the AUP relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

36. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts of the AUP have been operative for more than two years.

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

37. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. Given the current zoning of the site, it is considered that the most appropriate process to consider whether commercial development is appropriate is through a plan change process.

38. 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

39. 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.

40. Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopt the private plan change and the council would accept all costs associated with the plan change if it were adopted, it is not recommended that the council adopts 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

41. 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.

42. 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.

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

Conclusion

44. 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.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. AT has reviewed the plan change and has not reported any fundamental constraints which would prevent the plan change from being accepted. AT has provided detailed feedback and identified several transport issues where further information will be required. AT will review the response when it is available and will continue to be involved in the plan change process.

46. Healthy Waters has reviewed the plan change and consider that further information is required in relation to stormwater management, flooding and effects on water quality. The issues raised are not considered material to the decision to accept the plan change and can be resolved through further information being provided by the applicant.

47. Watercare has reviewed the plan change and requested that the applicant provide a capacity assessment for water supply and wastewater. This was provided on 17 May 2019 and stated that no capacity issues are anticipated.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. The applicant attended the Franklin Local Board’s business meeting on 27 November 2018, to update the board on the work being done to progress the plan change in Pukekohe Park.

49. Following lodgment of the plan change with council, staff provided a copy to the local board and their feedback was requested. The following response was received on 29 April 2019:

“The Franklin Local Board supports this application as it aligns with our local board plan outcome: A thriving local economy. It is also in line with Council’s draft structure plan for Pukekohe-Paerata. The General Business zone is more favoured to provide a wider scope of commercial activity, which would also manage reverse sensitivity.

This will provide the Racing Club the opportunity to be more sustainable and create opportunities to provide needed commercial zoned land in Pukekohe. There is a need to ensure activities that could directly conflict with the imposition of noise contours around the park are not permitted e.g. retirement village or apartments, which would be contrary to the long held desire to avoid residential living within the immediate surrounds of the park.”

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 advises that it has engaged the following iwi groups with an interest in the local area (see below). The proposal including plans were sent to the iwi groups via email, providing opportunity for queries before the plan change request was lodged with council.

Mana Whenua Group	Feedback
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	No response received
Ngāti Maru	No response received
Ngāti Tamaoho	Ngāti Tamaoho were met onsite and a Cultural Values Assessment has been completed.
Ngāti Te Ata	Ngāti Te Ata were met onsite and written feedback has been received.
Te Ākitai Waiohua	No response received
Waikato - Tainui	No response received

52. A cultural impact statement from Ngāti Tamaoho has been submitted with the plan change. A letter from Ngāti Te Ata has also been provided. Both have made a number of recommendations primarily around water quality and the management of stormwater effects. This feedback will be considered as part of the plan change process. An ecology report has been submitted by the applicant on 26 April 2019 to address water quality concerns.

53. If the council accepts the plan change for notification, all iwi authorities/mana whenua will have the opportunity to make submissions on the private plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. 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

55. The only risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is a judicial review 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

56. 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. A hearing will subsequently be held, after which point the council’s decision will be released. As with all council and private plan changes, submitters are able to appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachment A it has been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 4 June 2019 > Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Private Plan Change Request (90 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	Extract from Clause 25 RMA	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jimmy Zhang - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 June 2019

Auckland Unitary Plan - Plan Change 3: Stockade Hill Viewshaft (to be made operative)

File No.: CP2019/08055

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to make Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part): Protection of views from Stockade Hill, Howick, operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part): Protection of views from Stockade Hill, Howick (Plan Change 3), sought to protect views of Rangitoto, Hauraki Gulf and the islands from Stockade Hill, Howick.

3. A panel of independent commissioners decided on 13 August 2018 to approve Plan Change 3, subject to modifications (the decision).

4. This decision received two appeals, from Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) and Janet Dickson.

5. Following discussions all parties have agreed that these appeals can be settled in their entirety by consent. Subsequently, the Environment Court issued a consent order.

6. The consent order includes a new overlay to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), D20A Stockade Hill Viewshaft Overlay. The purpose of this overlay is to maintain and enhance the integrity of the view from Stockade Hill to the coastal environment (Hauraki Gulf and Islands). The overlay does this by restricting the height of new development within the overlay area, so that it does not intrude into or obstruct views to the coastal environment.

7. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the consent order (and included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as it relates to the Environment Court consent order dated 18 April 2019, as identified in Attachments A and B of the agenda report.

b) request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 3 will become operative as soon as practicable.

Horopaki

Context

8. Plan Change 3 is a council-initiated plan change that seeks to protect views of Rangitoto, the Hauraki Gulf and the Islands from a public open space – Stockade Hill, Howick. The plan change proposed to delete an existing contour based local public viewshaft that originated from the base of Stockade Hill. It then proposed to introduce a new viewshaft and a blanket building height restriction area into the Local Public Views Overlay that originates from the top of Stockade Hill.

9. A decision to approve Plan Change 3, with modifications, was made by a panel of independent commissioners on 13 August 2018. This decision included a new viewshaft with an 8-metre blanket height restriction area.

10. The decision was appealed by HNZC and Janet Dickson.

11. HNZC appealed the introduction of the ‘blanket height restriction area’ method into the Local Public Views Overlay (Chapter D16) and its application to part of the Mixed Housing Urban Zone along the seaward side of Stockade Hill.

12. Ms Dickson’s appeal raised a broad range of issues including a perceived failure in the decision to consider the possibility of a wider 360 degree viewshaft to protect broader views from Stockade Hill (i.e. not only coastal views), and to give sufficient weight to the heritage and historical significance of Stockade Hill.

13. Following discussions all parties agreed to settle these appeals in their entirety by consent, and the Environment Court issued a consent order on 18 April 2019.

14. The consent order includes a new overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan, D20A Stockade Hill Viewshaft Overlay. This overlay has been ‘uplifted’ from Chapter D16 Local Public Views Overlay and inserted as a standalone chapter, with reference to the ‘blanket height restriction area’ deleted.

15. The physical extent of the new overlay and the sites affected by it are the same as that included in the decision on the plan change.

16. The consent order also includes minor consequential changes to Chapter E26 Infrastructure to add references to the new overlay.

17. A map showing the approximate location of the Stockade Hill Viewshaft Overlay in context of the wider location is shown below.

18. Attachments A and B of the agenda report contains the changes that are required to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) text and maps.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. 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

20. The final step in making additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The Howick Local Board was consulted on Plan Change 3 prior to notification. The Local Board’s views were not sought for this report as it addresses factual and procedural matters. Staff have updated the Howick Local Board on the resolution of the appeals to
Plan Change 3.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Relevant iwi authorities were consulted on the draft plan change prior to notification in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The final step in making additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan operative is a procedural step.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. There are no risks associated with making the relevant parts of Plan Change 3 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Following a resolution from this Committee, staff will publicly notify the date on which the relevant parts of Plan Change 3 will 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 ⇩	Plan Change 3 Consent Order and text changes	207
b ⇩	Plan Change 3 Mock up for GIS Viewer	221

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

[1] These open spaces provide contiguous networks of open space that establish recreational, walking, cycling and ecological connections, integrated with on-street connections. Road and stormwater reserves are not considered open space because they do not provide contiguous or continuous functionality for passive and active recreation. The location of these reserves has no impact on open space provision levels.

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

No.	Title	Page
a	Planning Committee workshop schedule June 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Auckland Monthly Housing Update April 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Auckland Monthly Housing Update May 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
d	27 March 2019 Albert-Eden Local Board resolution on berm parking (Under Separate Cover)
e	Memo on Venue Development Strategy, Western Springs Speedway and Colin Dale Park (Under Separate Cover)
f	Memo on Wynyard Crossing Permanent Bridge Resource Consent briefing and update (Under Separate Cover)
g	24 April letter to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority on the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund criteria (Under Separate Cover)
h	Transform Manukau Crown-Council collaboration workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)
i	Tamaki Regeneration Company Update workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)
j	Public Transport Fares scenarios and options workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
k	Unlock Pukekohe High Level Project Plan draft content workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)
l	2021 briefing minutes (Under Separate Cover)
m	Waterfront and City Centre Masterplan refresh workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)

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