Agenda of Planning Committee

Planning Committee

01 October 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan – Submissions on four private plan changes at Drury

File No.: CP2020/13569

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform the Planning Committee of the key issues staff have identified to date for inclusion in submissions on the private plan change requests by Fulton Hogan Limited, Kiwi Property Limited, Oyster Capital Limited and Karaka and Drury Limited to rezone land in the Drury future urban area.

2. To delegate to a sub-group of the Planning Committee the authority to approve the council’s submissions on these private plan changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Four significant private plan changes were notified for public submissions on 27 August 2020. The private plan change applicants are:

· Kiwi Property Limited (PC48 (Private): Drury Centre Precinct)

· Fulton Hogan Limited (PC49 (Private): Drury East Precinct)

· Oyster Capital Limited (PC50 (Private): Waihoehoe Precinct)

· Karaka and Drury Limited (PC51 (Private): Drury 2 Precinct).

4. Submissions on all four private plan changes close on 22 October 2020. The private plan changes will be heard by a council-appointed panel in 2021. After considering submissions and expert evidence, the panel will make the council’s decision on the private plan changes.

5. Staff from various council departments have reviewed the private plan changes and identified issues that warrant inclusion in council submissions. This report highlights those issues and recommends that a sub-group of the Planning Committee is delegated the authority to approve the final submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate to the Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Desley Simpson and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve council submissions on the following private plan changes:

i) Fulton Hogan Limited (PC49 (Private): Drury East Precinct)

ii) Kiwi Property Limited (PC48 (Private): Drury Centre Precinct)

iii) Oyster Capital Limited (PC50 (Private): Waihoehoe Precinct)

iv) Karaka and Drury (PC51 (Private): Drury 2 Precinct).

Horopaki

Context

6. The Planning Committee accepted PC48, PC49 and PC50 at its meeting on 2 July 2020 (resolutions PLA/2020/39, PLA/2020/40 and PLA/2020/41). Full documentation of these private plan changes was provided as attachments to the agenda item. Acceptance in this context means that the private plan changes were accepted for public notification for submissions.

7. At the same meeting, the Planning Committee noted that staff will report back to the Planning Committee on a potential Auckland Council submission (PLA/2020/38).

8. PC51 was accepted for notification under delegated authority on 12 August 2020.

9. Collectively, the four private plan changes propose urban zoning of about 365 hectares of the Drury future urban area. They are clustered around the existing State Highway 22, Great South Road and State Highway 1 Drury interchange. The full plan change proposals can be viewed online at: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/proposed-plan-changes/Pages/default.aspx

10. All four private plan changes were notified for submissions on 27 August 2020 and submissions close on 22 October 2020. Anyone, including the council, may make a submission. The submissions will be heard by a council-appointed panel in 2021. The hearing panel will make the council decisions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The council is not required to make submissions on private plan changes. However, making a submission is the only way to guarantee the hearing panel has the legal scope to carefully consider issues that may be of concern to the council.

12. Staff from various council departments have reviewed the private plan changes and identified the following key issues that warrant inclusion in council submissions.

Infrastructure funding and financing, timing and location

13. The most significant issues raised by all four private plan changes relate to their timing relative to the timeframes set out in the Auckland Plan (and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy) and the funding, financing and delivery of key infrastructure - with transport infrastructure being a significant area of concern. The Karaka and Drury Limited private plan change to the west of State Highway 1 is on land identified to be “development ready” (i.e. rezoned and provided with the necessary bulk infrastructure) from 2022 (subject to funding). The three private plan changes to the east of State Highway 1 are on land identified as being “development ready” from 2028 (subject to funding).

14. While the government has made a significant commitment to resolving existing transport congestion issues and accelerating development in Drury (through $2.395 billion in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme), there is still a significant funding shortfall. There are also potential funding and financing issues with other infrastructure.

15. Council and Auckland Transport staff are involved in ongoing discussions with staff from Kiwi Rail, New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Ministry of Transport on the transport funding, financing and timing issue. Considerable engagement has also occurred with the four private plan change applicants and other landowners in the Drury area on the transport and other infrastructure funding and financing issues. This engagement will continue.

16. Infrastructure funding and financing issues will need to be resolved. If they are not resolved, the council (as a submitter) and Auckland Transport will need to oppose the private plan changes at the hearing.

17. It is therefore critical that infrastructure funding, financing and timing issues are raised in the council submissions on all four private plan changes so that a resolution may be sought. There are also issues relating to the location of infrastructure within and adjacent to the private plan changes that will need to be raised.

Land use and transport integration including zoning, density and walkability near public transport

18. All four private plan changes are largely consistent with the council’s Drury- Opāheke Structure Plan (adopted by the Planning Committee in August 2019). However, there are some detailed issues with the proposed zoning in the private plan changes, and the integration of the private plan changes with existing and proposed transport and other infrastructure. These issues will need to be raised in the council submissions.

Stormwater, water quality, riparian protection and biodiversity

19. All four private plan changes are supported by technical reports that explain how stormwater will be managed, water quality maintained, riparian areas protected and the biodiversity objectives in the Auckland Unitary Plan achieved. Specific provisions are also included within the private plan changes. However, on a preliminary review, the private plan changes do not adequately address these issues. These issues will need to be raised in the council submissions.

Open space provision

20. The open space identified in the Kiwi Property private plan change does not meet the council’s policy for the provision and acquisition of open space. This, and potentially other matters relating to open space will need to be raised in the council submissions.

Issues of significance to Mana Whenua

21. The council consulted Mana Whenua during preparation of the Drury–Opāheke Structure Plan. Mana Whenua consulted over the three-year process included Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Huakina Development Trust was also involved in that engagement.

22. Urbanisation of the Drury–Opāheke area has a significant potential impact on Mana Whenua. A key outcome identified by Mana Whenua was to ensure their cultural interests and resources are protected and managed appropriately so that future generations can continue to utilise and benefit from these. Maintaining and enhancing the life-supporting capacity and mauri of their taonga was identified as fundamental to this. This means that the future urbanisation and development of the area should be designed from the start to have positive environmental and cultural effects.

23. Three of the four private plan change proposals include cultural values assessments from the same Mana Whenua. The cultural values assessments and past information received from Mana Whenua will inform the council submissions.

Provision for notable trees

24. There are trees within the area of the private plan changes that may meet the criteria for inclusion in the schedule of notable trees in the Auckland Unitary Plan. As the private plan changes do not propose to add to the schedule of notable trees, this is a matter that will need to be addressed in the council submissions.

Other matters relating to a safe, high-quality built environment

25. As well as relying on the general and zone policies and rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan, the private plan changes include provisions that are intended to achieve a safe, high-quality built environment. However, as with several of the matters discussed above, there are further opportunities for improvements that will need to be raised in the council submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. Except for the issue of timing, the private plan changes are largely consistent with the council’s 30-year development strategy in the Auckland Plan and the Drury- Opāheke Structure Plan. Issues associated with sea-level rise and increases in severe weather events are addressed through existing provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan, and do not need to be addressed in the council submissions.

