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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 6 August 2019

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti Whakarite Mahere /

Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills

 

Members

Cr 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

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda  Gopal

Senior Governance Advisor

1 August 2019

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 367 2442

Email: kalinda.gopal@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

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

 

·         Relevant regional strategy and policy

·         Infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan

·         Spatial plans

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Housing policy and projects

·         Special Housing Areas

·         City centre development

·         Tamaki regeneration

·         Built heritage

·         Urban design

·         Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

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

 

o   Panuku Development Auckland

 

o   Auckland Transport

 

o   Watercare Services Limited

 

o   Regional Facilities Auckland (stadia)

 

Powers

 

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

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

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

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

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

 

 

 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

6.1     Local Board Input - Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - Dark Sky Sanctuary 8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans                                           9

9          Quarterly update on the Auckland Council and Crown Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth                                                                      21

10        Developing an Integrated Area Plan for part of the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local board areas, and reviewing the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan for part of Māngere                                                                                                                        45

11        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change: Howick Business Special Character Area character statement                                          59

12        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to Make Plan Change 13 - Open Space, Operative                                                                                                          83

13        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2019)                                                                                                                             87

14        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Chapter L: Schedule 14 - Addition of six historic heritage places (including one historic heritage area)                                                                                                             107

15        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 12 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct operative                                                                163

16        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Redhills Precinct Operative                                                                                                                    169

17        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 7 operative in part: Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage                             175

18        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Prime Property Group Limited to rezone land at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach        195

19        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Avondale Jockey Club to rezone land at Avondale Racecourse                         209

20        Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 6 August 2019                                                                                                                                     251  

21        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

22        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               253

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area Overlay                                                      253  

 


1          Apologies

 

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

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

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 - Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - Dark Sky Sanctuary

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Izzy Fordham, Chairperson Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Richard Somerville-Ryan, Chair Aotea/Great Barrier International Dark Sky Sanctuary Advisory Group will speak to the committee.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Input regarding the Dark Sky Sanctuary and thank Izzy Fordham and Richard Somerville-Ryan for attending.

 

Attachments

a          Aotea/Great Barrier Dark Sky Sanctuary memo ......................................... 257

b          Aotea/Great Barrier Dark Sky Sanctuary presentation................................ 269

 

 

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

06 August 2019

 

Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans

File No.: CP2019/13637

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek the adoption of the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland is growing rapidly. To accommodate a portion of the region’s growth, Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata have been earmarked to support significant future business and residential development. About 1900 hectares of land immediately surrounding Drury-Opāheke and 1300 hectares surrounding Pukekohe-Paerata have been identified in the Auckland Plan as future urban areas and zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)(Auckland Unitary Plan). Before any urban development of the Future Urban zone can occur, the land must be structure planned. The Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans set out the pattern of land uses and the supporting infrastructure network for the Future Urban zoned land around Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata.

3.       The structure plans have been prepared in the context of the existing urban areas of Pukekohe, Paerata, Drury and Papakura. The structure plans build on the opportunities and constraints in and around the Future Urban zone. They have also taken on board feedback received in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The structure plans also respond to input from a programme of hui held with mana whenua over the last two years. The structure plan maps are shown in Figure 1a (Drury-Opāheke) and Figure 1b (Pukekohe-Paerata).

4.       Key high-level features of the structure plans include:

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

·   Yield calculations indicate that the new residential areas could enable about 22,000 dwellings in the Drury-Opāheke structure plan area and 12,500 dwellings in the Pukekohe-Paerata structure plan area. The residential zones proposed would provide for a range of living types from larger sections around the fringe to more intensive dwellings such as town houses and apartments around proposed new centres and along public transport routes.

·   The Drury Opāheke Structure Plan proposes about 150 hectares (net developable) of industry-business land. Centres are also provided for.

·   Drury-Opāheke will be a highly desirable place to live, work and play once the necessary infrastructure is in place - in particular public transport infrastructure. The structure plan shows how a new urban area can develop considering environmental constraints and opportunities. Centres, housing, business areas, schools, community facilities and parks will be provided and supported by an integrated public transport network and other new infrastructure. Important cultural values, heritage and natural features are also addressed.

·   The Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan recognises the importance of the relationship between the future urban area and the existing urban areas of Pukekohe, Paerata and Buckland. Transport links, community facilities and business land provision are considered across the entire area. The structure plan will enable the transformation of the future urban zoned land in a way that reinforces the Pukekohe town centre as the heart of Pukekohe-Paerata.


 

·   Surrounding rural activities and the rural economy will remain very important to Pukekohe-Paerata. Activities such as horticulture and equine industries are envisaged to continue to operate in rural zones and business land will provide opportunities for rural-related businesses to operate.

·   The Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan proposes approximately 95 hectares (net developable) of land to be zoned Light Industry and proposes a new local centre.

·   The land uses in both structure plan areas will be supported by infrastructure including parks and open spaces (Auckland Council and Minister of Conservation), transport networks (Auckland Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency and Kiwirail), stormwater networks (Auckland Council), water and wastewater (Watercare Services Ltd) community facilities (Auckland Council), electricity and gas (including Transpower, Counties Power, Vector and First Gas), and telecommunications (various private sector providers).

·   Other community facilities and services (schools, hospitals, social services and justice) and emergency services (police, fire, ambulance) will also be required in conjunction with growth.

5.       The development of Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata’s Future Urban zones will occur over the long-term and will be sequenced in stages over the next 30 years as key infrastructure is provided. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (available on the Auckland Council website) sets out the council’s strategy for ensuring the coordinated delivery of key infrastructure with land use changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Much of the infrastructure identified in the structure plans is not currently funded. Work has recently commenced to identify when and how funds will be available. Until there is certainty about this funding, rezoning from future urban to urban should not occur.

Figure 1a: Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019

Figure 1b: Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      adopt the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 (included as Attachment A to the agenda report).

b)      authorise the Manager Central South Planning to make any minor amendments to the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan in order to improve its legibility and correct any errors.

c)      adopt the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 (included as Attachment B to the agenda report).

d)      authorise the Manager Central South Planning to make any minor amendments to the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan to improve its legibility and correct any errors.

e)      note the importance of ongoing discussions with key stakeholders and mana whenua with an interest in the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan areas.

f)       note that staff will report back to the relevant committee(s) once further work has been completed on the funding, sequencing and delivery of infrastructure in the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan areas.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       About 1900 ha of land at Drury-Opāheke and about 1300 ha of land immediately surrounding Pukekohe-Paerata have been identified in the Auckland Plan as future urban areas. These areas have also been zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan (as shown on Figure 2 below). Before any rezoning and urban development of the Future Urban zone can occur, the Auckland Unitary Plan requires that land must be structure planned. The Planning Committee approved the preparation of structure plans for Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata in August 2017.  The Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans set out the pattern of land uses and the required supporting infrastructure network for the Future Urban zoned land around Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata.

 

Figure 2: Future Urban zoned land around Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata (the structure plan study areas)

8.       The main phases of developing the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans include:

·   analysis of opportunities and constraints in 2017

·   a first phase of consultation in September – October 2017

·   analysis of feedback and land use options and selection of updated options

·   a second phase of consultation in September-October 2018

·   analysis of feedback and updated technical information and preparation of the draft structure plans

·   a final phase of consultation on the draft structure plans in April 2019

·   analysis of feedback and any new information

·   adoption of final structure plans.

9.       A programme of hui has been held with a mana whenua working group since 2017. These hui have informed the development and content of the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     The Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans 2019 build on previous work done for the Future Urban zone – such as the Pukekohe Area Plan 2014, Auckland Council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (which looks at the sequencing of development across Auckland), and the Transport for Future Urban Growth Programme[1] (which looked at transport infrastructure).

12.     Work on the development of structure plans for Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata started in 2017. Identification of opportunities, constraints, planning issues and concepts has been informed throughout this period by:

·   background research

·   supporting technical documents (some of which have been updated during the process), including extensive transport modelling and assessments undertaken by Te Tupu Ngātahi/Supporting Growth Alliance

·   consultation, including ongoing discussions with mana whenua and three periods of public consultation in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Drury-Opāheke Vision

13.     The following vision has been developed:

Drury – Opāheke is a sustainable, liveable, compact and accessible place with successful centres and residential options close to a variety of employment opportunities. It is well connected to the wider Auckland region through the rail and road networks. Cultural and heritage values are respected.

To implement this vision, the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan aspires to achieve the following outcomes:

o community focus

o quality-built environment

o a well-connected Drury-Opāheke

o integration with infrastructure delivery

o natural hazard management

o protection of the natural environment.

14.     Key changes made to the Drury-Opāheke structure plan throughout structure planning process are set out below.

Following 2017 feedback

·   Development of land use scenarios for evaluation, resulting in preliminary preferred options for consultation.

 


 

Following 2018 feedback

·   North west boundary of the structure plan area amended to exclude land recently given operative urban zoning under Private Plan Change 6: Auranga B1 Drury West.

·   Area of industrial land increased to provide more local employment opportunities and reduce commuting and wider freight congestion.

·   Large main centre retained on the eastern side of the Drury Motorway Interchange.

·   Two previous western local centres replaced by one indicative western local centre located on SH22 (Karaka Road) near Jesmond Road.

·   Smaller centres added to serve local communities.

·   Expert technical reports were completed or updated. Key reports included transport, and Business Land Demand and Location analysis.

·   Pattern of increased residential density near centres and public transport retained. Some changes to the draft residential zoning made to respond to the proposed centres and transport infrastructure.

·   Indicative transport infrastructure shown in accordance with the Integrated Transport Assessment 2019.

·   Blue-green network concept: streams, floodplains and parks retained with some changes to the indicative parks.

            Following 2019 feedback

·   Transport:

o Updated to include the preferred indicative Mill Road route in the south eastern part of the structure plan area and consequential changes to collector roads.

o Provision of park and rides clarified.

·   Centres:

o Centres depicted as indicative locations on the maps.  This recognises that more detailed work will need to be undertaken at the plan change investigation stage to determine the exact location, extent and zoning of centres.

o The western centre location is located only on the north side of SH 22 (Karaka Road), between Jesmond Road and Burberry Road, alongside SH22.

·   Industrial business areas:

o The northern Opaheke industrial business area has been reduced in extent slightly.  The area south of Ponga Road has been changed from proposed Business - Light Industry to proposed Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban between Ponga Road and the nearby stream.

o An additional area of proposed Business – Light Industry has been included between the indicative strategic “Mill Road”, Fitzgerald Road and Drury Hills Road.  This replaces the proposed Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban previously shown.

o The edge of the proposed industrial business area in south west Drury has been adjusted. This creates a better alignment of the zone edge with property boundaries and topography in the area between Great South Road and Runciman Road.

o The overall area of industrial business land increases slightly as a result of these changes.

·   The structure plan now lists the outcomes expected for each sub-area in the structure plan area.  This has been in part informed by a Neighbourhood Design Statement and includes the main centres, industrial areas, public transport corridors, residential areas and the blue-green network. This will guide future plan change preparation to achieve good outcomes.

 


 

Pukekohe-Paerata vision

15.     The following vision has been developed:

New growth areas will enhance Pukekohe as a focal point and place to further support the surrounding rural economy. These areas will offer a range of housing choice and employment opportunities for people at all stages of life. It will be well connected to the wider Auckland and Waikato regions, while protecting and enhancing the natural, physical and cultural values that contribute to Pukekohe’s unique character and identity.

To implement this vision, the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan aspires to provide these planning outcomes:

o A place for people

o Our shared stories

o A healthy, flourishing and sustainable community

o Valuing our natural environment

o Rural Pukekohe

o Servicing our future community

16.     Changes made to the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan throughout the structure planning process include:

            Following 2017 feedback

·   Removal of the 2016 transport infrastructure

·   Identifying Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones for residential land

·   Increasing business land

·   Consequently reducing residential land

·   A potential local centre in Structure Plan Area D

·   Inclusion of indicative open space.

            Following 2018 feedback

·   Key outcomes refined to reflect feedback and aspirations identified by the community.

·   Land uses

o Amount of business land proposed was reduced. 

o Type of business land was refined and proposed to be Light Industry Zone and Local Centre Zone.

o Amount of residential land was increased (due to decrease of business land)

o Potential open space was refined.

o Expert technical reports were completed or updated. Key reports included transport, and Business Land Demand and Location analysis.

o Environmental information added to maps e.g. 20 metre riparian buffer along both sides of permanent and intermittent streams and geological features such as tuff rings.

            Following 2019 feedback

·   Minimal content changes made between the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 and the finalised Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019. One land use change has been made – 10 Butcher Road, a 2.3ha site in Area E, has been changed from proposed Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone to proposed Business - Light Industry zone.

 


 

Staging and Timing

17.     Several landowners requested changes to the staging and timing of development in the two southern structure plan areas. The final Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans do not propose to change development staging to bring forward any areas. This is due to the significant infrastructure funding constraint combined with the council’s objective of achieving a quality, compact city as set out in the Auckland Plan development strategy and the Auckland Unitary Plan. At this point in time, the staging for development in the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans remains the same as that identified in the Council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

18.    The final structure plan maps for adoption are shown in Figure 1a and Figure 1b.  

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     Watercare and Auckland Transport have representatives on the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plan project teams and on the Structure Plan Steering Group.

20.     The council’s structure plan teams have worked closely with the Supporting Growth Alliance (Te Tupu Ngātahi). This is a collaboration between the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. The purpose of the Supporting Growth Alliance is to identify and protect the preferred transport networks to support Auckland’s planned greenfield growth over the next 30 years.

21.     The council’s Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plan teams have also worked with various internal council teams (including parks, healthy waters and community facilities), and external government, infrastructure, community service, business and rural interest groups.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22.     Franklin and Papakura Local Boards have been briefed a number of times during the project (May 2017, September 2017, June 2018, March 2019 and July 2019). The boards have also provided feedback at various times during the structure planning process. The Franklin Local Board is supportive of the structure plan projects and has not raised any significant concerns around the plans or process.  The Papakura Local Board is generally supportive of the structure plans but raised a number of matters in feedback on the Draft Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019.

23.     While supportive of the main centre being near the existing Drury village, the Papakura Local Board is concerned about adverse effects from such a centre on the development of Papakura as a metropolitan centre. The centres are proposed in accordance with projections of centre land requirements for the potentially large future population growth in the structure plan area, consistent with advice provided by professional economists, taking into account existing centres such as Papakura. That said, it is important to note that the final size and function of the proposed centres within the Drury- Opāheke Structure Plan area will be determined through plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan at a future date. The analysis in support of those plan changes will need to address any potential impacts on Papakura.

24.     The board supports the proposed industrial areas but is concerned about them bordering residential areas and wants green belt buffers provided. Wherever possible, the boundaries of proposed industrial areas include a buffer between the industrial area and residential areas.  This is either a road or a future riparian reserve.

25.     The board advises that inundation from flooding should be avoided and that climate change should be taken into account. The structure plan process remapped floodplains taking climate change into account. The structure plan follows the Auckland Unitary Plan approach of avoiding urban development in the floodplains.

26.     The board supports the parks proposed noting the need to complement existing park networks and be accessible by cycling and public transport. The parks are proposed in accordance with council parks acquisition policy which includes integration with the existing network.  All parks will be accessible by walking and cycling.

27.     The board also supports planning for provision of community facilities. Future community facility needs have been investigated as part of the structure planning process and will be progressively provided in accordance with population growth.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The council included mana whenua early in the southern structure planning process. Ten mana whenua groups were contacted by the council in July 2017 (at the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum) and September 2017. This was to inform them that the council would start structure planning for these areas, and to invite them to be involved in the process. From this four iwi groups chose to be actively involved with the council in the southern structure planning process and formed a working group. They are Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Huakina Development Trust were invited by these iwi to also be part of this process.

29.     At this point in time, other mana whenua with customary interests in the structure planning areas have either opted to not be involved due to other priorities, or have deferred to the four iwi who are actively involved. However, this does not preclude them from being involved in any engagement going forward if they wish.

30.     Regular hui have been held in Pukekohe with this working group and council staff throughout the structure planning process. Nineteen hui or workshops have been held between September 2017 and June 2019.

31.     These hui have been a forum to openly discuss the structure planning process, mana whenua relationships with the structure planning areas (past, present and future), and their aspirations, concerns and issues with future development of the structure plan areas. The regular hui have informed the development of the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans. Some mana whenua also provided feedback as part of public engagement.

32.     Engagement with mana whenua is on-going and will continue beyond the structure plan process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     There are significant costs associated with the infrastructure required to enable/support development within the southern structure plan areas. Very limited council or central government funding is currently available. Under the Auckland Council and Crown Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Growth, work is being undertaken to confirm the most appropriate sequencing of the key transport infrastructure required to enable growth in the Drury-Opāheke area. Work has also commenced to identify appropriate funding/financing mechanisms to support Auckland’s growth. The outcomes of this and other related work will be reported to the relevant council committee(s) in the new council term.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     There are no significant risks in adopting the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plans. The structure plans are non-statutory documents and cannot be appealed.

35.     While adopting the structure plans could create public expectations that the land will be ready to develop in the near future, this risk can be mitigated by key messaging around staging and the sequencing, funding and delivery of bulk infrastructure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36.     The current staging for land being ready to develop within the Drury- Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan areas is set out in council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (2017). Depending on the outcomes of the work that has commenced in relation to infrastructure sequencing and funding, it may be possible to revise this staging. As noted previously, the results of this work will be presented to the relevant committee(s) in the new council term. Any changes to staging will also need to take into account the strategic city-wide implications of enabling additional growth in the southern structure plan areas.

37.     Council has engaged extensively with mana whenua and key stakeholders during the development of the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans.  Ongoing discussions with these groups will be important. 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachments A and B they have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz >

Planning Committee > 6 August 2019 > Attachments

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 (117 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 (138 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Craig Cairncross - Lead Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Quarterly update on the Auckland Council and Crown Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth 

File No.: CP2019/11997

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the Planning Committee on progress on the Auckland Council and Crown joint programme of work on Auckland housing and urban growth.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       At the March 2019 meeting of the Planning Committee a terms of reference and an initial work programme for a joint council and Crown work programme on housing and urban growth were unanimously endorsed.

4.       On 8 May 2019 Cabinet’s Economic Development Committee endorsed the terms of reference. The terms of reference have since been signed by the relevant Ministers and a copy returned to council.

5.       The joint council and Crown work programme is divided into seven workstreams across an initial 12-month period.

6.       A joint work programme steering group of senior staff from council and various Crown departments are now overseeing the delivery of the actions agreed on in the work programme and this report provides the first quarterly progress update.

7.       The key areas of progress are:

·   Crown endorsement of the joint work programme, and signing of the Terms of Reference in May

·   workshops on the social infrastructure required in Drury to service future growth

·   clarification of the extent of deficiencies in the transport network and what needs to occur to address those deficiencies (both projects and funding) at Drury and a programme adopted to find a way forward

·   review of whether the intended outcomes of the Terrace House and Apartment Building zone are being achieved – in conjunction with developers and Ministry for the Environment

·   working with Treasury, Department of Internal Affairs and Crown Infrastructure Partners on alternative financing and funding tools to pay for infrastructure in both brownfield and greenfield locations – using 4 areas as case studies – Mt Roskill, Tamaki, Redhills and Drury

·   Auckland Council lodged a submission on the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill, informed by feedback from Watercare Services Limited, Panuku and Auckland Transport as well as a number of local boards and staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

·   Auckland Council provided feedback on the Building System Legislative Reform discussion document released by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

8.       The next update on the joint work programme to this Committee will be in November/December 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note progress on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth.

b)      forward this progress update to local boards through Local Board Services

c)      forward this progress update to the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

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

10.     At the March 2019 meeting of this committee a terms of reference and an initial work programme for a joint Council and Crown work programme on housing and urban growth were unanimously endorsed. The committee also sought a similar endorsement from the Crown and requested quarterly updates on progress.

11.     On 8 May 2019 Cabinet’s Economic Development Committee passed the following resolutions:

noted that Auckland Council has endorsed the Terms of Reference of the Auckland Housing and Urban Growth Joint Programme (the Terms of Reference);

endorsed the Terms of Reference, attached to the paper under DEV-19-SUB-0112;

invited the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for Building and Construction to sign and make minor amendments where needed to the Terms of Reference on behalf of the government;

noted that signing the Terms of Reference will create an obligation for Ministers and agencies to engage with Auckland Council in a spirit of collaboration;

agreed that the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Building and Construction and the Minister of Local Government will represent the government on the Political Working Group.

12.     The terms of reference have since been signed by the relevant Ministers and a copy returned to council (see Attachment B).

13.     A joint work programme steering group of senior staff from council and various Crown departments are now overseeing the delivery of the actions agreed on in the work programme.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     The terms of reference for the joint work programme outline that the programme is designed for the purpose of:

·   aligning and prioritising objectives

·   effective co-ordination and delivery

·   improving ways of working together

·   supporting new/amended policies, legislation and tools.

To date the programme has enabled more targeted conversation between staff from various Crown agencies and from across the council group. Initially these conversations have focussed on providing the Crown with data and information on Auckland Council’s approach to managing urban growth and enabling housing, and on understanding from council’s point of view, how the Crown protocols and reporting processes differ from councils.

15.     The joint work programme has seven main workstreams:

·   Auckland Development Programme – focussing on Drury: City Centre to Mangere urban growth areas; Manukau; CRL development opportunities

·   Affordable housing

·   Infrastructure funding and financing

·   Urban planning – focussing on quality intensification and costs and benefits of growth

·   Spatial planning

·   Urban Development Agency

·   Removing barriers to the efficient delivery of houses – focussing on Building Act and Building Code improvements, efficient consenting and optimal utilisation of zoning and related infrastructure capacity.

16.     Attachment A to this report sets out in more detail work progress that has been made against each of the workstreams.

17.     Key activities undertaken since the last report:

·   Crown endorsement of the joint work programme, and signing of the terms of reference in May (see Attachment B)

·   workshops on the social infrastructure required in Drury to service future growth

·   clarification of the extent of deficiencies in the transport network and what needs to occur to address those deficiencies (both projects and funding) at Drury and a programme adopted to find a way forward

·   review of whether the intended outcomes of the Terrace House and Apartment Building zone are being achieved – in conjunction with developers and Ministry for the Environment

·   working with Treasury, Department of Internal Affairs and Crown Infrastructure Partners on alternative financing and funding tools to pay for infrastructure in both brownfield and greenfield locations – using 4 areas as case studies – Mt Roskill, Tamaki, Redhills and Drury

·   Auckland Council lodged a submission on the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill, informed by feedback from WSL, Panuku and Auckland Transport as well as a number of local boards and staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

·   Auckland Council provided feedback on the Building System Legislative Reform discussion document released by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18.     The work programme involves the wider council family including Panuku, Watercare, Auckland Transport and ATEED. The joint Crown and council Political Steering Group for the joint work programme is supported by an Executive Steering Group. Auckland Council Chief Executive Stephen Town represents the council group on this Executive Steering Group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.     The programme includes workstreams and projects with local benefits/impacts. No specific consultation has been undertaken with local boards in the strategic oversight of the joint work programme. However, normal processes for working with local boards continue at a project level e.g. Drury-Opaheke growth area. 

20.     A separate memo has been sent to local boards to provide an overview of the joint programme of work which can be read alongside this update. The Director of Urban Growth and Housing has also offered to meet individually with local boards where requested.

21.     As part of the wider Urban Growth and Housing portfolio, all local board members are receiving on a monthly basis:

·   a growth and housing datasheet – contains the most frequently referenced figures such as a population and projected growth, future urban land data and economic data

·   a growth and housing snapshot – provides updates on significant growth projects and housing data and a breakdown of new dwellings consented and code of compliance certificates issued by local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     The Auckland Plan 2050 ‘Homes and Places’ outcome has a focus area to invest in and support Māori to meet their specific housing needs.

23.     The programme includes workstreams and projects of interest to Māori because of their potential to deliver affordable housing and economic development opportunities as well as their potential environmental and cultural impacts. Processes for working with Māori are being utilised at a project level.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     The General Managers Group is overseeing and managing programme risks.

26.     A deep dive into the Crown reform – urban growth and housing risks was completed by the Risk team in May 2019. The results of this deep dive were reported to the Audit and Risk Committee on 5 June 2019. The top risk register has been updated to reflect the deep dive. The residual risk rating of moderate was reassessed and has not changed. It was recommended that a number of mitigations be established.

27.     Through the deep dive it was acknowledged that the joint work programme had been agreed and that this is a key control to mitigate the risk that the Crown and council objectives, leadership approach and priorities concerning housing and urban growth are not aligned.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28.     Work is continuing on projects across the joint work programme. Council staff will continue to work collaboratively with their equivalents within the Crown.

29.     The next progress update to the relevant committee will be in November/December 2019.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Quarterly update on Auckland Council and Crown Joint Programme of work - Auckland Housing and Urban Growth August 2019

27

b

Signed Terms of Reference Auckland Housing and Urban Growth Joint Work Programme

31

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Jennings - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Director Urban Growth and Housing

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Developing an Integrated Area Plan for part of the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local board areas, and reviewing the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan for part of Māngere

File No.: CP2019/13073

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to develop an Integrated Area Plan for part of the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local board areas.

2.       To seek approval to review, and if needed update the existing Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan for a part of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The Urban Development Group (UDG), formerly Homes Land and Community is leading and managing the redevelopment of existing state houses in the Mt Roskill and Māngere areas, as part of the Auckland Housing Programme.

4.       The Auckland Housing Programme proposes for Mt Roskill to replace approximately 2,500 state homes with up to 10,000 new homes; and for Māngere to replace approximately 2,800 state homes with up to 10,000 new homes over the next 10 to 15 years (refer Attachments A and B).

5.       The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies Mt Roskill and Māngere as development areas that are expected to undergo a significant amount of housing and business growth in the next 30 years to achieve a quality compact approach for future growth.

6.       The UDG is developing a draft spatial delivery strategy (SDS) for parts of Mt Roskill and Māngere to support the increase in housing, alongside investments in infrastructure and community services to assist in delivering strong and resilient communities.

7.       To capitalise on the transformational changes proposed in the draft SDS, the staff recommend to:

·   work with the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa Local Boards, community, mana whenua and the UDG to develop an Integrated Area Plan for the Mt Roskill area, which builds on the work already undertaken through the draft SDS

·   review the existing Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan (2013) against the draft SDS for the Māngere area, and if needed update with the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board, with advice and direction from the community and mana whenua.

8.       The development of the Integrated Area Plan and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will consider the wider context beyond the scope of the draft SDS, including open spaces, community facilities and transport, while recognising and building on the important cultural and historical values, and natural landscapes of Mt Roskill and Māngere.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the development of an Integrated Area Plan for the Mt Roskill redevelopment area, which is part of the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local board areas.

b)      approve the review, and if needed update of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan for the Māngere redevelopment area, which is part of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       The Mt Roskill and Māngere redevelopment areas as defined by UDG have been identified by the Government as development areas because they have significant state housing areas, the need to renew the state housing assets, good transport links, and community facilities.

10.     The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies Mt Roskill and Māngere as development areas that are expected to undergo a significant amount of housing and business growth in the next 30 years to achieve a quality compact approach for future growth.

11.     To support the Auckland Housing Programme, the UDG is preparing a draft SDS for the Mt Roskill and Māngere redevelopment areas, which will identify supporting actions for infrastructure and community services required to ensure their broader objective of providing quality homes and resilient communities.  

12.     The draft SDS is an aspirational document, and is founded on previous council documents, staff advice, and key technical reports.

13.     Central to the draft SDS is consideration of the broader environment and the context in which the Mt Roskill and Māngere redevelopment areas sit including:

·   transport links, open spaces and community facilities

·   the character and function of neighbourhood and town centres

·   natural landscapes and heritage features

·   biodiversity, ecology and water quality.

14.     The UDG’s mandate to provide more homes and create greater places to live has led the draft SDS to identify potential future plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP) to rezone land to support better integrated land use and transport outcomes.  These may be undertaken at the same time as the development of the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan.

15.     To date, the UDG has engaged with council staff, mana whenua, infrastructure providers (e.g. Auckland Transport and Watercare Services), and crown agencies (e.g. Ministry of Education) on its draft SDS.  The UDG is also actively progressing detailed neighbourhood masterplanning in parts of the Mt Roskill and Māngere redevelopment areas covered by the draft SDS.


 

16.     The information compiled for the draft SDS is now at a stage where more community involvement would be useful.  The council is best placed to carry out this consultation through the process of developing an Integrated Area Plan and reviewing the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan building on the work already undertaken through the draft SDS.  The outcomes of the Integrated Area Plan and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan may lead to future plan changes to the AUP and other initiatives.

17.     The Integrated Area Plan would incorporate work already done as part of council’s place-based spatial planning programme endorsed by the Planning Committee in August 2017.  This programme marked the transition from local board area plans to more place based spatial planning.

Process

18.     The process to develop an Integrated Area Plan and to review the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will provide the opportunity for the community, mana whenua and stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposals in the draft SDS, and on the future of these areas.  Community feedback will help shape the outcomes sought by the Integrated Area Plan and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan.

19.     A draft process for developing the Integrated Area Plan is provided in Attachment C, and for reviewing the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan is provided in Attachment D. The process will be discussed and confirmed at workshops with the local boards in August 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     The development of an Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan could identify different land use opportunities, improvements to business centres, key infrastructure needs, and opportunities to enhance landscape and heritage features.  However, Area Plans are non-statutory planning documents and cannot set rules for controlling development or directly approve the funding of projects.

21.     This approach anticipates regular inputs and integration from other council departments (e.g. urban design, open space, heritage, community, Healthy Waters, cultural and environmental teams and economic development), council-controlled organisations including Auckland Transport and Watercare, key external infrastructure providers, and other government organisations.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22.     There is a need to prepare an Integrated Area Plan and review the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan where the UDG’s draft SDS proposes actions, including potential future plan changes to rezone land in parts of these local board areas to achieve better land use and transport outcomes, and to support a quality compact urban form.

23.     The development of the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan provides the opportunity for the local boards, council staff, UDG, community and stakeholders to work collaboratively to capitalise on the transformational actions proposed in the UDG’s draft SDS for the benefit of the Mt Roskill and Māngere areas. 

24.     The development of the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will involve relevant council departments, and agencies including Auckland Transport and Watercare.  Many of these stakeholders have already started to become involved in the draft SDS information gathering stages.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     The UDG has been updating the Albert-Eden, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, and Puketāpapa Local Boards through workshops on the detailed neighbourhood masterplanning within parts of the Mt Roskill and Māngere redevelopment areas.

26.     The need to start work on an Integrated Area Plan and to review the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan to provide an overarching planning view for the neighbourhood masterplanning was signalled to the Albert-Eden, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, and Puketāpapa Local Boards in June 2019.

27.     The process for developing an Integrated Area Plan was reported to, and endorsed by the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa Local Boards in July 2019. 

28.     While the Mt Roskill redevelopment area includes parts of the Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, and Whau local board areas, the proposals in the draft SDS are most likely to affect the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local board areas.  Opportunities will be available for the neighbouring Whau Local Board to provide comments to inform the development of the Integrated Area Plan.

29.     The process for reviewing, and if needed updating the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan was reported to, and endorsed by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board in July 2019. 

30.     While the Māngere redevelopment area includes parts of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board areas; the proposals in the draft SDS are most likely to affect the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area.  Opportunities will be available for the neighbouring Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to provide comments to inform the review, and if needed the update of the Area Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     Consultation on developing an Integrated Area Plan and reviewing the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan by council has not yet occurred with mana whenua or mataawaka.  However, the UDG has worked actively with mana whenua for over a year on the preparation of the draft SDS. 

32.     If the recommendations of this report are adopted, the development of an Integrated Area Plan and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will include engagement with all mana whenua groups with an interest and kaitiakitanga obligations in these areas, and mataawaka.  Early and ongoing engagement will help grow relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka, and identify key issues and matters to be considered during the development of the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     The preparation of the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will be funded from existing Plans and Places departmental budgets.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     There are risks that the Integrated Area Plan, and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan may raise expectations that the council will contribute resources to fund new actions and projects.  Funding to support the actions and projects may be sought from:

·   the Annual Plan

·   the Long-term Plan

·   Council-Controlled Organisations

·   central government

·   community groups.

35.     There is a reputational risk if the actions and projects in the Integrated Area Plan and reviewed Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan do not progress, the council may be criticised for raising community expectations.  Staff will develop an implementation and monitoring programme for the plans to provide guidance to key council stakeholders, the local boards, and delivery partners.

36.     It is also possible that the key moves and actions in the Integrated Area Plan and reviewed Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan will differ from the key proposals in the UDG’s draft SDS.  During the development of the Integrated Area Plan and review of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan, there will be opportunities to discuss these matters with the UDG.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     Workshops will be held with the Albert-Eden, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Puketāpapa Local Boards in August 2019 to progress the development of these plans.  A draft Integrated Area Plan for the Mt Roskill redevelopment area, and if necessary draft updated Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan, will be brought back to the relevant committee for endorsement prior to release for feedback.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Mt Roskill Redevelopment Area identified by the Urban Development Group

51

b

Māngere Redevelopment Area identified by the Urban Development Group

53

c

Draft process for developing the Integrated Area Plan

55

d

Draft process for reviewing, and if needed updating the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan for Māngere

57

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change: Howick Business Special Character Area character statement

File No.: CP2019/13586

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to publicly notify a change to Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps and the GIS Viewer in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to include a special character statement for the Howick Business Special Character Area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business (SCA Overlay) manages development within the overlay so that the identified special character values of each area are maintained and enhanced.

3.       Special character values are identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) in Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps (Schedule 15). The Howick Business Special Character Area (Howick Business SCA) is the only special character area in the AUP that does not have a special character statement in the AUP. This is a ‘gap’ in the AUP.

4.       Special character statements play an important role in the implementation of the provisions of the SCA Overlay.

5.       The council has worked with representatives of the community to draft a proposed special character statement for the Howick Business SCA, identifying the special character values of the area. This will need to be added to the AUP through a plan change.

6.       This proposed plan change will:

·   amend Schedule 15 of the AUP to include a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA in the SCA Overlay.

·   amend the GIS Viewer of the AUP to add four new sites to amend the existing extent of the SCA Overlay as part of the Howick Business SCA.

·   make minor consequential amendments to Chapter D18 Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business (Chapter D18) of the AUP.

7.       A section 32 evaluation report prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) supports this proposed plan change.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the public notification of the proposed plan change for the Howick Business Special Character Area to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) contained in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      approve the section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment B to the agenda report.

c)      delegate to the Manager Central and South Planning, the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The SCA Overlay manages development within the mapped overlay areas so that identified special character values are maintained and enhanced. The SCA Overlay contains residential and business areas.

9.       Special character statements sit in Schedule 15 of the AUP. They identify the special character values of each special character area. For Business special character areas this includes identifying ‘character defining’ and ‘character supporting’ buildings that contribute to these special character values. Special character statements play an important role in the implementation of the provisions of the SCA Overlay, because they assist both applicants and decision makers to understand the special character values of an area and the type and degree to which development and change may be appropriate within the area.

10.     The Howick Business SCA is an existing business special character area contained within the SCA Overlay. It is applied to the Howick town centre and does not apply to any residentially zoned sites. The extent of the Howick Business SCA is based on the ‘Howick Special Character Business Area’ that was in the legacy Auckland Council District Plan - Operative Manukau Section 2002.

11.     When the Howick Business SCA was translated into the proposed AUP, no special character statement was included. This is because, unlike the legacy Auckland City District Plan, the legacy Manukau District Plan did not include such a statement. It is the only special character area that does not have a special character statement in the AUP. This is a ‘gap’ in the AUP.

12.     In its recommendation report to the council on the proposed AUP, the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel recommended that the council prepare a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA in conjunction with the Howick community.

13.     While identifying the special character values of the Howick Business SCA, four buildings were identified as potential ‘character defining’ or ‘character supporting’ buildings, however they are not currently within the extent of the SCA Overlay. Because of the contribution these buildings make to the special character values of the Howick Business SCA, the proposed plan change will include them within the SCA Overlay as part of the Howick Business SCA.

14.     The proposed plan change is in Attachment A. In summary it proposes to:

·   amend Schedule 15 of the AUP to include a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA. The character statement at pages 9 to 15 of Attachment A identifies the collective special character values of this area, based on historical and physical and visual qualities. It also contains architectural values and a description of urban structure. It also identifies the buildings that contribute to these special character values, as either ‘character defining’ or ‘character supporting’.

·   amend the GIS Viewer of the AUP to add four new sites within the extent of the SCA Overlay as part of the Howick Business SCA.

·   make minor consequential amendments to Chapter D18. This will remove the existing references that the Howick Business SCA does not have a character statement.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     In preparing the proposed plan change a section 32 evaluation report (Attachment B) has been prepared as required by the Resource Management Act 1991. This section 32 evaluation report considered three options and determined that overall Option 3 is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this proposed plan change, and the objectives of the SCA Overlay, having regard to efficiency, effectiveness, costs and benefits. This will fix a ‘gap’ in the AUP and assist the implementation of the SCA Overlay provisions.

16.     The three options evaluated are summarised below:

Option 1: Status quo – do nothing

 

Option 2: Amend the AUP to add a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA, with no changes to the physical extent of the SCA Overlay

Option 3: Amend the AUP to add a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA and amend the physical extent of the SCA Overlay to add four new sites that contain ‘character defining’ or ‘character supporting’ buildings.

This option will not fix the ‘gap’ in the AUP and the Howick Business SCA will not have the same level of certainty other special character areas have in the AUP. This creates uncertainty for land owners, developers and the community about what level of development might be appropriate on their site, and the Howick Business SCA. This may result in additional costs to landowner, developers and the council associated with an application for resource consent.

Special character values of the Howick Business SCA area may be lost or compromised.

Overall this will not appropriately achieve the objectives and policies of the SCA Overlay in relation to the Howick Business SCA in an efficient and effective way.

This option will partially identify the special character values of the Howick Business SCA, however it will not fully articulate these values. This is because it will not fully identify all ‘character defining’ or ‘character supporting’ buildings that contribute to the special character values of the area.

Not extending the extent of the SCA Overlay to include all the buildings that contribute to the special character values of the area may result in special character values being lost or compromised.

Overall this will not appropriately achieve the objectives and policies of the SCA Overlay in relation to the Howick Business SCA in an efficient and effective way.

This option will identify the special character values of the Howick Business SCA. It will also identify the appropriate buildings that contribute to these special character values as ‘character defining’ or ‘character supporting’ buildings.

Overall this will provide greater certainty about the level of development that might be appropriate within the Howick Business SCA. This is less likely to result in a loss or compromise to the special character values identified in the special character statement.

Overall this will appropriately achieve the objectives and policies of the SCA Overlay in relation to the Howick Business SCA in an efficient and effective way.

 


 

17.     The four sites that are proposed to be included within the extent of the SCA Overlay are shown in the map below. Two of these sites are council owned and are zoned Open Space – Community. They contain the Howick War Memorial Community Centre and the Uxbridge Arts and Culture Centre. The other two sites are privately owned and contain churches and historic graveyards. Both of these privately-owned sites/buildings are already included within the Historic Heritage Schedule in the AUP.

18.     The landowners of these four sites have been informed about the preparation of this proposed plan change. The public notification of this proposed plan change will enable the owners of these sites to become formally involved in the process by way of submissions and further submissions. As directly affected persons they will be notified about the proposed plan change, as will all owners/occupiers within the existing Howick Business SCA.

19.     It is considered that including these four sites within the extent of the SCA Overlay and identifying all or some of the buildings on these sites as character defining’ or ‘character supporting’ will not place a significant planning burden on the landowners, especially given the other AUP planning provisions that already apply to these sites.

20.     No change is proposed to the SCA Overlay objectives, policies, rules, standards or assessment criteria. It will also not change any other planning provisions that apply to the area such as the maximum permitted building height.

21.     The proposed plan change is not affected by Plan Change 26 (clarifying the relationship between the SCA Overlay and the underlying zone provisions), because the Howick Business SCA is a business area, not a residential area. The SCA Overlay provisions for business areas clearly state that the underlying zone standards apply.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22.     The council’s Community Facilities Department has been informed that two council owned sites are proposed to be included within the extent of the SCA Overlay. Discussion with Community Facilities staff indicated general support for the inclusion of these sites within the SCA Overlay.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23.     On 25 February 2019 Plans and Places briefed the Howick Local Board Chair on the process proposed to prepare a special character statement for the Howick Business SCA. Several days later the Senior Howick Local Board Advisor briefed the local board on this process at a direction setting workshop. The local board was also invited to provide names to attend a community workshop planned to discuss a draft special character statement for the Howick Business SCA.

24.     On 25 March 2019 a community workshop was held in Howick to discuss a draft special character statement. The Howick Local Board and representatives of some community groups identified by the local board were invited to this workshop. Feedback received from these participants informed subsequent versions of the draft special character statement.

25.     On 28 May 2019 at a workshop the Howick Local Board was updated on the progress of the proposed plan change and was provided with a revised draft special character statement. At that time the Howick Local Board endorsed the planned way forward.

26.     The public notification of this proposed plan change will provide an opportunity for the Howick Local Board to formally provide feedback on this proposed plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.     The proposed plan change is limited in focus and does not result in any policy or rule changes which affect Māori in a greater way than the general public.

28.     Schedule 1 of the Act requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change to tangata whenua of the area who may be affected (through iwi authorities) prior to public notification and to have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.

29.     A letter/email was sent to the potentially affected iwi authorities on 2 July 2019. This letter provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and included a draft of the proposed plan change. A follow-up letter/email was sent on 16 July with a copy of the draft section 32 evaluation.

30.     Ngāti Tamaoho have chosen to defer to Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki. At this time no other iwi authority has provided any feedback on this proposed plan change. We will update the Planning Committee at the meeting if any additional feedback is provided.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31.     The financial costs of the plan change process are within the Plans and Places Department’s operating budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33.     If approval is obtained to publicly notify the proposed plan change, the process for public notification will be started.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachment B they have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee >
6 August 2019 > Attachments

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Howick Business Special Character Area character statement

65

b

Section 32 evaluation report (96 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to Make Plan Change 13 - Open Space, Operative

File No.: CP2019/13443

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make Plan Change 13 – Open Space, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), operative.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan open space zones. Plan Change 13 was the second such plan change since the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part in November 2016.

3.       Plan change 13 – Open Space, had three components:

i)     rezoning of land recently vested and/or acquired open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)    correcting open space zoning errors/anomalies

iii)    rezoning of 12 land parcels as part of Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

4.       Approximately 100 new land parcels were either vested or acquired as reserve/open space during 2017 - 2018 and are required to be rezoned within the Auckland Unitary Plan.  In addition, a small number of zoning errors/anomalies associated with open space were identified by the community and council officers.  Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process also requires the rezoning of land (typically open space).

5.       To address the above matters efficiently and in a cost-effective manner, these proposed changes were bundled together into one Open Space Plan Change.

6.       The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 20 September 2018. Seventy-five submissions and no further submissions were received. A hearing was held on 6 March 2019 where four submitters were heard by the Independent Commissioners.

7.       Council released the decision on 23 May 2019. The appeal period has closed and no appeals were received. The plan change can now be made operative. The decision can be found at the following link - PC13 Decision.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

b)      authorise staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) will become operative as soon as practicable, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan open space zones.

9.       Plan change 13 – Open Space, had three components:

i)     Rezoning of land recently vested and/or acquired open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)    Correcting open space zoning errors/anomalies

iii)    Rezoning of 12 land parcels as part of Panuku Development Auckland’s (Panuku) land disposal and rationalisation process.

Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

10.     The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning to land acquired as open space, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year. The proposed zoning reflects the land open space qualities and intended use and development. This is the second update since the Auckland Unitary Plan was publicly notified, with Plan Change 4 updating the zoning of approximately 400 new open spaces.

Open space zoning errors/anomalies

11.     The Plan Change also included a small number of zoning errors involving open space zones. These include land that has been zoned open space in error or conversely open space that requires an appropriate zoning. These errors have either been identified by the public or by staff.

Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Process

12.     Plan Change 13 was the second plan change involving the rezoning of open space zoned land considered surplus to requirements. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of eleven land parcels.  Panuku in conjunction with Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities department had identified a further twelve council owned land parcels currently zoned open space which are surplus to requirements and have been approved for disposal.

13.     The process for determining that land is surplus to requirements involves consultation with other council departments, mana whenua and local boards. Any proposed disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee.  The Finance and Performance Committee has approved the disposal of these land parcels.

14.     Where an open space zone (or the identification of land as a road, as roads are not zoned), is no longer appropriate, an alternative zone is required. The same zoning as the adjoining property has therefore been proposed for the surplus land parcels

15.     The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 20 September 2018. Seventy-five submissions, and no further submissions, were received. A hearing was held on 6 March 2019 where four submitters were heard by the Independent Commissioners.

16.     Council released the decision on 23 May 2019. A copy of the decision is available on the Auckland Unitary Plan pages of the council website. The appeal period (30 working days after the notification of the decision) has closed and no appeals were received. The plan change can now be made operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

18.     Clause 17(2) states that a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. There were no appeals received against Plan Change 13 and Council can therefore now approve all parts of the plan change.

19.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     Plan Change 13 – Open Space was led by the Plans and Places Department. Input to the rezoning of recently acquired and/or vested reserves was provided by Parks and Recreation Policy and Healthy Waters. The Plan Change also contained the rezoning of twelve land parcels that had been deemed surplus to requirements on behalf of Panuku.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21.     All local boards were engaged with during the preparation of the plan change. In addition, Panuku undertook engagement with the relevant local boards as part of its land disposal processes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     All mana whenua entities were consulted during the preparation of the plan change, prior to notification. All mana whenua entities were sent formal notification of the plan change on 20 September 2018. No feedback was received from mana whenua.

23.     Panuku also undertook separate consultation with mana whenua with an interest in the areas where land was being considered for disposal. Where land is no longer required by the council for a public work (including recreation), it must be offered back to the original owners, who in some cases are Māori. This process is undertaken by Panuku prior to the commencement of any rezoning.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     There are no financial implications associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     There are no risks associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     The final steps to making the plan change operative are publicly notifying the date on which it will become operative and then updating the Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2019)

File No.: CP2019/13156

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve public notification of the Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This plan change has three components:

i)     rezoning of land recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)    correcting open space zoning errors and anomalies

iii)    rezoning of nine land parcels as part of Panuku Auckland’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

3.       Approximately 200 new land parcels are either vested or acquired as reserve/open space annually and are required to be rezoned within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Auckland Unitary Plan).  In addition, a small number of zoning errors associated with open space have been identified by the community and council officers.  Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process also requires the rezoning of land (typically open space) prior to its sale. 

4.       It is important that land intended as open space is appropriately zoned to provide for its intended use and development or protection. Conversely, land that is no longer required as open space requires an alternative zoning.

5.       To address the above matters efficiently and in a cost-effective manner, these proposed changes have been bundled together into one Proposed Open Space Plan Change.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that staff will not be able to complete the engagement with iwi and local boards for the proposed plan change in time to present it to the Committee prior to the October 2019 Local Government elections.

b)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to approve the notification of proposed Open Space Plan Change (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as outlined in Attachments A, B and C of the agenda report, subject to addressing any changes required in response to feedback from local boards and iwi authorities.

 

Horopaki

Context

Background

6.       The council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan’s open space zones.

7.       Since the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part in November 2016, Auckland Council has initiated two plan changes to update the zoning of recently vested or acquired land as open space and to correct zoning errors and anomalies associated with open space.

Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

8.       The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year. The proposed zoning reflects the land’s open space qualities and intended use and development. This is the third update since the Auckland Unitary Plan was publicly notified, with Plan Changes 4 and 13 updating the zoning of approximately 500 land parcels. The vast majority (95%) of these involved applying an open space zoning to recently acquired or vested land.

Open space zoning errors or anomalies

9.       The Plan Change also includes a small number of zoning errors or anomalies (16 land parcels) involving open space zones. These include land that has been zoned open space in error or conversely open space that requires an appropriate zoning. These errors have been identified by either the public or by staff.

Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Process

10.     This is the third proposed plan change involving the rezoning of open space zoned land considered surplus to requirements. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of eleven land parcels and Plan Change 13 ten land parcels respectively.  Panuku in conjunction with Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities department have identified a further nine council owned land parcels currently zoned open space which are surplus to requirements and have been approved for disposal. 

11.     The process for determining that land is surplus to requirements involves consultation with other council departments, mana whenua and local boards. Any proposed disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes final recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee.  The Finance and Performance Committee has approved the disposal of these land parcels.

12.     The Parks and Recreation Policy team is consulted during the rationalisation process. The team assesses the open space in the light of current parks policy to determine whether there is a service requirement. This all takes place before the land parcels are put before the Finance and Performance Committee for a resolution to dispose.

13.     Where an open space zone or the identification of land as a road, is no longer appropriate (as roads are not zoned), an alternative zone is required. The same zoning as the adjoining property has therefore been proposed for the surplus land parcels.  

Proposed Open Space Plan Change

14.     The land parcels that are the subject of this proposed plan change are identified in Attachment A – Recently Vested or Acquired Land, Attachment B – Open Space Zoning Errors and Anomalies and Attachment C – Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Land Parcels. The land parcels identified in these spreadsheets will be mapped for the purposes of both consultation and the plan change notification documents.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rezoning of Recently Vested or Acquired Open Space

15.     The process for capturing newly vested land is:

i)     Potential open space land parcels are identified using the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) NZ parcel statutory actions list. 

ii)    LINZ produces a table with the current statutory actions (actions authorised by a specific part or section of the Resource Management Act), recorded against those land parcels. The information contained within this table includes the action taken against the parcel including its purpose (e.g. local purpose reserve) and a gazette reference.

iii)    The statutory actions are filtered to show those land parcels with a purpose of either reserve or local purpose reserve not currently zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

16.     To determine the zoning of newly vested or acquired land, the open space zone descriptions, objectives and policies and the criteria/guidelines used during the Auckland Unitary Plan hearings and developed by the Parks and Recreation Policy and Unitary Plan team were used. All proposed changes are reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Policy team and Healthy Waters (in the case of stormwater reserves).

Errors or anomalies

17.     Errors or anomalies have been identified by the public or council staff.  Errors typically involve privately owned land with an incorrect open space zoning. For each potential error, the ownership was checked along with the legacy District Plan zoning.  Errors also relate to Council-owned land which should be but is not zoned open space.  Where privately owned land is incorrectly zoned as open space, the zoning of the land in the surrounding area is typically used to determine the correct zoning.

Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Process

18.     Panuku has requested that a further nine lots be rezoned from open space zone or road to either residential or business zones.  The land disposal and rationalisation process involves consultation with council departments, mana whenua, local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee. 

19.     Rezoning the land is the final step in the process before it is sold. The Planning Committee’s approval is required to commence the plan change process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     Council departments and Council-Controlled Organisations involved in open space acquisition and disposal (e.g. Community and Social Policy (Parks and Recreation Policy), Healthy Waters, Panuku) have identified either land purchased for open space that has not gone through a vesting or gazetting process or land to be disposed of or swapped that requires an alternative zoning.

