Agenda of Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

· relevant regional strategy and policy

· transportation

· infrastructure strategy and policy

· Unitary Plan, including plan changes (but not any wholesale review of the Plan)

· Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

· oversight of Council’s involvement in central government strategies, plans or initiatives that impact on Auckland’s future land use and infrastructure

· Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

· structure plans and spatial plans

· housing policy and projects

· city centre and waterfront development

· regeneration and redevelopment programmes

· built and cultural heritage, including public art

· urban design

· acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

· working with and receiving advice from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to give visibility to the issues important to the communities they represent and to help effect change.

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) If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Planning Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Environment and Climate Change Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Planning Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of those committees for decisions.

(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).

Auckland Plan Values

The Auckland Plan 2050 outlines a future that all Aucklanders can aspire to. The values of the Auckland Plan 2050 help us to understand what is important in that future:

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

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 Thursday, 5 December 2019, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Public input - Business North harbour - Bridge to the Future report

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Kevin O’Leary will speak to the committee about Business North Harbour’s Bridge to the Future report. The report outlines a vision for the long-term future of the North Shore’s business and residential community.

2. A full version of the report can be found at this link: Bridge to the Future report

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the public input from Business North Harbour regarding its Bridge to the Future report and thank Kevin O’Leary for attending.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input - Orakei Local Board - private helicopter and helicopter use applications in residential areas

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Troy Churton, Ōrākei Local Board member will speak to the committee on private helicopter and helicopter use in residential areas.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Ōrākei Local Board input and thank Ōrākei Local Board member Troy Churton for attending.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Council submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill

File No.: CP2020/00037

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 19 December 2019, the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee advertised the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill (the Bill) with public submissions closing on 7 February 2020.

3. The draft National Rail Plan was advertised simultaneously, however only informal responses from staff on this plan are being sought by government at this time.

4. Part 1 of the Bill proposes changes to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and Part 2, changes to both the Land Transport Act 1998 and Legislation Act 2012. The Bill relates to heavy rail for all applications (metropolitan passenger, interregional passenger and tourism services and freight).

5. The Ministry of Transport engaged intermittently with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff prior to the Bill’s release regarding the intent of reform of the rail sector in New Zealand. Potential aspects of the legislative changes now being formally proposed in the Bill were discussed as well. Staff expressed reservations during these discussions consistent with the content of this report and the attached draft submission.

6. Auckland Council’s draft submission (Attachment A) supports the intent of reform in the rail sector, which is establishment of longer-term planning for rail across New Zealand and more secure and sustained investment processes compared to those currently being applied.

7. Nonetheless, the draft submission raises concerns with aspects of the proposed legislative changes and is in favour of a fuller integration of rail planning and funding with other forms of land transport.

8. In summary, it expresses concern with some of the proposed planning and funding approval pathways and the proposed designation of responsibilities across government and local government agencies. The potential for unfavourable impacts on Auckland’s existing Network Access Agreement (the ANAA) are also identified.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill

b) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee to approve any required minor amendments to the submission prior to finalisation.

Horopaki

Context

9. On 23 December 2019, Council staff circulated a briefing memo on the Bill to elected members. The draft submission develops and responds to the issues articulated in this memo.

Background to the legislative reform

10. Since the 1980s, rail planning and investment has been ad hoc, with a significant amount being funded via annual Crown grants. Until recently, government applied a strategy of “managed” decline of the national rail network. Reinvestment in Auckland’s and Wellington’s passenger rail networks reflected shifts in government transport policy and provided impetus for sustained reform of the sector.

11. In 2018 and 2019, the Ministry of Transport led work on behalf of the government developing proposals for reform of New Zealand’s rail sector. Consultation occurred intermittently over this period with stakeholders, including Auckland Council, Auckland Transport (AT) and Greater Wellington Regional Council.

12. The intent of reform is to establish a long-term planning and funding system for rail in a manner relatively consistent with other forms of land transport – e.g. funded via the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). The National Rail Plan (the Plan) is intended to be a non-statutory document articulating a 10-year vision for rail and series of planning and investment priorities.

13. Reform of the national rail sector is of critical importance to Auckland Council and AT given the roles of passenger rail for public transport and urban growth, and freight rail for connecting our metropolitan region with external markets.

14. In late September 2019, council staff were invited to review and comment on a draft of the Plan. The Plan was then amended by the Ministry of Transport to reflect better the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) and wider Auckland priorities following this review and provision of relevant feedback.

15. Separately, during a series of meetings in 2019, council and AT staff provided feedback to the Ministry of Transport articulating shared reservations with some aspects of the reform proposed. These aspects include:

· the proposed interrelated processes for development of the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and a Rail Network Investment Programme (RNIP). The latter represents a three-year investment programme for rail in New Zealand delivering on the vision articulated in the Plan

· processes for the review and approval of these plans and programmes, and their associated funding decisions

· the possibility that the existing ANAA between KiwiRail and AT would be compromised.

Public advertising of rail sector reform proposals

16. On 19 December 2020, the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee called for public submissions on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill (Attachment B). Part 1 of the Bill proposes changes to the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) 2003 and Part 2 proposes changes to both the Land Transport Act (LTA) 1998 and Legislation Act (LA) 2012. The submission period closes on 7 February 2020.

17. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Transport invited informal comments from staff on the (draft) Plan. Formal consultation on the Plan will occur later in 2020 alongside consultation on the draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport (2021-2024). Auckland Council staff propose that informal comments are provided on the Plan through the current staff working arrangements with the Ministry of Transport. As such, these are not addressed in the attached draft submission.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Longer-term planning and funding outlook for rail

18. Broadly, resolving a longer-term planning and funding regime for rail in New Zealand is in Auckland’s interests. This is because sustained investment in rail infrastructure and services is required to meet the mode-shift and public transport patronage growth aspirations for our region and give effect to Auckland Council’s climate change commitments. Achieving the sustained investment to achieve these goals is contingent on the long-term support of government.

19. The proposed legislation reflects a ‘partial integration’ model for planning, assessing and funding rail and other forms of land transport. The Bill defines the approval pathway for the RNIP reflecting such a partial integration model, with the Minister of Transport being the ultimate decision-maker for rail activities in consultation with KiwiRail’s shareholding Ministers and following consideration of advice from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

20. In contrast, a ‘full integration’ model would treat all forms of land transport the same with specific investment propositions subject to review and approval of the NZTA Board. The options are defined and evaluated relatively superficially in an impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Transport (Attachment C).

Basis for potential misalignment between regional and national planning processes

21. Concerns with the proposed legislation identified by council staff relate to the RLTP and the RNIP being proposed to be subject to different development, review and approval timeframes and decision-making processes. The RLTP is focused regionally and the RNIP is focused nationally, potentially lending to misalignment of strategic intent/direction.

22. Under the Bill, NZTA would assume responsibility for assessing whether the RNIP takes account of the RLTP. This assessment is a specific requirement of the review of funding proposals for rail activities included in the RNIP presented to the Minister of Transport.

23. Nonetheless, there are no binding legislative requirements proposed to reconcile any major differences that arise between the RNIP and the RLTP. For example, a situation could arise where the RLTP and the RNIP feature conflicting projects, meaning a revised RLTP, including consultation, may be required. Outside the subsidiarity issue this presents, it would lead to considerable uncertainty and additional resource requirements.

24. KiwiRail will also be permitted under the Bill to vary the RNIP during its period of currency without obligation to consult with Council, AT or Greater Wellington Regional Council (the latter in relation to Wellington’s metropolitan rail network). In this instance, NZTA will again assume responsibility for assessing whether the RNIP takes account of RLTP when funding decisions are to be made.

25. KiwiRail will be required to appoint a member to both Auckland’s and Wellington’s Regional Transport Committees (RTC), however, these members would lack voting rights. The appointment may facilitate beneficial discussions by the Committee and help improve the robustness of the RLTP relative to the formative RNIP. However, staff have concerns that the omission of voting rights could reduce the ownership taken by KiwiRail for any inconsistencies that may arise between the RLTP and RNIP.

Potential for impacts on the Auckland Network Access Agreement

26. The Bill presents implications for the existing ANAA. The ANAA is the key mechanism ensuring the successful functioning of our metropolitan passenger operations, providing long-term cost certainty, and delivering an effective mechanism to hold KiwiRail to account for the state of the rail network in Auckland.

27. Changes to the LTA 1998 are proposed, enabling reform to track-user charges. Changes to these charges, while not impacting directly on AT’s existing contractual arrangements with KiwiRail (the ANAA) may create conflicts-of-interest relating to both KiwiRail’s dual functions as a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) and public agency, and track access for different sectors (passenger and freight).

28. The Plan (footnote to page 22 – Attachment D), specifies that “We [the New Zealand Government] recognise that there are existing track access arrangements in place in Auckland and Wellington. The intention is not to make changes to these arrangements in the near term.”

29. The Bill makes no references to the ANAA; accordingly, preservation of its provisions for any length of time is not assured. This is concerning acutely to AT and has potential for knock-on implications for council funding and planning.

30. The network access agreement is used by AT to hold KiwiRail to account for the state of the rail network in Auckland and their contractual obligations. This mechanism may be compromised by the new legislation.

31. The adoption of a full integration model in a similar manner to the option provided in the Ministry of Transport’s impact statement (Attachment C), with corresponding legislative change, is likely to mitigate most of the concerns articulated above. The full integration option should be developed to preserve the existing ANAA; particularly, the mechanisms it provides ensuring KiwiRail meets its obligations under the agreement.

Recommended submission summary points

32. In summary, Auckland Council’s draft submission:

· supports the reform and the underlying intent of reform of the national rail sector; particularly, the establishment of a longer-term planning and more secure funding/investment system

· opposes specific clauses of the proposed legislation pertaining to processes for the development of the RLTP and the RNIP, the review and approval of these plans and programmes, and associated funding decisions, and the implications for the existing ANAA

· recommends full integration of rail into the land transport planning and funding system, and preservation of the existing ANAA

· in the absence of full integration, recommends changes to the draft legislation that would address several of council’s most significant concerns.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. A direct climate impact assessment of the Bill cannot be made as it pertains to legislation that will enable development of programmes for rail investment rather than defining specific activities.

34. However, establishment of longer-term planning and funding processes, and integration of rail with other modes of transport via the GPS and NTLF are likely to be climate-positive. Over time, there should be increasing potential for rail to substitute for road-based transport and in the context of Auckland, support more sustainable and resilient urban growth. Auckland’s passenger rail services are largely electrified and freight rail, even using diesel locomotives, has the potential to be much less carbon-intensive than equivalent road freight that relies on internal combustion engines.

35. The climate-positive attributes of the reform are identified in the draft National Rail Plan, advertised simultaneously with the Bill. The Plan discusses potential for the future electrification of New Zealand’s rail network.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

36. Feedback on the draft submission was invited from the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s (IMSB) Principal Advisor, Environmental Outcomes.

37. Auckland Council’s proposed submission was informed by discussions with AT staff. AT is making a separate submission on the Bill and addresses similar matters. AT’s submission is anticipated to feature more detail pertaining to the ANAA than Auckland Council’s given AT is the road-controlling authority in Auckland, signatory to this agreement with KiwiRail and contracting entity for Auckland’s metropolitan rail passenger services operated by Transdev.

38. AT advised Auckland Council staff that their submission would be developed in close consultation with Greater Wellington Regional Council given their similar concerns.

39. AT has requested an extension to the submission period enabling consideration and approval of their submission on 11 February by the AT Board. Approval of request is pending.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. The Bill could have strategic impacts for Auckland as a region. Misalignment between future RLTP and RNIP could have significant impacts on some local board areas in terms of rail investment and ultimately wider development; however, the very short timeframe provided to respond to the Bill by government means that there was no opportunity for to undertake any consultation with local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41. Council staff are not aware of any consultation undertaken by government with iwi pertaining to the legislative change proposed prior to its advertisement. The very short timeframe provided to respond to the Bill by government has meant that there was no opportunity for Auckland Council to undertake any independent wider consultation with Māori. Nevertheless, staff consider it unlikely that the change would disproportionally affect Māori.

42. The intent of reform reflects several key directions in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makarau, including Whanaungatanga, Manaakitanga and Kaitiakitanga. More consistent and longer- term planning and investment in rail should benefit the communities of Tāmaki Makarau, strengthen connections between communities, and between Tāmaki Makarau and other parts of the country, improve the resiliency of our movement network and support growth in a manner that benefits future generations.

43. Council’s submission addresses issues with the Bill pertaining to the proposed planning and funding process, and track access, which if resolved, would benefit Aucklanders collectively, including Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44. Establishment of a longer-term planning and funding system for rail would support development of a more sustainable and resilient rail passenger and freight network. Particularly, it would replace the current ad hoc rail funding approach applied by government and have the potential to address issues with the current oversubscription of the Transitional Rail Activity Class in the NLTF.

45. Nonetheless, aspects of the proposed legislation introduce new financial uncertainties for Auckland Council given potential disconnects between the planned future RLTP and RNIP. Additionally, changes to how track-user charges are levied and allocated arising from the legislation may undermine the existing rights and responsibilities the ANAA confers on the contracting parties. These matters are anticipated to be addressed in more detail in the submission being developed by AT.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. The legislative change proposed will establish the basis for development of the RNIP and its approval, and therefore the timing, scale and focus of rail investment in the national network, including Auckland’s, from 2021.

47. The risks to Auckland Council include potential misalignment between the RLTP and the RNIP, and consequences for planning, funding and delivering priority rail investments in Auckland.

48. Additionally, the legislative change may compromise the integrity of the ANAA with resultant financial implications for Auckland Council.

49. If Auckland Council’s submission was withdrawn, the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee would not be informed of or take into consideration Auckland Council’s position on this Bill and assessment of risks.

50. Any ongoing consultation with the Ministry of Transport, KiwiRail and NZTA relating to rail should reflect a formal position relating to the legislative context.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. Council staff understand that the government intends for the legislative change to take effect from mid-2020 enabling it to support implementation of the next GPS on Land Transport.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council submission (draft)	17
b ⇩	Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill	33
c ⇩	Impact Summary	47
d ⇩	Draft National Rail Plan	81

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Falconer - Lead Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Council submission on the Urban Development Bill

File No.: CP2020/00168

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval on the key areas of change sought by the Auckland Council submission on the Urban Development Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Urban Development Bill is a complex piece of legislation which provides specific powers to enable Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) to undertake urban development within a defined specified development project area (SDPA) as well as providing the ability to use powers of acquisition for all Kāinga Ora’s development activities.

3. The Bill sets out the process for establishing an SDPA, the preparation of a development plan and transitional issues, notification of the plan and submission to an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP), and the collection of rates and development contributions.

4. Staff have been working through the details of the Bill and have identified some key themes for consideration as well as detailed feedback on specific clauses in the Bill.

5. While it is recommended that Auckland Council maintain support for Kāinga Ora to undertake urban development within specified development areas, this reports highlights to this Committee a number of areas of concern around the impact on decision making processes, duplication of process (particularly consenting), lack of strategic alignment, challenges for network planning, funding and infrastructure delivery, and unachievable timeframes.

6. This Bill is the latest piece of legislation that impacts on urban growth and housing in addition to: Resource Management Act reforms; proposed National Policy Statements on Urban Development, and Highly Productive Land; Essential Freshwater and Indigenous Biodiversity; Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill; and the National Planning Standards. It is recommended that Auckland Council advocate strongly to central government to ensure alignment of these changes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the approach to the Auckland Council submission on the Urban Development Bill that maintains support for Kāinga Ora to undertake urban development within Auckland but requests that the Bill be amended to:

i) adopt a partnership approach between central government, local government and mana whenua to avoid unnecessary duplication

ii) align with the Auckland Plan 2050 to provide certainly to our communities, infrastructure providers, and funding and implementation in the long-term plan

iii) ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place in relation to social and physical infrastructure networks

iv) integrate this Bill with the other national directions and/or initiatives

v) acknowledge that Auckland Council has a different governance structure, as established under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, and ensure that ample time and opportunity is provided for input

b) note that the submission will be signed off by delegated authority as approved by this Committee on 5 December 2019, with the submission due date of 14 February 2020.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Urban Development Bill was introduced to Parliament on 5 December 2019 and had its First Reading on 10 December 2019. It has now been referred to Select Committee.

8. The Urban Development Bill sets out the functions, powers, rights and duties of the Crown entity, Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) to enable it to undertake its urban development functions.

9. Kāinga Ora has two key functions: being a public housing landlord; and leading and coordinating urban development. The entity’s objective is to “contribute to sustainable, inclusive and thriving communities that:

a) provide people with good quality, affordable housing choices that meet diverse needs; and

b) support good access to jobs, amenities and services; and

c) otherwise sustain or enhance the overall economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of current and future generations.”

10. The Urban Development Bill gives Kāinga Ora access to a ‘tool box’ of development powers to be used within a specified development project area and some general powers that can be applied outside of these areas. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development. Not all powers will be needed by every project.

11. Development powers are set out under the following categories:

a) Infrastructure – scope potential works, three waters and drainage infrastructure, roading, parking, public transport, transfer of ownership, bylaw powers, ability to do works outside a specified development area

b) Planning and Consenting – amendments to district plan, regional plan or regional policy statement, issue consents, shortened consent process, requiring authority powers, veto or amend applications of resource consents or plan changes in the project area

c) Funding – Set and assess targeted rates, require development contributions, require betterment payments, require infrastructure and administrative charges

d) Land Acquisition and Transfer – exchange, revoke, reconfigure some reserves, create, classify and vest reserves, transfer and set apart Crown owned land, acquire private land, transfer of ownership, buy, sell and hold land in own name, transfer of former Māori land.

12. On 20 January 2020 a Political Working Group (PWG) workshop was held with the following members - Councillor Darby, Councillor Bartley, Councillor Dalton, IMSB Member Tau Henare, Troy Churton (Orakei Local Board), Danielle Grant (Kaipatiki Local Board), and Margi Watson (Albert-Eden Local Board).

13. At the PWG workshop staff provided an overview of the contents of the Bill and focused discussion around the following areas:

a) process for establishing an area as a specified development project area (SDPA)

b) development plan and transitional issues

c) notification of development plan, submission to IHP

d) rates, development contributions

e) general approach to the submission.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. At the PWG workshop staff reiterated that council has supported in principle the establishment of an urban development agency in the Auckland Council submission to an earlier Bill, the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill. However, the submission also highlighted the need to see the detail of how the new urban development entity, Kāinga Ora, would operate and what powers would be afforded to it.

15. From the PWG workshop and feedback from staff there was general agreement, that while not challenging Council’s previous position of support, concerns be raised in the submission as follows:

a) there is potential for duplication and confusion for the community, applicants and developers if Kāinga Ora was automatically the resource consent authority and unintended complications as many urban developments require both district and regional consents. There will also be challenges around enforcement of consents

b) under the powers provided to Kāinga Ora for compulsory acquisition of land, there is a lack of offer back through the Public Works Act

c) there is a potential impact on regional reserves and historic reserves as neither are excluded from development plan impacts i.e. are not protected. Only conservation and scenic reserves are excluded. There is no requirement to provide replacement reserves if reserves are taken by Kāinga Ora for development

d) potential unintended consequences such as there no provision for Kāinga Ora to consider and pay for the ongoing operational cost of any new infrastructure they create, with a targeted rates impact

e) impact on Auckland Council Group infrastructure provision as there are no requirements to meet codes of practice; the capacity across the network could be compromised if Kāinga Ora does not work closely with infrastructure providers (there is no requirement to do so); and a potential impact on health and safety

f) decision making is far reaching and removed from communities as no real account is given to strategies such as the Auckland Plan 2050, Auckland Unitary Plan and other strategic policies such as open space and community facilities network plans. Nor does it take into account the community effort which has gone into developing such strategies/plans

g) concern that final decisions on the establishment of a SDPA left to two Ministers who will not have the context or knowledge of an area and do not seem to be required to consider any evidence in making their determination. Concern that leaving the final decision on amendments proposed by the IHP to the development plan in the hands of one Minister who has not been privy to the IHP hearings process has its risks

h) duplication of processes and investments is wasteful, there will be an impact on resourcing across the Council group. There is a limited market pool from which Kāinga Ora will be able to appointment new specialist staff

i) consultation processes (for the Bill and development plans) is very tight which does not provide sufficient ability for communities and developers to input.

16. Concerns were also raised by one member of the PWG on the misalignment of this Bill with the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) as set out for discussion in the Resource Management Issues and Options paper released in November 2019. The member felt the review of the RMA should be completed first.

17. The chair noted that in addition to the two main Ministers mentioned (other Ministers may also be involved e.g. Minister of Conservation and Ministry for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), the submission should advocate that the Minister for Climate Change should also be included in decisions to establish a SDPA and the final development plan as a mechanism for checking on SDPA proposals against the sustainable urban development principles.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The Bill does not largely comment on the impact on climate change apart from one of the principles for SDPA outlined in the Bill which states Kāinga Ora must have particular regard to low-emission urban environments and promote sustainable management of nature and physical resources. It is proposed that Council’s submission will seek that Kāinga Ora in its SDPA must take into account climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Representatives from Watercare and Auckland Transport have been involved in council staff workshops and invited to provide feedback.

20. Concerns raised by Auckland Transport (AT) detail the following (yet to be agreed by the AT Board):

a) Auckland Transport is not a relevant territorial local authority for the purpose of these provisions. This means that Kāinga Ora is not required to consult with Auckland Transport at the project proposal stage to consider matters around roading powers and infrastructure provision

b) the provisions offer some protection to Auckland Transport designations; however, it is not clear how it will be determined whether the new or altered designation meets the objectives of the existing requiring authority. This could affect the ability for Auckland Transport to secure access rights to support a future roadway

c) Auckland Transport requires a sufficient level of detail in the infrastructure statement to identify why the infrastructure is required and its relationship to the relevant transport network

d) in the development area Kāinga Ora potentially has the same powers over the local roading network as Auckland Transport which raises a number of substantive issues including; undermining network planning; complicating public transport provision; and creating general confusion (roles and responsibilities, enforcement, roading boundaries, standards and bylaws)

e) proposed arrangements to develop and transfer assets have the potential to bring forward infrastructure provision but there are issues around coordination, standards, long-term maintenance and renewal responsibilities, and ownership and financial arrangements

f) provision and transfer of transport assets and potentially financial obligations by Kāinga Ora could expose Auckland Transport to significant financial liabilities and raises risk of redundant or unsuitable assets.

21. Concerns raised by Watercare (yet to be agreed by the Watercare Services Limited Board) highlight a number of other legislative implications that the Bill, if passed in its entirety, would have on Watercare. These implications would be in addition to the water and wastewater network issues outlined below:

a) Watercare as a “minimum cost provider” – as Watercare is required to be a “minimum cost provider” – as per the Local Government (Auckland Council ) Act 2009 – there would be circumstances, such as when Kāinga Ora transfers its newly constructed assets to Watercare, which would make Watercare responsible for the associated operation and maintenance costs. These costs would likely be elevated due to the uncertainty around their standard of design and subsequent construction methods

b) the transfer of drinking water quality risks to Watercare – as a water and wastewater operator, Watercare would automatically be responsible for any breaches of drinking water standards, and any consequential “public health events” from any Kāinga Ora inherited assets

c) capacity constraints within the network and at treatment plants - there would likely be water and wastewater network capacity issues, both inside and outside the boundary of any project areas. This could lead to resource consent non-compliances at various treatment plants and increased overflow events within networks

d) breaches of contract - as Watercare is the asset owner, with third party contractual agreements, there could also be implications on its existing customer obligations, both inside and outside any project areas

e) implications on Watercare’s plans, goals and targets - many of Watercare’s aspirations and targets would also be compromised, such as its 40:20:20 goals, energy neutrality and net carbon zero aspirations, and negative impacts on its public reputation.