27. However, key matters that should be highlighted in the council submissions are the need for the transport solutions for Drury to be led by public transport and active modes, and the potential climate change impacts of enabling development before these solutions are in place.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Specialists from all relevant council departments are involved in preparing the council submissions. Comments received to date have informed this report and indicate there are significant issues that should be raised in the council submissions.

29. Discussions with staff from Auckland Transport and Watercare are taking place to identify issues of mutual interest that may be addressed in those agencies’ submissions and the council’s submissions.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. Local boards will be provided a summary of all submissions received and they will be able to give their feedback on the proposals. This is part of the section 42A process and will be included in the report prepared under that section of the Resource Management Act for the hearings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua have not been consulted in this part of the submission process. Iwi and mataawaka are encouraged to make a submission on the private plan changes so as to ensure they are a legal party to the private plan changes.

32. The consultation that has occurred with mana whenua over the three years of the structure plan process will inform council’s submission along with the cultural values assessments that have been lodged as part of the proposals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. Preparation of the submissions is able to be managed within existing budgets. Preparing legal submissions and evidence for the hearings may place pressure on existing budgets. If necessary, a report will be prepared for the Finance and Performance Committee on this matter.

34. The submissions can potentially address the significant infrastructure funding and financing implications of the private plan changes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. If the council does not make submissions, there is a risk that the hearing panel will not have legal scope to address important issues or have the benefit of hearing council evidence on those matters. This could result in outcomes that are not consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act. These risks can be mitigated, although not necessarily eliminated, by making submissions, taking part in negotiations and mediations, and presenting evidence at the hearings.

36. Ongoing engagement with Kiwi Rail, New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, the private plan change applicants and other landowners (and the technical work that informs this) is a critical process for mitigating the risks to all parties.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. The next step is to complete the draft submissions for review and approval by the recommended sub-group of the Planning Committee. The submissions must be completed by 22 October 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turbott - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 October 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan – Consideration of private plan change request – Patumahoe South

File No.: CP2020/13440

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide under Clause 25 to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from Askew Consultants Limited in relation to 34.5ha of land at Patumahoe South.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request lodged in October 2019 from Askew Consultants Limited. The private plan change request seeks to rezone 34.5ha of land at Carter Road, Patumahoe Road and Mauku Road, Patumahoe from Rural Production and Single House zone to Single House, Light Industry, Open Space – Informal Recreation and Future Urban zones, and extend the Patumahoe precinct, with amendments, to the land.

3. The private plan change request is included as Attachment A to this report.

4. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991^{^[1]} the council may either:

a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or

b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or

c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or

d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent, or

e) a combination of options a) to c).

5. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) accept the private plan change request by Askew Consultants Limited for Patumahoe South, included as Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

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

A) it is not frivolous or vexatious

B) the substance of the request has not been considered within the last two years

C) a coarse-grain assessment of the request does not indicate that the private plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice

D) a coarse-grain assessment does not indicate that the private plan change will make the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) contrary to Part 5 of the Resource Management Act

E) the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years

ii) accepting the private plan change request will enable a range of matters including infrastructure provision and development on elite and prime soils to be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process

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

b) delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Askew Consultants Limited for Patumahoe South pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991

c) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to approve a council submission on the private plan change to address the matters raised in the agenda report and any other relevant matter.

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

6. The private plan change request relates to 34.5ha of land located immediately south of the Patumahoe township (refer to Figure 1). Patumahoe is an established rural township located some 9km west of Pukekohe, consisting of a small town centre surrounded by low density residential activity zoned Residential – Single House. Based on 2013 Census data, the township comprises 850 dwellings, although this will have likely increased significantly due to residential expansions to the north and west of the township.

7. The land subject to the private plan change request (‘plan change land’) is contained in 26 individual records of title, and comprises a range of rural and residential activities including grazing, cropping, horticulture, home occupations and ancillary farming activities as well as numerous dwellings. The land has a gentle contour that falls generally in a southerly direction.

8. Immediately south of the plan change land is the Paerata-Waiuku branch railway line, and beyond that are sites used for industry. The eastern and western extents of the plan change land are bounded by rural uses including horticulture and grazing. The eastern boundary is defined by a natural escarpment. To the north lies the Patumahoe town centre and residential suburbs, separated by Patumahoe Road. Immediately northwest of the plan change land is Patumahoe Domain, an open space accommodating rugby fields.

9. Within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (‘AUP’), the plan change land is primarily zoned Rural – Rural Production, except for a small area of land zoned Single House (refer to Figure 2 below), and is subject to the following controls:

a) Natural Resources: High-Use Stream Management Areas Overlay

b) Natural Resources: High-Use Aquifer Management Areas Overlay - Glenbrook Kaawa Aquifer

c) Natural Resources: High-Use Aquifer Management Areas Overlay - Pukekohe North Volcanic

d) Natural Resources: Quality-Sensitive Aquifer Management Areas Overlay - Franklin Volcanic Aquifer

e) Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index - Rural

f) Controls: Subdivision Variation Control - Urban, Patumahoe 800m2.

10. The plan change land is identified within the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (‘NZLRI’) as containing Land Use Capability (‘LUC’) Class 1 soils. LUC Class 1 land is “the most versatile multiple-use land with minimal physical limitations for arable use”^{^[2]}. Class 1 soils fall within the definition of ‘elite soils’ in the AUP. As discussed later in this report, the applicant considers that, based on site-specific investigations, the actual classification of the land is a combination of LUC Class 2 and 3, which are considered to have greater limitations for productive uses, and are classified as ‘prime soils’ rather than elite soils in the AUP.

11. The land is bisected by an overland flow path and an associated 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (‘AEP’) flood plain, which follows an east-west alignment.

12. A resource consent application has been approved on land contained within the plan change area and zoned Residential – Single House, at Carter Road (Lot 1 DP169130) for 30 residential allotments.

Figure 1: Site context

Figure 2: Existing zoning under Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016

Lot 1 DP169130: Site subject to resource consent for 30 dwellings

Policy context

13. The Auckland Plan 2050 seeks that most of Auckland's anticipated population and dwelling growth over the next 30 years be within the existing urban area. This is reflected within the AUP, which seeks to achieve growth within the framework of a quality compact urban form^{^[3]}.

14. However, both the Auckland Plan and AUP anticipate growth occurring in rural towns and villages. The AUP seeks that “growth and development of existing or new rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled”^{^[4]} subject to particular criteria being met, whilst the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy outlines that “residential growth in rural Auckland will be focused mainly in the towns which provide services for the wider rural area particularly the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth”^{^[5]}.

15. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (‘FULSS’), sets out the sequencing of future urban land for development within Auckland. The FULSS identifies land to the west of the Patumahoe township known as Patumahoe Hill, zoned Single House in the AUP, as being development ready immediately. The land subject to the request is not identified within the FULSS for urban development.

16. The AUP identifies greenfield areas in Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata for future urban growth. These areas are identified within the FULSS as being development ready at various stages between now and 2032, with the exact sequence of urbanisation depending on contextual considerations and constraints. These areas are subject to structure plans prepared by Council in 2019^{^[6]} to determine how future urban growth will be provided for at a strategic level. In addition, Council has received private plan change requests to enable the development of particular landholdings within the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan area. The land subject to this plan change request is not located within the Future Urban Zone, and would represent growth additional to that anticipated in the Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata structure plan areas.

17. Through Te Tupu Ngātahi / Supporting Growth Alliance (‘SGA’), Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency have identified the preferred transport network and interventions required to support growth within future urban areas in the south.

18. Of particular relevance to this private plan change request are the following projects identified by SGA:

a) two new train stations (Drury Central and Drury West) located on either side of SH1;

b) electrification of the railway track between Papakura and Pukekohe;

c) State Highway 1 Papakura to Drury improvements, including three-laning the state highway and upgrading the Drury interchange, to be completed by 2025.

19. In January 2020, central government announced the New Zealand Upgrade Programme (‘NZUP’), which allocated funding to transport infrastructure within Drury-Opāheke, including fully funding the above projects.

20. Central Government has proposed a National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The discussion document informing the NPS-HPL^{^[7]} proposes national direction on urban expansions on to productive land, and outlines specific considerations for private plan changes that relate to productive land. The NPS-HPL is expected to be gazetted and take effect in the first half of 2021.

Private plan change content

21. The plan change request is set out in Attachment A. The proposed plan change seeks to rezone 34.5ha of land at Carter Road, Patumahoe Road and Mauku Road from Rural Production and Single House to a combination of Residential – Single House, Business – Light Industry and Future Urban (refer to Figure 3) in the AUP. Specifically:

a) The majority of the land is proposed to be zoned Single House to provide for residential activity;

b) The Light Industry zone is proposed over land adjacent to the rail corridor, to provide for local employment and as a buffer between residential activity and the rail corridor;

c) The Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone is proposed over part of the land to accommodate a neighbourhood park;

d) The Future Urban zone is proposed to apply to land east of Patumahoe Road. This land accommodates an existing poultry farm (at 75 Patumahoe Road), and as such is not considered by the applicant to be suitable for immediate urban development.

22. In addition, the plan change seeks to apply the operative Patumahoe Precinct to the land, with the following amendments (refer to Figure 4):

a) Rezoning of the subject land to Single House, Light Industry, Open Space and Future Urban zones;

b) Adding a new sub-precinct, with associated provisions, into Precinct I430 – to be known as sub-precinct E with an associated precinct plan (Patumahoe Precinct Plan 3);

c) Incorporating a new activity Table (Table I430.4.2) into Precinct I430 to establish the activity status of buildings and subdivision within sub-precinct E;

d) Including sub-precinct E in the relevant existing Standards relating to building design, retaining walls, paving materials and on-site stormwater mitigation;

e) Requiring a new roading structure to be delivered in the indicative location shown on Precinct Plan 3 prior to new titles being issued, and designed to specific standards proposed (by way of cross sections) within the precinct. This includes forming new access points to Patumahoe Road and Mauku Road, and requiring a pedestrian and walking cycling link along the current alignment of Carter Road where it meets Patumahoe Road;

f) Requiring the construction of a stormwater management pond to the southeast of the Patumahoe Domain prior to new titles being issued;

g) Amending Table I430.6.7.1 to introduce minimum net site area standards for sub-precinct E, providing for minimum lot sizes within the Single House Zone of 600m² within 400m of the existing village centre, 800m² generally and 1500m² adjacent to the Paerata-Waiuku railway;

h) Including a new Standard: specifying landscape buffer requirements for sub-precinct E to create effective landscape buffers between different zones/activity areas, including buffers between residential and light industry zoned land, rural land (outside of the precinct), the rail corridor, and the existing poultry farms at 75 Patumahoe Road;

i) Including a new public open space Standard, specifying that a neighbourhood park shall be established within the subject land prior to the occupation of any dwelling located more than 400m from the Patumahoe Domain (note: the views of the relevant parks staff on this area are outlined in paragraph 105).

Figure 3: Proposed zoning sought under plan change request

Figure 4: Proposed Precinct Plan 3 in the Patumahoe Precinct

23. The objective of the plan change, as stated by the applicant is to:

achieve a more sustainable and efficient use of the subject land, through the rezoning of rural land (that has limited productivity under its current zoning) to a mix of live and future urban zoning, that will support the growth and development of Patumahoe as a sustainable rural village.^{^[8]}

24. The applicant has provided the following information to support the plan change request:

· Private plan change request, including drafted changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016

· Section 32 evaluation report

· Specialist reports:

o Cultural Impact Assessments from Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Tamaoho

o Urban design assessment

o Landscape and visual assessment

o Traffic impact assessment

o Earthworks and sediment control

o Engineering and infrastructure report

o Geotech report

o Land use capability assessment

o Land use productivity assessment

o Economic impact assessment

o Stormwater management

o Archaeological assessment.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.^{^[9]} The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,^{^[10]} and procedural steps added^{^[11]} including the opportunity to request information.

26. Council must decide under clause 25 which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report when deciding. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report and clause 25 is set out in full in Attachment B.

27. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information for the request to be determined.

28. The options available to the council under clause 25 are discussed in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been had to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of the clause 25 options.

Options available to the council

Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself

29. Council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change.

30. If the plan change includes a rule that protects or relates to any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B RMA, or provides for or relates to aquaculture activities it may be appropriate for the plan change to have legal effect from notification. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable.

31. Only a council initiated, or an adopted private plan change, could have immediate legal effect.

32. The plan change does not include any proposed rule that would protect, or relate to, any natural or historical resource specified in section 86B. The private plan change is unrelated to aquaculture activities. It is therefore unnecessary to adopt the private plan change request to enable a rule to have immediate legal effect.

33. The request does not address a gap in the AUP, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region.

34. Council meets all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. Council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public. The request is a site-specific proposal, and does not relate to the provision or development of public land. The most immediate or direct benefit, if any, is to the applicant.

35. The applicant did not request that council adopt the private plan change request.

36. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request not be adopted.

Option 2 – Reject the request, in whole or in part

37. Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4).

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

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

i) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request;

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

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

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

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

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

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

39. The private plan change request is not considered frivolous or vexatious. The private plan change is supported by technical assessments on relevant matters including land use capability and productivity, transport, urban design, geotech and stormwater management.

40. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The applicant is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or the subject of extensive community engagement or investment.

41. The applicant advises that the objective of the plan change is to rezone the land to a mix of urban and future urban zonings that will support the growth and development of Patumahoe as a sustainable rural village. The request includes a section 32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments on relevant matters, including land use capability and productivity, transport, urban design, geotech and stormwater management. The request is not frivolous as the private plan change:

a) was considered thoroughly in the application materials

b) is supported by expert opinion, and a section 32 analysis, and

c) cannot be said to have no reasonable chance of succeeding.

42. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The applicant is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, the private plan change request is not vexatious.

43. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

44. The request seeks to apply the urban zonings to land south of Patumahoe township, and apply the Patumahoe Precinct to the land, with amendments. These matters have not been considered by the council within the last two years.

45. Therefore, I recommend the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?

46. Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The site is not within the coastal marine area and therefore section 360A regulations are not relevant.

47. I recommend the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Is the request not in accordance with sound resource management practice?

48. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA.

49. In the recent Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:

“[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009).

[14] Priestley J said in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95) that the words sound resource management practice should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act's purpose and principles. He agreed with the Environment Court's observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act's purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95).

[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).”

50. I understand the consideration of this ground should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level” - and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the plan change is determined.

51. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out at sections 6 to 8. The following assessment has been made with regard to these sections of the RMA.

52. The primary consideration with respect to sound resource management practice relates to land use capability and productivity, with secondary considerations including transport, flooding and stormwater, water and wastewater infrastructure, landscape and visual effects, and geotechnical effects.

Land use capability and productivity

53. The plan change request seeks to enable urban expansion over land containing either elite or prime soils. In accordance with s7(g) RMA, particular regard must be had to the finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.

Land use capability

54. The plan change land is identified within the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory as LUC Class 1 land, which is considered by the Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3rd edition as being “the most versatile multiple-use land with minimal physical limitations for arable use”. The Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) includes LUC Class 1 under the definition of ‘land containing elite’ soil’. The soil classifications identified within the NZLRI are high-level and indicative rather than being definitive. As such, further investigation at a site-specific level is expected by the Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3rd.

55. The plan change request is supported by a Land Use Capability report^{^[12]}, which assesses the capability of the land at a site-specific level, and finds that the land contains no LUC Class 1 Soils. Instead, the assessment identifies 23.2ha (71%) of land as being LUC Class 2^{^[13]}, the majority of this being Patumahoe Clay Loam, and 8.5ha (26%) of land being LUC Class 3^{^[14]}.

56. The capability of the land has also been independently assessed on behalf of the Council by Dr Fiona Curran-Cournane and Dr Reece Hill. Dr Curran-Cournane and Dr Hill have identified similar soil types and extents on the plan change land, but consider that the Patumahoe Clay Loam soils should be classified as LUC Class 1 using the extended legend of the Land Use Capability Survey Handbook, and have thus produced findings different to that of the applicant. The difference between the applicant and Council’s LUC findings are summarised in the below table:

Table 1: Difference in LUC classifications identified in the plan change request and Council’s investigation

LUC Classification	Plan change request findings		Council investigation findings
	Area (ha)	% of plan change land	Area (ha)	% of plan change land
LUC Class 1 (‘elite soils’)	0.0	0%	21.30	58.2%
LUC Class 2 (‘prime soils’)	23.2	71%	14.28	40.4%
LUC Class 3 (‘prime soils’)	8.5	26%	0.70	1.9%
LUC Class 4 and above	1.0	3%	0.31	0.84%
Total	32.7	100%	36.59*	100%

*Note: The discrepancy in area between the applicant and Council’s analysis is due to Council’s investigations including roads within the plan change land and the land at Carter Road zoned Single House and subject to a resource consent application, which were excluded from the applicant’s analysis.

Land use productivity

57. The plan change request is supported by a Land Use Productivity report^{^[15]} which assesses the horticultural productivity of the land by determining the highest possible use of the plan change land on a lot by lot basis, taking into account a broad range of factors. This report finds that much of the land is constrained by fragmented landholdings (and therefore small lots sizes unable to feasibly support productive uses), the presence of existing dwellings, driveways and curtilage, lack of irrigation and proximity to existing residential areas sensitive to the effects of productive uses.

58. Market Economics Ltd has assessed the productivity aspects of the plan change on behalf of Council for sufficiency and accuracy of information. Market Economics Ltd has identified some concerns regarding the applicant’s methodology, particularly that it considers only the current title structure of the land, rather than the potential productivity should titles be amalgamated. A level of assessment greater than a coarse level assessment is required to properly consider this matter.

Overall assessment

59. As discussed in the above paragraphs, sound resource management practice at this stage in the process involves a coarse merits assessment, and sets a high threshold for rejection.

60. The exact land use classification of the soils identified on the land is a matter of difference between Council’s and the applicant’s specialists. Whilst the applicant’s findings differ from the LUC classifications identified by NZLRI, Dr Hill on behalf of Council has advised that the methodology employed by the applicant’s specialists is fundamentally sound. The key point of difference between Council’s and the applicant’s specialists is whether the Patumahoe Clay Loam, identified over some 21ha – 23ha of the site^{^[16]}, should be classified as LUC Class 1 (and subsequently whether it should also be considered ‘land containing elite soils’ under the AUP) or LUC Class 2 (and therefore considered ‘land containing prime soils’ under the AUP).

61. In relation to land use capability, where the appropriateness of a plan change request depends on a technical matter contested by the relevant specialists, this is not considered to cross the threshold of being inconsistent with sound resource management practice. Rather, this is best considered through the submissions and hearings process, through which a detailed assessment can be made.

62. In addition to land use capability, the applicant’s reporting on productivity indicates a number of constraints over the plan change land. Whilst the actual effect of these constraints, and veracity of the information provided, can be queried during a finer merits assessment, for the purposes of a coarse merits assessment it appears there may be productivity constraints (as set out in paragraph 58) associated with the land that would prevent the expansion of a rural town or village over this land being automatically considered to be not sound resource management practice.

63. Taking into account the assessment undertaken by the applicant and Council with regard to the capability and potential productivity of the plan change land, it is considered that the plan change request should not be rejected on the grounds of not being in accordance with sound resource management practice in relation to land use capability and productivity.

Other considerations

64. Transport: The plan change request is supported by a Transport Assessment that finds that “the transport demands generated by the residential and supporting commercial activities allowed by the PC can be accommodated in a manner that ensures safe and efficient transport network operation”. The plan change request has been reviewed by Wes Edwards on behalf of Council for sufficiency and accuracy of information. Mr Edwards is generally satisfied with the information provided to date. The effects of the plan change request (if approved) on the immediate road network, are unlikely to be of a scale that would render the proposal to represent unsound resource management practice.

65. The plan change may result in wider, more dispersed effects not specifically addressed by the applicant’s Transport Assessment, arising from vehicle trips occurring on the wider network (and particularly SH1 and SH22). However, this is likely to be small compared with the vehicle generation associated with the development of future urban areas of Drury-Opāheke and Pukekoe-Paerata, and can be addressed through the submissions and hearings process.

66. Flooding and stormwater: In respect of flooding and stormwater management, the plan change is subject to overland flow paths and the 1% AEP Flood Plain. However, the plan change area can be developed to convey overland flows through the reticulated network with overflows accommodated within the roading network and directed to a communal stormwater device for treatment and detention. Flooding effects can be addressed through earthworks to reduce flooding risk over lower parts of the site, and by setting a minimum finished floor level for future dwellings.

67. Landscape and visual effects are proposed to be addressed by precinct provisions requiring landscaped buffers at the boundary with surrounding rural land and the rail corridor. Whilst the particular buffer sizes and landscape planting types have been queried by Ainsley Verstraeten on behalf of Council through the Clause 23 further information request process, such matters can be addressed through submissions and at a hearing.

68. Infrastructure: The plan change land can likely be serviced by the existing reticulated water and wastewater networks within the Patumahoe township. There is existing public wastewater infrastructure located adjacent to the subject land, and the applicant advises that Watercare Services Ltd has confirmed that the wastewater network has capacity to accommodate post development flows resulting from the plan change. In respect of water supply, there are existing reservoir tanks located in the northern end of the subject land which the applicant notes will need to be upgraded with additional water storage capacity to provide a service to the plan change area. The applicant reports that “an upgrade of the existing reservoirs is provided for in Watercare’s Long Term Plan and will be implemented in conjunction with development of the subject land”^{^[17]}.

69. Geotechnical constraints are identified by the applicant, being slope stability in the eastern section (proposed as Future Urban) and soils within the watercourse area. The applicant notes that future development via resource consent would need to be supported by further geotechnical site investigations. The Auckland Unitary Plan contains provisions (within Chapters E11 and E12 relating to regional and district land disturbance) to require geotechnical effects to be considered and assessed.

70. Parks and open space: The plan change proposes an Open Space – Informal Recreation zoning over part of the plan change land at which a communal stormwater device is proposed. Comment has been sought from Council’s parks team, who have advised that they would seek one 3000m² neighbourhood park as it is Residential - Single House Zone, but would not want to acquire the amount of land shown on I430.10.2 Patumahoe: Precinct plan 3 – Sub-precinct E (as shown on Figure 3) due to the permanent stream and flood plain identified on the site. The exact extent of open space zonings and location can be assessed through submissions and a hearing on the plan change (including a Council submission if necessary to resolve the parks team’s concern).

71. Future Urban zone: The plan change request proposes to apply the Future Urban zone on land that is currently zoned rural. The applicant has proposed this zoning in recognition that whilst the land may be suitable for residential development in the future, currently the land is occupied by a commercial poultry shed and avocado orchard and therefore would not be suitable for urban development sensitive to the effects associated with rural industry.

72. The AUP currently applies the Future Urban Zone to a number of townships located outside of the Rural Urban Boundary, including rural coastal townships at Maraetai, Clark’s Beach, Glenbrook and Algies Bay/Mahurangi, and larger satellite towns of Helensville and Wellsford. The AUP does not explicitly confine this zone to being located within of the RUB^{^[18]}, with the clearest guidance provided in Chapter H18 Future Urban Zone:

The Future Urban Zone is applied to greenfield land that has been identified as suitable for urbanisation. The Future Urban Zone is a transitional zone. Land may be used for a range of general rural activities but cannot be used for urban activities until the site is rezoned for urban purposes.

Therefore, the prospect of land being zoned Future Urban outside of the RUB is not considered to be contrary to sound resource management practice.

73. Precinct: With regard to the proposed application of the existing Patumahoe Precinct to the land, this is considered to generally accord with sound resource management practice given that precincts are established tools to recognise contextual factors, as outlined in Chapter A of the AUP:

enable local differences to be recognised by providing detailed place-based provisions which can vary the outcomes sought by the zone or Auckland-wide provisions and can be more restrictive or more enabling^{^[19]}.

Sound resource management conclusions

74. Having reviewed the applicant's planning and specialist reports, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change request, and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c), Schedule 1.

75. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

76. The primary consideration in terms of Part 5 RMA is whether the request is consistent with the Regional Policy Statement component of the AUP, with a further consideration being the Auckland Plan. These are addressed in the following paragraphs.

Elite and prime soils

77. Both RPS Objective B2.6.1(1)(b) and Policy B2.6.2(1)(d) require that growth of rural and coastal towns and villages “avoids elite soils and avoids where practicable prime soils which are significant for their ability to sustain food production”.

78. A key consideration in assessing the proposal against this policy, is whether the test of being significant to sustain food production applies to prime soils only (setting an absolute ‘avoid’ for expansions on to elite soils), or both elite and prime soils.

79. The construction of a similarly worded policy (B2.2.2(j) in relation to expansion of the Rural Urban Boundary) was considered by the Environment Court in Self Family Trust v Auckland Council [2018] NZEnvC 49 and by the High Court in Gock v Auckland Council [2019] NZHC 276. In the latter, the High Court considered that test of being significant to sustain food production applies to both elite and prime soils, and therefore there is not an absolute requirement to avoid RUB expansions on elite soils. Given the near identical wording between RPS policies for RUB expansions and expansions of rural and coastal towns, this interpretation is considered to be directly relevant to RPS Policy 2.6.2(1)(d).

80. Whether the land contains elite or prime soils is still a material consideration. The AUP definition of ‘land containing elite soils’ includes LUC Class 1 land, as well as Patumahoe Clay Loam (refer to Appendix C for complete definition). The applicant considers that the site-specific analysis of the soils (such characteristics as erosion, susceptibility to flooding, wetness, land aspect and topography) indicates that the soils are not LUC Class 1 and therefore the land does not contain elite soils. It is considered that the AUP definition of ‘land containing elite soils’ is deliberately worded to encompass Patumahoe Clay Loam, irrespective of the LUC classification. Therefore, despite the findings of site-specific analysis undertaken by the applicant, it is considered that the land must be defined as ‘land containing elite soils’ under the AUP.

81. Therefore, the remaining test is whether the soils are significant for their ability to sustain food production. To this end, the applicant has provided technical reports indicating that the soils in question may not be significant for their ability to sustain food production, due to contextual factors including land fragmentation, presence of existing dwellings, driveways and curtilage, proximity to sensitive residential activities, and limited groundwater access.

82. Given the presence of these contextual factors, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that the soils are significant for their ability to sustain food production. The Land Use Productivity report submitted by the applicant outlines that there are ‘considerable constraints on the use of the land in question for vegetable production’^{^[20]}, and finds that the land available for horticultural use (not already held in dwellings and curtilage) is constrained by other factors, including soil quality^{^[21]} and those factors listed above.

Other considerations

83. With respect to the remaining matters relevant to rural and coastal towns and villages under Policy B2.6.2(1) (refer to Appendix C):

a) The proposed zonings, primarily the Single House Zone, provides for low-density residential development of a similar character to the established Patumahoe township;

b) The proposal will likely incorporate adequate provision for infrastructure in terms of the indicative roading network and stormwater devices provided for on the plan change land, and the availability of connections to the water and wastewater networks;

c) The natural hazard risks associated with flooding and geotechnical issues can be resolved through resource consent processes. The primary area within the plan change land subject to flood risk is proposed as an open space in the plan change request;

d) The proposal seeks to maintain separation between incompatible land uses, by providing for buffer areas between proposed residential areas and: light industry zoned areas; the rail corridor to the south, rural land to the west and the existing Poultry farm at 75 Patumahoe Road;

e) The plan change land is located close to the township and seeks to provide for walking and cycling access to the town;

f) The proposed expansion is not on land scheduled in the Auckland Unitary Plan in relation to natural heritage, Mana Whenua, natural resources, coastal environment, historic heritage or special character.

84. For the purposes of a Clause 25 assessment the plan change request is also considered to not be contrary to:

a) Other relevant RPS chapters of the AUP, particularly the remainder of B2 Urban growth and form, B3.3. Transport, B7 Natural resources and B10 Environmental risk;

b) The Auckland Plan 2050, which seeks that residential growth in rural areas is contained within rural towns and villages. The request seeks to provide for residential growth on the periphery of an existing rural town.

85. On a coarse assessment it is not considered that the plan change request will make the plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

86. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

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

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

88. It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.

Option 3 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

89. The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

90. The plan change request seeks to establish urban zonings over land that is currently zoned Rural Production in the AUP. It is more appropriate to consider changes of this nature through a private plan change than through an application for resource consent.

91. Therefore, it is recommended that the private plan change request not be dealt with as if it were an application for a resource consent.

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

92. Council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative. It is considered that the private plan change request should be accepted in whole and that there is no reason to accept (or reject) only parts of the request.

93. There is not a demonstrable need for any rule proposed by the plan change to have immediate legal effect, and therefore adoption is not required.

94. The private plan change mechanism is an opportunity for an applicant to have their proposal considered between a council’s ten-yearly plan review cycle. The subject matter of this private plan change request is not a priority matter for a council-led planning investigation, and is not presently being considered. The private plan change process is a means by which this matter can be considered before the next plan review.

95. If the private plan change is accepted the matters raised is this report can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

96. The applicant did not request that council adopt the private plan change request.

Conclusion: options assessment

97. The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law^{^[22]} that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

98. Council declared a climate emergency in Auckland, in June 2019. The decision included a commitment for all council decision-makers to consider the climate implications of their decisions. In particular, consideration needs to be given in two key ways:

a) how the proposed decision will impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions;

b) what effect climate change could have over the lifetime of a proposed decision and how these effects are being taken into account.

99. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. The clause 25 decision is unrelated to any greenhouse gas emissions. The decision requested is a decision of short duration. Climate impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

100. Comment has been sought from Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited on the private plan change. Both Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited are considering making a submission on the plan change if notified.

101. Healthy Waters staff have provided input into the plan change request in respect of the sufficiency and accuracy of information, and have not raised any fundamental concerns regarding the request.

102. Council’s Parks Planning team have provided comments on the plan change, and have advised that they:

a) would seek one 3000m² neighbourhood park as it is Residential - Single House Zone;

b) would not be seeking to acquire the amount of land shown on I430.10.2 Patumahoe: Precinct plan 3 – Sub-precinct E. The location will also have to be carefully considered as the area shown on I430.10.2 Patumahoe: Precinct plan 3 – Sub-precinct E has a permanent stream running through it and is mostly covered in a floodplain;

c) in relation to point (b), the merits of the Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone proposed can be considered as part of submissions and hearings on the plan change.

103. These issues can be addressed through a council submission on the private plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

104. Local boards’ views are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. The views of the Franklin Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will be able to present its views to hearing commissioners, if it chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

105. Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application. Although council is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. The clause 25 decision does not affect the Franklin Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Consequence of clause 25 options for future consultation

106. If council accepts a private plan change request, it is not required to complete pre-notification engagement with iwi authorities. If the council accepts the request and subsequently notifies it, iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions. No changes can be made to the private plan change prior to notification.

107. If council adopts a private plan change the same consultation requirements apply as though the plan change was initiated by council: consultation with iwi authorities is mandatory prior to notification. Changes can be made to the plan change prior to notification. Iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions after notification.

108. None of the clause 25 options trigger any signed mana whakahono a rohe (iwi participation arrangement).

Substance of private plan change request

109. The proposed plan change does not relate to Māori land or Treaty Settlement Land, nor does it relate to any identified Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Record of applicant’s consultation

110. The applicant has engaged with the following iwi groups who have expressed an interest in the proposal:

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Maru

· Waikato – Tainui.

111. In response, both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata have prepared Cultural Impact Assessments, which recommend methods for treating stormwater discharges, appropriate planting within the precinct, and implementation of accidental discovery protocols.

112. Consultation with Te Ākitai is now progressing and may result in further cultural considerations being raised through the planning process, which will be reported on through the hearing process for the plan change.

113. The remaining iwi contacted did not respond to the application. However, if accepted all iwi authorities will be notified and will be able to make a submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

114. Accepting private plan change requests has no direct financial implications for the Council as the costs associated with processing them under the RMA are able to be recovered from the applicants. If the request is accepted or, if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the applicant would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.

115. Costs associated with making a council submission on the private plan change can be managed within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

116. The key risk associated with accepting the private plan change request is that this decision could be perceived as supporting the expansion of rural and coastal towns and villages onto prime and elite soils. However, as noted in this report, accepting the private plan change does not mean that the council will ultimately support it. It simply means that it is the most appropriate decision to make in response to the matters set out in clause 25 of the RMA.

117. The risk can be mitigated by a council submission on the issue of elite and prime soils and other relevant aspects of the private plan change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

118. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance. A separate evaluation and decision will be required regarding extent of notification.

119. A submission will be prepared and presented to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board for approval.

120. The views and preferences of the Franklin Local Board will be sought after submissions close for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.

121. Council will need to hold a hearing to consider submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change Request	37
b ⇩	Clause 25 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sanjay Bangs - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change 28 - Decision	103

Planning Committee

01 October 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan – Making operative Private Plan Change 23 – Smales Farm

File No.: CP2020/13574

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Private Plan Change 23, Smales Farm, a private plan change requested by Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd concerning the Smales 1 Precinct and its Business Park zoning in Takapuna.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd applied for a private plan change (PC23) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) in 2018 to amend the Smales 1 Precinct applying to the Smales Farm business park in Takapuna. The site has an underlying zoning of Business-Business Park Zone.

3. PC23 proposed a significant increase in building floor area, including residential apartment buildings up to 100m in height (30 storeys). Further office and commercial and community activities would also be enabled, primarily centred on a pedestrian plaza with direct links to the adjoining Smales Farm bus station. Retail and commercial uses would be governed in floor area on a scale akin to that of a Business-Local Centre Zone.

4. PC23 was publicly notified on 12 April 2019, the further submission period closed on 28 June 2019, and 24 submissions were received (18 original and six further). The hearing of submissions was in December 2019 and the hearing panel’s deliberations concluded in mid-January 2020.

5. The hearing panel (council) decision dated 29 April 2020 was notified on 30 April 2020 and it attracted one appeal from the private plan change requestor (the applicant) seeking a number of minor text changes and a correction to a precinct plan.

6. The appeal has been resolved by mutual agreement and a consent order dated 8 September 2020 has been issued by the Environment Court (refer Attachment B).

7. PC23 can now be approved under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). This will enable it to become operative and incorporated into the AUP – refer Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Plan Change 23 Smales Farm to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 in its final form in the council decision dated 29 April 2020, as amended by the consent order of the Environment Court dated 8 September 2020 (Attachment A)

b) request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and incorporate the change into the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) 2016.

Horopaki

Context

8. Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd applied for a private plan change (PC23) in 2018 to amend the Smales 1 Precinct of the AUP applying to the Smales Farm business park in Takapuna.

9. PC23 would transition Smales Farm over a long period from a one-dimensional ‘business park’ to a high intensity, transit oriented mixed-use precinct. It would enable in the order of 1,350 residential units and further office, retail, commercial, educational and community uses to at least 162,000 m² of floor area (three times its current floor area). Apartment buildings would be up to 100m high (30 storeys). A central pedestrian plaza of at least 1,000 m²in area would be formed once a specified quantum of development had been reached – just over twice that which exists today. Development would be located and designed to strengthen links with the Smales Farm bus station. The quantum of retail and commercial uses would be governed over time to a scale akin to that of a Business - Local Centre Zone, with an incentive to locate by the central plaza.

10. PC23 was notified on 12 April 2019 and attracted 18 submissions and six further submissions. The hearing of submissions was in December 2019, and this followed an extensive amount of pre-hearing negotiation and agreement with the applicant and key submitters on the revised form of PC23 recommended to the panel. This included discussions and important recommendations arising from Auckland Council and Auckland Transport submissions on the plan change. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board was briefed on the plan change but decided not to provide any comment.

11. The council’s decision dated 29 April 2020 was notified on 30 April 2020. The hearing panel considered that the decision was generally in the realms of ‘fine tuning’ of what had been agreed prior to the hearing. The panel found that the ‘residential accommodation’ and ‘mixed-use’ objectives of the plan change were appropriate, given the site’s proximity to major transport and social infrastructure and to other services and facilities in the wider Takapuna area. It found the site was well suited for intensive use and tall structures, due to non-residential zones and uses occupying most of the adjoining lands. All building development would be subject to resource consents, as restricted discretionary activities, and comprehensive assessments addressing shadowing, privacy, urban design considerations and wider cityscape impacts. Consent applications could be declined in certain circumstances.

12. Following the decision’s release, one appeal was lodged, by the private plan change applicant Northcote RD1 Holdings Ltd (appellant). The appellant sought various relatively minor changes to the council’s decision, many of which were technical in nature. Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi (New Zealand Transport Agency) gave notice of their interest in the appeal pursuant to section 274 of the Act. They had a concern regarding the wording of one objective and discussions were held concerning this; no changes were required. These parties subsequently withdrew their section 274 notices and took no further part in proceedings.

13. The changes to the PC23 text sought by the appellant were evaluated by planning staff and inhouse experts and found to be relatively minor and worthy of support. Many were solely of a technical nature; some were to achieve an internal consistency of wording and administrative efficiency; and the remaining changes tightened up and clarified assessment criteria for tall structures. The changes were then agreed with and approved under delegated authority, in line with a recent policy decision from the Planning Committee (13 August 2020, PLA/2020/51). Consent documentation was agreed between the appellant and the council and lodged with the Environment Court. A consent order was subsequently issued by the Environment Court dated 8 September 2020 (Attachment B).

14. The consent order concludes the plan change process and enables PC23 to be approved by council and notified as operative, to then become part of the AUP. The final form of PC23 is at Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Schedule 1 of the Act sets out the statutory process for plan changes. Clause 17 provides for the approval by a local authority of a proposed plan change where all submissions or appeals relating to it have been disposed of.

16. The approval of the plan change does not involve any further analysis as it is a procedural decision which a council must make once all prior processes have been completed. The appeal on the council’s decision on PC23, by the plan change applicant, has been resolved by way of consent order of the Environment Court, thereby enabling clause 17 approval.

17. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 requires that following approval an operative date for the plan change is to be publicly notified. Staff acting under delegated authority will notify an operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution and then incorporate the plan change into the AUP.

18. A private plan change has no legal status during its processing stages and only achieves any regulatory status at the point the council makes its decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. There are not considered to be any issues pertaining directly to climate change. It is noted however that PC23 will enable developments that over time will encourage a greater proportion of trips to and from Smales Farm to be made by more sustainable modes of travel.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. It is not necessary to obtain the views of the wider council group in respect of this procedural decision. Auckland Transport and Watercare Services did submit on the plan change and in due course all their concerns were satisfactorily resolved.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. Local Board views are not required in respect of this procedural decision. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board was briefed on PC23 at the time of its notification but did not submit. The Local Board has been advised of the council’s decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The 11 iwi authorities listed below were written to in March 2019, prior to notification, and no submissions were received when the plan change was notified in April 2019:

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Te Patukirikiri

· Ngāti Paoa

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whanaunga Te Kawerau Ā Maki

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaoho.

23. Further engagement with iwi is not required in respect of this procedural decision.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is an administrative and statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There are no risk issues arising from the approval and subsequent operative status of the plan change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Following approval, staff acting under delegated authority will do those things required by Schedule 1 of the Act to make PC23 Smales Farm operative and incorporate it into the AUP – refer Attachment A.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	PC 23 Smales Farm, Environment Court consent order	157
b ⇩	PC 23 Smales Farm - for approval	169

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ewen Patience - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 October 2020

Urban Development Act - establishing political working groups for specified development areas

File No.: CP2020/11759

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Planning Committee on the commencement of the Urban Development Act 2020 and to delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy of the Planning Committee the power to establish a political working group to provide staff with political direction on exercising the council’s powers and functions under the Act in certain cases.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Urban Development Act 2020 (the Act) commenced on 7 August 2020. The Act provides for functions, powers, rights and duties of the Crown entity Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, to enable it to undertake its urban development functions.

3. The Act gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers and the ability to establish specified development projects. Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in business as usual developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development. Not all powers will be needed by every project. A summary of the powers available to Kāinga Ora is provided at Attachment A.

4. The Act confers a number of powers and functions on Auckland Council such as indicating support for the establishment of a specified development area and nominating a representative to sit on an independent hearings panel for a specified development project. Staff can largely utilize existing delegations to undertake work under the Act.

5. The timeframes for carrying out these powers and functions are tight, only 20 working days in some instances. As such, actions may need to be taken outside of Planning Committee timeframes. This report sets out where these actions will be required and recommends the Planning Committee delegate authority to the Chair of the Planning Committee the power to establish a political working party to provide staff with political direction for the exercise (under existing delegations) of the council’s powers and functions under the Act, when certain criteria are met.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee the power to establish a political working group comprising the Chair of Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of relevant local board(s), in consultation with the Mayor’s Office, to provide political direction on the execution of powers and functions under the Act where staff advise that one or more of the following criteria are met:

i) the development plan is inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan and/or not aligned with the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050

ii) the specified development area is out of sequence with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

iii) there is insufficient infrastructure to support the development plan and/or significant public infrastructure spend is required to support the project

iv) there are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location

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

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

Horopaki

Context

6. The Act commenced on 7 August 2020. The Act sets out the functions, powers, rights and duties of the Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) to enable it to undertake its urban development functions.

7. The Act gives Kāinga Ora access to a series of development powers. Most of these powers can only be used within a specified development project but some are also available for use in business as usual developments that Kāinga Ora undertakes. Each of the powers has been designed to address a specific barrier to development. Not all powers will be needed by every project. A summary of the powers available to Kāinga Ora is provided at Attachment A.

8. The Act enables a new process to establish an urban development project – called a specified development project. These areas are designed to cover a large area and deliver improved urban development outcomes, including a mix of housing types, good transport connections, employment and business opportunities, key infrastructure, community facilities, and green spaces. A summary of the Specified Development Project process is provided at Attachment B.

9. On the date of which a development plan (for a specified development project) becomes operative Kāinga Ora becomes the consent authority for all consent applications on the project area where a territorial authority would otherwise be the consent authority but it will not have regional consenting powers. Kāinga Ora must also monitor, enforce and promote compliance in a project area. Kāinga Ora becomes a requiring authority within the project area and outside of the project area where connections are required.

10. Auckland Council made a submission on the Act on 14 February 2020. Thirteen local boards provided feedback to the Act which were appended to the main submission. The Auckland Council submission focused on adopting a partnership approach between central government, local government and mana whenua to avoid unnecessary duplication. Some changes were made as a result of our submission which were set out in a memo to elected members dated 12 August 2020.

11. Councillor Darby and Councillor Bartley spoke to the Auckland Council submission at Select Committee on 6 April 2020. Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited also spoke at Select Committee on the same day.

12. At this stage it is unclear what area, if any, that Kāinga Ora will chose to use its powers under the Act. There is a substantial process for Kāinga Ora to follow as set out in the Act to establish a specified development project. Staff will utilise existing programmes such as the Auckland Housing Programme and Auckland Council and Crown Joint Work Programme on Auckland Growth and Housing to be kept up to date of any developments from Kāinga Ora.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Key steps in the process of establishing a specified development area include – project selection, assessment, joint Minister’s decision, project establishment, hearings, and amendments, transfers and disestablishment. The process utilises an Independent Hearings Panel similar to the Auckland Unitary Plan. There is opportunity for public consultation. The transition period as the specified development area is being established is also important for potential crossover with our functions. For Auckland Council there are a number of points in the process where there will be opportunity for input with the first, and arguably most important, step being an invitation to indicate support for a specified development project.

Power of delegation

14. Timeframes within the Act are tight. This creates the potential for some actions to be taken outside of Planning Committee timeframes. Most of the powers and functions under the Act can be exercised by staff under existing delegations.

15. However, existing staff delegations do not cover the powers and functions of the council under subpart 2 of Part 4 of the Act (relating to targeted rates), and that any delegations of these powers and functions will need to be made directly to staff by the Governing Body (in the same way that powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 have been made).

Political working group

16. There are a number of key steps in the process as set out above where elected members will want to provide political direction on the decision made.

17. To enable this to happen, this report recommends the Planning Committee delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy of the Planning Committee the power to establish a political working party to provide political oversight to staff in exercising the council’s powers and functions in relation to a proposed specified development area. It is recommended that a political working party be established where staff advise that one or more of the following criteria are met:

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

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

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

· there are significant implications for the Parks Network Plans for the same location

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

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

18. It is recommended that each political working party established would comprise of the Chair of the Planning Committee, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, relevant ward councillor(s) and a representative of the relevant local board(s) where the proposed specified development area falls. There will also be consultation with the Mayor’s Office. There will be one group established for each specified development area that sits within a different region in Auckland.

19. Any political working party established would not have a decision-making role but would be providing political oversight to staff in exercising the council’s functions and powers under existing delegations. The political working group could, however, direct staff to report a particular matter to Planning Committee for a decision if that was considered appropriate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. 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. AT and WSL made separate submissions and were heard at Select Committee.

22. Staff within AT and WSL have been advised of this delegation report and the draft report has been shared with representatives from AT and WSL.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Local Boards were invited to provide their feedback to the Urban Development Act and were involved in a workshop on 31 January 2020 to discuss the Act. Thirteen local boards provided their feedback, and this was appended to the Auckland Council submission that was made on 14 February 2020.

24. As discussed with Local Board Services, it is proposed that a representative of the relevant local board(s), affected by a proposed specified development area, sit on each political working group. If this recommendation is approved, Local Board Services staff will explore the best way to support local boards to do this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Staff involved in preparing the council’s submission included the council’s Māori Outcomes Leads. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board contributed to the preparation of the submission. In addition, an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, Tau Henare formed part of the group delegated to approve the submission and participated in the political working group on 20 January 2020.

26. It is recommended that a member of the IMSB sit on the Political Working Group to provide oversight of staff in exercising the council’s functions under existing delegations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. No additional budget is requested at this stage, as this recommendation simply covers the establishment of a recommended process step.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. The establishment of a political working group as recommended in this report will ensure that when the criteria are triggered there will be political direction given to staff when exercising the council’s functions and powers under existing delegations.

29. Staff will utilise existing programmes such as the Auckland Housing Programme and Auckland Council and Crown Joint Work Programme on Auckland Growth and Housing to be kept up to date of any updates from Kāinga Ora.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Staff will keep Planning Committee updated when a specified development area is identified and progressed by Kāinga Ora. As per the recommendation in this report, the Political Working Group will form when a specified development area is identified and one or more of the criteria are triggered.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Powers available to Kainga Ora	199
b ⇩	Specified Development Project Process	201

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Jennings - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	205
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update - September 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Workshop: 2 September 2020, Auckland Unitary Plan - Universal Design (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memorandum - City Centre Programme Update (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memorandum - Strategic implications of recent Urban Growth Agenda reforms (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

01 October 2020

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2020

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 full terms of reference can be found here.

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
	Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change	Decisions required: committee delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47								C
	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations – staff to report back to Planning Committee with options (April 2021)	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations
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									W
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 Forward work programmed approved PLA/2020/65									C		C
											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
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									W
Additional Harbour Crossing	The business case is being finalised. The team is planning to provide a progress update to committee when complete. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Decision required: consideration of business case
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 (tbc)
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.
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

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	Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plans Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.	Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68

[1] Clause 25, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[2] p.51 Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3^rd Edtion

[3] Objective B2.2.1(1), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form of the Regional Policy Statement

[4] Objective B2.6.1(1), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and form of the Regional Policy Statement

[6] Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019

[9] Clause 21, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[10] Part 1 Schedule 1 applies, as modified by clause 29 Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[11] Part 2 Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.

[12] Soil and Resource Report for Patumahoe Rezoning Proposal, prepared by AgFirst Ltd, dated April 2019

[13] Class 2: Very good land with slight physical limitations to arable use, readily controlled by management and soil conservation practices. The land is suitable for many cultivated crops, vineyards and berry fields, pasture, tree crops or production forestry.

[14] Class 3: Land with moderate physical limitations to arable use. These limitations restrict the choice of crops and the intensity of cultivation, and/or make special soil conservation practices necessary. The land is suitable for cultivated crops, vineyards and berry fields, pasture, tree crops or production forestry.

[15] Horticultural Productivity Within Patumahoe Proposed Plan Change, prepared by Sandy Scarrow and Andrew Barber, dated 16 September 2019

[16] Taking into account the difference in areas between the applicant and Council’s respective LUC investigations

[17] p. 18, Plan change request, prepared by Envivo Ltd and dated 26 June 2020

[18] Either in Chapter B2 of the RPS or within Chapter H18 Future Urban Zone

[19] A1.6.5. Precincts, Chapter A Introduction, AUP

[20] p.2 Horticultural Productivity Within Patumahoe Proposed Plan Change, dated 16 September 2019

[21] Using the AgFirst Land Use Capability report prepared for the applicant as a basis

[22] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392 (HC)

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

	Workshops
2/9/20/20	Auckland Unitary Plan - Universal Design
9/9/2020	Confidential: Unlock Uptown - City Rail Link (CRL) Development Programme

Date	Memorandum
24/9/2020	City Centre Programme Update
25/9/2020	Strategic implications of recent Urban Growth Agenda reforms

	Information Items
	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – September 2020

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