21.     Both Parks and Recreation Policy and Healthy Waters (in the case of stormwater reserves) will review the zoning proposed.


 

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

Local impacts and local board views

22.     Rezoning of recently acquired and vested land as open space will have positive effects for local communities.  It will enable land to be used and developed (where appropriate) for its intended purpose.

23.     A memo will be sent to all local boards providing a summary of the plan change in early August 2019.  It is proposed that feedback received from any local board will be discussed with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board prior to finalising the plan change for notification.

24.     In relation to Panuku’s land disposal process, local board feedback was considered as part of the disposal process and covered in the disposal recommendation reports to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25.     Rezoning of recently acquired and vested land as open space will have positive effects for Aucklanders.

26.     A draft copy of the plan change will be sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities in early August 2019, as required under the Resource Management Act. Results of any feedback received will be discussed with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board prior to finalising the plan change for notification.

27.     Panuku’s property rationalisation process involves consultation with mana whenua. Responses from mana whenua are considered as part of the disposal process and addressed in the disposal recommendation reports to the Finance and Performance Committee.

28.     Under section 41 of the Public Works Act 1981, where land is not required for a public work, it must be offered back to the former owner(s). In some cases the former owners are Māori. This process has been completed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     The costs of the plan change process are within the Plans and Places department’s operating budget.  Cost associated with the plan change hearing are from the Democracy Services budget.

30.     Delays in the rezoning of land associated with Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process would delay the sale of the land parcels, with associated financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.     There are risks associated with any delay in notifying the plan change. This may hold up Panuku’s land rationalisation process.  Inappropriately zoned land may trigger the need for resource consents for basic parks infrastructure and recreational activities.

32.     The above risks will be mitigated by initiating the plan change process in a timely manner.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33.     If approval is obtained to delegate the approval to notify the plan change to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, notification will likely occur around mid-September 2019, after feedback has been received and considered from local boards and iwi.

34.     The normal plan change process will then follow: notification; preparation of a summary of submissions and notification of that; receipt of further submissions; preparation of the section 42A Hearing Report; appointment of commissioners (by the Regulatory Committee); plan change hearing; notification of the decision, and appeal period.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Land Recently Vested or Acquired as Open Space

93

b

Open Space Zoning Errors and Anomalies

101

c

Panuku's Land Disposal and Rationalisation Land Parcels

105

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Chapter L: Schedule 14 - Addition of six historic heritage places (including one historic heritage area)

File No.: CP2019/12366

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to publicly notify a proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps to add six historic heritage places, including one historic heritage area.  The historic heritage area comprises 12 allotments.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The proposed plan change seeks to recognise the values of six historic heritage places, including one historic heritage area, by adding them to Schedule 14 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The historic heritage area comprises 12 allotments.

4.       The places were identified as part of heritage evaluations funded by the Ōrākei Local Board, and Auckland Council-led surveys and evaluations, including the heritage evaluation undertaken as part of the Warkworth Structure Plan.

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

6.       A Section 32 assessment of five options has been undertaken. The assessment has concluded that Option 5 for a proposed plan to add the six historic heritage places, including the one historic heritage area, is the most effective and efficient option to achieve both the purpose of the plan change and of the Act.

7.       The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) provides for a rule to have legal effect in certain circumstances, including if the rule protects historic heritage (Section 86B(3)(d)). It is recommended that this proposed plan change has immediate legal effect from the date of public notification.

8.       Staff have contacted the landowners of properties affected by the proposed plan change. Owners and occupiers will also receive a letter at the point the proposed plan is notified. This letter will inform them of the proposed plan change and of the opportunity to lodge a submission should they choose to.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the public notification of the proposed plan change to add six historic heritage places, including one historic heritage area, to Schedule 14, as included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

 

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

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

d)      delegate to the Manager Heritage the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change, if required, prior to public notification.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

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

10.     Additional places that have potential significant historic heritage values, that are not within the Historic Heritage Overlay, have been identified over the last two years. These places were identified as part of:

·   heritage evaluations funded by the Ōrākei Local Board

·   Auckland Council-led heritage surveys and evaluations, including the heritage evaluation undertaken as part of the Warkworth Structure Plan

·   evaluations of heritage places nominated by the public.

Proposed Plan Change

11.     The proposed plan change seeks to recognise the values of six historic heritage places, including one historic heritage area, by adding them to Schedule 14 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. This will have the effect of making them subject to the planning provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay.

12.     The six historic heritage places proposed to be included are as follows:

·   Glenholm, 37 Portland Road, Remuera

·   Remuera Primary School War Memorial Gates, 25-33 Dromorne Road, Remuera

·   Remuera Post Office, 358-364 Remuera Road, Remuera

·   Upland Village (historic heritage area) parts of Remuera Road, Upland Road and Minto Road

·   Riverina, 46 Wilson Road, Warkworth

·   Colonial Ammunition Company Bulk Store, 26 Normanby Road, Mt Eden.

13.     Each historic heritage place included in this proposed plan change has been evaluated for its historic heritage significance in accordance with Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Policy B5.2.2, and the Methodology for Evaluating Heritage Significance. The evaluations were undertaken in 2018 and 2019. The evaluations were subject to a peer review process and approved for release by the Manager Heritage.

14.     The historic heritage evaluations concluded that each historic heritage place had considerable or outstanding significance to its locality or a greater geographic region (AUP Policy B5.2.2 (3)). Of the five individual places, one place is proposed as a category A and the remainder are category B. Historic Heritage Areas are not allocated a category.


 

15.     The physical extent of place for each of the six historic heritage places will be mapped on the GIS viewer/planning maps. The proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan schedule and aerial maps, showing the proposed extent of place, of the six historic heritage places are included as Attachments A and C.

16.     Consultation with several of the affected landowners within the proposed historic heritage area resulted in a further review of the classification of buildings as to whether these were contributing or non-contributing in regard to historic heritage value. This resulted in several amendments within the evaluation for the proposed historic heritage area.

17.     The section 32 report for the proposed plan change concluded that, of the five options identified for the protection and management of significant historic heritage places, a plan change to the AUP to add the six historic heritage places to Schedule 14 is the most appropriate method.

Consultation on the draft plan change

Consultation with landowners

18.     Four of the five historic heritage places, including the historic heritage area proposed to be included within the plan change, are within the Ōrākei Local Board area. The Ōrākei Local Board funded the evaluations of these places and requested that the landowners be contacted prior to notification.  This is a different approach to previous historic heritage plan changes where public notice has been given at the time of public notification as required by Section 5A (Schedule 1 of the RMA). As this approach is different, it was considered appropriate, for consistency, that the landowners of the two other historic heritage places proposed to be included in the plan change, in the Rodney Local Board and Albert-Eden Local Board areas, should also be notified prior to notification.

19.     Landowner letters were sent on 17 May 2019 to inform them of the historic heritage evaluations and the eligibility status of their places to be included in Schedule 14.1. A summary of the evaluation and a frequently asked questions document (FAQ) was provided to the landowners. Emails, with letter and FAQ attachment, were also sent to the Ministry of Education and Vector Limited, as landowners of affected properties within the proposed historic heritage area. An email, with an attached memo, was also sent to Auckland Transport on 17 May 2019, as being directly affected by the inclusion of road reserve within the proposed historic heritage area.

20.     Landowners were invited to provide their views on the potential additions of the places and had the opportunity to advise the council of any information that should be added to, or which may have affected, the evaluation. Landowners were also invited to contact the council for an on-site visit and discussion. A full copy of the evaluation was also available where requested. As of 17 July 2019, six landowners (of two individual places and four within the proposed historic heritage area) have contacted the council. Council staff have visited several properties, at the request of the landowner, to discuss the heritage evaluation and the proposed inclusion of their places in Schedule 14.1.  As stated above, this resulted in a review of the evaluation of the proposed historic heritage area in regard to the classification of buildings as to whether these were contributing or non-contributing in regard to historic heritage value.

Schedule 1 Consultation

21.     Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the Act states that local authorities shall consult, through iwi authorities, with tangata whenua of the area who may be affected during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan. The historic heritage places included in the plan change are located in the Ōrākei, Rodney and Albert-Eden local board areas. Due to this, all iwi authorities associated with these areas have been consulted.


 

22.     On 4 July 2019, council staff informed iwi about the proposed plan change and sent a copy of the draft section 32 report for feedback. As at 17 July 2019, there has been one response from one out of the 19 iwi authorities. This was from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua who advised that they had an interest in the area and deferred those interests to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei in the anticipation that they would provide an appropriate response. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua anticipated that their future involvement would be determined following Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei’s due consideration. To date, there has been no response received from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

23.     Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ) is identified as an interested party for the proposed plan change. Their interest is in protecting New Zealand’s significant heritage places with a particular interest in the protection of places on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (NZHL/RK). For the purpose of notification, Heritage NZ is considered directly affected by the proposed change as there is one place within the proposed historic heritage area which is listed on the NZHL/RK. Heritage NZ was consulted on the proposed plan change on 4 July 2019. Heritage NZ responded, on 19 July 2019, to advise of their interest in the proposed plan change and an initial view of support.

24.     An email and letter has also been sent to the Minister for the Environment, Minister of Education and several other interested parties. A letter will also be forwarded to local heritage groups, such as Remuera Heritage and the Mount Albert Historical Society prior to notification.

Other parties

25.     The Heritage Advisory Panel was advised of the proposed plan change at its meeting on 25 June 2019.

Notification of the proposed plan change and legal effect of rules

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

27.     Schedule 14 is a rule in the AUP that protects historic heritage. Unless the council resolves otherwise, rules in a proposed plan change have immediate legal effect from the date of notification of the plan change where the rule protects historic heritage, under section 86B(3)(d) of the Act.

28.     Landowners have been contacted prior to notification in this case. There has been general support from several landowners of individual places once they had been given further information of how the proposed plan change affects their property.

29.     Several landowners had concerns on how the proposed historic heritage area would affect the development opportunities provided for by the underlying zoning. Discussions with these landowners of the effects has resulted in a review of the evaluation in regard to contributing and non-contributing buildings within the proposed historic heritage area. These discussions are ongoing and will assist in determining any outstanding issues.

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

31.     In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Act, the submission period will be 20 working days, followed by a further submissions period. A hearing on the proposed plan change will be held with a panel of independent commissioners. The timetable for a hearing will depend on the submissions received. Following the hearing and deliberations, the panel will make the council’s decision on the proposed plan change.

 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Section 32 evaluation

32.     Section 32 of the Act requires that an evaluation report is prepared and published. An evaluation report must:

·   examine the extent to which the proposed plan change is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act

·   examine whether the provisions of the proposed plan change are the most appropriate to achieve the objectives by:

o identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives

o assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives

o summarise the reasons for deciding on the provisions

·   identify and assess the benefits and costs

·   assess the risk of action or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions.

33.     An evaluation was undertaken of the following five options:

·   Option 1 - Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach/retain the status quo

·   Option 2 – Non-regulatory methods e.g. education/information, non-statutory plan and strategies (spatial plans), Memoranda of Understanding, interagency agreements, funding and assistance (heritage incentives and grants)

·   Option 3 – other regulatory methods e.g. heritage orders, covenants

·   Option 4 – plan change to add five historic heritage places to Schedule 14.1 (Historic Heritage Schedule) and one area to Schedule 15 (Special Character Areas Schedule, Statements and Maps)

·   Option 5 – plan change to add the six historic heritage places, including one historic heritage area to Schedule 14.1.

34.     Discussion of the five options is included in the draft section 32 evaluation report (refer to Attachment B).

35.     The preferred option, Option 5, considers a plan change to add the six historic heritage places to Schedule 14.1 and the AUP maps. The plan change is the most appropriate method for achieving the purpose of the Act. The proposed addition of the six historic heritage places will provide for the use, development, and protection of these physical resources while managing them in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety.

36.     The management and protection of historic heritage is a core responsibility of the council’s role in exercising its powers and functions under the Act. The scheduling of historic heritage places is an appropriate method for assisting the management of significant historic heritage resources in Auckland. Through their identification, evaluation and addition to Schedule 14.1, historic heritage places are subject to appropriate objectives, policies and rules. Schedule 14.1 is therefore an important tool to assist in avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects on historic heritage places to protect them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Risk of acting or not acting

37.     Section 32(2)(c) of the Act requires the evaluation of the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. It is considered that there is sufficient information about the six historic heritage places for the proposed plan change to proceed.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38.     Auckland Transport is considered to be directly affected by the inclusion of the road reserve within the proposed historic heritage area.  The appropriate staff at Auckland Transport have been advised about the proposed plan change and have not raised any concerns.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39.     The proposed plan change involves places within three local board areas; Ōrākei Local Board, Rodney Local Board and Albert-Eden Local Board.

