Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 1 April 2021

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Signed Notice of Motion	13
b ⇩	Background Information	17

Planning Committee

01 April 2021

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part - Private Plan Change request for Alpine Road, Kaukapakapa

File No.: CP2021/02690

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act, a private plan change request to rezone approximately 28 ha of land north of Kaukapakapa township from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 21 February 2020 from SH16 Limited (the requestors) to rezone approximately 28 ha of land north of Kaukapakapa village from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

3. The request is intended to provide a district plan framework for approximately 11 countryside living/lifestyle lots.

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

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

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

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

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

5. It is recommended that the private plan change request be accepted under clause 25(4) and notified for submissions on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA. Having regard to relevant case law, it is more appropriate to accept the request than to reject it, 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 from SH16 Limited to rezone approximately 28 ha of land north of Kaukapakapa township from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) pursuant to clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

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

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

b) note that accepting the private plan change request will enable a range of matters (including impacts on rural character and significant ecological areas) to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process

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

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

Horopaki

Context

6. The subject land encompasses approximately 28 ha of mostly pastoral grazing across four land parcels. The largest of which (24.4ha) is owned by the requestor (Figures 1 and 2). Three smaller rural lifestyle parcels feature on the periphery of the subject area and are owned by other parties that are not directly linked to this private plan change requestor.

7. The subject sites lie to the north of the Kaukapakapa township between State Highway 16, Alpine Road and Maddies Road. The topography is steep and undulating. The plan change area slopes from 140 metres above sea-level at the south-western corner, to 35 metres above sea-level along the eastern boundary of the plan change area. The Kaukapakapa village lies approximately 1km to the south-southeast of the plan change area, and the Kaukapakapa River just further south of that. Refer to Figure 3 for a map of the local context.

8. Under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) the site is zoned Rural Production zone and a significant portion of the site is covered by a Significant Ecological Areas Overlay – Terrestrial (see Figure 5 below).

Figure 1: Plan change area

Red dashed line: Plan change area
Turquoise solid line: land owned by applicant.

Figure 2: Land ownership

Figure 3: Locality and context

Figure 4: Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) zoning

Figure 5: Significant Ecological Area Overlay

Private Plan Change Request

9. The request was formally lodged on 21 February 2020 and seeks to rezone approximately 28 ha of land north of Kaukapakapa village from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

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

· Private plan change report (February 2020) prepared by MacDonell Consulting Ltd

· Section 32 Analysis (undated)

· Additional information received 28 July 2020, 24 August 2020, 28 August 2020 and 11 November 2020

· Rural Productivity report (9 January 2020) prepared by Hollis & Scholefield Ltd.

· Landscape assessment report (11 January 2020) prepared by Patch.

· Engineering review (8 January 2020) prepared by Hutchinson Consulting Engineers

· Geotechnical review (9 January 2020) prepared by CMW Geosciences.

· Assessment of traffic effects (11 February 2020) prepared by Traffic Engineering & Management Ltd.

· Kaitiaki report (3 February 2020) prepared by Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust (on behalf of Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara).

11. The request considers in the Plan Change Report by MacDonell Consulting Ltd (dated February 2020) that:

The area is considered highly suited to rural residential development. Providing for more rural residential development here opens up additional land that is already fully serviced by existing infrastructure.

While the site is zoned Rural Production, it adjoins and is immediately to the north of the existing CSL zone and can easily be accessed via Moses Road, Maddies Road and the new intersection with the highway. The site is a mixture of pasture and regenerating bush. The pasture component was previously pine forest.

…

- Maddies Road is accessed via an existing NZTA approved, high spec intersection from SH16. The applicant funded the construction of this intersection, at a cost in excess of $1M.

- There is existing high quality internal roading infrastructure in place, providing access to the subject site.

- Although currently zoned Rural Production, this land has very little productive potential.

- The proposed site is well clear of the flood zone, which affects land on the other (eastern) side of SH16.

- There are no geotech, wastewater or stormwater issues with the site.

- Kaukapakapa is well serviced with a good school, bus service and growing commercial activities. Allowing the additional further rural residential development will provide for the efficient use of land in an area where services are under utilised.

12. Further information was requested from the requestor on 18 May 2020 concerning transport, freshwater ecology, terrestrial ecology, landscape, land contamination and economic assessments. On 28 July, 24 August, 28 August and 11 November 2020 the council received further information from the requestor. Council’s experts have reviewed the information and confirmed that it is adequate for assessment.

13. It is considered that the information provided at lodgement and in response to a request under clause 23 of the RMA, is sufficient for the council to consider the request, given the scale and significance of the actual and potential effects anticipated from the development through the private plan change.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act 1991

14. The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Under clause 21 any person can request a plan change of the appropriate local authority. Once lodged, the local authority can request additional information under clause 23 and can modify the request under clause 24, but only with the requestor’s agreement.

15. Under clause 25, after receiving the request and all additionally required information and modifying the request (where relevant), the local authority is required to make a decision to either:

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

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

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

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

Option 1 – Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself (cl 25(2)(a))

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

17. As the request is not of strategic value or benefit and given that the requestor has not asked the council to adopt, it is recommended that council does not adopt the private plan change as if it were a council initiated plan change.

Option 2 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (cl 25(3))

18. The council can decide to deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. In this case the private plan change seeks to rezone the subject sites from Rural Production zone to Countryside Living. The requestor has stated that there are no other changes proposed. The most appropriate process for achieving a rezoning of the site is through a plan change process, and the outcomes sought by the requestor cannot readily be achieved by a resource consent process.

19. It is therefore recommended that council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.

Option 3 – Reject the request (cl 25(4))

20. There are a limited number of matters under clause 25(4) that enable council to reject a private plan change request:

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

21. The terms frivolous and vexatious are not defined in the RMA but have evolved through case law to generally mean “trivial” or “without substance” and with regard to “frivolous” something that is intended to “harass”, “frustrate” or cause “financial cost to their recipient”. The private plan change request includes a section 32 evaluation and a report containing an assessment of effects, including traffic effects. The proposal is for a rezoning that is more intensive than the pattern of land use set out in the wider context of the Kaukapakapa area. However, infrastructure is generally available, and extensive analysis has been carried out to assess adverse effects and the proposal attempts to address these. There is nothing about the request that is attempting to frustrate or cause financial cost to another party. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is not frivolous or vexatious.

22. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

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

23. These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and community.

24. The majority of the private plan change land was subject to a submission (302-1) and specific evidence during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The submission sought that the proposed Rural Production zoning be changed to Countryside Living zone. Ultimately the Rural Production zoning was retained based on a Countryside Living rezoning not giving effect to the Regional Policy Statement (in terms of where Countryside Living zones should be located), the potential impacts of the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) on the site, the impact on landscape values, and the potential to undermine the strategic direction of the compact city approach (in the Auckland Plan 2050 and Auckland Unitary Plan). The decisions on the Auckland Unitary Plan were released in November 2016 and therefore the substance of the request has not been considered via a plan submission process in the last two years.

25. In addition, a subdivision consent (#BUN20446563) was lodged to undertake an 11-lot subdivision of this land in 2016 – similar to that being proposed in this private plan change. The application was recommended to be publicly notified due to the adverse effects on landscape, rural character, amenity, visual effects, landform modification, rural production and cumulative effects on the environment being considered more than minor. The application was withdrawn by the applicant in 2018 and therefore the substance of the request has not been considered via a resource consent process in the last two years.

26. In summary, while the substance of this proposal has been considered in some detail and rejected by the council in the past, it was not within the last two years as stipulated by the RMA. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on this basis.

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

27. Section 360A of the Act relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request does not relate to Section 360A of the Act.

28. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on this basis.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

29. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the Act. The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572) where the issue on appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause 25(4), considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and stated:

“… the words “sound resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. I agree too with the Court’s observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption.”

30. The proposed rezoning area adjoins an existing Countryside Living zoned area to the south and south east and would constitute an extension of the current Countryside Living zone already established in the area. It does not propose a zone change new to the zoning pattern already established in the area.

31. The plan change area is located near State Highway 16, and a rural lifestyle living development that has recently been completed to the south east of the site and the plan change intends to make use of the roading infrastructure already in put in place for that development, including Maddies Road.

32. The plan change area does not cover land that contains elite or prime soils, which are highlighted in the Regional Policy Statement for special protection. The Rural Productivity specialist report provided in the plan change request documentation notes that the land is generally class 6 under the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory Worksheets – being land for extensive pastoral production or forestry. Council’s GIS mapping shows the plan change area to be NZRLI FARMLUC class 6 – Non Arable - Moderate Limitations (Figure 6 below). While Class 6 land is not highly versatile, it is still able to be used for a range of agricultural uses.

Figure 6: FARMLUC mapping of plan change area (plan change area outlined in blue)

33. The effect of rezoning the land on the rural landscape was a key factor in the previous Unitary Plan submission and resource consent processes for this site. The IHP (the Government appointed Independent Hearing Panel making recommendations on submissions to the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) undertook a more in-depth assessment of this issue than the assessment now required by the council under clause 25, and the adverse effects on rural landscape were considered to be significant enough (alongside other effects) to not rezone the land to Countryside Living during that process. Council’s legal submissions stated:

Mr Stephen Brown in his evidence notes that the site is quite steep, with relatively few natural building platforms. The Council concurs with Mr Brown's view that the proposal could result in future development seeming well elevated above the valley floor (with some dwellings appearing atop the ridge) and without any sense of being anchored to the Kaukapakapa village, thereby disrupting the current flow of landforms, bush and pasture.

34. The proposal will need to be closely assessed in terms of the effect on the rural landscape. This was a key factor in the previous Unitary Plan submission and resource consent processes for this site and does raise the issue as to whether or not the request is in accordance with sound resource management practice. The landscape effects can be further assessed and considered if the plan change is notified and a hearing report is prepared. Acknowledging this and based on the current application material and the current coarse level of assessment by council’s landscape expert which raises concerns, there is doubt that the rezoning represents sound resource management practice. The matter is finely balanced and, in this circumstance, a more detailed assessment which can only occur if the request is accepted and notified, would be required to come to a more fully informed conclusion. If this occurs, the more detailed assessment may conclude that the reasoning by the IHP to reject the earlier request to rezone the land remains valid.

35. On balance, having undertaken a coarse merits assessment of the request documentation and the specialist reports, it is considered that the request is generally in accordance with sound resource management practice. The appropriate time to test the finer-grained merits of the request is through the private plan change process.

36. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change on the basis that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

Would the request or part of the request make the regional policy statement or Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

37. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

38. In the s32 analysis provided by the requestor, the request considers that it:

Effectively and efficiently achieves the objectives of the proposed plan change, the Auckland Unitary Plan and the RMA by;

- Increasing housing capacity and choice in the township of Kaukapakapa.

- Contributing to the social and economic wellbeing of Kaukapakapa by bringing more families to the township, and thereby supporting businesses and schooling.

- Better management of the land, resulting in improved weed and pest control.

- Landscape planting around new dwellings is a likely outcome.

- Environmental effects have been assessed, and any adverse effects will be minor or less than minor.

- An under-utilised infrastructure asset, (ie the recently constructed intersection) will be used more efficiently.

- The CSL zone provisions that will apply to this land following the zone change, together with the Auckland-wide rules of the Unitary Plan will ensure that any adverse environmental effects associated with the future development of the land will be avoided, minimised or mitigated.

39. Sections 72, 74 and 75 within part 5 cover the purpose of district plans, matters to be considered by a territorial authority when preparing and changing its district plan, and the content of the district plan. These sections are of particular importance in coming to a decision under clause 25. Notably these sections require any changes to a district plan to be in accordance with the council’s functions under section 31 and the provisions of Part 2, and to give effect to the regional policy statement.

Part 2

40. Part 2 sets out the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991, with section 5 defining the sustainable management purpose of the Act as;

… managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

41. The proposed plan change request is not contrary to the sustainable management purpose of the Act, insofar as it has the potential to provide additional housing in the area, However, the phrase ‘in a way or at a rate’ in section 5 does raise the issue as to whether it is appropriate to provide additional scope for this style of development when there are extensive areas already devoted to this zoning and there is still capacity for further growth within the Countryside Living zone already provided around Kaukapakapa.

42. The principles within Part 2 are set out in hierarchical order, commencing with matters of national importance first (section 6), other matters second (section 7), and the Treaty of Waitangi third (section 8). Section 6(c) ‘the protection of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’ is a matter of national importance that is relevant. A portion of the site is subject to the Significant Ecological Area overlay under the AUP. No changes are proposed to that overlay, or the extent of it on the site. It will remain in place with the same rules and protection afforded to the area no matter the underlying zoning. However, the proposal does risk that the SEA area is spilt up between the proposed 11 lots, creating inefficiencies and the possibility of potential conflicts in managing the SEA. This could lead to a less than optimal management regime for the SEA. It is noted that the sites directly south of the private plan change request land have split the SEA into multiple areas tied to different dwellings (in order to maximise the dwelling yield across the site).

43. Within section 7 Other matters, the relevant matters are;

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values

(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources

44. In terms of section 7(b) and (g), it is noted that the use of 28 ha of land to provide approximately 11 lots (dwellings) is not a particularly efficient means of housing development.

45. Section 7(c) requires council to have particular regard to the amenity values, and in this particular case the landscape and amenity values of the rural environment are a key matter. As discussed earlier in this report, it was along these lines that the Independent Hearings Panel recommended that the rezoning be rejected during the Auckland Unitary Plan process. Council’s landscape specialist, Stephen Brown has undertaken a coarse merits assessment of this application and has concerns about the rezoning of the land causing adverse landscape effects on the rural amenity of the area. However, the requestor’s landscape specialist does not agree and considers that the site is a natural extension of the existing rural lifestyle development. Given the council specialist’s concern over adverse effects on landscape, it may not be appropriate to rezone further land as Countryside Living zone when there is still capacity for further development in the existing Countryside Living zoned land in the area. This is a matter that requires a detailed as opposed to a coarse assessment.

46. Sections 7(d) and (f), as with section 6(c), are relevant to the significant ecological value of some of the area. As mentioned earlier, the Significant Ecological Overlay over that portion of the site is not proposed to be amended and the protection that it currently has under the AUP will remain (although noting the potential future management issues that may arise via a rezoning and subdivision).

Regional Policy Statement

47. The Regional Policy Statement sets out some relevant objectives and policies in B9.2 Rural activities and B9.4 Rural subdivision, and of particular relevance are B9.2.1(3) and (4), B9.2.2 (1) and (2), B9.4.1(1), (3) and (4), and B9.4.2 (1), (2)(e), (3), (4) and (5).

48. Generally, the objectives and policies of B9.2.1 and B9.2.2 require that rural production and the character, amenity, landscape and biodiversity values of the rural areas are maintained and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

49. The objectives and policies of B9.4.1 and B9.4.2 direct the prevention of fragmentation and loss of productive potential from Auckland’s rural land and also direct that the subdivision of rural land avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the character, amenity, natural character, landscape and biodiversity values of rural areas. Policy B9.4.2(4) outlines where any new rural lifestyle subdivision (i.e. Countryside Living zones) should be located. The criteria include avoiding rezoning where they could undermine the future expansion of urban areas, natural and physical resources scheduled in the plan, elite and prime soils, constraining the existing or future extraction of mineral resources, adverse effects on landscape, rural character and amenity values, reverse sensitivity issues for rural production activities, and impacts on existing or planned infrastructure.

50. In the context of the prevention of further fragmentation of rural land as per B9.4.1, this request represents further fragmentation by the means of zoning change enabling a more fragmented development pattern.

51. B9.5 provides some context for the reasoning behind the adoption of these objectives and policies and of particular relevance is the paragraph below:

The provisions of the Unitary Plan include provisions that assist in managing activities and their effects on the rural environment to retain and use its productive potential, biodiversity values, rural character and amenity values. This involves recognizing that a rural lifestyle is attractive to many people so that countryside living is enabled in identified areas, while also recognising the importance of protecting the productive potential of rural land as well as its rural amenity values.

Auckland Plan 2050 (adopted in June 2018)

52. Kaukapakapa is identified in the Development Strategy of the Auckland Plan 2050 (2018) as a “Rural Settlement” and the Auckland Plan states that “Residential growth in rural Auckland will be focused mainly in the towns which provide services for the wider rural area, particularly the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth. Less growth is anticipated in the smaller towns and villages.” Kaukapakapa is not identified in the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as a Future Development Area for significant intensification. Future Development Areas are specific locations that are expected to undergo a significant amount of housing and business growth in the next 30 years. The Development Strategy also does not identify Kaukapakapa as a Future Urban Area for significant greenfield growth.

Kaukapakapa Structure Plan 2010

53. Regard must be had to the Kaukapakapa Structure Plan (2010) under Part 5 of the RMA (s74(2)(b)(i)) as it is a plan prepared under another Act (the Local Government Act 2002). While adopted by the legacy Rodney District Council in 2010, the Kaukapakapa Structure Plan is still a relevant planning document and it reflects the later Auckland Plan (2018) Development Strategy. It is the most recent structure plan for the settlement and the strategic growth role of the settlement has not changed since it was adopted.

54. The Kaukapakapa Structure Plan is consistent with the strategic growth direction of the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as summarised in section 3.1 of the structure plan:

At the primary regional and district scale, the overarching settlement strategy is to retain the current character and general profile of Kaukapakapa as small rural service town, serving a limited rural hinterland and regional through traffic. The acceptance of this “settlement positioning” determines that the town will remain generally low profile in terms of the provision of employment opportunities, services and facilities, and will likely offer only essential and basic opportunities.

55. The Kaukapakapa Structure Plan is therefore still relevant in considering this private plan change request. The structure plan specifically looked at the issue of rural-residential growth and where it should best be located around Kaukapakapa. The structure plan identified that the key natural features of Kaukapakapa and its surrounds are the “steeper bush-clad hills surrounding the northern node to the north, which serves as an enclosing visual backdrop to the northern township, and is the township’s principal landscape identity feature” (section 2.5 of the structure plan).

56. Therefore, a key component of the structure plan’s development strategy was “Protecting the valuable visual landscape backdrop to the northern township by limiting any further residential development on these hillsides” (section 3.3 of the structure plan and illustrated in Figure 7 below).

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 7: Kaukapakapa Structure Plan Natural features map

57. The structure plan implements this by limiting new rural-residential areas to the north of the town and focusing new rural-residential opportunities in the southern part of the settlement (see map below).

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 8: Areas of new Countryside Living land in the Kaukapakapa Structure Plan (in orange)

58. In terms of capacity, the structure plan provided for a significant amount of additional residential and rural-residential capacity to the settlement (as shown in Figure 8 above) with the new proposed Countryside Living land shown in orange. Approximately 85ha of additional Countryside Living zoned land was identified in the structure plan. The structure plan Land Use Proposals (future zonings) were largely incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan when it was notified in 2013, including a large increase in the area zoned for residential and rural-residential development. It is therefore arguable that the private plan change request is inconsistent with the Kaukapakapa Structure Plan as it seeks that even more rural-residential capacity is added to the settlement.

Figure 9: Kaukapakapa Structure Plan 2010

Conclusion

59. A preliminary assessment indicates that there are areas of consistency as well as inconsistency with Part 5, however notably:

(a) It does not propose a zone change completely contrary to the zoning pattern already established in the area

(b) The plan change is located near State Highway 16, and a rural lifestyle living development that has recently been completed to the south east of the site and the plan change intends to make use of the roading infrastructure already in place for that development, including Maddies Road.

(c) The plan change area does not cover land that contains elite or prime soils, which are highlighted in the Regional Policy Statement for special protection.

60. For these reasons, and although there are a number of concerns in terms of the merits of the plan change request, the validity of the conclusions in the request documentation and the appropriateness of the rezoning request would be best dealt with via a publicly notified submission and hearing process so that these matters can be considered in full. The request is not so contrary to Part 5 that the request should be rejected under clause 25(4)(d).

61. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4)(d).

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

62. The district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

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

Option 4 – Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request (cl25(2)(b))

64. If the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must then proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26. After the submission period has closed, the council would need to hold a hearing to consider submissions, and a decision would then be made by the council in relation to the request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. All associated costs (including notification and any hearing) would rest with the requestor.

65. This is the only remaining option available to the council for consideration. It is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, having regard to relevant case law, and it is more appropriate to accept the request than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

68. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is largely a procedural decision, rather than a substantive decision on the merit of the plan change request itself.

69. The expansion of a remote, low density, rural lifestyle living area has the potential to impact on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. it will increase car dependency with little public transport, walking and cycling opportunities, and will not support quality compact urban form). However, at present, s70A of the RMA specifically prohibits Auckland Council from making rules in the Unitary Plan regarding or considering the climate change effects of any greenhouse gas emissions.

70. While there is also section 7(i) of the RMA that refers to having particular regard to “the effects of climate change”, it needs to be emphasized that this considers the effects of climate change from a development (e.g. sea-level rise causing inundation of a proposed subdivision) rather than the effects on climate change that a development may cause/contribute to (e.g. increased greenhouse gas emissions).

71. The RMA Amendment Act 2020 will alter assessments of environmental effects for applications considered after 31 December 2021. This is the date from which s70A of the RMA shall be repealed, requiring a consideration of climate change effects from the discharges of greenhouse gases. If this private plan change request is considered before 31 December 2021, s70A will still apply and therefore the Unitary Plan cannot contain rules considering the climate change effects from any greenhouse gas emissions. However, should this private plan change request be considered from 2022 onwards, there will be an ability to consider the effects on climate change.

72. It is noted that the there is one relevant exception to the above discussion around not being able to consider effects on climate change. That is, section 70A of the RMA does enable the consideration of the extent that the use and development of renewable energy enables a reduction in the discharge into air of greenhouse gases. The request does not include any proposals for the use and development of renewable energy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

73. Auckland Transport (AT) have provided feedback on the information within the plan change request and its adequacy under clause 23. They have reserved their right to make a submission on the plan change in any future submission period.

74. As the request is concerning rural zoned land, water and wastewater infrastructure can be and is usually provided privately on-site. Watercare manage the public water and wastewater networks, and typically do not have any concern or involvement in private water and wastewater arrangements. Nevertheless, Watercare will be notified and offered the opportunity to make a submission.

75. AT and Watercare will have the opportunity to further review the plan change and may choose to lodge a submission on it when it is publicly notified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

76. The Rodney Local Board will be asked for their views on the private plan change after the clause 25 decision is made, and any views provided will be included in the hearing report. The local board will be informed of the hearing date and invited to speak at the hearing in support of its views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

77. The requestors have provided a cultural impact assessment from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. This assessment concluded that based on the information provided by the requestors, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara support the private plan change request.

78. If council accepts the plan change for notification, all relevant iwi authorities (including Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara) 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.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

79. If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the requestor. The cost of making a council submission on the private plan change is able to be managed within the Plans and Place’s department’s budget.

80. If rejected, the Clause 25 decision could be appealed to the Environment Court and council would be required to cover the costs of defending any appeal, and any costs awarded if the appeal was successful. In terms of costs of defending any appeal, this is likely to be internal staff costs, landscape consultant costs and costs of legal representation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

81. The only risk associated with accepting the 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.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Private Plan Change Request: Maddies Road and Alpine Road, Kaukapakapa, February 2020	107

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Petra Burns - Policy Planner

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager - Planning, Regional, North, West & Islands

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 April 2021

Auckland Plan 2050 – new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measures

File No.: CP2021/02161

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures of the Auckland Plan 2050.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan 2050 monitoring framework’s measures are used to track general progress and trends, and to support council decision making.

3. When the Plan was adopted in 2018, it was identified that more work was needed to confirm measures for the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome. A challenge at this time was identifying measures with available data sources, reported frequently enough, to show meaningful results on an annual basis.

4. This work has progressed, supported by recent developments such as Natural Environment Targeted Rate monitoring and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework. It will be further supported by increased requirements to monitor environmental outcomes through recent national direction such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the National Environment Standard for Air Quality.

5. Six finalised measures and associated sub-measures are now proposed for adoption. These cover:

· individual and community attitudes and behaviours which support the outcome

· pressures on native species and ecosystems

· water and air quality

· statutory protection of the environment and cultural heritage.

6. Results for the adopted measures will be reported in mid-2021 in the Auckland Plan Annual Monitoring Report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the new Environment and Cultural Heritage measures and their sub-measures:

i) People's treasuring and stewardship of the natural environment and cultural heritage

ii) Active management of priority native habitats

iii) Active management of threatened native plants and animals

iv) Marine and freshwater quality

v) Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions

vi) Statutory protection of environment and cultural heritage

b) note that these new measures will next be reported in the 2021 Auckland Plan Annual Monitoring report in July 2021.

Horopaki

Context

The Auckland Plan

7. The Auckland Plan 2050 sets the long-term strategic direction for Auckland and was adopted in June 2018. It is a requirement of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Measures and the Auckland Plan

8. The Auckland Plan 2050 monitoring framework is comprised of 33 measures. This measures general progress and trends across the six outcomes and the Development Strategy of the Plan. As the Plan is for all of Auckland, the monitoring framework looks wider than council’s direct scope of control.

9. An Auckland Plan Annual Monitoring Report presents results for these measures and supports the evidence base of the Plan by identifying trends.

10. The July release of these results is followed by the Annual Report and Māori Outcomes Report in September. These three reports collectively assist council in understanding the impacts of its decision making and investment decisions and support future decision making.

11. An Auckland Plan Three Yearly Progress Report is produced prior to the development of each long-term plan. It draws on the trends identified in the Annual Monitoring Reports and utilises additional data sets to identify trends, gaps and opportunities to guide investment decisions. The first of these reports was presented to the Planning Committee in March 2020.

12. To enable the understanding of trends over time, it is important that this set of measures is retained for the life of the plan. However, there is scope to change supporting data sets if this adds value and robustness to the measure.

13. The measures aim to give a sense of progress against the whole outcome so are not aligned to specific directions or focus areas.

Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measures

14. This outcome seeks an Auckland where Aucklanders preserve, protect and care for the natural environment as our shared cultural heritage, for its intrinsic value and for the benefit of present and future generations.

15. There are currently six Environment and Cultural Heritage measures. These measures were considered “under development” as they posed challenges in their breadth and the nature of the data used to support them.

16. These are:

· State and quality of locally, regionally and nationally significant environments

· Marine and freshwater quality

· Air quality and gas emissions

· Protection of the environment

· Resilience to natural threats

· Treasuring of the environment.

17. The 2020 Annual Monitoring Report noted that some data sets currently used to report on this outcome are updated infrequently and that further work was needed to ensure measures are fit for purpose.

18. This further work aimed to develop a set measures with the following qualities:

· supported with currently available data

· reported on frequently enough to show meaningful results in annual reporting

· enable an understanding of trends, allowing tracking and reporting of progress against the outcome

· collectively give coverage of the outcome.

19. Development of measures which met these criteria has since been enabled by expansion in council’s monitoring and reporting in the environmental and cultural heritage area. The Natural Environment Targeted Rate funded greater monitoring and reporting, and recent national direction, such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the National Environment Standard for Air Quality, has increased and enhanced requirements for monitoring and reporting air and water quality. The work in developing Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework has created new measures for use.

20. There are also a number of other council monitoring and reporting approaches which provide information on how we are performing against the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome. These include:

· Long-term plan performance measures including performance measures against groups of activities that deliver on environmental outcomes (such as Stormwater, Waste Services, Environmental Services, and Regional Parks) as well as Natural Environment Targeted Rate programmes

· The State of the Environment synthesis report every five years with more frequent topic specific technical reports

· Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan indicators

· Auckland Heritage Counts annual report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Six measures, and related sub-measures, have been developed after engagement with subject matter experts across council. These collectively meet the aims set out in paragraph 18.

22. The proposed measures and sub-measures are:

Proposed measure	Proposed sub-measure(s)
People's treasuring and stewardship of the natural environment and cultural heritage	Valuing of biodiversity
	Performance of conservation actions
	Kaitiakitanga
	Household waste
Active management of priority native habitats	Animal pest control in priority native habitats
	Plant pest control in priority native habitats
	Native planting
Active management of threatened native plants and animals	Management of plants and animals regionally vulnerable to extinction
	Management of threats to key species on Hauraki Gulf islands
Marine and freshwater quality	Stream water quality
	Lake water quality
	Coastal water quality
	Beach swimming safety
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions	Nitrogen dioxide
	Particulate matter
	Greenhouse gasses
Statutory protection of environment and cultural heritage	Scheduled significant ecological areas
	Protection of sites and places of significance for Mana Whenua

23. There is a gap in these measures in understanding the direct impacts, positive or negative, of development on the natural environment due to current monitoring constraints. An understanding of these impacts at a wider scale could be understood utilising State of the Environment reporting and there is potential for existing monitoring of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Unitary Plan to provide further insights. This would enable this area to be examined through the Auckland Plan Three Year Progress Report.

24. The two most significant changes proposed compared to the initial “under development” approach agreed at the adoption of the Auckland Plan 2050 are a greater incorporation of te ao Māori and the way in which ecosystem health and resilience is measured.

Te ao Māori perspectives

25. In te ao Māori the environment is an interconnected whole, and accordingly environmental health needs to be understood holistically. All parts of the environment are infused with mauri and are connected by whakapapa establishing reciprocal and genealogical relationships between all things.

26. The Auckland Plan 2050 acknowledges the unique relationship Māori have with the natural environment and identifies the opportunity to improve the environment through the wider adoption of te ao Māori perspectives.

27. Two proposed sub measures consider kaitiakitanga and current statutory protection of sites of significance. The kaitiakitanga submeasure enables focus on the reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world by measuring initiatives with Māori which protect and improve the environment, improve water quality and reduce pollution.

28. There are limited measures and data for the natural environment in Tāmaki Makaurau that utilise cultural indicators and mātauranga Māori. If and when these become available they can complement or replace current data sets being used.

29. There is some complementary reporting that will be drawn on in the Three Yearly Progress Report. The Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Values reports, particularly on kaitiakitanga, provides analysis of a wide range of data sets from a te ao Māori perspective. Statistics New Zealand’s five yearly Te Kupenga survey of Māori wellbeing complements these measures with more in-depth data on the attitudes and behaviours of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ecosystem health and resilience

30. The initial measures included the state and resilience of ecosystems. Ecosystems are dynamic and annual fluctuations mean that trends may only be identified using measures that are supported by monitoring data that cover several years (or even decades). The proposed approach is to monitor protection and activities which remove pressures on ecosystems as well as individual and community attitudes and behaviors. These measures are more meaningful in an annual context as an indicator of the state of the ecosystems.

31. The State of the Environment Report considers wider questions of ecosystem health and resilience and would be considered in development of the Three Yearly Progress Report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. Adoption of new measures will have no direct impacts on climate change mitigation or adaptation. However, the measures on net and gross carbon emissions in Auckland will support increased focus in decision making on this issue.

33. The set of success indicators in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan aligns with the Auckland Plan 2050’s measures and will provide deeper insights from a climate change perspective that will be considered as part of the Three Yearly Progress Report.

34. Climate change adaptation and mitigation is linked with all outcomes of the Auckland Plan. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan notes that action on the priorities detailed within Auckland’s Climate Plan will deliver opportunities and benefits across each of the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. The Auckland Plan 2050 is a primary strategic document for the whole council group. These measures will assist CCOs in understanding the current state as well as trends in relation to the achievement of this outcome.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. There are no specific impacts on local boards. However, some of these measures, such as air and water quality, can be reported spatially at a sub-regional level to support local board planning and decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. The environment and cultural heritage is of great significance to Māori. The proposed measures enable greater monitoring of progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 in this area. However, there is limited available data which employ cultural indicators and mātauranga Māori, which in turn reduces the ability for monitoring in this area. Reform of the resource management system is likely to expand system monitoring requirements and may lead to the collection of new data that could address this issue.

38. The proposed measures were developed in consultation with subject matter experts, including representation from Ngā Mātārae and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The two sub measures relating to kaitiakitanga and sites of significance are aligned to the following outcomes from Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau:

· Kia Ora te Taiao – Kaitiakitanga,

· Kia Ora te Ahurea – Māori Identity and Culture.

39. This alignment places emphasis on enabling mana whenua aspirations and rights to actively exercise kaitiakitanga in Tāmaki Makaurau as a measure of implementation of the Auckland Plan 2050.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. Whilst there are no direct financial implications the strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 is a key vehicle to support decision-making on council’s long-term plans. The 33 measures support understanding of progress in implementing the Auckland Plan 2050 and can assist with investment decisions.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. There are no risks identified with making this decision. Maintaining the status quo may pose strategic risk as future Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Reports and Three Yearly Progress Reports would continue to lack reporting and analysis on agreed measures for the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. The 2021 Annual Measures Report will report on the baseline and most recent available data for these new measures.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Simon Randall - Lead Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

01 April 2021

Downtown Carpark transport outcomes

File No.: CP2021/02605

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To obtain approval for the transport outcomes for the Downtown Carpark site to inform a competitive market process and to update the committee on the engagement with the Waitematā Local Board, Heart of the City and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Downtown Carpark site is identified in the council’s City Centre Masterplan as a significant site that should be redeveloped to enhance the quality and experience of this key part of Auckland’s city centre waterfront. The high pedestrian and cyclist volume in this area requires the development to carefully consider and integrate pedestrian permeability, multimodal transport initiatives and vehicular access requirements.

3. The Planning Committee approved in December 2020 outcomes for the Downtown Carpark site for land use, urban form and quality design, movement and access, environmental and social responsibility, and Māori. Further work was required on the transport outcomes.

4. The Finance and Performance Committee in December 2020 approved the sale of the Downtown Carpark and for the Panuku Board, in consultation with the Auckland Transport Board, to lead a market process to select a partner to purchase and redevelop the carpark site to achieve the outcomes agreed by the Planning Committee. The Finance and Performance Committee also requested wider engagement on the development outcomes, and for the result of this engagement and the transport outcomes be reported to the Planning Committee.

5. Workshops have been held with the Waitematā Local Board, Heart of the City, and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to discuss the development outcomes. Mana Whenua were also informed through the Panuku Mana Whenua Forum. While a range of views were expressed, there was general support for the development outcomes and the benefits this would provide to the city centre.

6. In terms of transport context, the City Centre Master plan and Access for Everyone (A4E) provide the planning guidance for the area. Within this, we expect to see demand for travel into the city centre increase in line with growth in employment, entertainment and education facilities within the area. This additional demand is forecast to be absorbed by sustainable modes, decreasing the overall car mode share into the area. Actual numbers of car trips are, however, expected to remain at around today’s levels – contributing to an ongoing demand for parking.

7. AT managed short stay parking facilities appear to play an important role in supporting travel into the city for business, entertainment and retail purposes. These short stay facilities are forecast to reduce by half over time with the sale of the Downtown car park and the removal of on-street car parking for other purposes.

8. Redevelopment of the Downtown parking building provides opportunities to support council’s transport objectives. Inclusion of a 6,000m2 bus interchange facility is recommended within the redevelopment to improve public transport and urban realm outcomes. In particular, this would remove the bulk of the buses from the lower-Albert and Quay street area, improving pedestrian amenity.

9. Two options have been considered to support other objectives: a 12,000m2 to 18,000m2 flexible transport hub; or, a developer led solution. The flexible transport hub is recommended as it offers a range of advantages, including the provision of cycling facilities, removing parking and servicing from the street level and improving the pedestrian environment and easing the transition to A4E.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the transport outcome of a maximum of 6,000m2 of floor space for a public transport interchange to inform a competitive market process to redevelop the Downtown Carpark site

b) approve a transport outcome of 12,000 – 18,000m2 of floor space for allocation to a transport hub space in addition to the 6000m2 which would:

i) be flexibly designed to support a range of transport uses (and allow for their change over time)

ii) include public access to: short stay parking, car share/ride share, cycling and micro-mobility, mobility parking, freight distribution and dispatch and also end of trip facilities

iii) be designed to maximise the ease of conversion to non-transport uses over time should this achieve a better strategic outcome for the city centre.

c) note the feedback provided by Waitematā Local Board, Heart of the City, and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board regarding the redevelopment of the Downtown Carpark site, and that based on this feedback, agree that no changes are required to the additional outcomes agreed to by the Planning Committee in December 2020.

Horopaki

Context

Process to date

10. The Downtown Carpark site is identified in Auckland Council’s City Centre Masterplan as a significant site that should be redeveloped to enhance the quality and experience of this key part of Auckland’s city centre waterfront. The high pedestrian and cyclist volume in this area requires the development to carefully consider and integrate pedestrian permeability, multimodal transport initiatives and vehicular access requirements.

11. At its meeting on 3 December 2020 the Planning Committee (PLA/202/120) agreed the outcomes sought from a development on the Downtown Carpark site. The outcomes agreed by the Planning Committee on 3 December 2020 were grouped under the following headings:

· Land use

· Urban form and quality design

· Movement and access

· Environmental and social responsibility

· Māori outcomes

· Transport

12. The Planning Committee resolved for staff to report back to the Planning Committee in March 2021 with more information in respect of the transport outcomes.

13. At its meeting on 15 December 2020, the Finance and Performance Committee (FIN/2020/104) approved the sale of the Downtown Carpark. It also granted approval for the Panuku Board, in consultation with the Auckland Transport Board, to lead a market process to select a partner to purchase and redevelop the carpark site to achieve the outcomes agreed by the Planning Committee.

14. The Finance and Performance Committee also requested wider engagement on the development outcomes and for the result of this engagement and the transport outcomes be reported to the Planning Committee.

15. A steering group comprising of senior staff from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Panuku has been formed to oversee the implementation of the decisions of both committees. This group is led by David Rankin, CEO of Panuku.

Strategic Planning Context

16. The Auckland Plan 2050 is council’s over-arching strategic planning document. The three ‘directions’ stated in the Auckland Plan 2050 relating to transport and access are to:

· Direction 1: Better connect people, places, goods and services

· Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland

· Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection.

17. Building on the outcomes and directions set out in the Auckland Plan 2050, in March 2020, the council adopted a refreshed version of the City Centre Masterplan. A core concept of the refreshed City Centre Masterplan is Access for Everyone (or A4E). A4E is a coordinated response that manages Auckland's city centre transport needs by:

· limiting motorised through-traffic

· prioritising access to city centre destinations

· creating new spaces

· improving access for servicing, freight and delivery

· favouring public transport, walking and cycling.

18. A4E integrates long term planning, city management and investment and provides an opportunity to transform how people and freight move in the city centre. By enabling a decisive mode shift away from private vehicles, it aims to make better use of finite city centre space and improve the quality of the environment. The core elements of A4E are summarised in the City Centre Masterplan as:

· city centre managed as a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods, restricting through-traffic.

· 30 per cent reduction in peak-time traffic levels in Auckland city centre to enable new traffic network

· mode shift towards public transport, walking, cycling and micro-mobility.

· easier access for people with accessibility and mobility needs.

· better conditions for freight access in city centre, including construction, deliveries and rubbish collection.

· more reliable access for emergency services.

· growth in use of smaller, zero-emissions vehicles for city centre transport of people and goods.

· zero-emissions areas in Waihorotiu Queen Street Valley, enabled initially via pilot projects to prioritise pedestrians.

Access for Everyone (A4E) is an idea to create more space in the city centre. It aims to provide healthier, safer and more equitable transport and public space in the city centre.

Figure 1: Access for Everyone concept diagram from the City Centre Masterplan

19. The City Centre Masterplan identifies some specific transport, movement and public realm outcomes for the ‘Downtown West’ area. It notes that the transformation of the area remains key to integrating the city centre downtown core with the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Quarter waterfront neighbourhoods to the west. The eventual removal of the Lower Hobson Street Flyover, and aspiration to redevelop the Auckland Council-owned downtown car park site are initiatives identified as having the collective potential to add:

· greater intensity

· higher value

· more active uses

· a more engaging and connected public realm that delivers the unrealised place potential in this prime location.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

City Centre Transport Context

20. The last decade has seen a major change in the nature of the transport network supporting the city centre. Public transport has improved dramatically, with rapid transit improvements through the Northern Busway and an upgraded rail system running modern electric trains. The bus network has been substantially upgraded and improved. The frequency of services into the city has also increased dramatically, particularly on the rapid transit network.

21. These improvements have enabled the transport network to accommodate an increase in demand for travel to the city centre while yielding a major change in travel behaviour. Based on census data, the share of commuting by car has declined from 59% in 2006 to around 42% in 2018. Meanwhile, more recent and detailed traffic monitoring shows a decline in morning peak private vehicle trips from around 42,000 in 2015 to around 35,000 in 2019. However, during the course of a full day there are an estimated 196,000 trips by private vehicle into the city centre. This indicates a much higher use outside of the peak periods, most likely for business, entertainment or retail purposes.

22. COVID-19 and the shift to working from home has also impacted travel behaviour, with total morning peak demand for travel to the city centre dropping from 63,000 in December 2019 to 49,000 in December 2020. As the impact of Covid recedes, we expect growth to return to its previous trajectory, albeit off this lower base as working from home appears to have become embedded.

23. Looking forward, a key objective is to ensure there is sufficient transport network capacity to support ongoing growth of the city centre. This is achieved primarily through investment in rapid transit links, along with improved bus capacity and walking and cycling to support mode shift and accommodate increasing demand through higher-capacity sustainable modes. The modelling results suggest car travel reducing from 44% of AM peak motorised trips in 2016 to 25% in 2038, while the interpeak reduces from 66% to 42%. Importantly however, the actual number of car trips is expected to remain relatively constant over time (although these figures do not factor in the requirement for A4E to reduce peak period travel by 30%).

24. In summary, the modelling indicates a strong mode shift to sustainable modes as the city centre grows, particularly during the peak periods. However, the overall number of car trips into the city centre is expected to remain similar to today. Car travel will continue to play an important role in interpeak travel and trips for business, entertainment and retail purposes and this is likely to lead to a continued demand for short stay parking.

City Centre Parking Context

25. At a strategic level, the Auckland Plan 2050 recognises we can reduce the need for valuable land to be used as parking if there is:

· greater use of public transport, walking and cycling

· an increase in the number of people travelling in each vehicle

26. As with the rest of the city centre transport network, and consistent with the Auckland Plan 2050 and previous strategic plans, AT’s parking operations have undergone significant change over the last decade. On street parking has reduced from 5,000 to 2,460 to support reallocation of road space to other modes and purposes. Meanwhile, the price for commuter parking in Auckland Transport’s buildings has more than doubled to a maximum of $40 per day.

27. At present, AT currently controls 6,649 car parks in the city centre, of which 4,189 are off-street and 2,460 are on-street. Of these, just over 5,000 are short stay parks intended to support the economic and cultural vibrancy of the city centre. Although this is a small proportion of overall parking in the city centre, AT is a key provider of lower-cost short stay parking.

28. The Downtown car park has some 1,944 parks, of which 1,148 are for short stay parking and 796 are for lease. Data shows that the Downtown car park attracts use from around north, west and central Auckland. Most of the short stay parking use occurs during the inter-peak period and weekends, suggesting use for business purposes along with shopping and entertainment in the surrounding area. This is reinforced by survey data, which indicates that 75% of people parking at Downtown during the interpeak were there for entertainment, dining or shopping.

29. Looking forward, we expect to see continued reduction in on-street car parking in the city centre. And, over the long-run, the bulk of short stay car parking is expected to be removed – particularly with eventual completion of the full A4E project.

30. Before an unsolicited offer in 2020 to purchase the Downtown car park, AT’s plan had been to maintain the existing level of short-stay car parking within the city centre over time. The intention was to phase out off-street lease spaces and replace these with the short-stay parks displaced from on-street locations. However, the combination of the Downtown sale and reallocation of on-street parking will now see AT-provided short say parking reduce by half over time, with a higher reduction in the downtown and Queen Street corridor areas (before consideration of the options below).

31. Overall, the limited data available indicates that AT’s short stay parking is fulfilling its intended role of supporting economic activity and vibrancy in the city centre by providing another travel option that suits shorter-length activities rather than commuting. Looking to the future, we expect this role to diminish as overall sustainable travel options improve and short-stay parking capacity is significantly reduced within the city centre.

Inclusion of transport infrastructure within the redeveloped Downtown site

32. As noted, Council has received an unsolicited bid for the purchase and redevelopment of the Downtown site. As part of the negotiations associated with this bid, it is proposed to include a 6,000m² public transport interchange and a 12,000m² – 18,000m² multi-use transport hub facility.

The public transport interchange

33. Access for Everyone and AT’s Bus Reference Case^{^[1]} have set the policy context for the City Centre Bus Plan (CCBP), which AT plans to present to the Planning Committee in mid-2021. The CCBP will set out how buses will use the four key city centre bus corridors (Customs, Wellesley, Albert and Symonds Streets) and how they will be supported by new off-street terminal facilities. This CCBP project is supported by the recently released RLTP, which includes two key projects within the city centre to improve bus infrastructure.

34. Currently, all bus route groups terminate at various disparate on-street facilities. Under the CCBP, all bus route groups except two will cross the city centre from east to west on either Wellesley St or Customs St, to terminate at Beach Rd, Grafton Gully, Victoria Park and Wynyard Quarter.

35. The two exceptions will be Western bus routes on Albert St, and from the central Isthmus on Symonds St, which are proposed to use the Lower Albert St terminal (which will open in late April 2021 and will initially be used by Northern Express, Onewa Rd and Western services).

36. The use of Lower Albert St will require buses to circulate on Quay St and Lower Hobson St in both directions and, in the case of the Albert St group (West Auckland), to also use Fanshawe St, Market Place, Pakenham St and Sturdee St to turn around and lay over between trips.

37. Lower Albert St is predicted to have insufficient capacity to cater for future bus volumes at some stage in the next decade (post 2028).

38. The use of the Downtown Car Park presents the opportunity for all bus route groups to terminate at off-street locations. This is illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: proposed bus route termination points in the city centre

39. The Downtown redevelopment proposal opens the possibility that the Lower Albert St bus stops could ultimately be replaced by an off-street facility incorporating passenger platforms, waiting areas, a customer service centre, bus turnaround and layover spaces and driver toilets and break rooms. This would mean that no city centre bus routes would need to use streets for layover purposes.

40. A major benefit of using the Downtown car park site would be that all buses would be removed from Quay St between Hobson and Albert Streets. This would not only improve the urban realm around the recently completed Downtown works on Quay Street, but it would also mean that major waterfront events would not impede bus operations at the very time when such events create high customer demand. The routing for Western and Central Isthmus bus service groups is indicated below, both with and without an off-street facility incorporated within the Downtown car park development.

Figure Two: on-street bus movements without bus facility incorporated in the Downtown development

Figure Three: on-street bus movements with the bus facility incorporated in the Downtown development

41. Given the benefits in removing buses from the surrounding streets, Auckland Transport recommends that the bus interchange is included in the competitive market process to redevelop the Downtown car park site.

Options for a multi-use transport hub

42. AT originally proposed retention of short-stay parking capacity within the redeveloped Downtown site to support council’s objectives around economic and cultural vibrancy in the surrounding area, particularly the Viaduct. However, following the Planning Committee workshops we have understood that the use of AT-managed parking to support city centre activity is now less of a priority. Consequently, the option of leaving additional transport facilities to the developer is also canvassed in this report along with the recommended flexible transport hub. These options are additional to the public transport interchange.

The flexible transport hub option

43. The development will require allocated parking to meet the current long-term leasing obligations as well as parking for the development’s own requirements.

44. In addition, this first option is to approve Panuku seeking provisions in the sale / redevelopment arrangements for the Downtown Car Park to provide between 12,000m² – 18,000m² of floor space for allocation to a transport hub on top of the developer’s own requirements mentioned above. This would be flexibly designed to support a range of uses (and allow for their change over time). This includes public access to: short stay parking, car share/ride share, cycling and micromobility, mobility parking, freight distribution and dispatch and also end of trip facilities. Design requirements would also seek to ensure that the space is commercially feasible for conversion to other non-transport uses in the future.

45. This option would begin with around 400-600 short stay car parks to allow some transition away from the 1,148 parks currently provided at Downtown. However, over time we expect this space to be repurposed to allow for other modes, such as car share, micro-freight or increased cycling parking facilities.

46. A final decision on the flexible transport hub would depend on the implications around loss of revenue and fit out costs on the Downtown sale.

47. The main advantages of the flexible transport hub option are as follows:

i) It provides greater flexibility to adapt to changing transport needs with an off-street, AT managed space that can be tailored to requirements over time.

ii) It supports cycling use through bike parking and end of journey facilities.

iii) It will make it easier to remove some on-street vehicle or other transport related parking or loading/servicing requirements in the downtown area if there is an off-street alternative. (The use of parking in the Victoria Street car park to compensate for the loss of short stay in High Street during the recent trial is an example of this).

iv) It provides a reduced short-stay parking capacity to smooth the future transition away from on-street parking as part A4E and to continue to support economic and cultural vibrancy in the area.

v) May provide a modest ongoing revenue source.

48. The main disadvantages are:

i) Loss of revenue associated with the sale of the asset compared to first and best use, along with associated construction costs.

ii) Continuing to attract cars into an area that should be increasingly pedestrianised through A4E and will slightly slow the speed of mode change into the city centre.

iii) Any provision of car parking may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, although the impact will be smaller than current Downtown parking allocations and will be mitigated by support for more sustainable modes.

49. While car parking and other options would be lost during the construction period, we expect that demand for short-stay parking would remain over time as on-street parks are progressively removed. AT’s experience with the Ranui car park redevelopment has shown a strong return of demand, with the car park now at full capacity.

The developer determined option

50. The second option is to leave determination of additional transport facilities to the developer in line with the relevant Unitary Plan provisions and not proceed with an AT managed transport hub. We expect in this case that the developer would likely seek to provide some public parking as a revenue source and to support other retail or entertainment activities within the building. However, we expect that any parking would not be limited to short stay parking and would include a more significant significant commuter lease component and be less likely to support activity in the wider area, such as the Viaduct.

51. The main advantages of this a developer based approach are:

i) Higher recovery from the sale of the asset.

52. The main disadvantages are:

i) Loss of flexible options in the Downtown area to remove transport elements, such as parking or loading and servicing, from the street level.

ii) Loss of the opportunity for end of journey cycling facilities in the Downtown area.

iii) Continued parking provision will have a negative climate change impact with no mitigating provision for alternative modes.

iv) Continues to attract cars into the area.

53. After consideration, we see significant overall advantages in the flexible transport hub option, option one, particularly the provision of cycling facilities, removing parking and servicing from the street level, improving the pedestrian environment and easing the transition to A4E.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

54. The proposed bus interchange will support climate change objectives by encouraging mode change away from private vehicles.

55. The impact of options around the provision of a flexible transport hub space are discussed above, but are likely to be neutral to slightly negative. Both options are, however, likely to see less driving into the city centre, compared to the status quo, but it is difficult to estimate how much of this will displace to other locations. Increased use by electric vehicles could mean that ultimately the facility generates zero emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

56. AT strongly supports the public transport interchange and the flexible transport hub as a way to achieve the council’s transport and development objectives in the surrounding area.

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

Local impacts and local board views

57. Following the Finance and Performance Committee resolution in December 2020, Auckland Transport and Panuku Development Auckland undertook engagement with the Waitematā Local Board, Auckland City Centre Advisory Board and Heart of the City. Generally there is support for urban regeneration of this site, that parking should be provided in some capacity. Additional questions were raised by stakeholders about whether the site is the best location for bus activities.

Feedback themes

Waitematā Local Board

58. The Waitematā Local Board is keen on a balance of transport needs and the needs of the urban realm, and alignment with the Access for Everyone concept. It is concerned about too much potential commercial space being given to buses.

Heart of the City

59. Heart of the City is supportive of the redevelopment. It supports the short stay parking and also space for freight distribution and dispatch. It is keen to understand how the six outcomes will be prioritised as it is concerned about the mix being right while making the best of the strategic location. Heart of the City is supportive of the flexible space concept however it questioned the need for a bus terminus.

Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

60. The Advisory Board does not support the bus interchange proposal, and do not support buses in the area at all. It cannot see the reconciliation between the City Centre Masterplan and this proposal as it felt that the council is trying to deliver too much on a small site.

61. The Advisory Board questioned the role of AT in providing parking and generating revenue with it and is of the view that CRL should facilitate people to come into the city centre without a car.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Mana Whenua were informed of the redevelopment proposal through the Panuku Mana Whenua Forum. Further engagement with mana whenua will be undertaken to explore the potential for the incorporation and expression of mana whenua identity and values through the process. Other opportunities for mana whenua may evolve as part of the go to market to process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63. The Downtown Carpark was approved for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee in December 2020. The value realised from the sale will be determined by developer responses to a competitive market process to deliver the development outcomes.

64. The proposal for the Transport Outcomes detailed in this report is reasonable from a financial perspective. The Transport Outcomes proposed are broadly consistent with the unsolicited proposal received in 2020.

65. The boards of Panuku and Auckland Transport have requested a business case is developed which will include the full implications of the development proposal which are currently unknown. These include:

· Impact on Auckland Transport budget from the loss of all or some carparking revenue (either in total or just during the development phase)

· Operating cost of bus interchange (not currently included in the Regional Land Transport Plan or Long-Term Plan budget)

· Impact on the group borrowing capacity due to the reduction in car parking revenue

· Increase in rates revenue following re-development.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

66. The loss of large-scale short stay parking facilities in Downtown, when combined with the progressive removal of on-street short stay parking, will raise the overall cost of travel into the city centre for short-stay purposes. While some mode change will occur, there is also a risk that travel for business, entertainment or shopping purposes will displace to other locations, impacting on business around the Downtown car park and the overall vibrancy of the city centre. The proposed flexible transport hub option addresses this risk by including a smaller provision of off-street short stay parking to provide an alternative as on-street parking is progressively removed.

67. There are risks that the bus interchange will require additional modifications outside of the building site that are currently not funded. This will need to be considered in future budgets once there is a better idea of potential costs, but is not provided for in the current Regional Land Transport Plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

68. Following approval, Panuku will prepare the site for a competitive market offering.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Hamish Bunn – Group Manager Integrated Network Planning & Policy Planning and Investment Group, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Andrew Allen - Executive General Manager Transport Services, Auckland Transport

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	143
b ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update - March 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Crown infrastructure investment in Crown housing delivery areas (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Updates and corrections to Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) documentation discussed at Planning Committee Extraordinary Meeting 11 March 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Government housing package announcement, 23 March 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Auckland Council and Crown Auckland (housing and urban growth) Joint Work Programme – update (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Report on Analysis of the 2018 Census results – Travel to work and travel to education in Auckland (Under Separate Cover)

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee Forward Work Programme 2021 This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The full terms of reference can be found here.
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)
Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of interim monitoring reports ahead of November 2021. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Maori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.	Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.
	Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change	Decisions required: Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47
	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations – staff to report back to Planning Committee with options (May 2021)	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation APSR	The Auckland Plan 2050 has 33 measures which enable monitoring of the progress in its implementation. Five of the six measures for the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome for the Auckland Plan 2050 have undergone further development and now require approval.	Decision required: confirmation of Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures
Auckland Plan Annual Scorecard and Annual Update APSR	To report annual progress against the 33 measures of the Auckland Plan 2050	Decision on possible changes to measures (if none required, could be a memo)
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill (exposure draft) Chief Planning Office	The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA) The exposure draft will provide input into the Select Committee Inquiry which will inform the final bill	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be May/June 2021
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill Chief Planning Office	The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA) Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be second half of 2021
Resource Management system reform – Strategic Planning Bill Chief Planning Office	The Strategic Planning Act (SPA) to integrate with other legislation relevant to development (such as the Local Government Act and Land Transport Management Act) and require long-term regional spatial strategies. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period will be second half of 2021
Resource Management system reform – Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Bill Chief Planning Office	The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act (CAA) to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation. Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.	Decision required: approval of council approach and submission Consultation period likely mid-2022
National Policy Statements
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach Chief Planning Office	The NPS-FM was adopted by central government in September 2020. Auckland Council’s implementation approach needs to be reworked to take into account the greater expectations required of councils and other parties to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai, preceding plan changes required before the end of 2024	Decision required: to receive an updated council implementation approach for the NPS-FM and associated instruments Progress to date: high-level implementation plan approved, working group formed to provide political oversight PLA/2021/12
Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Lands Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-HPL is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for land use in the Auckland region, and how highly productive lands are recognised and managed.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-HPL in the Auckland region.
Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity Chief Planning Office	The finalisation of the proposed NPS-IB is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for how biodiversity outcomes are managed in the Auckland region, particularly through planning frameworks.	Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-IB in the Auckland region.
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The NPS UD was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations	Decision required: consider the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS UD, approve the detailed work programme for Phase 2 Progress to date: Work programme endorsed PLA/2021/8
Government Policy Statement – Housing and Urban Development Chief Planning Office	The GPS will communicate the Government’s long-term vision for the housing and urban growth system. It will provide specific direction to Kainga Ora – Homes and Communities and broad expectations on other government agencies	Decision required: approval of council’s submission Consultation period will be mid-2021
Unit Titles Act Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, seeks to update and modernise the current Act.	Decision required: approve council’s submission (due 29 April 2021)
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights Progress to date: Forward work programmed approved PLA/2020/65

	Research findings	Decision required: consider research and implications
	Consider options	Progress to date: Housing for older people PLA/2020/92, Inclusionary Zoning PLA/2020/93, PLA/2020/94
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management	Decision required: to be confirmed
Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme Chief Planning Office	Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.	Decision required: Generally none. Receive updates by memorandum on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams.
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)	Now that ATAP has been adopted for the next decade staff will commence work on a recommended indicative package for 2031-2051.	Decision required: consider indicative funding packages for outyears 2031-2051 in the third or fourth quarters of 2021
Regional Land Transport Plan	Including climate lens and monitoring. Provide direction for RLTP 2021-2031. Phase 1 of this process, being run by AT, is called ‘Future Connect’ and involves definition of focus areas for planning and investment and ranking of issues. AT’s focus is the period 2028-2031 and future priorities.	Decision required: Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board Progress to date: Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/16 Next steps: Post consultation on the RLTP 2021-2031 – workshops required under LTP funding, prior to this committee endorsing ahead of consideration of Regional Transport Committee.					W	C
Regional Fuel Tax		Decision required: approval of components and changes to current status Progress to date: Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/17
Congestion Question	The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is calling for public submissions on its inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland. Submissions close 20 May 2021	Decision required: consider and approve submission to the select committee					W (tbc) C
City Centre to Mangere light rail	Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: subject to Cabinet consideration
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Status update to be confirmed	Decision required: to be confirmed
Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	Following direction from the Mayor and Chair, Transport Strategy will be working with MoT and AT as part of the PTOM review process. Transport Strategy is waiting on public release of the MoT’s PTOM review, anticipated in the near future. Following release, Transport Strategy will prepare a memorandum summarising key points from the review and relating these to advice provided previously (e.g. bus driver contract conditions and vehicle procurement).	Decision required: to be confirmed
Hamilton to Auckland High Speed Rail business case	Status update to be confirmed.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Auckland Transport
Northwest Interim Bus Improvements	AT advancing bus improvements and responding to consultation. Strong councillor interest	Receive updates
Access for Everyone business case	AT progressing business case in line with Council’s CCMP.	Receive updates and provide feedback on draft
Northern Busway enhancements	AT progressing business case as early part of Additional Waitemata Harbour Connections. High profile project	Receive updates and provide feedback on draft
Regional parking strategy review	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. The indicative completion date is late-2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure
Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy work programme APSR	Engagement with Ministers and engagement with the work underway ahead of report back to Cabinet (previously scheduled for May 2020). Next steps known post-election 2020.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Infrastructure Strategy APSR	30 Year Infrastructure Strategy – strategic insights and direction (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee – forms part of LTP)	Decision required: timeframe and decisions to be confirmed in line with LTP
National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy APSR	This will replace the current national 30-year plan. It will consider how infrastructure might support environmental, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing	Decision required: to be confirmed Consultation period will be May/June 2021								x	x
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory requirement under the Resource Management Act to make council and private plan changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.		As and when required


Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.		As and when required
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change. Progress to date: Endorsed the preparation of a plan change for IRD provisions PLA/2020/115
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space Plans and Places	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.
Auckland Housing Programme – area plans and potential plan changes Plans and Places	Kainga Ora has prepared a spatial development strategy for the Mt Roskill and Mangere areas. These may need area plans for consultation with the community and local boards. Some plan changes may come out of this work for parts of these areas.	Decision required: Endorsement of draft area plans for public consultation.
Panuku Priority Location Programme
Wynyard Point Masterplan & Plan Change Panuku Development Auckland	Refreshed Wynyard Point masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	October/November 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan incorporating public consultation feedback. November 2021 committee decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan and proposed plan change for notification.
Onehunga Wharf Masterplan & Plan Change Panuku Development Auckland	Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Aug 2021 committee decision required: Endorsement for proceeding with preparation of a plan change.
Unlock Uptown Panuku Development Auckland	Foundation Outcomes and Precinct Development Plan to guide the regeneration delivery of Council and Crown land surrounding CRL Karangahape and Maungawhau stations.	Jul 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Foundation Outcomes. Dec 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Precinct Development Plan prior seeking formal approval. Feb 2022 committee decision required: Endorsement for the proposed Precinct Development Plan.
Unlock Haumaru Panuku Development Auckland	Programme delivery completed and forward programme update.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.
AT TOD Programme Panuku Development Auckland & Auckland Transport	Panuku and Auckland Transport joint work programme to investigate transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities around established transport hub and park & ride sites.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.
Unlock Northcote Panuku Development Auckland	Update on market process to select a preferred development partner and proposed regeneration delivery pathway.	2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
CPO	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill	Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
CPO	Submission on the Urban Development Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
CPO	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring	Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption	Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
DPO	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government	Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
CPO	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package	Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
CPO	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan	Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund	Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
CPO	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan	Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Plans and Places	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission	Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
CPO	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change	Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas	Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai	Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plans Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.	Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68
Plans and Places	Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule	Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities	Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee. PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Additional Harbour Crossing	Consideration of finalised business case. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee PLA/2020/100
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question	Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.	Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee PLA/2020/116
Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council	Downtown Carpark development outcomes	Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.	Considered in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120
Auckland Transport	Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review	Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.	Members delegated to the political reference group PLA/2021/7
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Project	Agree funding package.	Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package PLA/2021/15

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
4/3/2021	Confidential: ATAL/RLTP/RFT
17/3/2021	Confidential: Downtown carparking
24/3/2021	Confidential: Downtown carparking – session two
24/3/2021	Auckland Transport – Update on Vision Zero, Road Safety and Safe Speeds Programme
24/3/2021	Decision making on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Significant development capacity and responsiveness

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
03/2021	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – March 2021
3/3/2021	Crown infrastructure investment in Crown housing delivery areas
16/3/2021	Updates and corrections to Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) documentation discussed at Planning Committee Extraordinary Meeting 11 March 2021
24/3/2021	Government housing package announcement, 23 March 2021
24/3/2021	Auckland Council and Crown Auckland (housing and urban growth) Joint Work Programme – update
29/3/2021	Report on Analysis of the 2018 Census results – Travel to work and travel to education in Auckland

Date	Subject
11/3/2021	Endorsement of the draft 2021 Regional Land Transport Plan for consultation
11/3/2021	Confidential Minute Item Attachments Document

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

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