22. Panuku Development Auckland provided feedback (yet to be approved by the Panuku Board) highlighting key points as follows:

a) to add most value, urban regeneration agencies need to focus their interventions in areas where the market and current players cannot deliver. This suggests a focus on complex urban development projects such as brownfields or where there is a recognised market failure, a desire to trial new models/innovations or where there is a lack of commercial feasibility for regeneration despite the ability to achieve public good/strategic wellbeing outcomes

b) community engagement does not feature explicitly in the Bill. However, Panuku’s experience is that there needs to be ongoing engagement with local stakeholders and communities to inform, involve and partner with communities in urban transformation planning and programme delivery

c) Panuku currently works closely in partnership with Kāinga Ora in many of the priority development locations to leverage opportunities and achieve shared objectives. Panuku anticipates continuing to work in close partnership with Kāinga Ora to build and maintain momentum to deliver urban change and transformation that responds to the significant challenges facing Auckland including the housing crisis and climate change emergency.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. A memo was sent to all local board members on 16 January 2020 outlining the process for the Urban Development Bill submission. Local board members were also provided with two summaries of the contents of the Bill and a link to the full text of the Bill.

24. A local board workshop, for all local board members, on the Urban Development Bill is scheduled for Friday 31 January. Staff will provide a verbal update of this meeting and a summary of the discussion points at the Planning Committee on 4 February.

25. Local boards have been invited to send their feedback through by Friday 7 February. This will be appended to the main submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. The activities of the new entity have the potential to provide significant benefits to Māori through provision of public housing, affordable housing and opportunities for Māori to participate in urban development. There is also the risk of impacts, for example on wāhi tapu, sites of significance and wider environmental interests. It will be important to carefully consider provisions of the second Bill to ensure the appropriate protections are in place.

27. Tau Henare, the Deputy Chair of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, attended the political working group on 20 January 2020. Concerns were raised at this meeting on the following:

a) concern with the current definition of papakainga

b) Treaty clause - seek to insert “have particular regard to” the Treaty, wherever in Bill the Treaty is mentioned

c) Iwi planning documents – this needs to consider how to include non-Crown recognized iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. Feedback has been sought from council’s Financial Strategy Team. Key areas of concern/comment are –

a) support for provisions that allow Kāinga Ora to invest in infrastructure and to fund their investment with development contributions and targeted rates. This provides for additional infrastructure investment without jeopardising council’s financial stability. Council will collect targeted rates on behalf of Kāinga Ora. Kāinga Ora will cover the costs of collection

b) unlike earlier UDA proposals there are no limitations on the ability of either the council or Kāinga Ora to recover the costs of their investments from benefiting landowners (using development contributions or rates) within or outside the development area

c) refinements to the current rating legislation to give Kāinga Ora more options for setting rates to ensure equity between benefitting properties and manage the impact of new targeted rates on smaller property owners

d) the council is forecast to collect $1.9 billion of rates from over 570,000 properties representing 45 per cent of our revenue in 2020/2021. It is important the collection of Kāinga Ora rates integrates smoothly with council’s rating processes and systems. To ensure this some technical issues need to be addressed

e) council is forecast to collect $300 million in development contributions in 2020/2021. The legislation needs to ensure that both council and Kāinga Ora can collect development contributions from the same developers for infrastructure they will benefit from. To ensure this some technical issues need to be addressed.

29. Within the Auckland Council submission there will be specific changes and relief sought to ensure successful administration of UDA charges.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The Urban Development Bill presents both opportunities and risks to Auckland. If Kāinga Ora uses its special powers in a collaborative way with council, mana whenua, infrastructure providers and relevant communities then sustainable urban communities could be developed in a more integrated way. However, for that to happen the various concerns raised will need to be addressed. The Council’s submission will include a detailed table setting out how clauses of the Bill could be amended to address the concerns.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Council staff are currently preparing the draft submission. This will re-iterate the support set out in Auckland Council’s previous submission to the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill on the creation of an urban development agency. However, having reviewed the detail in the Urban Development Bill of the process to establish the Specified Development Project areas and the powers that will be available to Kāinga Ora both within and outside these areas there are a number of concerns that will be outlined in the submission.

32. Final feedback is being collected from staff across Auckland Council and CCOs, which will feed into the final submission. An early draft will be shared with the members of the Political Working Group and the submission will be presented to the delegated authority on 11 February. The delegation from the Planning Committee on 5 December 2019 comprises the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, Tau Henare, for sign off. The submission is due on 14 February 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Anna Jennings - Principal Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to Make Plan Change 4 (Correction to Technical Errors and Anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan), and Plan Change 18 (Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning) Operative

File No.: CP2020/00187

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Changes 4 and 18 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 4 – Correction to Technical Errors and Anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), is an administrative plan change that aims to correct technical errors and anomalies within a number of existing policies, rules, overlays, precincts and the GIS Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

3. Plan Change 18 – Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning, involves the rezoning of parts of three reserves in the Tāmaki area – the Taniwha (185-195 Taniwha Street, Glen Innes), Maybury (204 Taniwha Street, Glen Innes) and Boundary (part of 143 Tripoli Road, Point England) reserves. The rezoning is part of the Tāmaki regeneration project which involves improving housing, streets and open spaces/parks. The plan change proposes to change the Auckland Unitary Plan zoning maps to reflect a series of proposed land swaps that seek to improve the quality, safety and use of these three parks.

4. Plan Change 4 was publicly notified on 28 September 2017 and hearings were completed in 30, 31 January and 1 February 2018. The submissions were heard by independent commissioners and the council has released the decision. Two appeals (Pine Harbour Marina Limited and Housing New Zealand Corporation) were received for Plan Change 4. Both appeals have subsequently been settled by consent order. The details of the consent orders are available on the council website.

5. Plan Change 18 was publicly notified on 21 February 2019 and the hearing was completed on 20 August 2019. The submissions were heard by independent commissioners and the council has released the decision. No appeals were received for Plan Change 18.

6. The plan changes can now be made operative with the Planning Committee’s approval.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Plan Change 4 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

b) approve Plan Change 18 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

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

Horopaki

Context

Intent of the Plan Changes

7. Plan Change 4 is an administrative plan change that aims to correct technical errors and anomalies that were identified up to mid-2017 within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) within a number of existing policies, rules, overlays and precincts and the GIS Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). Plan Change 4 also rezones a number of land parcels that have recently been vested in the Council as reserves. None of the changes altered the policy direction of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

8. The technical errors and anomalies included as part of Plan Change 4 appear in Chapters B, D, E, H, I, J and L and the GIS Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), and include spatial zoning changes (to both zoning anomalies and land recently vested as open space with council).

