Agenda of Planning Committee

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	13
b ⇨	Update on the Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections (AWHC) Project (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Dome Valley Resource Consent Application and Private Plan Change processes (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Universal design and accessible housing (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – November 2020 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Supporting Growth Programme - Northwest Auckland’s transport proposals (Under Separate Cover)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change 30 - Decision	29

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 37 - Decision	69

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change 38 - Decision	101

Planning Committee

03 December 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters

File No.: CP2020/14404

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve public notification of the Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Plan and Places Department prepare an annual open space plan change to update the zoning of open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

3. This plan change has four components:

· Rezoning 49 land parcels that have been recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use.

· Rezoning 22 land parcels to correct anomalies and errors. These include aligning and updating zone boundaries with new cadastral boundaries, rezoning DOC land incorrectly shown as road and privately owned land incorrectly zoned as open space.

· Rezoning 26 land parcels as part of Panuku Auckland’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

· Rezoning eight land parcels that include land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council to facilitate redevelopment and rezoning land on behalf of other community organisations.

4. Approximately 100 new land parcels are either vested or acquired as reserve/open space annually and are required to be rezoned under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Auckland Unitary Plan). Part of the plan change also involves correcting any errors or anomalies that have been identified. These include correcting the misalignment between zone and new cadastral boundaries. Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process also requires the rezoning of land (typically from open space or road to a residential or business zone) prior to its sale. In addition, this plan change seeks to rezone land on behalf of Kāinga Ora and community groups.

5. It is important that land intended as open space is appropriately zoned to provide for its intended use and development or protection. Conversely, land that is no longer required as open space requires an alternative zoning. Panuku’s land rationalisation process is also an important part of the Auckland Council’s financial recovery.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the notification of proposed Open Space Plan Change (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as outlined in Attachment A of the agenda report

b) endorse the section 32 evaluation reports contained as Attachments B and C to the agenda report

c) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification.

Horopaki

Context

7. Auckland Council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan’s open space zones.

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

Rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space

9. The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year. The proposed zoning reflects the land’s open space qualities and intended use and development. This is the fourth update since the Auckland Unitary Plan was publicly notified, with Plan Changes 4, 13 and 36 updating the zoning of approximately 500 land parcels. The vast majority (95 per cent) of these involved applying an open space zoning to recently acquired or vested land.

Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Process

10. This is also the fourth proposed plan change involving the rezoning of open space zoned land considered surplus to requirements. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of 11 land parcels, Plan Change 13 included 10 land parcels and Plan Change 36 nine land parcels respectively. Panuku in conjunction with Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities Department have identified a further 26 council-owned land parcels currently zoned open space or shown as road/accessway which are surplus to requirements and have been approved for disposal.

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

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

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

Rezoning to Correct Errors or Anomalies

14. There are a number of land parcels that are either incorrectly zoned as open space or require an open space zoning. This plan change also involves aligning and updating zone boundaries with new cadastral boundaries. These are contained in Attachment A and include the following as examples:

· aligning and updating zone boundaries with new cadastral boundaries

· rezoning a stormwater pond from THAB to open space

· rezoning DOC land incorrectly shown as road to open space

· rezoning privately owned land from open space to Rural Conservation zone.

Rezoning of/Changes to Other Land

15. The Plan Change also includes a small number of proposed zone changes (10 land parcels) involving open space or Special Purpose – Cemetery zones. These include zoning changes that are related to land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council that are intended to facilitate Kāinga Ora redevelopment and are:

· Kāinga Ora’s proposed land swap – Aorere (Mangere East/Papatoetoe)

· Kāinga Ora’s proposed land swap – Owairaka (Mt Roskill)

· Kāinga Ora’s proposed land swap – Mangere

· Whangaparaoa Golf course – rezoned to Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation zone

· Kaukapakapa cemetery – rezone to Special Purpose – Cemetery zone.

Proposed Open Space Plan Change

16. The land parcels that are the subject of this proposed plan change are identified in Attachment A. These land parcels will be mapped for the purposes of both consultation and the plan change notification documents.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rezoning of Recently Vested or Acquired Open Space

17. The process for capturing newly vested land is:

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

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

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

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

Panuku’s Land Disposal and Rationalisation Process

19. Panuku has requested that a further 26 land parcels be rezoned from open space zone or road to either residential or business zones. The land disposal and rationalisation process involves consultation with council departments, mana whenua, local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee. All land parcels have been approved by the Finance and Performance Committee for disposal.

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

Rezoning to Correct Errors or Anomalies

21. The Plan Change also includes a number of zoning errors or anomalies involving open space zones. These typically involve land that has been either zoned open space in error or conversely land that requires an appropriate open space zoning. This plan change also involves aligning and updating zone boundaries with new cadastral boundaries as there is sometimes a mismatch between the two.

22. The preparation of the Unitary Plan was a large and complex project, undertaken in a short timeframe. In addition, many of the legacy District Plan’s open space zones had not been updated for several years. Hence some errors and anomalies were carried over into the Unitary Plan.

Rezoning of Other Land

23. Auckland Council’s Development Programme Office has requested the rezoning of land parcels to/from open space on behalf of Kāinga Ora. The rezoning reflects land swaps that are proposed in Aorere, Owairaka and Mangere. These land swaps will facilitate redevelopment in these areas and also improve the quality of open space and access to it.

24. Whangaparaoa Golf Club have requested that their golf course at 1337 Whangaparaoa Road, Army Bay be rezoned from Single House zone to Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone. The open space zoning will reflect the use of the land as a golf course and also reduce the rates burden on the club.

25. Kingseat Village Limited have requested that land they own on Linwood Road, Kingseat, that is currently zoned open space but is not longer required as open space, be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone. Community and Social Policy (Parks and Recreation Policy) have confirmed the land is no longer required as open space.

26. The Wesleyan Church at Kaukapakapa has requested that their existing cemetery at 8 Peak Road, Kaukapakapa be rezoned from Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone to Special Purpose – Cemetery zone. The cemetery is still operational. Under the current zoning, community facilities (which include cemeteries) are a discretionary activity. Cemeteries are a permitted activity under the Special Purpose – Cemetery zone.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The rezoning of 49 land parcels to open space will provide opportunity for recreation and sport in close proximity to where people live; enhance rivers, streams and the coast through the provision of esplanade reserves; and provide opportunity for revegetation. These actions will assist in mitigating the effects of climate change.

28. Panuku’s land rationalisation is part of the regeneration of town centres and/or better utilisation of land that has been deemed surplus to requirements. Kāinga Ora’s land exchanges also will enable better utilisation of urban land and improve the quality of open space and access to it in the redevelopment areas. This will have a positive impact with additional development/redevelopment occurring within the rural/urban boundary.

29. Other proposed zone changes either correct zoning anomalies or reflect the existing use of land (as golf course or cemetery) and are neutral in terms of climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

31. Both Parks and Recreation Policy and Healthy Waters (in the case of stormwater reserves) have reviewed the proposed zoning changes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

33. A memo was sent to all local boards providing a summary of the plan change on 27 October 2020. Feedback received will be outlined at the Planning Committee meeting.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. A draft copy of the plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities on 27 October 2020, as required under the Resource Management Act. Feedback received will be outlined at the Planning Committee meeting.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. The costs of the plan change process are within the Plans and Places Department’s operating budget. Cost associated with the plan change hearing are covered by the Democracy Services budget.

38. Delays in the rezoning of land associated with Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process would delay the sale of the land parcels, with associated financial implications. Likewise, delays in the rezoning of the land swaps between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council would delay redevelopment of the respective areas.

39. Any infrastructure costs associated with the Kāinga Ora/Auckland Council redevelopments are addressed in the respective development agreements. For Panuku’s land parcels, infrastructure is typically available in the road reserve (water supply, wastewater and stormwater).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

42. There are also risks that the rezoning of land on behalf of Kāinga Ora, Whangaparaoa Golf Club and/or the Wesleyan Church attracts submissions and subsequent appeals.

43. The existing open space zoned land at Aorere is also the subject of an “exchange of reserves for other land” under section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977. This requires the approval of the Minister of Conservation. That process and the plan change are running in parallel.

44. Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 enables the withdrawal of parts of a council-initiated plan change. Under delegated authority through Schedule 2A of the Auckland Council Combined Chief Executives Delegation Register (updated August 2018), delegated managers are empowered to make decisions on specified Schedule 1 matters. These include withdrawing parts of a proposed plan change. Auckland Council therefore has the option of withdrawing part of the plan change should it attract significant opposition in the form of submissions opposing part of the plan change or if the Minister of Conservation does not approve the “exchange of reserves for other land” under Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. If approval is obtained from the Planning Committee to publicly notify the proposed plan change, notification will likely occur mid to late January 2021 (after the holiday period).

46. The normal plan change process will then follow: notification; preparation of a summary of submissions and notification of that; receipt of further submissions; preparation of the section 42A Hearing Report; appointment of commissioners; plan change hearing; notification of the decision, appeal period, resolution of any appeals either via consent order or Environment Court hearing, formal adoption of the plan change and updating of the Unitary Plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Open Space Plan Change (2020) and Other Rezoning Matters	119
b ⇩	Draft Section 32 Report (Auckland Council)	121
c ⇩	Draft Section 32 Report (Panuku)	163

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 December 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Consideration of a private plan change request for land at 473 Albany Highway, Albany

File No.: CP2020/15427

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider a private plan change request from Bei Group Limited to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part 2016 (AUP) under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) in relation to 13.72 hectares of land at 473 Albany Highway, North Shore (the site).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request received on 20 April 2020 from Bei Group Limited to rezone approximately 13.72 hectares of land at 473 Albany Highway, formerly part of the Massey University Campus. The request seeks to rezone land from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone and introduce a new precinct that applies to the entire plan change area, replacing the existing precinct over the site.

3. The private plan change seeks to facilitate the comprehensive development of the large strategically located site comprising a new residential community of up to 1,800 homes including a small community (commercial) hub (4000m2). The proposed private plan change is included as Attachment A.

4. The council must decide how the private plan change request is processed. Under the RMA 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. The council decision at this stage is largely a process one and does not involve a full evaluation of merits of the private plan change. However, part of the decision involves considering whether the request meets any of the grounds the RMA sets out enabling its rejection.

6. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA and notified for submissions on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Having regard to relevant case law, it is more appropriate to accept the request than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) accept the private plan change request by Bei Group Limited relating to land at 473 Albany Highway, included as Attachment A, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of 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 enables the matters 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 as a resource consent

b) notes that Auckland Transport has indicated it will be making a submission on the private plan change concerning transport impacts and the need to ensure good provision for walking, cycling and public transport

c) delegate authority to the Manager Regional, North West and Islands Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Bei Group Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and surrounding area

7. The site is approximately 13.72 hectares and is located at 473 Albany Highway to the west of Albany Metropolitan Centre. It contains small scale university buildings, parking areas and open space. The site is bounded by Albany Highway to the north and west. The Albany Village Town Centre is located 800m to the north of the site. A recent aerial photo of the site is shown at Figure 1.

8. In the surrounding area, to the south and west (opposite side of Albany Highway) of the site are one to two-storey low density, detached houses. Land to the west of the site (western side of Albany Highway) also contains medium density housing. These areas are currently zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. To the north, the housing characteristic is similar, being generally one to two-storey, detached houses. This area is zoned Residential – Single House Zone. Figure 2 below shows the current zoning of the site and the area.

9. The Days Bridge Esplanade Reserve (DBER) is beyond the eastern boundary of the site. The DBER and is defined by its natural vegetation edge, featuring the Fernhill Escarpment and reserve. This reserve contains a Terrestrial Significant Ecological Area (SEA), but is outside of the private plan change area. The top of Lucas Creek is immediately north of Albany Highway to the north of the site, which is an estuary containing Marine SEA.

Figure 1 – Site and plan change area

Figure 2 - Current AUP zoning

10. The site was formerly owned by Massey University and it formed part of the Massey University Campus. Bei Group Limited, through its company Albany Estates Limited, purchased the site from Massey University in 2017. The roads in the site that are named and displayed in Figure 2 are private roads.

11. Within the AUP, the private plan change area is zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, and is subject to Albany 9 Precinct sub-precinct C. There are no overlays that directly affect the site. The land is bisected by a number of overland flow paths that flow from the west to the east into Oteha Stream.

12. Since the purchase of the site, Bei Group has sought and obtained a number of resource consents under the current provisions of the existing zone and precinct provisions of the AUP. The consents were granted on 23 March 2020 and allow for the construction of 156 residential dwellings and four apartment buildings, providing a total of 306 units. They also enable vegetation clearance with staged earthworks and the reclamation of 91 metres of intermittent stream.

13. Resource consent has also been granted to enable the construction of a retirement village at the southern end of the site comprising of 124 apartments, and a 100-room care home (LUC60332056). This consent was granted on 4 May 2020.

Overview of Plan Change Request

14. This private plan change request was lodged by Bei Group Limited on 8 May 2020 and the related documents are provided in Attachment A. The proposed private plan change seeks to rezone the land located at 473 Albany Highway, from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (see Figure 3).

15. In addition, the private plan change seeks to include a new precinct - Albany 10 Precinct - with the following amendments:

a) Removal of the ‘precinct’ overall within the Auckland Unitary Planning maps, identified as ‘Albany 9 Precinct – sub-precinct C’.

b) Amendment of the I501 Albany 9 Precinct provisions to remove references to ‘sub-precinct C’.

Figure 3 – Proposed rezoning and new precinct at the site

16. The request seeks to enable and facilitate a substantial new residential growth area with supporting commercial activities that cannot be achieved within the current AUP zoning and provisions that exist on the site.

17. The higher intensity development will involve allowing development to go to a greater height across the site (see Figure 4). These heights range from 13 metres (3 – 4 storeys), 21 metres (5 – 6 storeys) and 35 metres (10 storeys). The applicant has undertaken a master planning process that seeks to ensure the site is developed in a comprehensive manner whilst managing the effects.

18. The proposed private plan change would enable:

a) up to approximately 1,800 dwellings;

b) up to 4000m2 of business land suitable to support a ‘small community hub’ which would enable a centre of shops and services; and

c) a privately managed central park.

19. See Figure 5 below illustrating proposed site features.

Figure 4 – Proposed Height Limits in new Albany 10 Precinct

Figure 5 – Proposed Albany Features Plan

20. The objectives and purpose of the private plan change, as stated by the applicant, are to:

“…enable the comprehensive and integrated development of a new residential community of up to 1,800 homes, including a small community hub, within a unique landscape setting while protecting and enhancing the ecological, landscape and amenity values of the area.”

21. The applicant has provided the following information in support of the private plan change request:

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

· Section 32 evaluation report

o Section 32 assessment

o Master Plan and Design Report

o Integrated Transport Assessment

o Economic Assessment

o Urban Design Assessment

o Landscape and Visual Assessment

o Ecological Assessment

o Infrastructure Assessment

o Stormwater Management Plan

o Geotechnical Report

o Archaeological Report

o Approved Resource Consents

o Consultation Summary

o Cultural Effects Assessment.

Policy Context

Auckland Plan 2050

22. The Auckland Plan 2050 contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region which foresees managed expansion into the region’s future urban areas. The site affected by the private plan change request is located within the Albany ‘node’, to the west of the Albany Metropolitan Centre. The Auckland Plan recognises that Albany has a strategic role as a node for growth in the north and is considered an area for significant residential and business growth and intensification. Figure 6 below identifies the location of the private plan change area within the Albany Node.

Figure 6 - Auckland Plan 2050 - Albany node location map

Auckland Unitary Plan

23. The AUP contains objectives and policies that refer to the importance of integrating land use planning with infrastructure planning and delivery, reflecting the council’s integrated management function under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA.

24. This site is not a Future Urban zone, but the applicant has undertaken a ‘mini’ structure plan process by preparing a detailed master plan for the site. This master plan (please refer to Attachment B), accompanied with a section 32 report and technical documents contributed to the development of the proposed ‘Albany 10 Precinct’.

Recent Policy Documents

25. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 came into effect on 20 August 2020, while the the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 came into effect on 3 September 2020. Most of the regulations outlined in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater also came into effect on 3 September 2020. The impact of these policy documents in relation to the private plan change request is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 76 below.

Infrastructure

Water Supply

26. Watercare Services Limited has advised that the network servicing the area has capacity to service the proposed development in accordance with the precinct provisions and plans. Further upgrading is required to meet the long-term growth forecast as this development progresses with the appropriate infrastructure upgrades.

27. Currently the proposed private plan change area can be serviced by the existing public watermain (390mm diameter) which runs along Albany Highway. The site has a 180mm diameter watermain at its southern access to Albany Highway which supplies the private water supply network within the site.

28. The private plan change request will not impact on the ability for bulk water supply infrastructure to be provided in the future.

Wastewater

29. The site is located in a development area with existing public and private wastewater network present within the site extent. The development enabled by this private plan change request would require the decommissioning and removal of the existing local wastewater network.

30. The northern part of the private plan change will be easily serviced by existing Watercare capacity. However, in the southern part of the site (later part of the development) a new pump station will be needed and this will need to be at the applicant’s cost.

Transport

31. The traffic and transport effects have been considered and the applicant has supplied an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA).

32. The applicant has identified a number of considerations to ensure the site has a variety of modes of transport, both internal and surrounding transport network movements. The applicant considers, as outlined in the section 32 report, that the existing transportation network surround the site, including the public transport, cycling and pedestrian connections are available which can cater for the increased demand. The section 32 report and ITA consider that the site is strategically located to benefit from these existing connections and public transport servicing. The precinct provisions include dwelling thresholds which trigger upgrades when dwelling numbers exceed 770 and 930.

33. In the early stages of development the applicant has proposed to provide a private shuttle bus for residents. Prior to 770 dwellings being constructed, the proposed provisions require new development and subdivision to be assessed against whether ‘provisions is made for public transport and alternative transport modes to support and promote reduced dependency on private vehicles’.

Stormwater

34. The applicant proposes that the private plan change be included as part of Auckland Council’s Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (DIS60069613). The precinct seeks to achieve an integrated stormwater management approach with the requirement for on-site stormwater management for future subdivision and development.

35. The applicant has worked with the council’s Healthy Waters department to finalise the submitted Stormwater Management Plan so that approval in principle can be given during the processing of the private plan change request. The decision by Healthy Waters to formally approve and adopt the submitted Stormwater Management Plan under the Network Discharge Consent will occur when a decision has been made on the private plan change request.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

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

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

38. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information for the request to be determined. The options available to the council under clause 25 are discussed in the next sections of this report.

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

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

40. If the private 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 private plan change to have legal effect from notification. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable.

41. Only a council initiated, or an adopted private plan change, could have immediate legal effect. The private 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 unnecessary to adopt the private plan change request to enable a rule to have immediate legal effect.

42. The request does not address a gap in the AUP’s planning provisions. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region. This request only applies to a discreet area with the request including a bespoke precinct that can be accepted, publicly notified and considered on its merits. The area affected is owned by a single landowner who seeks to increase the development potential in comparison to what already exists, and therefore seeks to change the zones and provisions, including various additional height limits, across the site.

43. The council would meet all costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. The council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public, or have other public policy benefits. The request is a site-specific proposal. The most immediate or direct benefit, if any, is to the applicant. There are elements of potential public benefit proposed by the private plan change, these being increased housing supply in the local area and publicly accessible spaces which contribute to council’s greenway plans. The potential benefits associated with this private plan change are not sufficient to recommend its adoption.

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

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

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

46. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

48. Frivolous means not having any serious purpose or value. Vexatious means denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance.

49. The private plan change is supported by detailed technical assessments on relevant matters including land use capability and productivity, transport, urban design, geotechnical and stormwater management.

50. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging the 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 frivolous or vexatious.

51. It is 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?

52. The provisions applying to this site became operative in November 2016. There have not been any appeals relating to the site. Neither the content of the proposed private plan change, nor the operative provisions relating to this site have been considered further in the last two years.

53. It is recommended that 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?

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

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

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?

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

57. 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).”

58. A 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, a full merits assessment will be undertaken when the private plan change is determined. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out at sections 6 to 8. The assessment below has been made with regard to these sections of the RMA.

Considerations

Urban Design

59. The private plan change request is supported by an urban design assessment which covers location and integration, built form and amenity, shading, landscape and visual effects. The report concludes:

“Overall, it is considered that the proposed plan change has appropriately enabled the desired development outcome – the ability to create a denser, more diverse and vibrant development located within the Albany Node recognised in the Auckland Plan 2050 – while providing development standards and assessment criteria that address key urban design matters.”

The private plan change request has been reviewed by the council’s urban design consultant for sufficiency and accuracy of information. Ms Skidmore is generally satisfied with the information provided to date.

Ecological effects

60. For ecology, the private plan change request is supported by an ecological assessment. The findings from the report indicates that the private plan change provisions will bring positive effect overall through the maintenance and enhancement of existing watercourses within the precinct, and the riparian and open space planting. Carl Tutt, Council Ecologist, is generally satisfied with the information provided to date.

Transport

61. The private plan change request is supported by an Integrated Transport Assessment. The assessment has concluded:

“that the anticipated traffic and parking demands that are possible through development of the Site under the proposed precinct provisions can be compatibly integrated into the local and wider traffic environment.”

The private plan change request has been reviewed by Samantha McCarthy from Stantec New Zealand on behalf of council. Ms McCarthy is generally satisfied with the information provided to date.

Geotechnical

62. The geotechnical assessment provided in the private plan change package has by review by Nataile Li on behalf of council. Ms Li has indicated that she is generally satisfied with the information provided to date.

Stormwater, Flooding, Water Supply and Wastewater Capacity Effects

63. In terms of infrastructure requirements for the site, the engineering and infrastructure report concludes the level development sought in this private plan change can be serviced by appropriate existing or future infrastructure. This includes being in accordance with the requirements of the network utility operators and council.

64. The applicant’s infrastructure report indicates that there are no water or wastewater issues associated with the proposal. The report indicates that a pump station upgrade will be required to accommodate the level of demand for the site. As noted above, this will need to be provided at the applicant’s cost.

65. Healthy Waters requested further information in relation to hydrology mitigation, stormwater quality, storm water planning, storm water management and overland flow paths. These have been provided and updated in the infrastructure report and section 32 assessment by the applicant.

Economics

66. The economic effects are addressed in detail in the Economic Impact Assessment. This report considers the potential economic effects on the proposed private plan change. The economic report identifies positive outcomes as the precinct will provide a number of services within the site (being healthcare and retail). The economic assessment also indicates that the proposed precinct will not generate any adverse retail effects on nearby centres (being Albany Town Centre and Albany Metropolitan Centre).

67. The Chief Economist Unit has reviewed the information supplied by the applicant and is generally satisfied with the information provided to date.

Council Policy Documents

68. For the purposes of a clause 25 assessment, the private plan change request is also considered to not be contrary to:

a) Other relevant regional policy statement 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 is predominantly located in existing urban areas. The Auckland Plan ‘Home and Places’ directions set out:

i) Direction 1: Develop a quality compact urban form to accommodate Auckland’s growth

ii) Direction 2: Accelerate the construction of homes that meet Aucklanders’ changing needs and preferences

iii) Direction 3: Shift to a housing system that ensures secure and affordable homes for all; and

iv) Direction 4: Provide sufficient public places and spaces that are inclusive, accessible and contribute to urban living.

The request seeks to provide for residential growth of a compact form within the Albany node, although outside the Albany Metro Centre, whilst providing for publicly accessible open space.

69. On a coarse assessment it is not considered that the private plan change request will make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA and is considered to be in line with sound resource management practice.

70. 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?

71. A preliminary assessment of the lodged documents indicates the private plan change request will not make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. The conclusions in the request documentation would be best evaluated through the submissions and hearing processes so these matters can be considered in full.

72. The private plan change request appears to be generally aligned with the policy direction under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (‘NPS-UD’), which came into effect on 20 August 2020. The NPS-UD requires councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations. This includes providing for sufficient development capacity for residential and business land and accommodating unanticipated or out-of-sequence developments where suitable.

73. On a coarse assessment, the private plan change is not inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA or policy direction under the NPS - UD.

74. 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?

75. 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.

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

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

77. The council may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 of the RMA would then apply. Because of the scale of difference between the level of development anticipated under the current zoning, and that proposed under the private plan change, it is considered that the private plan change process is a more appropriate process to assess the merit of the proposal..

78. It is therefore recommended 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

79. The council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change does not 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.

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

81. 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.

82. If the private plan change is accepted the matters raised is this report and by Council’s specialists can be considered on their merits, during the private plan change submission and hearing process.

Conclusion: options assessment

83. 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 that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request.

84. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

85. The 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; and

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

86. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the private plan change request itself. That having been said, a coarse assessment of the merit of the request does has not identified any significant concerns in terms of climate change.

87. Climate impacts can be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (does it encourage car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

88. Input and feedback has been received from Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited on the private plan change. The applicant has engaged with both parties prior to lodgement. Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited have also reviewed the lodged documents.

89. Auckland Transport staff have raised a concern about the future funding of new cycleways and walkways in the Local Board’s Greenways Plan (referenced in the applicant’s Integrated Transport Assessment for the private plan change) and the detail of how the proposed shuttle from the site to the Albany Centre would work. They have also raised concerns with the ‘left in left out’ connection to Albany Highway at the north of the site. However, they are satisfied that there is sufficient information to accept the private plan change for processing, and indicated that, if accepted, Auckland Transport will be making a submission.

90. Watercare Services Limited have provided feedback to the applicant, noting that the later stages of the development will require an upgrade of assets on site at the applicant’s cost. Watercare are satisfied that there is sufficient information to accept the private plan change and are considering making a submission.

91. The Council’s Healthy Waters department has provided input into the private plan change request in respect of the sufficiency and accuracy of information and has not raised any fundamental concerns regarding the request.

92. The Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation department provided input during pre-lodgement meetings. The input concluded that Parks was in support of the scenic areas of bush and remaining open space being kept in private/communal ownership.

93. 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

94. Local boards’ views are important in Auckland Council’s shared governance framework. The views of the Te Poari ā-Rohe o Local Board (Upper Harbour 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 present its views to hearing commissioners, if the local board 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.

95. The applicant presented to the Te Poari ā-Rohe o Local Board on 13 February 2019, and gave the local board the opportunity to provide feedback. The summary provided by the applicant indicated the local board acknowledged the significance of the site and provided input on parking and their concerns about local school capacity with this proposed growth.

96. 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 the 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Consequence of clause 25 options for future consultation

97. 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.

98. 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.^{^[1]} Changes can be made to the plan change prior to notification. Iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions after notification.

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

Record of applicant’s consultation

100. An applicant should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

101. As part of the initial site investigations, the applicant advises that they have engaged with following Mana Whenua groups:

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated

· Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

· Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Wai Trust Board

· Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust

· Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

102. The applicant has advised that representatives from Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were invited to participate in the development of the masterplan in December 2019.

103. Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust deferred to the interests of Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara.

104. A hui was held on 31 January 2020 to introduce Mana Whenua representatives to the site, the owner, the design team and the project. The technical reports for the project were issued to Mana Whenua to review. The key themes discussed at this hui were:

a) sustainable development and the understanding of the term;

b) discussion on raingardens and ongoing maintenance;

c) ecological enhancement in the area;

d) positive opportunities that could come from the proposed private plan change.

105. A second hui was held on the 9 March 2020 to discuss the proposals more fully and for representatives to provide their initial feedback on the draft reports. The key themes discussed at this hui were:

a) an overview of the Master Plan which include the opportunities regarding onsite stream ecology, Fernhill Escarpment and Days Bridge Esplande Reserve;

b) discussion around the extent to which the precinct would connect to existing walking tracks and pedestrian networks;

c) building heights and how they would be staggered across the precinct to respond to the site context;

d) the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara representative expressed the interest in having input on the design of the central park, and encouraged planting that would attract the right type of bird life;

e) the integration of the Green Star Community Rating Tool;

f) the prepared reports on ecology and water quality.

106. A third hui was held on 16 April 2020 remotely due to Covid-19 Level 4 restrictions. This hui focused on detail of ecology, stormwater and the Green Star Communities rating tool.

107. Mana whenua have expressed that their role as kaitiaki of the Ōteha Stream and its tributaries is of fundamental importance for this site.

108. Of the Mana Whenua who participated in the engagement, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust have prepared Cultural Values Assessments (CVA).

109. Matters raised in the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki CVA are:

a) the importance of Ōkahukura/ Lucas Creek and the Ōteha Stream and its tributaries on the Site;

b) the importance of retaining the native trees;

c) the presence of taonga;

d) the effects on biodiversity, both terrestrial and marine species;

e) the effects on Fernhill Escarpment;

f) the impact on Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki during the development period.

110. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki also advocated for ongoing Cultural Inductions to educate staff, contractors and visitors of the cultural values of the site.

111. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki provided a CVA for the resource consents on site. This CVA (dated November 2019) was used when the precinct provisions were designed. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki also provided an Addendum Report Cultural Values Assessment (6 July 2020) and confirmed this covers the variation of matters between the consent and the private plan change.

112. The CVA Addendum indicates that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are supportive of the proposal’s protection of streams and restoration of the wetland, in comparison to the approved consent which is to remove or reclaim.

113. The CVA provided by Ngāti Manuhiri provides the views, interests and areas of advocacy. The Ngāti Manuhiri CVA identified that Okahukura (Lucas Creek) is an important portage route originating from Ōkura/Long Bay. The CVA outlined key aspects in the area and provided a number of recommendations.

114. Bei Group Limited have provided a response to the recommendations provided by Ngāti Manuhiri. The responses include how the recommendations will be achieved in the provisions and areas to explore for the future development of the precinct, being the design and consenting stage.

115. Attachment C summarises the responses received from mana whenua and other consulted parties.

116. It should also be noted that the applicant has considered a CVA that was prepared based on an earlier proposal for the subject site. The applicant has also referenced and considered the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau within the section 32 evaluation report (Attachment A).

117. If the council accepts the private plan change for notification, all relevant iwi authorities will be notified in accordance with the RMA and will have the opportunity to make submissions on the private plan change on issues that are important to them.

118. 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

119. If accepted for processing, costs are recoverable from the applicant up until any appeals to the Environment Court.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

120. One of the risks with the recommendation to accept the private plan change is that currently it is unclear what the impact of the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater (NESF) will have on the private plan change request. It is noted that the applicant has updated the private plan change request to reflect their own interpretation of the impacts. However, it is considered that this can be dealt with appropriately in the later stages of the private plan change process, as any issues that arise from these regulations can be raised through a council submission on the private plan change once the implications of the NESF are better understood.

121. Another risk associated with recommendations made in this report is a judicial review by a third party. This risk is considered to be low and mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.

122. An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision to:

a) adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

b) accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

c) reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6)

d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.^{^[2]}

123. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted in full. The applicant has requested the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the applicant is therefore negligible.

124. There is a risk that the land subject to the private plan change could be rezoned without funding in place for improved cycling and walking connections in the local area (Auckland Transport does not currently have the funds for improved walking and cycling in the area). There is also a lack of certainty around the operation of the applicant’s proposed shuttle service form the site to the Albany Centre. These are matters Auckland Transport intends to raise through the submission process to ensure that they are adequately addressed. If they cannot be resolved, this could have an impact on the likely success of the private plan change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Section 32 Evaluation Report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Master Plan and Design Report (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	Consultation Summary	213
d ⇩	Clause 25 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991	217

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 December 2020

Auckland Unitary Plan - Review of the residential zone provisions

File No.: CP2020/16413

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a progress report on the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan’s residential provisions in the residential and business zones; to seek direction on which option to progress with regard to universal design in residential development in Auckland; and to seek endorsement to progress an Integrated Residential Development plan change.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A number of issues have been identified with some recent housing developments in Auckland that could potentially be addressed through changes to the residential provisions in the residential and business zones of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). These include:

· poor built form and amenity issues, health and safety issues and/or higher operational/maintenance costs than anticipated

· specific activities in residential zones which are having adverse effects on the amenity values of the surrounding area in which they are located

· lack of take-up of development opportunities, particularly within the Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone.

3. Targeted monitoring and research have commenced across a number of topics. To date four topics have been workshopped with the Planning Committee (Integrated Residential Developments, boarding houses, universal design and private ways).

4. This report provides progress updates on the topics investigated to date. A summary of the achieved or recommended pathways to address each topic is provided in the table below:

Topic	Investigation status	Pathway
Rainwater tanks	Completed	Now proceeding as plan change 54
Integrated Residential Developments	Preliminary research completed. Targeted research underway	Seeking committee endorsement to prepare a plan change
Boarding houses	Completed	Recommended council advocate to central government to change the Building Act and other related legislation
Childcare centres	Completed	To be reviewed as part of a full review of the AUP
Universal design and accessible housing	Completed	Seeking committee endorsement to continue an advocacy approach to get changes to the Building Act and New Zealand Standards
Outdoor space	Underway	Likely to be included as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021
Outlook space	Underway	Likely to be included as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021
Private ways	Underway	A cross council taskforce has been initiated to address identified issues. A plan change supported by a technical code of practice is likely to be required. This may be included as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021.
Residential Terrace Housing and Apartment Building and most business zones in relation to building height, building height in relation to boundary and typology outcomes	Earlier research (2019) available. Further targeted investigations have not started.	The project team are working closely with the team managing council’s response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. A combined comprehensive plan change in late 2022 is being considered.

5. Investigations into the following topics are on hold until resources are available to undertake monitoring and research:

· Gross Site Area/Building Coverage/Impervious Area/Landscaped Area

· retaining walls and earthworks

· building form, articulation, scale, repetition, length, sustainability

· Overlapping rules within the AUP.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the preparation of a plan change to amend the Integrated Residential Development provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan

b) endorse the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee advocating to central government for changes to the Building Act and other related legislation to address the issues relating to boarding houses discussed in the agenda report

c) agree that a national approach is the preferred way to achieve regulatory changes to provide for universal design in residential development

d) endorse the ongoing advocacy of the Mayor, the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee in seeking that central government introduces requirements for universal design into the Building Act and Building Code.

Horopaki

Context

Initial observations

6. Monitoring of resource consent applications and experience implementing the AUP has identified a number of issues with some recent housing developments in Auckland that could potentially be addressed through changes to the residential provisions in the residential and business zones. These include:

· poor built form and amenity issues, health and safety issues and/or higher operational/maintenance costs than anticipated

· specific activities in residential zones which are having adverse effects on the amenity values of the surrounding area in which they are located

· lack of take-up of development opportunities, particularly within the Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone.

7. These issues require further monitoring and investigation to ensure a good evidential base for any changes to the AUP. Such work will help ensure the delivery of the AUP’s Regional Policy Statement direction to provide a quality-built environment in a compact urban form, across Auckland. Given some 14,600 new residential dwellings were consented between April 2019–April 2020 there is a need to consider improvements to the AUP ahead of the full plan review, which is not required to commence until November 2026.

Section 35 Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan

8. Section 35 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires the council to produce a report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the AUP within five years of the AUP becoming operative in part (i.e. by November 2021).This is an important pre-cursor to the full plan review.

9. Phase one of the s35 monitoring, completed in July 2019, included a review of section B2.3 Regional Policy Statement ‘Quality Built Environment’. The research outcomes from this monitoring provided a snapshot of emerging issues and trends in residential development and plan implementation and supported earlier staff observations. Phase two will see more detailed monitoring and it is anticipated that the full results of this monitoring project will be published in late 2021.

10. The focus of the s35 monitoring of the Regional Policy Statement ‘Quality Built environment’ is at a high level. It will need to be augmented by targeted research and monitoring at the district plan level as part of the residential issues project.

Topics being investigated

11. Topics identified for research in the residential issues project came from a number of sources including recommendations from staff sent to the Unitary Plan email inbox, s35 monitoring, Environment Court decisions, councillor and local board member requests and earlier research programmes.

12. The residential issues project is looking into the following topics:

· Residential activities

o Rainwater tanks

o Integrated Residential Developments (IRDs)

o Boarding houses

o Childcare centres

o Universal design and accessible housing

· Site layout

o Outdoor space

o Outlook space

o Gross Site Area/Building Coverage/Impervious Area/Landscaped Area

o Private ways

o Retaining walls and earthworks

· Neighbourhood and Buildings

o Terrace Housing and Apartment Building and most business zones in relation to building height, building height in relation to boundary and typology outcomes

o Building form, articulation, scale, repetition, length, sustainability

· Miscellaneous

o Overlapping rules within the AUP.

13. In response to the water shortage facing Auckland, the ‘rainwater tanks’ topic was fast-tracked to the Governing Body. On 25 June 2020 the Governing Body agreed to a plan change that will more easily enable residential and rural properties to install rainwater tanks without the need for a resource consent. This topic is now being assessed through a separate statutory process. Submissions on the proposed plan change closed on 9 November 2020.

14. Preliminary findings for four topic areas under investigation – Integrated Residential Developments, universal design, boarding houses and private ways – were discussed in committee workshops in June, September and October 2020.

Universal design and accessible housing

15. Auckland Council has long been an advocate for the improvement of accessibility in New Zealand homes. Auckland Council representatives, along with members of the council’s Disability Advisory Panel met with Minister Twyford, Minister Salesa and Minister Sepuloni on 18 April 2019 to discuss housing accessibility and universal design in housing.

16. At that time the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) had already started to develop the Building System Legislative Review (BSLR) programme and although not within the current scope of the Government’s proposed changes to the Building Act, Minister Salesa acknowledged the need for change and indicated that she would seek advice from her officials on the possibility of broadening the scope of the review to include universal design.

17. Following the council’s submission to the BSLR (see Attachment A), a series of correspondence with Ministers (see Attachment B) and a meeting between Ministry and council officials (see Attachment C), Minister Salesa confirmed that the scope of the BSLR would not be broadened to include universal design. The Minster instead informed the council that MBIE are working on a strategic roadmap to provide ‘Building Access for all’ including a programme of regulatory changes to be implemented over the next five years (see Attachment D).

18. Staff presented two options for next steps to the Planning Committee workshop on 2 September (see Attachment E). These options were based on extensive research undertaken on the level of need, costs, benefits and statutory context. A further memo was circulated to members on 6 November outlining risks (see Attachment F).

19. The outcome of the workshop and the further memo was that staff strongly recommend an ongoing advocacy approach to ensuring a nationally consistent outcome for inclusion of universal design in residential development through changes to the Building Act and New Zealand Standards.

Integrated Residential Development

20. The AUP provides for Integrated Residential Developments (IRDs) within all residential zones and most business zones. IRDs can encompass a range of land uses such as retirement villages and campus-style student hostels. IRDs are residential developments that have a range of complementary activities integrated into the development. These could include communal gardens; swimming pools; gyms; function rooms; medical care and welfare facilities. It is the provision of these types of residential activities which distinguish IRDs from standard residential developments.

21. In response to concerns raised by the Ōrākei Local Board in relation to IRD’s, the committee resolved on 5 December 2019 to consider matters relating to IRDs at a workshop. A workshop on 24 June 2020 outlined the issues and possible options to manage IRDs. Other local boards have also raised concerns with IRDs.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

22. National policy statements allow the government to prescribe objectives and policies for matters of national significance that are relevant to sustainable management under the RMA. The purpose of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) is to require councils to plan well for growth and to ensure ‘well-functioning urban environments’ that meet the changing needs of diverse communities. It requires policy development and changes to the AUP. It provides direction to ensure intensification is enabled in or close to urban centres or in areas adjacent to rapid transit stops, with high demand for housing and business space, where people can access jobs, services, amenities and public transport.

23. Of relevance to this project are the:

· need to enable development in locations and at a scale, not currently identified in the Auckland Plan or provided for in the AUP

· likely effects on Auckland’s existing heritage, character, amenity, and other values

· removal of minimum off-street car parking standards from the AUP to enable more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas

· enablement of maximum capacity in the city centre zone

· enablement of building heights of at least six storeys within ‘walkable catchments’ of rapid transit stops, the city centre zone and metropolitan centre zones

· enablement of building heights and density commensurate with the level of accessibility and relative demand.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Introduction

24. This section has been structured in four parts. Part 1 outlines preliminary topic findings on issues and possible responses, except for universal design and Integrated Residential Developments. Part 2 discusses the proposed research and monitoring methodology. Part 3 seeks further direction from the committee on universal design. Part 4 examines the four options identified for a review of the IRD provisions of the AUP and recommends a preferred option.

Part 1: Topics – preliminary findings

25. Resourcing constraints have required the prioritisation of topics for investigation. Topics to be progressed are those considered to have the greatest potential to deliver better quality residential outcomes.

26. One of the challenges facing any changes to the AUP is that they could reduce housing capacity at a time when central government is seeking to significantly increase capacity. This tension will need to be carefully considered as work proceeds.

27. Council’s response to the NPS UD, which came into force in August 2020 and has ongoing mandatory timeframes for implementation, will inform the direction and timing of the residential issues project.

28. Several courses of action are available to address findings. These include:

· a plan change(s) to improve the performance of the AUP through strengthening or adding provisions where there are current issues or gaps

· non-regulatory methods including practice notes on plan interpretation, development of supporting engineering codes of practice, Auckland Design Manual modules, additional staff training, community education, ongoing targeted monitoring, and advocacy to central government for statutory reform.

Boarding houses

29. As noted above this topic was presented to the committee on 22 October 2020 (see Attachment F). Staff advised there is little scope to resolve internal amenity issues through the Resource Management Act or the AUP, as it is contrary to s18 of the Building Act to require the achievement of performance criteria that address the same matter and are additional to or more restrictive than a matter addressed in the Building Code.

30. At the committee workshop staff outlined several non-regulatory options that could potentially improve outcomes for boarding house residents and the surrounding neighbourhoods.

31. While not discussed at the workshop, a review of the AUP definitions for boarding house, visitor accommodation and dwellings as part of the future review of the AUP could address the issue of poor differentiation between these definitions. However, this type of review should not be undertaken as part of any plan changes resulting from this project, as these definitions are integral to the functioning of a number of zones and any changes could have significant unintended consequences. No further work is proposed in relation to potential changes to the AUP in respect of boarding houses.

32. The committee requested further background information on the legislative framework applying to boarding houses. This work is currently underway and will be reported back in early 2021. The committee also supported council taking a strong advocacy role to encourage central government to change the Building Act and Residential Tenancies Act.

Childcare centres

33. The increasing commercial scale of modern childcare centres has the potential to create adverse effects on residential character and amenity. In particular, the AUP method of measuring noise allows noise to be averaged, meaning higher spikes of noise generated by childcare centres are not always taken into account when assessing consent applications and noise complaints. The AUP provides limited ability to consider the cumulative effects of multiple childcare centres within a residential area.

34. It is not intended to progress this topic at this point. It is proposed that childcare centres be revaluated at the time of the wider AUP review commencing in 2026. A broad review of all non-residential activities, including childcare centres, is needed to ensure there is a consistent approach when addressing the cumulative effects of these activities in the residential and other relevant zones.

Outdoor living space

35. Findings to date have observed poor quality amenity in many outdoor living spaces due to:

· poor quality access to outdoor living space from the inside of the dwelling, as the standard allows for access from laundries, garages, or bedrooms rather than the internal living rooms

· site amenities and facilities (storage sheds, refuse/recycling bins, rain tanks, hot water cylinders, washing lines, heat pump units etc) locating within outdoor living space, reducing the extent of useable space available for outdoor living purposes

· tensions between occupants’ desire for privacy and passive surveillance when outdoor living space is located adjacent to the street or a private way

· a lack of detail in the AUP standard and relevant provisions to address poor quality outcomes. This means that usable and functional outdoor living spaces cannot be consistently secured within new residential developments being consented under the AUP.

36. This topic overlaps with outlook space as development trends show that outlook space is often separated from outdoor living space - most often with outlook directed over a driveway due to the 6m outlook depth required which aligns with vehicle manoeuvring depths. This creates issues with solar orientation for internal living rooms, and a lack of connectivity between internal living areas and outdoor space. These issues have significant implications for on-site amenity.

37. Outdoor living space is proposed to be addressed as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021.

Outlook space (residential zones only)

38. A range of issues have been identified with the outlook space standard in the residential zones, many of which relate to the wording within the standard itself. The current wording of the standard also enables a number of unintended outcomes to occur while still complying with the standard. Key issues identified to date include:

· the ability to locate structures (such as fences, retaining walls, storage sheds etc) within outlook space, reducing the sense of spaciousness intended by the standard

· outlook space being measured from the window rather than from the edge of a balcony to which it relates, which reduces the depth of outlook provided from balconies and can create privacy and overlooking effects due to the reduced separation distance

· overlapping outlook space from different dwellings within the same building, which creates privacy conflicts. This issue is more prevalent within apartment buildings.

39. These issues create poor on-site amenity outcomes because visual privacy and sense of space (the purpose of the standard) are compromised when outlook space is reduced or overlaps with that of another dwelling.

40. Further monitoring is needed to also understand the effects of the orientation of outlook space on dwelling solar efficiency where outlook space is not co-located with outdoor living spaces, and on the tensions between privacy and passive surveillance when outlook space overlooks the street.

41. This topic overlaps with residential development in the business zones as it is one of the two on-site amenity related standards that apply to dwellings in the business zones. Issues for outlook space in the business zones have not yet been scoped but an initial review indicates that many are like the key issues that have been identified in the residential zones.

42. Outlook space is proposed be addressed as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021, due to the number of issues associated with the standard in both the residential and business zones.

Private ways

43. Significant issues associated with private ways were previously identified and scoped by various departments and CCOs within the council family. The Residential Issues Project has picked up on this earlier work. This topic was also presented at a committee workshop on 22 October 2020 (see Attachment G). Key issues were identified and potential methods to overcome these issues outlined. Such issues included health and safety risks, poor amenity, sub-standard infrastructure, poor design and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design outcomes, high and often unforeseen financial costs and responsibilities for landowners, high maintenance and operational costs, and reputational risks for council.

44. Support has recently been obtained from the council’s Urban Growth and Housing General Managers Group meeting on 12 October 2020 for a coordinated cross council taskforce to address these issues. Work is now underway with the relevant departments and CCOs to develop potential solutions, which are likely to include a plan change to the AUP supported by detailed engineering design standards in a Code of Practice document or similar. There is merit in exploring the benefits of a public education programme on the risks and costs associated with privately managing infrastructure with existing and prospective landowners and their legal advisors. Practice notes to help in the interpretation of the AUP and staff training would also be useful.

45. The National Policy Statement on Urban Design (NPS UD) requirement to remove minimum car parking requirements from the AUP will impact on the capacity of private ways to accommodate additional parking and is likely to have flow on effects to the wider roading network. It will be essential that both project teams work closely together to ensure there are no unintended consequences arising from either project.

46. This topic could be addressed as part of a comprehensive residential plan change in late 2021 or proceed as a separate plan change. At this stage, no recommendation has been made either way.

Quality development and intensification in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and most Business zones (excluding industrial zones)

47. This topic has been picked up from a joint work programme on housing and urban development between council and central government. Work on this topic has been temporarily placed on hold to allow greater harmonisation with the NPS UD project as many aspects of the two projects overlap. Council’s response to the NPS UD will help inform the direction and timing of this topic, particularly given future plan changes to increase building heights through rezoning.

48. In November 2019 the Plans and Places department prepared a report examining options for further investigation. This was developed after a review of resource consent data and interviews with a small number of developers, planners, urban designers and architects. At the time it was written this report found evidence to suggest a lack of uptake of apartment development in the THAB zone. It is also noted that the zone’s assessment criteria require assessment of visual dominance of new development over existing, typically detached dwellings and that this can hinder developments which will transform the zone to a high-density environment.

49. The report recommended investigating a package of amendments to the THAB zone, including changes to height in relation to boundary provisions and a review of the spatial extent of the zone. The reported noted that any changes would need to be considered together with other THAB zone provisions to ensure good residential outcomes.

50. Recent monitoring of residential development in the Business: Mixed Use zone has shown more effective regulation is necessary to ensure quality outcomes for residential developments in these zones. Improving outlook provisions is proposed for the Business: Mixed Use zone as a minimum. There is also potential to introduce residential zone provisions (such as a requirement for outdoor living spaces) to achieve better quality residential development outcomes. Further monitoring of the other business zones will be undertaken to determine how widespread the issue is.

Delayed topics

51. Investigations into the following topics have been delayed until the Plans and Places department has the capacity to undertake this work. Delayed topics are:

· gross site area / building coverage / impervious area / landscaped area

· retaining walls and earthworks

· building form, articulation, scale, repetition, length, sustainability

· urban subdivision - overlapping rules.

Work programme

52. The proposed plan change forward work programme for the Residential Issues Project is set out in Attachment H:

Part 2: Research and monitoring strategy

53. The research and monitoring strategy is designed to respond to the various requirements of a residential plan change including the s32A report. The research will help establish the scope of the issues. It will also assist with understanding the causes in order to develop options for a solution such as a plan change, changes to planning practice or other methods.

54. The strategy will provide guidance to ensure an inclusive process is undertaken – including workshops with a range of council experts and external consultants. Review and analysis of resource consents will produce robust, relevant and high-quality information to help formulate options, and provide s32A evidence for any future plan changes. The strategy ensures quality controls in data and information collection are applied to maintain the integrity of evidence.

55. The research and monitoring process will be streamlined to make best use of staff and data resources. Being more efficient and effective with our research and monitoring will ensure the best possible value from this work. It will also produce more robust solutions that can be backed by solid evidence.

Part 3: Universal design and accessible housing

56. At the workshop on 2 September 2020 staff outlined a series of methods that could potentially help to overcome the issues found regarding barriers to implementation of universal design in residential development within Auckland. Attachment I sets out the potential methods.

57. Given the likely legal challenges associated with option 2 (a plan change to the AUP), staff recommend option 1 – seeking changes to the Building Act by continuing with a strong advocacy approach to central government.

Part 4: Integrated Residential Developments

58. At the workshop on 24 June 2020 staff identified a number of key issues with IRDs (see Attachment J). In summary:

· the AUP definition of IRDs includes a reference to ‘supporting communal facilities’ and gives examples, but does not indicated the scale at which such facilities should be provided in the development

· in the lower density residential zones (Large Lot, Single House and Rural and Coastal Settlement zones), the discretionary activity status for IRDs is inconsistent with the non-complying activity status for ‘more than one dwelling’

· there are difficulties with the IRD definition and the activity status for ‘more than one dwelling’

· resource consent applications are being received that would deliver poor built form and amenity, particularly in respect of their adverse effects on surrounding areas

· other than the zone purpose, objectives and policies, there are no standards to be complied with or criteria to help guide the assessment of IRD’s.

Evaluation of options

59. The following options were evaluated to determine the most appropriate way to achieve to address the above issues:

Option 1 - adopt a do-nothing approach/retain the status quo

Option 2 - non regulatory methods – updating the existing practice and guidance note

Option 3 - prepare a plan change

Option 4 - address as part of a full AUP review.

60. A summary of the costs and benefits of each option is set out in Attachment K. Option 3 - ‘Prepare a plan change’ is the recommended option. Solutions to address the identified issues within a plan change would include:

· strengthen the definition of IRDs – this would apply to all zones

· clarify the activity status of IRDs in the Large Lot, Single House and Rural and Coastal Settlement zones

· provide stronger policy direction around the bulk and scale of IRD’s in the Large Lot, Single House and Rural and Coastal Settlement zones.

61. Non-statutory options can also be pursued to provide further education and training for staff, planning commissioners and also to private sector consultants.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

62. The recommendations made in this report will not have any impact on (or be impacted by) climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

63. This report is part of the ongoing review programme led by the Plans and Places department. Over the course of this project, different council departments and the CCOs have had, and will continue to have a role in the analysis of issues and in the identification of options and development of a draft plan change(s).

64. Plans and Places staff are currently working closely with a wide range of experts from across the organisation to develop methods to overcome significant issues with private ways.

65. In terms of universal design, Panuku is introducing accessible housing requirements into their developer agreements. This project is aligned with and will support their work.

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

Local impacts and local board views

66. Given the largely technical and investigative nature of the work carried out to date as part of the Residential Issues Project, there has been limited engagement with local boards. However, staff are aware of local board interest in IRDs, and in particular the concerns raised by the Howick Local Board and Ōrākei Local Board.

67. Local board chairs were invited to the Planning Committee workshops held for Integrated Residential Development on 24 June 2020. Following this workshop, staff presented to the Ōrākei Local Board on 22 October 2020.

68. It is intended to send out a confidential meeting note/memo for local boards in early 2021 should the Planning Committee decide to commence with a plan change. Local boards will also have the opportunity to input into the development of the plan change. It is also proposed that reporting to local boards for feedback will occur prior to the Planning Committee receiving any proposed plan change for a decision to notify.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

69. High rent and discrimination in the rental market can mean more Māori are marginalised in high poverty neighbourhoods in poor-quality, cold, damp and/or mouldy housing such as boarding houses. Advocating to central government to put in place a stronger framework to manage the development and operation of boarding houses is an important means of managing this issue and will support Māori interests.

70. In terms of universal design, Māori are disproportionately affected by the current lack of accessible housing, as they are over-represented in the groups most impacted – disabled people and renters. A national requirement for accessible housing is likely to have a positive impact on Māori.

71. Discussions with staff at the Independent Māori Statutory Board in June and August raised issues of the potential implications on the review of IRDs on Māori. Of particular interest were issues around communal facilities and impacts on papakāinga housing as a component of Integrated Māori Development (another defined activity in the AUP). The project team were requested to consider the positive and negative effects on Māori.

72. It is anticipated that careful consideration and further engagement with the IMSB, along with iwi, will be needed to work through the issues as part of any plan change. Iwi will also have the opportunity to input into the development of the plan change to the AUP prior to notification and once it has been notified.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73. The completion of the residential issues investigations and advocating to central government on matters of universal design will be undertaken with established budgets. The finance team advises that the implications of these two work packages will not have any significant or for that matter identifiable impact on council’s financial position.

74. The development of an IRD plan change requires the engagement of an economist to assist with the preparation of the section 32A report. The cost of an economist will be resourced from within Plans and Places consultancy budget. All other staff costs can be undertaken within established budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

75. The risk of undertaking an IRD plan change includes possible appeals to the Environment Court. This is a normal part of the plan change process under the RMA. Consultation will be undertaken prior to notification of any plan change to minimise this possibility.

76. With respect to universal design, there is reputational risk to the council in not preparing a plan change to the AUP, however this risk is considerably outweighed by the legal risk associated with an RMA approach. A great deal of costs and resource would have to be used to write and defend the plan change which would ultimately have a low chance of success. Any decision to continue with a plan change approach would need to carefully consider this significant risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

77. Should the committee endorse the preparation of an IRD plan change, consultation with iwi, local boards and representative stakeholders will be undertaken. A draft plan change will be reported back to the committee for approval prior to notification under Schedule 1 of the RMA.

78. Should the committee agree to the advocacy approaches recommended for universal design and boarding houses, staff will provide the necessary support for the Mayor and councillors.

79. Staff will continue to workshop with the committee matters under investigation. Ongoing progress on private ways will be reported back to the committee at the May 2021 meeting and for all other topics six monthly updates will be provided.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council submission on BSLR_Universal design and accessible housing	231
b ⇩	Correspondence with Minister Salesa re universal design and accessible housing	245
c ⇩	Correspondence with Ministers Sepuloni, Salesa and Twyford following meeting with council about universal design and accessible housing	249
d ⇩	Correspondence from Minister Salesa about universal design and accessible housing	251
e ⇩	Presentation to Planning Committee workshop on universal design and accessible housing - options for next steps	253
f ⇩	Presentation 'Boarding houses' to Planning Committee workshop on 22 October 2020	273
g ⇩	Presentation 'Private Ways' to Planning Committee workshop on 22 October 2020	289
h ⇩	Residential Issues Project - Forward Work Programme	313
i ⇩	Universal Design - Potential Methods	315
j ⇩	Presentation 'Integrated Residential Developments' to Planning Commitee workshop on 24 June 2020	317
k ⇩	Integrated Residential Developments: Options - Costs and benefits	333

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michele Perwick - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 December 2020

The Congestion Question: Findings from the project’s second phase

File No.: CP2020/17178

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on The Congestion Question project and determine the next steps.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The second phase of The Congestion Question project (TCQ) is complete and the findings are presented into two reports titled, The Congestion Question: Main findings and The Congestion Question: Technical Report. The reports serve as a platform for future discussions on congestion pricing in Auckland. A copy of the Main findings report is attached.

3. The reports were made public on Monday, 30 November 2020.

4. A key finding from the work undertaken is that there is a strong case for implementing congestion pricing in Auckland for demand management purposes.

5. TCQ recommends that a congestion scheme should be introduced in stages, linked to the delivery of additional public transport services and infrastructure investment over the next 10 years.

6. Two schemes – City Centre Cordon and Strategic Corridors – were evaluated as having the most potential.

7. TCQ prefers an access charge as the tariff structure paired with the Strategic Corridors option as the preferred pricing scheme. Though TCQ notes that implementing the City Centre Cordon option could be a practical first step towards establishing a regional wide scheme over time.

8. The introduction of a congestion pricing scheme will likely have a higher impact on financially vulnerable households. The report considers mitigation options to lower the impact on such households.

9. The report recommends that public engagement be undertaken before a decision on implementing congesting charging is made.

10. The implementation of any congestion charging scheme in Auckland will require legislative change which would be undertaken by the government. Therefore, any final decision to implement congestion charging ultimately rests with the government. However, the government has made it clear that it would prefer the support of Auckland Council before any such decision is made. As such, Auckland Council has an important role in any future decision to implement congestion charging in Auckland.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note that phase two of The Congestion Question project is complete

b) receive the findings from phase two of The Congestion Question project

c) approve officers scoping the next phase of the project alongside officers from participating agencies

d) note that officers will seek the committee’s approval of the scope before proceeding with the third phase of The Congestion Question project.

Horopaki

Context

11. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) recommended in 2016 that demand management interventions should be explored to achieve substantial improvements in Auckland’s transport outcomes. The TCQ project emerged as a result.

12. TCQ’s Terms of Reference state that the project’s purpose is to undertake a thorough investigation to support a decision on whether to proceed with introducing pricing for demand management purposes in Auckland.

13. TCQ is a joint project between officers and officials from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, The Treasury and the State Services Commission.

14. The first phase of TCQ focussed on establishing baseline data and background information to provide a foundation for the rest of the project. This phase was completed in November 2017. A report was provided to the Planning Committee on 13 February 2018 (CP2018/00114).

15. The project’s second phase commenced in December 2017 and has focussed on understanding the social and network impacts of various congestion pricing scheme options, and their technical requirements.

16. TCQ’s second phase is now complete. The findings are included in two reports titled, The Congestion Question: Main findings and The Congestion Question: Technical Report. The reports were publicly released on Monday, 30 November 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. The two main reports bring together TCQ’s research, and options development and evaluation. They summarise the technology, social and implementation considerations of the investigation undertaken into congestion pricing Auckland.

18. The reports are intended to provide a platform for future discussions on congestion pricing in Auckland.

The case for congestion pricing

19. The Main findings report concludes there is a strong case for implementing congestion pricing in Auckland.

20. The report considers that congestion pricing in Auckland for demand management purposes is practical and could deliver significant benefits in the form of time savings and more reliable journey times.

21. The analysis finds that with the right design, supported by improved public transport services and a mitigation program to assist vulnerable road users, the opportunity exists for an eight to 12 per cent improvement in network performance once a full scheme becomes operational.

Congestion pricing scheme assessment and preferred schemes

22. TCQ considered five congestion pricing schemes out of a longlist of options. Table 1 below lists these options and their characteristics:

Table 1: Scheme summary

Congestion pricing scheme	Description/characteristics
City Centre Cordon: vehicles are charged to enter/exit the city centre (in the peak direction), using Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology	· covers a small area and has a limited impact on overall network performance, mainly targeting home to work (commuting) trips. · small scale and proven technology translate into low technical, implementation, operating, and privacy risks. · regional environmental impacts likely to be minor due to the scheme’s small scale and smaller number of vehicles affected, but local air quality in the city centre would improve. · equity impacts likely to be modest given smaller number of trips impacted and wide availability of public transport alternatives. · comparable to overseas schemes and potential for public acceptability. · this option represents a potential low-risk starting point for introducing congestion pricing.
Isthmus Area: vehicles are charged to enter and travel within the isthmus area during congested periods, using ANPR technology	· offers the largest reduction in number of vehicle trips. · less impact on network performance since it focuses on a smaller spatial area than the Strategic Corridors, Combination and Regional Network option. · environmental impacts likely to be modest and focused in the charged area. · worse spatial and equity impacts as households within the isthmus local board areas bear the scheme’s brunt.
Strategic Corridors: vehicles are charged to travel on congested corridors based on road hierarchy during congested periods, using ANPR technology	· targeted and generates region-wide network performance benefits and congestion relief. · has low technical implementation and operating risks because it is relatively simple to develop, operate and manage. · estimated average change in financial costs for households is broadly similar by location. · low spatial impacts because the scheme targets congested routes, not boundaries. · has positive environmental impacts similar in size to the environmental impacts of the Combination and Regional Network options.
Strategic Corridors and City Centre Cordon (‘Combination’): a combination of the first and third options	· generates very similar impacts on network performance to the Strategic Corridors option; this suggests there are no meaningful additional benefits from considering the two individual options as a combined package. · worth nothing there also is no observed detrimental effect when compared to the Strategic Corridors option alone.
Regional Network: vehicles are charged to travel on all congested roads during congested periods. This option requires all vehicles to install Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)/cellular in‑vehicle hardware	· achieves a small incremental improvement to network performance over the Strategic Corridors option. · has the lowest benefit-cost ratio because of high capital and operating costs. · the requirement to install in-vehicle units capable of collecting time and location data for all trips, including uncharged road segments, raises significant privacy and acceptability concerns. · there is no international precedent – the scheme has the highest technical risk of all the options considered. · poor equity outcomes stem from significant financial impacts for all household types (partially associated with the costs of the in-vehicle units), with low income households disproportionately affected.

23. All five options were thoroughly evaluated against a range of network performance, economic, social and environment measures. As required by TCQ’s terms of reference, an option’s potential ability to improve network performance was given the most weight in the evaluation.

24. From this evaluation, the two preferred congestion pricing schemes considered as having the most potential were the City Centre Cordon and the Strategic Corridors options. TCQ found that both options represent workable solutions and have the potential to generate sensible trade-offs between improving network performance because of modifying travel patterns, and the requirement to minimise adverse social impacts.

25. It was noted that the two options differ in spatial scale and therefore in their forecast impact on network performance. In particular, the City Centre Cordon scheme’s geographic coverage limits its effectiveness as an ultimate state for congestion pricing in Auckland, though it could still be a viable and potentially low risk step as part of a phased introduction of the Strategic Corridors scheme.

26. TCQ’s preferred long-term option is therefore the Strategic Corridors scheme as it provides sufficient coverage and flexibility to deliver sustainable improvements in network performance into the future.

A phased implementation

27. The Main findings report recommends the adoption of a phased approach to implement the Strategic Corridors scheme. This approach would reduce technical risks and reflects considerations relating to the objective to improve network performance, access to alternative transport choices and community engagement.

28. A phased approach would also give:

· more time to secure public acceptability and, in the long term, deliver the most credible scheme to solve congestion problems

· time to review the current scheme’s impacts before moving to any additional stage

· the chance to observe motorists’ responses and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures while progressing through the phases.

29. The first phase, a charging scheme around the central city area, could coincide with the opening of the City Rail Link, Northern Busway extension and station upgrades, and Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative Eastern Busway. Depending on the geographic coverage of this phase, a minimum of two years for implementation is likely to be required.

30. Over time, the scheme would be expanded along the most congested roads and motorways, to coincide with public transport and additional corridor improvements.

31. The selection of strategic roads for inclusion in each phase is proposed to be based on:

· severity of congestion on the corridor(s)

· availability of alternative modes of transport on the corridor(s)

· social and spatial equity considerations

· feedback from community and scheme users.

Indicative tariff structure

32. One of TCQ’s key tasks was to determine a preferred congestion pricing structure to deliver best results. The investigation considered:

a) distance-based charges

b) point-based (cumulative charges, with charges varying by time and location) charges

c) access charges

and found that the congestion charge should be an access charge whereby every vehicle faces the same charge when it is detected on a charged road.

33. The key features of an access charge structure would be:

· every vehicle faces the same charge regardless of the location of the chargeable event

· charges can vary by time

· charges are not cumulative, no matter how many times a vehicle is detected by the roadside infrastructure within the ‘journey window’ (a time period within which one or more trips may be made).

34. The findings note that Auckland’s dispersed travel patterns and the prevalence of shorter trips mean that an access charge is required to encourage sufficient behaviour change and mode shift by travellers with flexibility. A well-designed access charge would be easy to understand, difficult to evade, removes incentives to ‘rat-run’ [diverting onto smaller roads to avoid congestion], and means that travellers in outer suburbs are not faced with the prospect of cumulative charges for longer trips.

35. TCQ undertook work on an indicative tariff scheme for demonstrative purposes. This would be further refined in subsequent phases if TCQ proceeded. A summary of TCQ’s preferred tariff charges and parameters are laid out in the below table:

Table 2: Tariff charge summary

· congestion charges vary by time bands, starting with a lower charge to travel during the shoulder period ($1.50), rising to a higher charge for peak-period travel ($3.50). As a comparison, the proposed peak charge aligns with an adult two-zone public transport fare using an AT HOP card

· 30-minute bands to enable a practical number of graduated steps across the peak period

· no charge for travel during the inter-peak or off-peak periods

· charges apply Monday–Friday only; no charges levied on weekends or public holidays

· motorists incur the highest charge detected within a two-hour ‘journey window’ to recognise the multi-purpose nature of many trips

· heavy vehicles (>3.5 tonnes) would pay double the charges incurred by light vehicles

· emergency vehicles, buses, motorcycles, scooters and unpowered vehicles exempted

Technology considerations

36. The Main findings report states that cost effective and proven technology is currently available to support the introduction of a congestion pricing scheme.

37. TCQ has identified the use of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras as the compelling technology choice for congestion pricing. This was because ANPR cameras and supporting software are:

· now sufficiently accurate and reliable to be used as the primary technology for both vehicle detection and enforcement

· used in many congestion pricing and road tolling schemes overseas.

38. ANPR technology is also cost effective and the only practical enforcement mechanism currently available. It would enable building upon available infrastructure (e.g. camera mounting roles) and systems – including back office processing systems, communication and camera networks and customer interfaces – instead of having to develop and implement a completely new end-to-end solution.

39. ANPR and supporting software have already been proven by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for open road tolling.

40. TCQ also found that smartphones are not a feasible option for vehicle identification and charging, but they can provide a user-friendly channel for payment and account management. The application of global navigation satellite system technology is also not yet proven for urban congestion pricing; it could be considered in future once current issues around risks, logistical challenges and cost barriers are addressed.

Social impacts and mitigation measures

41. Overseas case studies have found that congestion pricing can potentially have a higher impact on some vulnerable households and individuals. The level of impact is, however, highly dependent on the specific design of the scheme and, in particular, the location of the charging points.

42. The social assessment results (included in the report) found that the increase in average travel costs, as a percentage of mean annual income, is generally modest but, overall, congestion pricing is regressive. This means that low-income households will likely spend a higher proportion of their household income on congestion charges than higher income households.

43. The application of daily charging caps, whereby no motorist would face a daily charge greater than twice the highest peak-period charge, represents an effective mitigation measure for most households. Similarly, a daily cap means that non-private vehicles (e.g. couriers) that are required to undertake multiple trips would not be penalised excessively, while still benefitting from improved productivity and more reliable journeys.

44. TCQ considers that for vulnerable households, the mitigation of financial impacts from the introduction of a congestion pricing scheme would require supplementary support in addition to the daily cap. The Community Services Card (and eligibility criteria) could be potentially adopted as the delivery mechanism to avoid the costs and complexity of developing an entirely new mitigation measure.

45. Mitigations for disability and mobility users could take the form of:

· charging exemptions for modified vehicles

· increased funding to the existing Total Mobility Scheme to offset any increases that may be passed onto eligible people (e.g. through increased taxi fares).

Use of revenues

46. Congestion pricing is by its nature a revenue source, as congestion pricing works by exposing road users to costs that are currently externalised to achieve behaviour change. The amount of revenue that could be raised depends on a range of factors, including the tariff schedule applied and the coverage of any scheme.

47. TCQ considers that net revenues raised from congesting pricing should be hypothecated to pay for additional public transport infrastructure and services, fund mitigation measures, and, if possible, remove the regional fuel tax to help counterbalance negative distributional impacts.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. The consideration of the findings from phase two of the TCQ project does not in itself raise direct climate impacts arising from considering the results of this investigation.

49. The Main findings report states that the introduction of an Auckland congestion pricing scheme has the potential to support an improvement in local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

50. Depending on the congestion charging scheme option applied, and using indicative tariff charges of either a distance charge of $0.12 per kilometre or a fixed $2.30 access charge, modelling shows that total transport greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions in Auckland would reduce by between 0.1 and 0.8 per cent. This would be a modest but important potential benefit of any future congestion charging scheme (if implemented).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. Officers from Auckland Transport have played a key role in the TCQ project and will remain involved if the project proceeds. Auckland Council’s Transport Strategy team will similarly continue to be involved should the project proceed to the next phase.

52. It should be noted though that the implementation of any congestion charging scheme in Auckland will require legislative change which would be undertaken by the government. Therefore, any final decision to implement congestion charging ultimately rests with the government. However, the government has made it clear that it would prefer the support of Auckland Council before any such decision is made. As such, Auckland Council has an important role in any future decision to implement congestion charging in Auckland.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. The introduction of congestion charging in Auckland is likely to have a higher impact on some local board areas than others. This would depend on the type of scheme applied, the tariff structure applied, and its spatial coverage. The Technical Report outlines some of the potential costs and social impacts by local board area.

54. Local boards have an important role in both inputting into any future TCQ work as well as having a shared governance role with the Auckland Council’s Governing Body. If a decision was made to undertake scoping of phase three of TCQ, this scoping would seek to clarify the role of local boards in TCQ going forward and this would inform any final decision made to proceed to phase three of TCQ.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Māori earn lower incomes on average and are over-represented in statistics for vulnerable households. The mitigation measures discussed above may help in addressing this equity issue.

56. The Main findings report states that both the Strategic Corridors and the City Centre Cordon schemes are likely to have some negative impacts on mana whenua wellbeing and identity. The report goes on to state that congestion pricing has the potential to have a positive impact if it facilitates improved access. The impacts would be better gauged through engagement. As a complement to the Technical Report, a specific technical paper that analyses the potential impacts on mana whenua will also be released.

57. The Technical Report mentions that engagement with mana whenua was undertaken during the prior stages of ATAP. The outcome at that time was that mana whenua supported the finding that something needs to be done to address Auckland’s road congestion. Input from mana whenua, and mataawaka, in future phases would give a more complete picture of the potential impacts of congestion pricing on Māori.

58. Māori have an important role in any future TCQ work given their relationship with the Crown (and council) under the Treaty of Waitangi. If a decision was made to undertake scoping of phase three of TCQ, this scoping would seek to clarify how mana whenua and mataawaka would be involved in TCQ going forward. This would inform any council decision to proceed to phase three of the TCQ or not.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

59. This report does not seek budgetary allocation for the next phase of TCQ.

60. This report does not raise immediate financial implications.

61. There will likely be financial implications for Auckland Council if congestion charging is introduced in Auckland. For instance, congestion charging may result in some infrastructure no longer being required or being required later than initially anticipated due to improved network performance.

62. Initial high-level analysis indicates that annual revenues from implementing a phased Strategic Corridors scheme could be around $205 million per annum once the scheme is fully implemented. As a comparison, the regional fuel tax currently raises about $150 million a year.

63. There is a remote and unlikely possibility that congestion charging could be “too efficient” and result in Aucklanders changing their commuting/driving patterns significantly to travel outside peak hours and/or switch to public transport thereby reducing revenue sources earmarked to fund further improvements to public transport. Given forecast employment patterns, this is a remote possibility but has been included for completeness.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

64. It is possible Aucklanders would inadvertently believe that the government and Auckland Council have already decided to introduce congestion charging in Auckland rather than potentially undertaking more work to support any such decision. The Ministry of Transport has published a list of frequently asked questions to clarify any such misconceptions.

65. As the decision of this report is about whether to continue the investigation to support future decisions on whether to implement congestion charging in Auckland for demand management purposes, there are no significant risks to Auckland Council at this stage.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

66. The timing of undertaking public consultations and seeking Māori input has not yet been determined, primarily because a design scheme has yet to be prepared as well as a decision to proceed has not yet been made. Aucklanders need the opportunity to respond to a provisional design scheme.

67. If permitted, officers would scope the project’s next phase alongside officers from Auckland Transport and represented the government agencies. Officers will subsequently seek the committee’s approval to proceed with the third phase of the TCQ project. This would potentially include:

· the establishment of a new terms of reference and working arrangements/budgets

· public dialogue on a potential congestion charging scheme for Auckland

· more detailed scheme design

· the initiation of legislative change/refinement processes (post final decision to proceed)

· decisions on the proposed ownership and operating model.

68. It is worth noting that in the event a decision was made to introduce congestion charging in Auckland, it could take at least two years before a scheme becomes operable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	The Congestion Question: Main findings report	345

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Azeem Khan - Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

[1] Clauses 3, 4A Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[2] Clause 27, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.

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

Date	Workshops
25/11/2020	Confidential: Downtown Carpark - direction on design and development outcomes

Date	Memorandum
2/11/2020	Update on the Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections (AWHC) Project
6/11/2020	Dome Valley Resource Consent Application and Private Plan Change processes
6/11/2020	Universal design and accessible housing
6/10/2020	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – November 2020
20/11/2020	Supporting Growth Programme - Northwest Auckland’s transport proposals

Authors	Duncan Glasgow - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authorisers	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy