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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 1 July 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 Richard Hills

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr John Watson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda Iswar

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

28 June 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

01 July 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9

4.1     Hobsonville Point Residents Society - Petition relating to the future of the Wasp Hangar and Wasp Square                                                                         9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                  10

5.1     Public Input: Manurewa High School - Affordable Future Housing             10

5.2     Public Input: Ed Clayton - Green tracking of light rail in Auckland             10

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                        11

6.1     Local Board Input: Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - Responsibilities regarding implementation of resource management and heritage legislation on the island                                                                                                       11

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              11

8          Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2021                                              13

9          Auckland Council's submission on Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development discussion document                                                            125

10        Resource management system reform: Natural and Built Environment Bill exposure draft submission                                                                                                        135

11        National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Housing and Business Capacity Assessment                                                                                                                141

12        National Policy Statement Urban Development 2020 - Well-functioning Urban Environment, Responsiveness and Significant Development Capacity             153

13        National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 - Implementing the intensification provisions - walkable catchments and qualifying matters         161

14        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Oyster Capital Limited to rezone land at 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai                                                                           181

15        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) - Making Plan Change 39: Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote, operative                                                                                  347

16        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Making Plan Change 47: to amend Flat Bush Precinct, operative                                                                                          353

17        Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 1 July 2021                                                                369

18        Summary of Confidential Decisions and related information released into Open 381

19        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


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 minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Thursday, 3 June 2021, and the minutes of its extraordinary meeting, held on Thursday, 24  June 2021, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

4.1       Hobsonville Point Residents Society - Petition relating to the future of the Wasp Hangar and Wasp Square

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present a petition to the Planning Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Louise Taylor will present a petition to the Planning Committee. The petition requests:

·   Transparency with the community and the Upper Harbour Local board regarding the negotiations between Panuku and Kainga Ora

·   Kainga Ora to finish the refurbishment of the Wasp hangar and put to good community recreational use under council ownership. 

·   The inclusion of Wasp Square to include open space, parkland, and tree planting to break up and enhance what will otherwise become an even larger tract of closely packed housing.

·   Attention to be given to keeping as much history of the old military base as possible.

3.       The petition can be found online here: https://www.change.org/p/auckland-council-kainga-ora-upper-harbour-local-board-save-the-wasp-hangar

4.       Standing Order 7.6.1 allows for the presentation of a petition to the Governing Body and its committees.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      thank Louise Taylor for attendance at the meeting.

b)      receive the petition in relation to the future of the Wasp Hangar and Wasp Square.

c)      refer the petition to the Chief of Strategy for consideration and response.

 

 

 

 

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: Manurewa High School - Affordable Future Housing

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Manurewa High School students have been working on creating a mathematical model for gaining some insight into Future Affordable Housing in Manurewa. The students will speak to the committee about their key issues for future affordable housing and their completed affordable future housing models.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from Manurewa High School students regarding affordable future housing and thank them for attending.

 

 

 

5.2       Public Input: Ed Clayton - Green tracking of light rail in Auckland

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Ed Clayton will address the committee about “green tracking of light rail in Auckland”. The goal of which is to build any proposed light rail network with a priority of improving water quality in receiving environments through incorporated engineered biofiltration systems.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from Ed Clayton regarding green tracking of light rail in Auckland and thank him 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.

 

6.1       Local Board Input: Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - Responsibilities regarding implementation of resource management and heritage legislation on the island

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Chair Izzy Fordham and Member Valmaine Toki, Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board, and archaeologist Don Prince will speak to the committee about responsibilities relating to the implementation of the cultural heritage conditions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act (2014) on Aotea/Great Barrier Island.

2.       The input will cover consents that have been issued for legal parcels within the vicinity of identified archaeological sites and the lack of scheduled waahi tapu and/or heritage sites on the island. 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board input regarding the implementation of resource management and heritage legislation on Aotea/Great Barrier Island and thank Izzy Fordham, Valmaine Toki and Don Prince for their presentation.

 

 

 

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

01 July 2021

 

Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2021

File No.: CP2021/02299

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on progress on the challenges and six outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050 through the Auckland Plan 2050 – Annual Monitoring Report 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018 and sets the long-term, strategic direction for Auckland.

3.       Reporting on progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 is done in three ways:

a)   Annual monitoring reports – the Annual Monitoring Report July 2021 is summarised in this report and the full report is provided in Attachment A.

b)   Three yearly progress reports – the first report was reported to the Planning Committee in March 2020 and provides detailed analysis of progress against the plan’s outcomes using a range of measures and additional data. The next progress report will be provided in March 2023 to inform the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

c)   Development Strategy Monitoring Report – the next report will be published in October 2021.

4.       The annual monitoring report uses 33 measures to measure general progress and trends across the Auckland Plan’s six outcomes. Eight measures have sub-measures.  The report shows that:

·   7 measures (and 7 sub-measures) have positive trends

·   2 measure (and 1 sub-measure) have negative trends

·   10 measures (and 6 sub-measures) have no significant change

·   6 measures (and 9 sub-measures) have insufficient data to establish a clear trend.

5.       The annual monitoring report mainly uses data from 2020. The report captures the impacts of COVID-19, in some instances, such as on quality of life, public transport patronage and unemployment levels.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes in the Annual Monitoring Report 2021.

b)      receive the Auckland Plan 2050 - Annual Monitoring Report 2021 as outlined in Attachment A of the agenda report.

 


 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The Auckland Plan 2050 is a 30-year spatial plan for Auckland adopted in June 2018 (Resolution PLA/2018/62).

7.       The legislation for the Auckland Plan sets out the requirements for implementing the plan. It must:

·   enable coherent and co-ordinated decision-making by Auckland Council and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services and investment within Auckland

·   provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans and funding programmes of Auckland Council

·   identify policies, priorities, land allocations and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction.

8.       The Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report July 2021 (Attachment A) supports the evidence base of the plan by identifying key trends across the six outcomes. This is the third annual monitoring report since the adoption of the plan. As the report mainly uses data from 2020, the impacts of Covid-19 are captured in some instances.

9.       The Three Yearly Progress Report, reported to the Planning Committee in March 2020 (Resolution PLA/2020/16), supplements the annual monitoring reports and provides a more detailed analysis of trends for each outcome. The analysis draws on a range of other reports and data sets to understand where progress has been made and to identify opportunities for greater progress.

10.     The Development Strategy sets out how Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years. There are five common measures that are reported in both the Auckland Plan annual monitoring report and the Development Strategy monitoring report. The third monitoring report for the Development Strategy will be published in October 2021.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the following three key challenges that must be addressed if we are to achieve the Auckland we want:

·   responding to population growth

·   reducing environmental degradation

·   sharing prosperity with all Aucklanders.

12.     These challenges and the six outcomes were used to help us think about the recovery pathway from the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure our short-term decisions will still lead to the longer-term outcomes we want to achieve. They provided a focus for recovery across all council and Council-Controlled Organisation Long-term Plan 2021- 2031 (LTP) investment areas.

13.     Four focus points or lenses, including recovery, were used to view decisions on the LTP. Relevant data on each of these points is highlighted below.

Recovery - supporting communities, stimulating jobs and economic recovery

14.     Our investment in assets and services helps stimulate economic recovery and supports our communities who have been significantly impacted by COVID-19.

15.     While Aucklanders’ quality of life remains high (87 per cent), there was an increase in the proportion who reported that their quality of life had decreased in the previous 12 months, from 13 per cent in 2018 to 30 per cent in 2020. Over half specifically mentioned COVID-19 in their comments.

16.     COVID-19 has led to considerable job loss and displacement of workers and already disadvantaged groups are disproportionately impacted. While labour productivity and Aucklanders’ average wages remained relatively unchanged, the data does not reflect the impacts of COVID-19. However, the unemployment rate for the March 2021 quarter increased from the previous year. There was also a drop in total employment growth.  Unemployment rates for those aged 20-24 years, Māori and Pacific peoples have remained consistently higher than the overall unemployment level.

17.     We need to partner with others to stimulate jobs and support our businesses and communities who have been significantly impacted by COVID-19. Council’s provides opportunities for communities to come together through the services and physical spaces we provide. We are also tailoring services to communities of greatest need and building community resilience, so we recover stronger together.

Māori Outcomes - focusing on better delivery

18.     Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau is council’s framework for measuring our performance in delivering on the strategic priorities identified by Māori. 

19.     In 2018, 73.2 per cent of Auckland’s Māori rated their whānau wellbeing positively. In 2020, Māori were increasingly employed in higher skilled jobs. While the proportion of Māori youth in employment, education and training has increased since 2008, there was a decline from 2018 to 2020 from 82.2 to 76.8 per cent, possibly due to the impacts of COVID-19 on Auckland’s economy. 

20.     We are focusing on opportunities to achieve better outcomes for Māori through our investment decisions, with the involvement of mana whenua and Māori community entities. Māori-led initiatives help support the development of new and innovative ways to deliver outcomes.

Climate change - considering impacts in everything we do

21.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan guides our response to climate change.

22.     While air quality has been improving, the 2018 greenhouse gas emissions for the Auckland region are higher than 2016 emission levels. Although the number of annual public transport boardings has been increasing, this decreased from 103.1 million in 2019 to 61.5 million in 2020 as patronage was impacted by COVID-19 related lockdowns and critical renewals on the rail network. In contrast, the number of cycle movements increased despite a small decline to 3.67 million in 2020. Increased native plantings and active management of threatened native plants and animals are also expected to improve the resilience of native habitats and local communities to the impacts of climate change. Progress on these new measures is expected to be reported in future years.

23.     Many of our existing programmes, for example investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, increased support for public transport and reduction in waste to landfill play a role in reducing emissions. The 10-year budget recognises the need to focus on our role in continuing to reduce emissions.

Development - supporting growth in agreed priority areas

24.     Population growth increases the demand for housing and supporting infrastructure. There is also a growing need to maintain our existing roads, water pipes, public transport, parks and community facilities. 

25.     Since 2011, there has been a continued increase in the number of new dwellings consented and issued with a code of compliance certificate. Apartments, townhouses, flats, units and other dwellings now comprise the majority of new dwellings consented (58 per cent). This has enabled more growth to occur within the existing urban area. Although population growth puts pressure on housing supply and infrastructure, households continue to spend around 23 per cent of their disposable income on housing. 

26.     We need to ensure there is enough infrastructure to accommodate growth. The 10-year budget focuses on supporting growth in agreed priority areas.

Progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes

27.     The Annual Monitoring Report uses 33 measures to measure general progress and trends across the six outcomes. Trends are summarised under each outcome below. The measurement framework will continue to change over time as the availability and quality of data improves. Proposed changes to the data sets are noted below.

Belonging and Participation

28.     The report provides updated data for four of the six measures for this outcome. The percentage of Aucklanders who rated their quality of life positively increased as did Aucklanders’ sense of safety in their neighbourhood and the city centre after dark. There is no significant change to Aucklanders’ sense of community in their neighbourhood.

29.     The next Quality of Life survey, from which much of this data is sourced, will be carried out in 2022.

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

30.     There has been a decline in the proportion of Māori youth in education, employment or training since 2019.

31.     The report includes new data, not available previously, for two measures (whānau wellbeing and Te Reo Māori). Future updates will help us understand progress in these areas.

32.     There has been no significant change in the number of co-governance/co-management arrangements since 2014. A more appropriate measure will be considered in the next update as the existing measure is not effective in measuring progress on an annual basis.

Homes and Places

33.     The number of new dwellings consented and completed in Auckland continue to reach record highs. Much of the growth in new homes being consented was for multi-unit dwellings. Housing costs as a percentage of household income have stayed the same, as has resident satisfaction with the built environment at a neighbourhood level.

34.     Homelessness is estimated to have decreased slightly since 2013, though issues with data mean comparisons over time are not recommended. The 2018 homelessness data does not reflect the impacts of COVID-19 or more recent policies.

35.     In February 2020, the Government announced and began implementing the Aotearoa New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan. As part of the plan, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is developing a joined-up approach and evaluation of homelessness in New Zealand that will provide a better understanding of the number of people experiencing homelessness. Any future changes to the measurement of homelessness in Aotearoa will be reflected in future annual monitoring reports.

Transport and Access

36.     Patronage numbers for public transport decreased in 2020, as did cycling numbers and congestion on key arterials. Deaths and serious injuries also saw a decline, which continues a four-year positive trend.

37.     Most transport measures were impacted by COVID-19-related lockdowns, which led to less demand for travel. Critical renewals on the rail network also impacted use of public transport.

38.     Further work will be done to consider whether there is appropriate real time data to supplement modelled data used for Measure 1: “Access to jobs”.

Environment and Cultural Heritage

39.     This is the first monitoring report since the adoption of new measures by Planning Committee in April 2021. At this stage, many of these measures do not have sufficient data to report on trends.

40.     Water quality measures are unchanged compared to their baselines. Air quality sub-measures (fine particulate matter and NO2 levels) are generally improved, although greenhouse gas emissions are higher than the 2018 baseline. Recent changes to the Unitary Plan have increased the number of scheduled sites and places of significance to mana whenua.

41.     Increased monitoring of a wider number of sites for air quality and water quality (measure 5) will occur over the coming years in response to new or updated national direction, in particular the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality. The use of the Water Quality Index will be phased out in favour of new measures of integrated ecosystem health developed as part of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Opportunity and Prosperity

42.     Labour productivity and average wages in Auckland were relatively unchanged, noting some data do not reflect COVID-19 related impacts. These impacts are, however, reflected in the unemployment rate for the March 2021 quarter, showing an increase from the previous year. Growth in employment in advanced industries is less than the previous year, although not as large as the drop in employment growth in industries overall. Zoned industrial land has slightly decreased. The educational achievement of young people has declined since 2014 (although not statistically significant).

43.     Internet usage continues to correlate with income. Due to the uncertainty and comparability of the World Internet Project Survey over time, a more reliable source for understanding digital connectivity and internet use (such as the Statistics NZ Census) will be explored in future updates (Measure 6).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44.     The 2018 greenhouse gas emissions for the Auckland region (net and gross) are higher than 2016 emission levels.  Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan guides our response to climate changeContinued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions that impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions.

45.     Many of our existing programmes play a role in reducing our emissions. There has been specific recognition in the 10-year budget of the need to focus on our role in reducing emissions through funding a specific package of actions.

46.     The Planning Committee has requested council and Auckland Transport staff to develop a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan for Auckland that will identify the pathways to support the required emissions reductions reflected in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.  The approach to this plan will be reported to committee in August 2021.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.     There are no immediate impacts of the report on other parts of the council group although continued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions. The report draws on published data collected across the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48.     There are no local impacts. Some data sets can be disaggregated by local board area such as measures included in the Quality of Life Survey. Continued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions at the local level. The views of local boards were not sought in the preparation of this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49.     The report includes four measures on Māori identity and wellbeing. While the reporting of this data has no impacts on Māori, ccontinued monitoring is expected to inform future decisions. The views of Māori were not sought in the preparation of this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     There are no financial implications arising from this monitoring report. The strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 supports decision-making on council’s long-term plans.  Staff are working to ensure that the programmes that have been funded through the current long-term plan are tracked to support better decision-making for the next long-term plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     There are no significant risks associated with this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     The Planning Committee will continue to receive regular reports on the Auckland Plan 2050. The next annual monitoring report is due in July 2022.

53.     The three yearly progress report will be provided in March 2023 or earlier. This will provide a stronger evidence base to help inform decision-making.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Plan 2050 Annual Monitoring Report 2021

19

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 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


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Auckland Council's submission on Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development discussion document

File No.: CP2021/09166

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of the report is to:

i)     inform the Committee about the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s discussion document, Tauākī Kaupapa Here A Te Kāwanatanga Mō Te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone Anō Hoki | Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development; and

ii)    seek approval to delegate authority to provide direction for drafting Auckland Council’s submission and to approve the final submission.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is consulting on a discussion document, Tauākī Kaupapa Here A Te Kāwanatanga Mō Te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone Anō Hoki | Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development.

3.       The discussion document was released on 14 June 2021 and can be accessed here. A high-level summary can be found at Attachment A. Submissions on the discussion document close on 30 July 2021.

4.       The discussion document sets out the key elements that the government expects to be included in the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD), due to be published by 1 October 2021.

5.       The GPS-HUD is intended to communicate the government’s long-term vision and change required for housing and urban development in Aotearoa New Zealand. It will shape future government policy, investment, and programmes of work.

6.       The GPS-HUD discussion document proposes a vision, outcomes, focus areas, actions, and ways of working, to shape housing and urban development in New Zealand over the next 30 years. It is relatively high level, and it is intended that specific implementation plans will be developed to sit alongside the GPS-HUD.

7.       The discussion document recognises that successfully implementing the GPS-HUD and delivering better housing and urban development outcomes will require government to partner and collaborate with others. It is intended that the GPS-HUD set a shared direction for the housing and urban development system in New Zealand, and encourage other entities involved in housing and urban development to respond to this direction independently, or in partnership with government.

8.       HUD has undertaken some initial targeted engagement on the GPS-HUD with a range of stakeholders, including with Auckland Council. Staff were invited to two workshops, in August 2020 and March 2021, to provide input into the GPS-HUD.

9.       HUD will be the agency that administers the GPS-HUD, coordinates action across government and with other stakeholders, monitors progress, and leads the required three-yearly review.


 

10.     The GPS-HUD is the latest government initiative that impacts on housing and urban development, in addition to: the Housing Acceleration Fund; Urban Development Act; National Policy Statements on Urban Development and Freshwater Management; Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act; resource management reforms; National Homelessness Action Plan; Building for Climate Change programme; Residential Tenancies Act reform; building system reform; and draft National Policy Statements on Highly Productive Land and Indigenous Biodiversity.

11.     The GPS-HUD provides an opportunity to engage with central government on the longer-term future of housing and urban development in Auckland as set out in the Auckland Plan 2050, particularly to set out our joint aspirations for housing supply and affordability, the funding and financing of infrastructure, and progress on emission reduction targets, as well as to re-iterate the importance of alignment of the GPS-HUD with other government reform programmes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

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

i)        provide direction to staff on the development of the submission on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s discussion document, Tauākī Kaupapa Here A Te Kāwanatanga Mō Te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone Anō Hoki | Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development

ii)       approve the final submission to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Horopaki

Context

12.     The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is consulting on a discussion document Tauākī Kaupapa Here A Te Kāwanatanga Mō Te Whakawhanake Whare, Tāone Anō Hoki | Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development.

13.     The Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD) is intended to communicate the government’s long-term vision for the housing and urban development system, to help build consensus on what New Zealand wants for the future, and to help align the different players across the system. It will inform future government policy, investment, and programmes of work.

14.     The Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Act 2019 says the GPS-HUD must include:

i)    The Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development, which must include a multi-decade outlook

ii)   How the Government expects Kāinga Ora to manage its functions and operations to meet the Government’s direction and priorities (this is binding on Kāinga Ora)

iii)   How the Government expects other agencies to support the direction and priorities

iv)  The Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests

v)   How the Government expects Kāinga Ora to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.

15.     The inaugural GPS-HUD needs to be published by 1 October 2021 and must be reviewed every three years.

16.     The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is leading the development of the new GPS-HUD, with support from other government agencies. It has been undertaking targeted engagement with a range of partners and stakeholders, including local government, iwi/Māori, community housing providers, and the private sector, to build an understanding of the different perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing housing and urban development in New Zealand, and to hear ideas about a long-term vision for the system.

17.     Auckland Council staff were invited to two sets of workshops to provide input into the GPS-HUD. The first workshop in August 2020 focused on three key questions around the housing and urban development system:

i)    Where have we come from? What are the issues and what has driven some of these?

ii)   Where do we want to move to? What’s the vision?

iii)   Where should we explore taking action and how do we get there?

A summary at a high level captured many of the key themes that are now set out in the discussion document.

The March 2021 workshop was an opportunity for HUD to share how feedback from the August workshop had been incorporated and to test priorities before public consultation. There was representation at the workshops from many local authorities around NZ and several government agencies.

18.     HUD is now seeking formal input through a consultation process to inform the development of the final GPS-HUD.

19.     Auckland Council is developing a submission to respond to the GPS-HUD discussion document. The deadline for submissions is 30 July 2021.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     The GPS-HUD discussion document is clear that it is not a draft GPS, but that it does include many of the elements expected to be included in the GPS-HUD that will be published in October 2021.

21.     Through this public consultation, HUD is seeking:

i)    to test the proposed vision and outcomes for housing and urban development outlined in the document

ii)   feedback on the proposed focus areas and actions

iii)   to identify areas where others can contribute, in support of the GPS-HUD

iv)  to identify opportunities for government to better support and enable others to deliver.

Proposed GPS-HUD vision and outcomes

22.     The GPS-HUD discussion document sets out a vision that “Everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand lives in a healthy, secure and affordable home that meets their needs, within a thriving, inclusive and sustainable community”.

23.     This vision is relatively consistent with the vision set out under the Auckland Plan 2050 Homes and Places outcome – that “Aucklanders live in secure, healthy, and affordable homes, and have access to a range of inclusive public places.”


 

24.     The discussion document also sets out four aspirational outcomes for housing and urban development in New Zealand:

i)    Thriving communities: Everyone is living in homes and communities that meet their employment, education, social and cultural wellbeing needs and aspirations — places that are affordable, connected, environmentally sustainable, safe, and inclusive.

ii)   Wellbeing through housing: All New Zealanders own or rent a home that is affordable, healthy, accessible, secure, and which meets their needs and aspirations. 

iii)   Partnering for Māori housing and urban solutions: Māori are determining their housing needs and aspirations, supporting whānau prosperity and inter-generational wellbeing, and deciding the means to achieve those aspirations.

iv)  An adaptive and responsive system: The housing and urban development system is integrated, self-adjusting, and responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities such as population growth, advances in technology, and climate change.

Proposed focus areas and actions

25.     To achieve the GPS-HUD vision and outcomes, it is proposed that collective action across the system will be focused in six areas. These six areas may change over time, including in response to a changing environment and new knowledge, whereas the vision and outcomes are expected to remain constant and relevant.

26.     The six focus areas proposed are as follows:

i)    Ensure that more affordable houses are being built - Create a housing and urban land market that credibly responds to population growth and changing housing preferences, that is competitive and affordable for renters and homeowners, and is well planned and well-regulated.

ii)   Provide homes that meet people’s needs - Ensure every New Zealander has an accessible, safe, warm, dry and affordable home to call their own, and which meets their needs and changing life circumstances – whether they are renters or owners.

iii)   Support resilient, sustainable, inclusive and prosperous communities - Our communities are well equipped to meet long-term climate, social, environmental, cultural and economic challenges and opportunities.

iv)  Invest in Māori-driven housing and urban solutions - The right to self-determine better housing and urban development solutions for iwi and Māori should be realised.

v)   Prevent and reduce homelessness - Homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring because people have access to adequate housing, and to the support services that can work with them to resolve the health, financial, addiction and other social issues that place them at risk of becoming homeless.

vi)  Re-establish housing’s primary role as a home rather than a financial asset - Reduce speculative investment in existing housing stock, making home ownership more accessible for first-home buyers, and supporting a more productive, resilient and inclusive economy.

27.     At a high level, these focus areas appear to be relatively consistent with the focus areas set out in the Auckland Plan 2050, though with increased emphasis in the GPS-HUD on homelessness, housing’s role in the economy, and the impact of climate change.


 

28.     The actions proposed in the document, sitting under each of the focus areas, include a mix of:

i)    Established activities - such as the public housing build programme, investment in construction industry skills and training, implementation of healthy homes standards, and the continuation of Urban Growth Partnerships

ii)   Recently announced initiatives - such as the Housing Acceleration Fund and a refreshed Māori Housing Strategy

iii)   Activities requiring further investigation - such as the use of road pricing and value-uplift capture tools.

29.     The GPS-HUD does not have its own funding, but will be implemented in several ways through other work:

i)    Binding direction to Kāinga Ora – through its public housing and urban development roles.

ii)   Expectations for other agencies to support GPS direction and priorities – e.g. through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, resource management reforms, Land Transport Management Act plans, building system legislative reform programme, and infrastructure and transport investment.

iii)   Over-arching strategic direction for HUD’s work programme – e.g. Homelessness Action Plan, Public Housing Plan, Progressive Home Ownership scheme, Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation Framework for Action (MAIHI); support for affordable and community housing; and place-based partnerships such as the Auckland Housing and Urban Growth Joint Programme.

30.     It is intended that specific implementation plans will be developed to sit alongside the GPS-HUD. These will provide more detail on how the GPS-HUD will be implemented where required and provide clarity and further direction to guide delivery and inform stakeholders.

31.     The implementation plans may be new or reflect existing agreed plans such as the Public Housing Plan 2021-2024, which lays out the medium-term plan to increase public housing supply. New implementation plans will include key performance indicators to monitor successful implementation of the GPS-HUD.

32.     It is anticipated that implementation plans will be updated more frequently than the GPS-HUD, to reflect changing needs.

33.     The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) is listed as one of the ways that the GPS-HUD will be implemented. The Planning Committee is currently working through council’s implementation of the NPS UD. Three reports on aspects of the NPS UD are being reported to the Planning Committee’s 1 July meeting.

Working with others to implement the GPS-HUD

34.     The GPS-HUD discussion document recognises that successfully implementing the GPS-HUD and delivering better housing and urban development outcomes will require government to partner and collaborate with others – including local government, Māori and iwi, the community and social sector, and the private sector. HUD undertook a programme of engagement with these groups during the development of the discussion document. The document notes that these groups may want to shift their own operations to respond to the GPS-HUD direction independently, or in partnership with government.

35.     The discussion document notes that Māori have not previously been central to government’s responses to addressing the growing housing crisis and this has resulted in inequity for Māori. The government has adopted MAIHI, applying kaupapa Māori approaches to enabling better housing outcomes for Māori. Cabinet has also approved the development of a new Māori Housing Strategy to replace the existing strategy, released in 2014. This new strategy will be developed in parallel with the GPS-HUD.

36.     In relation to local government, the document states that the GPS-HUD will provide direction and support by:

i)    crystalising central government goals and expectations (e.g. outlining major programmes of reform)

ii)   outlining funding and principles that inform investment

iii)   calling for planning and decision-making to be better aligned between central and local government

iv)  re-affirming commitment to urban growth and place-based partnerships

37.     The GPS-HUD acknowledges the role of place-based approaches, such as the Auckland Housing and Urban Growth Joint Programme. The discussion document notes that these place-based approaches are informing the approach the government is taking to system change more generally, including the resource management reforms (and the proposal for a Strategic Planning Act), and the review into the Future for Local Government.

How the GPS-HUD fits with other work

38.     The ‘system’ that the GPS-HUD will consider is very broad and includes all components of housing and urban development that affect supply, demand and wellbeing. It therefore spans multiple government portfolios and strands of work, including, but not limited to, building and construction, immigration, revenue, local government, conservation, employment, energy and Māori development.

39.     There is a range of outcomes the government is working towards which are affected by housing and urban development, and which the GPS-HUD is designed to complement and help deliver on – for example, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport,
Te Waihanga - The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s 30-year Infrastructure Strategy, the Government’s Economic Plan, and the National Adaptation Plan for climate change.

40.     The government also sees housing and urban development as having a critical effect on a number of other priorities and outcomes the government is seeking to improve for all of New Zealand, including recovery from COVID-19, reducing child poverty, and reducing emissions.

41.     The role of the GPS-HUD is to bring everything together, and place work programmes in context alongside other initiatives that are necessary for achieving the long-term vision for housing and urban development that will be set out in the GPS-HUD.

Developing Auckland Council’s submission

42.     Council staff will lead the development of Auckland Council’s submission, working with staff across the relevant CCOs.

43.     While further analysis of the discussion document is required before specific advice on the detail of the proposed GPS-HUD can be given, the submission is likely to note:

i)    that at a high level, there appears to be good alignment between the vision, outcomes and focus areas in the GPS-HUD and those in the Auckland Plan (further analysis on alignment with the Development Strategy needs to be undertaken in the course of developing the submission)

ii)   the GPS-HUD is an opportunity for government and council to work together on the longer-term future of housing and urban development in Auckland, particularly to set out our joint aspirations for housing supply and affordability, the funding and financing of infrastructure, and progress on emission reduction targets


 

iii)   the importance of alignment of the GPS-HUD with other government reform programmes, including resource management reform, the Future for Local Government Review, the Three Waters Reform Programme, and climate change policy.

iv)  that the GPS-HUD is relatively high level, and so continued engagement with council on the detail of the specific implementation plans underpinning the GPS-HUD will be key.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44.     The decision to delegate approval of the submission does not have direct climate impacts.

45.     The GPS-HUD discussion document recognises that our homes and urban areas need to do more to plan for, and adapt to, climate change through, for example, good urban form and design, good public transport and active transport networks, urban development that restores ecosystem health and improves biodiversity, and improved building processes and materials.

46.     Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out similar high-level priorities around our approach to planning and growth, sustainable design and construction, and creating low-carbon, resilient places. Further analysis of the discussion document is required before specific advice on the detail of the climate impacts of the proposed GPS-HUD can be given.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.     Relevant council departments and CCOs have been identified and contributions will be sought from them in developing the council group’s response to the discussion document.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48.     Local board views are being sought on the discussion document and will be provided to the delegated approvers of the submission. Local board resolutions or formal input will be appended to the council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49.     The decision to delegate approval of the submission does not have direct impacts on Māori. However, staff will consider the likely impacts on Māori of the GPS-HUD during the development of this submission.

50.     Feedback on the discussion document is being sought from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Individual iwi have also been invited to provide their feedback to input into the final submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51.     This submission can be developed within existing budget provision and as part of business as usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52.     There is no risk to Auckland Council in making this submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53.     Submissions on the GPS-HUD discussion document close on 30 July 2021. Staff will lead the development of council’s submission to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

54.     Given the time constraints, staff recommend that the committee delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to provide direction on the submission drafting process and to 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.

55.     As part of the submission development process, staff will also engage with council’s Affordable Housing Political Working Group to seek their input.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Overview

133

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Neasa Carroll - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - General M Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Resource management system reform: Natural and Built Environment Bill exposure draft submission

File No.: CP2021/09103

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update on the Natural and Built Environment Bill exposure draft and to delegate approval of the final submission. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the resource management system, with a particular focus on the Resource Management Act 1991. 

3.       Cabinet has agreed to the repeal and replacement of the RMA with three pieces of legislation: a Natural and Built Environments Act, a Spatial Planning Act, and a Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act.

4.       The first area of focus is the proposed Natural and Built Environment Bill.

5.       Key aspects of this Bill will be consulted on by a select committee inquiry likely to take place between July and September 2021.

6.       An exposure draft, containing clauses for these key aspects, will form the focus of the inquiry and is likely to be released in early July.

7.       It is expected that all three pieces of legislation will be in place by early 2023.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve council’s submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill exposure draft.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the resource management system, with a focus on the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). 

9.       Key drivers of the review are the inability of the current system to respond quickly to urban development pressures, the need to respond to climate change, and poor environmental outcomes particularly in relation to deteriorating freshwater quality and diminishing biodiversity.

10.     The first stage of this reform was a review which started in 2019 by the Resource Management Review Panel (the Panel). The Panel reported back to the Minister for the Environment in June 2020 in its report New directions for resource management in New Zealand. The report set out a proposed future resource management system, including indicative drafting of legislation for key provisions.

11.     Council’s submission to the Panel was supported by a direction setting working party made up of members from local boards and the Governing Body. Through this council arrived at various positions through its submission to the Panel which staff will use to guide submission development on the next stages of reform.

12.     After receiving the Panel’s report, Cabinet decided to proceed with Resource Management system reform largely modeled on the Panel’s recommendations.

13.     To this end, Cabinet has agreed to the repeal and replacement of the RMA with three pieces of legislation (names may be subject to change):

·   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 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

·   The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act (CAA) to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation.

14.     Cabinet agreed to the following objectives for reform:

·   protect and where necessary restore the natural environment, including its capacity to provide for the wellbeing of present and future generations

·   better enable development within environmental biophysical limits including a significant improvement in housing supply, affordability and choice, and timely provision of appropriate infrastructure, including social infrastructure

·   give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori

·   better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions contributing to climate change

·   improve system efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce complexity, while retaining appropriate local democratic input.

The NBA exposure draft

15.     It is intended that the NBA and SPA be introduced to Parliament in December 2021, with their passage through the house likely to take around a year.

16.     Cabinet agreed an exposure draft of the NBA would be released earlier and form the basis of a select committee inquiry, which would enable public engagement on some aspects of the proposed legislation. This would inform the development of the final bill.

17.     The contents of the exposure draft are yet to be confirmed; however it is expected to contain the proposed:

·   Purpose and supporting clauses (Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Biophysical limits, Outcomes, Implementation, Hierarchy: resolution of conflicts)

·   Key clauses relating to new Natural and Built Environments Plans (NBEPs) including the panels which are proposed to develop them. These plans would take place at a regional level and replace current land use plans e.g. the Auckland Unitary Plan.

·   Key clauses for the National Planning Framework (NPF) likely to be focussed on the mechanism for its development. This framework would replace the current system of national direction (e.g. National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards).

18.     The draft is expected to be introduced in early July with a short period for submissions.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19.     The following analysis is based on the December 2020 Cabinet paper and publicly available information. The Cabinet paper gave some high-level direction and affirmed that the Panel’s report would form the basis of developing legislation, however the exposure draft will contain additional aspects or greater detail as a result of subsequent policy development.

Purpose and supporting clauses

Purpose

20.     Cabinet affirmed the proposed purpose of the act would be to “promote the quality of the environment to support the wellbeing of present and future generations and to recognise the concept of Te Mana o te Taiao”. This definition is similar to the Panel’s recommendation, although the word promote is used instead of enhance. Wellbeing is defined to encompass the four wellbeings.

21.     The proposed purpose aligns to council’s submission to the Panel.

22.     The Cabinet paper noted further work was required with Māori on how to best express the concept Te Mana o te Taiao to ensure that it is clear and workable. This work would be done through engagement with Te Tai Kaha (a collective of pan Māori entities being engaged with by government on water and resource management reforms).

Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi

23.     The Panel’s proposed clause, which was unamended by Cabinet, requires that any person exercising functions or powers under that act must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is stronger than the analogous section 8 of the RMA which requires the principles to be considered and reflects council’s earlier submission.

24.     The Panel recommended that national direction be required to define what giving effect to the principles meant in practice. The Minister’s view was that this should be done in the NBA and so it is a possibility that the exposure draft may instead expand this section to contain such direction.

Biophysical limits

25.     Biophysical limits prescribe the minimum standards of the system to protect and sustain the natural environment’s biophysical resources and their associated ecosystem services.

26.     The Panel’s proposed drafting aligned with council’s submission in the matters it covered, the requirement for a precautionary approach, and in preserving the ability for local authorities to set more stringent standards.

Outcomes

27.     The outcomes largely align with Auckland Council’s submission to the Panel. This is particularly the case with hazards, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the natural environment.

28.     Areas where this was not so are the quality of the built environment and infrastructure, including social infrastructure. These will be areas for focus in council’s submission.

29.     In the Cabinet paper outcomes relating to the built environment are limited to the supply and capacity of housing and business land. Council was in favour of built environment outcomes which supported well-functioning quality urban environments, and whilst this was largely adopted by the Panel, Cabinet removed these sections. Part of the Minister’s rationale was on the basis of such outcomes being “subjective” and would have similar challenges as it is suggested that “amenity” creates in the current system.


 

30.     Infrastructure is limited to an outcome which seeks the “strategic integration of infrastructure”. Council’s 2020 submission to the Panel supported outcomes which promoted the delivery of key infrastructure, including important transport network components such as arterials and rail/rapid transit.

31.     Council also supported outcomes related to the delivery of key social infrastructure. This stands out as a gap given the inclusion of people and communities within ‘environment’ and ‘wellbeing’, including the social wellbeing of people and their communities.

Implementation

32.     This section sets out principles that those performing functions under the act must operate under. These largely reflect council’s submission. However, the provision for Māori exercising their rangatiratanga is absent as was advocated for in council’s submission to the Panel.

33.     Matters which the Minister would be required to give direction on in the National Planning Framework (mandatory direction) are also prescribed in this section. Three matters that the Panel recommended be made mandatory have been made voluntary for the Minister. These are:

·   features and characteristics that contribute to enhancing the quality of natural and built environments; and

·   targets to achieve continuing progress towards the outcomes specified in the act; and

·   how the principles of Te Titiri o Waitangi will be given effect through functions and powers exercised under the act.

34.     The latter is likely to be fulfilled by the act instead.

35.     Council in its submission to the Panel supported expanding the matters national direction was required for (beyond the current requirement for a National Coastal Policy Statement). The specific matters that should be covered by national direction was not a focus for council’s submission and so staff will need to do further analysis on this section.

Key clauses for the National Planning Framework

36.     Cabinet agreed that the NPF would include and replace existing forms of national direction and combine their existing functions and powers. This was a change from the Panel’s recommendation to retain the current approach to National Direction with National Policy Statements, National Environmental Standards, regulations, and National Planning Standards.

37.     Council’s submission supported such an approach.

38.     It is not clear what aspects of the NPF will be in the exposure draft. It seems likely to include its relationship with biophysical limits and outcomes, and its preparation mechanism (such as through a board of inquiry or a more permanent structure).

Key clauses for the Natural and Built Environment Plans

39.     Cabinet agreed that regulatory planning be conducted at a regional level through a single plan. This would be similar to the current Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) which combines the functions of regional and district plans.

40.     The Panel proposed that the development of these plans, and any plan changes, be decided by joint planning committees of 12 members, half from local authorities of the region and half from mana whenua of the region, with one non-voting member representing the Minister of Conservation’s interests in relation to the Coastal Marine Area. Plans would be subject to an independent hearings panel process in line with the development of the AUP.

41.     The exposure draft is likely to include this proposed governance structure. The proposed model represents a significant change and the proposed independence of the joint planning committees would separate these functions from other functions of council such as funding decisions.

42.     The full impacts of this need further analysis, and this will be a focus for council’s submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43.     The proposed decisions this report seeks are procedural and do not have any direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, climate change will not have impacts over the life of this specific decision.

44.     The Panel’s report paper acknowledges addressing climate change challenges as being a key consideration in future-proofing our resource management system.

45.     A reformed resource management system could provide for greater tools which Auckland Council could utilise to reduce emissions and could also ensure that Auckland prepares for and is more adapted to the effects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46.     Relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations have been identified and contributions will be sought from them in developing the council group’s response to the NBA exposure draft.

47.     The potential impacts on the council group and activities will become clearer once the NBA, SPA, and CAA are introduced in bill form.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48.     Local board views will be sought during the development of council’s submission and reported back to the Planning Committee. Local board resolutions will be included as part of council’s submission. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49.     The decisions this report seeks do not directly impact on Māori, however both the resource management system review and specific issues likely to be covered in the NBA exposure draft are likely to be of significant interest and impact. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     The submission can be developed within existing budget provision and as part of business as usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     No risks related to the sought delegation of authority have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     The NBA exposure draft is likely to be introduced in early July with an expected submission period of four weeks.

53.     The SPA and NBA are likely to be introduced in December 2021 or early in 2022 and their progress through the house is likely to take around a year. This will include the usual opportunity to submit to the select committee.

54.     The CAA will be introduced at some point in the first half of 2022 and will also involve a select committee submission opportunity.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Simon Randall - Lead Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Housing and Business Capacity Assessment

File No.: CP2021/07995

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the preliminary, high-level results of the housing capacity assessment required by 31 July 2021 under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS UD).

2.       To provide information on the next steps to fulfil the NPS UD requirement of a subsequent full Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) came into force on 20 August 2020. It requires a housing development capacity assessment (hereafter referred to as the Housing Capacity Assessment 2021 or HCA) to be published by 31 July 2021.

4.       The HCA consists of five parts that include:

·   assessment of the plan-enabled housing capacity

·   commercial feasibility of the assessed capacity

·   high-level infrastructure readiness assessment

·   the projected demand

·   housing affordability under current housing market conditions. 

5.       Results of the preliminary net plan-enabled capacity in residential zones in the urban area is between 101,000 (infill) and 909,000 (redevelopment).

6.       The ‘infrastructure readiness’ assessment found that water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, at a network (bulk) infrastructure level, is broadly adequate to cater for forecast growth over the short, medium and long term. Although constraints exist within the existing network, projects funded through the Long-term Plan and identified in the Infrastructure Strategy will continue to unlock further development capacity across the region. This bulk ‘infrastructure ready’ assessment does not take into account local infrastructure constraints (which is generally developer built), which may play a significant role in enabling growth.

7.       The initial assessment of the bulk water supply and wastewater networks indicates that of net plan enabled capacity, 57 per cent is infrastructure ready in the short term, 77 per cent in the medium term and 99 per cent in the long term.

8.       This reduction in plan-enabled capacity, because of infrastructure constraints, is not a true reflection of all development infrastructure as land transport infrastructure is not included in this assessment. Ongoing work to develop land transport assumptions will be included in the next HBA.

9.       Preliminary feasible development capacity in the existing urban and future urban areas is 840,000 residential dwellings (maximum profit scenario[1]) with an average estimated sales price of $1.66 million.

10.     The overall preliminary housing demand is projected to be between 332,000 (derived from StatsNZ medium growth population projection) and 342,000 households (using the Land Use/Growth Scenario adopted for the 2021 Long-term Plan, known as i11v6) over the next 30 years, to 2051.

11.     Overall, the preliminary assessment shows that the plan-enabled development capacity can meet projected growth, over the short, medium and long-term.

12.     Modelled results indicate meeting affordable housing demand is an on-going challenge. Delivery of affordable housing at pace and scale will require significant change and additional policy levers or interventions (other than the NPS UD).

13.     Furthermore, the issue of funding and financing infrastructure (three waters, transport and all other council provided infrastructure) at local government level is still unresolved.

14.     This initial assessment does not include a business land development capacity assessment. This is scheduled to be completed before the next Long-term Plan.

15.     Further analysis will commence soon after this HCA is published to include intensification (up-zoned) locations, business land capacity, as well as additional demand analyses. The results of the next HBA are required to inform the council’s next Future Development Strategy and Long-term Plan (2024).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the high-level preliminary findings of the Housing Development Capacity Assessment (2021).

b)      delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, to sign off the Housing Development Capacity Assessment (2021) before 31 July 2021.

c)      note that the final Housing Development Capacity Assessment (2021) will be published by 31 July 2021 as required in legislation and provided to the Planning Committee and to the Ministry for the Environment for their information.

d)      note that the next Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment analysis will commence soon after 31 July 2021, which will include additional assessment elements not completed for the Housing Development Capacity Assessment (2021).

 

Horopaki

Context

16.     The NPS UD came into force on 20 August 2020. It is part of the urban planning pillar of the government’s Urban Growth Agenda. 

17.     National Policy Statements allow the government to prescribe objectives and policies for matters of national significance that are relevant to sustainable management under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The NPS UD relates to spatial strategy and land use planning, and the intended purpose is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure the delivery of a ‘well-functioning urban environment’ for all people, communities and future generations.

18.     To support well-functioning cities, the government considers it important to improve the responsiveness and competitiveness of land and development markets. In particular, the NPS UD requires local authorities to provide sufficient plan-enabled, infrastructure-ready, and commercially feasible development capacity so that more homes can be built in response to demand. To demonstrate this, a Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) must be published every three years.

 

 

19.     However, the requirement for the first assessment due by end-July is for a housing capacity assessment only, not a business land capacity assessment. For ease of reference, this assessment is therefore referred to as the Housing Capacity Assessment 2021 (HCA) throughout this report. The next full assessment (or when making reference to the NPS UD more generally) is referred to as the Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) throughout.

20.     This report follows an introductory memorandum on the NPS UD to the Planning Committee (10 August 2020) and a report on the proposed work programme to respond to the NPS UD.  The Planning Committee endorsed the work programme in February 2021 (Resolution PLA/2021/18). A series of Planning Committee workshops for the wider NPS UD work have been held over the past six months to establish the council’s approach to the NPS UD. Two of these workshops focused on the housing capacity assessment (26 May and 2 June 2021).

21.     The council has an existing HBA (2017), which was prepared under the precursor to this NPS UD, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016. There are similarities in the requirements and the approach taken, however the NPS UD has introduced new requirements. This means an updated assessment has been produced. This report sets out the findings of this latest assessment.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Requirements and responses

22.     Each HBA must provide information on the demand and supply of housing and business land in the urban environment and assess the impact of planning and infrastructure decisions on the demand and supply.

23.     The assessment must quantify development capacity and assess whether it is sufficient to meet expected demand in the short, medium and long-term.

24.     If the HBA indicates insufficient development capacity in the short, medium, or long-term, council must immediately notify the Minister for the Environment.

25.     If the insufficiency is wholly or partly caused by RMA planning documents, local authorities should consider changes to those documents to increase development capacity for housing or business land. Any changes to enable development must be made as soon as practicable to the relevant plan or strategy.

26.     A housing bottom line for the short, medium and long-term must also be included in the regional policy statement as soon as practical after the HBA is made publicly available.

Development Capacity

27.     Development capacity under the NPS UD refers to the land to be developed for housing or business use based on the RMA documents and the provision of adequate development infrastructure to support the development. In particular, the NPS UD specifies that HBAs must assess plan-enabled capacity, infrastructure readiness, commercial feasibility, and determine the amount of capacity that is expected to be realised.

Plan-enabled capacity assessment

28.     Plan-enabled capacity must include an analysis of the cumulative effect of objectives, policies, zoning rules, overlays and existing designations in plans.

 


 

 

Infrastructure ready

29.     Infrastructure ready must determine if the council has adequate development infrastructure to support the development of the land:

·   Development infrastructure is defined as network infrastructure for water supply, wastewater, stormwater and land transport (does not include local infrastructure).

·   Capacity of development infrastructure must be determined in the short (0-3 years), medium (3-10 years) and long term (10-30 years) across the Auckland Region.

Commercially feasible development

30.     Commercially feasible development capacity assessment involves analysing:

·   plan-enabled supply to determine which developments are commercially viable considering current costs, revenues and yields,

·   the rate of take-up of development capacity, observed over recent years and estimated for the future, and

·   the market’s response to planning decisions.

Expected to be realised

31.     Expected to be realised must quantify dwelling units that are both feasible and reasonably expected to be realised;

·   in both existing and future urban areas, and

·   differentiate dwelling typologies such as stand-alone vs attached dwellings.

Housing Capacity Assessment 2021 (HCA) results

Plan-enabled housing development capacity for all residential zones

32.     Plan-enabled capacity has been calculated using the council’s Capacity for Growth Model with several key updates:

·   Smallest geographic unit modelled has changed from individual parcel to ‘site’, which clarifies land ownership structures. Site is the smallest possible aggregate of associated parcels, titles, and rates assessment.

·   Shared access lots and shared rear site access laneways are removed from the capacity calculation. This avoids generating housing development capacity on land areas not suitable for additional housing development.

·   Alternative height in relation to boundary provisions are incorporated in the modelling to account for higher density development opportunities enabled by the Auckland Unitary Plan.

·   Effective building heights are adjusted to reflect the height control outcomes intended by the Auckland Unitary Plan. Previously, height restrictions were determined by the most restrictive control (lowest building height permitted). The latest model update relaxes this mechanism and allows height controls to reflect the effective height control provisions. Hence, permitted building height can be higher than base zone height.

33.     Modelled outputs for all residential zones in the urban area are shown in table one below. The results exclude potential capacity in town centres and business areas. These areas will be included in the next HBA.

Table 1.  Summary of net plan-enabled capacity of Auckland Unitary Plan residential zones

Net housing capacity summary – Unitary Plan residential zones

Unitary Plan base zone

Net infill

Net redevelopment

Large Lot

2,296

2,323

Mixed Housing Suburban

26,359

327,125

Mixed Housing Urban

25,281

351,726

Rural and Coastal Settlement

2,500

2,504

Single House

25,211

28,586

Terrace Housing and Apartment Building

20,002

196,915

Total

101,649

909,179

 

34.     The plan-enabled capacity results are a hypothetical measurement of ‘what the current planning system allows’. Whether this capacity will be realised (or not) has not been a consideration, nor is it implied that, because the plan enables a certain kind of development, it will necessarily occur, nor because a development has not been identified that it will not occur. The assessment is subject to several assumptions and limitations. These are set out in the main HCA report.

Infrastructure ready

35.     The existing HBA (2017) did not require an infrastructure readiness assessment and therefore there is no inherited methodology.

36.     The council must look at infrastructure availability at a whole of Auckland regional level, rather than focus on specific areas.

37.     The NPS UD definition of ‘development infrastructure’ focuses the council to consider network (bulk) infrastructure for water supply and wastewater, stormwater and land transport. However, it is recognised that there are limitations due to ‘local’ infrastructure capacity constraints.

38.     For development capacity to be considered as ‘infrastructure ready’ under the NPS UD it must:

·   in the short term (1-3 years) have adequate existing development infrastructure to support development of the land

·   in the medium term (3-10 years), have either adequate existing development infrastructure or have funding for adequate infrastructure identified in the council’s long-term plan

·   in the long term (10-30 years), either the above definitions apply or identified in the council’s infrastructure strategy.

39.     To determine infrastructure readiness for water supply and wastewater, bulk network capacity, which is based on the ‘transmission network’, was identified at a high level using information on known constraints and planned projects such as the Central Interceptor and the Northern Interceptor.

40.     Staff consider that the stormwater network has limitations but is generally not a ‘hard constraint’ on development. In most instances, appropriate solutions can be found to mitigate or minimise any impact upon the receiving environment. A developer must make a financial decision weighing up cost feasibility of the stormwater solution / mitigation required. There are exceptions such as Takaanini North and Drury East where large floodplains create significant limitations. There is currently no technical solution or budget in the current Long-term Plan to deal with these constraints.

41.     Land transport has not been considered in this assessment as Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are working to develop transport assumptions for the next HBA, due by 2024. The key reasons land transport is not included in this assessment is the complexity of the transport network, timeframe constraints and the complexity of the requirements.

·   Auckland’s transport system is complex and has many interdependencies and variables such as trip origins, destinations, and network effects and does not work in isolation;

·   Further time is needed for a robust assessment of transport capacity in the short, medium and long term. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are developing a methodology to test the required approach at a network level.

42.     Once developed, the methodology will be applied to test/assess various scenarios using the tools and mechanisms such as: Future Connect, Macro Strategic Model (MSM), Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP), Brownfields Business Case and Supporting Growth Alliance assessments in greenfields.

Commercial feasible assessment results

43.     The feasible assessment methodology is inherited from the 2017 HBA with several assumptions updated to reflect current costs and prices as of October 2020.The changes made have been developed with information provided by the Development Programme Office, Eke Panuku and include per sqm build costs from Ryder Level Bucknell. The key assumptions and changes are:

·   The Operative in Part Auckland Unitary Plan rules and zonings (base zones only), overlays on the 2020 cadastral base are used for the input capacity.

·   The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and various structure plans are incorporated in the model to assess feasible development capacity of all Future Urban zoned sites.

·   Build costs per sqm have increased. This cost centre includes materials and labour. The increase reflects construction sector constraints. However, it does not reflect the latest escalated costs due to material shortage.

·   The Development Contributions Policy 2019 and Watercare’s Infrastructure Growth Charges (IGCs) are included. IGCs are locked in at the 20/21 level.

·   Costs (excluding per sqm build cost) have been adjusted to reflect inflation rates if not specifically provided by expert groups.

·   Sales prices are set by sales locations, floor area and typology, reflecting relatives to a ‘standard’ dwelling sale price. Prices, locations, floor area and typologies are informed by property transaction records sourced from Council’s District Valuation Roll data.

·   The feasibility assessment is not a forecast or prediction of development. It is a test which provides a ’snapshot in time’ of sites that would be appealing to an ‘average’ commercially motivated developer that wanted to commence a project today.

44.     Two feasible housing development capacity scenarios for the urban and future urban areas are presented in tables two and three below.

45.     Modelling outputs suggest housing development is extremely sensitive to market conditions and costs associated with the typologies of dwellings built. The modelled feasible dwelling sales prices and floorspace are consistent with the empirical property transaction records observed over the past 24 months at the time this assessment was carried out.

Table 2. Feasible housing development capacity – maximum profit scenario

Feasibility threshold

Feasible built form

Average sales price

Average floorspace

Feasible dwellings

0-10%

Apartment

$2,105,020

146

622

House

$1,288,110

175

4,524

Terrace

$1,468,476

151

66,536

10-20%

Apartment

$2,089,107

147

482

House

$1,332,741

178

19,942

Terrace

$1,610,880

158

115,713

20-30%

Apartment

$2,126,012

150

206

House

$1,454,442

184

28,087

Terrace

$1,705,446

163

159,100

30-50%

House

$1,580,037

191

62,074

Terrace

$1,916,173

174

226,306

+50%

House

$1,659,137

195

51,888

Terrace

$2,303,085

190

102,791

Average

$1,659,957

172

838,271

 

 

Table 3. Feasible housing development capacity – minimum priced dwelling

Feasibility threshold

Feasible built form

Average sales price

Average floorspace

Feasible dwellings

0-10%

Apartment

$1,080,527

86

378,761

House

$1,047,516

125

24,031

Terrace

$988,676

107

560,057

10-20%

Apartment

$1,054,195

82

89,880

House

$969,622

131

4,417

Terrace

$1,140,802

113

248,691

20-30%

Apartment

$918,446

68

21,980

House

$1,134,000

167

11

Terrace

$1,081,571

107

44,116

30-50%

Apartment

$888,789

68

15,265

Terrace

$1,182,866

107

16,758

+50%

Apartment

$943,755

70

188

Terrace

$1,135,256

105

702

Average

$1,041,932

107

1,404,857

 

 

46.     It is worth noting that this feasible assessment is not dynamic – i.e. sales prices of dwellings, development sites or build costs are not affected by the calculated feasible supply. Feasible assessment is subject to various assumptions and limitations. These are set out in the main HCA report.

Demand assessment – projected growth in the next 30 years

47.     Statistics New Zealand’s 2018 Census data and its latest population projections are the starting point for housing demand assessment. Under the NPS UD council must review a range of projections and select the most likely scenario.

48.     Five sets of projections are adopted for comparison purposes. Table four below shows three of the estimated household growths for the short, medium and long-term, as well as with competitiveness margins added.


 

 

Table 4. Growth projection scenarios and competitiveness margins

Growth projection scenario

Projected growth + competitiveness margin

SNZ 2013 base

(pre-COVID)

SNZ 2018 base (post-COVID)

i11v6 (post-COVID)

Short term demand (2020 - 2023)

37,620

30,221

30,245

Short term + 20%

45,144

36,265

36,294

Medium term demand (2024-2031)

82,478

73,372

87,163

Medium term + 20%

98,973

88,046

104,595

Long term demand (2032-2051)

208,071

180,368

174,581

Long term + 15%

239,282

207,423

200,768

30-year total

383,399

331,734

341,658

 

49.     The NPS UD requires council to identify the most likely growth scenario based on sound and reasonable assumptions. After evaluating the current pandemic situation, potential prolonged border closure and uncertain policy guidance, no sound and reasonable assumptions can be drawn from the current information available. Therefore, it is advised that the current land-use assumption (under i11v6) adopted for the 2021 LTP is still the best projection available when council’s strategic goals and funding capabilities are considered.

Sufficiency of capacity to meet demand / projected growth

50.     This HCA 2021 assesses housing development capacity only and does not include a business land development capacity component. It therefore does not provide a holistic view of both housing and employment opportunities.

51.     It also does not adequately and robustly assess infrastructure readiness at both bulk and local levels. Preliminary assessment results and empirical evidence provided by infrastructure providers have identified various degrees of infrastructure constraints across the city.

52.     These limitations mean that further work is needed before completing the analysis on whether Auckland has sufficient capacity to meet demand. Once the information is available and can be included in the analysis, a housing bottom line can be practically identified and included in the Regional Policy Statement.

53.     The preliminary findings indicate that, when looking simply at the modelling numbers, there is sufficient plan-enabled development capacity to meet projected growth over the short, medium and long-term. However, alongside looking at the modelling numbers, an understanding is needed of who is likely to be able to afford those properties, and whether sufficient capacity will have any impact on improving housing affordability.

Demand assessment – housing affordability

54.     To further understand Auckland’s housing market, and to meet the NPS UD requirements relating to improving housing affordability, feasible capacity is tested through the lens of housing affordability.

55.     The modelling takes the form of an ex-ante exercise, where before anything is built developers assess whether dwellings are, firstly feasible, then commercially viable and ultimately reasonably expected to be realised. That is, dwellings will be realised (built) only if there is any household willing to and capable of buy such a dwelling. Thus, findings reveal that dwellings realisation is uncertain because feasible dwellings are too expensive across all scenarios.

 

56.     Demand analysis was undertaken using the projected growth of the intermediate housing market as a benchmark. Households in the intermediate market correspond to those with at least one person in paid employment, who cannot affordably purchase a dwelling at the lower quartile price ($770,000 or less) at the standard bank lending conditions. To be able to purchase, a household is required to earn at least $132,300.

57.     In 2021 there are 97,156 renting households in the intermediate housing market. This is about twice the current housing shortfall of Auckland (46,000 dwellings). This figure is expected to rise to at least 111,000 by 2031.

58.     Supply of affordable housing (dwellings priced at $770,000 or less) should grow by at least 25 per cent yearly to halve the size of the intermediate market within a generation (18 years). For the same reduction to occur within a decade, growth should be at least 45 per cent. Hence, halving the intermediate market is equivalent to filling the housing shortfall in Auckland. Importantly, if supply grows at a similar rate to the population (2.2 per cent), the mathematical model fails to find a solution.

59.     For simulation scenarios reflecting Auckland’s housing market, no household earning less than $170,000 could buy a dwelling. That is, many households would require two incomes to afford a dwelling in Auckland. For other relatively more affordable scenarios, no household earning less than $100,000 could buy a dwelling. In only one scenario, households earning at least $60,000 may be able to buy a dwelling, where the average floorspace is 62 square metres. It should be noted that most of those households consist of couples (with or without children).

60.     This implies that another driver of affordability is the mix of dwelling typologies (houses, terraces or apartments), not only land release or greater development capacity.

61.     Greater housing supply does not necessarily imply affordability as lower and moderate-income households are outbid by wealthier households, and there is no guarantee that, given greater development opportunities, developers will be motivated to deliver affordable housing.

62.     The analysis then demonstrates potential discrepancies between the dwelling price distribution and the ability of households to buy the new dwellings. Therefore, it is likely that any affordability improvements because of land release or greater development capacity, would benefit households earning well above the Auckland median income (about $96,000).

63.     Future research should focus on demand-side policies (e.g. progressive home ownership, leasehold land) that may improve affordability and close the gap between market efficiency and equity.

Key observations

64.     Greater development capacity does provide additional housing stock to meet demand. However, the result is often difficult to assess at the policy design stage. More importantly, there is little to no control when the required delivery relies solely on the market to meet the intended policy objectives.

65.     Greater development capacity does not actually translate into better affordability for households in critical groups, such as the intermediate housing market.

66.     Affordability does not noticeably improve because of new dwellings entering the market, greater land release, or development opportunities.

67.     More importantly, it is worth noting the housing market is vastly complex and extremely sensitive to factors relating to monetary policy. Recent economic performance and the current pandemic situation forced many governments to rely on quantitative easing mechanisms to keep the global economy afloat. This led to vast cash injections (e.g. low mortgage interest rates over the past few years) into Auckland’s housing market, consequently escalating the already dire housing situation as house price continues to soar. The current policy levers available to local government are not able to regulate this market behaviour.

The next Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment

68.     The NPS UD requires a full HBA be prepared in time to inform an update of the council’s Future Development Strategy and preparation of the next Long-term Plan (2024). The next HBA will include business land development capacity alongside and updated housing development capacity assessment.

69.     The next HBA will also address outstanding matters that have not yet been included:

·   transport network capacity;

·   an extended housing assessment, including a demand assessment encompassing Māori housing, accommodation demand for visitors, seasonal workers, elderly, as well as renters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

70.     The HCA 2021 does not directly imply nor address climate change impacts. However, the HCA (and future HBAs) will be used to inform the council’s strategic documents, such as the Future Development Strategy, the Infrastructure Strategy and the Long-term Plan. Subsequent decisions made using assessment information could have significant climate implications. For example, decisions around land uses have strong links to emissions and resilience to climate impacts. Therefore, future decisions could have major climate benefits and/or disbenefits, depending on the actions taken.

71.     Though climate impacts are not assessed as part of the HCA 2021, assessment outputs can be used to inform upcoming housing policies for climate change related analyses. For example, up/down zoning considerations in coastal areas and flood prone areas or impacts of development impacts on vulnerable communities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

72.     Preparation of this HCA required information and support from across the council group. Staff from across Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, Plans and Places, Development Programme Office, Chief Economist Unit and Healthy Waters, have all contributed data, information and/or quality assurance. The Council Controlled Organisations have also played a key role in contributing to information on infrastructure capacity, Watercare and Auckland Transport in particular.

73.     Ongoing collaboration will be needed to complete the next HBA, in particular to include transport network capacity information, and a more detailed housing assessment, including demand from different groups.

74.     The HCA and underlying data sets will be available for use across the council group. This provides a single, consistent data source for different parties.

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

Local impacts and local board views

75.     As an evidence-based technical document, the HCA does not directly impact on local areas. However, the HCA will be used to inform the council’s strategic documents, such as the Future Development Strategy, the Infrastructure Strategy and the Long-term Plan. These strategic documents have timeframes extending out over the next 2-3 years and local board involvement will be sought in the process of developing those strategic documents.

76.     The HCA results can be reported by local board area, as can the demand assessment output. This may be of interest to individual local boards as it shows the plan-enabled development capacity, commercially feasible capacity and demand in each local board area.

77.     To date, local boards have received a memorandum outlining the seven NPS UD workstreams, key milestones and opportunities for providing feedback (15 December 2020). A local board briefing was held on 5 March 2021.

78.     Local board chairs (or alternates) have been invited to a series of Planning Committee workshops, held from September 2020 through to June 2021. Two of these workshops focused on the HCA (26 May and 2 June 2021).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

79.     The NPS UD specifies that the HBA demand analysis must include an assessment of how well demand for housing by Māori is currently met and how the demand is likely to be met in future. In particular, the assessment needs to include the demand for different types and forms of housing such as community housing, lower-cost housing and papakāinga.

80.     This current HCA has not specifically analysed Māori housing demand of typologies or forms in detail. The NPS UD does not distinguish between housing for mana whenua on Māori land and the broader issue of access to affordable housing by those who identify as Māori. Staff are working with parties across the council (e.g. in the Māori housing Unit and Regulatory Services), and with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat, to develop a methodology for inclusion of this in the next HBA. For example, a component of the approach could be to model the potential development capacity for papakāinga or affordable housing from Unitary Plan zones applied to Māori Freehold Land or Treaty Settlement Land and examine trends in actual take-up rates over the past five years.

81.     The affordable housing demand analysis shows that those on below median household income are highly unlikely to be able to purchase a home under the current market condition. As a percentage of residents who own their own dwelling, 40 per cent of people who identify as Māori in the NZ Census (2013) are homeowners compared to 69.5 per cent that identify as European/ other. Furthermore, Mitchell, (2019) reports that Māori make up 22 per cent of the intermediate housing market, as compared to NZ Europeans 12 per cent. This work does not specifically look at housing affordability for Māori, however, Māori are over-represented in lower income groups. This means Māori are more likely to be marginalised due to lower earnings, lower rates of homeownership, feel the impact of increases in house prices, and the lack of suitable housing stock that meets their demand. These findings align with other housing affordability and social equity work completed by council officers, showing that Māori are clearly adversely affected in the current housing market.

82.     Staff are working to set the NPS UD work (including the HBA) within the broader, long-term strategic context of the Future Development Strategy and working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat to explore the opportunities to align the HBA with the Kāinga Strategic Action Plan. Staff have also been working with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish a process to engage on the strategic aspects of the NPS UD and Future Development Strategy. This kaupapa was raised at the recent Forum planning workshop on 17 June 2021. Affordable homes for mana whenua and Māori through a Tāmaki Makaurau Housing and Papakāinga Strategy was raised as a priority at that workshop.

83.     The HCA assessment output can be reported at subregional level, including by local board area, to provide finer grain information for further analysis if required.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

84.     The results of the HCA outlined in this paper do not have any direct immediate financial impact as it is an evidence-based document showing that there is no plan-enabled development capacity shortfall.  However, the current assessment has not explicitly examined infrastructure constraints at the local level and has not considered the condition of existing assets, unplanned future renewals and capital programmes. This report does not seek budgetary allocation but notes that infrastructure funding and financing at both bulk and local levels is still unresolved.    

85.     The council’s strategic planning, using the HCA results, may have implications for financial decision-making, depending on the approach taken. This would most likely be seen in the Future Development Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, Long-term Plan or development contributions policy. Any implications would be considered and elaborated on as those strategic documents are prepared. Financial decisions will be made by the Finance and Performance Committee.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

86.     There are many assumptions and caveats across much of the Housing Capacity Assessment 2021. The risk is that, when the HCA report is published, those assumptions and caveats are ignored. Mitigation is providing clear and consistent messaging around the assumptions and caveats.

87.     There is a risk surrounding the terminology ‘infrastructure ready’ and that this is interpreted as meaning a) development can proceed in areas where local infrastructure may still be a restriction or b) changes to the sequencing of bulk infrastructure to respond to new priorities. Council still needs to assess impacts of proposed development on a case-by-case basis. Mitigation is again to provide clear and consistent messaging around the assumptions and caveats related to ‘infrastructure ready’.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

88.     Staff will finalise the Housing Capacity Assessment (2021).

89.     Provide the Housing Capacity Assessment (2021) to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and Independent Māori Statutory Board member, to sign off under delegated authority.

90.     Provide the final Housing Capacity Assessment (2021) to the Planning Committee for information.

91.     Publish the Housing Capacity Assessment (2021) by 31 July 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Gray - Principal Advisor Growth & Spatial Strat

Isobel Jennings - Advisor Infrastructure Strategy

Mario Fernandez – Senior Spatial Researcher

Chad Hu - Senior Spatial Analyst

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

National Policy Statement Urban Development 2020 - Well-functioning Urban Environment, Responsiveness and Significant Development Capacity

File No.: CP2021/08596

 

  

 

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek endorsement of the policy approach to implementing the well-functioning urban environment, responsiveness and significant development capacity parts of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Planning Committee received an introductory memorandum on the NPS UD on 10 August 2020 and a report on the proposed work programme on 4 February 2021. A series of Planning Committee workshops have provided advice to elected members on the complex issues in the NPS UD where there is discretion.

3.       This report specifically deals with well-functioning urban environment, responsiveness and significant development capacity. A separate report deals with other aspects of council’s policy decisions associated with implementing the NPS-UD.

4.       The NPS-UD states that planning decisions contribute to “well-functioning urban environments” and that those urban environments:

(a)     have or enable a variety of homes that:

(i)      meet the needs, in terms of type, price, and location, of different households; and

(ii)     enable Māori to express their cultural traditions and norms; and

(b)     have or enable a variety of sites that are suitable for different business sectors in terms of location and site size; and

(c)     have good accessibility for all people between housing, jobs, community services, natural spaces, and open spaces, including by way of public or active transport; and

(d)     support, and limit as much as possible adverse impacts on, the competitive operation of land and development markets; and support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and

(e)     are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change.

Matters beyond this set of minimum requirements can be added to by the council.

5.       A review of the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (RPS) has concluded that it already addresses most of the minimums identified in the NPS-UD as contributing to a “well-functioning urban environment”. The exception to this is in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  It is recommended that new policy options be investigated in relation to this and a change to the RPS prepared.

6.       Under the NPS-UD the Council is also required to be “responsive” to private plan changes that would supply “significant development capacity”. The council must include criteria in its RPS that states what “significant” is. The intention of this is to enable more development to occur more quickly where it has not previously been contemplated by council.

7.       The policy applies to proposed development that may be:

·   unanticipated in existing plans or strategies

·   out of sequence with planned land release.

8.       A list of matters has been identified to determine what constitutes significant development capacity and this will be further developed for the change that is to be included in the RPS.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement already includes appropriate policies to enable “well-functioning urban environments”.

b)      approve the development of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement that includes:

i)        a new policy (or policies) on reducing green-house gas emissions

ii)       criteria that private plan change requests will be required to meet to be considered as adding ‘significant development capacity’ under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, using the following as a basis:

A)      Strategic alignment

B)      Scale of proposed development

C)     Location of proposed development

D)     Timing of proposed development

E)      Bulk and local infrastructure funding and financing

F)      Connectivity to transport networks and three waters infrastructure

G)     Supports a well-functioning urban environment

H)     Identify limited exceptions where the proposed development provides one or more of the following:

1)      housing for Māori – papakāinga or other forms of housing

2)      affordable housing

3)      social housing.

c)   request staff to seek feedback from local boards, Mana Whenua and central government agencies on the draft plan change prior to bringing it to the Planning Committee for endorsement.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       This report follows an introductory memorandum on the NPS UD to the Planning Committee (10 August 2020) and a report on the proposed work programme to respond to the NPS UD (4 February 2021). In February 2021, this Committee endorsed the work programme and a series of workshops and meetings to establish the council’s approach to the NPS UD (Resolution PLA/2021/18). Seven workshops for the Committee and local board chairs have been held between February and June 2021.

10.     National Policy Statements are issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). They provide national direction for matters of national significance relevant to sustainable management and allow government to prescribe objectives and policies for matters of national significance.

11.     The NPS-UD has its origins in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPS-UDC) which required councils to improve planning processes to enable more development. The NPS-UDC has been replaced by the NPS-UD, which gives further policy direction in certain planning areas, such as where development capacity should be provided and how councils can be more responsive to development opportunities.

12.     The NPS-UD is part of the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda. This Agenda states that to support productive and well-functioning cities it is important that regional policy statements and regional and district plans provide adequate opportunity for land development for business and housing to meet community needs. The stated potential benefits of flexible urban policy include higher productivity and wages, shorter commute times, lower housing costs, social inclusion, and more competitive urban land markets. 

13.     The NPS-UD seeks to improve the responsiveness and competitiveness of land and development markets. In particular, it requires local authorities to enable more development capacity, so that more homes can be built in response to demand. The NPS-UD provides policy direction to make sure capacity is provided in accessible places, helping homes to be built in the places that are close to jobs, community services, public transport and other public amenities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Well-Functioning Urban Environment

14.     The NPS-UD introduces the concept of “well-functioning urban environment”. The meaning of this term is set out in NPS-UD Policy 1 (see https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/AA-Gazetted-NPSUD-17.07.2020-pdf.pdf) and sets out minimum requirements that have to be provided for in the Auckland Unitary Plan.  These requirements can be added to if appropriate. These requirements relate to:

·   enabling a variety of homes and land for business

·   ensuring accessibility

·   supporting and not limiting the competitive operation of the land and development markets

·   reducing greenhouse gas emissions

·   resilience to the effects of climate change.

15.     There are several circumstances in the NPS-UD where the contribution to a “well-functioning urban environment” must be considered:

·   when making planning decisions (includes plan changes and resource consent decisions)

·   when being responsive and making planning decisions on plan changes that add significant development capacity

·   when preparing Future Development Strategies (the first of which is required in 2024 and is not addressed in this report).

16.     A review of the RPS has concluded that it already adequately addresses most of the matters identified in the NPS-UD that are considered to contribute to a “well-functioning urban environment”. The RPS provides significantly more guidance on the matters that provide a “well-functioning urban environment” than the NPS-UD does. The RPS section B2.2 (urban growth and form), in particular, provides for “a quality compact urban form”, and B2.3 (a quality-built environment), gives substantial guidance. Several other sections of the RPS (such as those on infrastructure, natural heritage, natural resources and environmental risk) are all relevant and contain policies that contribute to providing a “well-functioning urban environment”.

17.     The exception is the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is not explicitly addressed in the RPS. However, there are several policies (for example those relating to transport mode shifts) that already contribute to reducing green-house gas emissions.

18.     Staff have completed a comprehensive literature review using a systematic review technique.  It looked at articles drawn from the fields of architecture, planning, sociology, urban design, urban economics, politics, governance, agriculture, forestry, construction, landscape architecture, ecology, hazard management, climate change, transport, health, psychology, and cultural studies.

19.     The evidence gathered concludes that a well-functioning urban environment is the sum of its parts. No one element creates a well-functioning urban environment, nor is there a measurable standard to demonstrate how or when such an environment is achieved. Instead, there are common elements across the built, social, environmental and cultural domains that contribute to experience and outcomes for all urban citizens.

20.     A well-functioning urban environment reflects the context and purpose of its development, meeting the practical, economic, physical, social and cultural needs of all the citizens it serves today and into future generations. Well-functioning urban environments reflect the diversity in society and aim to address social justice and inequity through engagement, accessibility, rebalancing of power, ownership and informed transformation or protection of land and services.

21.     The findings of the literature review were assessed against the RPS to highlight any gaps in the existing document. The findings show that overall the RPS covers many of the key aspects that make up a well-functioning urban environment.

22.     However, public participation, health impact assessments, gender, age and disability equality, social equity improvements, opportunities for urban agriculture, water sensitive design, valuing of ecosystem services, and categorising green and social infrastructure as critical infrastructure on which development is contingent and climate resilience are not so thoroughly addressed. Further work is needed on these aspects to understand how they may already be, or could be, addressed through other council plans and strategies.

23.     It is therefore considered that in most respects the RPS already contains policies that deliver “well-functioning urban environments”. Therefore, no changes are recommended to the RPS at this stage, except for the addition of a new policy (or policies) to explicitly address the issue of reducing green-house gas emissions. 

Responsive Planning

24.     Under the NPS-UD (Policy 8 and Subpart 2) the council is required to be “responsive” to private plan changes that would supply “significant development capacity”. The council must include criteria in its RPS that state what “significant” is. This is required to enable more clarity and certainty for development and therefore enable it to potentially occur more quickly where it has not previously been contemplated by Council.  Policy 8 applies to private plan changes that may be:

·   unanticipated in existing plans or strategies; or

·   out of sequence with planned land release.

25.     The intention of the responsiveness requirements of the NPS-UD are to:

·   enable transparency and responsiveness in planning decisions

·   improve competition in land markets

·   accelerate land supply

·   discourage land banking.

26.     It is important to note that the criteria developed by the council to be included in the RPS cannot be so restrictive as to undermine the overall intent of Policy 8 of the NPS-UD.

Significant Development Capacity Criteria

27.     To meet this NPS-UD requirement the following matters have been identified as the basis for significant development capacity criteria:

·   Strategic

o The development is consistent with the council’s strategic directions

·   Scale

o The development delivers a large number of dwellings, in the order of thousands, and/or a large area of business floor space

o The development is large enough to create a well-functioning urban environment

·   Location

o The development is in an area of demand (e.g. as identified by the Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA))

o The development is in a location that is consistent with other requirements of the NPS-UD (e.g. a walkable catchment to a Rapid Transit Network station)

o The proposal is adjacent to an existing urban area

·   Timing

o The development will be delivered quickly, and the developer has the capacity to deliver the development earlier than what may have been planned by the council

·   Infrastructure

o Bulk infrastructure must exist, or the developer demonstrates viable options for providing new and upgraded infrastructure

o Local infrastructure must exist, or the developer demonstrates viable options for providing new and upgraded infrastructure

o Funding, financing and maintaining the bulk and local infrastructure required for the development, if existing infrastructure is not available

·   Well connected

o The development must be well connected along transport corridors by a range of modes to a range of destinations

·   Well-functioning urban environment

o The development capacity must contribute to a well-functioning urban environment

o The development provides a range of dwelling typologies

·   Limited exceptions where the development provides one or more of the following:

o housing for Māori – papakāinga or other forms of housing

o affordable housing

o social housing. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     Objective 8 and policy 1 of the NPS UD set out a policy framework that signals the need for decisions to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience.

29.     This framework is in line with the 'built environment' priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, which has a goal of achieving "A low carbon, resilient built environment that promotes healthy, low impact lifestyles". The plan recognises that:


 

 

"To move to a low carbon and resilient region, climate change and hazard risks need to be integral to the planning system that shapes Auckland.

Integrating land-use and transport planning is vital to reduce the need for private vehicle travel and to ensure housing and employment growth areas are connected to efficient, low carbon transport systems."

30.     The Planning Committee also passed unanimously an expectation that Auckland Council would fully utilise "the levers available to it to reduce transport emissions, including […] increasing the focus on intensification within brownfield areas, in particular along the rapid transit corridors" (Resolution PLA/2021/15).

31.     The urban form of cities directly affects the level of emissions they generate. It also affects the level of exposure it’s residents and businesses have to the effects of climate change.

32.     Policy 1 of the NPS UD seeks that planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments.  This includes a variety of homes that are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change. The Auckland Plan outlines the impacts and risks the region is facing from climate change, including flooding, heatwaves, drought and coastal storms. This is likely to assist the creation of a well-functioning urban environment, which has resilience to the effects of climate change by, for example, ensuring less people live in areas likely to be adversely affected by these effects in the future. 

33.     Although climate change is both an objective and policy of the NPS-UD, these aims may conflict with other aspects of the NPS-UD, such as requiring councils to allow for development moving ‘out’ as well as ‘up’. The NPS-UD requires local authorities to be ‘responsive’ to private plan changes for development in locations, or at times, not previously anticipated. This affects the council’s ability to plan for future growth, align land use and infrastructure funding and provision, and achieve a quality compact urban form.

34.     Unplanned and out of sequence greenfield expansion is more likely to result in higher emissions than intensification in existing urban locations where there is comparatively better access to a range of employment and other destinations and a range of transport choices. Additional utilities required to service growth in greenfield areas (such as roads, water supply and wastewater services) will also result in higher infrastructure and operational emissions. Conversely, there may be locations where out of sequence greenfield expansion does not lead to greater emissions but does expose development to greater risks from climate change effects (such as coastal inundation and or erosion).

35.     Misalignment in policy direction and the enablement of out-of-sequence and unplanned growth challenges the quality compact urban form approach and may result in a more fragmented development pattern. It has potential to enable low-density land use patterns supported by roads and motorways, increasing private vehicle dependency, and limiting potential to integrate high quality and frequent public transport, walking and cycling. It also makes infrastructure planning more uncertain, with higher holding costs and greater risk of under utilised assets.

36.     For these reasons, it is essential that the criteria introduced to the RPS support development that reduces emissions (relative to planned development) and help prevent development that increases emissions (relative to planned development).


 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37.     All relevant council departments and Auckland Transport (AT) and Watercare have been involved in the development of the policy approach contained in this report.  They will have an ongoing role as the proposed plan change is prepared. AT have an interest in well-functioning urban environment and the significant development capacity criteria where they relate to the transport network.  Watercare have an interest in the three waters infrastructure that well-functioning urban environment and the significant development capacity criteria require. 

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

Local impacts and local board views

38.     Local board members have been briefed on the implications of the NPS UD and chairs have been invited to the series of Planning Committee workshops run this year. Board members have voiced a keen interest in the development of the plan change following the resolution of the policy approach contained in this report. Staff are preparing an engagement plan that will include engagement with local boards. The engagement plan will be reported to the August 2021 meeting of this Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     Policy 9 of the NPS sets out the requirements for local authorities as follows:

Local authorities, in taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in relation to urban environments, must:

a)      involve hapū and iwi in the preparation of RMA planning documents and any FDSs by undertaking effective consultation that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; and

b)      when preparing RMA planning documents and FDSs, take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development; and

c)      provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Māori and issues of cultural significance; and

d)      operate in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.

40.     This policy directs council to particularly involve iwi and hapū in the NPS-UD during the preparation of planning documents. The recommended exception to the significant development capacity criteria for housing for Māori (including papakāinga) reflects previous clear direction from Māori about the importance of housing, including papakāinga.  The intention of the exception is to avoid any further policy barriers to that provision.  Once the policy approach to implementing the well-functioning urban environment, responsive planning and significant development capacity criteria provisions has been approved, Council will begin to meet the requirements of Policy 9. The next stage in the process, being to prepare a proposed plan change, will involve engagement with iwi and hapū. More details of this will be provided in a report to this Committee at its August 2021 meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     While implementing the NPS UD is a large programme of work, it is expected to be resourced through existing budgets. The budget to appoint new staff (and if necessary, consultants) to support this programme has been approved through council’s Long Term Plan. 

42.     There is a significant risk that unplanned and out of sequence private plan changes will result in council having to divert funding from existing planned/sequenced locations. It is therefore essential that the criteria introduced to the RPS are clear and help to prevent this outcome.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.     The key risk associated with the development of criteria relating to unplanned or out of sequence development is that the criteria may support, rather than prevent, development that is contrary to the Council’s overall strategic goals. Consequential impacts include adverse social, environmental, cultural and economic outcomes. The matters recommended in this report as the basis for the required plan change to the AUP provide a framework to mitigate this risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44.     Staff will seek feedback from local boards, Mana Whenua and central government agencies on the matters to be addressed in the plan change discussed in this report. Plan change preparation will then commence, using the guidance provided by the committee’s resolutions and taking any feedback into account. Once prepared, the draft plan change will be reported to the committee for endorsement. Under the Resource Management Act, the council is required to provide iwi authorities with a copy of the draft plan change for further feedback prior to public notification. After completing this step, a final version of the plan change will be presented to the Planning Committee for approval to notify.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader  Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 - Implementing the intensification provisions - walkable catchments and qualifying matters

File No.: CP2021/05537

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse approaches in response to several the intensification provisions in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Planning Committee received a memorandum on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) on 10 August 2020 and a report on the proposed work programme on 4 February 2021. A series of Planning Committee workshops have provided advice to the Planning Committee on the complex issues in the NPS UD.

3.       This report sets out approaches for Auckland for some of the intensification provisions of the NPS UD, specifically walkable catchments and qualifying matters. This direction is needed to guide Council’s work programme leading towards the preparation of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) that must be notified by August 2022.

4.       The NPS UD intensification provisions for Auckland as a Tier 1 urban environment are focused on the city centre and metropolitan centre zones and the walkable catchments of these zones, plus the walkable catchments of existing and planned rapid transit network (RTN) stops. Intensification within these areas is required to be enabled (building heights and density of urban form). Where a qualifying matter applies heights and densities may be modified to allow for the matter.

5.       The identification of walkable catchments and qualifying matters for Auckland is integral to the implementation of the intensification provisions in the NPS UD and will greatly influence the preparation of the plan change to deliver the provisions.

6.       Proposed walkable catchments have been identified for the city centre and metropolitan centres, and the walkable catchments of RTN stops.

7.       Proposed qualifying matters for Auckland have been identified and are based on the values, characteristics and environmental risks the Auckland Unitary Plan recognises as being important to the region.

8.       The Special Character Areas Overlay (SCA) is proposed as a qualifying matter. This overlay is present in many areas that are proposed for intensification in the NPS UD and is the qualifying matter that has the biggest potential impact on the enablement of intensification sought. The intensification of some SCA areas with residential zoning would compromise the special character values that have been identified. A specific approach to SCA is required.

 


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the following approaches in response to the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development:

Walkable catchments

i)        define ‘walkable catchments’ as:

A)      around 1200m from the city centre, subject to modifying factors such as topography and physical barriers such as motorways

B)      around 800m from metropolitan centres, subject to modifying factors such as topography, the nature of existing land uses in the area, the availability of existing or planned public transport (e.g. Westgate compared to Newmarket) and physical barriers such as motorways

C)     around 800m from existing and planned Rapid Transit Network stops, subject to modifying factors such as topography, the nature of existing land uses in the area (e.g. Swanson compared to Mount Eden) and physical barriers such as motorways.

Qualifying matters

i)        identify qualifying matters in the Auckland context as the matters set out in Attachment A to the agenda report

ii)       note that under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development the council is required to assess the impact that limiting development capacity, building height or density due to qualifying matters will have on the provision of development capacity, and to assess the costs and broader impacts of imposing those limits.

Special Character Areas Overlay

i)        in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Business applies within a ‘walkable catchment’ and the special character values are of high quality, enable building heights of up to six storeys or more in a way that will ensure special character values are retained (e.g. by introducing setback controls above three storeys)

ii)       in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential applies within a ‘walkable catchment’, and the special character values are of high quality, retain the current zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan (which in most cases is the Single House zone with a building height control of generally two storeys)

iii)      as an exception to v), where retaining the current zoning would have a significant impact on the development capacity that would otherwise be enabled under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, use a combination of a planning assessment and special character values assessment to rezone some properties within the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and enable building heights of up to six storeys or more

iv)      in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential applies within a ‘walkable catchment’, and the special character values are of medium or low quality, unless this would compromise another qualifying matter, enable building heights of up to six storeys or more

v)      where significant historic heritage values are identified within the Special Character Areas Overlay, develop a plan change for places or areas to be added to the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule.


 

b)      note that the spatial implications of these approaches will be worked through with the Planning Committee over the coming months, and that a plan for involving local boards and mana whenua and engaging with Aucklanders on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development will be presented to the Planning Committee in August 2021.

c)      note that the intensification policies in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development also require the council to review the building height and density controls outside ‘walkable catchments’, and that approaches for these areas will be recommended to the Planning Committee in August 2021.

Horopaki

Context

9.       The NPS UD came into force on 20 August 2020.

10.     This report follows a memorandum on the NPS UD to the Planning Committee (10 August 2020) and a report on the proposed work programme to respond to the NPS UD (4 February 2021).

11.     In February 2021, this Committee endorsed the work programme and a series of workshops and meetings to establish the council’s approach to the NPS UD (Resolution PLA/2021/18). Workshops for the Planning Committee and local board chairs have been held between February and June 2021.

12.     This report addresses the policy approach to walkable catchments and qualifying matters. Reports on well-functioning urban environment and significant development capacity criteria, and the Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) are also on the Planning Committee agenda this month.

13.     The NPS UD has significant implications for growth and development in Auckland. It directs changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), as it requires regional policy statements and district plans to enable development capacity in the form of building height and density of urban form in specified locations. 

14.     The NPS UD intensification policies (Policies 3 and 4 for Auckland as a Tier 1 council, see Attachment B) set out the shape of this change.

15.     The NPS UD sets out timeframes for implementation. For intensification in Tier 1 urban environments, a plan change to the AUP must be publicly notified by 20 August 2022. A proposed plan change to the AUP will include zoning and text changes to enable the intensification sought by the NPS UD.

16.     A recommended approach to Council’s engagement on the proposed plan change will be reported to this Committee at its August 2021 meeting. This will inform the development of the proposed plan change.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Intensification overview

17.     The objectives and policies of the NPS UD require regional policy statements and regional and district plans (e.g. the AUP) to enable more people to live in, and more businesses and community services to be located in, specified areas of the urban environment.

18.     Auckland is identified as a Tier 1 urban environment. Intensification in Tier 1 urban environments is set out in Policies 3 and 4 and Subpart 6 of the NPS UD (see Attachment B).


 

19.     Policy 3 requires regional policy statements and regional and district plans to enable increased building heights and density of urban form in specified areas:

a)   City centre zone – as much development capacity as possible,

b)   Metropolitan centre zones – building heights and density to reflect demand for housing and business but in all cases building heights of at least six storeys,

c)   Building heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the edge of city and metropolitan centre zones and existing and planned Rapid Transit Network (RTN) stops, and

d)   In all other locations in the urban environment, building heights and density commensurate with the greater of accessibility or relative demand.

20.     Policy 4 enables the modification of the building heights and density requirements of Policy 3 ‘only to the extent necessary’ to accommodate a ‘qualifying matter’ in that area.

21.     Subpart 6 of the NPS UD provides the framework for the intensification in Tier 1 urban environments in accordance with Policy 3.

22.     The identification of walkable catchments and qualifying matters for Auckland are integral factors for the implementation of the NPS UD intensification policies.

23.     This report sets out a proposed approach for walkable catchments and qualifying matters. The approach for the intensification of all other locations (NPS UD policy 3(d)) will be reported to the August 2021 Planning Committee meeting.

Walkable catchments

What is a walkable catchment?

24.     There is no single, universal definition or distance for a walkable catchment. Applying an interpretation of ‘catchment’ like that used for water catchments would result in walkable catchments extending the greatest distance anyone walks to access a RTN stop or centre. This approach can make sense in some circumstances, where understanding the full extent people will walk is useful, but not so for the NPS UD. In this case, it is not a sensible planning approach as it could result in a zoning approach for thousands of people based on the habits of a few.

25.     A more common approach in public transport planning, and one similar to that put forward by the Ministry for the Environment in guidance on the NPS UD, is to determine and apply a walkable catchment that caters for most people. It is proposed to base walkable catchments in Auckland on a distance the average person will walk to access a centre or RTN stop.

What distance is a walkable catchment for Auckland?

26.     Based on a review of current and past Council positions, literature review (including studies from Auckland) and examples from comparable cities, the following distances are proposed:

·   City centre – around 15 minutes / around 1200m from the edge of the City centre zone

·   Metropolitan centres – around 10 minutes / around 800m from the edge of the Metropolitan centre zone

·   RTN stops – around 10 minutes / around 800m from existing and planned RTN stops.

27.     The walkable catchments will be measured by network distance; actual pedestrian routes rather than “as the crow flies”.


 

Modifying factors

28.     The proposed walkable catchments are general guide. Consideration needs to be given to locating the catchment boundary in a sensible position as well as applying modifying factors that may impact on the distance people may walk. Modifying factors include:

·   Topography – people walk further on flat terrain versus steep.

·   Street crossings – the existence or lack of crossing facilities can determine how easy and convenient it is for people to cross the road.

·   Block sizes – small blocks sizes, with frequent side streets, enable good pedestrian permeability and have also been found to be associated with longer walking distances.

·   Land use mix – locations with a mix of uses have been found to be more attractive for walking.

·   Traffic volumes – roads with higher traffic volumes are harder to cross, reducing the distance people can walk in a set time, and are less attractive to walk along reducing the distance people are prepared to walk.

·   Location of walkable catchment in the region – the level of intensification appropriate within a walkable catchment of the Swanson RTN station will not be the same for Mount Eden station. Similarly, intensification for the walkable catchment of the Westgate metropolitan zone may need to be different from what is appropriate to provide for Newmarket.

29.     Guidance on the application of the modifying factors is being prepared to assist with the development of the plan change to the AUP.

30.     The mode and frequency of rapid transit can also affect the distance people are prepared to walk to a station, with trains being more attractive than buses and greater frequency being more attractive than less. Currently in Auckland, and as outlined in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), mode and frequency factors are generally considered to cancel each other out. The existing and planned rapid bus network is currently much more frequent than the rail network. Over time this may change as the planned rapid transit network develops with new lines added and existing service levels improved.

Existing and planned rapid transit

31.     The NPS UD provides a definition of rapid transit service but leaves scope for councils to apply their own interpretation as terms used (such as frequent, quick and reliable) are not defined. Work on the jointly developed Auckland Rapid Transit Plan (with Auckland Transport (AT) and Waka Kotahi) expands on the definition of rapid transit and provides further clarification of the role and expectations of rapid transit in the Auckland context.

32.     The existing and planned rapid transit network is based on the Auckland Rapid Transit Plan and draft RLTP. Of note:

·   the Onehunga Branch Line is not considered rapid transit as it is not planned to reach the frequencies required to be rapid transit.

·   ferry services are not included in the definition of rapid transit service in the NPS UD (the definition specifies road or rail). Locations served by ferry services may be highly accessible and have strong demand, so may be subject to intensification under Policy 3(d) of the NPS UD (Note: this workstream is to be reported to Planning Committee in August 2021).

33.     The NPS UD defines ‘planned’ for forms or features of transport as meaning “planned in a regional land transport plan prepared and approved under the Land Transport Management Act 2003”.


 

34.     Light rail from the city centre to Māngere is an example of a future rapid transit route that is not existing or planned in the context of the NPS UD in that it is not currently funded in the RLTP. The route and specific locations of stops are not yet known. However, the Auckland Light Rail Establishment Unit will need to consider the land use along the various route options, including intensification, and staff will assist with this work.

Qualifying matters

What is a qualifying matter?

35.     Clause 3.32(1) of the NPS UD sets out what is meant by a ‘qualifying matter’ (QM) (see Attachment C). The meaning of QM is set out in eight subclauses, numbered (a) to (h). Subclauses (a) to (g) clearly identify the parameters within which the QMs must fit. In contrast, subclause (h) provides Council with a broad discretion to include as a QM “any other matter that makes high density development as directed by Policy 3 inappropriate in an area”.

36.     To determine the QMs for Auckland, an assumption was made that the AUP already recognises the values, characteristics and risks that are important and relevant to Auckland. This approach was supported by the Heritage Advisory Panel. The AUP has been reviewed to identify QMs for Auckland that fit into the NPS UD definition.

37.     The proposed QMs for Auckland include matters such as significant ecological areas, volcanic viewshafts, significant natural hazards, open space, gas and oil pipelines and special character. The list of proposed QMs is in Attachment A.

38.     The proposed QMs include some matters that are yet to be fully explored, for example infrastructure capacity and its relationship to intensification.

39.     Further QMs may be identified following the involvement of local boards, Mana Whenua, central government agencies and the Heritage Advisory Panel on the NPS UD. 

Where do the qualifying matters apply?

40.     The proposed QMs have been mapped and cover much of Auckland. Some apply to land that is not in the urban environment, so do not need to be considered when giving effect to the intensification policies of the NPS UD (e.g. most of the Waitakere Ranges).

41.     Some proposed QMs are not within areas that are likely to be subject to significant levels of intensification (e.g. outstanding natural landscapes, local public views), whereas others are in areas that the NPS seeks to enable the most intensification (e.g. volcanic viewshafts, special character areas). Many proposed QMs overlap in some areas (e.g. public open space and public access to the coast, designations and provision for nationally significant infrastructure).

How will qualifying matters impact on the intensification sought by the NPS UD?

42.     Where a QM applies in a Policy 3 intensification area (e.g. a walkable catchment), Policy 4 allows the modification of Policy 3 building heights and densities to accommodate the QM. However, this policy directs modification ‘only to the extent necessary’ to accommodate the QM.

43.     Not all QMs will require building height and/or density to be modified. For example, aquifers are not affected by building height and the presence of values such as notable trees and historic heritage does not necessarily/automatically constrain height or density on a site.


 

44.     Subpart 6 of the NPS UD, which sets out the framework for intensification in Tier 1 urban environments, requires Council to complete a detailed evaluation under section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) where it determines there is a QM and where the presence of that QM requires modification of the Policy 3 directions. The evaluation must:

·   demonstrate why the Council considers the area is subject to a QM and why it considers the QM is incompatible with the level of development directed by Policy 3 for that area; and

·   assess the impact that limiting development capacity, building height or density will have on the provision of development capacity; and

·   assess the costs and broader impacts of imposing those limits.

45.     In addition, if the Council is relying on clause (h) ‘Any other matter’ as the basis for a QM, the evaluation report must also undertake further evaluation, including:

·   justification of why the qualifying matter means it is inappropriate to intensify an area as directed by Policy 3 in light of the national significance of urban development and the objectives of the NPS UD; and

·   a site-specific analysis.

46.     Accordingly, while (h) ‘Any other matter’ on face value provides a broad discretion to Council to modify the intensification policies of the NPS UD for any reason it considers appropriate, the requirements in the NPS UD make this option a more complex, and likely time and resource intensive option to rely on.

Special character

47.     Special character is the proposed QM that has the greatest potential impact on the ability to enable intensification as directed by the NPS UD. There are approximately 30,000 properties within the SCA, and many are in the same areas that the NPS UD seeks to enable intensification as they relate to historic public transport routes and subdivision patterns.

48.     Special character is identified in the AUP as specific buildings within the City Centre zone and as areas by the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business (SCA). Special character is proposed to be a QM under (h).

49.     The SCA seeks to retain and manage the special character values of specific residential and business areas identified as having collective values, importance, relevance and interest to the communities within the locality and wider Auckland region.

50.     Some of Auckland’s SCA have had their special character values managed under legacy district plans and the AUP for over 30 years.

51.     Areas within the SCA are identified as residential, business or general (both residential and business).

52.     It is important to note that the NPS UD effectively sets a new paradigm within which to consider intensification and land use in Auckland.  While special character is recommended as a qualifying matter, the NPS UD requires council to think differently about its place within and around the city centre and metropolitan centres, and around RTN stops. This paradigm is different to the one under which the AUP was formed, which was also different to those that existed in the district plans of the legacy councils prior to amalgamation.


 

Special Character Areas Overlay – Business

53.     SCA Business areas are within the Newmarket metropolitan centre and within the walkable catchments of the city centre and some RTN stations. Analysis of SCA Business indicates that it has the capacity to be intensified by increasing building height without necessarily compromising the special character values of the area. It is considered that the Policy 3 directions may be able to be implemented within SCA Business with additional height and/or density enabled. It is recommended that the provisions of the AUP that relate to SCA Business are reviewed to consider any issues arising with the provision of up to six storeys or more in SCA Business. A potential means of mitigating the impact of buildings of up to six storeys or more in these areas could be to require the upper floors to be set back from the street front.

Special Character Areas Overlay – General

54.     Areas in the SCA General mostly contain sites zoned residential, with limited sites that are zoned business. Within SCA General, for sites in a residential zone the SCA Residential provisions apply and for sites in a business zone, the SCA Business provisions apply. As the majority of sites within SCA General areas have residential zoning, these areas should be approached the same way as SCA Residential.

Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential

55.     Policy 3 intensification areas, including walkable catchments of the city centre, Newmarket metropolitan centre and RTN stations contain SCA Residential. Standards in the AUP for SCA Residential limit building heights to eight metres (two storeys). The underlying zone in most of these areas is Residential – Single House.

56.     Policy 3 seeks to enable building height of at least six storeys (20-23 metres) within at least a walkable catchment of the city centre, metropolitan centres and RTN stations. Enabling this height within SCA Residential will significantly compromise the special character values of these areas.

57.     To understand the special character values that may be affected by intensification, Council staff are surveying priority areas within SCA Residential[2]. Properties will be identified as having high, medium or low special character value and an overall value will be ascribed to each SCA area. This information will assist with decisions about whether and how to use Policy 4 to modify the level of intensification sought by Policy 3 in relation to SCA Residential and reflects the different paradigm required under the NPS UD.

58.     As already outlined, Council has discretion under Policy 4 to modify Policy 3 building height or density requirements in the areas of SCA – Residential, as long as any modification includes a robust section 32 evaluation.

59.     Guidance on the approach to making decisions on special character is required. Decision-making options at either end of the spectrum could result in the retention of SCA Residential within intensification areas or removing the overlay from these areas. Or a decision could be made to take an approach somewhere in between.

Council staff are recommending the following approach for SCA to allow the consideration of special character values alongside the direction for intensification set out in the NPS UD. Within NPS UD intensification areas, it is proposed to:

a)   in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Business applies within a ‘walkable catchment’, and the special character values are of high quality, enable building heights of up to six storeys or more in a way that will ensure special character values are retained (e.g. by introducing setback controls above three storeys)

b)   in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential applies within a ‘walkable catchment’, and the special character values are of high quality, retain the current zoning (which in most cases is the Single House zone with a building height control of generally two storeys)

c)   as an exception to b), where retaining the current zoning will have a significant impact on the development capacity that would otherwise be enabled under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, use a combination of a planning assessment and special character values assessment to rezone some properties within the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and enable building heights of up to six storeys or more

d)   in places where the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential applies within a ‘walkable catchment’, and the special character values are of medium or low quality, unless this would compromise another qualifying matter, enable building heights of up to six storeys or more

e)   where significant historic heritage values are identified within the Special Character Areas Overlay, develop a plan change for places or areas to be added to the Auckland Unitary Plan historic heritage schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Policy context

60.     Objective 8 and policy 1 of the NPS UD set out a policy framework that signals the need for decisions to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience.

61.     This framework is in line with the 'built environment' priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, which has a goal of achieving "A low carbon, resilient built environment that promotes healthy, low impact lifestyles". This plan recognises that:

"To move to a low carbon and resilient region, climate change and hazard risks need to be integral to the planning system that shapes Auckland.

Integrating land-use and transport planning is vital to reduce the need for private vehicle travel and to ensure housing and employment growth areas are connected to efficient, low carbon transport systems."

62.     The Planning Committee passed unanimously an expectation that Auckland Council fully utilises "the levers available to it to reduce transport emissions, including […] increasing the focus on intensification within brownfield areas, in particular along the rapid transit corridors" (Resolution PLA/2021/15).

63.     The accompanying report on well-functioning urban environments recommends the development of a plan change to the AUP to include a new policy/policies to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement on reducing green-house gas emissions.

Emissions impact

64.     The urban form of cities directly affects the level of emissions they generate. It also affects the level of exposure it’s residents and businesses have to the effects of climate change. Land use and urban form are one of the most significant drivers of emissions given their long-lasting impact. Land use decisions undertaken now will lock in growth patterns that will be very hard and expensive to undo in the future.

65.     The likely effect on emissions of decisions of this nature should always be considered relative to the alternative. For example, enabling increased density around a rail station in the isthmus will, if taken up, result in greater emissions in this location (e.g. from increased construction and the effects of demolishing or modifying lower-density areas for more intensification), but if the same level of growth happens there, rather than in a greenfield location, the emissions are likely to be lower overall over time. Some of the relative impacts of the types of intensification sought by the NPS UD are described below:


 

·   Density – increased density is associated with reduced energy use and emissions, both within and between cities.

·   Proximity to the city centre – households closer to the centre of a city tend to have shorter trip lengths and greater mode share, and therefore generate a lower level of transport emissions.

·   Proximity to rapid transit – households closer to rapid transit tend to drive less.

·   Access to jobs – proximity to jobs has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of household vehicle travel.

66.     In general, the approach put forward by the NPS UD (enabling intensification near large centres and high-quality public transport stations, subject to QM) is likely to reduce emissions. However, these outcomes may not be universally positive from an emissions perspective. Policy 3(c) requires intensification to be enabled within the walkable catchments of RTN stations, but this requirement does not differentiate the location of the station within the region. This could result in the same level of building height and density at stations on the edge of the urban environment (e.g. Swanson) as those closer to the centre (e.g. Mount Eden). Residents of enabled development in walkable catchments on the edge of the urban area are likely to generate more emissions than residents closer to the centre. However, they are likely to generate fewer emissions than residents a similar distance from the centre and not within a walkable catchment of a RTN station. It is recommended the modifying factors associated with walkable catchments addresses this issue.

67.     On balance, the implementation of the NPS UD intensification provisions, as per the recommendations of this report, will likely result in fewer emissions than many alternative scenarios, including the status quo. The NPS UD could therefore support the achievement of the council and central government’s climate ambitions. However, the extent to which it does will be determined by the extent to which they are applied. A more detailed analysis of climate impacts will be possible once the mapping work required to implement the NPS UD is undertaken.

Resilience to likely current and future effects of climate change

68.     Policy 1 of the NPS UD seeks that planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments, which includes homes that are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change. The Auckland Plan outlines the impacts and risks the region is facing from climate change, including flooding, heatwaves, drought and coastal storms.

69.     The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the Resource Management Act and is included in the definition of a QM in the NPS UD. Significant natural hazards identified in the AUP include coastal inundation, coastal erosion, flooding and land instability. These hazards, which may be exacerbated by climate change, are proposed as QMs for Auckland, which will allow for modification of Policy 3 building height and/or density requirements. This is likely to assist with resilience to the effects of climate change by, for example, ensuring that areas that may be affected by these risks have an appropriate zoning.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

70.     All relevant Council departments and AT and Watercare have been involved in the development of the approaches recommended in this report. Further and increased involvement will be necessary to ensure the intensification provisions of the NPS UD are successfully implemented. In particular, AT and Watercare have expressed some concerns with the implications of the NPS UD on transport and water infrastructure. As noted earlier in this report, infrastructure capacity has been identified as a qualifying matter that requires further investigation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

71.     The extent of intensification anticipated by the NPS UD will affect all local boards, except Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke. 

72.     Local board members have been briefed on the implications of the NPS UD and chairs have been invited to the series of workshops run this year. Board members have voiced a keen interest in the Council’s implementation of the NPS UD. A plan for involving local boards in the development of the intensification plan change will be reported to the August 2021 meeting of this Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

73.     Policy 9 of the NPS UD sets out the requirements for local authorities as follows:

Local authorities, in taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in relation to urban environments, must:

a)      involve hapū and iwi in the preparation of RMA planning documents and any FDSs by undertaking effective consultation that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; and

b)      when preparing RMA planning documents and FDSs, take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development; and

c)      provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Māori and issues of cultural significance; and

d)      operate in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.

74.     This policy directs council to particularly involve iwi and hapū in the NPS UD during the preparation of planning documents. The proposed plan change to implement the intensification provisions is one planning document.

75.     At this stage in the process, iwi and hapū have not yet been involved. However, previous engagement with mana whenua has indicated that increasing opportunities for housing (including papakainga) is supported, together with protecting the natural environment and areas of cultural importance. A number of the qualifying matters included in Attachment A (e.g. Volcanic Viewshafts and Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) have been strongly supported by mana whenua in the past.

76.     Once the policy approach to direct Council’s work programme for the preparation of the plan change to implement the intensification provisions of the NPS UD has been approved, Council will begin to engage with iwi and hapū and involve them in the preparation of the plan change. More details of the engagement process will be provided to this Committee at its August 2021 meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

77.     While the preparation of a plan change to implementation of the intensification provisions of the NPS UD is a large programme of work, it is expected to be resourced through existing budgets. The budget to appoint new staff to support this programme (and where necessary engage consultants) has been approved through the Council’s Long-Term Plan. 


 

78.     Longer term, the changes to the heights and densities enabled in the AUP required by the NPS UD could have a number of financial implications for Council. The further work on infrastructure capacity previously referred to in this report will investigate these issues and will be addressed in subsequent reports to the Planning Committee on the NPS UD.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

79.     The government has set out an implementation timetable for the public notification of a plan change to implement the intensification provisions of the NPS UD. The next 12 months will be focussed on preparing the plan change and undertaking pre-notification engagement.

80.     A key risk is meeting the timeframe set out in the NPS UD for intensification, which requires a plan change to be notified by 20 August 2021. There is a significant amount of assessment and analysis required to meet the evidential requirements in the NPS UD and section 32 of the Act for the proposed plan change, for example surveying SCA areas. There is a risk that the assessment and analysis required for all locations where the NPS UD seeks to enable intensification may not be able to be completed in the required timeframe. Staff are being reallocated to undertake this task, and budget has been approved to recruit new staff to support the preparation of the plan change. This Committee will be updated on this risk as work on the NPS UD progresses.  

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

81.     Staff will seek feedback from local boards, Mana Whenua, central government agencies and the Heritage Advisory Panel on the approaches agreed to by the Planning Committee. In order to meet the August 2022 timeframe, background technical work will also commence. 

82.     An engagement plan that identifies milestones through to August 2022 will be reported to the Planning Committee at its August 2021 meeting. The engagement plan will provide detail about involving iwi and hapū in the intensification plan change, and about engagement with local boards, the Council family including Council Controlled Organisations, and the public.  

83.     Staff will also report to the Committee in August 2021 on intensification in all other locations (NPS UD Policy 3(d)).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed qualifying matters for Auckland

173

b

National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Intensification policies for Tier 1 urban environments

177

c

National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Meaning of qualifying matters

179

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Attachment A

Proposed qualifying matters for Auckland

Proposed Qualifying matters for Auckland[3]

Matters of national importance

Areas in the following overlays:

·    D3 High-use Stream Management Areas

·    D4 Natural Stream Management Area

·    D6 Urban Lake Management Area

·    D8 Wetland Management Areas

·    D9 Significant Ecological Areas

·    D10 Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes

·    D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character

·    D12 Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area

·    D14 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas

·    D17 Historic Heritage

·    D21 Sites and Places of significance to Mana Whenua

Significant natural hazards: controls for coastal inundation, coastal erosion, flooding, land instability

Areas providing public access to CMA, lakes and rivers

Areas within Precincts that protect matters of national importance

Gives effect to other NPS

Areas in the following overlays:

·    D1 High-use Aquifer Management Areas

·    D2 Quality-sensitive Aquifer Management Areas

·    D3 High-use Stream Management Areas

·    D4 Natural Stream Management Area

·    D6 Urban Lake Management Area

·    D8 Wetland Management Areas

·    D9 Significant Ecological Areas

·    D10 Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes

·    D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character

·    D26 National Grid Corridor

Nationally significant infrastructure

·    D26 National Grid Corridor Overlay

·    Emergency management areas for Wiri Oil Terminal and Wiri LPG Depot

·    Strategic Transport Corridor zone

·    Oil refinery pipeline

·    Gas transmission pipelines

·    Auckland International Airport

·    Ports – Auckland, Onehunga

Open space for public use

Open Space zoned land (except Open Space – Community zone):

·    Conservation zone

·    Informal Recreation zone

·    Sports and Active Recreation zone

·    Civic Spaces zone

Designations & heritage orders

Land subject to:

·    Designations

·    Heritage orders

Business land suitable for low density uses

Land in the following zones (to be confirmed by Housing and Business Assessment):

·    General Business

·    Heavy Industry

·    Light Industry

Any other matter

·    D13 Notable Trees Overlay

·    D15 Ridgeline Protection Overlay

·    D16 Local Public Views Overlay

·    D18 Special Character Areas Overlay that is of high quality

·    D19 Auckland War Memorial Museum Viewshaft

·    D20A Stockade Hill Viewshaft

·    D23 Airport Approach Surface Overlay

·    Character buildings in City Centre zone and Queen Street Valley Precinct

·    Some of the existing built form controls in City Centre (e.g. Admission of sunlight into public places, Aotea Square height control)

·    Natural hazards that are less than significant, if any

·    Areas with long-term significant infrastructure constraints

 

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Attachment B

National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Intensification policies for Tier 1 urban environments

 

Policy 3: In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable:

(a)  in city centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification; and

(b)  in metropolitan centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to reflect demand for housing and business use in those locations, and in all cases building heights of at least 6 storeys; and

(c)  building heights of least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the following:

(i)         existing and planned rapid transit stops

(ii)        the edge of city centre zones

(iii)       the edge of metropolitan centre zones; and

(d)  in all other locations in the tier 1 urban environment, building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the greater of:

(i)         the level of accessibility by existing or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial activities and community services; or

(ii)        relative demand for housing and business use in that location.

Policy 4: Regional policy statements and district plans applying to tier 1 urban environments modify the relevant building height or density requirements under Policy 3 only to the extent necessary (as specified in subpart 6) to accommodate a qualifying matter in that area.


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Attachment C

National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Meaning of qualifying matters

 

3.32 Qualifying matters

In this National Policy Statement, qualifying matter means any of the following:

(a)  a matter of national importance that decision-makers are required to recognise and provide for under section 6 of the Act

(b)  a matter required in order to give effect to any other National Policy Statement

(c)  any matter required for the purpose of ensuring the safe or efficient operation of nationally significant infrastructure

(d)  open space provided for public use, but only in relation to the land that is open space

(e)  an area subject to a designation or heritage order, but only in relation to the land that is subject to the designation or heritage order

(f)  a matter necessary to implement, or ensure consistency with, iwi participation legislation

(g)  the requirement to provide sufficient business land suitable for low density uses to meet expected demand under this National Policy Statement

(h)  any other matter that makes high density development as directed by Policy 3 inappropriate in an area, but only if the requirements of clause 3.33(3) are met.


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Oyster Capital Limited to rezone land at 23-27 & 31 Brigham Creek Road and 13 & 15-19 Spedding Road, Whenuapai

File No.: CP2020/12807

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider a private plan change request from Oyster Capital Limited under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) to rezone approximately 52 hectares of land in the Whenuapai area from Future Urban to Business – Light Industry in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report considers a private plan change request received on 20 April 2020 from Oyster Capital Limited to rezone approximately 52 hectares of land at Whenuapai (known as Spedding Block). The request seeks to rezone Future Urban land to Business – Light Industry zone and introduce a new precinct over the land. The request also seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 overlay over the plan change area.

3.       The zoning and roading layout proposed in the request is largely consistent with the council’s Whenuapai Structure Plan (which was adopted in September 2016). An area suitable for industrial zoning was proposed in the southern portion of the structure plan and it is within this area that the applicant’s land is situated. However, this area has been identified in the council’s Whenuapai Structure Plan as being within Stage 2 of development (2028-2032) as significant investment in new infrastructure is required.

4.       Although the applicant has proposed to fund infrastructure to mitigate the immediate effects (particularly transport) of the proposed development, the council does not have enough information at this time to accurately assign a fair proportion of future transport costs to the applicant. These costs are not included in the Long-term Plan (LTP) and are unlikely to be determined until late 2021. If the private plan change is accepted for processing, these are critical matters that will need to be addressed before the plan change is finally determined.

5.       The decision the Planning Committee is required to make at this time is whether to accept, adopt or reject the request in whole or in part, or to treat it as a resource consent application. Consideration of the detailed merits of the change request is not relevant at this stage in the process.

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

7.       It is noted that the Planning Committee has previously resolved that the council makes a submission in relation to private plan change requests where infrastructure funding matters are unresolved at the time the plan change is accepted for processing.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      accept the private plan change request by Oyster Capital Limited for Spedding Block, included as Attachments A and B to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the RMA for the following reasons:

i)        accepting the private plan change request will enable a range of matters (in particular, infrastructure funding) to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process.

ii)       it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The private plan change proposal is out of sequence with the timing outlined in the Auckland Plan and the Whenuapai Structure Plan and there is currently no provision for funding the full costs of transport infrastructure required.

iii)      the grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause 25(4) are limited and, having regard to relevant case law:

·   the request is not frivolous. The applicant has provided supporting technical information and the private plan change has a resource management purpose.

·   the request is not vexatious and the applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging the private plan change request.

·   the substance of the request has not been considered within the last two years.

·   due to the lack of funding available for the infrastructure required to support development in the Whenuapai area (in particular transport infrastructure), a coarse-grain assessment of the request indicates this aspect of the private plan change may not be in accordance with sound resource management practice. However, as more detailed information relating to the cost of the required infrastructure is needed, and there remains a prospect that a funding solution can be found, it is not recommended that the council rejects the private plan change request on this ground.

·   a coarse-grain assessment does not indicate that the private plan change will make the Auckland Unitary Plan contrary to Part 5 of the Resource Management Act.

·   the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years.

iv)      it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application as the request seeks to rezone a substantial area of land for development over a period of time rather than undertake a single development project.

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

 

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

8.       The land subject to the plan change request is located in Whenuapai. Whenuapai currently accommodates a range of land uses, including residential, business and farming activities. The Whenuapai area also includes the Whenuapai Airbase, which is occupied by the New Zealand Defence Force.

9.       The plan change area (referred to in the application documents as Spedding Block and shown in Figure 1) is approximately 52 hectares and situated on the south-western side of the Whenuapai area. It is roughly bound by Brigham Creek Road to the north, State Highway 16 to the south-west and Spedding Road to the south-east. Access to the area is available either from Brigham Creek Road or from Spedding Road.

10.     The plan change area comprises relatively gently sloping pastureland and is currently used for farming and rural residential purposes. The predominant vegetation cover is pasture, with substantial vegetation limited to riparian margins and shelter belts along boundary lines and in gardens. Overhead transmission power lines cut through the western section of the site in a north-south direction.

11.     There are several streams in the plan change area, including Totara Creek, Sinton Stream and Pikau Stream. Both Sinton Stream and Pikau Stream are tributaries of Totara Creek, which flows into the Totara Inlet and Brigham Creek. A Significant Ecological Area (SEA_T_2034 in the AUP) is located along the riparian margins of Totara Creek. There are also six wetlands identified in the plan change area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 – Plan change area

Plan Change Request

12.     The private plan change request to the AUP was lodged by Oyster Capital Limited on 20 April 2020 and seeks to rezone the land described above (see Attachments A and B). The land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary. The private plan change would rezone land from the Future Urban zone to Business – Light Industry (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2 – Proposed rezoning

 

13.     The applicant proposes to introduce a new precinct that covers the entire plan change area. The purpose of the precinct is to enable and guide the establishment of a business area with a primary light industrial land use function. The precinct provisions require transport infrastructure (as shown in Figure 3) to be constructed prior to future subdivision and development. This includes the extension of Spedding Road up to Brigham Creek Road. The precinct provisions also include specific standards and assessment criteria that relate to reverse sensitivity effects on the Whenuapai Airbase, the provision of an integrated stormwater solution, and the mitigation of effects associated with the activities that are required to enable the Spedding Road extension.

14.     The applicant also proposes to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 overlay across the entire plan change area.

15.     The applicant has provided an assessment of effects and a section 32 evaluation report (see Attachments A and B) and a wide range of supporting technical reports.

16.     It is noted that the applicant has included design details in the request that exceed the level of detail generally anticipated for plan changes and are more suited to be addressed at resource consent stage. However, the applicant has confirmed that they are aware of the risks of including such detail in the plan change and that they accept the risks if the design details need to change due to other consenting processes or considerations in the future.

Figure 3 – Proposed transport infrastructure upgrades

Current Planning Environment

Auckland Plan

17.     The Auckland Plan 2050 is the council’s spatial plan, required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Plan 2050 contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region based on a quality compact approach to accommodating growth. This approach anticipates most growth through intensification within existing urban areas, with managed expansion into the region’s future urban areas and limited growth in rural areas. The Development Strategy has also been adopted as council’s Future Development Strategy required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPS UDC). The NPS UDC has now been superseded by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). Under the NPS-UD, council has to review its Future Development Strategy in time to inform the 2024 Long-term Plan.

18.     The Development Strategy identifies Whenuapai as a future urban area and part of the Westgate node (see figure 4 below). The node provides a centre for urban development in the north west with anticipated residential development and intensification together with large business areas. Specifically, within Whenuapai the Development Strategy identifies indicative locations for the provision of business land which include the plan change area.

Figure 4 - Node - Westgate showing future urban areas and sequencing including for the Whenuapai Future Urban area (source Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy)

 

19.     As part of the Auckland Plan 2050, future urban areas that have significant infrastructure or environmental constraints were sequenced for urbanisation later in the 30-year timeframe, for example Takanini. Whenuapai was identified as an example of an area with less infrastructure constraints and was sequenced earlier. In the Development Strategy and the council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS), urbanisation of the Whenuapai future urban area is split into two stages, with Stage 1 anticipated to be development ready from 2018-2022 and Stage 2 from 2028-2032. This is in line with the Whenuapai Structure Plan. The proposed plan change area is identified as being a Future Business Area within Stage 2 due to the need for investment in significant bulk infrastructure projects in the area prior to development.

Auckland Unitary Plan

20.     The  Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) is the combined Resource Management Act (RMA) planning document for Auckland. It contains objectives and policies that refer to the importance of integrating land use planning with infrastructure planning and delivery, reflecting the council’s integrated management function under s31 of the RMA. To this end, the AUP promotes the completion of structure plans as a precursor to plan changes to rezone land within the Future Urban zone. Auckland Council has prepared a structure plan for Whenuapai, which is discussed in paragraphs 26-29 below.

21.     Relevant Regional Policy Statement objectives and policies include:

B2. Urban growth and form

B2.2.2. Quality compact urban form (Policy (7))

B2.3.2. Quality Built Environment (Policies (1) – (5))

B2.5. Commercial and industrial growth (Policies (6) – (10))

22.     In particular, Policy B2.5.8 in the Urban Growth and Form chapter of the Regional Policy Statement (AUP) sets out the following policy:

“(8) Enable the supply of industrial land which is relatively flat, has efficient access

to freight routes, rail or freight hubs, ports and airports, and can be efficiently

served by infrastructure.”

23.     At a coarse-level assessment, the private plan change is generally consistent with the objectives and policies set out in B.2 Urban growth and form, except for the efficient provision of infrastructure. While the private plan change acknowledges the need to provide some of the infrastructure related to the project, it does not properly address the infrastructure needed for the efficient movement of traffic caused by the plan change across the wider network. The cost of this infrastructure is yet to be fully assessed.

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017

24.     The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) implements the Auckland Plan and gives effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (which has been replaced by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020) by identifying a programme to sequence the development of future urban land over 30 years.

25.     The sequencing and timing of development for the future urban areas have been incorporated into the Auckland Plan 2050. The FULSS relates to greenfield land only and ensures there is 30 years of development capacity at all times and a seven year average of unconstrained and ready to go land supply. It allows the council to consider the balance between the development of brownfield and greenfield land and ensure that the majority of Auckland’s growth is located within the existing urban area.

26.     As mentioned above, the land subject to the plan change request is within an area identified as being “development ready” between 2028 and 2032. In terms of the steps required for development, it is noted that the land already has Future Urban zoning under the Auckland Unitary Plan and a structure plan has been completed. Land is being sought to be rezoned as part of this private plan change process, and some infrastructure provision is either currently underway or proposed to be funded by the applicant. These details are discussed further below. However, most bulk infrastructure is not planned or funded at this stage.

Whenuapai Structure Plan

27.     The structure plan process for Whenuapai was initiated in January 2016 and was adopted in September 2016. The Whenuapai Structure Plan applies to approximately 1500 hectares of land and covers the following five key elements to enable the sustainable development of the structure plan area: land use and activities, transport, infrastructure, natural environment and heritage, and open space and recreation.

28.     The Whenuapai Structure Plan anticipates that the structure plan area will provide somewhere between 8,100 to 10,700 dwellings (depending on the density of development), 8,600 jobs and over 300 hectares of new business land over the next 10 to 20 years.

29.     The zoning proposed in the request is largely consistent with the land use pattern set out in the Whenuapai Structure Plan. An area suitable for industrial zoning was proposed in the southern portion of the structure plan area and it is within this area that the land subject to the plan change is situated. The extension of Spedding Road to Brigham Creek Road is also generally aligned with that shown in the structure plan.

30.     The Structure Plan also sets out the need for staging development between stage 1 and stage 2. The plan change request area is identified as being within stage 2 due to the need for significant bulk infrastructure projects in the area to be completed before development can occur. The infrastructure requirements lie both inside and outside of Whenuapai Structure Plan area, as wastewater and transport infrastructure provision are particularly reliant on infrastructure elsewhere.

31.     Proposed plan change 5 is the first council-initiated plan change that seeks to implement the Structure Plan. The hearing of submissions on that plan change is adjourned and a variation to the proposed plan change is being prepared to address technical issues associated with aircraft engine testing noise at Whenuapai Airbase. Funding of the transport infrastructure to support the proposed plan change remains uncertain and this may affect its progress.

Infrastructure

Water Supply

32.     Watercare has advised that the network servicing the Whenuapai area has good capacity to service the forecast growth in the short term but will require upgrading to meet the long-term growth forecast. A second North Harbour watermain (planned for completion in 2028) will provide the capacity to meet the forecasted growth in the Whenuapai area.

33.     Currently the plan change area can be serviced by the existing bulk supply points at Fred Taylor Drive and in Hobsonville Point. There is a 315mm diameter local network watermain that has capacity to service the initial stages of the development, and the local network can be extended and upgraded to support the future development in the plan change area.

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

Wastewater

35.     The land subject to the private plan change is not currently serviced for wastewater. Watercare currently plans to build a new transmission pump station at 16 Brigham Creek Road and a rising main traversing the applicant’s site to connect into the Northern Interceptor, which began construction in January 2019. This infrastructure will service the wider Whenuapai Structure Plan area and the timing for this infrastructure is currently planned for construction starting mid-2021 with completion in 2023.

36.     The preferred location of the rising main is within the road reserve along Spedding Road and its future extension to Brigham Creek Road. The applicant is working closely with Watercare to align timeframes so that the rising main installation and the road construction can occur simultaneously. Watercare has estimated that this simultaneous work is likely to save at least $2 million as without this arrangement, Watercare would be responsible for digging up the road, laying the pipes and then re-surfacing the road at a later date. The plan change area will be serviced by a wastewater network that will discharge to this new pump station.

Transport

37.     The draft Auckland Regional Transport Plan 2021-31 identifies various transport infrastructure improvements for the Whenuapai area and wider North-west growth area. While some of these have funding allocated to them at this stage, most do not. The applicant does not propose to rely on any of these planned infrastructure improvements to enable the plan change. Based on the assessment provided, the council’s experts are comfortable that the ITA has identified the transport infrastructure upgrades required to address the direct effects of the plan change and enable development of the plan change area but does not address the infrastructure and financial impacts of the cumulative effects of development.

38.     The applicant has identified several transport infrastructure improvements including the upgrading of Brigham Creek Road bridge, signalising the Spedding Road/Brigham Creek Road and Spedding Road / Trig Road intersections, extending Spedding Road to Brigham Creek Road, upgrading the existing portion of Spedding Road, and providing pedestrian/cycling connections to the plan change area. The precinct provisions include a requirement for these improvements to be constructed and delivered before subdivision is completed. The precinct provisions also include route protection measures for future roads (Spedding Road connection to future SH16 overbridge) and building setbacks for future road upgrades (widening of Brigham Creek Road) identified by Supporting Growth in the indicative strategic transport network for the North-West growth area. The private plan change request therefore provides some protection of land expected to be required to provide the bulk transport infrastructure needed to support future development in this growth area.


 

39.     The applicant proposes to fully fund (including through a funding agreement with the council) all the transport infrastructure upgrades that their ITA has identified as required to enable the development of the plan change area. Some of the work proposed is interim in nature, such as the intersection upgrades, the upgrade of the existing portion of Spedding Road, and the upgrade of the Brigham Creek Road bridge, and will not provide the bulk transport infrastructure required for further future development.

Stormwater

40.     The applicant proposes to be included as part of Auckland Council’s Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (DIS60069613) and seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area: Flow 1 controls over the precinct. The precinct seeks to achieve an integrated stormwater management approach with the requirement of on-site stormwater management for future subdivision and development.

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

42.     The applicant has amended the private plan change request to reflect the requirements of the NES-FM (e.g. no longer reclaiming a wetland) and Healthy Waters will continue to work with the applicant as the interpretations of the NES-FM regulations become clearer.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Funding Context

Regional Land Transport Plan

43.     The draft Regional Land Transport Plan is currently being finalised. It was presented to the Regional Transport Committee in June before being endorsed by the Planning Committee on 24 June. Final approval will be sought from the Board of Auckland Transport before the end of June before it can become operational on 1 July. There is therefore no certainty of funding at the moment.

44.     The majority of Future Urban Zone funding is proposed for south Auckland, however in north west Auckland the draft RLTP currently allocates$142M funded and $60M unfunded work for the north west greenfields areas. The $142M relates to arterials in Redhills with the $60M of unfunded work being the Trig Road south project. The RLTP does not provide funding for out of sequence upgrades to support the wider transport needs of the Spedding Road private plan change request. Other projects in the Whenuapai area (estimated at $600M) which are not included in the draft RLTP as a result of the ATAP prioritisation process but are identified as requiring funding from 2031 onwards include:

·   Brigham Creek Road

·   Mamari Road

·   Spedding Road

·   Northside Drive.

45.     There are numerous unfunded projects in the Whenuapai area that this development (and others) will be required to contribute towards financially, in order to mitigate the cumulative effects of development in the Future Urban Zone. Without this financial contribution, the Council could face challenges in achieving an integrated land use and transport system.

Supporting Growth Alliance

46.     The Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA) is a collaboration between Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) in partnership with Auckland Council to plan transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zones over the next 10-30 years. SGA is currently preparing a Detailed Business Case for the north west and earlier estimates are being updated following further investigation and stakeholder feedback on preferred designs and alignments. It is planned to be presented for approval to Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport for approval in late 2021 where the projects will be considered for progression to route protection. This will provide updated cost estimates, but further design and refinement will be needed to produce sufficiently accurate estimates for the purposes of collecting development contributions.

47.     Notwithstanding, this increased accuracy of costs later in 2021/2022 does not resolve the wider issue that there is no mechanism currently available for Council to collect contributions so that out of sequence developments pay their fair share towards growth costs. None of the estimated $1.1B worth of arterial upgrades (Indicative Business Case values) identified by Supporting Growth in Whenuapai that would mitigate the cumulative effects of the proposed development, as well as other developments in the wider Whenuapai area are in the draft RLTP 2021-2031. Upgrades within the next ten years would be at the expense of existing commitments to support growth in the north west and the wider Auckland Region and would not align with the ATAP prioritisation. There will therefore be a need to agree on a new funding mechanism.

Other Funding Mechanisms

48.     It is possible to amend the council’s Development Contributions policy for a geographic area once the costs of bulk infrastructure, area of benefit and cost-share across household unit equivalents (HUEs) being delivered through the wider Whenuapai Structure Plan area are known.

49.     An Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) could be used to ensure an applicant will deliver capital works or contribute funds (‘lump-sum’) ahead of such a Development Contributions policy being created, provided there is certainty over costs. However, certainty over what wider upgrades are needed, their timing or cost that could form the terms of a commercial agreement with the applicant are still to be finalised.

50.     Given there is currently no certainty related to final infrastructure costs and projects required for the wider Whenuapai area, council has not been able to prepare an IFA with specific terms. The applicant is understandably unwilling to sign an agreement for an unspecified sum to contribute towards the cumulative transport effects of this development.

51.     The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 opens the possibility of an agreement for a Special Purpose Vehicle to deliver infrastructure upgrades to a greenfield area with cost recovery. Council is working with Treasury to develop an IFF application, although this is likely to take the rest of the year to work through before the council will be in a position to make an application of this yet-to-be-tested legislation.

52.     Work is in its early stages to develop a 30-year Development Contributions policy that would consider existing and planned growth. However this would require a change in policy. It would potentially enable ‘out of sequence’ private plan changes to define projects, cost and timing which could then be included into the Development Contribution regime resulting in a fairer cost allocation and payment towards public good utilities.

53.     In summary, while there are a number of funding options being explored, Auckland Council is not yet able to confirm a comprehensive funding and financing solution to address the funding shortfall to mitigate cumulative effects, should the development enabled by the private plan change proceed at this point in time.

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

54.     Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.[4] The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,[5] and procedural steps added[6] including the opportunity to request information.

55.     The applicant is required to include the information set out in clause 22, which states that:

·   a request made under clause 21 shall be made to the appropriate local authority in writing and explain the purpose of, and reasons for, the proposed plan or change to a policy statement or plan and contain an evaluation under Section 32 of the RMA for any objectives, policies, rules, or other methods proposed; and

·   where environmental effects are anticipated, the request shall describe those effects taking into account clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule 4, in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential environmental effects anticipated from the implementation of the change, policy, statement or plan.

56.     Additional information has been received from the applicant following a formal request for further information. The council staff who have evaluated the request consider that the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered.

57.     Under clause 25 (refer Attachment D for the full wording), after receiving the request, receiving all required information, and modifying the request (where relevant), the local authority is required to make a decision to either:

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

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

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

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

58.     Having regard to the principles established by the relevant case law, the consideration of private plan change requests under clause 25 involves a "threshold test" and a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the private plan change is determined. Case law has also established that “where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change” (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22, applied in Orakei Point Trustee Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117).


 

Options available to the council

59.     The next section of this report assesses the various options available to the council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

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

60.     Council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. If the council adopted the request, or part of the request, it would not be able to significantly modify the plan change (as that would mean that the plan change council advanced was no longer the plan change which it adopted). Adoption of the private plan change would also likely constrain the council’s ability to lodge substantive submissions. The applicant has not requested that council adopt the private plan change request.

61.     Whilst the zoning is aligned with council’s Whenuapai Structure Plan, the private plan change is out of sequence as this area has been identified as being ready for development in Stage Two (2028-2032) and the full infrastructure necessary to support the development (including development in the wider Whenuapai area) is not funded.

62.     It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request is not adopted for the following reasons:

a)   the request does not address a gap in the AUP or change provisions that apply across the Auckland region; and

b)   the request is a site-specific proposal that is likely to be of most immediate or direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public.

 

c)   the request is out of sequence with the timing in the Whenuapai Structure Plan and the full infrastructure necessary to support the development (including development in the wider Whenuapai area) is not funded.

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

63.     Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

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

66.     The objective of the plan change is to change land from Future Urban zoning to Business – Light Industry zoning to enable site development for business activity in keeping with the land use pattern identified in the Whenuapai Structure Plan. While the timing of the development is ahead of that anticipated in the structure plan, the request includes a section 32 evaluation report and accompanying specialist assessments on relevant matters which support the plan change request and the proposed earlier timing. Extensive analysis has been carried out to assess the adverse local effects of the plan change, and the proposal attempts to address these.

67.     The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request.

68.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

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

69.     These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. The  AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016 and applied a Future Urban zone over the majority of land in the Whenuapai area. The substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council in the last two years.

70.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on this basis.

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

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

72.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on the basis that the substance of the request has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

73.     The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA. However, relevant case law indicates Part 2 of the RMA provides an important starting point to developing criteria as to whether sound resource management practice has been followed. Other aspects are also relevant. The following matters may be relevant:

Will the plan change undermine sustainable management of natural and physical resources?

 

The subject area of the private plan change request is in line with the proposed zoning in the Whenuapai Structure Plan. As business land it could provide local residents from the growing residential areas nearby with employment opportunities and thereby reduce traffic commuting to the city on the already congested State Highway 16. The request also contains elements of walking and cycling, a new through road by extending Spedding Road and route protection of a future link from Spedding Road across State Highway 16 to eventually link with Fred Taylor Drive.

 

Will the plan changes enable people and communities across the region to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing?

 

If approved, the plan change request would provide for considerable business land growth in an area where almost all other developers are planning for residential development. It would therefore complement other growth within the wider north west area. It would also allow Watercare to construct a new transmission pipeline on Brigham Creek Road at the same time that the extension to Spedding Road is built, thus saving Watercare construction costs.

 

Section 32 is another important aspect of sound practice is there sufficient justification of the proposed provisions, at a coarse level?

 

As previously noted, the Whenuapai Structure Plan proposes a business land zoning in this area. In addition, the precinct provisions propose route protection for future arterial roads and completion of transport upgrades prior to subdivision being approved. However, the section 32 analysis does not address the gap in funding between transport infrastructure proposed to be provided by the applicant and funding of the wider cumulative effects of the proposed development on traffic across the north west. Nor does it discuss the cost to council of bringing forward the funding to cover any development prior to the sequence set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy or the Auckland Plan.

 

Plan change preparation process and the nature and extent of consultation expected under Schedule 1 is important. Has best practice been followed?

 

74.     Oyster Capital representatives have consulted with iwi and have worked extensively with council departments to prepare the private plan change request.

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

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

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

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

 

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

77.     The courts have also accepted that "sound resource management practice" can include issues of timing and process. For example, the Environment Court in Malory Corporation v Rodney District Council  [2010] NZRMA 1 stated:

"[60] We conclude that the question of sound resource management practice goes well beyond questions of planning merit to include fundamental issues as to appropriate process, timing and the like.  It can include non-planning matters such as engineering, cultural, and other issues.”


 

78.     As previously discussed, the zoning proposed and the location of Spedding Road are generally consistent with the adopted Whenuapai Structure Plan. To that extent, the plan change is in accordance with sound resource management practice. Other issues, including ecological effects, are addressed at the coarse level, and considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice.

79.     However, the applicant has not demonstrated that adequate infrastructure is either currently available or will be provided as part of the plan change to serve the proposed development. Joint work on infrastructure funding could be progressed through an Infrastructure Funding Agreement and work on this has already started. This aspect of the proposal is arguably not in accordance with sound resource management practice, however, as more detailed information relating to the cost of the required infrastructure is needed to reach a definitive conclusion, and there remains a prospect of a funding solution being found, it is not recommended that the council rejects the private plan change request on this ground.  In the circumstances of this plan change, these infrastructure issues can be more fully assessed at the merits stage during the hearing of submissions.

80.     Based on the above reasoning, it is considered that the plan change is not rejected on the grounds that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

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

81.     Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan.

82.     The plan change request seeks to rezone Future Urban zoned land to Business – Light Industry zone with the introduction of a new precinct. Development is proposed to be sooner than that set out in the Whenuapai Structure Plan sequencing by 2-4 years. Because of this there is no provision yet for the full costs of the required infrastructure to be recovered, unless by way of a funding agreement. The relevant projects are not included in the council’s LTP and as a result the council is unable to charge the applicant for its fair share of the costs of minimising all the adverse effects of the private plan change request. This may make the AUP contrary to Part 5 of the RMA as it could result in in district plan provisions that do not give effect to policy B2 5.8 of the Regional Policy Statement which requires integrated land use planning and transport to enable the supply of industrial land. Because of the other funding options outlined previously (a new Development Contributions Policy, a specific Infrastructure Funding Agreement or use of a special purpose vehicle under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020) this may be able to be resolved.

83.     The proposed precinct also includes provisions that relate to stream reclamation, culverting and vegetation removal in riparian margins. This is generally in line with the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (Freshwater NES), along with the new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM), which was gazetted on 5 August 2020 with the majority of the regulations having come into effect on 3 September 2020. The Freshwater NES sets out requirements for carrying out certain activities that pose risks to freshwater and freshwater ecosystems and requires anyone carrying out such activities to comply with the relevant standards. Such activities include carrying out earthworks or removing vegetation within or near wetlands.

84.     As the Freshwater NES is relatively recent, it is undetermined at this stage the extent to which these regulations affect this private plan change request. The applicant has updated the precinct provisions so that they are compliant with the Freshwater NES in their view. Whether this is agreed with by council can be determined at a later stage in the plan change process when the implications of the Freshwater NES are better understood.

85.     At this stage, it is considered that the private plan change request complies with sufficient policies of the AUP and NPS-UD to warrant further consideration. The area of most concern is that of integration of development with infrastructure. Currently council does not have sufficiently detailed estimates to accurately assign a fair proportion of the future transport infrastructure costs to the applicant. Neither does council have a definitive mechanism to recover a fair proportion of the costs from the applicant.

86.     While initial work has been carried out to develop a Funding Infrastructure Framework Agreement (FIFA), it will not be until early 2022 that definitive costings will be able to be included. There is, however, potential for funding mechanisms to be put in place before development occurs.

87.     It is therefore concluded that, on balance, the council should not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

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

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

89.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts of the AUP have been operative for less than two years.

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

90.     The council could decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 would then apply accordingly.

91.     In this case, the request seeks to rezone land and introduce precinct provisions to manage subdivision, use and development. As stated in the  AUP itself, the most appropriate process for achieving development within the Future Urban zone is a plan change following the structure planning process. Rezoning cannot occur through a resource consent application.

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

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

93.     The council could accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part under clause 25 of Schedule 1, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. As noted above, the Planning Committee will need to consider whether it makes a resolution to make a submission on the private plan change request due to the infrastructure funding issues. As with other private plan change requests, the council can continue detailed discussions with Oyster Capital towards agreement around the funding of immediate and wider transport infrastructure costs, which would likely address any concerns raised by the council in its submission.

94.     The council would hold a hearing by independent commissioners to consider submissions, and a decision would be made in relation to the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. All associated costs (including notification and any hearing) would rest with the applicant.

95.     This option is the only remaining option available to the council for consideration. It is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, having regard to relevant case law and it is more appropriate to accept the request for processing than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application, the reasons for which are outlined above. If the private plan change is accepted, the matters raised by the applicant and the council can be considered on their merits during a public participatory planning process. If accepted, the plan change would not have legal effect until it is made operative by the council.

Conclusion: options assessment

96.     The private plan change request seeks to rezone approximately 52 hectares of land in the Whenuapai area from Future Urban to Business – Light Industry zone and introduce a precinct to enable area-specific controls. To comply with RMA timeframes, council must now make a clause 25 decision to accept, adopt, treat as a resource consent or reject the private plan change request by Oyster Capital Limited. The applicant has stated that it is willing to continue working towards a funding agreement. While it would be ideal to have such an agreement in place at the time of the clause 25 decision, the funding information is not yet available, and the applicant has advised that it is seeking a clause 25 decision prior to the funding agreement being completed. The statutory timeframes under the RMA require the council to make its clause 25 decision at this Planning Committee meeting. If the request is accepted, the private plan change will be publicly notified for submissions.  The funding issues will be a matter for the independent commissioners to consider when making a substantive decision on the private plan change request, in terms of whether it should be approved, approved with modifications or declined.

97.     The caselaw on clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides that:

·   where a Private Plan Change request, on a coarse merits assessment, does not accord with the purpose and principles of the RMA, it will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption; but

·   where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change.

98.     In this case, on a coarse merits assessment, there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached. As a result, based on the relevant case law, it is appropriate for the council to accept the private plan change request and for it to go through to the public participatory process (i.e. accepting the plan change for public notification and hearing). Accepting the private plan change request for processing would enable the more detailed benefits and costs of the plan change to be assessed. While funding issues have been canvassed above, the potential benefits of the request are as follows:

·   The re-zoning is for Business – Light Industry which is needed in the north-west. It is complementary to the land already zoned as residential, thus helping to create a more sustainable community, particularly in regard to possibly lessening the level of commuter traffic from the north-west to the city.

·   The site is located adjacent to State Highways 16 and 18, so external traffic will have a more limited effect on the wider area than a residential zoning.

·   It is owned by one developer which would help facilitate the negotiation of a funding agreement.

·   The proposed Watercare wastewater pump station and rising main can be built simultaneously with the construction of the extension of Spedding Road to Brigham Creek Road, attracting some Housing Infrastructure Fund funding and creating cost benefits to Watercare.

99.     Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated documents, it is recommended that council decide to accept the request and notify it for submissions.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

101.   It is noted that the decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself.

102.   If accepted for processing, the development of a Business – Light Industry zone would provide for more local employment opportunities in an area of high residential growth. It is likely that this would reduce commuting to the city and thus result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Should the council accept the private plan change request for processing, climate impacts can be considered in a future hearing report on the private plan change request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

103.   Auckland Transport staff have had extensive discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed transport infrastructure upgrades, the traffic modelling and the precinct provisions. They have confirmed they do not require any further information at this time. Auckland Transport staff consider that the level of detail provided in the precinct plan, specifically the road cross-sections, is inappropriate to be included at the plan change stage and should instead be assessed as part of a subdivision application. Auckland Transport has also raised issues with the widths shown on the cross-sections as some of these are non-compliant with Auckland Transport design standards and insufficient to provide for stormwater requirements.

104.   Auckland Transport has agreed that the transport upgrades proposed by Oyster Capital Limited to support their development are appropriate for the plan change area alone. In addition, Oyster Capital Limited has agreed to incorporate two further “route protection” measures, being allowing for the future widening of Brigham Creek Road by ensuring appropriate set-backs and protecting a 24m wide road corridor for future construction of Spedding Road West which could eventually link Spedding Road across SH16 to Fred Taylor Drive.

105.   However Auckland Transport remains concerned that there is no immediate funding solution to respond to the cumulative effects of increased traffic on the wider north western transport system and no likelihood of being able to agree on funding amounts until the work by the Supporting Growth Alliance in the north west is completed.

106.   As discussed in paragraph 35-36, the applicant has also been working closely with Watercare regarding the timing of the delivery of bulk wastewater infrastructure for the area. Watercare has not raised any concerns with the private plan change application and is supportive of aligning the planned bulk wastewater infrastructure works with the Spedding Road extension as it will result in cost savings for Watercare. Watercare notes that if the plan change is delayed, this could put the optimum timeframe for the laying of the pipes in jeopardy.

107.   Key departments within council have been consulted to confirm that the applicant has provided sufficient information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

109.   If accepted, staff will prepare a summary of any submissions received and provide the opportunity for the local board to give feedback on the private plan change. Any feedback received must be taken into account by the independent hearing commissions appointed to hear and make the council’s decision on the private plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

111.   As part of the initial site investigations, the applicant advises that they have engaged with representatives from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki to discuss the proposal and attend a site walkover. Te Kawerau a Maki deferred to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, who in turn provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) in relation to the plan change area.

112.   The CVA notes that while there were no Wāhi Tūpuna (ancestral sites) recorded on the land, the area (particularly adjacent to Brigham Creek and Totara Stream) was a source of seasonal kai and kaimoana. The report recommended that the impact on the cultural landscape could be partially mitigated and enhanced through the protection/recognition of known sites, adherence to accidental discovery process, planting native vegetation and incorporating references to Māori heritage where appropriate such as street naming and artwork. The CVA concluded that zoning to Light Industry would bring employment benefits to the area.

113.   The applicant advises that further opportunity for comment was provided to the representatives of the following iwi authorities with an interest in the area before the request was formally lodged with council:

·   Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

·   Kaitiaki, Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board

·   Ngāti Te Ata

·   Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

·   Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

·   Te Kawerau a Maki

·   Ngāti Manuhiri, Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust

·   Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust

·   Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

114.   If accepted, all iwi authorities within an interest in the plan change area will be notified and will be able to make a submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

115.   Although the developer has proposed to fund infrastructure to mitigate the immediate effects (particularly traffic) of the proposed development that would be enabled as part of the private plan change, the council does not have enough information to accurately assign a fair proportion of future transport costs to the proposed development.

116.   Full costs of the infrastructure for the wider network are unable to be determined at this time and are likely to take some time to be calculated. The shortfall in funding of the infrastructure costs is not provided for in the LTP. Therefore, the council is unable to recover the costs of future infrastructure via either the Development Contributions Policy or having another funding mechanism in place. Should the development go ahead without these matters being resolved, this could put pressure on funding for other development areas. As previously noted, to avoid this outcome and/or significant adverse effects, the Planning Committee has previously resolved to make submissions on private plan change requests of this nature.

117.   If accepted for processing, costs for processing the private plan change will be recoverable from the applicant up until any appeals to the Environment Court.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

118.   The key risk associated with accepting the private plan change relates to the lack of certainty around the funding for the necessary transport infrastructure. As previously noted, to avoid the significant adverse effects that can result from the lack of appropriate infrastructure, or funds having to be diverted from elsewhere, the Planning Committee has previously resolved to make submissions on private plan change requests of this nature.

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

120.   There are legal risks in either accepting or rejecting the private plan change request. If the request is rejected, the requestor is highly likely to appeal the clause 25 decision to the Environment Court.

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

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

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

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

d)   deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.[7]

122.   It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted in whole for processing. The applicant has requested the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the applicant utilising clause 27 appeal rights is therefore not high.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

123.   If the private plan change is accepted, council will publicly notify the plan change and hold a hearing to consider any submissions and any local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

124.   If the private plan change request is rejected, the applicant could appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court and an Environment Court hearing would be held in due course.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Private Plan Change Request and Precinct Provisions

203

b

Section 32 Assessment Report

319

c

Zoning Plan

343

d

Clause 25 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991

345

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

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

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 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



PDF Creator



Planning Committee

01 July 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


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) - Making Plan Change 39: Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote, operative

File No.: CP2021/08202

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 39 - Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In July 2019 the Planning Committee approved the adoption, modification and notification of a proposed plan change, known as Plan Change 39.

3.       This plan change seeks to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part (the AUP) planning maps contained within the Council’s GIS mapping layer to reflect the Northcote development masterplan. This will occur through a change in zoning of land in the vicinity of Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote.

4.       The change in zoning will enable the development of new housing on a reconfigured block of land zoned Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (THAB Zone) and an enlarged and reconfigured reserve on Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone (OS-IR Zone) land.

5.       Plan Change 39 was limited notified on 5 March 2020. Submissions were considered by the hearing commissioner without a hearing being required. The decision approved the proposed plan change and extended the 19.5 metre Height Variation Control (HVC) across the additional THAB Zone land that is subject to the plan change.

6.       The decision on Plan Change 39 was notified on 25 March 2021. No appeals were received.

7.       The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the hearing commissioners’ decision.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 39 - Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      note that staff will undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Change 39 operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The purpose of Plan Change 39 is to amend the AUP zoning maps to reflect an approved land exchange between Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) and Auckland Council, land purchases by Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council, and approved road stopping in Cadness Street, Northcote, in accordance with the Northcote development master plan.

9.       The change in zoning will enable the development of new housing on a reconfigured block of THAB zoned land and an enlarged reserve on OS-IR zoned land.

10.     The Planning Committee adopted a modified Plan Change 39 for public notification on 2 July 2019 (PLA/2019/69). 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 39 was:

·   limited notified on 27 February 2020 and re-notified on 5 March 2020 due to an error in the notification documents

·   open for public submissions until 2 April 2020

·   open for further submissions until 14 May 2020

·   considered by an independent commissioner between September 2020 and March 2021

11.     The council’s decision was publicly notified on 25 March 2021.

12.     An independent commissioner was delegated the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 39 by the Regulatory Committee on 23 June 2020 (REG/2020/26).

13.     The commissioners’ decision was that the plan change be approved with modifications pursuant to Clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA and that the AUP be amended in accordance with Attachment A, by:

a.   525m2 of land in Cadness Street, Northcote, under the ownership of Kāinga Ora following a land exchange with Auckland Council is re-identified from OS-IR Zone to THAB Zone and included in the 19.5m Height Variation Control;

b.   1212m2 of land in Cadness Street, Northcote, under the ownership of Auckland Council following the land exchange with and a land purchase from Kāinga Ora, is re-identified from THAB Zone to OS-IR Zone;

c.   774m2 of land identified as road (stopped) that is to be part of the reconfigured Cadness Loop Reserve is re-identified to OS-IR Zone;

d.   850m2 of land identified as road (stopped) that is to be part of a Kāinga Ora development block is re-identified to THAB Zone and included in the 19.5m HVC.

14.     The appeal period on the Plan Change 39 decision closed on 10 May 2021. No appeals were received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 26 February 2021 (refer to Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

16.     Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA 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”. A decision was made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

17.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA 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 for Plan Change 39 as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to make Plan Change 39 operative.


 

19.     Nevertheless, the plan change enables a larger recreation reserve and a development block pattern in this location that will cater for more intensive housing with greater building heights close to a town centre. The new reserve and housing block will also adjoin the Awataha Northcote Greenway, which is a dedicated cycling and walking path through Northcote Central.

20.     These factors will address climate impacts through encouraging residents to walk and cycle through the area and to the town centre, enabling more efficient use of land, providing more area for local recreation and the provision of additional trees in the enlarged reserve.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with making this plan change operative.

22.     Discussions were undertaken with Auckland Transport prior to notification, due to the status of road stopping processes (now completed) and impacts upon the local road network of the proposed plan change. Auckland Transport supported the proposed zoning changes when the plan change was adopted and modified by the Planning Committee in July 2019.

23.     Support for the adopted and modified plan change was also received from Healthy Waters, Community and Social Policy, and the former Auckland Design Office with regard to the reserve enlargement and reconfiguration.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24.     As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with making this plan change operative.

25.     The Kaipātiki Local Board has been informed and involved in planning for the Northcote housing development at every stage since HLC (now Kāinga Ora) initiated the development project in 2016. The plan change enables the development masterplan to be realised.

26.     The Kaipātiki Local Board provided feedback in support of the adopted and modified Plan Change 39 and also at notification.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

28.     Consultation on the plan change concept took place between Kāinga Ora and mana whenua in conjunction with wider engagement and consultation with iwi relating to the Northcote Awataha Greenway Design Guidelines and the Northcote development masterplan. Design input of mana whenua into the Kāinga Ora housing masterplan has occurred at various points in the past four years.

29.     All iwi authorities were sent letters when Plan Change 39 was publicly notified. No submissions from iwi authorities were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32.     The final step in making Plan Change 39 operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to then update the AUP.

33.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 39 operative, including the public notice and seal. The update of the AUP is expected to occur in August 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part 2016, Plan Change 39 - Decision Version

351

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Making Plan Change 47: to amend Flat Bush Precinct, operative

File No.: CP2021/08479

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Private Plan Change 47, to amend two development standards (side yard and site coverage) of the Flat Bush Precinct - sub precinct H and minor amendments to associated sub-precinct boundaries and underlying zone boundaries, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Private Plan Change 47 is a privately initiated plan change by BR Land Company Limited to amend two development standards (side yard and site coverage) of the Flat Bush Precinct - sub precinct H and to modify associated sub-precinct boundaries and amend the associated underlying zoning. BR Land Company Limited control most of the land within the sub-precincts. The subject land is located on the eastern edge of the Flat Bush greenfields development area.

3.       The plan change was limited notified on 14 August 2020.  One submission in support was received, with no further submissions.

4.       Private Plan Change 47 was considered by two independent hearing commissioners at a hearing on 10 February 2021.  The commissioners approved the private plan change with modifications on 20 April 2021. The decision was publicly notified on 14 May 2021.

5.       The appeal period closed on 28 June. No appeals were received and therefore the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can be amended and made operative as set out in the decision (included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Private Plan Change 47 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, as it relates to the decision dated 20 April 2021 as identified in Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 


 

Horopaki

Context

6.       Private Plan Change 47 sought to reduce the side yard standard in Flat Bush sub-precinct H from 3m to 1.2m and increase permitted building coverage from 35 per cent to 40 per cent for sites over 400 sqm. In addition, the request seeks to modify the boundaries of sub precincts H, J and K of the Flat Bush precinct and amend the associated underlying zoning from Residential: Single House zone (SHZ) to Residential: Mixed Housing Suburban zone (MHSZ).

7.       The plan change was limited notified on 14 August 2020. One submission in support was received, with no further submissions.

8.       Private Plan Change 47 was considered by two independent hearing commissioners, at a hearing on 10 February 2021. A decision was issued on 20 April 2021 to approve the plan change with modifications.

9.       The appeal period closed on 28 June and no appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) can be amended and made operative as set out in the decision (included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

11.     Clause 17(2) states that “a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of”.  No appeals have been received and the council can now approve the plan change.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.     As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

14.     With respect to the plan change itself, the minor nature of the amendments sought to the Auckland Unitary Plan are such that they have no impact on or from climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15.     Specialist advice was received from staff in Urban Design (both landscape and urban design matters) and Healthy Waters on the private plan change and the supporting section 32 report.

16.     Council’s landscape architect opposed the reduction in the side yard standard based on landscape and visual effects. In her opinion, side yards contribute to the sense of spaciousness and this reduction would be noticeable from the street. Issues relating to urban design were supported.

17.     The matters relating to the increased building coverage and zone and sub-precinct boundary changes were supported.

18.     No issues of concern were raised by Healthy Waters.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19.     The views of the Howick Local Board were sought on the private plan change following lodgement of the plan change request. The local board advised that they did not support the plan change but did not offer any views in association with this.

20.     Local board views were not sought for this report as making the plan change operative is a procedural matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     The requestor consulted with 13 iwi groups with interests in the site, prior to lodging the private plan change with council. They received one response from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who requested a hui for further discussion. Following a site visit, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki confirmed that they had no objections to the private plan change. 

22.     All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the Resource Management Act.  No submissions were received from any mana whenua groups during the submission period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is an administrative and statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     The final step in making the plan change operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Private Plan Change 47 - Decision

357

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Leddra - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings (including the forward work programme) – 1 July 2021

File No.: CP2021/08653

 

  

 

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

2/6/2021

Parking Strategy Review

2/6/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Housing and business capacity assessment

2/6/2021

Rapid Transit Network

16/6/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Intensification Policies

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

Date

Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item

June 2021

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – June 2021

17/6/2021

Memo: Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development discussion document

 

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 – 1 July 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning Committee forward work programme

371

b

Parking Strategy Review workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Rapid Transit Network workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Auckland Housing Update June 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo: Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development discussion document (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

01 July 2021

 

 

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

Report seeking endorsement of consultation approach due July 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Workshops held Feb – Jun 2021.

Report due July 2021 seeking endorsement of the implementation approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Progress to date:

Report due July 2021 seeking delegated authority to approve council submission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Progress to date:

Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission May 2021 PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Centre to Mangere light rail

Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.

Decision required: subject to Cabinet consideration

Progress to date:

Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Progress to date: Confidential workshop held June 2021.