9. Plan Change 18 involved the rezoning of parts of three reserves in the Tāmaki area – the Taniwha (185-195 Taniwha Street, Glen Innes), Maybury (204 Taniwha Street, Glen Innes) and Boundary (part of 143 Tripoli Road, Point England) reserves. The rezoning is part of the Tāmaki regeneration project which involves improving housing, streets and open spaces/parks. The plan change proposes to change the Auckland Unitary Plan zoning maps to reflect a series of proposed land swaps that seek to improve the quality, safety and use of these parks.

10. The recommendation to the Planning Committee is to approve Plan Changes 4 and 18 under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. This will make the plan changes operative.

Plan Change Process to Date

11. Plan Change 4 was publicly notified on 28 September 2017.

12. Plan Change 4 received 226 submissions (including 15 late submissions) and 16 further submissions were received. The hearing for Plan Change 4 was held on 20, 21 and 24 June 2019.

13. Council released the decision for Plan Change 4 on 14 June 2018. Two appeals were received - Pine Harbour Marina Limited and Housing New Zealand Corporation. Both appeals have subsequently been settled by consent order.

14. Plan Change 18 was publicly notified on 21 February 2018.

15. Plan Change 18 received 20 submissions (including two late submissions) and one further submission. The hearing for Plan Change 18 was held on 20 August 2019.

16. Council released the decision for Plan Change 18 on 10 October 2019. No appeals were received. The maps showing the relevant areas of Plan Change 18 are at Attachment A.

17. Both decisions, which contain the amendments for the plan changes can be found on the council website.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for the development of plan changes.

19. 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’. The two appeals to Plan Change 4 have both been resolved by consent order. There were no appeals received for Plan Change 18.

20. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Staff will notify the operative date as soon as practicable following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. As this report is recommending a procedural step under the RMA, there are no impacts on climate change.

22. Plan Change 4 involved the correction of technical errors and anomalies and therefore has a neutral impact on climate change.

23. Plan Change 18 did result in a net gain of 5,269 sqm of land being zoned public open space in the Tāmaki area. This provides additional opportunity for tree planting to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the plan change will result in improved local reserves that are accessible and useable, thus encouraging local use and mitigating the need to travel elsewhere for recreation purposes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Both plan changes were led by the Plans and Places Department. For Plan Change 4, specialist advice was received from staff in the Auckland Design Office, Regulatory Services, Healthy Waters, Parks and Recreation Policy and Auckland Transport. For Plan Change 18 advice was received from the Development Programme Office, Parks and Recreation Policy, Healthy Waters and the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. These specialists provided advice on the proposed plan changes, the supporting section 32 reports and/or provided responses to matters raised by the submitters at the hearings.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. For Plan Change 4, in April 2017, a memo was sent to advise all local boards about the proposed plan change and to invite local board members to advise Plans and Places staff of any errors and anomalies they had identified. Due to the administrative scope of the plan change and the fact it did not involve policy changes, limited consultation was undertaken with local boards during the development of the plan change and section 32 report. In September 2017, a further memo was sent to all local boards advising them of the upcoming notification of the plan change.

26. Plan Change 18 was originally part of Plan Change 13 – Open Space. A memo was sent to all local boards on 17 July 2018 advising of the proposed Open Space Plan Change (which at that stage included the Tāmaki changes). In August 2018, the Planning Committee resolved to separate out the Tamaki changes from the balance of Plan Change 13. Close consultation has occurred with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board through the preparation of initially Plan Change 13 and subsequently Plan Change 18. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board were supportive of the changes in Plan Change 18.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. As Plan Change 4 involved “fixing” errors and anomalies and no changes in policy direction, its impact on Iwi was the same as the general population.

28. For Plan Change 18, Iwi were consulted when the Tāmaki changes were part of the larger open space plan change. The changes associated with Plan Change 18 will result in improved quality open space which are more useable and safer. This will benefit both Iwi and the general population.

29. All 19 mana whenua entities were consulted prior to public notification of Plan Changes 4, and 18. Responses were received from Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Plan Change 4) and Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (Plan Change 18, which was originally part of PC 13).

30. All mana whenua were sent formal notification of the plan changes on 28 September 2017 (PC 4) and 21 February 2019 (PC 18).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. There are no financial implications associated with making Plan Changes 4 and 18 operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There are no risks associated with making Plan Changes 4 and 18 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. The final step in making Plan Changes 4 and 18 operative is to publicly notify the date on which they will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan. This will be undertaken as soon as is practical after the Planning Committee’s recommendation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 18 decision maps	141

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga) fully operative

File No.: CP2020/00036

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make fully operative Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga) seeks to rezone 83.05 hectares of land in the Drury West area from Future Urban Zone to a mix of Residential – Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones; and to extend the Drury 1 Precinct provisions (with amendments) to the land.

3. A panel of independent planning commissioners heard the submission on Private Plan Change 6, and the council released the decision on 9 July 2018.

4. This decision was appealed by Elly S-Y Pan.

5. As the appeal did not challenge the decision in its entirety, and was limited to seeking changes to discrete parts of Private Plan Change 6, the Planning Committee at its meeting on 27 November 2018 resolved to make the Private Plan Change operative in part, except for:

· the provisions in Drury 1 Precinct provisions that deal expressly with the Future Collector Road (New) and the Collector Road (Possible Future Arterial Road), which were identified as being still subject to appeal, and as a consequence

· the zonings of land located on and to the south of the proposed east-west Future Collector Road (New).

6. Following Environment Court mediation all parties agreed that the appeal can be settled in its entirety by consent, and the Court has issued a consent order. The consent order includes:

· amendments to Precinct Plan 2 of the Drury 1 Precinct to show the realigned Future Collector Road (New)

· amendments to Activity Table 1.3 to provide for subdivision not complying with the relevant standards as a restricted discretionary activity

· changes to Precinct Plan 1 of the Drury 1 Precinct to reflect the re-alignment of the Future Collector Road (New) in Precinct Plan 2.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga) as it relates to the Environment Court consent order dated 21 November 2019, as set out in Attachment A of the report, 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 fully operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

8. Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga) seeks to rezone 83.05 hectares of land in the Drury West area from Future Urban Zone to a combination of Residential – Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones; and to extend the Drury 1 Precinct provisions (with amendments) to the land in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

9. Private Plan Change 6 was publicly notified on 19 October 2017. Fifty-one submissions and five further submissions were received and were considered by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners.