40.     Four of the six historic heritage places, including the historic heritage area, proposed to be included in the plan change are within the Ōrākei Local Board area and the board funded the historic heritage evaluation of these places.

41.     An information memo was sent to the Ōrākei and Rodney Local Board members and local board advisors on 17 May 2019 to inform them of the proposed plan change. This correspondence provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and included a list of the historic heritage places to be added. A summary document of each of the proposed heritage places was also provided.

42.     Council staff attended a workshop at the Ōrākei Local Board on 30 May 2019. This was an omnibus workshop on a number of planning matters occurring within the local board area. This included informing the local board of the responses to the landowner letters, which were sent out on 17 May 2019, for the proposed heritage plan change. At that time, only two responses had been received. The local board had no comments to add other than that they were satisfied with the approach taken.

43.     As at 30 July 2019, there has been no response received from the Rodney Local Board.

44.     The Albert-Eden Local Board was not advised of the proposed plan change at the same time as the other two local boards as a revision to the historic heritage evaluation was required.  The Albert-Eden Local Board was advised about the proposed plan change on 19 July 2019. Any feedback received from the Albert-Eden Local Board will be discussed at the Planning Committee meeting.

45.     The three local boards will have a further opportunity to provide their views on the plan change once it is notified. Any views provided by the local boards will considered alongside submissions as part of hearing and decision process on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46.     The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Act. Schedule 1 of the Act was amended to insert Clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change to iwi authorities prior to public notification. Clause 4A also requires that council has particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying proposed plan changes.

47.     All of the historic heritage places proposed to be included in the plan change were identified primarily for their built heritage values. None of the places are identified as being places of interest or significance to Māori.

48.     The draft plan change, along with the draft section 32 evaluation report, was provided to iwi authorities on 4 July 2019. As at 17 July 2019, there has been a response from one of the 19 iwi authorities. This was from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua who advised they had an interest in the area and deferred those interests to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei  in the anticipation that they would provide an appropriate response. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua anticipated that their future involvement would be determined following Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei’s due consideration.

49.     As at 22 July 2019, there has been no response received from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. Council staff sent an email, on 22 July 2019, to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua to advise that there has been no response to date from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

50.     Any feedback received from iwi authorities will be discussed at the Planning Committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51.     The preparation of a plan change to add historic heritage places to Schedule 14 is provided for in the Plans and Places Department budget. The recommendations made in this report do not give rise to any major financial risks.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53.     If approved for notification, the plan change will be assigned a plan change number and be publicly notified in late August 2019, in line with the processes in the Act. A period of at least 20 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change. Decisions requested in submissions will be summarised and publicly notified for further submissions.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Photos and aerial maps (showing extent of place)

115

b

Draft section 32 evaluation report

119

c

Proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1 and 14.2

155

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Hart - Planner - Planning North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 12 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct operative

File No.: CP2019/13195

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 12 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 12 relates to I603 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Auckland Unitary Plan).  A map of its location is included in
Attachment A.

3.       The plan change extends the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct to include the land zoned Light Industry south of the operative precinct area.  It includes text and diagram amendments to address transport, urban design and stormwater issues within the precinct. It also includes zone changes to reflect areas of council owned open space and designation boundaries.  The plan change also applies the Stormwater Management Area: Flow 1 control to parts of the precinct.

4.       The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 24 May 2018.  A total of 19 submissions and five further submissions were received.  A hearing was held on 29 and 30 November 2018.  The submissions were heard by Independent Commissioners and the council released its decision on 23 May 2019.  No appeals were received, and the plan change can now be made operative.

5.       All mana whenua entities that were identified to have an interest in the area were consulted prior to public notification of Plan Change 12.  Pre-notification meetings were attended by representatives from Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.  Comments from these meetings helped to inform the draft proposed plan change.  All mana whenua with an interest were sent formal notification of the plan change on 24 May 2018.  No submissions were received from mana whenua. 

6.       The Upper Harbour Local Board was consulted during the preparation of the draft plan change.  The local board was advised of the public notification of the plan change on 24 May 2018.  

7.       The plan change can now be made operative.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 12 - Hobsonville Corridor Precinct, under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

b)      request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as practicable, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       Plan Change 12 expands the existing boundary of the I603 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). It adds a new Sub-precinct C on land adjacent to the existing precinct. This sub-precinct addresses urban design and transport issues for this area, which is zoned Light Industry in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).  The plan change also includes a number of technical changes to the text and diagrams for the existing precinct area.  A map of its location is included at Attachment A.

9.       Plan Change 12 also includes a small amount of rezoning, affecting land in both the operative precinct and the new proposed sub-precinct. This rezoning updates zone boundaries to align with land ownership and designation boundaries.  It also applies the Stormwater Management Area Flow Control-1 to parts of the precinct, including in the new proposed sub-precinct.

10.     The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 24 May 2018.  A total of 19 submissions and five further submissions were received.  A hearing was held on 29 and 30 November 2018 where 12 submitters were heard by Independent Commissioners.

11.     Following the hearing, the Commissioners requested that further work be undertaken by submitters and staff from the Plans and Places Department.  This work was provided to the Hearings Commissioners in December 2018 and January 2019 for their consideration.

12.     Council released the decision on 23 May 2019.  The decision, which contains the text, diagram and map changes for Plan Change 12 can be read on the Council website at
PC 12. The decision confirms the addition of a new Sub-precinct C on land adjacent to the existing precinct. The decision confirms the provisions that address urban design, storm water and transport issues for this area.  The decision also confirms a number of technical changes to the text and diagrams for the existing precinct area.

13.     No appeals were received, and the plan change can now be made operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

15.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’.  There were no appeals received and council can now approve the plan change.

16.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date.  Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17.     The plan change was led by the Plans and Places Department.  Specialist advice was received from staff in the Auckland Design Office, Healthy Waters and Auckland Transport.  These specialists provided advice during the preparation of the proposed plan change and its supporting section 32 report and to inform the response to the submissions at the hearing.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18.     The Upper Harbour Local Board was engaged during the preparation of the plan change. The local board was briefed in November 2017 when consultation was undertaken on the draft plan change.

19.     The Upper Harbour Local Board was also advised of the public notification of the proposed plan change on 24 May 2018.  The local board supported the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     All mana whenua entities that were identified to have an interest in the area were consulted prior to public notification of Plan Change 12.  Pre-notification meetings were attended by representatives from Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.  Comments from these meetings helped to inform provisions relating to the protection of the Rawiri Stream environment and the inclusion of assessment criteria relating to native eco-sourced tree species within the draft proposed plan change. 

21.     All mana whenua with an interest were sent formal notification of the plan change on 24 May 2018.  No submissions were received from mana whenua. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     There are no financial implications associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     There are no risks associated with making the plan change operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     The final step in making the plan change operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Location of the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct

167

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lisa Roberts - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Redhills Precinct Operative

File No.: CP2019/13663

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make the Redhills Precinct operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Environment Court has resolved three appeals to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) by consent order.  The consent order has been provided by the Court following an extensive mediation process with the three appellants (Bunnings Limited, the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited, and the C N Barbour Family Trust) and several other parties to the appeals. 

3.       The consent order confirms new locations for arterial road intersections on the edge of the Redhills Precinct at Fred Taylor Drive, Don Buck Road and Henwood Road (refer Attachment A).  These new intersection locations have been analysed by traffic modelling to assess their effects on the wider transport network, and the modelling results indicate that any effects can be mitigated.  The new intersection locations satisfy the three appellants, and all the other parties to the appeals. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 deems those parts of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan no longer under appeal to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

b)      request staff to publicly notify the Redhills Precinct of the Auckland Unitary Plan as operative in accordance with clause 20(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       In September 2016, Auckland Council received 108 appeals (67 Environment Court, 41 High Court, and eight judicial reviews) against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.  Of these, three appeals to the Environment Court were lodged against a decision of council that included provisions for the development of the Redhills Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).  These appeals were from Bunnings Limited, the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited, and the C N Barbour Family Trust. 

5.       The decision that was appealed was council’s acceptance of an out of scope recommendation made by the Independent Hearing Panel.  That decision related to the location of indicative intersections for arterial road alignments within the Redhills Precinct.  The appellants considered that the intersection locations adversely affected them. 

6.       Environment Court mediation was held on 1 and 19 February, 5 March and 11 April 2018.  Auckland Transport assessed several possible arterial road alignments for the whole of the Redhills Precinct. 

7.       These assessments (including traffic modelling) identified that the arterial road that was to join to the existing Don Buck Road roundabout should be shifted to intersect with both Baker Lane and Dunlop Road.  This means that where there was one arterial there will now be two arterial roads.  The Baker Lane arterial is anticipated to be the vehicle arterial route to the motorway system at Westgate.  The Dunlop Road arterial is anticipated to be the public transport route into Westgate Metropolitan Centre and the public transport facilities that the Centre contains.  In the west, the intersection of an arterial with Henwood Road has been relocated to avoid several residential buildings.  These alignments are illustrated on Attachment A.  These revised intersection locations are supported by the three appellants.  All other parties to these appeals also support the revised intersection locations.  This means that the consent order settles the three appeals in full. 

8.       Section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) deems those parts of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that are no longer under appeal to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.  All that remains is for council to publicly notify (under Section 160 of the LGATPA) the date on which the Redhills Precinct becomes operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9.       The revised intersection locations that have been agreed mean that the two arterial roads follow the route of both Dunlop Road and Baker Lane.  They both intersect with Fred Taylor Drive north of the Don Buck Road roundabout.  The previous alignment (where the one arterial road would join directly to Don Buck Road roundabout) is no longer supported. 

10.     The revised intersection locations will mean that (in the east) Te Oranui Way will not need to be closed, which addresses the concerns of Bunnings and the National Trading Company.  The revised intersections and arterial alignments for Baker Lane and Dunlop Road are both located on Universal Homes’ land, and it supports these alignments.  The revised intersection location on Henwood Road satisfies the appeal by Barbour, and it is supported by the parties to the Barbour appeal as their residences will no longer be adversely affected. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11.     The Environment Court appeals were resolved by council in conjunction with specialist advice from both Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited.  Both support the Redhills Precinct provisions that are contained within the consent order. 

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

Local impacts and local board views

12.     The Henderson Massey Local Board was engaged during the preparation of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The local board was briefed on these three appeals in 2017, when the resolution of the appeals was commencing.  Local board views were not sought for this report as this process is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13.     Impacts on Māori have been considered throughout the process of developing and hearing the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).  The final step in making the Redhills Precinct operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a procedural matter and therefore does not have any impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

14.     There are no financial implications associated with making the Redhills Precinct operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

15.     There are no risks associated with making the Redhills Precinct operative.  The Precinct provisions are now beyond challenge, and the Environment Court has disposed of all appeals relating to these provisions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16.     The final step in making the Redhills Precinct operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Redhills Precinct Plan

173

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 7 operative in part: Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

File No.: CP2019/11077

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative in part Plan Change 7: Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In November 2017 the Planning Committee approved the public notification of a proposed plan change to add new historic heritage places to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) (the Unitary Plan), known as Plan Change 7 (PLA/2017/149).

3.       Plan Change 7 sought to recognise the values of 49 significant historic heritage places by adding them to Schedule 14 and the Unitary Plan maps. Plan Change 7 was notified on 16 November 2017, submissions were heard in September 2018, and the decision on the plan change was notified on 12 April 2019. The decision was to add 44 historic heritage places to Schedule 14.

4.       It is recommended that Plan Change 7 be made operative in part and that the 41 historic heritage places proposed to be added to Schedule 14 by Plan Change 7 that are not subject to either an appeal, or to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, are made operative. These places are listed in Attachment A to this report.

5.       The period for lodging appeals to Plan Change 7 has closed and two appeals have been received. The appeals are from Housing New Zealand Corporation (in relation to the First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier) and WL Property Investment Limited (in relation to the Bridgens and Company shoe factory (former) at 326 New North Road, Kingsland).

6.       There is one historic heritage place in Plan Change 7 that is located partly in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA), being the Richmond Yacht Club (former)/Herne Bay Cruising Club at Sloanes Beach in Herne Bay. This place is shown in Attachment B. The addition of this place to Schedule 14 means it is subject to the regional coastal plan provisions of the Unitary Plan. Section 28 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires the Minister of Conservation to approve regional coastal plans before such plans can be made operative.

7.       The Planning Committee can adopt the proposed addition of the historic heritage place that is located in the CMA to Schedule 14 and refer this to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

8.       The appeals on Plan Change 7 and the addition of the historic heritage place located in the CMA are discrete issues. Approval to make these parts of Plan Change 7 operative will be sought separately, at a later date.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 7: Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage that are not subject to an appeal or subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, being the addition of 41 places set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      adopt the proposed addition of the Richmond Yacht Club (former)/Herne Bay Cruising Club to Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, and refer to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

c)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make operative in part Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

d)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the parts of Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan operative once they are approved by the Minister of Conservation.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       Plan Change 7 seeks to recognise the values of several significant historic heritage places by adding them to Schedule 14 and the plan maps.

10.     In November 2017 the Planning Committee approved Plan Change 7 for public notification (Resolution number PLA/2017/149). Schedule 1 of the Act sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the Act, Plan Change 7 was:

·   publicly notified on 16 November 2017

·   open for public submissions until 9 February 2018

·   open for further submissions until 4 May 2018

·   heard by independent commissioners for three days in September 2018

·   decision was publicly notified on 12 April 2019.

11.     Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 7 by the Regulatory Committee in June 2018 (Resolution number REG/2018/45).

12.     The Plan Change 7 decision is available on the council’s website. The decision was to add 44 historic heritage places to Schedule 14 of the Unitary Plan. This number reflects:

·    the withdrawal of that part of Plan Change 7 that sought to add the Waiuku Town Centre Historic Heritage Area to Schedule 14

·    the decision supporting the council officers’ recommendations that three historic heritage places were not added to Schedule 14, being Auckland’s First State House at 146 Coates Avenue, Orakei, Goldsbro’ residence (former) at 66-68 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, and St Cuthbert’s College at 130 Market Road, Epsom

·    the decision supporting the submissions from the owners of two historic heritage places (the Auckland Savings Bank – Greenlane branch (former) at 366 Great South Road, Greenlane and the former Wiseman residence at 89 Ranfurly Road, Epsom) that the places be deleted from the plan change and not be identified in the Unitary Plan’s historic heritage schedule

·    the decision supporting the submission from the owner of the former Butler House at 3 Otahuri Crescent, Remuera, who sought this place be added to the historic heritage schedule. This place was not included in Plan Change 7 as notified but the independent commissioners decided the submission was within the scope of Plan Change 7 and that the house was worthy of incorporation into Schedule 14.

13.     The period for lodging appeals to Plan Change 7 in the Environment Court has closed and two appeals have been received. These appeals relate to two historic heritage places included in Plan Change 7, as outlined below.

14.     There is one historic heritage place subject to Plan Change 7 that is located partly in the CMA and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan section of the Unitary Plan. This place is shown in Attachment B. Amendments to regional coastal plan provisions cannot be made operative until they are approved by the Minister of Conservation.

15.     It is recommended that the 41 historic heritage places proposed to be added to Schedule 14 by Plan Change 7 that are not subject to an appeal or to the provisions of the regional coastal plan are made operative. These places are listed in Attachment A to this report.

16.     The following parts of Plan Change 7 should not be made operative at this time:

·   proposed amendments subject to appeal (outlined below), and

·   the proposed amendment related to the historic heritage place subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan as identified in Attachment B.

17.     The proposed addition of the remaining 41 places subject to Plan Change 7 is submitted to the Committee for approval, and to be made operative.

18.     The appeals and the proposed addition of the Richmond Yacht Club (former)/Herne Bay Cruising Club, which is located in the CMA, to Schedule 14 are discrete issues. These parts of Plan Change 7 will be reported to the Planning Committee to be made operative separately, at a later date.

Appeal from WL Property Investment Limited

19.     WL Property Investment Limited lodged an appeal to relating to the addition of the Bridgens and Company shoe factory (former) at 325 New North Road, Kingsland (ID 02808) as a category B place to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage of the Unitary Plan (Schedule 14.1). The appeal seeks a reduction in the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place and/or to identify the windows and window frames in the existing window openings along the western façade of the building as exclusions to the scheduling of the former shoe factory. 

Appeal from Housing New Zealand Corporation

20.     The appeal from the Housing New Zealand Corporation (Housing NZ) relates to the addition of the First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier (ID 02812) as a category B place to Schedule 14.1. Housing NZ seeks that the First State Pensioner Housing be deleted from Schedule 14.1 and the plan maps.

Regional coastal plan amendments require approval by the Minister of Conservation

21.     There is one historic heritage place subject to Plan Change 7 that is located in the CMA and is therefore subject to the regional coastal plan provisions. This place is identified in Attachment B.

22.     As per section 28 of the Act, any amendments to the regional coastal plan require the approval of the Minister of Conservation before the amendments can be made operative.

23.     The committee can adopt the regional coastal plan amendments and refer these to the Minister of Conservation for final approval.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24.     As this report is procedural in nature, no further analysis and advice is given.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     As part of the development of Plan Change 7, organisations within the council group were advised prior to public notification of the plan change where the proposed addition of historic heritage places affected properties within their management and/or ownership. The organisations were invited to provide feedback on the plan change. Formal feedback was received from Auckland Transport and Watercare.

26.     Auckland Transport made a submission on Plan Change 7. Amendments to the plan change were recommended by the reporting officer in response to Auckland Transport’s submission and were included in the decisions on the plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27.     As part of the development of Plan Change 7, local boards were advised of the public notification of the plan change and were invited to provide feedback. Formal feedback was received from three local boards: Franklin, Ōrākei, and Waitematā.

28.     Part of the plan change was withdrawn in response to the concerns raised by the Franklin Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.     All the historic heritage places included in Plan Change 7 were identified primarily for their built heritage values. None of the places are identified as being places of interest or significance to Maori.

30.     As part of the development of Plan Change 7 staff:

·   sent a letter to all 19 iwi authorities on 24 July 2017 to signal the proposed plan change was being developed and to determine interest in consulting on the plan change, and

·   sent the draft proposed plan change to iwi authorities in September 2017 for feedback in accordance with Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

31.     Four iwi authorities (Ngāti Whātua o Orākei, Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust, Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau, and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust) responded and sought further information on the plan change, which was provided. Council staff met representatives from Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust to discuss the draft proposed plan change. No amendments were sought to the draft proposed plan change during these discussions.

32.     No submissions were received from iwi authorities during the public notification process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     There are no financial implications associated with making this plan change operative in part.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     There are no risks associated with making this plan change operative in part.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35.     The amendments proposed by Plan Change 7 are currently annotated as such in the Unitary Plan (both in the text and plan maps). Staff will incorporate amendments from the decision on Plan Change 7 into the Unitary Plan (text and maps) and remove and/or amend annotations by 16 August 2019. The proposed amendments subject to appeal and the regional coastal plan provisions awaiting ministerial approval will remain annotated until these are resolved and approved, respectively.

36.     The part of Plan Change 7 that is subject to the regional coastal plan will be sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Schedule 14.1 - Operative in Part

181

b

Schedule 14.1 - Subject to Regional Coastal Plan

191

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 



Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Prime Property Group Limited to rezone land at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach

File No.: CP2019/13154

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider a private plan change request from Prime Property Group Limited to rezone land at Foster Crescent (Lot 1 DP 149776) from Residential - Large Lot zone to Residential - Single House zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report considers a private plan change request (the request) lodged in March 2019 from Prime Property Group Limited (Prime Property). The request seeks to rezone 4.6384ha of land at Foster Crescent from Residential - Large Lot zone to Residential - Single House zone.

3.       The proposed Single House zone could accommodate approximately 50 lots, as indicated in a submitted draft potential future subdivision Scheme Plan.

4.       Under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the council is required to make a decision to either:

a)    adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan made by the Council, which must then be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1 (clause 25(2)(a)); or

b)    accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, which then triggers a requirement to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25 (clause 25(2)(b)); or

c)    reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4); or

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

5.       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 Prime Property Group Limited for rezoning of Lot 1 DP 149776 at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach (comprising 4.6384ha), 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 for the following reasons:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

6.       The site subject to the request is irregular in shape and has undulating terrain that generally slopes downwards from south to north.  The site is currently vacant and mostly in pasture.

7.       Legal access to the site is provided from the southern end of Foster Crescent.  To the west the legal termination of Foster Crescent adjoins Te Whau Lane that provides access to five larger residential properties.  To the east the site adjoins an established residential area.  To the north is an esplanade reserve that borders the upper reaches of the Mahurangi Harbour.  To the south is a Council reserve and the Snells Beach Primary School (refer Figure 1).

8.       The site is accessed via Foster Crescent which leads to Mahurangi East Road via Iris Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

  

Figure 1: Locality Plan - Foster Crescent and surrounding area

Private Plan Change Request

9.       The request was lodged on 04 March 2019 (refer Attachment A) and seeks to rezone Lot 1 DP 149776 at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach (comprising 4.6384ha), from Residential - Large Lot zone to Residential - Single House zone.

10.     The applicant has provided the following documentation in support of the request:

·   Private plan change report with assessment of environmental effects

·   Section 32 analysis

·   Geotechnical report

·   Engineering report

·   Soil Contamination report

·   Traffic Impact Assessment

·   Ecological assessment

·   Landscape assessment

·   Consultation report

·   Open Spaces and Community facilities report

·   Cultural impact assessment

·   Archaeological assessment

11.     The request seeks more intensive residential development on the subject site, which is currently held in one title. The more intensive single house zone could accommodate approximately 50 lots, as indicated in a submitted draft potential future subdivision Scheme Plan (Figure 2). The site is located on the edge of the traditional single house zone style development in Snells Beach and the request seeks that the site be able to be developed at a density similar to that existing to the east.  The current zone is Residential - Large Lot Zone which provides for lower residential density (4,000m2 per site), but is still located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB).

Figure 2 – draft Scheme Plan showing a future potential subdivision for 50 lots

12.     The existing zoning of the site is shown in Figure 3, and the proposed zoning under the request is shown in Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Existing zoning of Lot 1 DP149776 under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

Figure 4: Proposed zoning of Lot 1 DP 149776 under the Private Plan Change request

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act

13.     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. If an applicant refuses to provide any requested further or additional information, a local authority that considers it has insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request, may reject the request or decide not to approve the plan change requested under clause 23(6).

14.     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)).

15.     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

16.     Following receipt of the application, council requested further information on the proposal, and this was received from the applicant on 14 June 2019. Council staff consider that with the addition of this information the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and so do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) to be available. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.

17.     The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:

a)      the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

b)      within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:

i)     has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

ii)    has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

c)      the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

d)      the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

e)      in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.


 

Option 1 – Reject the request

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

18.     The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation and a planning report containing a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering a wide range of issues including geotechnical, engineering, soil contamination, traffic, ecological, landscape, open space and recreation cultural and archaeological assessments together with consultation undertaken by the applicant. The proposal is for a rezoning that is consistent with the residential properties located to the east of the subject site.

19.     Given the investigation undertaken, and the context in which the land is situated, it is concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

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

20.     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. In this instance, the substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years.

21.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot 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?

22.     Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request or part of the request, being the rezoning of land at Foster Crescent does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.

23.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

24.     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.”

25.     The private plan change request includes a number of technical reports, which support the proposed rezoning. The council’s transport specialist considers that any adverse effects of the traffic generated from the future development of the site can be appropriately addressed.

26.     The applicant has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning will result in a residential development which makes a positive contribution to the existing residential character and amenity of the area, while adverse effects of future development proposals can be managed through the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

27.     The land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and therefore matters relating to urban expansion into the rural area do not arise.


 

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

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

29.     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. It is concluded that the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

30.     It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

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

31.     The district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years. The proposed rezoning was not subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process.  As the proposal only relates to a zone change, provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan that were made operative in part on 15 November 2016 will not be affected.

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

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

33.     The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to rezone the subject site from Residential - Large Lot zone to Residential - Single House zone. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for more intensive residential development of the site is through a plan change process.  Even if a resource consent was granted that allowed the creation of Single House zone sized lots, future residents would have difficulty in complying with the different development standards, such as yards, in the Residential Large Lot zone.

34.     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

35.     The council can decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. If a request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan change would rest with the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change.

36.     Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the request, that the council would need to account for all costs associated with the adopted request, and that a substantial merits assessment of the proposed has yet to occur, it is not recommended that the council decide to adopt the private plan change request.


 

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 26

37.     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.

38.     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. It is more appropriate to accept the request than adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.  Accepting the plan change request does not pre-determine the council’s final position after hearing any submissions that may be lodged.

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

Conclusion

40.     The private plan change request by Prime Property Group seeks to rezone 4.6384ha of land at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach from Residential - Large Lot zone to Residential - Single House zone. The plan change is supported by comprehensive technical reports.

41.     Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that the council decides to accept the request and publicly notify it for submissions. If accepted, a further assessment by council staff would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42.     Watercare Services has not taken a position on the plan change at this time but has advised that it will prepare its submission separately to the council.

43.     However, Watercare are already part way through their plan to improve the wastewater services for the Warkworth, Snells Beach, Algies Bay area. This plan includes building a new wastewater treatment plant at Snells Beach. Watercare state the benefits of this work include catering for the growing population expected in the area beyond 2051.

44.     At the time of preparing this report, Auckland Transport staff have advised that it has no issues in respect of traffic engineering but will be interested in detailed design presumably at the time of any subdivision.  In respect of walking and cycling Auckland Transport staff have advised that there is a need to be aware of the walkway that goes directly to Snells Beach School from Foster Crescent. During development there are likely to be additional trade vehicles parking around the entrance to the walkway and parking may need to be controlled.   Auckland Transport staff also note that the local board has endorsed the Pūhoi to Pakiri Greenway Plan which includes a section of route on the coastal esplanade adjacent to this development.


 

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

Local impacts and local board views

45.     The views of the Rodney Local Board were sought on the private plan change request.  The Rodney Local Board makes the following comments:

a)      The local board recommends that the Planning Committee reject the proposed plan change request at Foster Crescent, Snells Beach.

b)      The Unitary Plan provides a clear direction with infrastructure provision and staging of development; anything occurring outside of this means existing development rights within current zones could be affected as infrastructure capacity is used up.

c)      The increased development as a result of the rezoning will not be met by a corresponding acceleration of infrastructure provision to meet the increased demands as there are no current plans for additional infrastructure to cope with unplanned growth in Snells Beach, and since council does not have the funding available to expand infrastructure ad hoc this will create substantive disruption to existing communities on a peninsula with limited access.

d)      There is sufficient land within the existing zones to provide for Auckland’s housing needs and chipping away at the boundaries undermines the integrity of the Unitary Plan and sets a precedent.

e)      The existing zoning currently in place provides a buffer between zones in Snells Beach that should be protected and this application undermines that.

46.     The above comments from the Rodney Local Board are broadly assessments on the merits of the substance of the private plan change request. At this stage council is simply being asked to make a decision on the request under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. Therefore, it would be premature to consider the substance of the merits of the proposed plan change request over and above that outlined in clause 25. Paragraphs 18 to 41 of this report outline why it is considered appropriate to accept the request under clause 25. The request is not frivolous or vexatious, has not been considered within the last two years, would not be inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA, and it cannot be concluded that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice (as informed by case law).

47.     The issues raised by the Rodney Local Board are ones which would be considered when a detailed assessment of the merits of the plan change request is carried out following notification, should the council decide to accept the request as per the recommendation. This assessment would take account of the fact that the proposed plan change request would not increase the overall extent of urban zoned land at Snells Beach.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48.     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. In relation to private plan change requests, although engagement with mana whenua and relevant iwi authorities is encouraged before lodgement under clause 21, it is not clear whether it is a mandatory requirement under Part 2 of Schedule 1. If the council accepts a private plan change request for notification, it is not required to complete any additional pre-notification steps.

49.     The applicant advised that Mana Whenua have been consulted as part of the development of the Plan Change request as detailed in the Consultation Report included within the request. Ten iwi groups were contacted regarding this proposal where their rohe (area of interest) covers the Snells Beach area.

50.     Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust prepared a Cultural Impact Assessment. There were no major cultural concerns raised in the Cultural Impact Assessment.  A number of recommendations were made, which were agreed to by the applicant. For example:

·   having a representative present during ground disturbing activities adjacent to waterways

·   to be able to review the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

·   that eels are relocated before the pond is de-watered.

51.     A recommendation to remove the proposed lots along the coastal edge of the subject site was not agreed to.  

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

55.     If the private plan change request is accepted, the implementation of this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified within four months of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in accordance with section 37 of the RMA.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachment A it has been published online only at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz >

Planning Committee > 6 August 2019 > Extra Attachments

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Foster Crescent Private Plan Change Request (506 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Extract From Clause 25 Resource Management Act 1991

207

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Austin Fox - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Avondale Jockey Club to rezone land at Avondale Racecourse

File No.: CP2019/13488

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To accept for processing a private plan change request (the request) from Avondale Jockey Club to rezone 1,870m2 of land at Lot 1 DP 470450, Wingate Street, Avondale from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Residential – Terraced Housing and Apartment Building Zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The request seeks to rezone 1,870m2 of land at Avondale Racecourse (Refer to Attachment A, Figure 1 and 2) from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to Terraced Housing and Apartment Building Zone (THAB) in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). The request also proposes to remove the rezoned land from the Avondale Racecourse Precinct (sub-precinct). It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and publicly notified for submissions.

3.       The proposed plan change area is considered by the Avondale Jockey Club (the Club) to be surplus to the needs of the Club for providing its primary activities, which are horse racing and community events. The Club was granted consent for the land to be subdivided from the majority of the racecourse in 2018. The subdivision consent has resulted in a split zoning on the newly subdivided site. 2,580m2of the site is zoned THAB and the remainder is zoned Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility.

4.       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)).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      accept the private plan change request by Avondale Jockey Club for part of Avondale Racecourse, 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 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 Planning – North, West and Islands to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Avondale Jockey Club for Avondale Racecourse pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

5.       Avondale Racecourse is a 36-hectare horse racing and events facility owned by Avondale Jockey Club.  The site that was subdivided in 2018 by the Avondale Jockey Club is 4,460m2 in total, and has previously been identified by the Club as surplus to its requirements.  It is located in the south-western corner of the racecourse, near Wingate Street, approximately one kilometre west of Avondale Town Centre. To the north of the site is the Avondale Racecourse, and to the south is existing residential development. The zones surrounding the site include Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility, THAB and Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The Avondale train station is one kilometre away, adjacent to the Avondale Town Centre.

6.       The subdivided site is currently split zoned THAB (2,580m2) and Special Purpose - Major Recreation Facility (1,870m2).  The plan change area (see Figure 1 below) has a long vegetated embankment adjoining existing residential houses that front onto Wingate Street. The site has approximately 45m of road frontage west of 93 Wingate Street.  It is subject to the Avondale Racecourse Precinct and the National Grid Corridor Overlay –National Grid Yard Uncompromised provisions of the AUP.

Figure 1 – Area of Avondale Jockey Club Land subject to request for rezoning

 

Private plan change request

7.       The request was lodged on 17 June 2019 (see Attachment A) and seeks to rezone 1,870m2 of land at Lot 1 DP 470450, Wingate Street from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility to THAB. The request also seeks to remove the rezoned land from the Avondale Racecourse Precinct by realigning the boundary of the Precinct on the AUP GIS Map Viewer. No further amendments to the AUP are sought.

8.       The rezoning will rectify the current split zoning on the site and allow the entire lot to be developed under the THAB zoning. It has been indicated that this development will not be done by the Club.  The existing zoning of the site is shown in Figure 2 (See Attachment A).

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

·   Private plan change request

·   AUP Regional Policy Statement Assessment Table

·   Certificates of Title

·   Section 32 (S32) evaluation report

·   Amended AUP Zone Map

·   Amended Avondale Racecourse Precinct Plan

·   Iwi Consultation Summary

·   Geotechnical Report

·   Infrastructure Report

·   Subdivision Decision and Approved Plan.

10.     Further transport information has been requested from the applicant. The information requested is not material to this stage of the plan change process. The information being sought is primarily to determine whether the proposed zone will adversely affect the immediate and wider transport network. Once received, this information will inform the merits assessment to follow.

11.     It is considered that the information lodged is sufficient for the council to consider the request under clause 23(6). This clause allows the council to reject the request or decided not to approve the plan change requested if insufficient information is provided to make a decision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act 1991

12.     The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (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 seek further information under clause 23, and modify a request under clause 24, but only with the applicant’s agreement.

13.     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 then reject the request or decide not to approve it.


 

14.     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)).

15.     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

16.     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

17.     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.

18.     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?

19.     The plan change aims to establish a THAB zone to provide for residential development in an area which is now surplus to the Avondale Jockey Club’s needs. The request includes a section 32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments for key matters such as land stability and infrastructure.  

20.     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?

21.     A subdivision consent to create the subject site was granted by council on 12 October 2018 via a non-notified process. There are several conditions required on the title and consent notice that cover matters in respect to infrastructure, access and the high voltage lines.

22.     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?

23.     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.

24.     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?

25.     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.”

26.     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.

27.     It is therefore considered appropriate that the council not reject the request 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?

28.     Part 5 of the RMA 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 THAB zone will not make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

29.     It is therefore considered appropriate that the council not reject the 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?

30.     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.

31.     It is therefore considered appropriate that the council not reject the 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

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

33.     It is therefore considered appropriate that the council not decide to process 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

34.     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 are met by the council.

35.     Given there are no clear benefits to the public, and the applicant has not sought that the council adopt the request, it is considered appropriate that the council not adopt the 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

36.     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 then 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 be met by the applicant.

37.     This is the option that 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 appropriate to accept the request rather than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.

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

Conclusion

39.     Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and the associated case law, it is recommended that council decides to accept the request and publicly notify it for submissions.  If accepted, a further assessment by council staff would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40.     Auckland Transport staff have reviewed the plan change and have not reported any constraints which would prevent the request from being accepted. The feedback provided identified two transport issues where further information will be required. Auckland Transport staff will review the applicant’s response to these matters when it is available and will continue to be involved in the plan change process.

41.     Healthy Waters has reviewed the request and consider that further information is required in relation to storm water management, flooding and effects on water quality. The issues raised are not considered material to the decision to accept the request and can be addressed in future at the development stage.

42.     Watercare staff have reviewed the request and have asked that the applicant provide a capacity assessment for water supply and wastewater. The matter of capacity was addressed in part within the subdivision consent and can be resolved through further information being provided by the applicant.

43.     The council’s soil contamination and stability specialists have reviewed the information and noted that further information is required. After substantial discussion, it has been agreed that it is most appropriate to include this information at the resource consent stage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44.     A memo was sent to the Whau Local Board on the 28 June 2019, to inform the Board about the request by the Avondale Jockey Club. The Local Board Chairperson Tracy Mullholland indicated support for the request on 2 July 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.     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.

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

Mana Whenua Group

Feedback

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

 

Email received 29 May 2019 advising “Thank you for consulting with Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara regarding the Avondale Jockey club private plan change. We defer to Te Kawerau a Maki cc’d for comments”.

Ngāti Te Ata

Email received 29 May 2019 advising

“We will leave this engagement to Ngati Whātua o Kaipara and others thanks”.

Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua

 

Email received 30 May 2019 advising

“As a preliminary response from Te Ahiwaru, I recognise the need for the residual lands to be utilised as a buffer between the racecourse and residents.

To change and develop the lands as residential for terraced housing and minimise spacial comfort is to devalue the potential of the property.

However, as this is not a primary area of interest to Te Ahiwaru Waiohua this a merely an opinion of a kaitiaki.

We recommend that you engage with Te Kawerau a Maki on this matter and will support what recommendations they have”.

Te Kawerau Ā Maki

Email received 2 July 2019 advising

“Te Kawerau a Maki have no objections to the plan change”.


 

Mana Whenua Group

Feedback

Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

Te Ākitai Waiohua

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

Ngāti Tamaterā

Ngāti Maru

Waikato Tainui

No response to consultation request to date.

 

47.     If the council accepts the request 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

48.     If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the request would be met by the applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49.     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

50.     If the request 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 the council’s decision will be released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Private Plan Change Request

217

b

Clause 25, Schedule 2, Resource Management Act 1991

249

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katie Maxwell - Graduate Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 6 August 2019

File No.: CP2019/13656

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The following information items are attached:

·   Auckland Monthly Housing Update June 2019 (Attachment A)

·   Auckland Monthly Housing Update July 2019 (Attachment B)

4.       The following memos are attached:

·   4 July 2019 – America’s Cup 36 programme’s engagement with mana whenua (Attachment C)

·   19 July 2019 – Auckland Council's Submission on Proposed Private Plan Change 25 - Warkworth North (Attachment D)

·   26 July 2019 – Comprehensive Review of the Resource Management System (Attachment E)

·   31 July 2019 – The management of helicopter flights and helicopter landing areas under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Attachment F)

5.       The following correspondence is attached:

·   12 June 2019 – Auckland Transport response to Graeme Easte’s presentation at 4 June Planning Committee on Train Delays (Attachment G)

·   24 July 2019 – Auckland Airport Northern Network announcement (Attachment H)

6.       Note that staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings –
6 August 2019.

 

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 6 August 2019 >
Extra Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Monthly Housing Update June 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Auckland Monthly Housing Update July 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memo on America’s Cup 36 programme’s engagement with mana whenua (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memo on Auckland Council's Submission on Proposed Private Plan Change 25 - Warkworth North (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo on Comprehensive Review of the Resource Management System (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Memo on the management of helicopter flights and helicopter landing areas under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

12 June 2019 Auckland Transport response to Graeme Easte’s presentation at 4 June Planning Committee on Train Delays (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

 24 July 2019 Auckland Airport Northern Network announcement  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda  Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

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

That the Planning Committee

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

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

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

 

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area Overlay

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report discusses historic heritage values that could be compromised if the content of the report is made public at this time.

s48(1)(a)

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

 

 


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 6.1      Attachment a    Aotea/Great Barrier Dark Sky Sanctuary memo  Page 257

Item 6.1      Attachment b    Aotea/Great Barrier Dark Sky Sanctuary presentation                                                   Page 269


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 



[1] A collaboration between Auckland Council, the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport. This programme has since been superseded by Te Tupu Ngātahi’s Supporting Growth Programme.