I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 6 May 2021

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr Paul Young

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

 

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda Iswar

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /

Senior Governance Advisor
3 May 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 723 228

Email: kalinda.iswar@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

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

 

·         relevant regional strategy and policy

·         transportation

·         infrastructure strategy and policy

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

·         Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

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

·         Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

·         structure plans and spatial plans

·         housing policy and projects

·         city centre and waterfront development

·         regeneration and redevelopment programmes

·         built and cultural heritage, including public art

·         urban design

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

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

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)     approval of a submission to an external body

(b)     establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

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

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a)     the power to establish subcommittees

(b)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 


 

Auckland Plan Values

 

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

 

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

5.1     Public Input: The People's Path - Getting across the harbour by foot and bike 9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                        10

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              10

8          Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland                                                                                                                                       11

9          Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West                                                         23

10        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making Plan Change 40: Warkworth Clayden Road operative                                                                                            139

11        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making rural subdivision provisions operative                                                                                                                     221

12        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 29 – Notable Trees and Plan Change 36 -  Open Space (2019) Operative                  325

13        Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 6 May 2021                                                                 385

14        Update on tree at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mount Eden (Covering report)                 397

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               399

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan - Plan Change 26 - Clarifying the Relationship Between the Special Character Areas Overlay and Underlying Zone Provisions - Appeals  399


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 1 April 2021, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

5.1       Public Input: The People's Path - Getting across the harbour by foot and bike

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Christine Rose, Andy Smith and Bevan Woodward will address the committee in support of “The People’s Path” an alternative proposal to SkyPath for a walking and cycling facility across the Waitematā Harbour.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from Christine Rose, Andy Smith and Bevan Woodward regarding “The People’s Path”, a proposal for a walking and cycling facility across the Waitematā Harbour and thank them for attending.

 


 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

 

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland

File No.: CP2021/04163

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of the report is to:

a)         provide an update on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland; and

b)         seek approval to delegate authority to Planning Committee members to provide direction for drafting the council’s submission and approving the final submission.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Minister of Transport asked Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee to undertake an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

3.       The select committee has invited public submissions, which close on 20 May 2021.

4.       The inquiry is closely linked to The Congestion Question (TCQ) project, a joint initiative between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and a number of central government agencies. TCQ is a multi-year project intended to provide the evidence base to support decision making on the introduction of congestion pricing in Auckland.

5.       The Planning Committee approved TCQ project to proceed to phase three in December 2020. The select committee inquiry will consider matters that were going to be addressed as part of TCQ project phase three. This means that Auckland Council will need to consider several key issues highlighted in this report earlier than anticipated. However, timeframes do not permit the necessary work to be undertaken to support final resolution of the council’s position on these matters prior to the submission deadline.

6.       In developing a submission, staff will be guided by the resolutions of the Planning Committee’s December 2020 meeting, the discussions at that meeting, TCQ project phase two reports and the select committee inquiry’s terms of reference.

7.       It is proposed the submission highlights issues of key concern for Auckland Council including:

·   the case for congestion pricing in Auckland

·   the mitigations required to ensure more equitable outcomes for vulnerable communities

·   the role of congestion pricing in helping reduce Auckland’s transport emissions

·   the need to ensure appropriate public and active transport alternatives are in place in affected corridors prior to the introduction of congestion pricing

·   the need to understand and address potential revenue implications for Auckland Council.

8.       Further work will be required on each of these issues either during or after the select committee process to support final decisions on the potential implementation of congestion pricing in Auckland. Staff anticipate that Auckland Council will be a partner in this work both at an official and decision-making level.

9.       Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff are jointly preparing a submission to the select committee. Due to time constraints a draft will not be ready in time for the Planning Committee meeting, however, it is anticipated that the submission will adhere very closely to the considerations outlined in this report.

10.     Staff recommend that the Planning Committee delegate the Chair, Deputy Chair, Mayor and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to oversee the development of the submission and approve its final draft.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      support in principle implementation of congestion pricing in Auckland, conditional upon the following issues being addressed:

i)        mitigation of equity impacts

ii)       having public transport services and projects in place to allow road users to switch to alternative modes where appropriate

iii)      that revenue collected, in addition to that needed to operate the scheme and to address subclauses a) i) and a) ii) above, be used to offset and, as revenue and costs allow, replace the Regional Fuel Tax.

b)      note that the submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will make key points in relation to:

i)        the case for congestion pricing in Auckland, building on the work completed by The Congestion Question project that was received by the Planning Committee in December 2020

ii)       the mitigations required to ensure more equitable outcomes from the potential implementation of congestion pricing

iii)      the importance of congestion pricing in terms of emissions reduction

iv)      the need to ensure appropriate public and active transport alternatives are in place in affected corridors prior to the potential introduction of congestion pricing

v)      the need to understand and address potential revenue implications for Auckland Council.

c)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, the Mayor and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to:

i)        provide direction to staff on the development of the submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland

ii)       approve the final submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee into congestion pricing in Auckland on behalf of the Planning Committee

iii)      present on Auckland Council’s behalf at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee hearing.

Horopaki

Context

11.     Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland. Submissions to the committee close on Thursday, 20 May 2021.


 

12.     The inquiry’s terms of reference are as follows:

·   Using The Congestion Question reports as a base, developing a thorough understanding of how a congestion regime could be implemented, including the use of technology, which routes would be included, how charging could be structured and facilitated.

·   Through the submissions process, lead a constructive public dialogue to ensure all affected groups and individuals have an opportunity to have their say.

·   Ensuring that equity and mitigation issues are identified and how any scheme could be structured to ensure that any one group, particularly those on lower incomes, are not unreasonably impacted.

·   Focusing on how any revenue raised would be used and would integrate with other revenue streams derived from fuel taxes, road user charges, and other fiscal factors.

·   Identifying and evaluating comparative congestion charging models internationally, and identifying best practice.

·   Confirming the likely behavioural change and benefits from a congestion charge in Auckland outlined in the Congestion Question technical report, including evaluating the impact of behavioural change on existing alternative transport modes, especially public transport.

·   Through the submissions process, provide the opportunity for those outside Auckland to engage with the issue.

·   Understanding the impact of a congestion charge on emissions and air quality.

·   Understanding the options for legislative change to enable congestion pricing.

13.     The inquiry’s details can be accessed via this link.

14.     The select committee inquiry is closely related to the TCQ project, which emerged from a 2016 Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) finding that investment in the transport system on its own would not be sufficient to address key outcomes and demand management interventions would also be required.

15.     TCQ’s purpose is to undertake a thorough investigation to support a decision on whether to introduce pricing for demand management purposes in Auckland. Under TCQ’s terms of reference the primary objective is to examine ways to improve Auckland’s transport network performance through congestion reduction. In addition to this primary objective, TCQ terms of reference outlines that consideration must also be given to wider potential economic, social and environmental effects.

16.     Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are partners in the TCQ work alongside the Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi, Treasury and the Public Service Commission.

17.     Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff are very closely aligned on the matters under consideration by the select committee and are working together to prepare the submission. It is expected that the draft submission will be presented to the Auckland Transport Board (or a delegated group of board members) for its endorsement prior to its final approval by the Planning Committee.

Previous Auckland Council consideration of TCQ

18.     Staff have presented to the Planning Committee on TCQ on several occasions since 2016.

19.     In September 2016, the Governing Body supported (confidential item GB/2016/216) ATAP’s recommended strategic approach to undertake a progressive movement to a road pricing system that better reflects the actual cost of travel and helps improve the transport network’s performance by reducing congestion. The Governing Body also supported the ATAP recommendation to establish a dedicated project to progress this aim.


 

20.     In July 2017, staff presented an update to the Planning Committee on the project – then known as the Smarter Transport Pricing Project. The Planning Committee noted that the project terms of reference had been agreed and confirmed a delegation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to provide political oversight and make formal decisions to progress through the project’s various phases (PLA/2017/74).

21.     In February 2018, staff provided the committee with an update on the project and phase one findings. The committee approved the project to proceed to phase two (PLA/2018/7).

22.     In December 2020 the committee received a summary of TCQ phase two findings and made the following resolutions (PLA/2020/116):

·   note that phase two of The Congestion Question project is complete

·   receive the findings from phase two of The Congestion Question project

·   approve officers scoping the next phase of the project alongside officers from participating agencies, including Auckland Transport

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

·   require that the scope provides a timeline and process for comprehensive public engagement, including targeted engagement with Māori, due to the critical importance of hearing from Aucklanders about the implications and options of congestion pricing before any decisions are finalised

·   require that the potential social inequity impacts and the mitigation of any such impacts be fundamental to further considerations and the scope of the next phase of work

·   requests quarterly progress reporting on the next phase of congestion pricing in Auckland

·   urge the government to fully commit its agencies to progress the next phase of congestion pricing in Auckland, including provisional scheme design, for a final decision by Quarter Three 2021.

23.     Due to the announcement of the select committee inquiry, phase three of TCQ has been put on hold until the government clarifies the next steps. The submission timeframes do not allow the necessary work to be undertaken to determine the details of scheme design and implementation that will be required to support final decisions on congestion pricing. Further work will therefore be required either under the auspices of the select committee or TCQ (or something akin to it).

24.     Staff anticipate that Auckland Council will continue to be involved in this work as a full decision-making partner and will thus be able to resolve its final position on matters set out in the submission in due course and with the benefit of some insight into public sentiment through the select committee process.

TCQ phase two findings

25.     Two key reports – the Main findings report and the Technical Report – and several supporting papers were prepared as part of TCQ phase two.

26.     A key finding from the project’s second phase was that there is a strong case for implementing congestion pricing in Auckland for demand management purposes. The report also recommended that public engagement be undertaken before a decision on implementing congesting charging is made.

27.     As part of phase two, TCQ evaluated several high-level approaches to implementing congestion pricing. Two approaches were found to have the most potential to balance improvements in network performance with practical and equity considerations:

·   City Centre Cordon – vehicles are charged to enter the city centre during peak travel periods

·   Strategic Corridors – vehicles are charged to travel on the strategic and arterial network across the region during peak times.

28.     The Main Findings report indicated a preference for the staged implementation of the Strategic Corridors scheme, beginning with the introduction of a city centre cordon followed by charging on selected key strategic corridors as public and active transport alternatives along these corridors allowed.

29.     The report suggests that staging in this way would increase public acceptability, allow time for lessons learnt to be applied and enable public responses and the effectiveness of mitigation measures to be monitored before the scheme is rolled out in full. This was a preliminary finding however, and more work is required to confirm this as the best approach and the details of how it would be implemented.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The case for congestion pricing

30.     The cost that an additional vehicle using the transport network imposes on other users varies depending on how congested the network is at the time the trip is taken. A trip taken at times when the network is not congested imposes little to no additional cost on other users as it does not affect their travel time. However, a trip taken at times of peak demand imposes significantly greater costs on other users in the form of additional congestion and increased travel time.

31.     Congestion pricing introduces an additional monetary cost for vehicles travelling at peak times so that the amount they pay for that trip better reflects the true costs it imposes on other people using the network (in the form of increased travel time). The introduction of congestion pricing will therefore encourage some users, particularly those taking discretionary trips by private vehicle during times of high demand, to change their behaviour by:

·   changing to public or active transport, or ride sharing

·   travelling at non-peak times

·   travelling to alternative destinations, or

·   avoiding trips altogether.

32.     When enough people change their behaviour in response to the imposition of congestion pricing all users of the network (freight, private vehicles and, most especially, those who travel by public transport who will benefit from faster and more reliable journeys) benefit as the network becomes less congested. However, for these benefits to be sustainable over the long term, the focus of behavioural change must be on mode shift or trip avoidance.

33.     Consequently, while the Main findings report from phase two of TCQ states there is a strong case for congestion pricing in Auckland, it also found that it should be introduced in stages linked to the delivery of improved public transport infrastructure and services, and the implementation of an appropriate mitigation programme to assist vulnerable users of the transport network.

34.     TCQ tried to balance the objective of improving network performance with the need to apply as modest a charging structure as possible, to reduce potential equity impacts. After examining a range of options, a tiered charging structure was proposed that could be applied in the AM and PM peak travel times on congested roads that had adequate public transport alternatives in place. These hypothetical charges ranged from $3.50 to $1.50 for a private motor vehicle, depending on the time of travel. Modelling showed that these charges, similar in cost to a two-stage HOP bus fare, applied in a region wide scheme, could improve network performance by 8 to 12 percent. This would generate similar network performance to that currently seen in the school holidays.


 

Developing Auckland Council’s submission

35.     Staff propose that the submission be framed around several key issues of concern for Auckland Council as identified through the resolutions of and discussions at the Planning Committee’s December 2020 meeting, TCQ phase two reports and the select committee inquiry’s terms of reference. These issues are outlined below and include:

·   improved travel choice in affected corridors

·   mitigation of equity issues

·   potential for emissions reduction

·   implications for the revenue system

·   scheme establishment costs.

36.     Auckland Council does not yet have formal positions on any of these matters. The inquiry’s timeframes do not enable the council to develop informed positions in time for the submission deadline, particularly given that further work is required in each case.

37.     As discussed above, staff anticipate there will be opportunities for the council to work with the government in due course to better understand these key issues in support of final decisions on the introduction of congestion pricing. The timeframes for this work are likely to become clearer as the select committee process progresses.

Improved travel choice and infrastructure provision in affected corridors

38.     It is important that, prior to the roll out of congestion pricing on any given corridor, adequate alternatives to peak time use of private vehicles are in place so that people have convenient and affordable alternatives

39.     The aim of congestion pricing is to incentivise behavioural change that reduces congestion. Travelling on more space-efficient public transport and active modes is a key part of this. In the absence of quality public and active transport choices, implementing a congestion pricing regime would simply impose an additional financial burden on households (particularly low-income households) without enabling the behavioural change required, and it would reduce access to opportunities as these households could no longer afford to travel at that time. A key finding from TCQ research is that this needs to be planned for and avoided.

40.     As noted above, TCQ phase two favours a staged Strategic Corridors scheme, which would initially start with the City Centre Cordon. The Technical Report names several infrastructure projects and service improvements that would support this staged approach.

41.     In respect of the introduction of congestion pricing via a city centre cordon, the Technical Report specifically identifies the City Rail Link, city centre bus improvements and ferry basin upgrade, Northern Busway extension and station upgrades, Eastern Busway and cycleway improvements into and out of the city centre, as important supporting projects.

42.     The staging of additional corridors should be informed by the planned delivery of improved public and active transport infrastructure and services as signalled in the Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP). While TCQ identifies a number of potential corridors that could be subject to the introduction of congestion pricing, these will need further refinement prior to a preferred scheme being implemented.

43.     Staff propose that the submission make it clear that Auckland Council expects the availability of quality public and active transport alternatives to be a critical factor driving the selection of corridors for inclusion in any congestion pricing scheme. This is in line with the findings of TCQ.

44.     Before any scheme can be implemented analysis will be required on a corridor-by-corridor basis to better understand not just the existing and confirmed planned and funded (through the RLTP) infrastructure and services in any given area, but also the travel needs of impacted communities. The relative dispersal of travel patterns (i.e., some communities may need to travel further afield or to multiple locations for employment than others) of potentially affected communities may be a factor that needs to be considered in this analysis.

45.     At the time of the December 2020 Planning Committee, it was anticipated that phase three of TCQ would undertake such analysis before any final decision was made by Auckland Council and the government on proceeding to implement congestion pricing in Auckland. As noted above, due to the announcement of the select committee inquiry, TCQ phase three has been put on hold until the government clarifies the next steps.

46.     While increased investment in alternative modes will be required to support the implementation of congestion pricing, there may be instances where planned investment in additional road capacity can be deferred or cancelled given reduced demand arising from behaviour change. Thus, a focus of further work should be on re-evaluating the need for, or timing of, planned investment in additional road capacity. This could occur in earnest once final decisions have been made on a congestion pricing scheme.

Social equity and mitigation measures

47.     The introduction of congesting pricing will proportionally financially impact some households more than others. A Social Evaluation report prepared as part of TCQ phase two found that, while higher income households travel more and, all else equal, will pay more in absolute dollar terms, the impact of congestion pricing on lower income households is more significant as a percentage of household income. Lower income households with school aged children, particularly solo parents, and bigger households with greater travel needs, were found to be more likely to be especially affected.

48.     Without some form of relief for lower income road users there is a danger that their access to jobs and other opportunities will become further restricted as driving becomes the preserve of those who can afford it. As the Social Evaluation report notes it is therefore important that relief is provided to low-income road users who would otherwise be unduly impacted by the charges.

49.     As per the Planning Committee resolution of 3 December 2020, further work is required to consider key questions such as the impact of congestion pricing schemes on different groups, what users should potentially be eligible for relief, what an appropriate level of relief might be, and the most effective and efficient measures for delivering that relief without undermining core objectives around reduced congestion, mode shift and emissions reduction.

50.     The Technical Report identified a number of potential mitigation measures for further evaluation:

·   daily charging caps – whereby no motorist would face a daily charge greater than twice the highest peak-period charge

·   charging exemptions for modified vehicles certified by the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association

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

·   adopting the Community Services Card for discounts linked to an eligible person’s legally owned vehicle and/or account credits linked to the eligible person’s scheme account.

51.     Staff propose that the submission reiterates Auckland Council’s requirement that impacts on social equity and the mitigation of those impacts, be a fundamental consideration for further work on scheme design and implementation. Staff note that since December 2020, the government has indicated it wishes to expand discounts on public transport through its Community Connect scheme. This is a positive step in providing potential mitigations on the impacts of congestion pricing on more vulnerable members of the community and would need to be considered in any further analysis on potential social equity impacts and mitigations.


 

Potential for emissions reduction

52.     One of the primary objectives of congestion pricing is to improve network performance through reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and time spent idling. This has the potential to create flow-on climate benefits in the form of reduced CO2 and other emissions.

53.     While the quantum of these benefits depends on a variety of factors, including the level at which pricing is set, preliminary analysis undertaken as part of TCQ phase two suggests that the impact on emissions is likely to be modest. A key outcome of the select committee work should be to develop a better understanding of public tolerance for various tariff levels, their relationship with emissions reductions and the trade-off this may entail with social and economic outcomes.

54.     Consideration also needs to be given to the question of whether electric and other low emission vehicles should be given an exemption (whether full or partial) to congestion pricing to encourage their take up. Similarly, as electric vehicles make up a growing portion of the fleet, at what point would it no longer be tenable or desirable to continue with such an exemption from a network performance and revenue standpoint? Further work is required on all these questions.

Implications for the transport revenue system

55.     The select committee inquiry’s terms of reference includes a focus on how any revenue raised would be used and would integrate with other revenue streams derived from fuel taxes and road user charges.

56.     Congestion pricing has a critical role in influencing behaviour and driving more sustainable travel patterns. But it will also provide an important source of revenue to support investment in Auckland’s transport network, whether as a complement to, or a replacement for, existing funding mechanisms. One of the factors that will need to be considered by the select committee, and through any subsequent work, in recommending appropriate tariff levels will be the balance between behaviour change and revenue generation. However, it should be noted that the terms of reference in TCQ were clear in that any scheme proposed had to focus on behaviour change to improve network performance rather than revenue raising. As such, the recommended charges were the minimum possible that generated sustained network performance improvements.

57.     An additional consideration requiring further work revolves around who collects and owns the revenue generated by a congestion pricing scheme – central or local government. The resolution of this will be particularly crucial if congestion pricing is seen as a replacement for the regional fuel tax (RFT).

58.     Auckland Council is reliant on the RFT as a revenue source against which it can leverage additional borrowing to help it meet Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s local share requirement for capital projects. Without a source of revenue commensurate with the RFT, Waka Kotahi’s funding rules would need significant reform to enable delivery of the investment programme set out in ATAP and the RLTP, or that investment programme would need to be cut back substantially. There is no suggestion that this is likely to be the case, but this is an example of the type of revenue system related consideration that will need to be resolved as part of the final deliberations on congestion pricing.

59.     Initial high-level analysis indicates that annual revenues from implementing a staged Strategic Corridors scheme could generate substantial revenues and cost a significant amount on an annual basis to operate. Any mitigation measures put in place to offset the impact of congestion pricing on particular groups (such as low-income households) or encourage the uptake of low emission vehicles, will erode the level of revenue the scheme generates and therefore the amount of funding available for investment in the transport system. As details of specific schemes are worked through, and their impacts on particular groups are better understood, these trade-offs should become clearer and will inform future decision making on scheme design and implementation.


 

60.     A related issue is the timing of the phasing-in of congestion pricing and the phasing-out of the RFT. This would need to be considered not just from the viewpoint of overall revenue levels through the transition period but also in terms of whether further mitigation measures are required to ensure users of the transport system are not liable to pay twice.

Scheme establishment costs

61.     The establishment of a congestion pricing scheme will require significant investment in infrastructure (e.g., number plate recognition technology) and ongoing operating costs. Given that no decisions on congestion pricing have been made, no funding has been allocated to its implementation in either ATAP 2021-31 or the draft RLTP 2021-31. It is likely both documents will be updated prior to any implementation of congestion pricing in Auckland so there will be an opportunity to revisit funding allocations in the future.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

62.     This report and the submission to the select committee do not in themselves raise direct climate impacts.

63.     As discussed in the section on key issues, the introduction of congestion pricing in Auckland will likely have positive climate impacts. The potential for emissions reductions is dependent on any charging structure applied, the coverage of a scheme, and period of application. A more aggressive charging structure would reduce more private vehicle trips, lending to less emissions. However, the potential for increased equity impacts would also increase. This balance requires careful assessment in any future work undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

64.     Auckland Transport is working closely with Auckland Council staff to develop the submission.

65.     The Auckland Transport Board has previously indicated its in principle support for the introduction of congestion pricing. It is likely that Auckland Transport officers will seek the endorsement of the Auckland Transport Board, or a delegated group of board members, for the submission prior to its approval by the delegated group of Planning Committee members.

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

Local impacts and local board views

66.     Staff have provided all local board members with two sets of communications related to this select committee process. While submissions on matters of regional significance fall within the purview of the Governing Body, local boards have two options to participate in the process. They can provide specific feedback to potentially shape the main submission and/or develop responses of their own to be appended to the main submission.

67.     At the time of writing no feedback had been received from local boards, however, staff understand that a number of local boards are engaged with the submission process and want to respond to it. This report and the Planning Committee’s resolutions will be shared with all local board members upon completion of the meeting on 6 May 2021.

68.     The impacts of congestion pricing will vary between local board areas depending on the specific corridors selected for inclusion within the scheme and the travel patterns of local people.


 

69.     The social evaluation analysis undertaken in support of TCQ phase two modelled the potential variance in household impact of a particular congestion pricing scheme between local board areas and further differentiated by household income levels[1]. In terms of the differentiation of financial impact the least affected local board area is Orakei (average additional household costs of 0.23 per cent of average household income) while the most affected was Otara-Papatoetoe (0.65 per cent).

70.     The key point here is not the precise modelled numbers (which will change as input assumptions to the model are updated) but rather the differentiation between high- and low-income areas. This further reinforces the need for mitigation measures to offset the potentially inequitable impact of congestion pricing on low-income households.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

71.     Two reports produced in support of TCQ phase two are particularly relevant for helping develop a better understanding of the potential impacts of congestion pricing on Māori – the Social Evaluation and the Mana Whenua Analysis reports.

72.     The Social Evaluation report looks at the potential financial impact of a specific form of congestion pricing on households[2]. The report finds that across Tāmaki Makaurau, cost increases in both absolute terms and as a percentage of household income, are not significantly different between Māori and non-Māori households. The finding reflects the relative similarity of the distribution of Māori and non-Māori households between low-, middle- and high-income cohorts (based on census 2013 data). More work is however required to confirm and update this finding.

73.     The Mana Whenua Analysis report provides an initial assessment of the impact of the two recommended congestion pricing schemes on places of importance to mana whenua including places:

·   that define mana whenua identity

·   where tikanga determines behaviour and conduct

·   where cultural obligations and benefits are fulfilled

·   where Te Tiriti redress obligations including collective commercial interests are fulfilled.

74.     The report found that both the Strategic Corridors and the City Centre Cordon schemes are likely to have negative impacts on mana whenua identity in the sense they would add an additional (financial) barrier for Māori to access these places of cultural importance. The analysis also noted that further work is required to determine the extent to which this is offset by any access improvements for Māori resulting from the reduced movement of others along the corridors that provide access to these places of importance.

75.     The report emphasises its findings are preliminary and that further engagement with mana whenua is required to verify the accuracy of the sites of interest that were assessed.

76.     Mana whenua involvement in the gradual staged introduction of congestion pricing (beginning with the City Centre Cordon) is therefore crucial to improving understanding of its impact on access to places that are important to Māori identity and, if necessary, devising means of ameliorating that impact.

77.     Staff have contacted mana whenua representatives and mataawaka organisations to share information on the select committee inquiry and invited input into Auckland Council’s submission.


 

78.     Staff have also prepared a memorandum update for the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum to consider at its 20 May 2021 forum meeting. As this forum meeting will take place on the submissions close date, the memorandum has also been submitted to the forum’s Wellbeing Committee/Pou for consideration at its 6 May 2021 meeting.

79.     Any feedback received prior to 13 May 2021 will be considered for inclusion in the council’s submission to the select committee inquiry.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

80.     This report does not seek budgetary allocation.

81.     As discussed above, the resolution of key revenue related questions could have significant financial implications for Auckland Council in terms of:

·   the quantum of revenue congestion pricing will generate

·   the impact of mitigation measures on revenue levels

·   the future of other transport funding sources (especially the RFT)

·   whether central or local government will collect or own the revenue.

82.     Further work is required in all these areas to provide a full understanding of the financial implications of congestion pricing for Auckland Council.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

83.     Given the time constraints, staff recommend that the committee delegate members to provide direction to staff in the submission drafting process and approve the final submission. Staff will arrange dates with the delegated members to distribute the draft submission and discuss feedback prior to it being finalised.

84.     Staff suggest that the Mayor, with support from other delegated members, speak on Auckland Council’s behalf at the select committee hearing, the date for which is yet to be confirmed.

85.     The deadline for the select committee to report its findings and any recommendations to the Minister of Transport is not yet known. As indicated throughout this report, further work will be required either during or after the select committee process to determine key matters ahead of final decisions on whether to implement congestion pricing in Auckland.

86.     The implementation of any congestion charging scheme in Auckland will require legislative change which would be undertaken by the government. Any final decision to implement congestion pricing thus ultimately rests with the government. The government has previously made it clear that it would prefer the support of Auckland Council before any such decision is made. The council therefore has an important role in any future decision to implement congestion pricing in Auckland. The submission will state that the council expects to be involved in future work both at an officer level and in the decision-making process.


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Robert Simpson - Manager Transport Strategy

Azeem Khan - Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager - Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West

File No.: CP2021/02103

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To adopt the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Supporting Growth Alliance, comprising Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport along with Auckland Council, is planning the transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zoned areas over the next 10 to 30 years. The Alliance has requested that the council provide a high-level land use strategy for the Future Urban zone in the North West. This is to inform the planning of the future transport network and the strategy will form part of the evidence base for the Alliance’s route protection work.

3.       The Spatial Land Use Strategy covers the Future Urban zones around Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North. These areas are part of the strategy because a structure plan has not yet been prepared for them (unlike other areas such as Whenuapai). Therefore, a more generalised land use plan has been developed for these areas.

4.       The Spatial Land Use Strategy is not a statutory document and it does not commit the council to any infrastructure funding or plan changes. The strategy does not identify any new land for urbanisation, but rather it shows how future land uses in the existing Future Urban zone could be arranged.

5.       The strategy identifies preferred locations for future centres and business land that the future transport network will support and impact upon. The strategy shows around 80ha of business (industrial) land located in the south of Kumeū and the south of Redhills North.

6.       The strategy shows an expansion of the existing Town Centre in Kumeū-Huapai and the existing Local Centre in Riverhead. A new Local Centre is shown towards the west of Kumeū-Huapai along State Highway 16 (SH16). Smaller Neighbourhood Centres are shown in the west of Kumeū-Huapai, south of Riverhead, and within Redhills North.

7.       The draft strategy was open for feedback from the public from November 2020 to February 2021 in conjunction with the Supporting Growth Programme for future transport plans for the North West of Auckland. There were 25 pieces of feedback received that were specifically on the Spatial Land Use Strategy with around 70 per cent of the respondents not supporting the draft strategy.

8.       The main themes of feedback were:

·   infrastructure required first

·   oppose urban expansion on the edge of Auckland

·   the council is ‘all talk and no action’

·   request Rural Urban Boundary extension to include specific land

·   opposition to the future expansion of the Kumeū-Huapai Town Centre

·   opposition to the location of the future business (industrial) land in Kumeū-Huapai.

9.       Based on the feedback received, there are some recommended changes to the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West. In addition, one further change is recommended to the strategy based on updated information from Supporting Growth Alliance on potential rapid transit stations in Kumeū-Huapai. The Local Centre in Kumeū-Huapai is recommended to be shifted slightly to the west.

10.     Once adopted, the strategy will form part of the evidence base for the Alliance’s detailed business case for the future transport network in the North West. Later on, Notices of Requirement to designate future transport infrastructure by SGA will use the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West as part of the rationale for the transport network. The strategy will also form a useful starting point for structure planning in the North West area when that work commences at the appropriate time.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that the Spatial Land Use Strategy – North West shows how future land uses in the existing Future Urban zone could be arranged and does not identify any additional land for urbanization.

b)      adopt the Spatial Land Use Strategy - North West, dated May 2021, as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report, to assist the Supporting Growth Alliance in planning for the future transport network in the area.

Horopaki

ContextBackground

11.     The Supporting Growth Programme is planning the transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zoned areas over the next 10 to 30 years. To inform the future transport network a Spatial Land Use Strategy is required for the Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North Future Urban zoned areas as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Future Urban zoned land in Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North

12.     The land is zoned Future Urban but the commencement of structure plans for these areas is not anticipated until around 2025 – as the land is not anticipated to be development ready until between 2028 and 2032. Therefore, a higher-level Spatial Land Use Strategy is needed to inform the current work on the future transport network.

13.     The draft strategy identifies locations for future centres and business land that the transport network will support and impact upon. It is not a statutory document, nor a detailed structure plan, and is only intended to be a high-level outline of the key future land uses in the Future Urban zone.

14.     The development of the Spatial Land Use Strategy has been influenced by a number of factors including zoning principles from the Unitary Plan, directions from the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the existing land uses and zonings of adjacent land, the Indicative Strategic Transport Network, potential future Rapid Transit Network (RTN) station locations, future business and centre land requirements, various land constraints such as flooding and natural heritage, and public feedback.

The Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy

15.     The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy in Figure 2 below shows centres, business industrial land, and land for residential and other uses. Around 80ha of business land located in the south of Kumeū and the south of Redhills North. This quantum is based on the forecast demand for industrial business land and the fact that a large area of Whenuapai is set aside for industrial purposes (Whenuapai Structure Plan 2016). The Kumeū land will provide a space for industrial activities in the town centre to relocate to (as set out in the Kumeū-Huapai Centre Plan 2017).

16.     The land in the south of Kumeū (70ha) is the preferred area for additional industrial land in the town as the land is flat, adjacent to existing industrial land, has good transport links, and parts have documented contamination issues (making that land less suitable for residential use). The land in the south of Redhills North (10ha) is flat, adjacent to existing industrial land, has access to motorway interchanges, is market attractive, and will not significantly impact on the potential for high density residential development around a RTN station nearby.

17.     The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy shows an expansion of the existing Town Centre in Kumeū-Huapai and the existing Local Centre in Riverhead. A new Local Centre is shown in towards the west of Kumeū-Huapai along SH16. The location of this centre is preferred as it will be near the location of a potential RTN station in Kumeū-Huapai, will service a wide residential catchment, is on a major transport route (SH16), near to major open space area, and is flat, greenfield land that can easily accommodate high density residential development around it. Smaller Neighbourhood Centres are shown in the west of Kumeū-Huapai, south of Riverhead, and within Redhills North.

           


 

Figure 2 – Draft Spatial Land Use Strategy showing the indicative high-level transport network (November 2020)

Consultation on the draft Strategy

18.     The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West was open for consultation from 30 November 2020 to 1 February 2021. The consultation was publicised in conjunction with the Supporting Growth Programme for future transport plans for the North West of Auckland. Two open days were held in Kumeū and Westgate during December 2020 where both the future transport plans and the Spatial Land Use Strategy were presented.

19.     There were 25 pieces of feedback received that were specifically on the Spatial Land Use Strategy. Most of the responses used the council’s feedback form (23 of 25) and there were two non-feedback form responses. It is noted that there were around 650 pieces of feedback on the related transport network consultation being run by the Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA).

20.     Around 70 per cent of the respondents (17 of 25) did not support the draft strategy. Six respondents didn’t know, and two respondents supported the draft strategy. However, many of the submitters raised issues that were well beyond the scope of the strategy.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21.     The main themes of feedback and the recommended responses in the final plan to these themes are outlined below.

22.     Infrastructure required first: A key theme of feedback was that much more infrastructure (roads, public transport, water, schools, etc.) was required before the area could grow. It is important to note that planning ahead for growth and infrastructure is exactly the purpose of the North West Spatial Land Use Strategy. The context for preparing the strategy is to inform the future transport network planning for the North West. The Supporting Growth Alliance will be able to plan for an effective and efficient network based on the strategy’s high-level outline of the future land uses in the Future Urban zone. Based on this feedback there are no substantial changes to the strategy recommended aside from additional wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy will assist with long-term planning and the provisions of infrastructure.

23.     Oppose urban expansion on the edge of Auckland: Another theme from feedback on the draft strategy was the opposition to continued or further greenfield urban expansion of Auckland in the North West. The North West Spatial Land Use Strategy does not change the location of the Rural Urban Boundary nor identify any new land for greenfield urban expansion. Based on this feedback there are no substantial changes to the strategy recommended aside from wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy only deals with existing Future Urban zoned land and it does not attempt to identify any additional rural land for urbanisation.

24.     The council is ‘all talk and no action’: It is acknowledged that there is a long lead in time on the future transport projects shown in the joint consultation with the Supporting Growth Alliance. However, it must also be recognised that the cost of these transport projects runs into the billions of dollars, so it is important to plan properly for them. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.

25.     Request Rural Urban Boundary extension to include specific land: There were some requests to shift the Rural Urban Boundary to include specific land around Foster Road and the large area between Redhills and Kumeū-Huapai. The purpose of the North West Spatial Land Use Strategy is not to find more potential urban land and shift the Rural Urban Boundary, but rather to identify a high-level outline of future land uses for the Future Urban zoned land in the North West. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.

26.     Other general feedback: The other feedback received on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West was mostly well outside the scope of this project (e.g., design of buildings in Kumeū-Huapai, Helensville). The specific comments relating to the transport network were passed on to the Supporting Growth Alliance for their analysis as part of the feedback they are reviewing on the future transport network. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.

27.     Opposition to the future expansion of the Kumeū-Huapai Town Centre: There was only one response around centres in the draft strategy and it opposed the future expansion of the existing Kumeū-Huapai town centre area. This feedback essentially seeks to overturn the outcome of the 2017 Kumeū-Huapai Centre Plan process. That Centre Plan is an adopted plan and has its own review process. There are currently various agencies working to implement the actions from the plan. The implementation of the actions that have been opposed (around the future improvements to the centre) are long-term actions and there will be further opportunities for feedback on that matter, including formal submissions into a statutory Plan Change process. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.


 

28.     Opposition to the location of the future business (industrial) land in Kumeū-Huapai: There were only a few responses around business land and they were opposed to the location of the future business (industrial) land. The reasons for the opposition were that future industrial uses would be incompatible with the neighbouring residential and rural lifestyle land. However, it is considered that the potential for amenity effects on surrounding properties can be addressed during the later structure plan stage. Based on this feedback there are no substantial changes to the strategy recommended aside from wording in the final strategy that outlines how the potential for amenity effects on surrounding properties can be addressed during the later structure plan stage.

29.     Mixed views on residential land and densities: Some sought more higher density housing while others opposed any higher density housing. This matter is outside the scope of the strategy and further detailed work on the residential areas (in terms of densities etc.) will occur at a later structure plan stage. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.

30.     The amount and type of parks (open space) to meet future needs: A few responses commented on the amount and type of parks/open space to meet future needs. This matter is outside the scope of the strategy and further detailed work on open space will occur at a later structure plan stage. There are no changes recommended to the strategy in light of this feedback.

Changes to the strategy 

31.     Based on the feedback received, the recommended changes to the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West are:

·   include wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy will assist with long-term planning and the provisions of infrastructure

·   include wording in the final strategy that clearly states that the strategy only deals with existing Future Urban zoned land and it does not attempt to identify any additional rural land for urbanisation

·   include wording in the final strategy that outlines how the potential for amenity effects on surrounding properties can be addressed during the later structure plan stage.

32.     In addition, one further change is recommended to the strategy based on updated information from SGA on potential Rapid Transit Network (RTN) stations in Kumeū-Huapai. The new Local Centre in Kumeū-Huapai was located to be near a potential RTN station. In light of the new information, the centre is recommended to be shifted slightly to the west as shown on the plan in Figure 3 below.


 

Figure 3 – Spatial Land Use Strategy (May 2021)

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33.     The ‘potential future rapid transit network’ (see Figure 2 above) identified by SGA will be a key aspect of addressing the climate change impacts of development in the Kumeū-Huapai future urban area. The provision of employment areas shown in the Spatial Land Use Strategy has the potential to reduce the future extent of commuting for employment from the North West area. This will dampen Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions through a quality compact urban form that includes local employment opportunities commensurate with the proposed residential expansion.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34.     The impacts on Watercare are negligible as the Spatial Land Use Strategy does not amend the growth direction that Watercare have already endorsed through the Rural Urban Boundary, the Future Urban zone, or the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

35.     Auckland Transport are part of the Supporting Growth Alliance and therefore are already closely involved with the Spatial Land Use Strategy.


 

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

Local impacts and local board views

36.     The views of the Rodney Local Board were sought at their meeting of 21 April 2021. The board provided the following feedback on the strategy:

Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West

Resolution number RD/2021/218

MOVED by Member B Bailey, seconded by Member D Hancock:  

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide the following feedback on the draft Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West:

i)       supports the final wording of the Spatial Land Use Strategy as this work will assist with planning and provision of infrastructure, and that provision of local employment areas has the potential to reduce future commuting for employment in west Auckland

ii)      support moving the urban centre in North Huapai to better align with the proposed Rapid Transit Network route

iii)     support the zoning of the triangle of land at Brigham Creek between the motorway and Fred Taylor Drive to remain as light industrial or business

iv)     does not support the suggestion of zoning the triangle of land at Brigham Creek between the motorway and Fred Taylor Drive as urban, as creating an urban area landlocked between two major highways would be a noisy and unpleasant area to live in and it would be separated from the neighbouring urban areas by busy roads, and doesn’t represent the objectives of a liveable city

v)      note the concerns raised in public feedback, and the scale of the future urban area and the changes this will have on the community, and request that council starts public engagement on structure planning for Huapai, Kumeu and Riverhead in the 2023/2024 Financial Year to allow plenty of time for engagement and the best outcome for the area.

CARRIED

 

37.     The Rodney Local Board is largely in support of the strategy. The one area the board do not support is the proposed land uses between the North Western motorway and Fred Taylor Drive. The strategy shows this land as mostly ‘residential and other uses’ whereas the board would prefer to see this identified as future business land. This land was identified as future business land in the Auckland Plan Development Strategy (2018).

38.     This land has not been identified as business land in the Spatial Land Use Strategy in light of the business land demand analysis prepared for this strategy. That analysis shows that there is enough future business land identified to cater for the anticipated growth over the longer term (mostly through business land identified in the Whenuapai Structure Plan).


 

39.     In addition, the new National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) also directs councils to provide for intensification around existing and planned RTN stations (including a potential station located around Brigham Creek interchange). While the NPS-UD also includes some ‘qualifying matters’ that can be used in specific locations to modify the intensification, these are unlikely to apply to this area. A potential ‘qualifying matter’ in the NPS-UD in this context is the requirement to provide sufficient business land suitable for low density uses to meet expected demand. However, as the business land demand report does not conclude that additional business land is in fact needed in this area, this qualifying matter would be unlikely to apply.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40.     The draft Spatial Land Use Strategy has been developed to inform the future transport network in the North West, being developed by SGA. SGA is partnering with Mana whenua to ensure that Māori cultural values and perspectives are recognised and integrated into the planning of new transport networks (and their land use base) at each stage of the project. 

41.     Any future structure plan and/or plan changes to further investigate the land uses in the North West Future Urban zone will involve direct consultation with iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42.     This matter concerns feedback on a high-level strategy and therefore does not contain any financial implications in of itself.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.     In adopting the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West the council will mitigate the risk that SGA cannot justify their Detailed Business Case and route protection for the future transport network in the North West. This risk will be mitigated by the Spatial Land Use Strategy identifying locations for future centres and business land that the transport network will support and impact upon. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44.     Once adopted, the strategy will form part of the evidence base for the SGA detailed business case for the future transport network in the North West. Later on, Notices of Requirement to designate future transport infrastructure by SGA will use the Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West as part of the rationale for the transport network.

45.     The Spatial Land Use Strategy will form a useful starting point for structure planning in the Kumeū-Huapai, Riverhead, and Redhills North areas when that work commences at the appropriate time.


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Spatial Land Use Strategy for the North West

33

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior 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

06 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making Plan Change 40: Warkworth Clayden Road operative

File No.: CP2021/04497

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 40: Warkworth Clayden Road to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 40 was a private plan change request that sought to rezone 102 hectares of land north of Warkworth from Future Urban Zone and Light Industry Zone to a range of residential, business, open space and rural zones and apply a new precinct called the Warkworth Clayden Road Precinct. The plan change request was accepted and the plan change went through the formal notification, hearing and decision-making process.

3.       The decision was publicly notified on 25 February 2021 and no appeals have been received against the decision.

4.       The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP(OP)) can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the independent hearing commissioners’ decision.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 40: Warkworth Clayden Road as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Change 40 operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       Plan Change 40 was a private plan change lodged by Warkworth Land Company, White Light Family Trust Ltd, Kaurilands Trustee Ltd, Rob Mills and Patrick & Laura Richards which sought to rezone 102 hectares of land north of Warkworth from Future Urban Zone and Light Industry Zone to a range of residential, business, open space and rural zones and apply a new precinct called the Warkworth Clayden Road Precinct.


 

6.       Council accepted Plan Change 40 for public notification on 24 February 2020 by delegated authority. Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 40 was:

·   publicly notified on 27 February 2020

·   open for public submissions until 30 July 2020

·   open for further submissions until 20 August 2020

·   heard by independent commissioners on 5, 9, 12 and 16 October 2020

·   decision was publicly notified on 25 February 2021.

7.       Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee on 23 June 2020 (REG/2020/27).

8.       The commissioners’ decision was dated 15 February 2021.

9.       The appeal period on Plan Change 40 decision closed on 12 April 2021. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP(OP) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 15 February 2021 (refer to Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

11.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’.  Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan changes can now be approved.

12.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date.  Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to approve Plan Change 40.

14.     It is also noted that at present s70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’) specifically prohibits Auckland Council from making rules in the Unitary Plan regarding or considering the climate change effects of any greenhouse gas emissions.

15.     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.

16.     As this matter has been decided on prior to 31 December 2021, s70A still applies and therefore the Unitary Plan cannot contain rules considering the climate change effects from any greenhouse gas emissions.


 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 40.

18.     All council groups were notified of the plan change request and had the opportunity to make submissions. Watercare and Auckland Transport both made submissions and presented evidence in support of those submissions at the hearing. Neither were opposed to the plan change request in their submission.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.     As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of this plan change.

20.     The Rodney Local Board was the only local board to provide feedback on Plan Change 40. The Board provided the following comments on the plan change:

·   support for well-planned growth and sustainable growth in Warkworth

·   concern about the loss of Light Industry zoned land

·   requested that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is provided and connected to the existing network

·   requested that public transport connections and a park and ride facility is incorporated into the final decision

·   requested that water, stormwater and wastewater is managed in a sustainable manner

·   concern about reverse sensitivity between the Warkworth Showgrounds and the residential development

·   need for open space to be distributed evenly across the plan change area.

21.     These matters were included in the planner’s section 42A report and for the most part were addressed in the decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of this plan change.

23.     All iwi authorities were sent letters when Plan Change 40 was publicly notified. No submissions were received from iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving the plan change and amending the AUP(OP) is a statutory requirement and is cost recoverable from the private plan change applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     The final step in making Plan Change 40 operative is to publicly notify the date on which they will become operative, and to the update the AUP(OP).

27.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 40 operative, including the public notice and seals. The update of the AUP(OP) is expected to occur mid-June 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 40: Warkworth Clayden Road - Decision

143

     

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

06 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Making rural subdivision provisions operative

File No.: CP2021/03743

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make the rural subdivision provisions operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Environment Court has issued a final decision on the appeals on the rural subdivision provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). 

3.       The provisions in the court’s decision are largely aligned with the council’s position that sought to lessen opportunities for widespread rural lifestyle subdivision across the region.

4.       The appeals period on the Environment Court decision has now passed and no appeals have been lodged. Therefore, as a formality the Planning Committee must now make the rural subdivision provisions operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 deems those parts of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan no longer under appeal to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and that on this basis the rural subdivision provisions are deemed to have been approved by council.

b)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the rural subdivision provisions operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       The Independent Hearings Panel (‘IHP’) released its recommendations on the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (‘Unitary Plan’) in July 2016. Auckland Council rejected some of the recommendations on the rural subdivision provisions because the council considered the new provisions would be too enabling of subdivision across the rural area. This could result in adverse effects on rural production and soils, rural character, landscape and amenity, ecology, infrastructure, as well as generally undermining the council’s strategic growth direction of a compact city. The council’s decision replaced the subject parts of the Unitary Plan with its own (less enabling) provisions.

6.       The council’s rejection of an IHP recommendation opened an avenue under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (‘LGATPA’) for submitters to appeal the council’s decision. In September 2016 the council received ten appeals on the rural subdivision provisions seeking that all of the IHP's recommendations on rural subdivision be included in the Unitary Plan. 

7.       The provisions that were subject to appeal are located in Chapter B9 Rural environment, Chapter E39 Subdivision - Rural, Chapter E15 Vegetation management and biodiversity, Appendix 15 - Subdivision information, and Chapter H19 Rural zones (Zone description Countryside Living zone).

8.       An Environment Court hearing was held in March 2018 and the decision from the court in June 2018 was to agree with the appellants and retain the IHP rural subdivision provisions. The council appealed this decision to the High Court on a number of points of law. A High Court hearing was held in June 2019 and the decision from the court in August 2019 was to agree with the council that the earlier Environment Court decision was based on errors of law and therefore needed to be revisited. The High Court sent the matter back to the Environment Court to reconsider the matter in light of the High Court findings.

9.       A second Environment Court hearing was held in June 2020 and the final decision of the court in March 2021 was different to the first one and more aligned to the council’s position on rural subdivision. A copy of this Environment Court decision is included in Attachment A including the wording of the final provisions.

10.     Section 152 of LGATPA deems those parts of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that are no longer under appeal to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.  All that remains is for council to publicly notify (under Section 160 of the LGATPA) the date on which the rural subdivision provisions become operative.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     Before identifying the differences between the council and the appellant’s rural subdivision provisions, it is important to note that they share some things in common in that they both:

·   Require environmental enhancement in exchange for rural-residential lots

·   Provide a number of environmental enhancement options – protecting existing indigenous vegetation and/or wetlands and planting new indigenous vegetation

·   Allow transfers of titles away from sensitive areas

12.     In general, it is the detail of these provisions that is different. The rural subdivision provisions are relatively complex so the table below outlines the key areas of difference between the parties and the final decision of the Environment Court.

Appellants (IHP version)

Auckland Council position

Final Environment Court decision

No cap on ability to create new in-situ rural lifestyle sites

 

Cap of 3 in-situ sites – then must transfer any above that

 

More aligned with council:

Cap of 3 for wetlands and revegetation planting

Cap of 12 for existing bush

Enable transfers of titles widely from “one place to another”

 

Transfers only to some specific Countryside Living zoned areas

 

Agree with council:

Transfers only to some specific Countryside Living zoned areas

 

Require a smaller amount of indigenous vegetation (2ha) to be protected to enable the first lot

 

Larger amount of indigenous vegetation for first lot (5ha)*

*Before second Environment Court hearing council changed its position on this matter to 4ha.

More aligned with council:

4ha for in-situ subdivision

2ha for transfers

Appellants (IHP version)

Auckland Council position

Final Environment Court decision

Indigenous vegetation for protection can be any vegetation that meets the SEA factors

 

Vegetation can only be identified SEA in the plan*

*Before second Environment Court hearing council changed its position on this matter to allow bush meeting the SEA factors to be used.

Aligned with appellants (and council’s revised position):

Bush can be any bush that meets SEA factors

 

New revegetation planting to enable subdivision can be located anywhere

New planting must be contiguous with an identified SEA (or bush meeting the SEA factors)

 

Agree with council:

New planting must be contiguous with an identified SEA (or bush meeting the SEA factors)

 

 

13.     In summary, the provisions from the Environment Court are more aligned to the council’s position on rural subdivision and are less enabling than the IHP provisions that the appellants sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14.     The expansion of rural lifestyle living across the region 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).

15.     However, the rural subdivision provisions from the Environment Court enable less opportunity for widespread rural lifestyle subdivision across Auckland than the provisions sought by the appellants. This will result in a lower impact on Auckland’s greenhouse gas emissions.

16.     It is also noted that at present s70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’) specifically prohibits Auckland Council from making rules in the Unitary Plan regarding or considering the climate change effects of any greenhouse gas emissions.

17.     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.

18.     As this matter has been decided on prior to 31 December 2021, s70A still applies and therefore the Unitary Plan cannot contain rules considering the climate change effects from any greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     There are negligible effects on Watercare Services Limited from the new rural subdivision provisions as there are no Watercare assets involved in servicing the rural area with water and wastewater.

20.     Auckland Transport were supportive of the council’s position during the hearings but chose not to be involved in the court process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21.     As making the rural subdivision provisions operative is a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with this decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     Impacts on Māori have been considered throughout the process of developing and hearing the Unitary Plan.  The final step in making the rural subdivision provisions operative in the Unitary Plan is a procedural matter and therefore does not have any impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     There are no financial implications associated with making the rural subdivision provisions operative.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     There are no risks associated with making the rural subdivision provisions operative.  The Environment Court has issued its decision on the matter and the appeals period has closed with no appeals lodged. The rural subdivision provisions are therefore beyond challenge.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     The final steps in making the rural subdivision provisions operative are to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative and to update the Unitary Plan text and maps.

26.     In the interim, the council’s resource consents department have been advised that the rules can already be deemed operative under s86F of the RMA.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Environment Court decision on rural subdivision provisions (March 2021)

225

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Senior 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

06 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Plan Change 29 – Notable Trees and Plan Change 36 -  Open Space (2019) Operative

File No.: CP2021/03793

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 29 - Notable Trees and Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 2 April 2019 the Planning Committee resolved to publicly notify a plan change to amend errors in Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule (PLA/2019/36).

3.       The key objectives of Proposed Plan Change 29 (PC29) were to re-order the notable tree schedule to improve its legibility and usability, amend the identified errors and inconsistencies and improve the accuracy of the mapped overlay.

4.       The specific errors and issues addressed as part of PC29 included typographical errors, updating the schedule where listed trees no longer existed and amending inaccuracies in addresses where subdivision had altered the address of a listed tree or trees.

5.       On 6 August 2019 the Planning Committee resolved to publicly notify the Open Space plan change (2019) (PLA/2019/79). Plan Change 36 (PC36) had three components:

i)     rezoning of land recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)    correcting open space zoning errors and anomalies

iii)    rezoning of nine land parcels as part of Panuku Auckland’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

6.       The decision on Plan Change 29 was notified on 28 January 2021 and on Plan Change 36, on 15 January 2021. No appeals have been received against either decision.

7.       The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – (AUP(OP)) can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the hearing commissioners’ decisions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 29 - Notable Trees as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) as set out in Attachment B to the agenda report.

c)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Changes 29 and 36 operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Horopaki

Context

Plan Change 29

8.       PC 29 sought to amend Schedule 10 – Notable trees. These amendments included the re-ordering of the schedule, fixing technical errors and amendments to the mapped overlay.

9.       At the time PC29 was presented to committee it was proposed that nominations for additions to/removals from the schedules would not form part of the plan change process for the Schedule. Any nominations to/removals from the Schedule would be considered as a separate plan change at a later date and consideration of this took place at Planning Committee on 5 November 2020 (CP2020/15461).

10.     The Planning Committee approved Plan Change 29 for public notification on 2 April 2019 (PLA/2019/36). Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 29 was:

·   publicly notified on 15 August 2019

·   open for public submissions until 12 September 2019

·   open for further submissions until 15 November 2019

·   heard by independent commissioners on 16 September 2020

·   the decision was publicly notified on 28 January 2021.

11.     Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee on 28 July 2020 (REG/2020/41).

12.     The commissioners’ decision was dated 20 October 2020.

13.     The appeal period on the PC 29 decision closed on 12 March 2021. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP(OP) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 20 October 2020 (refer to Attachment A).

Plan Change 29

14.     PC 36 sought to:

i)     rezone land recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)    correct open space zoning errors and anomalies

iii)    rezone nine land parcels as part of Panuku Auckland’s land disposal and rationalisation process.

15.     The Planning Committee approved PC 36 for public notification on 6 August 2019 (PLA/2019/79). Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 36 was:

·   publicly notified on 28 November 2019

·   open for public submissions until 30 January 2020

·   open for further submissions until 12 March 2020

·   heard by independent commissioners on 7 October 2020

·   the decision was publicly notified on 15 January 2021.

16.     Independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions by the Regulatory Committee on 23 June 2020 (REG/2020/24).

17.     The commissioners’ decision was dated 2 December 2020.

18.     The appeal period on Plan Change 36 decision closed on 1 March 2021. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP(OP) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 20 October 2020 (refer to Attachment B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

20.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’.  Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan changes can now be approved.

21.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date.  Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to approve Plan Changes 29 and 36.

23.     It is also noted that at present s70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’) specifically prohibits Auckland Council from making rules in the Unitary Plan regarding or considering the climate change effects of any greenhouse gas emissions.

24.     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.

25.     As this matter has been decided on prior to 31 December 2021, s70A still applies and therefore the Unitary Plan cannot contain rules considering the climate change effects from any greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 29.

27.     The approval of Plan Change 36 will enable Panuku to commence the sale process for the nine land parcels that were rezoned as part of this plan change.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28.     As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of these plan changes.

29.     No local boards provided feedback on PC29.


 

30.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board was the only local board to provide feedback on PC36. The Board provided the following commentary on the plan change:

a) endorse the following proposed plan changes in the local board area:

i) 23 Te Nohotu Road, Glen Innes

ii) 28-30 Pilkington Road, Mount Wellington

iii) Part 3 Kings Road, Panmure

b) note that the local board want to ensure that there is a sufficient level of parking for visitors and customers to the Panmure town centre.

c) recommend that any disposal of car parking incorporates a replacement of parking in close proximity to the Panmure town centre.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of these plan changes.

32.     All iwi authorities were sent letters when Plan Changes 29 and 36 were publicly notified. No submissions were received from iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP(OP) is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35.     The final step in making Plan Changes 29 and 36 operative is to publicly notify the date on which they will become operative, and to the update the AUP(OP).

36.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Changes 29 and 36 operative, including the public notice and seals. The update of the AUP(OP) is expected to occur mid-June 2021.


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 29 Decision

331

b

Plan Change 36 Decision

355

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 6 May 2021

File No.: CP2021/04849

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following workshops have taken place:

Date

Workshops

31/3/2021

Confidential: Panuku Transform and Unlock Urban Regeneration Programme Update

13/4/2021 and 20/4/2021

National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Intensification policies

5.       The following memoranda and information items have been sent:

Date

Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item

April 2021

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – April 2021

1/4/2021

Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion
pricing in Auckland

 

6.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

7.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Planning Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 6 May 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

387

b

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Intensification Policies workshop notes (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Auckland Monthly Housing Update - April 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


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

 

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 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)

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation

Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures

New measures confirmed

PLA/2021/26

 

 



Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Update on tree at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mount Eden (Covering report)

File No.: CP2021/05346

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Planning Committee with any required update on the pōhutukawa tree at 8 Eglinton Avenue, Mount Eden.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 06 May 2021 Planning Committee meeting if available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.


Planning Committee

06 May 2021

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Planning Committee

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan - Plan Change 26 - Clarifying the Relationship Between the Special Character Areas Overlay and Underlying Zone Provisions - Appeals

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains a recommendation on the council's approach to the appeals received on Plan Change 26.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 



[1] The study examined the impacts of a corridor charge of $0.20 per km on main arterial routes during AM and PM peaks. This is broadly akin to the strategic corridors approach recommended by the phase two TCQ work for further evaluation.

[2] As above