10. Council’s decision was released on 9 July 2018.

11. The decision was appealed by Elly S-Y Pan, who subsequently filed a revised notice of appeal.

12. Auckland Transport, the Minister of Education, New Zealand Transport Agency, Stable Village Limited Partnership (owner of 321, 325, 329, and 333 Bremner Road), and Wing Family Trust (owner of 221 Jesmond Road) joined the appeal as section 274 parties. The Stable Village Limited Partnership withdrew their section 274 interest on 1 February 2019.

13. The appeal from Elly S-Y Pan (owner of 38 Burberry Road and 341 Jesmond Road) raised a number of concerns about the effects of the Future Collector Road (New) across 341 Jesmond Road, including:

· the detrimental effects on the existing and future use and enjoyment of the land

· the adverse effects from development on neighbouring sites

· there being no agreement for infrastructure funding before development commences

· inadequate consultation on proposed land uses and provision of infrastructure.

14. The appeal sought that the proposed east-west Future Collector Road (New) be deleted; or that the road be moved south, although no further south than the southern boundary of 235 Jesmond Road where it shares a boundary with 221 Jesmond Road.

15. In addition, the appeal sought to delete the proposed amendments to the Drury 1 Precinct provisions that deal expressly with the Future Collector Road (New) and the Collector Road (Possible Future Arterial Road).

16. Following Environment Court mediation all parties have agreed that the appeal can be settled in its entirety by consent, and the Court issued a consent order on 21 November 2019.

17. The consent order amends Precinct Plan 2 of the Drury 1 Precinct to show the realigned Future Collector Road (New).

18. The Environment Court also used its powers under section 292(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to:

· amend Activity Table 1.3 to provide for subdivision not complying with the relevant standards as a restricted discretionary activity

· amend Precinct Plan 1 of the Drury 1 Precinct to reflect the re-alignment of the Future Collector Road (New) in Precinct Plan 2.

19. Section 292 of the Act enables a plan to be corrected where a defect becomes apparent in a proceeding before the Court without the need to use the process for changing a plan set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.

20. Private Plan Change 6 can now be made fully operative in accordance with the consent order provided in Attachment A to this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The appeal by Elly S-Y Pan was resolved in conjunction with specialist advice from Auckland Transport. The amendments to the Drury 1 Precinct that are set out in the consent order are supported by Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The Franklin and Papakura Local Boards were consulted on Private Plan Change 6 prior to notification. The views of the local boards were not sought for this report as making the plan change fully operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Karaka and Drury Limited (the Private Plan Change applicant) advised the Council that consultation had been undertaken with Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Akitai Waiohua as part of the development of Private Plan Change 6. Three cultural impact assessments by the three iwi authorities were submitted with the Private Plan Change.

26. Submissions made by Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Akitai Waiohua all supported Private Plan Change 6, premised on the basis that three factors are assured, being the mana of the iwi, that iwi can assert their rangatiratanga over ancestral taonga, and that the iwi can fulfil their kaitiaki obligations.

27. The final step in making Private Plan Change 6 fully operative is a procedural matter that will not have an impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. There are no financial implications associated with making the Private Plan Change fully operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. The final step in making the plan change fully 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 ⇩	Private Plan Change 6 Consent Order, and amendments to Drury 1 Precinct Provisions in relation to the Elly S-Y Pan appeal	151

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Request to make Private Plan Change 19, (90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns) operative

File No.: CP2020/00193

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Private Plan Change 19, 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 19 is a privately initiated plan change by Fletcher Residential Limited to rezone 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns from Business – Light Industry Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. The site comprises 4,380m² of land, and is owned by Fletcher Residential Limited (refer Attachment A).

3. The plan change was limited notified on 21 March 2019. Two submissions were received and were later withdrawn.

4. As the two submissions were subsequently withdrawn there were no further submissions and no need for a hearing.

5. Private Plan Change 19 was considered by an independent hearing commissioner, and a decision was issued on 19 December 2019. The decision supported the private plan change with no modifications.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 19, 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), 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 possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

7. Private Plan Change 19 seeks to rezone 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns from Business – Light Industry Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

8. The plan change was limited notified on 21 March 2019. Two submissions were received. The submission by Vector Limited was withdrawn on 1 October 2019, and the submission by Auckland Transport was withdrawn on 22 October 2019.

9. As the two submissions were subsequently withdrawn, there were no further submissions and no hearing was held.

10. Private Plan Change 19 was considered by an independent hearing commissioner, and a decision was issued on 19 December 2019 to support the plan change without modification.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

13. 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. No appeals were received and the council can now approve the plan change.

14. 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. Specialist advice was received from staff in Auckland Transport, Healthy Waters, Infrastructure and Environmental Services and Watercare Services. These specialists provided advice on Private Plan Change 19 and the supporting section 32 report.

17. Auckland Transport subsequently withdrew its submission of support for the plan change to avoid the need for a hearing.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. The Ōrākei Local Board was consulted on Private Plan Change 19 prior to limited notification. The Local Board advised that it was not opposed to the plan change and considered that a mixed housing suburban development would have fewer adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties than light industrial activities.

19. Local board views were not sought for this report as making the plan change operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. Fletcher Residential limited (the applicant) for Private Plan Change 19 advised staff that it had engaged with 15 iwi groups recognised as having an interest in the site, prior to the plan change request being lodged with the Council.

21. The applicant also advised staff that Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Ākitai Waiohua accepted the opportunity to meet; and were appreciative of the forewarning of the intentions of the plan change, could see value in the request, and would wait to be approached by the Council following lodgement of the plan change. No iwi groups submitted on the plan change.

22. Making the plan change operative is a procedural matter that will not have an impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. 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 (Operative in Part).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Zoning of land under Private Plan Change 19	205

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

David Wong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 February 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Update on appeals and making additional parts of the Plan operative

File No.: CP2020/00038

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the committee on the outcome of two appeals against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan:

· CIV-2016-404-2290 Wāitakere Ranges Protection Society

· ENV-2017-AKL-000167 Strategic Property Advocacy Network.

2. To obtain resolutions to allow staff to undertake the statutory processes to publicly notify the operative status of additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) that are no longer subject to appeals.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Wāitakere Ranges Protection Society (the Society) lodged an appeal at the High Court following the council’s decision to accept the recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel. This related to making subdivision beyond the amount allocated by the Plan a non-complying rather than a prohibited activity. The Society considered that the Independent Hearings Panel recommendation relied on an error in the interpretation of case law which, following further consideration, the council accepted.

4. The Strategic Property Advocacy Network (SPAN) then appealed against the decision (as issued by the High Court) to reinstate prohibited activity status for subdivision beyond specified density limits in some parts of the Wāitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA). Following extensive mediation, there was no resolution of this appeal. The Environment Court therefore set down an evidence timetable so that the appeal could be heard. At that point in time SPAN decided to withdraw its appeal. This means that the decision to apply prohibited activity status to subdivision in some parts of the WRHA is now beyond challenge, and those provisions can be made operative.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note that the following appeals in respect of the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan are now fully resolved:

i) CIV-2016-404-2290 - Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

ii) ENV-2017-AKL-0000167 – Strategic Property Advocacy Network

b) authorise staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) become operative as soon as practicable, in accordance with the requirements in section 160 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Society lodged an appeal to the High Court (CIV-2016-404-002290) seeking the reinstatement of prohibited activity status in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) for some types of subdivision in some parts of the WRHA. The Society did not oppose the majority of the subdivision provisions, which include minimum lot sizes and site-specific subdivision rules.

6. Council had previously accepted the Independent Hearing Panel’s recommendation to change the approach taken to some subdivision in the Auckland Council District Plan (Wāitakere Section) (District Plan), where prohibited activity status was included in that District Plan. This occurred following extensive litigation and the passage of the Wāitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. Prohibited activity status was the planning method used to avoid ad-hoc subdivision in some parts of the WRHA.

7. The Society’s appeal sought the reinstatement of prohibited activity status in those locations where it was applied under the previous District Plan. The prohibited activity status would apply to the southern parts of the Swanson Structure Plan, and those areas that were located in the legacy “Bush Living” and “Waitakere Ranges” Human Environments (but which were not part of Titirangi Subdivision Area 1 and Titirangi-Laingholm Subdivision Area 2).

8. The Council resolved to reinstate prohibited activity status in some locations. This led to council agreeing with the Society and its view that the recommendation by the Independent Hearings Panel to apply non-complying activity status was based upon an error of law. Council and the Society presented a joint memorandum to the High Court requesting that the Court issue a consent order to reinstate prohibited activity status in some parts of the WRHA. The High Court issued the consent order on 17 September 2017. This represented a rejection of the recommendation of the Independent Hearings Panel, which enabled submitters to appeal that decision to the Environment Court.

9. The SPAN Environment Court appeal arises from the High Court decision to reinstate prohibited activity status for subdivision beyond specified density limits in particular parts of the WRHA. Mediation narrowed the scope of the SPAN appeal to specific sites in Swanson. The first draft consent order was not issued by the Environment Court, as neighbours to one of the sites subject to the appeal raised issues about the adverse effects of subdivision on their property. The Environment Court therefore directed that further mediation occur, to try to resolve the appeal. Further mediation was not successful. The Environment Court therefore set down an evidence timetable to hear the appeal. At that point SPAN decided to withdraw its appeal. This withdrawal means that the decision to apply prohibited activity status to subdivision in some parts of the WRHA is now beyond challenge, and those provisions can be made operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. This report deals with procedural matters – notifying additional parts of the AUP that are now operative.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. As this report is recommending a procedural step under the Resource Management Act 1991, there are no impacts on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. Local Boards have been involved in the development of the AUP since mid-2012. Their views were not sought for this report as it addresses factual and procedural matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. The final step in making additional parts of the AUP operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on Māori. Impacts on Māori have been considered throughout the process of developing the AUP and the resolution of appeals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. The cost of making the AUP operative is covered by the Plans and Places department’s operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

16. There are no risks associated with making the parts of the AUP relating to subdivision in the WRHA operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17. The final step in making the plan change fully operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the AUP.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

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

04 February 2020

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings - 4 February 2020

File No.: CP2020/00260

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary and 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:

· Planning Committee workshop schedule February 2020 (Attachment A)

· Auckland Monthly Housing Update December 2019 (Attachment B)

4. The following memos were circulated to members:

· 10 December 2019 – Better Travel Choices - the Auckland Mode Shift Plan
(Attachment C)

· 12 December 2019 – Waikato District Growth and Economic Development Strategy (Attachment D)

· 19 December 2019 – Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy: Final report
(Attachment E)

· 20 December 2019 – The Draft New Zealand Rail Plan (Attachment F)

· 20 December 2019 – Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill (Attachment G)

· 23 January 2020 – Auckland Council’s input into the government’s ‘Implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, Revision 7 (2017)’ (Attachment H)

· 28 January 2020 - Auckland Council submission on Waikato 2070 (Attachment I)

5. The following workshops and briefings took place:

· 5 December 2019 – Direction Setting for the 2019-2022 term (Attachment J)

· 11 December 2019 – Resource management system reform (Attachment K)

6. The following correspondence is attached:

· 20 December 2019 – Letter to Auckland Transport on Mode Shift Implementation Plan (Attachment L)

7. 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 of each information item.

8. The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 4 February 2020 > Extra Attachments

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 4 February 2020 report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Planning Committee workshop schedule February 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update December 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memo - Better Travel Choices - the Auckland Mode Shift Plan (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memo - Waikato District Growth and Economic Development Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memo - Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy: Final report (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Memo - The Draft New Zealand Rail Plan (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Memo - Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Memo - Auckland Council’s input into the government’s ‘Implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, Revision 7 (2017)’ (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Memo - Auckland Council submission on Waikato 2070 (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Direction Setting for the 2019-2022 term workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Resource management system reform workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Letter to Auckland Transport on Mode Shift Implementation Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Duncan Glasgow- Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Richard Hills
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson