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.

Planning Committee

13 August 2020

Plan Change to the Auckland Unitary Plan - Rainwater Tanks

File No.: CP2020/09469

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To establish a delegation of Planning Committee members to approve the notification of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to remove unnecessary restrictions on the installation of rainwater tanks in urban and rural parts of Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Current low water levels in Auckland’s storage dams pose considerable risk of water shortages in the summer of 2020/21. Climate change weather events involving droughts are also expected to further test the resilience of our water supply system.

3. A number of initiatives are being undertaken to mitigate the impact of water shortages on Auckland communities.

4. On 25 June 2020 the Governing Body agreed in principle to remove unnecessary restrictions on the installation of rainwater tanks in urban and rural parts of Auckland through a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan). The Governing Body also requested staff to explore how rainwater tanks could be made mandatory in a number of situations such as the construction of new dwellings.

5. There are many ways in which a more permissive regulatory framework for rainwater tanks could be achieved through a plan change. The preferred approach is to exclude rainwater tanks from the definition of a “building”, introduce a new definition of “rainwater tank” and include rainwater tanks in activity tables with customised standards as a permitted activity for residential and rural zones and within the Special Character overlay. The Special Character overlay applies to many parts of Auckland’s older suburban areas. In the case of the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) the preferred approach is to exclude rainwater tanks from the definition of “building”.

6. There is a need to explore boundaries between different legislation to find the most appropriate method to make rainwater tanks mandatory in certain situations. It is recommended that this work continue as a separate workstream.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, the authority to approve the notification of an Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) identified as option 3 in the agenda report, subject to addressing any changes required in response to feedback from local boards and iwi authorities

b) request staff to report back to the Planning Committee as soon as practicable on the options for mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations.

Horopaki

Context

7. Storage dams, which form a key source of supply to the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply system, are at historic low levels. If weather conditions continue the impact of water shortages for Auckland business and communities is forecast to be most acute during the summer of 2020/2021. Stage 1 Water Restrictions and associated communications have been introduced.

8. Discussions with major water users, led by Watercare, are underway and are resulting in reduced demand. Watercare is reviewing its Drought Management Plan and initiatives are underway to source additional and alternative supplies of potable water.

9. Auckland Council, through the Healthy Waters department, is developing alternative sources of non-portable water as a means to replace the use of potable water where appropriate, for example in construction.

10. In some cases, the council is using its emergency powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 where ‘immediate preventative measures’ are required to address adverse effects resulting from the water crisis. Where appropriate, the council may also seek to vary existing, or obtain new, resource consents to authorise increased water take to reduce pressure on the city’s potable water supply.

11. In all cases, the council is working to ensure that the supply of non-potable water is subject to appropriate controls to manage water quality, cultural, and ecological values of the resource, and to ensure that any public health, noise and traffic issues associated with the water take are managed without causing undue disruption to the local community.

12. Watercare and Auckland Council are working together to mitigate the impact of water shortages on Auckland communities. A team involving staff from both organisations has been formed to minimise the possibility of a crisis by next spring and summer.

13. Against the above context, on 25 June 2020 the Governing Body received and endorsed a report to clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to water and to direct an investigation of ways to encourage the use of rain tanks, particularly in suburban Auckland.

14. The Governing Body resolution of 25 June 2020 (resolution number GB\2020\56) agreed in principle, to a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to remove unnecessary restrictions on the installation of rainwater tanks in urban and rural parts of Auckland. Additionally, it directed staff to explore options under current legislation to enable the council to make rain tanks for water supply mandatory in certain situations. It also noted that the Planning Committee would approve for public notification any plan change.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The need for a Plan Change

15. The Unitary Plan contains a definition of “building” which includes “tanks” where these structures exceed 1 metre in height. Therefore, the installation of a rainwater tank of more than 1 metre in height within residential and rural zones is subject to development controls such as yard setbacks, site coverage and height standards. Resource consent is needed where installed rainwater tanks infringe these controls.

16. Whilst it is possible to locate a rainwater tank on many properties and not trigger a resource consent requirement, there are also many situations where property owners are restricted by yards and site coverage requirements which may discourage them from installing rainwater tanks.

17. As part of the process to better understand how the council could support the uptake rates of rainwater tanks across Auckland and removing barriers to their installation, feedback from a number of different sources has been considered. Sources included a public consultation titled “Our Water Future” ^{^[1]}, a “People’s Panel” survey, unprompted local board and general public feedback, informal feedback from tank suppliers, and a “Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board” survey^{^[2]}.

18. A common theme that was apparent was support for wider use of rainwater tanks in the region. However, many raised concerns that the council could do more to support the removal of barriers to improve their uptake. Difficult consenting restrictions featured frequently as a reason not to proceed with installing a tank. For example, in the “People’s Panel”^{^[3]} survey 64% of the 4,161 respondents raised consenting processes as being a factor which would put them off installing a rainwater tank.

Options

19. The following section of the report addresses the planning options available to change the Unitary Plan to enable rainwater tank installation in the Auckland region.

Option 1: Amend the definition of “Building” in regard to “Tanks”

20. This option would require an amendment to the definition of “Building” in the Unitary Plan so that tanks including rainwater tanks below a certain height (i.e. higher than the current 1 metre threshold) would be excluded from the definition. Consequentially, most rainwater tanks would not be considered a “Building” and would therefore not trigger the need for resource consent.

21. This is a simple technical fix, but it has the major limitations of:

· removing any control over the location of rainwater tanks (not considered a “building”) in any zone

· permitting other types of tanks up to the imposed height threshold possessing characteristics inappropriate to all zones

· creating an exception for one structure which may be more bulky than other structures caught by the definition of “building”.

Option 2: Exempt Rainwater Tanks from Yard Setback Standards

22. This option involves exempting rainwater tanks up to a certain height from yard setback standards.

23. The limitation of this approach is that some standards such as site coverage would still restrict the installation of rainwater tanks. Therefore, this approach does not address all locational concerns as it focusses solely on yard space. Other considerations include the need to preserve minimum outdoor and outlook spaces to maintain onsite amenity.

24. This option also fails to specifically provide for rainwater tanks as an activity, meaning that resource consent may still be needed by virtue of rainwater tanks being caught by other activity table line items in the Unitary Plan.

Option 3: Make Rainwater Tanks a Permitted Activity and Develop Standards (preferred option)

25. This option would involve rainwater tanks being removed from the Unitary Plan definition of “Building” within residential and rural zones and within the Special Character overlay that applies to parts of many of Auckland’s older suburbs. A new definition of “Rainwater Tank” would be developed. “Rainwater Tanks” would then be listed in activity tables in residential and rural zones as a permitted land use activity. Standards would be customised for the permitted land use activity of “Rainwater Tanks”.

26. This option meets the requirements necessary to enable rainwater tanks and it limits control to critical matters such as ensuring outdoor and outlook courts are not compromised and that appropriate amenity value protections remain in place.

Option 4: Bylaw

27. This option would involve enacting a bylaw to manage the installation of rainwater tanks. Regulation would be created controlling the placement, bulk and location of any rainwater tank with an associated permit needed for rainwater tank installation.

28. This approach would also require a plan change to the Unitary Plan to remove all management of rainwater tanks. Normal Local Government Act processes for bylaw creation would need to be followed.

29. This would involve two lengthy and resource intensive processes.

Option 5: Specify Rainwater tanks as Accessory Buildings and Exempt from Standards

30. This option involves adding a definition for “Rainwater Tank” and excluding these structures from the definition of “Building”. “Rainwater Tanks” would be included in the existing definition of “Accessory Building” and exempted from the standards for accessory buildings in appropriate zones. Some new standards would be introduced to ensure that rainwater tanks did not occupy minimum outdoor living spaces or cause inappropriate effects on amenity values.

31. The limitations of this option are:

· counter intuitively the Unitary Plan would be signalling that an “accessory building” is not a “building”; and

· it does not guarantee that installing a rainwater tank would not be caught by multiple activity status rules in situations where activity tables stated that accessory buildings assume the status as applies to the land use activity that any new accessory addition to a building was designed to accommodate.

Preferred Option

32. Option 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons:

· rainwater tank installation is set aside from the rules associated with “buildings”

· appropriate bulk and location controls are customised for rainwater tanks and are permissive

· a stand-alone definition of rainwater tank has the advantage of ensuring that there is clarity around what is to be considered a rainwater tank

· greater certainty is provided that rainwater tanks will be treated as a permitted activity.

Rural Auckland

33. In rural Auckland resource consents are being required for rainwater tank installation in instances where yard requirements are not met, or sites and dwellings are established on the basis of a consent category other than permitted activity status. The Rural Coastal zone is an example where the installation of a rainwater tank would be a restricted discretionary activity, for the reason that new dwellings are also a restricted discretionary activity in this zone.

34. Option 3 (the “preferred option”) detailed above could also be applied to the rural zones to broadly enable rainwater tank installation in rural Auckland.

Special Character

35. Chapter D section 18 of the Unitary Plan provides a policy and rule framework for development in residential and business zones which are subject to the Special Character overlay.

36. It is proposed to amend Table D18.4.1 “Activity table – Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential” by including rainwater tanks as a new permitted activity line item subject to a number of standards designed to maintain the character these areas.

Hauraki Gulf Islands

37. To address the matter of enabling rainwater tanks within the Auckland region it is necessary to consider both the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section).

38. The Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) also has rules which trigger the need for a resource consent for rainwater tanks. Most commonly this is through a yard standard. Rainwater tanks are already excluded from site coverage calculations.

39. One approach to address the matter of enabling rainwater tanks in the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) would be to exclude them from the definition of a building where they are within a range of parameters associated with: height; distance from boundary; bulk; colour; and location.

40. Currently the definition of “building” within the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) contains exclusions which also incorporate standards. This could be seen as a temporary but efficient fix until all of the Hauraki Gulf Islands are brought entirely within the ambit of the Unitary Plan.

Mandatory Rainwater Tank Installation

41. The Governing Body in its resolution of 25 June 2020 also requested staff to explore options to make the installation of rainwater tanks mandatory in certain situations such as in the case of new dwellings.

42. The mechanisms worthy of exploration to make rainwater tanks mandatory would include:

· central government legislative change through the Building Act and codes

· an environmental standard via the Resource Management Act

· a bylaw initiated through the Local Government Act, or

· a further change to the Unitary Plan requiring a resource consent or prohibiting certain types of development where a rainwater tank was not proposed.

43. Each of these methods along with other possible solutions to make rainwater tanks mandatory require considerable further research and consideration of legislative jurisdictional boundaries. For this reason, it is recommended that the investigation of mandatory rainwater tanks be advanced as a separate workstream from that of enabling rainwater tank installation. Staff will prioritise this work and report back to the Planning Committee as soon as practicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The need to initiate a plan change to enable rainwater tank installation is a response to Auckland’s current drought and potential water shortage in 2020/2021.

45. This uncertainty in water supply is likely to continue as our climate changes. Climate projections released by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (‘NIWA’), indicated that the Auckland region is likely to experience an increase of unpredictable rainfall and drought events. Removing unnecessary restrictions around the installation of rainwater tanks will support Auckland’s water security and resilience to climate change.

46. The proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan supports Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. One of the goals of the climate plan is to prepare Aucklanders to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

47. Easing barriers to the installation of rainwater tanks supports water supply management and aligns with the ‘Built Environment’ priority area in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. Staff from Watercare and various departments within the council are working together on plans aimed at minimising and mitigating the impact of water shortages. Each department across the council group is supporting a range of actions designed to manage down water usage and demand on the water supply network.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. Local boards will have the opportunity to input into the development of the plan change to the Unitary Plan prior to notification. Feedback from the local board chairs at their meeting on 13 July 2020 was very supportive of the proposed plan change. A local board Skype briefing is scheduled for mid-August 2020.

50. It is also proposed that reporting to local boards for feedback will occur during September, corresponding with notification of the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51. Historical engagement through the “Our Water Future” discussion document released in March 2019 received positive ongoing support from iwi for enabling rainwater tank installation within the Auckland region.

52. Discussions have been held with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and on 21 July 2020 was held with iwi representatives. The iwi representatives were supportive of enabling rainwater tank installation. Iwi will also have the opportunity to input into the finalisation of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan prior to notification and once it has been notified.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53. The completion of the plan change will be undertaken within established budgets. The relevant manager within the council’s Finance division has advised that the implications of the proposed plan change will not have any significant, or for that matter identifiable impact on the council’s financial position.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54. Provided the proposed plan change is supported by robust evidence and analysis, there are no specific risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55. The next steps are to undertake consultation with iwi and local boards. The content of the plan change will then be publicly notified, and public submissions summarised and notified for further submissions prior to a formal hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 August 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 7 operative

File No.: CP2020/09884

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 7 recognises the values of a number of significant historic heritage places by adding them to the Historic Heritage Overlay of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan).

3. Decisions on Plan Change 7 were notified on 12 April 2019. Two appeals were received. Housing New Zealand Corporation appealed the provisions relating to the First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier. WH Property Investments Limited appealed the provisions relating to the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory at 325 New North Road, Kingsland.

4. Plan Change 7 was made operative in part in August 2019, following a resolution of the Planning Committee (PLA/2019/80). The regional coastal plan provisions were approved by the Minister of Conservation in July 2020 and are expected to be made operative in August 2020.

5. The two appeals on Plan Change 7 were withdrawn in May 2020. The plan change can now be made operative in full.

6. To make Plan Change 7 operative in full, the plan change provisions that were subject to the two withdrawn appeals must be approved by the Planning Committee. Staff will then complete the necessary steps under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 7 becomes operative in full.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), as it relates to the provisions that were subject to the withdrawn appeals regarding the First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier and the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory at 326 New North Road, Kingsland

b) request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 7 becomes operative in full as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

7. Plan Change 7 recognises the values of a number of significant historic heritage places by identifying them in the Unitary Plan Historic Heritage Overlay.

8. The Planning Committee approved Plan Change 7 for public notification in November 2017 (PLA/2017/144). Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions in June 2018 (REG/2018/45). The commissioners’ decisions were publicly notified on 12 April 2019.

9. Two appeals were received on Plan Change 7. An appeal by Housing New Zealand Corporation sought that the First State Pensioner Housing at 6-12 Pelham Avenue, Point Chevalier be deleted from the Unitary Plan. An appeal from WH Property Investments Limited requested amendments to the Unitary Plan in relation to the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory at 325 New North Road, Kingsland.

10. These appeals were withdrawn in May 2020.

11. Plan Change 7 was made operative in part in August 2019 (PLA/2019/80). The parts of Plan Change 7 that were not made operative at that time were:

· the provisions subject to appeal, and

· the provisions of the regional coastal plan.

12. The Minister of Conservation approved those parts of Plan Change 7 that are subject to the regional coastal plan in July 2020. Staff are undertaking the steps under the Act to make those parts of Plan Change 7 that are subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan operative. The Unitary Plan is expected to be updated by August 2020.

13. Now that the appeals have been withdrawn, Plan Change 7 can be made operative in full. To achieve this, the plan change provisions that were previously subject to appeal must be approved. Staff will then complete the necessary steps under the Act to publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 7 becomes operative in full.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. This report is procedural. The Planning Committee is authorised to approve a plan change. As the plan-making process is complete, no further analysis is required.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. There are no climate impacts associated with the approval of this plan change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. There are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 7. Auckland Transport submitted on the plan change. Amendments were recommended by staff to address the concerns raised in the submission. Those amendments were supported by Auckland Transport and accepted by the hearing commissioners.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. There are no local impacts associated with the approval of this plan change.

18. Albert-Eden Local Board is the relevant local board for the First State Pensioner Flats and the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory. The local board did not provide feedback on Plan Change 7.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. There are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of this plan change.

20. The First State Pensioner Flats and the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory have no known value to mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. There are no financial implications associated with the approval of this plan change. Updating the Unitary Plan is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. There are no risks associated with the approval of this plan change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. The Unitary Plan identifies the First State Pensioner Flats and the former Bridgens and Company shoe factory as being subject to appeal. These notations can now be removed.

24. Staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the Act to make Plan Change 7 operative in full, including the public notice and seal. The update of the Unitary Plan text is expected to occur on 11 September 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

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

13 August 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 27 operative

File No.: CP2020/09060

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To obtain approval of the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 27: Amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage that are not subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, and approval to make Plan Change 27 operative in part.

2. To adopt the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, and refer them to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. In April 2019 the Planning Committee approved the public notification of a proposed plan change to amend information in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage (Schedule 14.1) of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan) (PLA/2019/37). The plan change is known as Plan Change 27.

4. Plan Change 27 amends information in the Unitary Plan (text and maps) for 73 historic heritage places that are already included in Schedule 14.1.

5. Plan Change 27 was publicly notified on 30 May 2019. Submissions were heard in February 2020 by independent hearings commissioners. The commissioners’ decisions on the plan change were publicly notified on 28 May 2020. The period for lodging an appeal has closed. No appeals were received.

6. There are five historic heritage places in Plan Change 27 that are partly located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) (see Attachment A). These places are subject to the regional coastal plan provisions of the Unitary Plan. Section 28 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires approval from the Minister of Conservation before provisions relating to these places are made operative. The Planning Committee can adopt the proposed amendments to these five places and refer these to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

7. The proposed amendments to the parts of Plan Change 27 that are not in the CMA (and therefore not subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan) are provided to the Planning Committee for approval. A list of the places subject to Plan Change 27 is included in Attachment B to this report.

8. Staff recommend that Plan Change 27 is made operative in part except for:

· proposed amendments to the part of the historic heritage places located in the CMA and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan.

9. The proposed amendment of the historic heritage places located in part in the CMA is a discrete issue. That part of Plan Change 27 will be made operative separately at a later date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the proposed amendments under Plan Change 27: Amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage that are not subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, being the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places set out in Attachment B to the agenda report that are not subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan

b) adopt the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, set out in Attachment A to the agenda report, and refer these 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 27 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) ) the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places set out in Attachment B to the agenda report that are not subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan

d) request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the parts of Plan Change 27 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

10. Plan Change 27 amends a number of historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan. These places are identified in the Historic Heritage Overlay, in Schedule 14.1, and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The amendments correct errors and update place information for 73 historic heritage places.

11. The historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27 are listed in Attachment A (places subject to the regional coastal plan) and Attachment B (historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27).

12. In April 2019, the Planning Committee approved Plan Change 27 for public notification (PLA/2019/37). 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 27 was:

· publicly notified on 30 May 2019

· open for submissions until 11 July 2019

· open for further submissions until 12 September 2019

· heard by independent commissioners for two days on 3 and 4 February 2020.

13. The independent commissioners’ decisions were publicly notified on 28 May 2020. The independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 27 by the Regulatory Committee in August 2019 (REG/2019/49).

14. The Plan Change 27 decisions are available on the council’s website. The decisions supported the position of council at the hearing, except for a small amendment. This amendment was to the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place map for one place, being St Saviour's Chapel and Papatoetoe Orphan's Home and School (former) at 80 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe (ID 01466).

15. The period for lodging appeals in the Environment Court has closed and no appeals were received.

16. There are five historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27 that are located partly in the CMA and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan. These places are identified in Attachment A. The change to ID 00499 Waiwera Bath House is that this place is being deleted from the Historic Heritage Overlay as it no longer exists. The map change for Waiwera Bath House is to remove the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place from the Unitary Plan maps for that place. There is no attached map for Queens Wharf as there is no change to the spatial extent of the area scheduled - the only change being to the identification of exclusions.

17. Amendments to regional coastal plan provisions cannot be made operative until these are approved by the Minister of Conservation.

18. Staff recommend that Plan Change 27 be made operative in part except for:

· proposed amendments to the part of the historic heritage places located in the CMA and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan (see Attachment A).

19. The proposed amendments to the other historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27 are provided to the Planning Committee for approval.

20. The proposed amendment of the historic heritage places located in part in the CMA is a discrete issue and those parts of Plan Change 27 will be made operative separately at a later date.

Regional coastal plan amendments require approval by the Minister of Conservation

21. There are five historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27 that are located partly in the CMA and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan. These places are identified in Attachment A. As per section 28 of the Act, any amendments to the regional coastal plan require the approval of the Minister of Conservation before they can be made operative. The committee can adopt the regional coastal plan amendments and refer these to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. This report is procedural. As the plan-making process is essentially complete, no further analysis or advice is required.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. This report is procedural in nature. There are no climate impacts associated with the approval of this plan change.

24. Plan Change 27 involved the correction of errors and updating of information in Schedule 14.1 and therefore has no impact on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. As part of Plan Change 27, discussions were held with Auckland Transport and Panuku. A submission was received from Auckland Transport. Following discussions, most of Auckland Transport’s concerns were addressed, including by further recommendations proposed to the plan change. Auckland Transport did not attend the hearing.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. As part of Plan Change 27, local boards were advised of the public notification and were invited to provide feedback. Formal feedback was received from the Manurewa and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards. In response, staff recommended further amendments to Plan Change 27 to address the matters raised by the local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. As part of the development of Plan Change 27, staff:

· sent a letter to all 19 iwi authorities in the Auckland region to signal the proposed plan change was in the pipeline and to determine interest in the plan change

· sent the draft proposed plan change in February 2019 to iwi authorities for feedback in accordance with Clause 4A of Schedule 1 of the Act.

28. No iwi authorities responded to either communication.

29. Further submissions were received from three iwi authorities during the public submission process in relation to one historic heritage place that is subject to Plan Change 27, being Te Marae ō Hinekākea village site, including grave R10_163 (Schedule 14.1 ID 00729). The further submissions supported the amendment proposed in Plan Change 27 for this place.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There are no risks associated with making Plan Change 27 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Staff will undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act to make operative in part Plan Change 27 to the Unitary Plan (except for the parts of those historic heritage places that are subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan).

33. Proposed amendments under Plan Change 27 are currently annotated as such in the Unitary Plan (text and maps). Staff will incorporate amendments from Plan Change 27 into the Unitary Plan (text and maps) and remove annotations by 24 August (except for the part of those historic heritage places that are subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan).

34. Proposed amendments subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan awaiting approval from the Minister of Conservation will remain annotated until approved by the Minister. Once approved, staff will undertake the necessary steps under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act and remove the annotations from the Unitary Plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Historic heritage places subject to the Regional Coastal Plan	27
b ⇩	Historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 27	37

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

13 August 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Request to make Plan Change 33 operative

File No.: CP2020/10328

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Private Plan Change 33, 131 Remuera Road, Remuera to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 33 is a privately initiated plan change by Dilworth School Trust Board to rezone 131 Remuera Road, Remuera from Special Purpose – School zone to Business – Mixed Use zone. The site comprises 1,280m² of land and is owned by Dilworth School Trust Board.

3. The plan change was fully notified on 24 October 2019. No submissions were received.

4. Private Plan Change 33 was considered by an independent hearing commissioner who did not consider it necessary to hold a hearing. The commissioner approved the private plan change with no modifications. The decision was publicly notified on 28 May 2020.

5. 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 33, 131 Remuera Road, Remuera 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

6. Private Plan Change 33 seeks to rezone 131 Remuera Road, Remuera from Special Purpose – School zone to Business – Mixed Use zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

7. The plan change was publicly notified on 24 October 2019. There were no submissions received.

8. Private Plan Change 33 was considered by an independent hearing commissioner. The commissioner decided not to hold a hearing. A decision was issued on 28 May 2020 to approve the plan change without modification (see Attachment A).

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

11. 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 the council can now approve the plan change.

12. 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

13. 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

14. Specialist advice was received from staff in Healthy Waters and Watercare Services on the Private Plan Change and the supporting section 32 report. Staff from the Auckland Design Office deferred their comments to the development stage whereby a resource consent would be required. Auckland Transport provided unofficial advice post notification and did not submit on the plan change.

15. Staff from both Healthy Waters and Watercare Services acknowledged the impact on existing infrastructure in the vicinity and advised that such matters could be addressed through the required resource consent at the future development stage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. The Ōrākei Local Board was consulted on Private Plan Change 33 prior to lodgement of the request. The Local Board advised that it was not opposed to the plan change, however thought it necessary to notify it to ensure others could have a say. The Local Board did not make a submission on the plan change.

17. 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

18. The requestor consulted with fifteen iwi authorities with interests in the site, prior to lodging the private plan change. They received six responses, most of which deferred their interests to Ngati Whatua Ōrākei. Ngati Whatua Ōrākei did not seek any further action, deferring instead to the future development stage for the site.

19. All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the RMA. Two responses were received. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua deferred their interests to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei stated that no action was needed from them at this stage. No submissions were received from any mana whenua group during the submission period.

20. In addition to notification Council sought the opinion of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei under s.34(A)(1A) of the RMA as to whether or not the private plan change would require a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei responded that no such decision maker was required for this plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. 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 ⇩	Private Plan Change 33 - Decision	61

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lee-Ann Lucas - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 August 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan – Delegations for Appeals and Declaration Proceedings

File No.: CP2020/10658

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate to the Tier 3 Manager in the Plans and Places Department the authority to:

· defend the council’s decision on appeals relating to council and private plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan

· agree to amendments to council and private plan changes to address technical matters and policy matters where the intent of the council’s decision is maintained

· determine the council’s interpretation for declaration proceedings regarding the interpretation of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

2. To delegate to a subgroup of the Planning Committee the authority to determine the council’s policy position in response to appeal matters on council and private plan changes that are more fundamental.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Changes have recently been made to the council’s Regulatory Committee Policy that have resulted in the Planning Committee now being fully responsible for managing all appeals on council and private plan change decisions, as well as declaration proceedings regarding the interpretation of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

4. Mediation frequently occurs prior to the hearing of appeals on council and private plan changes. The Environment Court has an expectation that all parties attending mediation have the authority to reach agreement on the day. At times the council is given short notice of a mediation date, which means it is often not possible to bring reports to the Planning Committee to determine the council’s position prior to mediation. In addition, there are often short timeframes for determining the council’s position where the council is in settlement discussions with an appellant, and/or during evidence exchange for an Environment Court hearing.

5. This report recommends that delegations are put in place to ensure the council is able to respond to these tight timeframes. The report also recommends that the appropriate senior manager within the council is delegated the authority to address technical matters and policy matters where the intent of the council’s decision is maintained; and to determine the council’s interpretation for declaration proceedings regarding the interpretation of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate to the Tier 3 Manager in the Plans and Places Department, the authority to:

i) defend the council’s decision on appeals relating to council and private plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan

ii) agree to amendments to council and private plan changes to address technical matters and policy matters where the intent of the council’s decision is maintained

iii) determine the council’s interpretation for declaration proceedings regarding the interpretation of provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan

b) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to determine the council’s position in response to appeals on council and private plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan beyond the authority delegated to the Tier 3 Manager in the Plans and Places Department where an urgent decision is required

c) agree that at least two of the members in b) are required to be in agreement for an urgent decision to be made.

Horopaki

Context

6. Mediation frequently occurs prior to the hearing of appeals on council and private plan changes. The Environment Court has an expectation that all parties attending mediation have the authority to reach agreement on the day. At times the council is given short notice of a mediation date, which means it is often not possible to bring reports to the Planning Committee to determine the council’s position prior to mediation. In addition, there are often short timeframes for determining the council’s position where the council is in settlement discussions with an appellant, and/or during evidence exchange for an Environment Court hearing.

7. Clause 5.1(h) of the Environment Court Practice Note provides:

All parties at ADR [Alternative Dispute Resolution] sessions are to be represented throughout by a person or persons holding authority from the party to settle the dispute. Any party desiring not to be so represented shall give not less than seven days written notice to the Court and all other parties to the ADR session. The case-managing Judge, or the Commissioner facilitating the mediation, will have discretion as to whether the party may participate other than on the basis of its representative having authority to settle, and this will depend on whether there are special reasons in the context of the particular session.

8. In circumstances where a council or private plan change appeal relates to technical matters or policy matters that do not change the intent of the council’s decision, it is recommended that the relevant senior manager is able to confirm the council’s position at mediation sessions, in settlement discussions, and/or at the hearing.

9. In circumstances where the changes sought by an appellant are more fundamental, and may alter the policy intent of the council’s decision, it is recommended that a subgroup of the Planning Committee is created, to confirm the council’s position for mediation, in settlement discussions, and/or at the hearing.

10. From time to time, the council and other parties seek declarations from the Environment Court on the interpretation of the Auckland Unitary Plan. This is essentially a legal/technical exercise, and as such, it is considered appropriate that the relevant senior manager within the council is delegated the authority to determine the council’s interpretation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. Each council and private plan change appeal or set of appeals will have different timeframes and dates for mediation, or settlement discussions, and/or evidence exchange for hearings, often with very short timeframes for determining (or changing) the council position. As a result, it is necessary to have the proposed delegations in place.

12. The delegations sought are similar to those approved by resolution of the Planning Committee on 5 March 2020 for the purposes of resolving the remaining appeal and judicial review proceedings on the decisions made by the council in August 2016 in response to the recommendations from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13. The delegations recommended in this report do not have any impact on climate change. Where relevant, climate impacts will be considered in responding to appeals relating to council and private plan changes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. The delegations recommended in this report do not have any impact on the council group. The relevant parts of the council group will continue to be involved in responding to appeals relating to council and private plan changes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. The delegations recommended in this report do not have any local impacts. Where an appeal on a council or private plan change relates to a matter raised by a local board during previous stages of the plan change process, the views of the local board will be taken into account.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16. The delegations sought in this report do not have any impact on Māori. The Resource Management Act contains specific provisions that provide opportunities for iwi authorities to be involved in the council and private plan change process, including through submissions and appeals. Impacts on Māori will be a key consideration in responding to appeals relating to council and private plan changes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

17. The delegations sought in this report will not result in any additional costs and are likely to result in savings in terms of staff and/or consultant time.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

18. There is a risk that delegating some appeal matters relating to council and private plan changes may undermine the outcomes the council sought to achieve in its decisions. This is mitigated by:

· limiting the scope of the delegations to the relevant senior manager to matters that do not change the intent of the council’s decision

· limiting the situations where more significant matters can be determined by a subgroup of the Planning Committee to those where an urgent decision is required

· appointing three members of the Planning Committee to the subgroup (including a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board) and requiring at least two members to be in agreement for a decision to be made; and

· reporting to the Planning Committee as soon as practicable, any urgent decisions made by the subgroup.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

19. The resolutions passed by the Planning Committee will be conveyed to all staff working on public and private plan change appeals. Staff will contact the members of the subgroup of the Planning Committee as soon as possible ahead of an urgent decision being required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 August 2020

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act - establishing delegations

File No.: CP2020/09743

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate authority to staff to carry out powers, functions and duties relating to resource consents and notices of requirement under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (the Act).enables the fast-tracking of the consenting of eligible development and infrastructure projects following a different process and with different considerations to those occurring under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). The Act commenced on 9 July 2020 and will be repealed in two years.

3. The Act confers a number of powers and functions on Auckland Council including:

· responding to the Minister’s invitation to comment on projects

· nominating membership of the expert consenting panel

· providing feedback to the expert panel

· appearance at hearings

· providing draft conditions, and

· appeals.

4. The timeframes for carrying out these powers and functions are very tight - only 10 working days in some instances. As such, actions will typically need to be taken outside of Planning Committee timeframes. This report sets out where these actions will be required and recommends the establishment of appropriate delegations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate all responsibilities, duties and powers in relation to resource consent applications and notices of requirement processed under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 to the tier three manager in the Resource Consents department (in relation to resource consents) and the tier three manager in the Plans and Places department (in relation to notices of requirement), subject to:

i) the restrictions set out in the General rules applying to all delegations – Auckland Council (as set out in Attachment A to this report);

ii) compliance with the red flag process set out in this report; and

iii) consultation with the relevant tier three manager within the Legal Services department when deciding whether to appeal a matter to the High Court.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Act enables the fast-tracking of consenting for eligible development and infrastructure projects following a different process and with different considerations to those occurring under the RMA. The Act commenced on 9 July 2020 and will be repealed in two years. The fast-track consenting legislation does not amend the RMA; it provides an alternative consenting pathway.

6. The Act lists a number of projects in Schedule 2 which are automatically eligible for the fast-track consenting process and will progress directly to Expert Consenting Panels for consideration. In Auckland these include six projects: the Northern Pathway; Papakura to Pukekōhe rail electrification; Britomart Station Eastern Upgrade; Unitec Residential Development; Papakāinga Development - Point Chevalier; and the Papakura to Drury South State Highway 1 improvements.

7. The Act also enables small scale repair, maintenance and minor upgrade works to be carried out by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and Kiwi Rail Holdings Limited on their existing infrastructure within the road and rail corridor without a resource consent. Kāinga Ora and the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development, and local government may also be able access these provisions in the future if confirmed through an Order in Council.

8. Any other person with an eligible (public or private) project can apply to the Minister for the Environment. If the Minister is satisfied that the project meets the purpose of the Act and the eligibility criteria, the project can gain access to the fast-track process through an Order in Council.

9. Auckland Council submitted on the COVID-Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill on 14 June. The submission focused on the following matters:

· a request for the Waikato River water supply consent to be listed

· Treaty of Waitangi provisions

· decision-making

· an extension to timeframes for local authorities to respond

· public participation

· cost recovery

· impact on infrastructure networks

· provisions for permitted activities, and

· construction waste.

10. The key change to the Bill in response to points raised in the Auckland Council submission was the inclusion of clearer provisions around cost recovery. The Act now identifies where local authorities can seek cost recovery and that it is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Authority to make payments. The other main aspects of the Bill where Auckland Council sought amendments were not accepted.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Power of delegation

11. The powers and functions conferred on Auckland Council under the Act fit within the Planning Committee’s Terms of Reference and current delegations, as they relate to the physical development and growth of Auckland. Therefore, it is open to this Committee to delegate its powers and functions under the Act.

Delegations required

12. In order for Auckland Council to exercise its functions, powers and duties under the Act, within the tight timeframes specified, delegation of all relevant powers and functions under the Act to council staff are recommended.

13. The powers and functions conferred on the council that may require exercising include:

Provision	Function, Duty, Power to be Delegated
21(2)	Power to provide written comments to the Minister on whether the application should be referred
Schedule 5, clause 3(2)(a)	Power to nominate an Auckland Council representative on the expert consenting panel
Schedule 6, Clause 17(2)	Power to respond to the expert consenting panel’s invitation to provide feedback
Schedule 6, clause 21	Power to decide to attend hearings and nominate a person to represent Auckland Council at the hearing
Schedule 6, clause 36(1)	Power to provide comments on draft conditions for resource consents
Schedule 6, clause 44(1)	Power to decide whether to appeal a decision on a question of law to the High Court. Conditional on consultation with Manager Regulatory and Enforcement, Legal Services [and reporting any court action to the relevant committee].

14. As Auckland Council is not the decision-maker on these fast track consents and notice of requirements, and given the tight timeframes under the Act, it is recommended that all powers and functions are delegated to the tier three manager in the Resource Consents department (in relation to resource consents) and the tier three manager in the Plans and Places department (in relation to notices of requirement).

Red flag system

15. It is recognised that the first step in the process, where the council is invited to comment on whether an application should be referred to the Expert Consenting Panel is key. It is proposed that staff operate a ‘red flag’ system for any referred application that has the potential to trigger one or more of the following criteria:

· the application is clearly inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan and/or not aligned with the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050

· the application is out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

· there is insufficient infrastructure to support the application and/or significant public infrastructure spend is required to support the project

· there is a significant impact on Auckland Council/Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) and/or third-party infrastructure

· the application is a notice of requirement

· there is the potential for significant adverse environmental effects to occur.

16. Where a project is ‘red flagged’ this report recommends that notification is made immediately to the Chair of the Planning Committee, Chair of the Regulatory Committee, a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and the relevant Ward Councillor(s) and all members of the relevant local board(s). Comments received from those members will be used to inform the council’s comment on whether an application should be referred to the Expert Consenting Panel. Local board feedback will also be included as part of the council’s comment.

17. In addition to the introduction of delegations, a Guidance Manual is being prepared by the Resource Consents department. This will provide process parameters, Service Level Agreements and templates, and will set out the delegations as agreed by this Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The matters raised in this report do not have any impact on climate change as they address procedural matters and delegations.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Auckland Transport (AT), Watercare Services Limited (WSL) and Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) were involved in the preparation of the council’s submission on the Act and are also involved in the preparation of a Guidance Manual being developed by the Resource Consents department. This includes updates to existing Service Level Agreements between the Resource Consents department and the CCOs.

20. The relevant CCOs including AT, WSL and Panuku were contacted for their views on this report and changes were made to the red flag criteria as a result.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Local Boards were invited to provide their feedback to the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Six local boards provided their feedback, and this was appended to the Auckland Council submission that was made on 21 June 2020. These local boards were as follows: Albert-Eden, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa and Waitematā.

22. Local Board Services staff were contacted to discuss the establishment of delegations and local board involvement in the process. As set out in paragraph 16, where an application is ‘red flagged’ at the first step in the process, all relevant local board members will be notified. Local boards can provide feedback on resource consents via an established delegation, however, feedback on notices of requirement must be provided via a formal local board resolution.

23. At the start of this electoral term, local boards delegated certain duties associated with resource consents to a local board member (or members). This included the authority to provide local board views and to speak to those views at any hearings on notified resource consents. Local boards can use these existing delegations to provide feedback on resource consent applications in the fast-track consenting process, primarily being feedback to the Minister on whether an application should be referred, and if referred, feedback to the Expert Panel. There will also be the opportunity to provide feedback on any draft conditions. Local board feedback will be appended to any Auckland Council input.

24. For notices of requirement, at the earliest step in the process under section 21(2), local boards will be notified of any notice of requirement. This will allow local boards to discuss the application and agree on feedback at the next business meeting. Feedback can then be incorporated if and when the application is agreed to be referred to the Expert Consenting Panel and the council’s comments are sought under Schedule 6, clause 17(2). Local board feedback will be appended to the Auckland Council comments that are provided to the Expert Consenting Panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Staff involved in preparing the council’s submission included the council’s Māori Outcomes Leads. Staff invited Independent Māori Statutory Board staff to participate in the preparation of the submission. In addition, an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, Glen Wilcox formed part of the group delegated to approve the submission.

26. As set out in paragraph 16 above, a red flag system will operate where an application will be sent out to the nominated Independent Māori Statutory Board member, Chair of the Planning Committee, Chair of the Regulatory Committee, relevant Ward Councillor and local board members.

27. Included in the criteria for ‘red flagging’ an application is where it is contrary to the outcomes of the Auckland Plan which includes Māori identity and wellbeing, and where it is clearly inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan. Iwi and mataawaka in Tāmaki Makaurau were engaged in the development of these plans and the outcomes they identify.

28. Within the Act, iwi have the same opportunity as local authorities to engage in the process at various stages.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Staff resourcing will focus on the areas where the work can be cost recoverable but there will be some additional staff resourcing required, whereby costs will be met by existing budgets. No additional funding is sought.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The proposed ‘red flag’ system will ensure that developments that meet the criteria for being contrary to the Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland Plan, out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and/or require significant public infrastructure investment are notified early in the process.

31. The Guidance Manual will set out process parameters, Service Level Agreements, templates and delegations as agreed by this Committee. This will ensure that staff across Auckland Council and the CCOs are aware of the timeframes and process steps for applications that are made under the Act.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. A Guidance Manual is currently being prepared by the Resource Consents department that will provide process parameters, Service Level Agreements, templates and set out the delegations as made by this Committee.

33. The tier 3 managers will exercise their authority in accordance with the resolutions of this Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	General rules for delegations	75

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Jennings - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

13 August 2020

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2020

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2020
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)
Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of interim monitoring reports ahead of November 2021. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Maori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.	Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.								W
Strategic approach to post-Covid Auckland
Strategic response to Covid-19 Chief Planning Office	Progress the COVID-19 strategic response discussion – workstreams and workshop date tbc	Decision required: to be confirmed
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Six monthly implementation update	Decision required Approving minor updates to the Plan to keep it up to date			C						C
	Annual scorecard	Decision required: depends on outcomes of scorecard
	Further work arising from the deep-dive	Decision required: depends on outcomes of deep-dive
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management Act Framework Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act comprehensive reform - Further consideration of later stages of reform and recommendations.	Decision required: awaiting confirmation of implications of recommendations
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The NPS UD was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations	Decision required: consider the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS UD
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management	Decision required: to be confirmed								M
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office		Decision required: to be confirmed								M
Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme Chief Planning Office	Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.	Decision required: Receive update on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams following the Political Governance meeting in February 2020.								M
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights									C
											C
	Research findings	Decision required: consider research and implications
	Consider options	Decision required:
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
ATAP Refresh	Including climate lens and monitoring. Terms of reference to be decided. Indicative timing only	Decision required: tbc Terms of Reference endorsed at Emergency Committee 14 May 2020 EME/2020/62					C					C (tbc)
Future Connect and Regional Land Transport Plan	Including climate lens and monitoring. Provide direction for RLTP 2021-2031. Phase 1 of this process, being run by AT, is called ‘Future Connect’ and involves definition of focus areas for planning and investment and ranking of issues. AT’s focus is the period 2028-2031 and future priorities.	Decision required: Much of the committee work in relation to the RLTP, which will follow Future Connect will take place in early 2021. Provision is made here for a possible direction-setting workshop towards the end of 2020.									W (tbc)
Congestion Question	Congestion question project final report. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: project updates and reporting										C (tbc)
City Centre to Mangere light rail	Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: subject to Cabinet consideration
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Status update to be confirmed	Decision required: to be confirmed
Regional parking strategy review	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. Timing is uncertain but the indicative completion date is mid-2020. Concurrently, Transport Strategy has initiated a research project looking beyond operational issues, analysing statutory (and potential) mechanisms pertaining to supply and management of parking. The purpose is to support our climate action planning, inform the AT parking strategy refresh and to inform any Unitary Plan review.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	Following direction from the Mayor and Chair, Transport Strategy will be working with MoT and AT as part of the PTOM review process. Next steps to be confirmed September 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Hamilton to Auckland High Speed Rail business case	Status update to be confirmed.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure
Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy work programme	Engagement with Ministers and engagement with the work underway ahead of report back to Cabinet (previously scheduled for May 2020). Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure Strategy Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	30 Year Infrastructure Strategy – strategic insights and direction (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee – forms part of LTP)	Decision required: timeframe and decisions to be confirmed in line with LTP
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule Plans and Places	Environment and Climate Change Committee noted (resolution ECC/2020/30) that staff will consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities and report back to Planning Committee.	Decision required: consider a full review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule											C
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act to make plan council and private changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.


Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change.						W		W
Plan Change - Onehunga Wharf Panuku and Plans and Places	Present draft plan change to committee prior to seeking public feedback. Will seek committee accept plan change as a public plan change in early 2021.	Decision required: Presentation of draft plan change prior to public consultation.									W
Plans Change – Events on Public Space Plans and Places	Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.	Decision required: Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.									C
Auckland Housing Programme – area plans and potential plan changes Plans and Places	Kainga Ora has prepared a spatial development strategy for the Mt Roskill and Mangere areas. These may need area plans for consultation with the community and local boards. Some plan changes may come out of this work for parts of these areas.	Decision required: Endorsement of draft area plans for public consultation.										C
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space Plans and Places	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.												C

C Committee

W Workshop

M Memo update

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
CPO	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill	Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
Urban Growth and Housing	Submission on the Urban Development Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
CPO	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring	Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption	Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
DPO	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government	Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
CPO	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan	Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
		Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
CPO	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan	Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Plans and Places	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission	Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change	Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas	Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai	Decision required: Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44

[1] Our Water Future – Tō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei, was released on 17 February 2019. Over 7,400 responses were received.

[2] Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Survey, January 2020

[3] Rainwater tank People’s Panel survey, 2 December 2019

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 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

Date	Memorandum
3/7/2020	Approval of the second round Innovating Streets application (Attachment B)
7/7/2020	Summary of the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Working Group Options for moving freight from the Ports of Auckland (Attachment C)
9/7/2020	Central government decision announcements on Action for Healthy Waterways package – 28 May 2020 (Attachment D)
15/7/2020	Auckland Unitary Plan appeals and review proceedings – update (Attachment E)
23/7/2020	Update on the current status of the city centre programme (Attachment F)
7/8/2020	Auckland Unitary Plan update (Attachment G)
10/8/2020	The current costs of adding trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Notable Tree Schedule (Schedule 10) (Attachment H)
10/8/2020	National Policy Statement on Urban Development (Attachment I)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update - July 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Approval of the second round Innovating Streets application (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Summary of the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Working Group Options for moving freight from the Ports of Auckland (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Central government decision announcements on Action for Healthy Waterways package – 28 May 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Unitary Plan appeals and review proceedings – update (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Update on the current status of the city centre programme (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Auckland Unitary Plan update (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	The current costs of adding trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Notable Tree Schedule (Schedule 10) (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	National Policy Statement on Urban Development (Under Separate Cover)

	Information Item
	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – July 2020 (Attachment A)

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