Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 3 February 2022

Planning Committee

03 February 2022

Delegated authority for Auckland Council's feedback on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand's resource management system: our future resource management system

File No.: CP2021/19500

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek delegation for the approval of Auckland Council’s feedback to the Ministry for the Environment’s Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Government is undertaking comprehensive reform of the resource management system. This will entail the repeal of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and enactment of three pieces of legislation: a Natural and Built Environments Act, a Strategic Planning Act, and a Climate Adaptation Act. The scale of reform is substantial and will have significant impacts on Auckland Council.

3. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has released engagement materials – Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system – with input requested from Auckland Council by 28 February 2022.

4. This input will be the third submission the council has made on these reforms. Earlier submissions were in response to:

· Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper as part of the Resource Management Review Panel’s review of the resource management system

· An exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill, which was subject to an inquiry by the Environment Select Committee.

5. The council’s earlier submissions provide strong direction on many of the questions contained in the discussion document. This report outlines what is proposed in the new system and details relevant points from previous submissions, which will form the basis for our response.

6. A delegated authority to approve the council’s input is required because the deadline for responding to MfE falls between Planning Committee meetings and to enable staff to prepare further material.

7. The council’s input will inform the final bills likely to be introduced in the second half of 2022 and expected to be in place by the end of 2023. The council will have the opportunity to submit on the bills when they are introduced.

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 input into Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion due 28 February 2022.

b) note that council’s input into Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion will be based on the council’s previous submissions as outlined in this agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

Resource management system reform

8. Government is undertaking comprehensive reform of the resource management system.

9. Cabinet adopted 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.

10. Cabinet also agreed to the repeal and replacement of the RMA with three pieces of legislation:

· 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). It would require a single national planning framework (NPF), which would set national direction and environmental limits, and require Natural and Built Environments Act plans (NBA plans)

· 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 (RSSs)

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

11. This diagram below sets out at a high level how the NBA, SPA, CAA and their respective instruments would interact in the new system.

Graphical user interface, diagram, PowerPoint

Description automatically generated

12. It is intended that the NBA and SPA be introduced to Parliament in the third quarter of 2022 and be passed within the current parliamentary term.

13. The CAA is expected to be introduced in early 2023 but will not be passed before the 2023 General Election. However, public consultation on key CAA policy decisions is expected to take place in early 2022 alongside consultation on the National Adaptation Plan required under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

Formal engagement with Auckland Council on resource management system reform to date

14. The first stage of this reform commenced in 2019 with the Resource Management Review Panel (the Panel). Auckland Council submitted on the review panel’s Issues and Options paper in February 2020 [PLA/2020/21 refers]. 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.

15. The NBA exposure draft released on 29 June 2021 and the subsequent select committee inquiry intended to enable early public engagement on some aspects of the proposed legislation and inform the development of the final bill

16. The NBA exposure draft was limited in its scope, mostly focussing on principles, outcomes, national direction, environmental limits and planning governance [PLA/2021/75 refers].

17. In later 2021, a national Local Government Steering Group was established to advice the Government on the resource management reforms. The steering group is also providing direct feedback and advice from a sector perspective. The Deputy Mayor and Chief of Strategy are members of the group.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion (the discussion document) sets out several issues for input (Appendix A). These span the scope of the NBA and SPA and include:

· National Planning Framework

· regional spatial strategies

· NBA plans

· RSS and NBA joint committees

· consenting

· compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· monitoring and system oversight

· role of local government in the future system

· national Māori entity

· joint committee composition

· enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements, integrated with transfers of powers and joint management agreements

· funding in the future system.

19. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) states that its objectives for this engagement are to:

· provide an update for Māori, local government and sector stakeholders on where the Government is up to in the reform of the resource management system and on next steps

· present a fuller view of the main components of the system designed to date, including the role of Māori and local government within the future resource management system, from the national to the local level

· respond to and build on feedback received to date

· provide a general overview of resource management reform to audiences who have a limited understanding or have had limited engagement to date, and support preparation for submissions on the full Bill to a select committee in 2022.

20. This engagement is targeted to key parties involved in the resource management system. Mana whenua are being engaged in parallel. MfE met with the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum on 18 November 2021 and with elected members in attendance at the LGNZ Auckland Zone meeting on Friday 10 December 2021.

21. Auckland Council’s earlier submissions provide strong direction on many of the questions contained in this discussion document. These include:

· Auckland Council’s submission on Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper in February 2020 [PLA/2020/21 refers]; and

· Auckland Council’s submission on the Natural and Built Environments Bill exposure draft in August 2021 [[PLA/2021/75 refers].

22. This report outlines what is proposed in the new system and details relevant points from previous submissions, which will form the basis for our response. The subheadings correspond to the discussion document.

National Planning Framework

23. The NPF will replace the current system of national direction and provide an integrated set of mandatory national policies and standards. These will include natural environmental outcomes, limits and targets.

24. The NPF will also provide direction on resource management matters that must be consistent throughout the system. This may include methods, standards and guidance to support regional spatial strategy development. It will play a role in resolving conflicts between outcomes in the system.

25. Previous council submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· support for a single integrated piece of national direction

· conflicts between and within outcomes should be addressed in the NPF where national consistency is desirable, or the NPF should give guidance that supports their resolution in NBA plans

· the lifting of dispute resolution higher in the system through outcomes-based planning is at risk if the NPF leaves the majority of the integration of competing outcomes to plans or through consents.

· the NPF should go beyond conflict resolution and do more to integrate outcomes

· a permanent Board of Inquiry should exist to develop and maintain the NPF. It should insulate the NPF from being a vehicle for short-term political expediency.

Regional spatial strategies

26. RSSs will identify areas that are:

· suitable for development

· need to be protected

· require infrastructure

· vulnerable to climate change effects and natural hazards.

27. One regional spatial strategy will be developed for each region, with flexibility to address issues within and across regions. The strategy will be prepared by a joint committee comprising representatives from hapū/iwi/Māori, local and central government. RSSs would integrate with other relevant documents like NBA plans and the NPF.

28. Other significant legislation that the SPA will integrate includes the Local Government Act 2002, Land Transport Management Act 2003 and Climate Change Response Act 2002. These other acts are important parts of the resource management system, and substantive changes to them are not proposed as part of this reform

29. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· the Auckland Plan has demonstrated that spatial planning is an opportunity to achieve better integration between national and local priorities. To be successful, RSSs and any implementation agreements should be a strong influencer of central government’s infrastructure investment decisions

· collaborative approaches to alignment are preferable and more likely to be enduring and able to deliver integrated outcomes

· current issues around funding and financing of infrastructure would undermine any benefits from integrated planning since infrastructure is a key determinant of the timing and sequencing of growth and development

· a number of challenges or opportunities spatial planning should address cross regional boundaries, particularly environmental management, growth and development, and infrastructure provision and funding. Enabling tools and approaches that facilitate greater inter-regional co-operation would assist with developing and implementing shared approaches to shared issues.

Natural and Built Environments Act plans

30. NBA plans will be land use / resource management plans similar in role to the current Auckland Unitary Plan.

31. One NBA plan will be developed for each region. The plan will be prepared by a joint committee comprising representatives from hapū/iwi/Māori, local government, and potentially a representative appointed by the Minister of Conservation.

32. NBA plans are intended to bring efficiencies into the system by providing consistency as a region and more effectively implementing the NPF.

33. Initial consideration has been given to several sub-regional NBA plans being developed, then incorporated into a regional NBA plan. This could allow regions with different communities to take a more nuanced approach to regional planning.

34. There is the potential to provide for local place-making in the plan development process. This could be through local plans, such as those developed under the Local Government Act 2002 (eg, town centre plans, local community plans) and structure plans.

35. The process for developing NBA plans is largely informed by the model used to develop the Auckland Unitary Plan and aims to incentivise all participants to engage early with the best information available. An independent hearings panel would hear submissions and make recommendations to the decision-makers.

36. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· Auckland Council supports the proposal to implement Natural and Built Environments Act plans at a regional level. Conceptually, one overall plan per region seems like a good idea. It has worked well in Auckland with the Auckland Unitary Plan (which includes a Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan, Regional Coastal Plan and District Plan for Auckland) and is likely to continue to be a workable model for Auckland. However, Auckland Council is a unitary authority, and some regions comprise a regional council and multiple district or city councils, which may create logistical issues for one overall plan per region approach.

· Auckland Council is the only local authority in New Zealand legally required to develop and maintain a spatial plan. In addition to this, council uses spatial planning as an approach at a finer-grain level in areas such as structure planning, area planning, and in exploring specific local opportunities or issues. Being a unitary authority has made this approach easier.

RSS and NBA joint committees

37. There will be one joint committee for NBA plans and another for RSSs. RSS joint committees will have representation from local government, hapū/iwi/Māori and central government. NBA joint committees will have representation from local government and hapū/iwi/Māori. Consideration is also being given to the Review Panel’s proposal for a representative of the Minister of Conservation.

38. A secretariat will be established in each region to support the committees (i.e., to prepare the regional spatial strategy and NBA plan). This would include how committees could draw staff and resources from existing local authorities in the region, and how technical and mātauranga Māori expertise is provided for.

39. Subject to agreement by Post-Settlement Governance Entities, existing governance arrangements are to be provided for in the future system through Te Tiriti partnership entities. These entities will uphold Treaty settlements, takutai moana rights and existing voluntary arrangements.

40. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· councils should be represented on joint committees by elected members

· unitary authorities should be able to have their standing planning committees fulfil the roles of joint committees. Council would support these being augmented with additional members to align with the final approach to joint committee membership for other regions

· the formation of a separate secretariat to support joint committees would create employment, financial and accountability complexities for unitary authorities and would be unnecessary if joint committees were integrated within council’s existing approaches.

Consenting

41. The Government is proposing to reduce the number of activities categories from six (in the RMA) to four (in the NBA). Although the terminology would be similar to that in the RMA, changes are proposed to the definitions of the categories and in associated legal requirements. The four categories are:

· permitted: activities where positive and adverse effects (including cumulative and those relevant to outcomes) are known. The scope of permitted activities will be slightly expanded

· controlled: activities where potential positive and adverse effects (including cumulative and those relevant to outcomes) are generally known, but where tailored management of effects is required. There will be limited discretion to decline

· discretionary: activities that are less appropriate, have effects that are less known (or go beyond boundaries), and activities that were unanticipated at the time of plan development. Councils will have a broad discretion to seek information and the ability to decline

· prohibited: activities do not meet outcomes and/or breach limits; no applications will be allowed.

42. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· More use could be made of permitted activities for lower impact/risk activities (including through specification in the RMA itself or through National Environmental Standards). However, this would have monitoring/compliance impacts.

· The number of activity statuses under the RMA could be reduced and more use of prohibited activity status should be made where the community and council are confident that certain activities are not desirable from an environmental or policy perspective.

· Graduated and proportionate timeframes that reflect the nature and complexity of a proposal/consent application are more appropriate. The one-size-fits-all approach to timeframes under the current system does not reflect the diverse range of resource consent applications that are processed by councils.

· Notification could potentially be linked to activity status to simplify this process.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

43. Proposed changes to compliance, monitoring and enforcement (CME) include:

· broadening the cost recovery provisions in the NBA, allowing for costs to be recovered for compliance monitoring of permitted activities and investigations of noncompliant activities

· ensuring compliance and enforcement decision-making is independent and not subject to inappropriate influence or bias

· a substantial increase in financial penalties, broadening the range of offences subject to fines for commercial gain, and increasing the statute of limitations to 24 months

· prohibiting the use of insurance for prosecution and infringement fines

· allowing consent authorities to consider an applicant’s compliance history in the consent process

· providing for alternative sanctions to traditional enforcement action and providing for new intervention tools, including enforceable undertakings and consent revocation.

44. It is expected councils will continue to be responsible for the delivery of CME services, including decision-making about when to take enforcement action and what type of action to take.

45. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· It is important that the infringement regime recognises that not all non-compliance can be considered equal. For this reason, it is necessary to have a wider range of tools available to councils, including:

o variation of infringement amounts

o spot fines

o restorative justice

o enforceable undertakings

o more sentencing options such as community service, home detention, or even development or consent suspensions.

Monitoring and system oversight

46. Monitoring provides information to help set environmental limits, track progress towards desired targets and outcomes, and let decision-makers know about the consequences of their actions.

47. The proposed approach to monitoring will include:

· a suite of tools in the NBA to direct monitoring

· consistent and regular local-level environmental monitoring and reporting

· enabling Māori to be involved in developing and undertaking monitoring and reporting activities

· clear connections between the NBA and national environmental reporting under the Environmental Reporting Act 2015

· stronger requirements for responsible bodies to investigate, evaluate and respond when this monitoring identifies problems that need to be addressed.

48. System oversight ensures there is transparency and accountability for the performance of the system and the delivery of its objectives.

49. The following functions of system oversight are proposed to be reflected in the future system:

· stronger regulatory stewardship and operational oversight of the system by central government and other independent oversight bodies

· regular reporting to Parliament on the performance of the system, in relation to environmental limits, targets and outcomes of the NBA

· legislated requirements for central government to respond to national level reports on the state of the environment and system performance

· independent oversight of system and agency performance, to provide accountability and impartial analysis and advice

· mechanisms to monitor how the system gives effect to the principles of Te Tiriti

· a range of powers for ministers to intervene and direct the system.

50. It is expected councils will continue to be responsible for undertaking monitoring, with greater opportunities for Māori to be involved in monitoring activities.

51. Central government is expected to play a stronger role in providing oversight of the system alongside independent bodies such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the proposed national entity for enabling Māori involvement at the national level.

52. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· Support for the statutory framework requiring local and central government to monitor the state of the environment and the effectiveness of their policies and plans in achieving their intended outcomes. Council also supports a greater emphasis being placed on the interconnectedness between monitoring and decision-making.

· Despite current statutory monitoring requirements, the quality of environmental and plan-monitoring nationally is highly variable, and in some cases poor or non-existent.

· Support for central government (or an independent agency established by central government) playing a more active role in monitoring the performance of the resource management system as a whole.

· Challenges exist in monitoring the impact of some activities that are permitted in plans or in the RMA itself (e.g., water takes for domestic use), and greater tools are needed to ensure the impacts of these activities can be effectively monitored.

· Current monitoring and reporting do not provide a full picture of whether resource management outcomes from a te ao Māori perspective have improved.

· Support for the use of mātauranga Māori to develop a monitoring framework, and involvement of Māori in state of the environment monitoring and reporting.

Role of local government in the future system

53. The proposed role of local government in the future system is outlined below. Some of these are subject to further decisions. These delineate the roles of local government from joint planning committees for unitary authorities.

1. In RSS and NBA plan development

· play an essential connecting role between local communities and RSS and NBA plan development. Local authorities will support effective community engagement processes to ensure RSS and NBA plans enable local place-making and will give effect to significant views through governance and decision-making arrangements

· contribute to RSS and NBA plan development, including through provision of information, resource and expertise. Involvement of councils through the secretariat will provide an avenue for council input into drafting

· provide local plans to inform strategy and plan development. Specifically, it is intended the NBA will provide for place-shaping documents, such as local plans, under the Local Government Act 2002 (eg, town centre plans, community plans)

· collaborate with hapū/iwi/Māori to review and provide feedback on draft strategies and plans, potentially through timebound review stages.

2. Joint committees

· Local authority appointees to RSS and NBA joint committees would be responsible for giving effect to local voice. It is expected other governance roles would be provided for local government through potential cross-regional and sub-regional sub-committees.

3. RSS and NBA plan implementation

· Regional councils will retain responsibility for natural resource functions, and territorial authorities will retain their core land use and subdivision responsibilities.

· Local authorities will implement RSSs through local authority plans and functions under the Local Government Act 2002 and through implementation agreements.

4. Compliance, monitoring, enforcement and oversight

· Local authorities will continue to be responsible for the delivery of CME services, including decision-making on when to take enforcement action and what type of action to take.

· Local authorities may be required to provide consistent and regular local-level environmental reporting and would likely have roles in monitoring the implementation of the RSS and regulatory instruments under NBA plans.

54. Many of these points are addressed in their specific topics, however, previous submissions have made these additional points:

· One of the driving forces in the reforms that created Auckland Council’s bespoke model was the need for more coordinated planning for transport, infrastructure, economic development, environmental protection and managing growth to enable growth to occur in a targeted, efficient, and effective manner. These reforms need to strengthen this coordination role, which council currently performs.

· The proposed model is more fragmented than it needs to be in our context. There should be flexibility for a tailored and better integrated approach for unitary authorities.

National Māori entity

55. A national entity would be established to enable Māori as Treaty partners to participate in decision-making at a national level.

56. Possible roles for the entity could include input into the development of the NPF, appointing Māori members to any board of inquiry process, and in system oversight and monitoring (including monitoring of Te Tiriti performance).

57. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· Support for National Māori Advisory Group being established to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of provisions.

· Māori need to be full partners in decision-making in the system with this reflected in decision-making bodies.

· Support for development of the scope and functions of such bodies and associated processes, such as appointments, being developed directly with Māori.

Joint committee composition

58. Hapū/iwi/Māori appointments to RSS and NBA joint committees (alongside local government appointments) would be worked through region by region, but 50/50 governance is not proposed.

59. Treaty settlements that have governance arrangements through PSGE will be fully transitioned into the new system as will takutai moana rights.

60. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· Each region should be given flexibility to determine the size and shape of its committee.

· The new system needs to retain existing arrangements appropriately, e.g. Treaty settlement legislation, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act, and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.

Enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements, integrated with transfers of powers and joint management agreements

61. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe: Iwi Participation Arrangements are a tool designed to assist tangata whenua and local authorities to discuss, agree and record how they will work together under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This includes agreeing how tangata whenua will be involved in decision-making processes.

62. The Mana Whakahono ā Rohe process would be enhanced by better enabling Māori participation in the system through an integrated partnerships process that would integrate with the existing RMA tools for transfers of powers and joint management agreements.

63. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· Council supports redefining a Treaty-based approach to resource management. Current Māori resource management provisions offer some direction and tools. These have largely not been as effective as they could be, are resource intensive, are applied inconsistently, and there is a lack of clarity around their intent, scope and implementation that too frequently leads to appeals and litigation.

· There are a variety of opportunities across the existing resource management system to consider. Council supports central government engaging directly with Māori to explore these options and to consider how existing provisions within the RMA could be adapted, and what additional tools, mechanisms or direction would be required to support a resource management system that is underpinned by Māori rangatiratanga and incorporates te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori appropriately.

Funding in the future system

64. To work effectively, the future system requires appropriate funding mechanisms for its different roles and activities.

65. MfE is exploring what provisions and guidance can be provided in the future system, to set clear expectations regarding who should pay for what, and to support the availability and use of appropriate funding tools. Proposals will use existing guidance on charging in the public sector and look at applying this to the context of the future resource management system.

66. Previous submissions have made the following points relevant to this section:

· The proposed shifts in the system will see a greater burden for the costs of administering the system fall on local government. This needs to be addressed either through greater funding from central government or through the creation of new funding tools.

· To ensure that iwi and hapū can participate meaningfully in the key mechanisms of the legislative framework (preparation of NBA plans and regional spatial strategies, development of iwi management plans, and membership of planning committees), central government will need to ensure the appropriate resourcing of iwi and hapū to ensure the participatory intentions of the legislation are realised.

· The current user pays system for carrying out compliance services has limitations. It focuses the costs on the party benefitting from the consented activity. The user pays system can also detract from planning being viewed as a public good.

· Greater central government funding is needed to support monitoring of national priorities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

67. The decision to submit on the discussion document and delegate approval of council’s input on this discussion document will not alter emissions or alter our adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

68. Cabinet has set ‘better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions contributing to climate change’ as an objective for this reform. Although the discussion materials do not cover these matters in depth, the recent NBA exposure draft sets out greater detail on how this is being approached.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

69. The decision to submit on the discussion document and delegate approval of council’s input on this discussion document will not impact on the council group.

70. There are likely to be impacts from resource management system reform across the council group, although the nature and scale of these impacts will not be clear until the final legislation is produced.

71. Council departments and substantive Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) have been asked for their input to the council’s feedback on the discussion document.

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

Local impacts and local board views

72. The decision to submit on the discussion document and delegate approval of council’s input on this discussion document will not impact on local boards.

73. Wide resource management system reform will impact on the role and function of council, as well as several of its key strategic documents. This could have flow on impacts on the governance model of Auckland Council including role of local boards.

74. Local boards have been asked to provide formal input on the discussion document. This will inform the development of the submission and be appended to it.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

75. The decision to submit on the discussion document and delegate approval of council’s input on this discussion document will not impact on Māori.

76. Resource management system reform is likely to be of significant interest to and impact on Māori. An explicit objective of reform is ‘give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori’. The discussion document outlines a number of ways that this is proposed to be achieved. These include the establishment of a national Māori entity, hapū/iwi/Māori appointments to RSS and NBA joint committees and enhanced Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements discussed above. The council’s feedback will build on previous submission points specifically relating to impacts on Māori.

77. The IMSB secretariat has been engaged in the development of this submission. MfE have engaged directly with the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum in this process and sought their input on the discussion materials.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

79. Implementation and operation of the new resource management system will require significant investment from the council. Central government’s approach to sharing these costs is unclear. These costs will be driven by factors such as the transition from current system, establishment and support of joint committees, development of new plans and strategies, changed workforce needs, and increased legal action.

80. In addition, there are likely to be impacts on some of the council’s existing functions (eg. the new system is proposing greater emphasis on spatial planning to determine trade-offs rather than resource consents) and on the ways the council approaches financial and infrastructure planning.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

81. The decision to submit on the discussion document and delegate approval of the council’s input on this discussion document carries no risk.

82. There are many possible financial, legal, strategic, and reputational risks to the council associated with resource management system reform. These will be identified and addressed as the reform programme progresses.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

83. The submission will be completed and lodged by 28 February. This will inform the development of the core legislation of the new system.

84. The SPA and NBA are likely to be introduced in the third quarter of 2022 and their progress through the house is likely to take around eight months. This will include the usual opportunity to submit to the select committee.

85. Public consultation on the direction of the CAA is expected to take place in early 2022 alongside consultation on the National Adaptation Plan under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.The CAA will be introduced at some point in the first half of 2023. This will also involve a select committee submission opportunity, however, this could take place sometime after the 2023 general election.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand's resource management system - our future resource management system	25

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

03 February 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Request to make operative Private Plan Change 58 - 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2021/19716

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Private Plan Change 58 - 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 58 is a privately initiated plan change by Greg and Nicky Hayhow to rezone 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura from Future Urban Zone to approximately 6ha of Residential Mixed Housing Urban and approximately 1.7Ha of Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone at the intersection of Great South and Gatland Roads.

3. The plan change also introduces the Gatland Road Precinct which provides for comprehensive and integrated development of the site through specifically enabling the proposed road layout and design and through the adoption of a Stormwater Management Plan to avoid adverse effects of stormwater on the sensitive receiving environment.

4. The plan change was publicly notified on 11 December 2020. Ten submissions were received. The summary of submission was publicly notified on 25 March 2021 and five further submissions were received. An additional late further submission was received on 18 May 2021.

5. The plan change was considered by an independent hearing panel at a one-day hearing on September 20, 2021. The panel approved the private plan change with modifications. The decision was publicly notified on 28 October 2021.

6. No appeals have been received, and therefore the plan change can now be made operative.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 58 - 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

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

7. Private Plan Change 58 is a private plan change request lodged by Greg and Nicky Hayhow to rezone 6.1ha of land at 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura from Future Urban zone to approximately 6ha of Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone and 1.7ha of Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

8. The council accepted Plan Change 58 for public notification on 2 July 2020 under delegated authority. Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 58 was publicly notified on 11 December 2020. Submissions closed on 2 March 2021 and 10 submissions were received.

9. Plan Change 58 was notified for further submissions from 25 March until 12 April. Five further submissions were received. Initially the Stormwater Management Plan was inadvertently omitted from the public notification process and was notified separately on 12 May 2021. An additional late further submission was received on 18 May 2021.

10. Expert conferencing was undertaken between relevant parties and many issues raised in submissions were resolved prior to the hearing. The Private Plan Change was considered by an independent hearing panel at a one-day hearing on 20 September 2021.

11. The decision on Plan Change 58 was to approve the plan change, subject to modifications many of which had been agreed at expert conferencing.

12. The decision was publicly notified on 28 October 2021 and the appeal period closed on 9 December 2021. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP(OP) can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 5 October 2021 (refer to Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

14. 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”. There were no appeals received and council can now approve the plan change.

15. 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

16. As a procedural request, impacts on climate change are not relevant to this recommendation.

17. However, it is worth noting that the plan change will assist in achieving a compact built environment as sought under the AUP(OP) Regional Policy Statement, by enabling residential development near to existing and planned public transport networks. This in turn reduces the demand for private vehicle trips and would result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which would assist in meeting Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Climate Action Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 58.

19. All council groups were notified of the plan change request and had the opportunity to make submissions. Auckland Transport made a submission on the plan change.

20. Auckland Transport’s primary concerns were the upgrade of the site’s frontage to Great South Road to an urban standard (including ensuring that this would not adversely affect the delivery of a future Frequent Transport Network along this corridor), transport connectivity through the plan change area and early release of the plan change land compared with council’s strategies. The majority of these concerns were resolved through expert conferencing between the applicant, the council, Auckland Transport and other landowners in the plan change area. The remaining concerns regarding the commitment of the future development to enable the widening of Great South Road to accommodate the Frequent Transit Network were resolved at the hearing.

21. With regard to the capacity of water and wastewater services in the area Veolia also submitted. Veolia’s primary concerns were ensuring that the water supply network has sufficient capacity to support the plan change, and that the applicant would at its cost, design and construct the necessary connections to the public water and wastewater networks. Veolia did not file evidence or attend the hearing. Veolia’s concerns were resolved through evidence submitted by the applicant.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. Local Board views were not sought for this report as making the plan change operative is a procedural matter

23. The Papakura Local Board was advised of the plan change request and invited to provide its views on the plan change on 23 June 2021 at a Local Board meeting. The Board’s resolution provided views on infrastructure and cumulative effects, open space, transport connectivity, parking and access, Mana Whenua input and stormwater. The Chairman of the Papakura Local Board spoke to these views at the hearing. These matters were included in the planner’s section 42A report and by the hearing Commissioners and for the most part were addressed in the decision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25. However, it is noted that Ngati Te Ata Waiouhu provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) for the requestor to include in their application (attached as Attachment B) and that all iwi authorities were sent letters when Plan Change 58 was publicly notified.

26. Ngati Te Ata Waiouhu submitted on the plan change seeking that the findings and the recommendations of the CVA be considered during the future development of the land. The applicant has acknowledged the recommendations of the CVA and committed to making provision for the integration of these in the design of the future development of the plan change land.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. There are no financial implications associated with making the plan change operative. Approving plan changes and amending the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

28. Having noted the procedural nature of the decisions recommended in this report, as stated above, the decision version of the private plan change requires local transport upgrades to be in place before development can proceed. Auckland Transport does not have the budget for these upgrades (and does not carry them out as a matter of course), so for development to proceed, they would need to be funded/provided by the applicant/landowner. The private plan change includes specific precinct provisions requiring the delivery of these upgrades by the applicant/landowner as part of future subdivision and development.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. 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).

31. Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Private Plan Change 58 operative, including the public notice and “fixing the council seal”. The update of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) is expected to occur mid-March 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 58: 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura - Decision	83
b ⇩	Ngati Te Ata Cultural Values Assessment Report – 470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road, Papakura. Prepared for Greg and Nicky Hayhow – November 2020	133

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Lee-Ann Lucas - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

03 February 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan – Consideration of private plan change request – O'Hara Farm, Waiuku

File No.: CP2022/00016

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP) from Gardon Trust, Matoaka Holdings, and Pokorua Limited in relation to approximately 32.5 hectares at 43, 45A, 92 and 130 Constable Road, Waiuku.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request received on 29 July 2021 from Gardon Trust, Matoaka Holdings, and Pokorua Limited in relation to approximately 32.5 hectares at 43, 45A, 92 and 130 Constable Road, Waiuku (known as O’Hara, Waiuku). The request seeks to rezone the land from Rural-Mixed Rural zone to Residential- Mixed Housing Urban zone and introduce a new precinct over the land. The request also seeks to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 control over the plan change area.

3. The plan change request would enable approximately 700 dwellings. This growth is not anticipated by the Auckland Plan and is not identified as Future Urban zone; therefore it is not identified in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

4. The plan change area is identified as containing 13.4 ha of elite and prime soils, being land use capability class 2 and 3, which are considered highly productive. Land is currently used for dry stock grazing and a land use productivity assessment in support of the plan change request determines that use of the land for higher value horticulture production is constrained. A detailed merits assessment is required to determine whether the land is significant for food production as required by the AUP.

5. Although the applicant has identified that there is adequate capacity within the existing water and wastewater networks at Waiuku for the proposed development, the advice from Watercare Services Limited is that this is not the case because the development is not anticipated within the growth projections for infrastructure planning. The applicant has proposed to fund infrastructure to mitigate the immediate effects of the proposed development and considers that the development will provide considerable additional funding through development contributions and Watercare’s IGC charges that will facilitate necessary public infrastructure upgrades. If the private plan change request is accepted for processing, these are critical matters that will need to be addressed before the plan change is finally determined.

6. 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 of the process.

7. 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 of the Resource Management Act 1991, 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.

8. 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 Gardon Trust, Matoaka Holdings, and Pokorua Limited in relation to approximately 32.5 hectares at 43, 45A, 92 and 130 Constable Road, Waiuku (known as O’Hara, Waiuku), included as Attachment A 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 and soils) 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 not identified as a location for future growth in the Auckland Plan and there is currently no provision for funding the full costs of water and wastewater 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:

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

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

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

4) due to the lack of funding available for the infrastructure required to support development in the Waiuku 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.

5) 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.

6) 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 Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Gardon Trust, Matoaka Holdings, and Pokorua Limited for O’Hara, Waiuku pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

9. The land subject to the plan change request (‘the site’) is located in Waiuku. Waiuku is a rural town located at the southern end of the Waiuku river, which is an estuarial arm of the Manukau Harbour and lies on the isthmus of the Āwhitu Peninsula. It is 40 kilometres southwest of Auckland city centre. The town has a residential population of 8,319^{^[1]}. Waiuku is an established town and currently accommodates a range of land uses including residential, business, industrial and provides a variety of social infrastructure such as primary and secondary schools, medical centres, shops and supermarkets.

10. The plan change area is approximately 32.5 hectares located on the western edge of Waiuku at 43, 45A, 92 and 130 Constable Road (refer to Figure 1 below) and is contained in four separate parcels of land owned by four different parties. The site is located approximately 800m from the town centre on the northern side of Constable Road adjoining the urban edge of the township. The Waiuku rugby grounds adjoin the plan change area to the north-east and Waiuku College immediately east. The surrounding land is Mixed Rural zone. Approximately 500m south along Constable Road is the southern boundary of the Auckland region.

11. The site comprises a range of rural and residential activities including dry stock grazing, residential, and ancillary agriculture buildings. Topography across the site is mainly flat to undulating pastoral farmland with rolling sides which dip towards Constable Road in the south and a tributary of the Rangiwhea Stream in the northwest. The site is situated within the Rangiwhea Creek catchment and includes some small areas of flood plain associated with existing streams and overland flow paths. The predominant vegetation cover is pasture, with small groups of exotic amenity plantings and trees around the edge of the existing dwellings and farm buildings at 92 and 130 Constable Road.

12. Two sites comprise the majority of the plan change land, at 92 and 130 Constable Road (28.95 ha). The sites are in a pastoral state being used for dry stock grazing, with one dwelling located on each of the sites alongside some agricultural buildings. The sites are largely devoid of any vegetation and the topography is relatively flat with some undulations and some steeper portions adjacent to the road frontage.

13. The rear portion of 45 Constable Road (Lot 101), zoned Mixed Rural, is included in the plan change land along with 45A Constable Road.This site is currently used for grazing and is set up as a dairy support block. The front portion of 45 Constable Road is zoned Mixed Housing Suburban (not part of the plan change land) and is currently being developed as part of a two-stage residential vacant lot subdivision including bulk earthworks (SUB60237908-A and LUC60271724-A).

14. A small slither of land along the south-western boundary of 43 Constable Road (Waiuku College School) zoned Mixed Rural is included in the plan change land as the site was incorrectly split-zoned. This strip of land is developed as part of the school but is not designated for education purposes. The PPC includes the northern end of this strip and proposes to rezone it from Mixed Rural zone to Mixed Housing Suburban zone for reasons of consistency with the zone for 43 Constable Road.

15. Within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (‘AUP’), the plan change land is zoned Rural – Mixed Rural zone and is subject to the following controls:

a) Natural Resources: Natural Resources: Quality-Sensitive Aquifer Management Areas Overlay [rp] - Awhitu Sand Aquifer

b) Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Rural

c) Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index - Urban

16. The plan change land is identified within the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (‘NZLRI’) as containing Land Use Capability (‘LUC’) as Class 2 soils. As discussed later in this report, based on site-specific investigations, the applicant considers that the actual classification of the land is a combination of predominantly Class 2 soils but also Class 3 ,4 and 6^{^[2]}, which are considered to have greater limitations for productive uses.

Figure 1: Site Context

Map

Description automatically generated

Plan Change Request

17. The private plan change (‘PPC’) request to the AUP was lodged by Gardon Trust, Matoaka Holdings, and Pokorua Limited on 29 July 2021 and seeks to rezone the land described (see Attachment A). The PPC request would rezone land from Rural-Mixed Rural to Residential-Mixed Housing Urban (see Figure 2) and introduce a new precinct over the land. The Stormwater Management Area Flow 1 control would also apply to the land.

Figure 2: Proposed rezoning

Map

Description automatically generated

18. A new precinct is proposed to enable and guide development to achieve the integrated development of 700 homes, while recognising the landscape and amenity values of the site. A precinct plan identifies key indicative road circulation and connections, indicative open space reserve, indicative greenway connection, vehicle access restriction boundary along Constable Road, rural buffer boundary, a frontage boundary to the existing recreation reserve, and a gateway area (see Figure 3).

19. Development is required to be in general accordance with the precinct plan. The precinct provisions include the following standards:

a) minimum net site area of 700m² for all proposed sites immediately adjoining a rural zone, as well as requiring a 3m wide planting strip along the rural boundary, and limiting buildings over 10m² within 6m of the rural boundary;

b) stormwater management to achieve quality treatment of all impervious surfaces;

c) a community garden of no less than 500m² required to be vested to the Council or an appropriate not-for-profit legal entity;

d) fencing on or within 1.5m of the boundary of the existing recreation reserve to be no more than 25% solid and no more than 800mm in height;

e) no direct vehicular access to the southern end of Constable Road.

Figure 3: Proposed precinct plan

Chart

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

20. The applicant has provided an assessment of effects on the environment and a section 32 evaluation report and the following supporting technical reports:

· Archaeological Assessment

· Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis

· Urban Design Report

· Land Use Capability and Soil Assessment

· Land Productivity Assessment,

· Integrated Transport Assessment

· Landscape Assessment

· Ecology Assessment

· Infrastructure Reports

· Stormwater Management Plan

· Geotechnical Report

· Preliminary Site Investigation

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Cultural Values Assessment Report

· Consultation Summary

Policy context

21. The Auckland Plan 2050 seeks that most of Auckland's anticipated population and dwelling growth over the next 30 years be within the existing urban area. This is reflected in the AUP, which seeks a quality compact urban form for growth where urban growth is primarily accommodated within the urban area 2016, providing sufficient development capacity that is integrated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure^{^[3]}.

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

23. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (‘FULSS’), sets out the sequencing of future urban land for development within Auckland. There is no future urban land identified in or around Waiuku either in the Auckland Plan or AUP. Sequencing in the FULSS supports planning and funding for the infrastructure required to support growth. As the private plan change land is not identified in the Auckland Plan, AUP or FULSS it represents additional growth that is not anticipated in terms of strategic planning or infrastructure funding.

24. Within the Franklin Local Board Area in South Auckland, future urban growth has been identified in the greenfield areas of Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata, and small areas around Glenbrook, Clarks Beach and Patumahoe. These areas are identified within the FULSS as being development ready at various stages between now and 2032, with the exact sequence of urbanisation depending on contextual considerations and constraints. Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata are subject to structure plans prepared by Council in 2019^{^[6]} to determine how future urban growth will be provided for at a strategic level.

25. Private plan change requests have been or are currently being considered by Council to enable the development of particular landholdings within the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan area.^{^[7]} A private plan change request is also currently being considered at Patumahoe South (PC55) to rezone approximately 19ha of rural land to urban.

26. Land within the private plan change area contains highly productive soils. Central Government has proposed a National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The discussion document informing the NPS-HPL⁷proposes national direction on urban expansions on to productive land and outlines specific considerations for private plan changes that relate to productive land. The NPS-HPL is expected to be gazetted and take effect in the first half of 2022.

27. In December 2021 Central Government enacted the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act. As a Tier 1 Council, the Act requires Council to implement Medium Density Housing Standards (‘MDRS’) to enable up to three dwellings of up to three storeys per site in current and future residential zones by August 2022. The Act provides for private plan change requests made before the Council notifies its own plan change to implement the MDRS provided it adopts all of the zone provisions of a relevant residential zone.^{^[8]} The MDRS can then be incorporated for the new residential zone through the Council’s plan change.^{^[9]}

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Land use capability and productivity

28. The plan change land is identified within the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (‘NZLRI’) as containing Land Use Capability (‘LUC’) as predominantly Class 2 soils being “Arable. Very good multiple-use land, slight limitations, suitable for cropping, viticulture, berry fruit, pastoralism, tree crops and forestry”[10]. The soil classifications identified within the NZLRI are high-level and indicative rather than being definitive. As such, further investigation at a site-specific level is expected by the Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3rd edition. In accordance with s7(g) of the RMA, particular regard must be had to the finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.

Land use capability

29. The plan change request is supported by a Land Use Capability Report[11], which assesses the capability of the land at a site-specific level and finds that the land contains Class 2 land (62.1 %), Class 3 land (28.9 %), steeper sections of slopes were class 4 and some were class 6 (3.2 %), and the remaining land is unsuitable for agricultural production (5.8%). The soils analysis determines that the site contains both ‘elite’ and ‘prime’ soils as per the AUP (see Attachment B). The Land Use Capability Report identifies ‘land containing elite soils’ comprises 19.0 % (5.5 ha) of the site, and ‘land containing prime soils’ comprises 27.3% (7.9 ha) of the site.

30. The soil assessment has not included the small zone tidy up within the Waiuku College site or 45A Constable Road, with the latter excluded because land use consent has been granted to extensively earthwork the site.[12] Therefore the soil characteristics of this site have physically altered from any existing condition, with the top soil removed with a cut across the entire site.

31. Given the land use capability assessment only assesses the two main sites (92 and 130 Constable Road) the proportion of highly productive soils across the entire plan change area actually reduces further. The total amount of highly productive soils identified is 13.4 ha, which comprises approximately 40% of the total plan change area.

Land use productivity

32. The plan change request is supported by a Land Use Productivity Assessment,[13] which assesses the potential land use options in terms of the primary production future uses of the land and canvassed a number of matters including economic returns, limitations to use, and matters of reverse sensitivity. The assessment identifies that the most common primary land use around the site is pastoral farming, comprising either dry stock or dairy stock grazing or beef growing/ finishing. Use of the land for higher value horticulture production, is considered to be constrained by a range of limiting factors including the relatively small area with suitable soils and contour, capital investment required, geographical isolation from other local intensive horticultural blocks and proximity to existing residential areas sensitive to the effects of productive uses (particularly spray drift).

Overall assessment

33. Dr Reece Hill from Landsystems Ltd and Stuart Ford from Agribusiness Group have assessed the land use capability and land use productivity information provided in support of the private plan change request on behalf of Council for sufficiency and accuracy of information. Both have confirmed that sufficient information has been provided to understand the impacts of the proposal. No concerns have been raised by the experts regarding the validity of the information.

34. The actual effect of constraints, and veracity of the information provided by the applicant, can be investigated during a finer merits assessment. For the purposes of a coarse merits assessment, it appears that approximately 46% of the land contains elite and prime soils that appear to be constrained for the purposes of horticulture production. Further assessment is required to determine whether the land is significant for food production as required by the AUP.

Water and wastewater

35. Infrastructure servicing is a key issue for the private plan change request. The applicant’s infrastructure assessment determines that there is sufficient capacity with the water and wastewater networks to accommodate the proposal. This is based on the anticipated growth figures used by Watercare Services Limited (‘Watercare’) for infrastructure planning. However, Watercare has advised the applicant that there is no capacity to service the private plan change request.[14]

36. An initial high-level assessment of the proposal by Watercare identified significant new water infrastructure/upgrades would be required including:

· Additional water abstraction consent

· Upgrading local network.

· Upgrading water treatment plant

37. The local wastewater network does not have sufficient capacity for the additional flows from the development and the wastewater discharge consent for the South West Wastewater Scheme (‘SWWS’) does not provide for the rural zoned area to be serviced. The following infrastructure / upgrades will be required:

· Revised / new discharge consent for the SWWS

· Upgrading local network

· Upgrade wastewater treatment plant (beyond current plan)

38. Upgrading of the existing wastewater plant will be required because the SWWS is yet to be constructed. Watercare advises that while the upgrading of the existing wastewater plant will need to happen over time to service the existing area, this is only planned for the current live zoned area. Any upgrades required to service a private plan change will need to be entirely funded by the applicant.

39. The applicant considers that they will pay a significant contribution towards the costs of planned and future infrastructure through the Infrastructure Growth Charge (‘IGC’) of approximately $13,864,000 (plus GST) and Auckland Council Development Contributions of $16,400,300 plus GST (based on 2020-2021 IGC and DC policy and a density of 700 dwellings). Only the IGC is relevant to water and wastewater funding, and Development Contributions are not available to Watercare. The applicant is also exploring a number of other infrastructure funding options including:

· Applying under the Infrastructure and Financing Act to create a Special Purpose Vehicle which would reduce DCs with a targeted rate over 30 years.

· Applying to the government’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund.

40. Design and planning work is currently underway for the SWWS, but Watercare advises that it has not been sized to cater for the plan change. To include the additional flows will require the applicant to fund 100% of the cost of increasing the size of the wastewater conveyance and the new WWTP at Clarks Beach. This will not be funded from IGC. The applicant will need to ensure that there is capacity available for the entire plan change at the time of the plan change and will need to provide the funding and/or a funding agreement at the time of the plan change.

41. Although the issue of funding infrastructure upgrades for water and wastewater is yet to be resolved, it can be determined that there are options that can be further investigated. This will require a more detailed evaluation of the costs of required upgrades and determination of where costs will fall.

Transport

42. The private plan change request is supported by a Transport Assessment[15] that finds transport effects would be limited to local impacts and would not result in any adverse regional transportation effects. This is because Waiuku largely functions as a self-contained town and due to distance does not form part of the commuter belt for Auckland. Trips to work data identifies that most trips are either within the local area (56%) or the wider Franklin/Papakura area (21%).

43. Martin Peake from Progressive Transport Solutions has reviewed the private plan change request on behalf of Council for sufficiency and accuracy of information. Mr Peak is generally satisfied with the information that has been provided and has not raised any strategic or significant issues at this stage of coarse assessment.

Options available to the council

44. 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

45. 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 PPC request 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.

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

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

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

49. Additional growth at Waiuku is not identified in the Auckland Plan – Development Strategy. Although the Auckland Plan provides for some growth in rural towns, the proposed development has not previously been identified and is therefore not anticipated within strategic infrastructure planning and funding.

50. 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 unanticipated growth and the full infrastructure necessary to support the development is not funded.

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

51. 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.

52. 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?

53. 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.

54. The objective of the plan change is to enable and facilitate the use of the land for residential purposes to support the growth of Waiuku. While the proposed growth is unanticipated, the request includes a section 32 evaluation report and accompanying specialist assessments on relevant matters which support the plan change request. Extensive analysis has been carried out to assess the adverse local effects of the plan change, and the proposal attempts to address these.

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

56. 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?

57. 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 the subject site was zoned Mixed Rural. The substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council in the last two years.

58. 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?

59. 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.

60. 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 not in accordance with sound resource management practice?

61. 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?

62. The subject area of the private plan change request adjoins the existing township of Waiuku and is within approximately 800m of the town centre supporting opportunities for walking and cycling. Although the land contains highly productive soils the applicant’s assessment determines that it is not significant for its ability to produce food. Further detailed assessment is required to test the information and determine the actual effects of the proposal. An assessment of environmental effects provided by the applicant indicates that any actual and potential effects can be adequately mitigated. Therefore at this coarse level of assessment there is insufficient evidence to determine that the plan change undermines sustainable management of natural and physical resource in relation to soils.

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

63. If approved, the plan change request would provide for additional housing to support population growth in Waiuku. Employment opportunities exist within the township and the wider catchment, including recently zoned Fernleigh industrial area, reducing the need to commute for jobs. Waiuku also provides services and amenities and social infrastructure such as schools that support the proposed growth and provide for social, economic and cultural wellbeing. As previously discussed, the applicant considers there to be adequate capacity within the existing water and wastewater network to service the proposed development. However, Watercare has advised that infrastructure planning does not anticipate this additional growth and therefore there is no capacity for water and wastewater. Further detailed assessment is required to understand the significance of this issue. Therefore at this coarse level of assessment there is insufficient evidence to determine that the plan change would not enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

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

64. The applicant has provided a section 32 evaluation that assesses the options for achieving the objective of the plan change, determining that the Mixed Housing Urban zone is the most appropriate zone. In addition, precinct provisions enable integrated development of a new residential community, while recognising the landscape and amenity values of the site to achieve sustainable management. However, the section 32 analysis does not consider the infrastructure costs associated with increased demand for public water and wastewater infrastructure. As previously discussed, the applicant considers that the Watercare’s IGC required to be paid for the proposed development of the site will contribute towards funding and other options are also being investigated. Further assessment is required to determine the full costs of infrastructure upgrades and sufficient justification has been provided at a coarse level.

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

65. The applicant has consulted with iwi and continues to engage with Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho. A presentation was given to the Franklin Local Board outlining the proposal as well as the Plans and Places team. Consultation with Watercare is ongoing to resolve infrastructure issues.

66. 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).”

67. 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.

68. 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.”

69. There are no issues that relate to matters of national importance and regard has been had to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through engagement with iwi. Key unresolved issues relate to the loss of highly productive soils and infrastructure funding for water and wastewater which are best considered as a merits based assessment through the plan change process.

70. 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?

71. 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.

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

Elite and prime soils

73. Both RPS Objective B2.6.1(1)(b) and Policy B2.6.2(1)(d) require that growth of rural and coastal towns and villages “avoids elite soils and avoids where practicable prime soils which are significant for their ability to sustain food production”. A key consideration in assessing the proposal against this policy, is whether the test of being significant to sustain food production applies to prime soils only (setting an absolute ‘avoid’ for expansions on to elite soils), or both elite and prime soils.

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

75. As discussed previously, approximately 40% (13.4 ha) of the plan change area comprises land containing elite and prime soils as per the AUP definitions. However, the test is whether the soils are significant for their ability to sustain food production. To this end, the applicant has provided technical reports indicating that the soils in question may not be significant for their ability to sustain food production, due to contextual factors and site constraints. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that the soils are significant for their ability to sustain food production.

Other considerations

76. With respect to the remaining matters relevant to rural and coastal towns and villages under Policy B2.6.2(1), (2):

a) Precinct provisions support retention of a rural gateway to Waiuku along Constable Road and proposed zoning provides for low-medium density residential development of a similar character to the established Waiuku township.

b) The proposal provides for infrastructure in terms of the indicative roading network and stormwater devices identified on the plan change land, and options are being considered for funding required upgrades to the water and wastewater networks.

c) There are no significant natural hazard risks identified and any potential flooding and geotechnical issues can be resolved through resource consent processes.

d) Although elite and prime soils are present, a merits assessment is required to determine whether they are significant for their ability to sustain food production.

e) The proposal seeks to maintain separation between incompatible land uses, by providing for buffer areas between proposed residential areas and rural land.

f) Proposed precinct provisions ensure that landscape and amenity values are recognized and provide opportunities for enhancement compatible with natural and physical characteristics.

g) The plan change land is located within 800m of the town centre and seeks to provide for walking and cycling access to the town; and

h) The proposed expansion is not on land scheduled in the AUP in relation to natural heritage, Mana Whenua, coastal environment, historic heritage or special character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

80. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: options assessment

90. The private plan change request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law[16] that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

91. 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 to:

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.

92. The proposed development would provide an additional 700 dwellings to support population growth at Waiuku. The township is relatively self-contained and provides various services, amenities, employment and schools to reduce the need to travel. Travel to work data identifies that approximately 77% of trips to work are within the local and Franklin/Papakura area.

93. It is noted once again 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 merits of the plan change request itself.

94. If accepted for processing, climate impacts will be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions can be considered in detail (whether it encourages car dependency, enhance connections to public transit, walking and cycling or support quality compact urban form). The matter of whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding and stress on infrastructure) can also be considered in detail. On a coarse assessment the private plan change would not enable development that elevates climate risks.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

95. As discussed above, the applicant is in discussions with Watercare regarding the adequacy of water and wastewater infrastructure. The applicant’s assessment is contrary to the advice of Watercare and further work is required to determine whether there is capacity to service the plan change or how upgrades will be funded. Watercare is considering making a submission on the plan change if notified.

96. It is noted that the applicant did not consult with Auckland Transport because transport effects are limited to the local network. Internal consultation with Auckland Transport has occurred in the preparation of this report. Feedback from Auckland Transport on the plan change request is that they have significant concerns about potential impacts that the Mixed Housing Urban Zone may have on the transport environment given Waiuku is a rural town with limited public transport and access to employment. Auckland Transport considers further assessment needs to consider Clarks Beach, Kingseat and other growth capacity that also utilises the road network that supports Waiuku, as well as carbon emission impacts. Auckland Transport will consider making a submission on the plan change if notified.

97. 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

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

99. 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.

100. It is noted that the applicant has presented to the Franklin Local Board providing information on the project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

101. 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.

102. The applicant advises that 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 the council:

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Waikato Tainui

103. The applicant will continue to engage with representatives from Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho on an ongoing basis throughout the development of the plan change. Ngāti Te Ata provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) in relation to the plan change area and the applicant advises that a number of recommendations have been included in the proposal.

104. The CVA identifies that Ngāti Te Ata have a long history and a traditional relationship to Waiuku and sets out their aspirations for the future. The location of the private plan change is known as Te Pahi and formed part of the networked waka route Te Pae o Kaiwaka.^{^[17]} It is identified that parts of the site may have been gardened by Māori and some evidence may remain therefore cultural monitoring needs to be provided for to enable visual inspection.

105. Ngāti Te Ata have agreed to collaboratively work with the applicant through all the recommendations and issues raised in the CVA. Ngāti Te Ata advocate precinct provisions that place additional controls to provide for an integrated stormwater solution, protect ecological values, provision of open space and future road connections and to guide development.

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

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

108. If the council accepts the request and subsequently notifies it, iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions. Regardless of whether or not submissions are received, council staff will also engage directly with all relevant iwi authorities prior to completing the section 42A hearing report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

109. The applicant has not committed to funding all infrastructure upgrades required to mitigate the immediate effects (particularly water and wastewater) and considers that the proposed development would contribute significant funding through development contributions and IGCs (total $30,246,300 plus GST). However, the scale of funding required for the upgrades identified by Watercare to water supply and wastewater networks is not yet quantified. Watercare has advised that the IGC cannot be used for upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant, but there are a range of options that are being investigated by the applicant to address funding. Further discussions with Watercare are also required to fully understand the funding implications.

110. Local upgrades would need to be funded by the applicant, and at this stage Watercare advises that upgrades to bulk infrastructure would also be required to be 100% funded by the applicant. However, the applicant considers there to be sufficient capacity identified within the networks therefore the issue is in contention at this stage. Should the development go ahead without these matters being resolved, this could put pressure on funding for existing planned development areas. It is noted that 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.

111. 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

112. The key risk associated with accepting the private plan change relates to the lack of certainty around the funding for the necessary 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.

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

114. It is noted that the Planning Committee has previously resolved to make a council submission on matters relating to the protection of elite and prime soils where soils of this type are present within the area of land subject to a private plan change request..

115. 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.

116. 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.

117. 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.^{^[18]}

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

118. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance. A separate evaluation and decision will be required regarding extent of notification. This decision will be made by the Manager Central and South Planning under delegated authority.

119. The views and preferences of the Franklin Local Board will be sought after submissions close for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report. Staff will also engage with the relevant iwi authorities.

120. Independent hearing commissioners will be appointed and the Council will need to hold a hearing to consider submissions and local board views. A decision would then be made by the independent hearing commissioners on the private plan change request.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Precinct provisions	249
b ⇩	Attachment B - AUP definitions for elite and prime soils	259

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cloe Trenouth – Consultant Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee Forward Work Programme	265
b	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – December 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Memo: Response to a notice of motion by the Waiheke Local Board regarding helicopter activity (Under Separate Cover)
d	Memo: Resource Management system reform: input into Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion (Under Separate Cover)
e	Memo: Unit Titles Amendment Bill Select Committee report (Under Separate Cover)
f	Memo: Territorial Authority letters regarding applications to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (Under Separate Cover)
g	Memo: Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Bill (Under Separate Cover)
h	Memo: Tree Council – Judicial Review proceedings (Under Separate Cover)
i	Memo: Proposed Drury West Train Station - Judicial Review proceedings (Under Separate Cover)
j	Memo: Update on the Wai Horotiu Queen Street Project (Under Separate Cover)

Planning Committee

03 February 2022

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2022

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 2022
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	3 Feb	3 Mar	31 Mar	5 May	2 Jun	30 Jun	4 Aug	1 Sep
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 Plans and Places	Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations	Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47 Memo update October 2021.
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 required: only on possible changes to measures (if none required, could be a memo) Progress to date: The next annual monitoring report is due in July 2022.
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 Progress to date: authority delegated to approve council submission on bill exposure draft PLA/2021/75 July 2021 Memo on select committee report November 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 Memo update August 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 and workshops held Feb – Jul 2021. Housing Development Capacity Assessment findings received PLA/2021/77 Approved development of a plan change to Regional Policy Statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan PLA/2021/78 Endorsed approaches to the intensification provisions relating to walkable catchments, special character areas and qualifying matters PLA/2021/80 and all other locations PLA/2021/97 Endorsed the development of a plan change to address matters arising from the removal of carparking minimums PLA/2021/104 The above decisions will inform the forward work programme for the remainder of 2021 and into 2022. The 2022 work programme includes workshops in February and March with a report due in March 2022.
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 and consideration regarding implementation Progress to date: Authority delegated to approve council submission on the discussion document PLA/2021/70 Consideration of the implementation of the Government Policy Statement following publication - anticipated in October 2021.
Affordable Housing Chief Planning Office	To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases: Progress report and approach to advice	Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights Progress to date: Forward work programme approved and political working party formed PLA/2020/65 Update memo November 2021
	Advocacy Plan	Decision required: receive update on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan and initial engagement Progress to date: Update memo November 2021
	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 Update memo November 2021
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management	Decision required: nature of any decisions 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)	As capacity allows staff from council and ATAP partner agencies will commence work on recommended indicative packages for decades two and three.	Decision required: consider indicative funding packages for decades two and three, potentially in the fourth quarter of 2021 or, more likely, 2022
Congestion Question	The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is conducting an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.	Decision required: The Select Committee Inquiry will inform next steps on congestion pricing in Auckland. The timeframe for final recommendations from the Inquiry is yet to be confirmed. Progress to date: Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission May 2021 PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37 Memo update on select committee’s recommendations September 2021
Auckland Light Rail	Cabinet will be making decisions on Auckland Light Rail late 2021. Auckland Council is represented on the Sponsor’s Group and on the Establishment Unit Board.	Decision required: to be confirmed Progress to date: Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53 Workshops with Establishment Unit held in June and August 2021 Confidential report considered September 2021 PLA/2021/109
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Status update to be confirmed	Decision required: to be confirmed Progress to date: Workshop held December 2021. Report due March 2022.
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 Progress to date: Update memo related to Ministry of Transport’s discussion paper circulated 22 July 2021.
Auckland Transport – update to be provided by 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: strategic direction and delegation to approve discussion document Progress to date: Confidential workshops held June and October 2021. Endorsement of strategic direction underpinning development of the 2022 Parking Strategy and authority delegated to endorse the Parking Discussion Document November 2021 PLA/2021/125 Workshops planned for March and July 2022 with decision making reports presented on 31 March and 4 August
Infrastructure
National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy APSR	This will replace the current national 30-year plan. It will consider how infrastructure might support environmental, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing	Decision required: to be confirmed Progress to date: Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Strategy 3 June 2021 PLA/2021/54 The draft strategy will be presented to the Minister for Infrastructure in September 2021. The final strategy will be tabled in Parliament by early 2022.
Auckland Unitary Plan oversight
Making Plan Changes Operative Plans and Places	Statutory Resource Management Act requirement to make council and private plan changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.	Decision required: Make plan changes operative.	As and when required
Private Plan Changes Plans and Places	Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.	Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.	As and when required
Plan Change – Residential Plans and Places	Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.	Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change. Progress to date: Endorsed the preparation of a plan change for Integrated Residential Development provisions PLA/2020/115 Update memo received in July. Workshop held October 2021. Further workshop planned for February 2022.
Māori Heritage Sites of Significance Plans and Places	Second tranche of plan changes to identify Maori Heritage sites and places of significance	Decision required: To approve the plan change Progress to date: Frist tranche approved and made operative PLA/2021/6 Second tranche considered September 2021 PLA/2021/108
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space Plans and Places	Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners	Decision required: Consider recommended approach.
Auckland Housing Programme – area plans and potential plan changes Plans and Places	Kainga Ora has prepared a spatial development strategy for the Mt Roskill and Mangere areas. These may need area plans for consultation with the community and local boards. Some plan changes may come out of this work for parts of these areas.	Decision required: Endorsement of draft area plans for public consultation.
Panuku Priority Location Programme
Wynyard Point Masterplan & Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Refreshed Wynyard Point masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan for public consultation. Workshop planned February 2022 Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Plan Change for public notification. Report planned June/July 2022
Thriving Town Centres - Town Centre Guidelines for Eke Panuku locations Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Guidance document to support future urban regeneration delivery and engagement with stakeholders and partners. As an operational document the guidelines will be approved by the Eke Panuku Board.	Direction required: Confirmation of alignment with Council strategies and direction, and support for the guidelines. October 2021 workshop held. March report planned.
Onehunga Wharf Masterplan & Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Direction required: Support for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation and feedback. February/March 2022 workshop Endorsement for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation February/March 2022 Decision required: Endorsement for the Onehunga Plan Change for public notification June/ July 2022
Briefings to be confirmed
Ministry of Education – development programme for Auckland Chief Planning Office	A briefing is being explored. The committee is interested in hearing from the Ministry of Education on its plans for schools long term, and the current issues and challenges it faces. Including how legislative change affects schools particularly and the impacts of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.	No decision or direction required from the committee.

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work		Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
CPO	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill		Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
CPO	Submission on the Urban Development Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
CPO	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring		Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption		Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
DPO	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government		Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
CPO	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
CPO	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan		Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan		Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Plans and Places	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission		Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
CPO	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change		Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas		Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai		Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plans Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.		Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68
Plans and Places	Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule		Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities	Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee. PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Additional Harbour Crossing		Consideration of finalised business case. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee PLA/2020/100
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.	Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee PLA/2020/116
Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council	Downtown Carpark development outcomes		Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.	Development outcomes confirmed in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120 and strategic transport outcomes agreed in June 2021 PLA/2021/52
Auckland Transport	Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review		Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.	Members delegated to the political reference group PLA/2021/7
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Project		Agree funding package.	Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation		Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures	New measures confirmed PLA/2021/26
Auckland Transport	Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031		Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board	Endorsed Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2931 for the Auckland Transport board to adopt.
APSR	Infrastructure Strategy		Provide strategic insights and direction 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee)	Strategy adopted by Finance and Performance Committee in June 2021 (as part of Long-term Plan)
APSR	Auckland Plan 2050 implementation and monitoring		To note progress against the measures in the Auckland Plan 2050	2021 monitoring report received PLA/2021/69
Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles Act		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)		To approve the recommended Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package.	Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package approved PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Regional Fuel Tax		To consider components and changes to current status	Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal adopted by the Governing Body in May 2021 GB/2021/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		To approve council’s submission to the select committee on the Inquiry into congestion pricing	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/54
Plans and Places	Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) – Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua		To approve the plan change and make it operative	Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 (Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) made operative PLA/2021/6
Development Programme Office	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund		To approve council’s submission to the Crown’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	Endorsed preliminary list of programmes for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and authority delegated for approval of final list for submission PLA/2021/92
Chief Planning Office		Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill	To approve council’s submission on the Bill	Group delegated to approve council’s submission on the bill November 2021 PLA/2021/123
Eke Panuku		Wynyard Quarter Tram	To endorse the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operated of the tram in 2022.	Endorsed the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operation of the Wynyard Quarter Tram by late 2022 PLA/2021/126

[2] Plan Change Request, Appendix L: Land Use Capability and Soil Assessment- Constable Road, Waiuku, prepared by Dr Peter Singleton, September 2020.

[3] Objectives B2.2.1(1)-(5), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form of the Regional Policy Statement.

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

[5] Development Strategy: Rural Areas https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/auckland-plan/development-strategy/Pages/rural-auckland.aspx.

[6] Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan2019.

[7] Plan changes 48 (Drury Centre Precinct), 49 (Drury East Precinct), 50 (Waihoehoe Precinct), 52 (520 Great South Road), 51 (Drury 2 Precinct), and 61 (Waipupuke), and 58 (470 and 476 Great South Road and 2 and 8 Gatland Road).

[8] Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, Schedule 3, Clause 35(1).

[9] Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, Schedule 3, Clause 35(2).

[10] p.53 Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3rd Edition

[11] Land Use Capability and Soil Assessment-Constable Rd, Waiuku, prepared by Dr Peter Singleton, September 2020.

[13] Primary Production Land Use Assessment- Constable Road Waiuku, prepared by Paul Sharp, 30 May 2020

[14] WSL letter dated 02 March 2021 provided in response to further information request.

[15] Ohara Plan Change, Constable Road Waiuku, Integrated Transport Assessment, prepared by Parlane and Associates, dated 10 January 2022.

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

[17] Ngāti Te Ata (Waiohua) Cultural Values Assessment Report – Te Pahi, dated October 2021.

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

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

Date	Subject
15/12/2021	5. Confidential: Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Cycling Business Case (no attachment)
15/12/2021	Confidential: Eastern Busway property opportunity (no attachment)

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
December 2021	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – December 2021
3/12/2021	7. Memo: Response to a notice of motion by the Waiheke Local Board regarding helicopter activity
6/12/2021	Memo: Resource Management system reform: input into Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion
13/12/2021	Memo: Unit Titles Amendment Bill Select Committee report
15/12/2021	Memo: Territorial Authority letters regarding applications to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund
15/12/2021	Memo: Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Bill
16/12/2021	Memo: Tree Council – Judicial Review proceedings
21/12/2021	Memo: Proposed Drury West Train Station - Judicial Review proceedings
21/12/2021	Memo: Update on the Wai Horotiu Queen Street Project

Author	Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy