Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 31 March 2022

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

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Planning Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 3 March 2022 as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

4.1 Scotty Witherow - Petition relating to private helipads on Aotea/Great Barrier Island

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present a petition to the Planning Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Scotty Witherow, a resident of Great Barrier Island, has organised a petition to the Planning Committee. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, call for an immediate moratorium on all new helipad consents for Aotea/Great Barrier, while the impact of existing helicopter traffic is investigated and understood, and the local community, alongside mana whenua, seeks permanent limits on the number of helipads across the island.”

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the petition and forward it to the Chief of Strategy for consideration.

Attachments

a Petition relating to private helipads on Aotea/Great Barrier Island................. 639

5 Public Input

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

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had yet been approved.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input: Orakei Local Board - National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Scott Milne, Chairperson and Member Troy Churton of the Orakei Local Board will speak to the committee about the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Specifically, the input will cover principles of the national policy statement, residential and city centre provisions, the intensification plan change and public engagement.

2. This input relates to report(s) on the committee agenda.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Orakei Local Board input regarding National Policy Statement on Urban Development and thank local board Chair Scott Milne and Member Troy Churton for attending the meeting.

6.2 Local Board Input: Waitemata Local Board - National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Alexandra Bonham, Deputy Chairperson of the Waitematā Local Board will speak to the committee about the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD). Specifically, the input will cover the opportunity of the NPS UD to improve wellbeing by addressing noise issues.

2. This input relates to report(s) on the committee agenda.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Waitematā Local Board input regarding National Policy Statement on Urban Development and thank local board Deputy Chair Alexandra Bonham for attending the meeting.

6.3 Local Board Input: Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - helipads

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Izzy Fordham, Chairperson of the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board will speak to the committee about helipads. Specifically, the local board are seeking a review of the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan regarding helipads and for all helipad consent applications to be fully notified while a review is underway.

2. Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board resolutions from 22 March 2022 are provided as Attachment A.

3. This input relates to a report on the committee agenda: Resolutions from the Waiheke Local Board, Waitemata Local Board and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board regarding concerns about Helicopter Activity.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board input regarding helipads and thank local board Chair Izzy Fordham for attending the meeting.

Attachments

a Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board resolutions on helipads from 22 March 2022................................................... 669

6.4 Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - helipads and helicopter matters

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Cath Handley, Chairperson of the Waiheke Local Board will speak to the committee about helipads and helicopter matters. Specifically, the board seeks support from the committee for:

· ongoing monitoring at existing helipads on Waiheke Island consented after 2015, and education for owners of helipads consented prior to 2015

· resourcing the relevant council departments to respond to the Hauraki Gulf Island District Plan and helicopter consenting issues to mitigate and reduce the cumulative effects on amenity and the environment of more helipads and helicopter movements on Waiheke Island

· seeking an urgent ruling in the Environment Court for helipads to be considered as having non-complying status under the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan.

2. Waiheke Local Board resolutions from 15 December 2021 are provided as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the Waiheke Local Board input regarding helipads and helicopter matters, and thank local board Chair Cath Handley for attending the meeting.

Attachments

a Extract from minutes of a meeting of the Waiheke Local Board held 15 December 2021................................................... 671

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Review of the Auckland Parking Strategy - endorsement for public consultation

File No.: CP2021/07067

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek Planning Committee endorsement of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 for public consultation before being submitted to the Auckland Transport Board for approval.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Parking Strategy is currently being reviewed. The strategy provides the guiding principles and policies for planning, supply, management and removal of on-street and Auckland Transport (AT)-controlled off-street parking. The pressing need for the review comes from the need to align with Central Government policy and Auckland Council strategy, to manage increasing demands on the limited public resource of parking, to align parking management to emission reduction targets and to reset customer expectations around parking provision.

3. Following strategic direction given by the Planning Committee and AT Board in November 2021, AT and Auckland Council released a Parking Discussion Document to ‘start the conversation’ with the public around parking management. The Parking Discussion Document was available on the AT website for wider public access and targeted to key stakeholders, involved in Auckland’s development.

4. Feedback on the Parking Discussion Document has led to minor proposed amendments to the previously agreed direction around consultation on parking removal on the strategic transport network.

5. The Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 has been developed using the 2015 Parking Strategy as a basis, guided by the Planning Committee’s strategic direction and with feedback from Iwi (via a series of hui) and key stakeholders, including local boards (via two rounds of workshops, most recently in March 2022).

6. The Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 outlines the wider context for parking management, the strategic direction and objectives and includes objective-based policies.

7. The Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 has been endorsed by the AT Board and since workshopped with the Planning Committee. We are now seeking Planning Committee endorsement to publicly consult on this draft in April.

8. Following public consultation, this feedback will be reported to local boards to enable them to provide formal feedback for final amendments before seeking Planning Committee endorsement and final approval of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy in August 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note feedback received on the Parking Discussion Document which has helped shape the development of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022.

b) endorse the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 for public consultation in April 2022 as shown in Attachment A.

c) note that following the committee’s endorsement the Auckland Transport Board will consider approving the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 for public consultation.

Horopaki

Context

Why we need to refresh the Parking Strategy

9. Our region needs to change. We are faced with a number of key challenges that require immediate action. We have a climate emergency and need to transform the transport system as it is a key contributor of our carbon emissions. We have continuing high growth and key changes to government policy to respond to, to enable a future land use system that accommodates growth in the right place at the right time. We need to eliminate harm to users of the transport system and not accept deaths and serious injuries as part of the transport system. We need to connect people, making journeys easy across a range of different modes, and importantly deliver travel choice so that people are not reliant on a single option for their travel.

10. Parking intersects with all of these challenges and opportunities. It can facilitate easy journeys and contribute to the delivery of travel choices. By changing our policies we can support a shift to sustainable transport modes and an overall safer transport system, and we can ensure that growth impacts are minimised on Aucklanders. The 2015 Strategy has served Auckland well, but an evolved Strategy is needed for the challenges of 2022 and beyond.

Overview of work to date

11. Development of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 (the Strategy) has involved phases of work:

Discovery of issues and opportunities (early 2021)

12. The project team worked to get an understanding of the current environment and key policy directions that influence parking management. The most significant of these are the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which removes planning requirements for private parking, and Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and the developing Transport Emissions Reduction Plan. This phase also involved identifying issues with the current Strategy, through speaking to the AT Parking and Compliance teams and reviewing customer data.

Discussions with local boards (June – September 2021)

13. Discussions with local boards (16 sought workshops in the initial round) provided insight into more specific community and local issues. The key feedback from these discussions was that a blanket approach to parking management would not suit the whole region, that parking management should be in relation to the availability of alternative access options and that local boards remained interested in how parking management would apply in their local areas. This provided the challenge of developing a regional framework for parking management that accounts for more localised differences.

Strategic direction-setting (November 2021)

14. In November 2021, the Planning Committee endorsed the strategic direction for parking management, including principles on the role of roads and streets as valuable public space, the role of parking within the context of roads and streets and principles for engaging with the community on parking changes. Additionally, the Planning Committee endorsed a concept for regional parking management based on an area’s ‘readiness for change’. Areas with greater urban density, better active travel and public transport access options were considered to be more ready for greater parking management intervention.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Progress since the November 2021 Planning Committee Meeting

Parking Discussion Document (December 2021 – January 2022)

15. In December 2021, Auckland Transport and Council released a Parking Discussion Document to start the conversation with the public on future parking management in Auckland. The Parking Discussion Document was available on the Auckland Transport website for wider public access and targeted to key stakeholders involved in Auckland’s development. During this period, AT received 32 pieces of written feedback, including detailed submissions from eight stakeholders. The key insights from this feedback included:

· majority support for the strategic direction

· desire to see the bigger picture - how parking fits and will achieve transport objectives, especially with regards to climate change action

· desire to paint a balanced picture of parking, reflecting it has both advantages and disadvantages

· call for the Auckland Parking Strategy to acknowledge the costs of parking

· desire to include safety and mode shift (away from private vehicles) as the highest priority use for kerbside space

· the need for a very well developed and sophisticated ongoing community engagement and communication campaign, to address the need to ‘reposition’ parking

· desire to see changes aligned with land use and the ability of other modes to replace trips.

Advice on public engagement (including regarding the Strategic Transport Network)

16. The Discussion Document proposed changes to how AT engages with the public on parking changes. The proposal was to:

· remove consultation on repurposing parking lanes on the Strategic Transport Network,

· engage the community on the development of Comprehensive Parking Management Plans

· inform the community of changes to parking that are consistent with CPMPs

· inform the community of small scale changes to parking (such as safety related changes).

17. There was, however, some debate around the first component of this proposal so external advice was sought on the requirements of Auckland Council’s Consultation and Significance Policy. The advice was that parking removal constituted a significant change which required public consultation due to public expectation. Considering this, consultation of parking lane repurposing will still occur as part of projects on the Strategic Transport Network, but with the starting assumption that parking will be removed unless there is evidence of significant adverse consequences, such as hardship, which outweighs the benefits of parking removal. All other components of the proposed engagement approach remain as initially planned.

18. The revised approach to parking repurposing on the Strategic Transport Network recognises that parking removal may inconvenience some vehicle users, but generally such individual interests are likely to be outweighed by the benefits of improved network performance for the Auckland community as a whole.

19. This change necessitated slight wording amendments to two of the Parking Principles, to reflect the above new position.

Customer sentiment survey

20. In November 2021, AT undertook research to understand themes around parking. This gives a ‘baseline’ of perceptions around parking provision and management. The survey shows:

· Aucklanders believe driving is currently the most convenient (77%) and cost-efficient (61%) way to travel around the city

· the vast majority (86%) of Aucklanders believe that the availability of affordable parking is important for any world class city, and a similar number (83%) believe there is currently a lack of affordable parking in Auckland

· around two thirds of Aucklanders believe that paid and time limited parking are good ways to manage demand and ensure the availability of parking for Aucklanders in high density areas.

21. This research shows there is a need to reset community expectations and reposition public parking provision and management.

Developing a Parking Strategy Implementation Plan

22. An implementation plan is currently under development, which is designed to articulate the tasks, time, cost and resources required to implement the Parking Strategy over the next decade. An observation that AT has received during engagement on the new draft Parking Strategy is that the previous Strategy was not fully implemented. The implementation plan is designed to mitigate this, with full details on what delivery will require and cost over the next decade.

Drafting the Auckland Parking Strategy 2022

23. Because of the feedback on the Parking Discussion Document, several areas of the draft Parking Strategy and policies have been developed, including:

· developing the narrative, to better link it to the broader transport story, strategic objectives and policy rationale, as well as regulatory areas in need of reform

· we have been careful to articulate the benefits and implications of parking to the community and have maintained the parking principles, aside from the changes discussed above

· as noted above, we have modified how we propose to consult on development of the Strategic Transport Network

· there are a number of areas of policy that address the comments/issues raised through feedback, for example, acknowledging the costs of parking provision, outlining indicators of success and emphasis on parking diversity to enable mode shift

· we have focussed on the benefits of parking management to enable and support access, resulting in a more equitable transport system

· we are emphasising that roll-out of further parking management will happen over time, starting where there is most readiness for change, and that this is a ten-year plan. Consultation on the Strategy will acknowledge the existing context and public fatigue.

The strategic direction provided by the Planning Committee has guided development of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022

24. The draft Parking Strategy sets out the strategic context and need to manage the transport system, as well as the strategic objectives and agreed principles for parking management. The Strategy includes proposed parking policies, based on the principles and concept endorsed by the Planning Committee, as well as feedback received over the past few months.

25. The parking policies provide more technical detail on how parking is (proposed to be) managed, to align to the principles set out in the strategic direction. The policies are grouped by:

· provision and approach

· on-street and off-street

· specific vehicle classes

· specific situations.

26. The Strategy also includes a section on advocacy to Government for legislation/regulatory reform as there are some areas of parking management that are outside of local government control. We are including these to advocate for reform. They also provide context on the limitations of regulation in areas we would like to effect change and achieve better outcomes. These areas include:

· parking infringement fines

· banning berm parking

· residential parking permit cost-setting

· influencing private parking through parking levies.

27. The full text and policies are included in Attachment A, the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022.

Consulting on and finalising the Parking Strategy

28. Pending endorsement of the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy, public consultation is proposed throughout April 2022. An extensive public consultation campaign is proposed. The key components of this include:

· advertisements in print and online

· media releases

· drop-in sessions – online and in person and libraries

· stakeholder communications

· website, online survey/feedback portal.

29. A summary version of the draft Auckland Parking Strategy will be provided to help make it easier to understand, as well as accessible versions and translations of the summary documents into Te Reo, Tongan, Samoan, Chinese and Korean. This information will be provided to all local boards to assist in raising awareness of this consultation.

30. In May, feedback will be collated and reported to local boards, in order that local boards can provide formal feedback on the Strategy at their June board meetings.

31. Public feedback and local board feedback will be taken into consideration in amending the document before it is presented to the Planning Committee and AT Board for approval in August 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan outlines the need for Auckland to reduce its transport related emissions significantly, to meet the target of 64% reduction by 2030. This means that business-as-usual for project planning and delivery, and the management of the transport system cannot continue.

33. Parking management is a lever in managing the transport network, both in terms of the opportunities that repurposing of road-space offers to enabling other modes and in disincentivising car use.

34. Implementing the draft Parking Strategy will mean that repurposing parking lanes on key roads in Auckland will be delivered, increasing the diversity of movement options and improving the safe and efficient access of people using sustainable modes in particular. This is a key change required to reduce transport related emissions, meaning the draft Parking Strategy is of significant importance as an early step to transport-related climate action.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Auckland Council strategy staff have been part of the working and steering group for this project and have reviewed and contributed to this committee report.

36. Eke Panuku and Auckland Unlimited provided feedback during engagement on the Parking Discussion Document. Their feedback has been supportive and we will continue to engage with them during the public consultation period.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. Between June and August 2021 local boards were informed of the review. Local boards were sent a memo outlining the rationale for the review and presentations were made at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum. Workshops with 16 local boards were held to outline the Parking Strategy review, answer questions and receive feedback on parking management. All local boards had an opportunity to provide feedback on the review. Key feedback included the message that “one size does not fit all” in relation to regional parking management, caution around changes without alternative options and a desire for substantial input into the CPMPs.

38. All local boards have had workshops during March 2022, to inform them of upcoming public consultation and give them more information on the likely changes the Strategy will bring to their area.

39. During May each local board will be provided the consultation feedback for their local area, in order for them to consider this in any final formal feedback they may wish to give on the Strategy, prior to Planning Committee endorsement and AT Board approval.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. In July 2021, Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum members were sent a memo outlining the Parking Strategy Review and asking for feedback on any aspects of interest to mana whenua. AT project staff approached the forum multiple times but were unable to secure a place on the agenda due to other items being given higher priority. In December 2021, we sent another memo to mana whenua, introducing the Parking Discussion document and inviting feedback on the strategic direction for parking management. This same information and engagement process was shared with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Chair. We had no response from these approaches to mana whenua.

41. Over the past month, AT has engaged with mana whenua representatives through AT’s regional hui. Feedback from these hui has reinforced that parking is a topic of considerable concern to Māori. There was acknowledgement that, as well as the strategic concerns around air quality and resource management, parking enables access. Concerns were raised about the potential for parking management to further-reduce access, particularly for less able-bodied kaumatua and kuia, to the whenua, moana and wahi tapu.

42. An early consideration of potential impacts of increased parking management for Māori are that they are likely to be similar impacts as for the wider population. Some parts of the community are more reliant on cars for access, particularly if they do not have good access to public transport. Barriers to public transport, such as cost and network coverage, influence access to necessities such as education, healthcare, employment, shopping and social services.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. Parking management resourcing will be delivered through AT operational budgets. Initial work to understand the resourcing required to implement the Strategy indicates that this will require significant resource increases for planning, design, compliance monitoring and enforcement.

44. Revenue from parking management helps to offset AT operational costs and therefore reduce reliance on ratepayer-funding.

45. While additional budget would be required for specific areas within AT, it is currently expected that a strategy based on the above principles would be at least revenue-neutral overall once compliance monitoring/enforcement revenue is considered.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. Release of the Parking Discussion Document was intended to address a preference for the status quo for parking in Auckland by setting out the need for change in the way that we travel and park and highlighting the benefits of the overall strategy of a shift to more sustainable modes. The forthcoming draft Parking Strategy has a proactive media plan, with careful consideration of media interest and risks at each stage of the project. There will be opportunities to adapt the draft Parking Strategy in light of public feedback through a further decision-making round, and changes to specific areas will occur through local Comprehensive Parking Management Plans, which will provide the public a further opportunity to shape the parking outcomes for their area.

47. There is a risk that resourcing to implement the Strategy may not be prioritised or forthcoming. Delivery of the Strategy is dependent on having resourcing for parking management. Without adequate resourcing, we will continue to see areas of high parking demand with non-compliant parking.

48. AT is developing a Parking Strategy Implementation Plan to clearly articulate operational requirements for all stages of parking management, from planning through to design, delivery and enforcement. This will be a critical operational consideration for AT, as well as to set public and Council expectations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. Following the decision of the Planning Committee, we will:

· Seek approval to consult on the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022 from the AT Board

· Publicly consult on the draft Auckland Parking Strategy throughout April

· Consider consultation feedback and any local board feedback and make any appropriate amendments to the Draft Auckland Parking Strategy

· Return to the Planning Committee in August for endorsement of the final version of the Strategy before seeking approval by the AT Board.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	draft Auckland Parking Strategy 2022	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Covacich - Principal Transport Planner

Andrew McGill - Head of Integrated Network Planning

Authorisers

Hamish Bunn - Group Manager: Investment, Planning and Policy

Jenny Chetwynd - Executive General Manager, Planning and Investment

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case

File No.: CP2021/13821

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this agenda item is to enable the committee to formally consider and endorse the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Cycling and micromobility need substantial investment to be equitable with other modes and meet the mode shift aspirations of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. Ensuring safe cycling infrastructure is delivered across more of our network is also critical to enabling cycling in greater volumes as well as protecting users. Additional investment in cycling and micromobility improvements is justified because of the positive health and emissions outcomes, as well as the positive return on investment, which is twice that of similar scale roading projects.

3. The Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case (CAM-PBC) aims to improve safe cycle access to employment, education and retail and increase cycle and micromobility mode share. It does so through network development, cycle parking, customer growth initiatives (e.g., marketing, cycle skills training, bike hubs) and identifies policy changes required to support the investment strategy.

4. The CAM-PBC contributes to Auckland’s 50% emission reduction target and the 7% cycle mode share by distance aspiration in Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan by 2030. It works alongside and complements other initiatives to reduce transport emissions and increase cycle and micromobility mode share, including other Transport Emission Reduction Plan initiatives.

5. A PBC is, in this case, a new 10-year funding case for cycling and micromobility that identifies how best to spend the $306 million that is currently available in the RLTP and prioritises future investments should any additional funding become available.

6. The current RLTP is expected to deliver 210km of strategic cycling connections by 2030, of which 45km would be delivered by the $306 million allocated to the CAM PBC. The funded portion of the CAM PBC will also deliver four focus areas of targeted cycling investment, which results in additional kilometres of cycling infrastructure, over and above the 210km highlighted in the table below.

7. As per the table below, the CAM-PBC also describes what can be delivered under different funding scenarios: a $1 billion package and a $2 billion package.

	Kilometres of strategic connections delivered by 2030	Number of focus areas delivered by 2030	Cycle parking and customer growth initiatives^{^[1]}
Non-PBC cycling investments (currently funded in RLTP)	165km
$306 million CAM-PBC programme (currently funded in RLTP)	45km ($175 million)	4 focus areas, with additional kms of connections ($110 million)	($21 million)
$1 billion CAM-PBC programme ($700 million currently unfunded)	Additional 105km ($746 million)	Additional 3 focus areas, with additional kms of connections ($185 million)	($70 million)
$2 billion CAM-PBC programme ($1.7 billion currently unfunded)	Additional 110km ($1.5 billion)	Additional 7 focus areas, with additional kms of connections ($360 million)	($140 million)

8. Delivery of the CAM-PBC will contribute to reducing deaths and serious injurious by 40% by 2031; contribute to achieving a regional target of a 7% cycling mode share by distance; and increase the proportion of the population that can access opportunities within a 15-minute bike ride to 40% by 2031.

9. Auckland Transport’s network plan - Future Connect – includes the Cycling and Micromobility Strategic Network, which is a planning tool that outlines where it is most important to provide safe cycling infrastructure and where the most people are expected to cycle. The CAM-PBC estimates the cost of delivering the full Cycling and Micromobility Strategic Network would be over $6 billion, and requires the components outlined in bullet points ‘b’ and ‘c’ of paragraph 10 below to complete the full Future Connect network.

10. The CAM-PBC identifies an investment strategy and programme that targets achieving the greatest uplift in mode share through accelerated delivery of cycling and micromobility infrastructure and customer growth initiatives. This includes:

a. a cycling programme of $2 billion for new safe cycle facilities, cycle parking and customer growth initiatives;

b. the implementation of currently funded cycling and multi-modal projects from the RLTP;

c. the implementation of a number of currently unfunded projects (such as Connected Communities projects, Light Rail, Airport to Botany), that include significant cycling components within their overall project scopes and their funding envelopes; and

d. implementation of a significant number of behaviour change policies to further lift cycling mode share and to close the gap between what infrastructure investment can achieve and the mode share target.

11. In addition to the gap between funding currently available and what is required to deliver the CAM-PBC’s identified package, there are a number of other constraints on AT’s ability to deliver including: market readiness and time required for the market to scale up, internal capacity (including delivery program managers) and funding certainty to minimise delays.

12. To reduce cost and accelerate delivery, the CAM-PBC has prioritised cycle projects based on (among other things) the ability to utilise existing road space that can be reallocated to safe cycle facilities, and a connected network that caters to multiple different trip types. In addition, the CAM-PBC supports:

· a programme-level design standards departure to further enable road space reallocation;

· the bundling of project procurement to gain further delivery efficiencies and cost savings;

· the use of ‘lite’ / fast track business cases for projects less than $15 million (whole cost) to speed up investigation and design; and

· scaling up in-house resources to support delivery and community engagement.

13. Endorsement of the CAM-PBC does not include approval of any additional funding at this stage. It does however relate to the endorsement of the CAM-PBC’s investment strategy / pathway, and its prioritisation process that provides an agile programme that works towards the mode share target and enables a rapid scaling up of delivery should additional funding become available. Further, a strategic communications plan to support delivery of the walking and cycling programmes is being developed. Political support is required to help deliver its messaging and for delivering successful projects. It is also required for the advocacy and implementation of the behaviour change policies.

14. Following the Planning Committee being asked to formally consider and endorse the CAM-PBC, it will subsequently be tabled with the AT and Waka Kotahi boards for final endorsement.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) note that the Auckland Transport Board will consider final endorsement of the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case following the Planning Committee’s endorsement.

b) endorse the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case as summarised in this agenda report including:

i) acknowledgement of identified funding levels and policy components,

ii) its investment strategy, and

iii) prioritisation approach

all of which are required to work towards the aspiration of a 7% cycling and micromobility mode share by distance by 2030.

c) note that while approval of additional funding is not sought at this stage, achieving the 7% mode share would require:

i) An increase in capital funding from $306 million in the 2021-2031 Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) to $2 billion (for cycling connections, focus areas, cycle parking, and customer growth initiatives);

ii) Implementation of the current cycling and multi-modal projects of the RLTP;

iii) Currently unfunded projects such as Connected Communities and Airport to Botany that have crucial safe cycling connections being funded for implementation;

iv) A significant proportion of the CAM-PBC’s policy recommendations being implemented by Auckland Transport, its partners, Government, and other parties; and

v) Additional OPEX to enable delivery of the full suite of recommended Customer Growth Initiatives.

d) note that changes are required to current procurement and funding settings to enable delivery of the recommended CAM-PBC investment programme over the next decade.

Horopaki

Context

15. In February 2021, the Planning Committee nominated three members and invited two Local Board members to join the project’s Political Reference Group. The developing direction of the CAM-PBC was presented to a workshop of the Committee on 15 December 2021.

16. The CAM-PBC is the result of a review of the 2017 Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case (2017-PBC). The CAM-PBC was primarily developed to respond to lessons learnt about the cost and speed of delivery of cycling facilities, new transport and funding policy, and to establish a new 10-year funding case for cycling and micromobility. It includes an investment strategy to increase cycling mode share through infrastructure, associated customer growth initiatives, and policy. The CAM-PBC was developed following Waka Kotahi business case guidelines and together with Waka Kotahi and Council staff, and further supported by broader technical reference groups as discussed below.

17. The strategic direction generally remains consistent with the 2017-PBC in that the Auckland transport system is failing to protect people on bikes who are over-represented in deaths and serious injuries; the unsafe and unattractive cycling experience means the mode is not fulfilling its potential which is leading to: poor environmental, social, health, and place outcomes. The following new ‘problem’ has been added: “Current cycling delivery mechanisms and resistance towards reallocating road space to cycling infrastructure are resulting in cost escalations, delays in delivery, and facilities that do not always meet customer expectations”.

18. The CAM-PBC will: contribute to reducing deaths and serious injurious by 40% by 2031; contribute to a regional cycle mode share by distance target of 7%; and increase the proportion of the population that can access opportunities within a 15-minute bike ride to 40% by 2031.

19. These objectives reflect the following (noting that some are still in development): Vision Zero and Road to Zero; the 2021 Government Policy Statement; Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 (with 64% of that allocated to transport); the Government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan, and Council and AT’s joint development of a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan; and the National Policy Statement for Urban Development.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Auckland Transport’s network plan - Future Connect – sets out AT’s ultimate indicative Cycling and Micromobility Strategic Network. The purpose of the CAM-PBC is to determine which projects should be prioritised to deliver on the investment objectives.

21. The recommended approach to achieving the objectives of the CAM-PBC is to leverage the network effects by closing gaps in the regional network, enhance connections to schools, rapid transit stations, and Metropolitan Centres. Connections to rapid transit stations have been prioritised on patronage with those with lesser boardings not having high enough benefits to bring into the programme list at this time, such as many outer ferry terminals. The shortlisting process also included the assessment of key anchors, such as tertiary institutions located in Metropolitan Centres.

22. Key features of the approach are a prioritised programme that can respond to various levels of funding, customer growth initiatives, and the policy recommendations that are crucial for Auckland to meet its targets.

23. The entire CAM-PBC programme exceeds the identified funding of $306 million of the on-going Cycling Programme of the RLTP. This is because the identified funding of $306 million and that of other RLTP projects and programmes (that include cycling improvements) are modelled to lift the cycling mode share to 1.3% by distance by 2030, or providing an additional 100,000 cycle trips a day (without the benefits of policy changes). The 7% cycling mode share goal would equate to roughly 750,000 additional daily cycling trips or 30 times that of today.

24. The full project list evaluated in the CAM-PBC includes 180 prioritised connections and focus areas that exceed $3 billion. Development of this extended list of connections and focus areas allows AT (and Waka Kotahi) to respond quickly and progress the next project/s if additional funding is made available. The existing projects of Henderson, Māngere East, and Manukau are programmed in the earlier years of the programme and will pivot to include road space reallocation (and minimal kerb movement) where possible, and to deliver cycling facilities quickly and in a cost-effective manner.

25. While it might appear that the prioritisation process results in network gaps (at the various investment levels), the ultimate Cycle and Micromobility Network in Future Connect closes these gaps. Such gaps will however remain as network gaps in the CAM-PBC programme until additional regional connections are brought forward, such as Skypath – Seapath, or regional funding is significantly increased. A change management approach has been built into the CAM-PBC that can respond to network and funding changes and in turn re-evaluate and potentially elevate local connections (that currently do not score high enough) and close any such network gaps.

26. Effective delivery of this programme relies on the Parking Strategy to support road space reallocation (removal of roadside parking); the potential removal of some flush medians and in some cases general traffic lanes; prioritised cycling connections that often favour secondary or parallel or lower order corridors to manage the interface with frequent PT; and designs that are safe but may not always include width for passing.

27. A proposed programme wide departure from AT’s design standards underpins the reduced project costing assumptions made in the CAM-PBC. They are critical to the delivery of the programme and any safe cycling infrastructure targets that might arise from the CAM-PBC, for example, in any future Statement of Intent. Proposed changes to design standards have received positive feedback from our technical working group and independent reviewer.

28. Customer growth initiatives account for up to 7% of the programme cost and will be implemented with projects and across the programme.

29. Additional policy changes, such as the revised Parking Strategy and smarter transport pricing initiatives, will be needed to close the gap between what infrastructure can achieve and the goal of 7% cycling mode share. This gap is in the order of 4% of distance. AT is not the authority for many of the policy recommendations and will therefore work with its partners to advocate for these changes. A summary of the policy recommendations is included in attachment A.

30. The Benefit Cost Ratio of the programme is 2.0 - 3.4 for the first $2 billion spent, demonstrating very low diminishing returns and good value for money.

31. The following table sets out what is required to progress to 7% cycling mode share by distance by 2030. The following table sets out the CAM-PBC’s pathway to 7% cycling and micromobility mode share by distance by 2030, along with mode share forecasts of the infrastructural and policy components. It is acknowledged that the mode share forecast from the infrastructural components (items a – d) will likely be higher than 3%, due to the limitations of the modelling tool to accurately forecast the impacts of large-scale cycling investment.

	Estimated Cycling mode share by 2030
a. $2 billion^{^[2]} of investment in safe cycling facilities (by taking the highest prioritised connections and focus areas forward for investigation, design and delivery); b. the various cycling connections of the RLTP’s cycling and multi-modal projects; c. the crucial cycle connections of unfunded projects (such as those of Connected Communities) being funded and implemented in this decade; d. Additional OPEX for Customer Growth Initiatives; and	3% (from items ‘a’ to ‘d’)
e. Key policy initiatives are recommended by the CAM-PBC to make up the balance from what can be achieved through infrastructure investment ^{^[3]}.	4%
Total forecasted cycling mode share by distance by 2030	7%

32. The CAM-PBC concludes that $2 billion of investment is the minimum required_{_[4]} to meet the 7% mode share scenario. However, in addition to the gap between funding available and funding required there are a number of other constraints on AT’s ability to deliver investment of this scale over the next decade. These constraints include: market readiness and time required for the market to scale up, internal capacity and dedicated cycling delivery program managers and funding certainty to minimise delays.

33. Staff from AT and Auckland Council will continue to engage with Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to advocate for options to address these constraints as quickly as possible, enabling cycling infrastructure to be upscaled rapidly should additional funding become available.

34. The CAM-PBC provides a solid basis to make the case for additional funding and to prioritise investment when funding is confirmed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. Transport is Auckland’s largest source of emissions. Transitioning to a sustainable transport system is critical to give effect to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which aims to halve regional emissions by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050. Increasing the uptake of cycling and micromobility is a priority in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri.

36. Auckland has a lower cycling mode share compared to other cities in New Zealand. However, around half of the car trips in Auckland are under 6km and therefore within cycling distance for many, especially with electric bikes.

37. Accelerating the delivery of safe and connected cycling and micromobility networks in Auckland will enable more people to undertake more of their daily trips through sustainable active modes, leading to reduced transport emissions and greater wellbeing. It also enhances community and transport resilience by providing affordable, fossil-fuel free travel options for people and goods.

38. The CAM-PBC represents one element of addressing the transport emissions reduction challenge in Auckland. Much greater funding and a range of policy and regulatory changes are required to achieve the cycling mode share targets in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri. The CAM-PBC’s investment strategy sets the foundation for investment to be scaled up across the region, should additional funding be made available.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. Investment in cycling has a high degree of political and public interest. Establishing the project’s Political Reference Group and involvement of Council and Waka Kotahi staff in the Project Working Group and Project Control Group sought to ensure the project had a greater level of awareness of both political, public, and partner views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. The CAM-PBC Political Reference Group includes three councillors and two local board members. Feedback on a range of topics has been provided by the group, including transport equity, micromobility, the particular needs of rural areas, and the importance of building strong community support through local champions. The group also wanted the CAM-PBC to show a pathway to a significant increase in cycling mode share in Auckland.

41. Local board feedback on AT’s RLTP shows overwhelming support for more investment for sustainable transport modes, including cycling, micromobility and walking.

42. Local boards have a critical role to play in generating public support for cycling improvements. Local boards also provide important input on specific improvements that help communities transition to low carbon travel, e.g., safety hotspots and missing links.

43. The CAM-PBC is a strategic document. Local board and community engagement will occur as part of the next step of the process when more detailed work is done on cycling connections in local areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. Increasing the provision of safe, connected cycling and micromobility facilities across the region, and especially in areas with high Māori population, has significant benefits for Māori. These include more equitable access to opportunities, fewer traffic-related deaths and injuries, more opportunities to travel actively, cleaner air and lower transport costs.

45. The development of the CAM-PBC was informed by feedback from Mana Whenua, through Auckland Transport’s mana whenua operational tables. A project specific Mana Whenua reference group was established after staff presented the project plan at each of the area hui. Three separate Mana Whenua reference group workshops were held. The intention to establish this reference group via the mana whenua operational tables was outlined to the Planning Committee on 25 February 2021. Key pieces of feedback include the desire to partner with AT to develop the CAM-PBC. Mana Whenua representatives also stressed the need to ensure an equitable distribution of investments across the region, not just in areas where there are already good cycling connections.

46. An equity lens has been applied in the prioritisation of the CAM-PBC projects, resulting in many connections in the south and west being identified as high priority.

47. Partnering with iwi, hapū and Māori-led organisations in the delivery of the CAM-PBC and other cycling projects will help amplify the benefits of the investment programme to Māori and identify barriers that need to be addressed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. As this report does not request additional funding, there are no financial impacts on Auckland Council at this stage. Should it be approved the Climate Action Targeted Rate will help close the gap between current funding levels and that which is required to deliver the investment packages identified in the CAM-PBC.

49. Closing the gap fully will require a significant injection of funding from central government. Waka Kotahi’s current nation-wide allocation to walking and cycling is insufficient to fully fund the $2 billion package identified in the CAM-PBC. While the government has signaled additional funding for active modes in its draft Emissions Reduction Plan this too has yet to be confirmed and staff do not have any insight into the quantum of potential funding this may involve.

50. The estimated cost of projects includes contingency for investigation, design, and implementation. Operating expenditure has been considered in the CAM-PBC, however the funding has not been secured.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. The following table sets out the key programme risks.

Key risk	Mitigation
Current funding, procurement, governance and delivery settings do not support the rapid roll out of the recommended programme in the CAM-PBC and the level of mode shift required.	Staff from AT and Auckland Council will continue to engage with Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to advocate for options to address these constraints as quickly as possible
The Parking Strategy is not agreed and / or does not support road-space being managed to prioritise safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services.	AT staff actively work with Council on approving the strategy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. The next steps include the CAM-PBC being tabled at: the May AT Board meeting for endorsement; and the Waka Kotahi Board for endorsement (likely in July).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case policy recommendations	107

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jon Kearins - Principal Transport Planner

Authorisers

Jenny Chetwynd – Executive GM Planning and Investment

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Overview

File No.: CP2022/03816

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a brief overview of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act (Amendment Act). The overview is intended to set the scene for the two subsequent reports on the open part of the agenda and the report on the confidential part of the agenda that relate to the NPS UD and the Amendment Act.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Background

2. The NPS UD is a statutory document prepared by the government under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The NPS UD came into effect on 20 August 2020 and sets out objectives and policies for planning for “well-functioning urban environments”. All councils are required to give effect to the objectives and policies in NPS UD and to carry out various actions by specific dates. A key action for Auckland Council is to prepare a major change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) by 20 August 2022. This change is referred to in the Amendment Act as the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI).

3. Since the NPS UD came into effect, the council has been working to develop its response. Numerous workshops have been held with the committee and preliminary policy approaches have been agreed to by way of resolutions. The purpose of those resolutions has been to guide the development of an overall preliminary response for public engagement prior to the proposed IPI being finalised for public notification by 20 August 2022. Seeking feedback on a preliminary response is not a requirement of the NPS UD or the Amendment Act, however it is always the council’s preference to seek feedback from the public on matters as significant as this before notifying a proposed change to the AUP.

4. In the fourth quarter of 2021, over one year into the council’s programme of developing its response to the NPS UD, the government released the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Bill. The Bill proposed significant changes to the RMA that required Tier 1 local authorities (including Auckland Council) to apply Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) across all relevant residential zones, replaced parts of the NPS UD, and introduced a streamlined planning process for the IPI. The government did not seek feedback from any council on its intentions before introducing the Bill to the House.

5. The council supported the intent of streamlining the IPI process and the simplified policies relating to neighbourhood, local and town centres. However, the council made a very clear and strong submission in opposition to two key aspects of the Bill. The submission is attached at Attachment A. Additional information provided to the Environment Select Committee is attached at Attachment B. The council’s oral submission to the Environment Select Committee can be viewed here at approximately 58 minutes https://www.facebook.com/environmentSCNZ/videos/636652324380457

6. Firstly, it was submitted that enabling three-storey medium density housing across all parts of Auckland’s urban environment via the MDRS (other than where “qualifying matters” apply) would result in many more Aucklanders living in places where it is simply unviable to provide the necessary physical and social infrastructure. The submission stated a strong preference for the quality compact city approach to intensification enshrined in the Auckland Plan and the AUP, and largely embodied in the NPS UD itself. Under this approach, medium and high-density housing is enabled in areas with good to excellent existing or planned public transport access to employment, education, goods and services. It was pointed out that the AUP already enables over 900,000 dwellings to be built on residential-zoned land and that the capacity for housing under the AUP is far greater than this when the city centre, other centres, mixed use zoned areas and future urban areas are taken into account.

7. The submission made it clear that the key issues associated with housing in Auckland are the need for greater investment from the government in infrastructure, the council being provided with new sources of funding for infrastructure, housing supply chain issues and skilled labour shortages. Changes to demand-side factors (e.g. tax and investments policies) were also referenced as being a key part of any solution.

8. Secondly, it was submitted that the proposed MDRS would result in poor quality design outcomes. Council’s submission emphasised the importance of place and design, not just supply of housing, and highlighted some physical examples of poor design outcomes. However, these submissions were rejected by Parliament.

9. Lastly, it was submitted that the Minister for the Environment should not have the final say in situations where councils reject the recommendations of an independent hearings panel. The council submitted that a process similar to that used for the AUP between 2013 and 2016 was more appropriate.

10. The Amendment Act includes improvements to the MDRS as a result of the council and other submissions (although the standards remain of concern to the council’s and many other urban design experts), however the Bill was not changed to address the council’s fundamental concerns with enabling three-storey medium density housing across all parts of Auckland’s urban environment. The Minister for the Environment continues to have the final say in situations where councils reject the recommendations of the independent hearing panel that must be established to hear and make recommendation on the council’s IPI.

11. A major consequence of the Amendment Act is that the IPI requires far more extensive changes to the AUP and far more research and analysis to be undertaken. Despite the major challenges associated with this, including the ongoing impact of the pandemic, the timeframe for notifying the IPI was not changed. A far greater number of Aucklanders will also have a direct interest in the IPI than under the original NPS UD.

12. The agenda includes three additional reports that relate to the NPS UD and the Amendment Act. The first deals with residential design-related issues, the second deals with the policy approach to the city centre and the final report (on the confidential part of the agenda) presents the council’s overall preliminary response for the purpose of engaging with the public between mid-April and early May 2022. Engaging on the preliminary response will greatly assist the council in finalising the proposed IPI for public notification by 20 August 2022.

Key preliminary policy directions

13. A chronology of Planning Committee and local board workshops and meetings that have addressed the NPS UD and the Amendment Act is set out in Attachment C. Resolutions passed by the committee are set out in Attachment D. The preliminary policy directions agreed by the committee to assist in developing the council’s response are summarised below.

Walkable catchments of the city centre, metropolitan centres and stops on the Rapid Transport Network

14. Unless “qualifying matters” justify lower building height standards, the NPS UD requires the council to enable buildings of at least six storeys within what are referred to as the “walkable catchments” of the city centre zone, metropolitan centre zone and stops on the Rapid Transit Network (RTN). Auckland’s 10 metropolitan centres are Albany, Takapuna, Westgate, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket, Sylvia Park, Botany, Manukau and Papakura.

15. Walkable catchments are not defined in the NPS UD, however the term is used extensively in planning research and analysis to indicate the distance people will generally walk to catch frequent and reliable public transport. There is no universally agreed distance. Figures range from 400 metres or less to 1.5 kilometres. After considering expert advice, the committee endorsed a distance of around 800 metres from the edge of metropolitan centre zones and stops on the RTN. Given factors such as the high density of employment, access to tertiary education and availability of goods and services, the committee endorsed a distance of around 1200 metres from the edge of the city centre zone.

Intensification around neighbourhood, local and town centre zones (outside walkable catchments)

16. Unless “qualifying matters” justify lower building height standards, the NPS UD requires the council to enable buildings of a height and density around neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones and town centre zones that corresponds with the level of commercial and community services available.

Neighbourhood centres

Neighbourhood centres are small groups of shops and businesses such as a dairy, takeaway restaurant and local hairdresser. The council’s preliminary response relies on the widespread application of the MDRS to enable appropriate building heights and densities around neighbourhood centres.

Local centres that are small in size and/or have poor access and town centres that have poor access

Local centres mostly comprise a single main retail street. Town centres are typically larger than this, and mostly comprise two or more retail streets, or a single retail street with a large enclosed shopping centre. The council’s preliminary response is to retain the current building height and density controls around local centres that are small in size and/or have poor access and town centres that have poor access.

Large local centres and small town centres with good access

The council’s preliminary response for large local centres and small town centres with good access is to apply the standard Terraced Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zone to residential zoned land generally within 200 metres. The standard THAB zone enables buildings of around five storeys. In many places the AUP already applies this zone around these centres.

Large town centres with good access

The council’s preliminary response for large town centres with good access is to apply the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zone to residential zoned land generally within 400 metres. The standard THAB zone enables buildings of around five storeys. In many places the AUP already applies this zone around these centres, although the distance is typically less than 400 metres. Around some large town centres with good access, buildings of greater than five storeys are already enabled.

Intensification within neighbourhood, local and town centre zones (outside walkable catchments

17. Height controls within centres were carefully considered as part of the AUP process and significant increases made in many places compared to the legacy district plans. The height controls that apply to centres within the AUP have been reviewed and the council’s preliminary response is to retain the existing controls that apply outside walkable catchments.

Qualifying matters

18. The NPS UD and the Amendment Act acknowledge that in some places, enabling buildings of six storeys within walkable catchments and three storey medium density housing (as enabled by the MDRS) in other locations could make plans such as the AUP contrary to section 6 (Matters of National Importance) of the RMA, other National Policy Statements (such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement), legislation such as the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, Treaty Settlement legislation and other matters. These are referred to in the NPS UD as “qualifying matters”.

19. There are two main types of qualifying matter: those specifically listed in the NPS UD and “any other matter” identified by a council. In the case of council-identified matters, the bar is set very high, with a requirement to undertake a specific assessment for every property affected by the qualifying matter and the qualifying matter to be justified in light of the “national significance of urban development and the objectives of [the NPS UD]”. Effectively, therefore, any matter that council considers as an “other” qualifying matter has been deliberately removed by the Government and it is up to council to make the case to retain it. The qualifying matters endorsed by the committee (over-and-above those that relate to matters specifically listed in the NPS UD) are:

· Notable Trees Overlay

· Ridgeline Protection Overlay

· Local Public Views Overlay

· Special Character Areas Overlay that is of high quality

· Auckland War Memorial Museum Viewshaft

· Stockade Hill Viewshaft

· Airport Approach Surface Overlay

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

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

· Natural hazards that are less than significant

· Areas with long-term significant infrastructure constraints.

Special character areas

20. The AUP applies a Special Character Areas – Residential overlay to approximately 21,000 properties in some of Auckland’s oldest suburbs (just over 3% of all residential zoned land). This is the most extensive of the AUP overlays listed above. The overlay (and the associated Single House zone) apply in recognition of the importance of these areas to Auckland’s local, national and international identity. Opportunities for housing intensification in these areas is modest, however the AUP enables dwellings to be converted into two homes and a minor dwelling to be built for family members or home and income opportunities.

21. The AUP also applies a Special Character Areas – Business overlay to parts of Auckland’s oldest local and town centres. The specific approach endorsed by the committee for these areas is set out in Attachment D. In summary, a balanced approach is proposed in which the Special Character Areas overlay is applied to areas that meet a “high quality” threshold. As an exception, the committee agreed that where this approach has a significant impact on development capacity, a combination of a heritage and planning assessment is required.

22. The council’s heritage team has undertaken a comprehensive street-based survey of all properties in the Special Character Areas overlay. As a result of Covid 19 restrictions and the mandatory 20 August 2022 statutory timeframe, just over half of the properties were surveyed using Google Streetview, with the balance being physically reviewed by staff on the ground. The Google Streetview images were dated 2020 or 2021, and while there will be some level of discrepancy between the images and the field, the images are recent enough to ensure a good understanding of each area.

23. As the information relates to the council’s preliminary response to the NPS UD and the Amendment Act that will be made available to the public from mid-April to early May 2022, more detailed discussion and analysis is included in the related item on the confidential section of the agenda.

Preliminary response for public engagement

24. The resolutions passed by the committee have enabled council staff and consultants to prepare a preliminary response to the NPS UD and the Amendment Act. It is intended that the preliminary response will be made available to the public via a Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) viewer. The GIS viewer will contain a series of maps that illustrate features such as walkable catchments, intensification around other centres and qualifying matters that would limit height and/or density.

25. It is important to note that the preliminary response is just that. The council is not required to make its response available until 20 August 2022, but has agreed that there is considerable merit in seeking feedback on early proposals prior to 20 August 2022 to help shape the IPI. A key aspect of public engagement will be making it clear as possible that many aspects of the IPI are mandatory (e.g. identifying walkable catchments and enabling at least six storeys within them and applying the MDRS across almost all urban areas), and that the evidence threshold for qualifying matters is high.

Next steps

26. If endorsed by the committee, the council’s preliminary response will be made available for feedback from mid-April to early May 2022. A range of online activities are being planned to explain the preliminary response and encourage feedback. The feedback received will be reviewed and presented to the committee at workshops and meetings in June, July and August 2022.

27. Extensive work continues on the aspects of the IPI that require considerably more analysis. One such aspect is the way in which buildings of at least six storeys can be enabled and the MDRS incorporated into the AUP. This topic is addressed in a subsequent report on the agenda. Once the IPI is completed and approved by the committee, it will be notified for submissions by the statutory deadline of 20 August 2022. Anyone who makes a submission will be able to present their submission to an independent panel of experts, who will make recommendations back to the council. The council will then make its final decisions. If the council rejects a recommendation from the panel, the Minister for the Environment will make the final decision. If the council accepts a recommendation from the panel, the only way to challenge this is through a High Court appeal or judicial review.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) receive the report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council’s submission on Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill	115
b ⇩	Auckland Council reponse to the Environment Select Committee request for further information about Qualifying Matters and options to address council's concerns	197
c ⇩	Chronology of Planning Committee and local board workshops and meetings that have addressed the National Policy Statement on Urban Development	213
d ⇩	Planning Committee resolutions relating to the National Policy Statement for Urban Development and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill	215
e ⇩	Medium Density Residential Standards applied to developments with multiple dwellings	237

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) to deliver better quality intensification and implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act

File No.: CP2022/01508

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement to further investigate changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (HGI Plan) as follows:

a) For both the AUP and HGI Plan to address five issues that arise from the removal of parking minimums as required by the National Policy Statement Urban Development 2020 (NPS UD).

b) For the AUP to:

· introduce planning provisions for private ways servicing 10 or more parking spaces or rear sites to achieve better quality outcomes

· amend the zone provisions to:

o enable building heights of least six storeys in walkable catchments as required by the Policy 3(c) of the NPS UD

o incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in the relevant residential zones, as required by the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act)

o provide for quality-built environment outcomes in residential areas of Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Plans and Places department maintains a ‘Residential Issues Register’ and has completed a Section 35 Monitoring: B2.3 Quality Built Environment report. The register and the section 35 report identified the need for changes to the AUP to achieve better-quality built form, access and car parking outcomes. A summary of the issues and options to address them was presented to the Planning Committee at workshops in the second half of 2021.

3. Responding to these issues and implementing the requirements of the NPS UD and the Amendment Act has seen the development of two packages of work that relate to the text of the AUP and the HGI Plan. The two packages seek to:

a) address issues arising from the mandatory removal of car parking minimums, and the poor quality of private ways serving 10 or more parking spaces or rear sites

b) enable building heights of at least six storeys in walkable catchments; incorporate the MDRS in every relevant residential zone; and provide for quality built environment outcomes within residential areas.

4. While a key aim of this work is to provide for quality built environment outcomes within residential areas, it is important to note that the NPS UD and the Amendment Act limit the degree to which this can be achieved. This is due to the NPS UD requirement to enable buildings of at least six storey buildings on most existing properties within walkable catchments (unless qualifying matters apply), and the Amendment Act requirement to not have standards that are more restrictive than the Medium Density Residential Standards (unless qualifying matters apply).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the further investigation of changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) to address the five issues discussed in the agenda report that arise from the mandatory removal of parking minimums under the National Policy Statement Urban Development

b) endorse the further investigation of changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to:

i) introduce planning provisions for private ways servicing 10 or more parking spaces or rear sites to achieve better quality outcomes

ii) amend the zone provisions to:

A) enable building heights of least six storeys in walkable catchments as required by the Policy 3(c) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

B) incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards in the relevant residential zones, as required by the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 202

C) provide for quality built environment outcomes in residential areas of Auckland as discussed in the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

Auckland Unitary Plan Section 35 Monitoring: B2.3 Quality Built Environment

5. Auckland Council has undertaken monitoring of the effectiveness and efficiency of the objectives and policies in AUP Regional Policy Statement Chapter B2.3: Quality Built Environment in accordance with Section 35 of the RMA (Duty to gather information, monitor and keep records). An analysis report has concluded that further research and actions need to be undertaken to improve the built form outcomes being delivered by the AUP to meet these objectives and policies. However, the report caveats that some findings require further monitoring to inform recommendations on planning responses and AUP provisions.

Auckland Unitary Plan Issues Register 2016 - ongoing

6. Over time Auckland Council has compiled an Issues Register which records issues arising from the implementation of the AUP. Issues have been raised regarding the performance of the residential zone provisions. Investigations into several of these issues confirmed the need for council to undertake further research and actions to achieve better quality outcomes in respect of built form and shared driveways.

7. This project is aligned with the wider monitoring of the performance of the AUP as part of the s35 monitoring required by council.

Work packages to implement intensification and quality built environments

8. Several packages of work have been progressing in response to the NPS UD and the Amendment Act. Responding to the issues identified in the section 35 report and issues register, while implementing the requirements of the NPS UD and the Amendment Act, has seen the development of two integrated packages of work. The two packages seek to:

a) address issues arising from the mandatory removal of car parking minimums, and the poor quality of private ways serving 10 or more parking spaces or rear sites

9. Planning Committee meeting endorsed investigations into the five issues (PLA/2021/104). It was requested that staff report the findings of the investigation back to the Planning Committee for further consideration. Later in September 2021 local boards were briefed on these five issues as well as the technical consequential plan change. This is a matter of particular interest to local boards.

10. In relation to private ways a workshop was held with the Planning Committee (local board chairs were also invited) in July 2020 and the Committee was generally supportive of a plan change to address issues with private ways.

11. Similarly local boards have been briefed at workshops in January and February 2022, on this package. Local Boards were generally supportive of a plan change to address concerns with the five issues and private ways. This is discussed in more detail later in the report.

12. A Planning Committee workshop on 23 February 2021 set out the proposed changes to the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone provisions to implement the NPS UD and MDRS, within and outside walkable catchments.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Five issues relating to the mandatory removal of car parking minimums

13. The five issues were discussed in detail in the September 2021 agenda item. In summary they are:

a) Provision of accessible parking

b) Provision of private pedestrian access, where no vehicle access is provided

c) Provision of on-site pick-up and drop-off/loading facilities and access for emergency services where no vehicle access is proposed

d) Design of bicycle / micro-mobility access and storage

e) Provision of electricity connections that enable installation of compliant smart electric vehicle chargers.

14. Following consultation with key stakeholders and further research, five options were developed to address these issues. They are:

a) No change

b) Plan change to the AUP and HGI Plans

c) Travel plans (statutory)

d) Non-statutory approaches e.g. design guidance, resource consent guidance

e) Advocate to Central Government to amend the Building Act 2004 and Building code.

15. The initial evaluation of the above options is provided in Attachment A. Options b) to e) are recommended to address the range of issues. Council and Auckland Transport staff are currently continuing their investigations into addressing these issues.

Private ways

16. At a Planning Committee workshop on 21 October 2020 issues associated with the poor quality of private ways were presented including:

a) Narrow and poorly designed private ways that create:

· increased risks to pedestrian safety (especially for children) and accessibility challenges from the lack of dedicated footpaths with berms and in some developments with steep gradients, cross falls, and steps

· access and manoeuvring difficulties for vehicles particularly emergency vehicles and large service vehicles such as waste collection trucks

· difficulties in providing space for waste collection, letter boxes, lighting, installation and maintenance of utilities, trees and landscaping, and vehicle parking (including accessible parking and loading spaces)

b) Poor connectivity to the wider road network and neighbourhood

c) Likelihood that the removal of parking from future developments will place additional pressure for vehicle parking in private ways.

d) A lack of awareness by property owners that they are responsible for operations and maintenance and the ongoing costs involved. There is a risk that in the future, landowners may seek to transfer private ways into public ownership, which have not been built to public road standards.

17. Council staff have continued to investigate these issues, defining the problems and developing options in response. In summary these options are:

· 1: No change

· 2: Plan change to amend the AUP

· 3: Use the same standards that apply to local roads

· 4: Review as part of a second generation AUP

· 5: Develop technical guidance on design and construction standards for private ways (this work is underway and is led by the Resilient Land & Coast Department of council).

· 6: Non-regulatory methods.

18. The evaluation of the above options is provided in Attachment B. Option 2, a plan change to amend the AUP, is the recommended option, supported by Options 5 and 6.Option 3 may be used as a benchmark for larger developments.

Combining the workstreams

19. There is considerable overlap between the five issues and private ways projects. Both are concerned with matters of pedestrian access and safety and the provision of access for servicing, pick up and drop off and emergency services and design and construction standards. Other common secondary matters such as lighting, waste management, landscaping and stormwater management and long-term operations, maintenance and management requirements were also identified. With the required removal of car parking minimums in both the AUP and HGI Plan it is likely that spillover parking will seek to park in private ways.

20. Several key stakeholders are common to both workstreams, and a joint engagement approach is mutually beneficial.

21. On this basis it is more efficient to combine both workstreams within the umbrella of a single plan change. This will allow for an integrated planning response.

22. Such a plan change would use the RMA Schedule 1 process as this work does not qualify for the IPI process, introduced under s80E of the Amendment Act, to expedite the planning process. It would be notified at the same time as the related NPS UD plan changes to ensure a comprehensive and integrated package of plan changes was available for public submissions.

Implementing intensification and quality-built environment provisions

23. As set out in the overview report, the NPSUD and Amendment Act require the council to implement intensification provisions. In providing for greater intensification as directed by the NPSUD, the AUP must also give effect to the policy direction of:

a) Chapter B2.3 A Quality Built Environment of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS); and

b) Objective 1 and Policy 1 of the NPSUD, which seek to a achieve a well-functioning urban environment.

24. Therefore, related provisions will need to be developed to achieve quality built environment outcomes and to respond to the findings of the section 35 monitoring on the Quality Built Environment, whilst providing for the intensification required by the NPSUD and the Amendment Act.

25. The provisions being investigated include:

a) Enabling building heights of at least six storeys in the THAB zone within walkable catchments and achieving consequential built environment outcomes.

b) Enabling at least six storey buildings in the Business - Mixed Use, Town Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre Zones within walkable catchments.

c) Incorporating the MDRS in all relevant residential zones and any consequential amendments to the zone provisions.

d) Any consequential changes to related provisions in the AUP, such as subdivision standards.

Enabling building heights of at least six storeys and incorporating MDRS within Walkable Catchments, and achieving quality built environment outcomes

26. Five outcomes have been identified for enabling building heights of at least six storeys in walkable catchments, whilst continuing to give effect to quality-built environment components of the AUP RPS:

· Outcome 1: Enable building heights of at least six storeys on a typical site

· Outcome 2: Manage privacy, building dominance and shading effects on adjoining sites

· Outcome 3: Manage dominance and shading effects on the street

· Outcome 4: Ensure good onsite amenity for residents

· Outcome 5: Respond to climate change.

27. To implement the intensification requirements of the NPS UD, residential zones in the walkable catchment will be rezoned Residential – Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone unless a qualifying matter applies and requires a different approach.

28. To enable building heights of at least six storeys in walkable catchments, the THAB zone provisions will need to be amended so that six or more storey buildings can be developed on a typical site. The THAB provisions will also need to respond to the built form outcomes set out above.

29. The provisions of the Business - Mixed Use, Town Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones are also being reviewed to determine whether changes are required to enable building heights of at least six storeys, and to achieve quality-built environment outcomes.

30. The types of provisions that are being investigated for the THAB zone in the walkable catchments include:

a) Relaxing the height in relation to boundary standards:

o within 21.5m of the street frontage, applying a height in relation to boundary standard of 19m + 60 degrees to side and rear boundaries

o beyond 21.5m of the street frontage, or on rear sites, applying a height in relation to boundary standard of 8m + 60 degrees to side and rear boundaries

b) Privacy separation of 8m between outdoor living spaces and outlook spaces located above three storeys, and side and rear boundaries

c) Building setback from the street frontage of 6m applying at 19m (six storeys) and above

d) Retaining the existing THAB daylight standards requiring separation between outlooks from habitable rooms in buildings on the same site

e) Communal outdoor living space requirements for development of 40 or more dwellings

f) Requirements for deep soil areas to support planted vegetation within landscaped areas.

Implementing the MDRS in residential zones outside of walkable catchments and achieving built environment outcomes

31. As required by the Amendment Act, the MDRS will be implemented into every relevant residential zone, except where qualifying matters apply and require an approach different to the MDRS. Where a qualifying matter applies, it may be used to:

· Apply or retain a lower intensity residential zoning, where the qualifying matter is incompatible with the MDRS; or

· Alter the provisions of the MDRS zone(s), through other mechanisms in the AUP such as overlays and controls.

32. The preliminary approach being investigated is to incorporate the MDRS into the THAB zone and Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone. Therefore, the MHU and THAB zone provisions are the focus of investigation for this package of work.

33. In addition to implementing the MDRS, this package of work is investigating applying other built form standards to the development of four or more dwellings within the MHU zone, in order to achieve quality-built environment outcomes for more intense forms of residential development. These investigations have been informed by issues raised by the council’s Urban Design Unit in assessing resource consents for terraced housing and apartment developments, and the s35 monitoring of the AUP against Quality Built Environment outcomes in the Regional Policy Statement chapter of the AUP.

34. Refinements to standards and other provisions such as assessment criteria will be investigated to address the issues raised by the s35 monitoring findings and issues identified by the Urban Design Unit. These provisions will be included in the IPI plan change, where they can be demonstrated to be consequential to incorporating MDRS.

35. However, there are some matters identified in the s35 monitoring that require further investigation and evidence to inform amendments to the AUP. Given the 20 August 2022 statutory timeframe for the IPI, these will need to be addressed by a future plan change to the AUP.

36. Table 1 below outlines the matters being addressed in the amended MHU and THAB provisions from s35 monitoring, and those that will be addressed through another process, as those issues require further investigation and evidence before progressing:

Table 1: Matters being investigated for the IPI and with those requiring further investigation

Matters being investigated for the Intensification PIanning Instrument (IPI)

Improving the residential provisions so that these adequately cater for and encourage apartment and terrace housing where this is an appropriate development outcome in the higher intensity zones

Encouraging apartments and terraces to front the street rather than being oriented perpendicular to the street frontage, to reduce the effects of dwelling outlooks facing adjacent properties.

Opportunities to require communal living space for larger scale developments

Accessing outdoor living space from the primary living area

Managing visual dominance effects on adjacent sites arising from long buildings orientated perpendicular to the street

Requiring deep soils area with planted landscaping

Requiring outlook space to be co-located with outdoor living space

Built form setbacks from private accessways

Matters identified through s35 monitoring that require further investigation

Managing cumulative effects from retaining walls and fencing on daylight and outlook space. Explore standards limiting the cumulative height of retaining walls and fencing adjacent to outdoor living and outlook areas

Minimum site width for the development of four or more dwellings on a site

On-site waste management, particularly for multi-unit developments.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

"To move to a low carbon and resilient region, climate change and hazard risks need to be integral to the planning system that shapes Auckland. Integrating land-use and transport planning is vital to reduce the need for private vehicle travel and to ensure housing and employment growth areas are connected to efficient, low carbon transport systems."

39. Applying the NPS UD will enable additional residential intensification to occur in areas where jobs, services and amenities can be easily accessed by active modes and public transport. This will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the more efficient use of land will reduce growth pressures in areas more susceptible to the effects of climate change. In some places, applying the MDRS required under the Amendment Act will also achieve this outcome. However, a key aspect of the council’s submission on the Amendment Act was that enabling three-storey medium density housing across Auckland’s urban environment, is likely to result in a greater number of people living in areas where it is extremely difficult to provide a high level of public transport service.

40. A more detailed analysis of climate impacts will be possible once the mapping work required to implement the NPS-UD and the Amendment Act is more advanced. As well as responding to the intensification requirements of the NPS-UD and Amendment Act, this mapping work applies qualifying matters such as avoiding natural hazards associated with climate change (e.g. coastal inundation and erosion associated with sea level rise).

41. In addition, the deep soil standards being investigated will support plant and tree growth, providing for carbon sequestration to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing the heat island effect.

42. Residential standards such as improving daylight and sunlight penetration into sites and providing space for the trees capable of growing up to at least 6m, also support the mitigation of carbon emissions and heat island effects.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. All relevant council departments have been involved in the investigation of the matters discussed in this report and will have an ongoing role in the project.

44. The relevant Council Controlled Organisations, Auckland Transport and Watercare have been working closely with staff on private ways. For the five issues workstream AT and council are working on a joint response.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. Engagement with local boards has been undertaken on the implications of the NPS UD and local board chairs were invited to the series of Planning Committee workshops throughout 2021. This engagement is continuing in 2022 including analysis on the implications of the Amendment Act and the results of council investigations.

46. Specific engagement has been undertaken with local board on the matters discussed in this report relating to the mandatory removal of car parking minimums and the design of private ways. The local boards were generally supportive of the need to address the issues identified and came up with a number of examples of these issues in their local board areas. They were supportive of addressing the issues primarily through the plan change options and as soon as possible.

47. For five issues relating to parking they noted the disadvantages of relying on non – statutory methods and/or advocating to central government, but did indicate that some non-statutory methods could be used in conjunction with changes to the AUP and the HGI Plan. For private ways (or shared driveways) the local boards also supported the development of technical guidance on design and construction standards and the continued use of non-regulatory methods.

48. It is intended to seek further feedback and resolutions from the local boards in June 2022 prior to the Planning Committee receiving any proposed plan changes for a decision to notify in August 2022. This programme is scheduled to align with the wider NPS UD engagement programme.

49. At this stage staff have not sought any input or consulted with individual local boards in relation to the remaining matters discussed in this report. It is intended that engagement with local boards will take place in early June 2022 and staff will also report back to the Planning Committee in August 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. Auckland Council has obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its Significance and Engagement Policy to take special consideration when engaging with Māori and to enable Māori participation in council decision-making to promote Māori well-being

51. The NPS-UD provides for the interests of Māori through intensification to increase housing supply, alongside its identification of qualifying matters. The widespread intensification sought by the NPS-UD has the potential to affect Māori both negatively and positively. This includes with respect to culturally significant sites and landscapes, Treaty Settlement redress land, the urban form as it reflects mātauranga Māori and accessibility, and Māori facilities where customs and traditions are observed (such as marae).

52. The relevant qualifying matters set out in the NPS-UD and Amendment Act include matters of national importance that decision-makers are required to recognise and provide for under section 6 of the RMA 1991, and matters necessary to implement, or to ensure consistency with, iwi participation legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Policy 9 directs the council to involve iwi and hapū in the NPS-UD, during the preparation of planning documents, and to take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development in the region. In the context of the NPS-UD, the council must involve mana whenua and mataawaka within the region.

Engagement

55. All mana whenua entities recognised by the council receive ongoing invitations to engage and provide feedback on the NPS-UD programme. All representatives (including those electing not to participate in collective meetings or workshops) receive information, updates and hui notes. The council planning team encourage and ask iwi representatives to share key programme information with appropriate advisors, specialists and staff within their tribal organisations.

56. Since October 2021, council staff have been engaging with mandated mana whenua representatives at both Governance and Kaitiaki levels on the NSP-UD and its wider implications across the region. This has been through collective and individual hui. Collective hui have been held on average every 4 to 6 weeks (excluding the Christmas period).

57. As the implications of the NPS-UD have become more apparent, particularly through the Amendment Act in December 2021, potentially affected mataawaka facilities and location specific mataawaka groups have been identified. This identification has been done in consultation with the council’s Ngā Mātārae department and the Plans and Places Māori Heritage Team. Targeted engagement with these groups commenced in March 2022 and will continue through to April 2022.

58. Council staff also presented to the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum in October 2021 and March 2022. The council has provided memorandum updates to Te Pou Toi, Toi Manawa and Te Pou Taiao in February 2022.

59. The engagement being undertaken is consistent with Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the RMA which is a requirement for standard plan change processes.

Themes emerging

60. Individual and collective engagement has raised several key themes relating to such matters as the protection of scheduled and known cultural heritage and managing potential interface effects from new development with existing marae. This is supported by research undertaken by the council team in advance of these discussions with mana whenua. This has drawn on a wide range of council documents and publicly available information.

61. Common themes that have been identified include:

a) Universal access provided in residential design for less able whanau members

b) Access to open space for health and wellbeing

c) Safe and connected whānau and communities

d) Avoiding development in areas poorly served by infrastructure

e) Access to affordable housing options

f) Maintaining access to customary activities e.g. waka launching, kaimoana gathering

g) Protection of Māori sites and places of cultural significance. Maintaining precincts that protect cultural values or are otherwise culturally sensitive (such as Ihumātao)

h) Avoiding negative effects of intensive residential development on established cultural activities/facilities (such as marae)

i) Provisions for Kohanga reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori in urban areas

j) Use of Māori design concepts in the development of commercial centres and in large residential developments

k) Use of mātauranga and tikanga Māori in the management of resources

l) The support of measures to maintain and improve water quality, ecological areas, volcanic viewshafts, and the coastline.

m) Avoid exacerbating natural hazard risks

n) Maintaining the cultural significance of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area

o) Concern that Future Urban Zone land will be prematurely rezoned.

62. The council’s engagement team is actively working across the NPS-UD project to consider these matters and are reporting back to the mana whenua representatives on progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63. Work on the NPS-UD has been progressing within existing budgets. However, the recent passing of the Amendment Act has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the project, without any changes to the NPS-UD implementation timeframes. This will require a greater than anticipated level of change to the AUP and therefore a higher level of public participation and potential feedback and submissions.

64. The financial impact of these changes will affect the current 2021-2022 and the 2022-2023 financial year, and potentially the following year. While it is expected that additional costs in the current financial year can be met through a re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Chief Planning Office, further costs (primarily relating to operation of an independent hearings panel and engagement of specialists) may require re-prioritisation of other work programmes from across the organisation. Planning for the 2022-2023 financial year is currently underway, however any impacts will be of a scale that will not affect the council’s overall financial position.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. The key risks from not addressing consequential technical amendments from the removal of minimum car parking requirements from the AUP and HGI Plan are:

a) broader issues are not addressed resulting in poor development outcomes

b) council may not achieve its climate objectives under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland Climate Plan which anticipate 40 percent of light vehicles to be electric or zero emission by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050

c) alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle in light of the removal of car parking minimums are not supported

d) activities such as loading/servicing may spill over into the road network and adversely impacts its efficiency and detracts from the provision of improved public transport (e.g. bus only lanes) or separated cycle facilities.

66. The key risks associated with the lack of standards for private ways are poor development, safety, efficiency, accessibility, amenity, environmental, convenience and public health (from greater car dependency) outcomes. This will not achieve the NPS UD objective of a well-functioning urban environment.

67. The key risks associated with enabling buildings of at least six storeys in walkable catchments and the relevant zones implementing MDRS are:

a) broader issues are not addressed and result in poor amenity outcomes and poor-quality built environment

b) health and safety impacts on people living in developments with inadequate privacy and personal safety, lack of space for children’s play areas, passive recreation including gardening, for household infrastructure (including rainwater tanks, rubbish bins, heat pump units, storage sheds) access to sunlight (for mental wellbeing as well as drying laundry).

68. It is recognised that the proposed changes to the AUP to accommodate six storey buildings in walkable catchments and the MDRS will have a minor impact on development capacity. However, it is considered that this will be mitigated by the significant increase in additional development capacity created through the implementation of the NPS UD and MDRS, which is on top of Auckland’s already significant development capacity.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69. Should the committee endorse the further investigation of changes to the AUP and HGI Plan to deliver quality intensification, consultation with mana whenua, local boards and key stakeholders will continue. Draft proposals will be reported back to the committee prior to 20 August 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Evaluation of options for five issues related to the removal of car parking minimums	255
b ⇩	Evaluation of options for private ways	267

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Michele Perwick - Senior Principal Planner

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

National Policy Statement Urban Development - Policy Direction for the City Centre

File No.: CP2022/02945

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek committee approval for the council’s approach to intensification and “qualifying matters” in the City Centre under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development 2020 (NPS UD).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Policy 3(a) in the NPS UD requires that in the city centre the council enables “building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification”. Policies 1 and 6 require that all planning decisions contribute to a well-functioning urban environment and Policy 4 allows for controls on height and density of urban form where “qualifying matters” apply.

3. A principled approach has been developed to meet the requirements of NPS UD Policies 1, 3, 4 and 6. This approach was workshopped with the Planning Committee on 16 February 2021.

4. Guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on implementing the NPS UD, as well as a recent resource consent decision, also set a clear direction towards the removal of general height controls and floor area ratio controls in the city centre.

5. This report recommends a policy direction for the city centre that will enable staff to prepare amendments to the city centre provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). Draft provisions will be reported back to the Planning Committee for inclusion in the wider proposed intensification plan change that is required to be notified by 20 August 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the following policy direction for implementing Policy 3(a) in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development relating to the city centre:

i) Fewer, simpler, more targeted controls

ii) Protecting sunlight and daylight to open spaces

iii) Protecting amenity and retaining the “human scale” of streets

iv) Enabling tall slender towers with space between them to allow sunlight, daylight and views to permeate the city centre

v) Protecting local and regionally significant views

vi) Protecting the outcomes achieved by the existing city centre precincts

vii) Protecting the relationship between the city centre and the Waitemata Harbour.

viii) Protecting historic heritage in the city centre

ix) Promoting climate change resilience.

b) approve in principle the removal of the general building height and floor area ratio standards in the city centre, and the application of alternative built form standards in line with the principles set out above.

Horopaki

Context

6. The National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS UD) came into force on 20 August 2020. In July and August 2021, the Committee endorsed the council’s approach to implementing the policy and the work programme to respond to the NPS UD.

7. The NPS UD has significant implications for growth and development in Auckland. It directs changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), under Policy 3, for regional policy statements and district plans to enable development capacity in the form of building height and density of urban form in specified locations.

8. In the city centre, this means enabling “building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification”.

9. The implementation of Policy 3 may be tempered to an extent by Policy 4 which provides for modification of the relevant building heights or density requirements under Policy 3 only to the extent necessary to accommodate a ”qualifying matter”.

10. The council must also consider Objective 1, Policy 1 and Policy 6, which require “well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, now and into the future.”^{^[5]}

Implementation guidance

11. NPS UD guidance (Attachment A) has been released by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), which advises that ‘as much as possible’ means removing barriers which are unnecessary and unreasonable and which prevent the maximum development capacity.

12. The guidance document directs councils to consider:

· that city centres are a step up in the zoning hierarchy from metropolitan centres, so should have heights and densities that are relatively higher than other centres,

· accessibility and demand, which economic modelling has shown are high in the city centre

· having no maximum building heights or maximum gross floor area (GFA) standards in city centre zones or large parts of city centre zones

· which qualifying matters apply to the city centre, and to look at to what extent heights and densities may need to be modified to accommodate them

· if the outcome and/or decision on what ‘as much as possible’ means for the city centre environment will ensure that a well-functioning urban environment is achieved.

City centre built form and current controls

13. The city centre is at the top of the centres hierarchy in the AUP, and already enables the greatest intensity of development in terms of height and floor area.

14. Under the current AUP, development potential is concentrated in the core, reduces towards the ridgelines and transitions to lower heights on the waterfront and the landward periphery. This has created a particular shape and form for the city centre.

15. The City Centre Zone and precincts also manage the scale of development to protect important special character areas, sunlight admission to parks and public spaces, precinct character and outcomes, identified special views, and the relationship between the built form and the harbour edge.

16. When the city centre controls were prepared, council staff looked at harbour edge cities across the world to understand different types of built form. The AUP city centre controls were deliberately structured to enable a built form outcome that was distinctively Auckland and reflected the city centre’s position as the economic capital of New Zealand, appealing to commercial and residential developers, while also maintaining and enhancing the distinctiveness of particular areas and the built form outcomes of the city centre as a whole.

General Height Control

17. Standard H8.6.2. General building height in the City Centre Zone manages the height of buildings within the city centre to:

· enable the tallest buildings within the core central business district and

· transition heights down to neighbourhoods adjoining the city centre and to the harbour edge;

· respect the valley and ridgeline form of the city centre and the existing or planned character of precincts; and

· avoid adverse dominance, shading and/or visual amenity effects of building height on streets and public open spaces.

18. This standard controls height differently in different locations. The lowest height limit is 15m at the western edge of Karangahape Road, increasing to 50m around Nelson Street, Greys Ave and Eden Crescent areas. The tallest buildings, with heights managed instead by the special height controls (a combination of controls protecting sunlight admission, views, and amenity of Aotea Square and the Harbour Edge), are enabled in the core central business district of the Queen Street valley and along Albert Street.

Floor Area Ratio

19. One of the primary controls for built form in the City Centre Zone is floor area ratio (FAR). This includes basic, bonus and maximum FARs (standards H8.6.10. – H8.6.21.).

20. The purpose of FAR is to manage the scale of development in the city centre, and the purpose of bonus FAR is to encourage developments to be designed, contain activities or provide features that provide a benefit to the public.

21. Although the bonus FAR system has achieved some notable benefits in the city centre over the years, it does not sit well within our current planning system. It was introduced in the City of Auckland District Scheme - Second Review (Operative 1981), under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977^{^[6]} and rolled over into the AUP.^{^[7]}

22. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), however, is based on the principle of sustainable management and focuses on considering the effects of activities on the environment rather than just regulating the activities themselves.

23. Because of their origin, the bonus FAR controls are not explicitly linked to the effects of development, and include ‘transferring’ of additional floor space between sites and buildings. Under an RMA effects-based system, the adverse effect of that additional floor space is considered on the subject site, whether it has been transferred from another development site, or not. This means the additional floor space and height can be granted without the need to achieve the bonus outcomes on the donor site.

24. This is exactly what was discussed in a resource consent decision by independent commissioners on behalf of the council in 2020 (BUN60341835: 74-80 Wellesley Street, Attachment B) which granted consent for a development that exceeded the maximum total floor area ratio. The decision noted that the bonus FAR framework is used to determine consent outcomes based on financial transactions unrelated to the subject site and the effects of development, and that this is not an acceptable reason to decline a resource consent application when the effects of the proposal are otherwise acceptable.

25. This decision confirms that the use of the bonus system to assign additional development capacity is not in line with effects-based planning under the RMA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26. In July and August 2021, the Planning Committee endorsed a list of potential “qualifying matters”. This included:

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

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

27. Since July 2021, a principled approach has been developed to provide for both intensification and qualifying matters within the City Centre. These principles are focused on enabling development capacity to maximise benefits of intensification, while ensuring a well-functioning urban environment and protecting the city centre “qualifying matters” endorsed by the Planning Committee.

28. The principles are:

· Fewer, simpler, more targeted controls

· Protecting sunlight and daylight to open spaces

· Protecting amenity and retaining the “human scale” of streets

· Enabling tall slender towers with space between them to allow sunlight, daylight and views to permeate the city centre.

· Protecting local and regionally significant views

· Protecting the outcomes achieved by the existing city centre precincts

· Protecting the relationship between the city centre and the Waitemata Harbour

· Protecting historic heritage in the city centre

· Promoting climate change resilience.

29. The intention of these principles is to retain planning provisions that protect the aspects of the city centre that are valued by Aucklanders either as “qualifying matters” or as provisions that do not affect height or density of urban form, and to remove provisions that would impede increasing height and density.

30. The effects-based nature of the RMA and MfE guidance mentioned above set a clear direction towards the removal of FAR controls in the city centre, as well as removal of general height controls. This has been considered in developing the principled approach.

31. This report seeks endorsement to remove general building height and floor area ratio standards in the city centre, and the application of alternative built form standards which are in line with the principles set out above.

32. This will essentially allow unlimited height and development capacity everywhere in the city centre zone (subject to controls contained with precincts and other modifying factors such as “qualifying matters”).

33. Where other “qualifying matters” overlap with the city centre, for example volcanic viewshafts or heritage buildings, it is proposed to treat those “qualifying matters” in the same way as they are being treated elsewhere in the region through.

34. The proposed approach will result in some changes. It will provide developers flexibility in where height is sought but potentially will reduce or remove the primacy of the current built form philosophy. For example, the ridge and valley landscape that has been promoted for many years may be lost. Additionally, the Queen Street core may no longer be a distinctive height feature, as developers take advantage of additional height elsewhere in the city centre.

35. However, the concurrent additional intensification in the walkable catchment around the city centre will still ensure a transition in heights from the city centre out to the suburban residential zones beyond. This means that the primacy of the city centre zone will still be highly distinguishable as a landscape element when viewed from afar.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

37. NPS UD Objective 8 is “New Zealand’s urban environments: support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and are resilient to the current and future effects of climate change.”

38. The proposed principles for the city centre include “Climate change resilience and environmental sustainability”, to support the Climate Plan, our obligations under the RMA, and the NPS UD.

39. The city centre is the most connected and accessible place in Auckland. Economic modelling has shown that people access the city centre with high frequency by both private and public transport methods. Significant investment in public transport infrastructure, including the City Rail Link and bus interchanges, will increase accessibility levels and help to shift people’s travel mode to public transport.

40. By increasing the level of intensification in the city centre through increasing height and density, the council will encourage more people to live, work and play in the city centre and thereby access goods and services via public transport and walking and cycling. This will reduce regional reliance on private vehicles and consequently help to reduce emissions.

41. Additionally, the principle of “Protecting sunlight and daylight to open spaces”, will help protect trees in the city centre. This will help to mitigate the effects of climate change including reducing the urban heat island effect.^{^[8]}

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. The principles have been developed by a city centre working group comprised of relevant subject matter experts from across the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. The city centre is within the Waitemata Local Board area. Representatives from the local board were presented the principles at the workshop on 16 February 2022.

44. Local board members have also been briefed this month on the implications of the NPS UD. Further workshops will be held between now and August 2022 to enable regular exchange of information and views between staff and elected members, including local board members. Local boards will also receive a report on the NPS UD in June 2022 after public engagement on the council’s preliminary response from mid-April to early May 2022. At that point local boards (including the Waitemata Local Board) will be able to provide formal input to the Planning Committee prior to the proposed intensification plan change being finalised for notification by 20 August 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. Auckland Council has obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its Significance and Engagement Policy to take special consideration when engaging with Māori and to enable Māori participation in council decision making to promote Māori well-being

46. The NPS UD provides for the interests of Māori through both its identification of qualifying matters and in its objectives and policies. The widespread intensification sought by the NPS UD has the potential to affect Māori both negatively and positively. This includes with respect to culturally significant sites and landscapes, Treaty Settlement redress land, the urban form as it reflects mātauranga Māori and accessibility, and Māori facilities where customs and traditions are observed (such as marae).

47. The relevant qualifying matters include: (a) a matter of national importance that decision makers are required to recognise and provide for under section 6 of the RMA 1991, and (f) a matter necessary to implement, or to ensure consistency with, iwi participation legislation.

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

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

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

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

49. Policy 9 directs council to involve iwi and hapū in the NPS UD, during the preparation of planning documents, and take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development in the region. In the context of the NPS UD, the council must involve mana whenua and mataawaka within the region.

Engagement

50. All mana whenua entities recognised by council receive ongoing invitations to engage and provide feedback on the NPS UD programme. All representatives (including those electing not to participate in collective meetings or workshops) receive information, updates and hui notes. The council planning team encourage and ask iwi representatives to share key programme information with appropriate advisors, specialists and staff within their tribal organisations.

51. Since October 2021, council staff have been engaging with mandated mana whenua representatives at both Governance and Kaitiaki levels on the NSP-UD and its wider implications across the region. This has been through collective and individual hui. Collective hui have been held on average every four to six weeks (excluding the Christmas period).

52. As the implications of the NPS UD have become more apparent, particularly through the enacting of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment legislation in December 2021, potentially affected mataawaka facilities and location specific mataawaka groups have been identified. This identification been done in consultation with the council’s Ngā Mātārae department and the Plans and Places’ Māori Heritage Team. Targeted engagement with these groups is to commence in late February and through to April this year.

53. Council staff have presented to and provided updates to the Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum and its relevant Pou (Te Pou ToiToi Manawa, Te Pou Taiao, Te Pou Oranga) since October 2021.

54. The engagement being undertaken is consistent with Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the RMA which is a requirement for standard plan change processes.

Themes emerging

55. Individual and collective engagement has raised several key themes relating to such matters as the protection of scheduled and known cultural heritage and managing potential interface effects with existing marae.

56. This is supported by research undertaken by the council team in advance of discussions with mana whenua, which has drawn on a wide range of council documents and publicly available information.

57. Common themes that have been identified include:

a) Universal access provided in residential design for less able whanau members

b) Access to open space for health and wellbeing

c) Safe and connected whānau and communities

d) Access to affordable housing options

e) Access to customary activities eg. waka launching, kaimoana gathering

f) Protection of Māori sites of significance

g) Provisions for Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori in urban areas

h) Use of Māori design and naming in development

i) Use of Mātauranga and Tikanga Māori in the management of resources

58. This research has been provided to mana whenua representatives and helps to guide individual and collective discussions.

59. The mana whenua engagement team are actively working across the NPS UD project workstream leads (including the City Centre workstream) to consider these matters and are reporting back to the mana whenua representatives on project progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60. Work on the NPS UD has been progressing within existing budgets. However, the recent passing of the Enabling Act has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the project without any changes to the NPS UD implementation timeframes. This will require a greater than anticipated level of change to our Unitary Plan, and we expect this to result in a higher level of public participation and potential feedback and submissions.

61. The financial impact of these changes will affect the current 2021-2022 financial year, the 2022-2023 financial year and potentially the following year. While we expect additional costs in the current financial year can be met through a re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Planning division, further costs primarily relating to operation of an independent hearings panel and engagement of specialists may require re-prioritisation of other work programmes from across council. Planning for the 2022-2023 financial year is currently underway, however any impacts will be of a scale that will not affect the council’s overall financial position.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. The next five months will be focussed on preparing the proposed plan change to implement the intensification provisions of the NPS UD. This will include analysing and updating the current city centre provisions (where required) for the council’s proposed plan change and undertaking pre-notification engagement.

63. There is a risk that the significant volume of work required to prepare the necessary changes to the city centre provisions in the AUP may not be able to be achieved to a high standard within the required timeframe (i.e. notification of the proposed intensification plan change by 20 August 2022). To mitigate this risk, the NPS UD has been prioritised within the Plans and Places department work programme since it came into force in 2020. Consultants have also been engaged within the department’s current budget to assist in progressing this work.

64. There is also a risk that as Covid spreads through the community resourcing for the NPS UD intensification plan change may be compromised to the extent that the council cannot meet the 20 August 2022 statutory timeframe for public notification, Staff will keep the Planning Committee regularly updated on this risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. Staff will use the principles endorsed by the Planning Committee to progress work on the necessary changes to the city centre provisions in the AUP. Draft provisions will be reported back to the Planning Committee for inclusion in the wider proposed intensification plan change that is required to be notified by 20 August 2022. If necessary, a further workshop will be held with the Planning Committee to refine or seek further direction on the council’s approach.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ministry for the Environment guidance: Understanding and implementing intensification provisions for the National Policy Statement on Urban Development	281
b ⇩	Resource consent decision for 74-80 Wellesley Street West, Auckland Central	337

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elisabeth Laird - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Thriving Town Centres - Guidance for Urban Regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland

File No.: CP2021/19727

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend Planning Committee endorse the Eke Panuku guidance document “Thriving Town Centres – guidance for urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland”.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Thriving Town Centres is a guidance document for the urban regeneration activity Eke Panuku undertakes across Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. Creating this new guidance document has brought together different stakeholders and interests to develop a shared understanding of the importance of town centres and the common factors that help make town centres successful. It is acknowledged that each town centre is unique and has its own characteristics and this is reflected throughout the guidance.

3. The work builds on Eke Panuku experience of urban regeneration, the diverse aspirations of partners and stakeholders, as well as local and international best-practice. The document is informed by Eke Panuku high-level project plans, masterplans, programme business cases as well as Auckland Council strategies and government policy.

4. Input was provided by the Planning Committee at a workshop on 27 October 2021. This workshop was also attended by Local Board Chairs or their delegates. Extensive stakeholder engagement was undertaken through the development of the guidance. Eke Panuku has engaged with the Eke Panuku mana whenua forum, technical advisory group (TAG), local boards, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Watercare, Independent Māori Statutory Board, and Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities. Key stakeholders have been involved across the urban design and development sectors, business improvement districts (BIDS), youth, disability, social services and community housing sectors. Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns many of these sessions were successfully held online.

5. Suggestions from the Planning Committee workshop, Eke Panuku Board and the comprehensive stakeholder engagement have been incorporated. Thriving Town Centres helps to clarify Eke Panuku's role and approach to urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland (supporting the CCO review recommendations). The guidance provides a rationale for why town centres matter and how Eke Panuku is involved, provides a series of interconnected principles and criteria, and sets out the Eke Panuku urban regeneration toolbox. It is closely aligned and gives effect to the six outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2050 and the quality compact approach of the development strategy

6. The vision is for Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland to become a city of strong neighbourhoods, with thriving town centres – that capture hearts and energise lives, unlock potential and possibilities, where people, businesses and communities can flourish. Six shared principles are expressed as strategic outcomes that will enable town centres to thrive – unique identity, integrated transport, supportive community, healthy natural environment, urban living and prosperous & robust local economy. The document also includes a toolbox that highlights the main approaches that underpin successful urban regeneration.

7. Following Planning Committee consideration, the Thriving Town Centres guidance will be communicated across Eke Panuku and with partners and stakeholders. It will be used as a guide and reference document for staff, including in design, masterplanning and placemaking, monitoring, assessment of new locations and substantial programme business case review.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse “Thriving Town Centres – Guidance for urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland” (Attachment A of the agenda report) as a guidance document for Eke Panuku.

Horopaki

Context

8. Thriving Town Centres helps to implement the Auckland Plan development strategy and the quality compact approach within a city of strong neighbourhoods. Many existing town centres face a range of challenges such as the rise of online retail, decline in business and employment presence, and competition from large-format retail. Covid-19 has exacerbated a number of these existing trends facing local town centres. Although some centres have experienced a quicker ‘bounce back’ due to changes in the way people live and work and the increase in remote, flexible working. Regeneration of town centres offers several opportunities including the ability to support low-carbon lifestyles with daily needs easily accessible within a 15-minute walk.

9. Since establishment, Eke Panuku has prepared, and council has endorsed, high-level project plans for each of the town centres Eke Panuku works in. Thriving Town Centres is an opportunity to bring this work together and articulate how urban regeneration activity can help implement strategies such as the Auckland Plan, Local Board Plans, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. The Thriving Town Centre guidance (Attachment A) applies to Eke Panuku town centre locations. However, it is hoped that it is also informative and useful for town centres across Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and, perhaps beyond. The guidelines are provided as principles for a thriving centre for all Eke Panuku partners and stakeholders to consider, they offer guidance, are non-statutory and are not intended as detailed guidance. The guidance is consistent with council and government policy settings.

11. The guidance presents a rationale for why town centres are important. This creates the basis for urban regeneration activity, intervention and priorities. It highlights the trends and long-term factors that drive change in town centres. These present opportunities to create multiple economic, environmental, cultural and social benefits and leverage public and private sector investment within town centre programmes.

12. This guidance defines foundations, principles and criteria to express the common elements of thriving town centres. It describes how urban regeneration can support strategic outcomes such as climate action, low carbon lifestyles, Māori outcomes, facilitate new homes with better transport choices and enable economic opportunities.

Chart, sunburst chart

Description automatically generated

13. The guidance also includes a toolbox that summarises how to achieve successful town centres with the tools available to Eke Panuku. This includes how Eke Panuku works together with different stakeholders to achieve thriving town centres through strong partnerships and collaboration. Every group has a distinct role to play to contribute to town centre success.

A map of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The guidance references Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and Eke Panuku's Climate Change Strategy and supports objectives to establish low carbon, climate resilient communities. In particular, it supports greater housing density close to passenger transport helping to reduce transport emissions, greener communities with walking and cycling opportunities, sustainable building practices and low impact design approaches.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. Workshop sessions were held with Auckland Council officers, Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited and Watercare to support collaboration and alignment across the group with this project.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. Local boards where Eke Panuku are active in their town centres were invited to provide early input at a workshop held on 24 May 2021. This was followed up with the Planning Committee workshop on 27 October 2021 including all local boards to ensure local leadership and advice to the project. The guidance builds on the shared knowledge and relationships Eke Panuku has with the local boards.

17. The guidance will make a positive impact on the planning for and urban regeneration of town centres. Engagement with the community and the importance of local community aspirations are acknowledged.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. To strengthen the relationship with mana whenua - our treaty partners - a mana whenua perspective on thriving town centres is included in the guidance. The aspirations within this guidance have been designed by iwi who make up the mana whenua forum for Eke Panuku. These aspirations look to benefit all communities across the region and hold wellbeing, equity and inclusivity at its heart. The forum's input was facilitated through a series of hui and several separate caucus sessions to discuss this kaupapa.

19. The Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat was also briefed on the project and the mana whenua engagement process with the forum.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20. Beyond existing budgets, the implementation of the guidance will be subject to the funding available to Eke Panuku for urban regeneration of town centres and to other organisations working in this area.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21. Project risks were identified and proactively managed through the project plan and project governance. An acknowledged risk is that the guidance cannot be implemented fully everywhere.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22. The guidance will be used by Eke Panuku in several ways including as:

· Communication and urban advocacy tool for stakeholders & partners

· Guide and reference document for staff, including induction of new staff

· Articulate agreed minimum standards with stakeholders

· Reference for masterplanning and urban design review

· Framework for town centre monitoring programme

· Apply in the planning for any new location programmes

· Apply to any programme level substantial reviews – programme business cases

23. It is intended Thriving Town Centres will be implemented and communicated, both internally and externally, with Eke Panuku from April 2022 onwards.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Thriving Town Centres – Guidance for urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland	407

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Naomi Craymer – Principal Strategic Advisor, Eke Panuku

Gyles Bendall – General Manager Design & Place, Eke Panuku

Brenna Waghorn – General Manager Strategy & Planning, Eke Panuku

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive - Eke Panuku

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Resolutions from the Aotea/Great Barrier, Waiheke and Waitematā Local Boards regarding concerns about helicopter activity

File No.: CP2022/02480

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To respond to resolutions from the Aotea/Great Barrier, Waiheke and Waitematā Local Boards which raise concerns regarding the management of helicopter activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and the Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section (HGI Plan).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report has been prepared jointly by the Plans and Places Department and the Resource Consents Department in response to matters raised in resolutions from the Waiheke local Board meeting on 15 December 2021; Waitemata Local Board of 15 December 2021 and the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board on 22 March 2022.

3. The report considers the current regulatory framework of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (HGI Plan) in response to local board concerns about the ability of the provisions to manage helicopter activity. In relation to the HGI Plan the report provides clarification regarding the interpretation of rules, and about the notification and processing of resource consent applications for restricted discretionary activities.

4. A comparison of the HGI Plan and the AUP identifies that the HGI Plan provisions are less strict in terms of resource consent activity status and noise standards. The greatest difference is in relation to activity status for helicopter activity in residential areas. In the AUP, helicopter landing and take-off in residential zones is a non-complying activity, meaning that council’s discretion over matters that may be considered is unlimited (providing the matters are within the scope of the Resource Management Act (RMA)). Under the HGI Plan, helicopter activity in residential zones is a restricted discretionary activity, with the matters of discretion being restricted to visual amenity and aural amenity. The assessment criteria enable an assessment of relevant effects, including consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers, flight movements and cumulative effects.

5. The less strict rules for helicopter landing and take-off and helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were developed in the early 2000s to recognise the tourism and economic benefits that can arise from enabling travel to and from the Hauraki Gulf Islands by helicopter, and the very different transport needs that exist on the Hauraki Gulf Islands compared to other parts of Auckland.

6. Both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the council’s Compliance and Monitoring department have agreed to carry out an analysis of flight data and resource consent conditions for helicopter flights on Waiheke Island, which will provide more detailed information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing regulatory framework and will assist with determining if changes are required.

7. In terms of public and limited notification of helipad resource consent applications, the HGI Plan requires this to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For restricted discretionary activities, while the provisions generally preclude public notification of restricted discretionary activities^{^[9]}, the council can consider special circumstances that may warrant notification under section 95A (9) of the RMA. The consideration of special circumstances occurs on a case-by-case basis. A request by the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Boards for blanket application of special circumstances has been considered and is not considered legally defendable. For discretionary activity helipad applications under the HGI Plan, applications do not benefit from the presumption of non-notification, and a full notification assessment is required.

8. Prohibited activity status has been considered for the AUP, as requested by the Waitematā Local Board. The legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high, as the underlying premise for this activity status is that there are no circumstances in which helipads are appropriate. This would be an extremely difficult position to establish and is not recommended.

9. A moratorium has also been considered for the HGI Plan, as requested by the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board. It is noted that a moratorium is not a mechanism provided for under the RMA and council cannot lawfully impose this. The equivalent district plan rule would be to apply prohibited activity status through a plan change to the HGI Plan. As discussed above the legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high and would be an extremely difficult position to establish and is not recommended.

10. It is acknowledged there is a lack of information currently available to the council regarding flight data and compliance with consent conditions. Council’s Plans and Places department, Resource Consents department, and Compliance and Monitoring department support the request from the Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board for the development of a compliance and monitoring programme. The Compliance and Monitoring department has developed a project for collection of this information to assess compliance rates and to identify any exceedances or discrepancies in flight-log recording. This project is scheduled to commence immediately and is estimated to take six months.

11. A wider data base of flight information is held by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and discussions are underway to give the council access to this information in order that an analysis and understanding of all helicopter activity in the Auckland area is obtained.

12. The data collected will have a bearing on a determination on whether changes to planning provisions are warranted. It is recommended that an options analysis based on the information collected is provided to the Planning Committee once the work is complete. This in turn will form a valuable evidence base which will be required should a plan change be required.

13. It is important to note that at this point in time, the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to complete the work that would be required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan. The department is responding to the government’s extensive policy programme (and a significant increase in workload due to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act) and a very high volume of private plan change requests, some of which have required the council to make submissions (for which costs cannot be recovered).

14. Lack of capacity to undertake any new policy work is likely to continue for at least the next six months. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point in time a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the further work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) acknowledge the concerns raised by the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Mana Whenua (via the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board) regarding helicopter activity managed under the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section)

b) acknowledge the concerns raised by Waitematā Local Board regarding helicopter activity managed under the Auckland Unitary Plan

c) note that the Compliance and Monitoring department is about to commence a project to analyse flight log information from helicopter resource consent holders on Waiheke Island where this is a condition of consent in order to determine extent of compliance and assist with an evidence-base of effects

d) note that staff will be working with the Civil Aviation Authority to analyse available flight tracking data to obtain an overview of current levels and patterns of helicopter activity in the Auckland region

e) request that once the compliance investigation is complete, a report is prepared for the Planning Committee providing an analysis of results

f) note the advice from staff that the legal tests for prohibited activity status are very high and would be an extremely difficult position to establish for the landing and take-off of helicopters across residential and coastal areas as part of any plan change, and is not recommended by staff

g) note that due to current pressures arising from the government’s extensive policy programme (and in particular the impact of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act, at this point in time the Plans and Places department does not have the capacity to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) relating to helicopter activity

h) note that the council’s Māori Heritage team is working with mana whenua to identify and protect sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua on Aotea/Great Barrier Island

i) agree that the provisions for helipads in the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) are sufficiently clear and that the council should not seek a declaration in the Environment Court.

Horopaki

Context

15. Over the past six months there has been concern expressed by Auckland residents and public interest groups about the number of and noise generated by helicopters and helipads, particularly on Waiheke Island; the process of considering resource consent applications including the matter of notification; and whether consent holders are complying with consent conditions. There are 49 consented helipad sites on Waiheke Island and five current applications for helipads on Aotea Great Barrier.

16. This report responds to resolutions from the Waiheke local Board, Waitemata Local Board, and the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Waiheke Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WHK /2021/178 (a) to (f)

b) Waitemata Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WTM 2021/298 (a) to (c)

c) Aotea Great Barrier Local Board resolutions of 22 March 2022.

Waiheke Local Board

17. The Waiheke Local Board resolution dated 21July 2021 sought information from council officers about the regulatory framework for managing helicopters activity in the Hauraki Gulf Island Plan (HGI Plan) and options to further control helicopter activity. A joint memorandum of response from the Plans and Places Department and Resource Consents Departments was provided to both the Waiheke Local Board and the Planning Committee on 3 December 2021. The memorandum advised that a review of the HGI Plan provisions as part of the scheduled AUP review in 2026 was considered the most efficient use of the council’s resources, given the ability of relevant effects to be considered under the HGI Plan as it currently stands, and taking into account the council’s current resources, the significant policy workload arising from central government directions (such as the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and National Policy Statement on Urban Development), and the timing of the next AUP review in 2026.

18. It also advised that the Resource Consents Department was discussing the feasibility of the Compliance and Monitoring Department undertaking an educational approach for all existing helipad resource consent holders on Waiheke in conjunction with a CAA educational initiative that is also underway. Copies of the resolution and the memorandum of response are provided in Attachment A.

19. The Waiheke Local Board considered the memorandum at its meeting on 15 December 2021. The board members remained concerned about the management of helicopter activity and passed 12 additional resolutions requesting that, amongst other matters, the council obtain tracking records and set-up ongoing compliance monitoring to collect data on helicopter movements. It also requests that the council resource and instigate a plan change (subject to the outcome of the collection of data) and in the interim, consider certain matters when assessing applications for helipads and take-offs and landings. The resolution (WHK/2021/178) is provided in Attachment B.

Waitemata Local Board

20. The Waitemata Local Board resolution dated 12 December recommends the Planning Committee instigate a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to make recreational helicopter take-offs and landings in urban and suburban residential areas, and in the coastal zone where adjacent to urban or suburban areas, a prohibited activity. The resolution (WTM/2021/298) is provided in Attachment C.

Aotea Great Barrier Local Board

21. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board has also raised concerns and passed resolutions dated 22 March 2022. The local board is concerned about regulations for managing helicopter activity following the receipt of five applications for helipads on Aotea/Great Barrier Island dated 8 March 2022. The resolution is provided in Attachment D.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The regulatory framework for helicopter use is divided into two parts. Firstly section 9(5) of the RMA limits Council's consideration of adverse effects to only those that arise in relation to the construction of helipads and the taking off and landing of helicopters. Secondly, the effects that arise from the overflying activity are regulated by the CAA. This is relevant to consider when analysing the sufficiency of the current plan rules and the concerns that have been raised, and not those effects that arise from the broader overflying activity^{^[10]}.

23. The extent of the council’s jurisdiction is discussed in detail in paragraphs 36 - 38 of the memorandum to the Waiheke Local Board (Attachment a).

Overview of AUP and HGI Rules

24. The regulatory framework of the HGI Plan and the AUP in relation to the establishment of helipads, and helicopter activities of take-off and landing is discussed in detail in the memorandum to the Waiheke Local Board dated 4 December 2021 (Attachment A – Part A).

A summary of the regulatory framework is provided below:

25. In relation to the HGI Plan, the rules for helipads are set out in section 13.8 of the HGI Plan. Provision is made for permitted activities (Rule 13.8.1), restricted discretionary activities (Rule 13.8.2) and discretionary activities (Rule 13.8.3). Permitted activities do not require a resource consent (provided they meet all other relevant standards in the HGI Plan); restricted discretionary activities require an application for resource consent which can be declined but only for reasons that relate to the matters over which council has restricted its discretion; discretionary activities require a resource consent application which can also be declined. There are no limits on the scope of matters that can be considered when assessing a discretionary activity (provided they are within the scope of the Resource Management Act (RMA)).

26. The HGI Plan rules are reproduced in full at paragraph 18 of the memorandum (Attachment A).

27. In relation to the AUP, in the residential zones, helicopter landing and take-off is a non-complying activity under provision (A1) of the relevant activity tables. Item (A1) applies non-complying activity status to activities not provided for (in the activity tables). For rural zones, helicopter landings and take-offs associated with servicing rural activities fall under the activity ‘rural airstrip’ and are a permitted activity in all rural zones. Helicopter activity outside of this context (i.e. private use) is a discretionary activity^{^[11]}.

28. The memorandum provides a comparison of the HGI provisions to the AUP provisions. It is noted that the HGI Plan provisions are less strict than the AUP in terms of resource consent activity status and noise standards. The key differences are the activity status applied in residential zones (non-complying in the AUP and restricted discretionary activity in the HGI Plan) and the non-notification rule that applies in the HGI Plan (Rule 13.5). For rural zones, both plans have a permissive approach to servicing rural activities. For non-rural helicopter activity (i.e. private use) the AUP takes a stricter approach than the HGI Plan (discretionary activity and restricted discretionary activity respectively).

29. Notwithstanding that the provisions of the HGI Plan are less strict than the AUP, where restricted discretionary activity status is triggered, the HGI Plan provisions do allow relevant effects, including impacts on visual amenity and aural amenity and cumulative effects to be assessed, and enable the council to decline resource consent applications. The criteria include consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers and flight movements. Where discretionary and non-complying activity status is triggered, whether under the AUP or HGI Plan, the range of discretion is unlimited (within the scope of the RMA). Regarding noise standards of the HGI Plan and AUP, the relevant rules as set out in the memorandum are:

a) AUP noise standard at Rule E25.6.32 applies Ldn 50 dB and LAFmax 85 dB

b) HGI noise standard for restricted discretionary activity at Rule 13.8.2 applies Ldn 50 (using a rolling three-day average). For additional context, it is highlighted here that Rule 13.8.2 is still more restrictive than NZS 6807:1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas as the NZ Standard refers to a seven-day averaging period.

30. Both the AUP and HGI Plan apply Ldn 50dB. The AUP provisions are identified as more restrictive, as compliance is based on any single (24 hour) day rather than an average over three days. Applying the AUP rules, an indicative setback distance to comply with 50 dB Ldn for one flight (landing and take-off) is a minimum of approximately 100m from the helipad to the nearest notional boundary. In comparison, using the HGI Plan Ldn three-day rolling average, the minimum setback distance could be reduced by around 50m for one flight (i.e. the setback is approximately 50m).

31. The less strict rules for helicopter landing and take-off and helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were developed in the early 2000s to recognise the tourism and economic benefits that can arise from enabling travel to and from the Hauraki Gulf Islands by helicopter, and the very different transport needs that exist on the Hauraki Gulf Islands compared to other parts of Auckland.

Alternative Interpretation of applicable rules - HGI Plan

32. The Waiheke Local Board considers that there are other interpretations of the HGI Plan rules and resolution (h) requests council to seek a declaration from the Environment Court on a number of matters including alternative interpretations of the activity status of take-off and landings; whether a broader consideration of amenity should be applied when considering the restricted discretionary criteria including considering impacts on the wider public and visitors; and the adequacy of the scope of the rules in terms of whether consideration should be given to matters such as the Waiheke Local Board Plan Vision of Waiheke as a Sanctuary and issues such as climate change and carbon emissions.

33. The interpretation of Part 13.8 as standalone provisions is discussed in detail in Attachment B to the memorandum. Support for the council’s interpretation of the provisions as ‘standalone’ is found in the analysis of the background to the development of the provisions (reporting on the 2006 district plan review issues, s32 and s42A reports). Attention is drawn to the specific intention of council to consolidate all transport provisions into one chapter. The intention of consolidation and other matters of context outlined in the memorandum (specificity of provisions, correct noise standards and potential absurd outcome (making Chapter 13.8 redundant) are considered to demonstrate clearly that the provisions in Chapter 13.8 are intended to be ‘standalone’ and are the relevant provisions to apply to helicopter activity. The memorandum notes that the council’s interpretation applies a plain word interpretation, and that the consideration of contextual matters is consistent with relevant caselaw on how to interpret plans under the RMA.

34. Attachment B to the memorandum considers the alternative interpretation of a ‘non-complying’ activity. It is noted that the interpretation is based on the premise that the Claris Airport Activity Table identifies helipads as a permitted activity and that the absence of a line item in the land unit activity tables for helipad activity outside of the Claris airport therefore triggers a default non-complying activity status (under Chapter 4.2 general rules).

35. The memorandum identifies that the permitted activity status for helipads in the Claris Airport Activity Table is to recognise existing airport activity which warranted it being treated differently to other new helipads outside the airport. Council staff do not consider that this special recognition triggers non-complying activity status in relation to all other land units. It is noted that if that interpretation was applied, the provisions at Rule 13.8 are made entirely redundant. Applying a plain interpretation of the provisions, this would be considered an absurd outcome (in legal terms).

36. Attachment B to the Memorandum also considers the alternative interpretation of noise rules which is that noise rules at Rule 13.8 and general rules for noise under Rule 10c.5.3 are both applicable. On this matter, the memorandum highlights that the specificity of noise provisions and the context of consolidation of relevant rules into one chapter supports the application of Rule 13.8 and not the general noise rule 10c.5.3. The memorandum highlights the specific nature of Rule 13.8.2 - being expressly intended for helicopter activity, as is evident in the refencing of the correct specification of New Zealand Standards noise standards for helicopter activity (NZX:6807:1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas and NZS 6805:1992 Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning). For the reasons outlined staff believe it is clear that the provisions in Chapter 13.8 are standalone provisions and staff do not consider a declaration from the Environment Court to be warranted.

Resource Consents Assessments

37. The Waiheke Local Board resolution h(iv) raises particular concerns about whether the provisions at Rule 13.8.2 – Restricted Discretionary activities provide for adequate consideration of amenity effects.

38. As discussed in paragraph 26 above, the existing rules are considered to allow the assessment of the typical effects of concern when it comes to the take-off and landing of helicopters (including impacts on visual amenity and aural amenity and cumulative effects). The assessment criteria include consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers and flight movements, and there is a specific requirement to consider cumulative effects. It is acknowledged, however, that the outcome of the monitoring by both the council and the CAA could be that there is a case for changing the provisions in some way.

39. Regarding the assessment of noise effects, an issue has been raised by the Waiheke Local Board in resolution (h)(ii) about noise readings being measured from the notional boundary of sites with sensitive activities^{^[12]} and has indicated that this approach precludes proper consideration of cumulative effects and impacts on the wider community. However, the technical reason for the use of the notional boundary is that this approach results in noise measurements from sites which are worst affected by the application. This approach therefore sets the highest bar for assessment of noise impacts and in this context is a highly representative and broadly inclusive method of assessment.

40. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (h)(iv) questions whether a broader assessment of effects on amenity can be undertaken than is currently being applied by the resource consents teams. Resolutions (d), (e), (f)(iv) and (g) seek that the Waiheke Local Board Plan Vision of Waiheke as a Sanctuary is taken into account, and resolution (f)(iii) seeks that matters of climate change and carbon emissions should also be considered. The scope for these matters to be considered as ‘special circumstances’ for notification determination and assessments of resource consents in terms of the current rules of the HGI Plan is discussed in this report under the heading ‘Other Documents’.

41. Provided that a direct link can be established in relation to the matters of discretion (currently limited to noise effects, and the visual effect of earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad) it is considered that these matters could be relevant to consideration in some applications.

42. Importantly, the restricted discretionary activity applications are subject to a non-notification clause (Part 13.5). This provides for exclusion of notification (public and limited) unless a special circumstance is found to be applicable. Special circumstance parameters are a high bar, being informed by the matters of discretion and the thresholds set by case law. As with all restricted discretionary applications, the use of special circumstances in relation to notification and assessment occurs on a case-by-case basis. Special circumstances are discussed in detail in paragraphs 50 - 57 (below).

Enforcement and Monitoring - Resource consents conditions

43. There are 49 resource consents for helipads on Waiheke Island, and the Waiheke Local Board has recorded its concern that consent conditions for flight data collection (to be provided at council’s request) are not routinely implemented. The local board resolution (b) seeks the development of a compliance and monitoring plan so that the flight data is collected and is available for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of current district plan rules.

44. The Compliance and Monitoring Team has advised that the existing approach to compliance and monitoring of helicopter resource consent conditions is focused on the initial implementation of helicopter consent conditions (to establish a helipad), and that monitoring after the initial set up is reactionary (i.e. it is triggered when a complaint received). This approach is low risk given the low frequency of helicopter related complaints received. As shown in Table 1 below, prior to 2022 the number of complaints has been on average one per year. The reactionary approach recognises that the majority of the consents are not subject of complaint and allows for practical prioritisation of staff resource towards higher risk consent activities.

Table 1: Helicopter complaints recorded between 2004 to March 2022.

2022	Multiple complaints (Cable Bay)
2016	1 complaint (query about flight paths deviation)
2015	3 complaints concerning same consent holder (query about no. of flights) (24 September 10,11 October, 14 October)
2014	1 complaint (query about flight path deviation)
2013	1 complaint (query about flight path deviation)
2004	1 complaint (query about no. of flights)

45. It is however accepted that there is insufficient data from this method to determine overall compliance rates and the Compliance and Monitoring team has agreed to formulate a programme of work (detailed in Attachment E to this report - ‘Proactive Compliance Project proposal’) as a matter of urgency. This programme will obtain and analyse flight log information as included in resource consent conditions since 2015 to provide an overview of the level of compliance currently (establishing a baseline for future comparison) and how it can be improved.

46. The project is to commence immediately and is estimated to take six months. The project will investigate and ascertain baseline compliance of helicopter movements linked with Waiheke Island properties; determine what proportion are occurring in accordance with the conditions of resource consent; and will undertake agreed interventions where non-compliance has been detected. The project’s specific objectives are:

· Determine compliance rates in this consent category (Waiheke Island, Helicopter activity)

· Identify any exceedances or discrepancies in flight-log recording.

47. This work will complement an education initiative by the Resource Consents department and the Civil Aviation Authority which is already underway. The initiative aims to contact helicopter consent holders to raise awareness of their specific helipad consent conditions and the consent holder’s associated responsibilities.

48. In addition to the above outlined initiatives, Plans and Places and Resource Consents staff have met with staff from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to discuss helicopter activity on and around Waiheke Island, and in particular, the views of the CAA on the amount of helicopter activity in relation to safety.

49. The CAA were able to show council digital representations of flight data which provided for broad analysis of helicopter activity both on Waiheke, and in terms of overflying. The CAA has advised that when the modelling of the flight data is completed, it will be made available to council.

50. On the issue of whether flights generated from the number of helipads on Waiheke was considered overly high, the CAA noted that the flight data held by the CAA for the 49 consented helipads on Waiheke shows that only six are in regular use (these include Mudbrick and Cable Bay vineyards, the Waiheke Aerodrome, and the sports field helipad that is utilised by emergency services). The CAA have also advised that very few of the Waiheke helipads tip the threshold of being an aerodrome^{^[13]} (exceeding 7 flights over a 30-day period) and note that a large proportion of the consented helipads have very low levels of activity.

51. The CAA also noted that the helipad activity on Waiheke was occurring against a backdrop of a significantly larger number of helicopter flights overflying Waiheke - which do not land on Waiheke at all. These flights are shown to arrive and depart from mainland areas of Central Auckland, Northland, and Coromandel. As previously noted, the council’s jurisdiction does not extend to overlying helicopters (including safety and noise issues) and these activities will not be affected by changes to the HGI Plan if they are required.

52. On the issue of safety, the CAA has commented that the number of helipads (49) on Waiheke is not considered to pose a safety risk.

Other documents

Waiheke Local Board Plan (WLB Plan)

53. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (g) seeks that the WLB Plan is considered under ‘special circumstances’ when making notification determinations and in assessments of resource consent applications for helicopters. The WLB Plan is adopted pursuant to section 20 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA). The WLB Plan is not able to directly affect or deal with Council’s regulatory function under the RMA.

54. Council staff do not consider that a decision as to whether to notify a resource consent application based on special circumstances under section 95A (9) of the RMA based only on the WLB Plan would be justified. A finding of special circumstances needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

55. Caselaw indicates that a special circumstance is something that is 'exceptional, abnormal or unusual but less than extraordinary or unique'^{^[14]}. Circumstances which are 'special' will be those which make notification desirable, despite the general provisions excluding the need for notification^{^[15]}.

56. In determining the application of special circumstances, it is considered that the key consideration is whether the resulting notification would result in receipt of further information relevant to determining the substantive application. For restricted discretionary applications, the only information relevant to the substantive decision is that which falls within the scope of council’s discretion. Under Rule 13.8.2 matters of discretion are limited to noise effects, and the visual effect of any earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad or airstrip. The assessment criteria include consideration of appropriate controls over the type of helicopter(s) the flight procedure, (flight track/path, ground idling, hovering), the hours of operation and frequency of movement and the location of helipad or airstrip.

57. It is relevant to note that the WLB Plan does not appear to have any explicit bearing on an assessment of these effects, and in this regard, it is considered that the WLB Plan does not provide ‘special circumstances’ justification for public notification of restricted discretionary activity helipad and take-off and landings resource consent applications.

58. For discretionary activity applications, it is unlikely that consideration of the WLB Plan would in every case result in relevant further information coming to light. It is therefore considered that the WLB Plan does not amount to a ‘exceptional’ matter which justifies notification of all resource consent applications for helipads on Waiheke Island. Council staff therefore support a case-by-case determination of special circumstances as part of the notification decision.

59. Regarding the substantive assessment of helipad resource consent applications: for applications with restricted discretionary activity status (Rule 13.8.2) assessment is restricted to noise effects and the visual effect of any earthworks or retaining structures required to establish a helipad or airstrip. These limitations do not allow for consideration of the WLB Plan and the views of the Waiheke LB as to the application of the WLB Plan. These matters are not within the scope of the matters over which the council has restricted its discretion.

60. If the activity status of an application is discretionary, then council will make its substantive decision pursuant to section 104 of the RMA. Under section 104(1)(c) the WLB Plan could be considered as an ‘other relevant matter’ that council could take into account in its assessment of the application. However, even if the WLB is considered to be an “other relevant matter” it is likely to be of limited statutory weight as it is not a plan created under the Rma. In addition, the content of the WLB Plan does not directly address helicopter landing pads. There is a lack of direct relevance or application to helipads in the WLB Plan and this also indicates that limited weight should be given to the WLB Plan.

Carbon emissions and climate change legislation

61. The Waiheke Local Board resolution (f)(iii) requests the council to respond to the helicopter consenting issues by considering the wishes of the people of Waiheke to ‘mitigate future carbon emissions with urgency in relation to the Climate Emergency declared by the Council.’ The request has been considered in light of the RMA as it is currently, and in light of climate change amendments proposed by the Resource Management Amendment Act which comes into force from 30 November 2022.

Current situation

62. The RMA currently has a limited role in climate change mitigation and local authority responsibilities under RMA are confined to climate change adaptation (i.e. response to the effects of climate change, including natural hazards). Climate change mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) is currently beyond the scope of council’s resource management responsibilities^{^[16]}.

63. The only exception is the ability under section 70B of the RMA to control the effects on climate change of the discharge into the air of greenhouse gases, following promulgation of a National Environmental Standard (NES). However, no such NES has yet eventuated.

Resource Management Amendment Act amendments in force from 30 November 2022

64. The position will change once the RMAA amendments relating to greenhouse gas emissions come into force on 30 November 2022. However, the amendments made by the RMAA cannot be taken into account in an application for resource consent for a helipad until in force.

65. Even after 30 November 2022, where the helipad resource consent application has a restricted discretionary status, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are not permissible considerations as they are outside the scope of the mattes over which the council has restricted its discretion in Rule 13.8.2. A policy and rule framework relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction is likely therefore to need to be the subject of a separate plan change process.

66. Where the helipad resource consent application has a discretionary activity status ‘the effects of climate change’ may be relevant under section 7(i) in the context of council’s Part 2 assessment (albeit the relevance of those effects will depend on the specifics of the application in question).

Prohibited Activity Status

67. The Waitemata Local Board resolution requests the introduction of prohibited activity status in the AUP for recreational helicopter take-offs and landings in urban and suburban residential zones and adjacent coastal zones. It notes that the activity already has a non-complying activity status and that maintaining a quality living environment for these zones likely results in helicopter applications being declined. This being the case, the local board seeks that clarity and certainty is provided to people through the application of a prohibited activity status and notes that this would protect people from wasting time and money on what are likely to be unsuccessful applications.

68. It would be a very difficult task to justify a blanket prohibition on recreational helipads in residential and coastal zones. In order for a plan change that seeks to classify helipads as a prohibited activity in certain zones to succeed, the plan change would need to meet the statutory tests under the RMA. The premise underpinning prohibited activity status is that the effects are such that in no circumstances would a helipad be considered appropriate. It would be very difficult for the council to demonstrate that prohibited activity status was “the most appropriate” under the applicable statutory tests, without also proposing to change the existing policy framework of the AUP by introducing new AUP objectives and policies that support prohibited activity status. In addition, there would need to be comprehensive assessments, including in relation to the environmental effects of helipads, that would need to be undertaken by council to support the prohibited status.

69. It is considered that this would be a very difficult position to establish and council’s data at present would not provide the necessary level of supporting evidence.

70. The compliance and monitoring project outlined above will contribute to meeting the information requirements required to make an informed assessment under section 32 of the RMA by establishing a monitoring baseline. Further data may be obtained from the CAA who have indicated to council staff informally that they are willing to provide council with access to a significantly larger data base of flight log information (which goes beyond council’s helipad consents data) and will provide a broader understanding of helicopter activity in the Auckland Region. It is noted that the CAA database is still being collated and refined and the relevant data is not anticipated to become available to council before December 2022.

71. Although prohibited activity status would provide greater clarity and certainty (as suggested by the Waitemata Local Board) it would also provide no flexibility. The RMA provides for a range of activity statuses from permitted through to non-complying status which provides applicants with an indication of what activities are considered appropriate in a zone based on their potential to create adverse effects. The non-complying activity status is already the most restrictive activity status other than complete prohibition. The concern that applicants may be wasting time and money in making an application that may be turned down is acknowledged, however the risk associated with pursuing a non-complying activity is considered to be clearly conveyed by the status itself, and the assessment required under the RMA for such a status, acknowledging that applications can be granted for non-complying activities.

72. Prohibiting recreational helicopter take offs and landings in urban and suburban residential zones and adjacent coastal zones is not recommended.

Aotea/Great Barrier

73. Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board has advised council of the intention to consider a notice of motion in relation to helicopter activity (Attachment D). The notice of motion will seek the public notification of all helicopter applications by way of a plan change, and that in the interim, notification is applied by using ‘special circumstances; an investigation into the cumulative effects of helicopters and recognition of the lack of enforcement / monitoring; and also requests sites and places of significance to mana whenua be taken into consideration. It is also noted that paragraph 6 of the local board’s notice of motion identifies that mana whenua have requested a suspension of private helipad consent applications on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.

74. A discussion of public notification is in this report under the heading ‘Other Documents’. This assessment must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis and relate to the effects of the proposal being considered.

75. The local board’s request for an investigation into cumulative effects of helicopter activity and requests for enforcement and monitoring are noted. It is accepted that there is insufficient data on the number of helicopter movements and compliance with helicopter consent conditions., and Council’s Plans and Places, Resource Consents, and Compliance and Monitoring departments are supportive of the commencement of a programme for analysing helicopter flight data to remedy this situation. As previously discussed, a project led by the council’s Compliance and Monitoring Team is about to get underway.The CAA is also assisting council through provision of access to a larger database of flight data which will assist in providing a more accurate assessment of helicopter movements in the Hauraki Gulf area.

76. Regarding the request to address protecting sites and places of significant to mana whenua, it is noted that the council has been working with mana whenua to identify and protect sites and places of significance on Aotea/Great Barrier Island for several years now. A number of sites have been nominated by mana whenua, some of which were due to be included in the first tranche of sites to be scheduled for protection through the council’s Maori Heritage Programme. With the agreement of mana whenua, these sites were moved to the second tranche and work is progressing with mana whenua to ensure the sites can be included in the next plan change.

77. Regarding the request from mana whenua to suspend consent applications it is advised that a moratorium is not provided for under the RMA. The council is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications. It is noted that that all resource consent applications received by council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis, and that this provides opportunity for mana whenua to highlight matters of concern that may be applicable as special circumstances in the determination of notification and substantive assessment. It is noted that the determination of whether special circumstances are triggered is made on a case-by-case basis.

Preparation of plan changes to the AUP and HGI Plan

78. For the reasons outlined above, preparing a plan change to the AUP to amend the activity status of the take-off and landing of helicopters to prohibited is not supported. With respect to the HGI Plan, it is possible that the results and analysis of the compliance programme and a more comprehensive review of options under section 32 of the RMA, may demonstrate that a plan change is justified.

79. However, at this point in time, the Plans and Places department does not have the resources available to complete the work that would be required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan. The department is responding to the government’s extensive policy programme (and a significant increase in the work required as a result of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act) and a very high volume of private plan change requests, some of which have required the council to make submissions (for which costs cannot be recovered).

80. Lack of capacity to undertake any new policy work is likely to continue for at least the next six months. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the further work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

81. The Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) is scheduled to be released by 31 May 2022. It will set out how New Zealand will meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025) and set the path towards meeting long-term climate targets.

82. Auckland Council’s climate plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, has called for a 64 percent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Auckland Council has established a Transport Emissions Reference Group made up of Councillors, Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) members, members of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, and members of the Auckland Transport (AT) board to develop options for achieving the proposed 64% emissions reduction. The reference group will provide strategic direction to officers from the council and AT who are jointly developing a Transport Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) that will outline concrete actions to dramatically reduce transport emissions by 2030.

83. The Government’s ERP and the Councils TERP will be relevant to the assessment of helipad applications and may be considered in any determination as to whether ‘special circumstances’ are triggered in association with a resource consent assessment.

84. These plans will also have relevance to any future changes proposed to the regulatory framework of the AUP and HGI Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

85. The Resource Consents and Compliance and Monitoring departments have contributed to the preparation of this report.

86. Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport and Auckland Unlimited would be consulted as part of any process involving changes to the provisions for Helicopters in the AUP and HGI plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

87. This report responds to concerns about helicopter activity raised by the Waiheke Local Board, Waitemata Local Board and Aotea Great Barrier Local Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

88. The Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board has included the following matters as supporting information to the (pending) Notice of Motion:

· That all applications be referred to Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea for an up-to-date Cultural Values Assessment as at least two of the current applications proposed are within areas of well-known archaeological and waahi tapu sites.

· The Aotea Local Board has identified that it is of concern to mana whenua that there are currently no archaeological sites, or sites of significance to mana whenua, scheduled in the Auckland Unitary Plan or HGI Plan on Aotea / Great Barrier Island. The local board presented to the Planning Committee on 1 July 2021 regarding protecting sites and places of archaeological and cultural significance on the island. It is understood that council is seeking to address this legacy issue of data gaps and we request urgency in this matter.

· Charles Nepia (Kaiwhakahaere, Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust) noted the planning permissions for helipads showed little consideration for our intrinsic values or need to safeguard our whenua and moana

· Mana whenua have requested a suspension on private helipad consent applications on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.

89. The request from mana whenua to allow the planning process to provide for mana whenua’s kaitiaki role is acknowledged. At present all consent applications received by council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis, providing an opportunity for mana whenua to review applications and highlight matters of concern. Where applicable these may be provided for as special circumstances in the determination of notification and substantive assessment. It is noted that the determination of whether special circumstances are triggered is made on a case-by-case basis.

90. In considering whether special circumstances exist, the council must consider the information which might be obtained through the notification process. Given the council's discretion is restricted in assessing restricted discretionary activity helicopter landing pad applications, only matters which can be considered when assessing the substantive application are able to be taken into account in the consideration of whether special circumstances apply.

91. For a restricted discretionary activity, the effects which can be assessed in the substantive decision are those listed in Rule 13.8.2. This includes the effect of noise, and visual and amenity effects associated with any physical works.

92. Regarding the request from mana whenua to suspend consent applications it has been previously noted that a moratorium is not provided for under the RMA. The council is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications. Any applications received must be assessed and determined, avoiding unreasonable delay as directed by s21 of the RMA.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

93. As previously noted, at this point in time, the council’s Plans and Places department is not resourced to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan relating to helicopter landing and take-offs and helipads. Engaging consultants to undertake this work has been considered, however considerable oversight by council staff would still be required at a time when there is simply no capacity available. If consultants were engaged, the evaluation supported a plan change, and the Planning Committee agreed to notify a plan change, there would be an ongoing need for oversight well into 2023 and most likely beyond. The costs of using a consultant are also likely to be significant due to the high likelihood of any plan change being appealed to the Environment Court.

94. It is therefore recommended that this matter is reported back to the Planning Committee when the monitoring results are available, at which point a further assessment can be made as to whether there is capacity to undertake the work required to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

95. To date the representations to the local boards do not appear to have included consent holders, helicopter operators and helicopter users, all of whom have views that would need to be considered in any plan change relating to the helicopter provisions. Given the contentious nature of the topic and anticipated contest by stakeholders, a solid evidential basis for any proposed plan change will be necessary.

96. It is noted that the current level of information about helicopter activity and compliance with consent conditions is insufficient to support a plan change process, and that further research is necessary in order that any decision to progress a plan change is able to be justified in terms of RMA tests. Statutory tests under section 32 of the RMA require that proposed changes are the most appropriate method to achieve the sustainability purpose of the Act and are the most efficient and most effective method to apply. The work being undertaken by the council’s Compliance and Monitoring department is an important way to mitigate the risk of any plan change failing when contested at a hearing or in the Environment Court.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

97. The proposed next steps are:

a) The council’s Compliance and Monitoring department will urgently commence and complete a programme to analyse flight log information from helicopter resource consent holders where this is a condition of consent in order to determine extent of compliance and assist with an evidence-base of effects.

b) Staff will work with the Civil Aviation Authority to analyse available flight tracking data to obtain an overview of current levels and patterns of helicopter activity in the Auckland region.

c) Once completed, staff will report the results of the monitoring work and work with the CAA back to the Planning Committee, at which point in time an assessment will be made as to whether the Plans and Places department has the capacity to evaluate, and if appropriate, prepare a plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) relating to helicopter activity.

d) The council’s Māori Heritage team will continue to work with mana whenua to ensure that nominate sites are able to be included in the next and subsequent plan changes.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memorandum to Waiheke Local Board - 3 December 2021	461
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board Resolution WHK2021/178	479
c ⇩	Waitemata Local Board Resolution WTM2021/298	481
d ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier Notice of Motion 22 March 2022	483
e ⇩	Proactive Compliance Project - Proposal - Waiheke Helicopters	487

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

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

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change request from the Waitemata District Health Board at Wairaka Precinct (Unitec) RMA Clause 25 decision

File No.: CP2022/00727

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To decide, under Clause 25 to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act, how to process the private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from the Waitemata District Health Board (the requestor) to re-zone 3A and 119A Carrington Road from Business – Mixed Use zone to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, and amend provisions and plans in the Wairaka Precinct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers a private plan change request received on 7 October 2021 from the Waitemata District Health Board (WDHB) (the requestor). The private plan change request seeks to re-zone 3A and 119A Carrington Road from Business – Mixed Use Zone to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital Zone, and amend provisions and plans in the Wairaka Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. 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 plan change request is not relevant at this stage of the process, but a coarse merits assessment has been undertaken to help inform the clause 25 decision.

4. The plan change would enable the expansion and intensification of the Mason Clinic, to service forecast increases in demand for forensic psychiatry services, and amend the precinct provisions to (according to the requestor) ensure that the growth of the Mason Clinic can be managed appropriately relative to the current and future environmental context of the Wairaka Precinct.

5. In order to enable this future development, the private plan change request also proposes to remove a “key open space (private)” and a “shared path” (located at 119A and 3A Carrington Rd, respectively) from the precinct plan. The private plan change request does not provide an alternative location for either of these precinct features. On a coarse assessment, this aspect of the private plan change request is considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Wairaka Precinct and may be inconsistent with the Regional Policy Statement.

6. A letter has been provided by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (see Attachment E) which states the intention of the Crown and the Rōpū (as development partners) to provide equivalent private open space and an equivalent shared path connection through their developments within the Wairaka Precinct.

7. There is a risk that accepting a private plan change request that removes features such as open space and shared path notations from the Auckland Unitary Plan, and which relies on an undertaking by a third-party which sits outside the plan change to provide that open space, may result in the open space not being provided in the future. That having been said, accepting the private plan change does not mean that it will ultimately be approved. Therefore, on balance, and taking into account the relevant tests and caselaw associated with decisions to accept, adopt or reject private plan change requests, it is recommended that the Planning Committee accept the private plan change so that it can be publicly notified for submissions and a detailed assessment of its merits undertaken.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) accepts the private plan change request by Waitemata District Health Board (proposed plan change text included as Attachment A), pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991, for the following reasons:

i) Accepting the private plan change request enables the matters raised by the requestor to be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.

ii) It is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The private plan change proposal is not a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme. The private plan change does not address a gap in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016, introduce a new policy direction, nor does the private plan change have broad application by seeking to change provisions that apply across the region.

iii) The grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause 25(4) are limited and no ground is met by this private plan change.

A) The request is not frivolous; the requestor provided supporting technical information and the private plan change has a resource management purpose. The request is not vexatious; the requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request.

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

C) A coarse-grain assessment of the request indicates that specific parts of the proposal, in particular the removal of “key open space (private)” from 119A Carrington Road and the removal of the shared path from 3A Carrington Road without providing for replacement locations, are inconsistent with the provisions of the Wairaka Precinct and may be inconsistent with the Regional Policy Statement. However, a commitment to addressing this within the wider Wairaka Precinct has been set out in a letter from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and additional concerns can be raised through the submission and hearing process. It is not recommended that council reject the private plan change request on the basis that it would make the plan inconsistent with Part 5.

D) The coarse-grain assessment of the request does not indicate that the private plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. Whether the private plan change request’s objectives are the most appropriate way of achieving the promotion of sustainable management will be tested through the submission and hearing processes.

E) The provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 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 multiple sites and amend and introduce precinct provisions to manage ongoing use and development of the Mason Clinic as a whole.

Horopaki

Context

Site description

8. The sites subject to the request are located at 3A, 81A and 119A Carrington Road, Mount Albert. The site is at the western side of the Wairaka Precinct (Chapter I334 of the Auckland Unitary Plan), and to the east of Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek.

9. 81A Carrington Road is the current site of the Mason Clinic. The Mason Clinic is a forensic psychiatric healthcare facility, which provides a range of mental health services and includes custodial and secure care, together with accessory and supporting services. It makes up sub-precinct A in the Wairaka Precinct and is zoned Special Purpose - Healthcare Facility and Hospital Zone. The Mason Clinic site is currently occupied by a variety of buildings and facilities which range between one and two storeys and are of a range of styles and ages. A new building is currently under construction in the north-eastern corner.

10. 3A Carrington Road (north of the current Mason Clinic) is currently vacant, grassed, and contains several mature trees. Several of the trees proximate to the western boundary are identified in the Wairaka Precinct provisions as protected.

11. 119A Carrington Road (south of the current Mason Clinic) is occupied by a maintenance compound, a derelict greenhouse structure, and a small building used by Unitec for education activities. A ‘spill over’ metalled carparking area is located in the north-western corner of this site, which is accessed from the Mason Clinic parking area via a bridge across the Wairaka Stream.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Aerial view of 3A, 81A and 119A Carrington Road

Precinct

12. The Wairaka Precinct extends from the north western motorway at Point Chevalier in the north, through to Woodward Road in the south, and from Oakley Creek in the west to Carrington Road in the east. The purpose of the Wairaka Precinct is to provide for a diverse urban community, including the ongoing development and operation of the tertiary education facility, the development and operation of a range of community, recreation, and social activities, the development of a compact residential community, and commercial service activities.

13. The southern half of the Wairaka Precinct is primarily occupied by Unitec, with large institutional and educational facilities and at-grade parking areas, together with large recreation fields and open areas, and a stormwater detention pond.

14. Adjacent to Unitec is a strip of land along the south and west edges of the precinct. It is currently a mix of grassed and treed land, car parking, and some buildings, and is zoned for residential development.

15. The northern half of the Wairaka Precinct has several large fields and buildings that are more spread out, which include the scheduled former Carrington Hospital building in the north-eastern corner. Most of this land is owned by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The site subject to the plan change request is to the west of this HUD land. The Taylor’s Laundry activity occupies a separate site in the centre of the Wairaka Precinct, located at 1A Carrington Road.

16. The requestor has stated in their assessment of environmental effects that the land owned by HUD is planned to be “comprehensively redeveloped for intensive housing and ancillary activities by HUD and the Marutūāhu Rōpū, Waiohua-Tamaki Rōpū, and Ngāti Whātua Rōpū as development partners”^{^[17]}.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Aerial view of private plan change request area (blue outline) within Wairaka Precinct

The wider neighbourhood

17. To the north of the Wairaka Precinct is State Highway 16 and the Great North Road Interchange. Great North Road and Oakley Creek are located to the west, with the Waterview neighbourhood further west, beyond Great North Road, which is undergoing redevelopment. To the east and south is the neighbourhood of Mount Albert, and the Mount Albert town centre is located further south on Carrington Road. Point Chevalier is located to the north of the State Highway 16 corridor.

18. The residential neighbourhoods surrounding the Wairaka Precinct are characterised by typical suburban development of the 1940’s-1990’s, and are experiencing redevelopment to various degrees and rates. The zoning of the surrounding land is predominantly Residential – Mixed Housing Urban, interspersed with areas of Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban. The zoning of the surrounding area is such that significant redevelopment and intensification of neighbourhoods is enabled.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of Wairaka Precinct and surrounding area

Plan change request

19. The request was lodged on 7 October 2021 and seeks to re-zone 3A and 119A Carrington Road from Business – Mixed Use zone to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, and amend provisions and plans in the Wairaka Precinct.

20. The purpose of the request is to enable the expansion and intensification of the Mason Clinic, which according to the requestor will service the growth in the demand for the forensic psychiatry services that is forecast by the WDHB in the next 10-20 years, and to amend the precinct provisions to ensure that the growth of the Mason Clinic can be managed appropriately relative to the current and future environmental context of the Wairaka Precinct.

21. The request also seeks to extend sub-precinct A of the Wairaka Precinct to include 3A and 119A Carrington Road (and amend this on the precinct plans), amend some precinct provisions and introduce new precinct provisions, and remove the “key open space (private)” as shown on 119A Carrington Road and remove the “shared path” as shown on 3A Carrington Road from I334.10.1 Wairaka: Precinct Plan 1.

22. The proposed precinct provisions would include:

· changes to the Precinct Description (I334.1) to better describe the nature of the Mason Clinic activity, and the provision of open space and connections

· changes to the precinct objectives and policies to allow for intensification of the Mason Clinic

· additional objectives and policies for sub-precinct A, including managing effects at boundaries, and recognising the functional and operational (including security) requirements of activities and development.

· an activity table for sub-precinct A

· changes to notification requirements for new buildings or additions to existing buildings in Sub-precinct A

· new standards (including new landscape yard standards), matters of control/discretion and assessment criteria to achieve the outcomes sought by the objectives and policies.

23. The proposed rezoning of land at 3A and 119A Carrington Road is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Current zoning Figure 5: proposed zoning

24. The current Wairaka: Precinct Plan 1 and the proposed changes to Wairaka: Precinct Plan 1 (the extension of sub-precinct A, deletion of the key open space (private), and deletion of shared path) are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 below.

Figure 6: I334.10.1 Wairaka: Precinct plan 1

Diagram, map

Description automatically generated

Figure 7: proposed amended Precinct Plan 1 with extended sub-precinct A, deleted open space and deleted shared path

25. The requestor has provided documentation relating to the following in support of the request:

· Private plan change request statutory assessment and AEE

· Certificates of Title

· Proposed Wairaka Precinct Provisions and Maps

· Section 32 Assessment

· Civil Infrastructure Assessment

· Draft Wairaka Stormwater Management Plan

· Design and Architectural Assessment

· Ecological Impact Assessment

· Site Contamination Report

· Consultation Letter to Mana Whenua

· Local Board Presentations and Notes

· Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment

· IHP Recommendation Report Topic 055

· Transport Assessment

· A letter from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, dated 11 May 2021 (see Attachment E), outlining their intention to provide additional open space on the balance of the precinct, to replace the open space to be removed by this request.

26. The subject sites are also subject to a number of approved land use resource consents. In particular, consents have been granted for daylighting part of the Wairaka Stream^{^[18]}. This will mostly be on land owned by HUD, but includes daylighting on 119A Carrington Rd (i.e. within the proposed southern extension of the Mason Clinic). One consent also includes a path linking the spine road with Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek, to be built on the site immediately south of the plan change request area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Resource Management Act

27. The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made to the appropriate local authority by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1. After a request has been lodged, a local authority can request further information under clause 23, and modify a request under clause 24, but only with the requestor's agreement.

28. Under clause 23(6), if a requestor refuses to provide any requested further or additional information, a local authority that considers it has insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request, may reject the request or decide not to approve the plan change requested.

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

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

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

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

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

30. See Attachment B for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.

Options available to the council

31. Council staff consider that the requestor has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and so do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) to be available. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.

Option 1 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

32. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to re-zone part of the site from Business – Mixed Use zone to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone, and amend and introduce precinct provisions to manage use and development. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for further development of healthcare facilities on the site is through a plan change process.

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

Option 2 – Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council itself

34. The council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were a Council initiated proposed plan change. A decision to adopt triggers the process set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, which would then require the council to consult as required in clauses 3 to 3C of Part 1.

35. Following consultation, the council would then need to notify the proposed plan change for submissions and conduct a hearing into submissions, if required. If a request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan change would rest with the council. It is relevant to note that the requestor has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change request.

36. Given that the requestor has not requested that the council adopts the request and that the council would need to account for all costs associated with the adopted request, it is not recommended that the council decide to adopt the private plan change request.

Option 3 – Reject the private plan change request, in whole or in part (clause 25(4))

37. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one (or more) 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 requestor has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1. The Environment Court may make such decision on any such appeal as it thinks fit. The Environment Court could uphold the Council’s decision to reject the Private Plan Change request. However, the Environment Court could overturn the Council’s decision, and direct the Council to accept the Private Plan Change request and publicly notify it.

38. 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

(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?

39. The private plan change request contains a comprehensive section 32 report evaluation, including an assessment of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) objectives and policies, and a sufficiently detailed assessment of environmental effects. The request is also accompanied by a range of specialist assessments in relation to the key matters considered to be material to the request, including traffic, urban design, stormwater and landscape and visual effects. The request enables the nature of the plan change and its effects to be reasonably understood.

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

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

41. 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. No similar request has been made in the last two years.

42. It is therefore not recommended that the council reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.

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

43. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request or part of the request, being rezoning land from a business zone to a special purpose healthcare zone, intensifying the site, changing precinct provisions and removing open space does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.

44. It is therefore not recommended that the council reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.

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

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

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

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

47. 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.

48. The purpose of the preparation, implementation, and administration of district plans is to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA. These functions are listed in section 30 and 31 of the RMA and include:

s31(1)(a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

49. The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) has been written to be consistent with Part 5 of the RMA. Various parts of the AUP assist council to carry out its functions under s31(a) and/or other sections of the RMA.

50. The private plan change request proposes changes to activities controlled at the district level of the AUP. However, the hierarchy of policy statements and plans under the RMA requires lower level planning documents to give effect to the objectives and policies of higher level planning documents. Therefore, any changes to the AUP at a district level must give effect to the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS).

51. When assessing the private plan change request against this ground for rejection, there are several parts of the proposed plan change which need to be assessed, including:

· the proposal to intensify the Mason Clinic site

· the proposal to re-zone 3A and 119A Carrington Road from Business – Mixed Use zone to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital zone

· the proposal to extend Sub-precinct A (on Precinct Plan 1 and Precinct Plan 2)

· the proposal to amend the precinct provisions to enable integrated development of the Mason Clinic site/sub-precinct A

· the proposal to change Precinct Plan 1 by removing the ‘open space (private)’ use from 119 Carrington Road in the precinct provisions, and removing the shared path from 3A Carrington Rd.

52. These parts of the private plan change request have been assessed at a coarse/high level to understand their consistency with the objectives and policies of the Wairaka Precinct and the RPS, and therefore to assess whether the request would make the plan inconsistent with Part 5.

Intensification and re-zoning

53. The Mason Clinic’s services are provided on a regional level, and the AUP identifies that Auckland’s growing population will increase the demand for services. This is reflected in objectives and policies from the RPS, including objective B2.2.1.(3) “Sufficient development capacity and land supply is provided to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial growth and social facilities to support growth”.

54. The private plan change request proposes to accommodate this intensification in part by re-zoning 2.8ha of housing and business land (since the Business – Mixed Use zone can support both these land uses) to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital.

55. The proposed re-zoning would remove a significant portion of residential/business land from the precinct, which could be considered inconsistent with the urban growth and residential growth objectives in the RPS. However, the RPS states that growth needs to be provided for in a way that, among other things, “(2) supports integrated planning of land use, infrastructure and development; (3) optimises the efficient use of the existing urban area; (4) encourages the efficient use of existing social facilities and provides for new social facilities;”. This is reflected in the objectives and policies of the RPS (see Attachment C).

56. These objectives are also reflected in the precinct objectives, which seek “A mix of residential, business, tertiary education and community activities is provided, which maximises the efficient and effective use of land.” (I334.2.(3)), rather than prioritising a specific land use.

57. This private plan change request would enable the ongoing use and growth of the Mason Clinic, with positive effects including the increase of forensic psychiatric services in Auckland and the efficient use of healthcare funding and staffing by developing an existing facility (rather than acquiring and developing facilities in new locations). In particular it would support RPS objectives on urban growth and form, a quality built environment, residential growth, and social facilities.

58. Any adverse effects of enabling the growth of an existing social and justice facility in proximity to a high density residential area can be assessed through the plan change process.

59. The proposal to re-zone two sites of Business – Mixed Use zoning to Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital in order to develop, expand and intensify the Mason Clinic would therefore be consistent with Part 5.

Changes to precinct provisions

60. This re-zoning is accompanied in the private plan change request by changes to the precinct provisions to enable intensification and use of the site as a healthcare and justice facility which provides for a range of care, and short and long term accommodation for people with disabilities (including mental health, addiction, illness or intellectual disabilities), together with provision for custodial, tribunal, justice, and forensic services, and a range of health related accessory activities. These text changes include amendments to the objectives and purpose of sub-precinct A and the Mason Clinic, the introduction of an activity table for sub-precinct A, and the introduction of provisions to manage interfaces with surrounding development.

61. The private plan change proposes that all new buildings in sub-precinct A require a Controlled Activity resource consent. It also introduces policies and assessment criteria looking at the functional, operational, and security requirements of the intended use of the buildings.

62. Changes are also proposed to the precinct description. These expand on the activities expected within the Mason Clinic, its future intensification, and amend the focus of the open space network description to include future open spaces and shared paths.

63. The proposal to amend text provisions in the Wairaka Precinct to support intensification and rezoning and enable integrated development on the Mason Clinic site are consistent with Part 5. Integrated development is an important aspect of the RPS and Part 5, and the objectives and policies of the precinct clearly include integrated development.

Extending Sub-precinct A

64. The proposal to extend sub-precinct A on Wairaka: Precinct Plan 1 and Wairaka: Precinct Plan 2 to include 3A and 119A Carrington Road would align with the proposal to re-zone these sites. It would also align with the proposal to introduce provisions into the precinct to enable intensification of the Mason Clinic, including an activity table for sub-precinct A. Extending sub-precinct A would mean that the proposed additional provisions would apply consistently across the Mason Clinic sites. This change would support integrated planning on the subject site and also across the precinct. This proposed change to Precinct Plan 1 and Precinct Plan 2 would be consistent with the RPS and with Part 5.

Changes to Precinct Plan 1

65. The private plan change request proposes to make changes to Wairaka: Precinct Plan 1 (in addition to extending Sub-precinct A) by removing the ‘key open space (private)’ use from 119 Carrington Road, and removing the shared path from 3A Carrington Road).

66. The private plan change request does not provide for replacement locations within the precinct for this open space or shared path. By removing the key open space (private) from 119A Carrington Road with no replacement elsewhere in the precinct shown as part of the private plan change request, the proposal would significantly alter the balance of developed land versus open space in the precinct. The key open space (private) on119A Carrington Road makes up approximately 12% of the open space shown in Precinct Plan 1.

67. However, a letter has been provided from HUD to support the private plan change request. This letter states that:

“…

7 The Crown and the Rōpū intend to progress replacement Key open space (private) and Shared path proposals either through a separate plan change or by way of resource consent applications to enable the development of the Housing Development Land, and these proposals will, in turn, be supported by the WDHB.”

…

9 As the Crown currently holds 26.5 hectares of land within the Precinct, there is no question that it will be possible to provide equivalent private open space and an equivalent shared path connection on the Housing Development Land.”^{^[19]}

68. Although this letter is not part of the proposed plan change, it is a public undertaking by the Crown to provide replacement equivalent open space (private) and shared path within the Wairaka Precinct.

69. The provision of open space in Wairaka Precinct is an important part of the precinct and is specifically referenced in I334.1. Precinct Description:

“There are also particular attributes of the Wairaka Precinct, which contribute to the amenity of the precinct and the surrounding area and are to be retained through the development of the precinct. These include:

…

· an open space network linking areas within the Wairaka Precinct and providing amenity to neighbouring housing and business areas;

· a network of pedestrian and cycleway linkages that integrate with the area network;

… “

70. It is also noted that the specific location and quantum of open space in the precinct went through a robust assessment process as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel process, and were intended to provide particular outcomes around connections, amenity and landscape. This includes giving effect to Wairaka Precinct policy I334.3(16) to provide public connections to Oakley Creek from Carrington Rd through public roads and open space, giving quality public access to this ecological area.

71. Relevant case law must also be taken into account. Precinct Plan 1 refers to the land use as “key open space (private”) on 119A Carrington Road, and it is acknowledged that the plan change request does not propose any changes to the neighbourhood park identified in Precinct Plan 1, located on HUD land, which would be public open space. Case law, Golf (2012) Limited v Thames Coromandel District Council [2019] NZEnvC 116, however, has established that planned private open space has value to the community and retaining an existing private open space land use is in accord with s85 of the RMA and reasonable use rights. As set out in Golf the private open space at 119A Carrington Rd has been delineated as open space since at least 2016 and used by the public as such and therefore the WDHB purchased the site knowing that it has an open space requirement and expectation. As per Golf, the notation (private) should not imply that this land could not provide the same or similar values and amenity that public open space holds. This case law is known to the WDHB.

72. As stated above, the open space in the Wairaka Precinct has been assessed as necessary for the amenity of the precinct as it is developed. The hearings evidence also noted that “Despite it being private land, the local community has become used to seeing and using the open space within the Unitec site as a 'public' resource, providing informal recreational open space for the surrounding neighbourhood.”^{^[20]}

73. The provision of adequate open space to complement proposed development is an integral part of achieving integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the region. This is set out in the objectives and policies of the Wairaka Precinct which cascades from the objectives and policies of the RPS including

Objective B2.7.1(1):

1) Recreational needs of people and communities are met through the provision of a range of quality open spaces and recreation facilities.

and Policy B2.7.2(2):

(2) Promote the physical connection of open spaces to enable people and wildlife to move around efficiently and safely.

and in particular Policy B2.7.2(7) which states:

(7) Avoid, remedy or mitigate significant adverse effects of land use or development on open spaces and recreation facilities

74. Similarly, the shared path from 3A Carrington Road shown on Precinct Plan 1 went through a robust hearings process as set out above, and helps to achieve the precinct provisions including “Provide public connections to Oakley Creek from Carrington Road through public roads and open space”^{^[21]} and “a network of pedestrian and cycleway linkages that integrate with the area network”^{^[22]}.

75. The requestor’s assessment notes potential alternative locations for the shared path, including the approved resource consent from HUD for the daylighting of an existing culverted part of the Wairaka Stream containing a walking path and landscaping, they also suggest that “the ‘shared path’ … could be readily accommodated further to the north, and would provide a more logical connection to the bicycle path at a level location.”^{^[23]}

76. The council has engaged a landscape expert to peer review the private plan change. A number of concerns were expressed relating to the removal of open space as set out below:

· The removal of Key Open Space (private)

o The loss of Key Open Space (Private) in this part of the Wairaka Precinct has the potential to undermine a fundamental open space objective for the broader precinct, i.e., the comprehensive daylighting of the Wairaka Stream and integration of that landscape feature into a generously configured and publicly accessible open space area. Such an outcome is undesirable from a landscape perspective.

o While it is acknowledged that alternate open space areas could be provided in the balance of the precinct area that are of a similar scale and/or amenity to that anticipated by the Key Open Space (Private) adjacent to the Wairaka Stream, the plan change provisions provide no certainty in this regard.

o The proposed removal of the Key Open Space (Private) will detract from the landscape character and visual amenity values contemplated by the Wairaka Precinct with adverse effects rated as at least ‘moderate-high’ (more than minor) to ‘high’ (significant).

· In addition, experts from the council’s Parks team and Auckland Transport regarding the proposed removal of the indicative shared path from Precinct Plan 1 are set out below:

o The indicative shared path connection provides an important link from existing reserves (Oakley Creek and Waterview Reserve) to the proposed neighbourhood park. Should this be removed, access to the neighbourhood park would be mostly via road, as access via Oakley Creek and the upper indicative shared path are indirect.

o Removal of the indicative shared path connection does not enable the precinct to meet its own objective I334.2. Objectives (7) ‘Open spaces, cycling and pedestrian linkages from the Precinct to the wider area and neighbouring suburbs, including linkages between activities and open space nodes, are provided for and enhanced’, nor B2.7.1 and B2.7.2 of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and results in adverse effects in terms of provision of quality, connected, accessible open spaces and recreation facilities. Relocation of this to a location which provides appropriate connection outside of the Special Purpose – Healthcare Facility and Hospital Zone may be supported.

o The precinct plan should be revised to include a route for active modes from the proposed street network within or adjoining sub-precinct A to Oakley Creek.

77. On a coarse assessment, the proposal to remove the “key open space (private)” use from 119A Carrington Road and the shared path from 3A Carrington Rd, without providing for replacement locations, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Wairaka Precinct and may be inconsistent with the RPS.

78. The letter from HUD provides an opportunity for replacement open space and shared path locations to be worked out in-line with the wider precinct development, to get positive amenity outcomes for future residents. However, it is not ideal that this replacement is not a formal part of the proposed plan change provisions. There is a risk that that the plan change could progress and be approved (with the open space removed from the precinct plan), and the third party may not follow through with their undertaking to provide that open space elsewhere in the precinct.

79. It is noted that if replacement key open space (private) and shared path were included in the proposed plan change provisions, then the merits of those replacements (including location, size and outcomes) would be assessed as part of a plan change submissions and hearings process.

80. By setting the replacement of the key open space (private) and the shared path outside the WDHB private plan change, this request also removes the ability of submitters on the WDHB private plan change request to input into these important decisions at this point in time. If replacements for key open space (private) and a shared path are proposed through a private plan change by HUD, an opportunity for submissions would be available at that time. However, if replacements are provided through resource consent processes, then submissions may be limited if the application is non-notified or limited-notified.

81. While the removal of the open space and shared path are significant issues that would need to be considered in detail by the council’s Independent Hearings Commissioners, when considered in the round with other RPS policies and objectives to provide for social facilities and justice facilities, and with the letter provided from HUD, on a coarse assessment, the plan change is considered to be generally consistent with the RPS and therefore with Part 5. Taking this into account, it is therefore not recommended that the council rejects the private plan change request on the basis that it would make the plan inconsistent with Part 5.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

82. The term "sound resource management practice" is an often used planning term but is not defined in the RMA. The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572), where the issue on appeal was determining the correct interpretation and application of clause 25(4) of Schedule 1. The Court considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and stated:

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

83. The requestor has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning along with the amendment of precinct provisions and the introduction of new precinct provisions will result in an intensified healthcare and justice facility which makes a positive contribution to meeting the increasing need for these services across the Auckland region. The requestor considers that adverse effects of future development proposals can be managed through the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part), including the proposed new provisions which aim to manage the development of the site with regard to the future context of the precinct.

84. The request includes a number of specialist reports, which all support the proposed plan change. Council has consulted relevant departments and Auckland Transport and engaged experts to consider the private plan change request. While there are aspects of the private plan change request that would need to be tested through the submission and hearings process, the scope and extent of most of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered at this stage. As set out above, the proposal to remove the key open space (private) and shared path elements, without a mechanism to replace these in a suitable alternative location within the precinct through this private plan change process, is of concern. These elements are key parts of the Wairaka Precinct and have been included in the precinct to contribute to the amenity of the precinct and the surrounding area, which will help meet the needs of future generations. Proposed changes which weaken the open space and/or shared path networks of the precinct will undermine the ability of the precinct to provide necessary amenity to future residents and users. This may be able to be addressed through future developments and/or private plan changes across the wider precinct, including through a future HUD private plan change or resource consent applications, that we have been advised will include replacement key open space (private) and a shared path within the Wairaka Precinct.

85. Having reviewed the requestor's planning and specialist reports and taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account, it is considered that although the removal of key open space (private) and shared path are of concern, this matter can be explored in detail as part of a full merits assessment during the submissions and hearings process. It is therefore considered that the private plan change request as a whole is generally in accordance with sound resource management practice. It is therefore not recommended that the council reject the private plan change on the basis that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

Option 4 – Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 26

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

87. As set out above, although the removal of important provisions of the precinct without any replacement being included in the proposed plan change is of significant concern, given the limited grounds available to reject the private plan change, and having taken into account relevant case law, it is recommended that the Planning Committee accept the private plan change request.

Conclusion

88. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council accept the private plan change request.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

90. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself.

91. The clause 25 decision is unrelated to any greenhouse gas emissions. If accepted for processing, climate impacts will be considered in the future hearing report on the private plan change request, and any submissions received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions can be considered in detail (whether it encourages car dependency, enhances 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

92. The Wairaka Precinct as a whole has an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) which has been approved by Auckland Transport. The request has been reviewed by traffic planning consultants on behalf of Auckland Council, and internal discussions have been undertaken with Auckland Transport. This request at a coarse level appears to be in line with the ITA, although, as discussed above, some concerns have been raised about the proposed removal of the shared path.

93. Key departments within council and Watercare have been consulted to confirm that the requestor 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

94. The site subject to the request is located within the Owairaka subdivision of the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

95. Local boards’ views are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. If the private plan change request is accepted in whole or in part, the views of the Albert-Eden Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will be able to present its views to hearing commissioners, if it chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.

96. Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application.

97. The Albert Eden Local Board have regular quarterly updates from council staff, HUD and the WDHB. The plan change has been discussed at length with the Board and they are aware of the concerns raised regarding open space. The Board will have the opportunity to provide feedback upon notification of the private plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

Consequence of clause 25 options for future consultation

98. If council accepts a private plan change request, it is not required to complete pre-notification engagement with iwi authorities. If the council accepts the request and subsequently notifies it, iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions.

99. If council adopts a private plan change the same consultation requirements apply as though the plan change was initiated by council: consultation with iwi authorities is mandatory prior to notification. Changes can be made to the plan change prior to notification. Iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions after notification.

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

Substance of private plan change request

101. 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.

Record of requestor’s consultation

102. The requestor has advised that they have consulted with all iwi who have interests in the Wairaka Precinct, as follows:

· Meetings and correspondence with Marutūāhu Rōpū and Waiohua-Tamaki Rōpū.

· A meeting with Ngāti Whātua Rōpū and subsequent consultation.

· Correspondence sent to the iwi of the Marutūāhu Rōpū and Waiohua-Tamaki Rōpū requesting feedback as to whether specific consultation with mana whenua was required.

· Correspondence sent to the mana whenua identified in Attachment D and listed below:

o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

o Ngāti Te Ata

o Te Kawerau ā Maki

o Te Ākitai Waiohua

o Ngāti Maru

o Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust

o Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board

o Ngāti Tamaterā

o Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

o Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

o Te Ahiwaru – Waiohua

o Waikato – Tainui

o Ngāti Tamaoho

103. The requestor advises that formal/written feedback on the proposed plan change has not been received from any parties.

104. As discussed above the Marutūāhu Rōpū, Waiohua-Tamaki Rōpū, and Ngāti Whātua Rōpū are development partners with HUD for the remainder of the Wairaka Precinct development land (excluding Unitec).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

105. Accepting private plan change requests, in whole or in part, has no direct financial implications for the Council as the costs associated with processing them under the RMA are able to be recovered from the requestors. If the request is accepted, or if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the requestor would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

106. The key risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is that accepting a private plan change request that removes features such as open space from the Auckland Unitary Plan, and relies on a third-party agreement which sits outside the plan change to provide that open space, may set a precedent. That having been said, a detailed assessment of the proposed removal of these features will be undertaken at the hearing and substantive decision-making stage.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

107. If accepted, in whole or in part, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance.

108. A separate evaluation and decision will be required regarding extent of notification. The requestor has requested full public notification of the private plan change.

109. The views and preferences of Albert-Eden Local Board will be sought after submissions close for inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.

110. Council will need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitemata District Health Board Mason Clinic proposed precinct provisions and maps	513
b ⇩	Resource Management Act Schedule 1, Part 2	557
c ⇩	Relevant Regional Policy Statement objectives and policies	565
d ⇩	Requestor's record of consultation with mana whenua	567
e ⇩	Correspondence from Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 11 May 2021	575

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elisabeth Laird - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

31 March 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 meeting(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
Urban Growth and Housing
National Policy Statement on Urban Development and related enactments Chief Planning Office	The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (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. The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 will result in significantly more land within urban Auckland being affected by the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD. The Act requires medium density residential standards be incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan.	Decisions sought will include: · consideration of the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS on Urban Development, approve the detailed work programme for the next phase of work · approval to proceed with plan changes and to notify plan changes; · consider engagement approach with Aucklanders (proposed to take place in April) on the NPS UD/Enabling Housing Supply Act ‘intensification plan change Progress to date: Endorsed work programme PLA/2021/8 and workshops held Feb – March 2022. Received findings of Housing Development Capacity Assessment 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 Endorsed principles for the application of new policy 3(d) in the NPD UD arising from the Enabling Housing Supply Amendment Act PLA/2022/11 The 2022 work programme includes workshops in February and March with reports due on 31 March and 1 September. Topics include: · Implementation of the NPS UD in the city centre · Quality built environment and enabling 6+ storey within ‘walkable catchments’ · Issues arising from the removal of parking minimums and private ways · Intensification plan change proposals
Future Development Strategy Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	Within the NPS UD framework, there is a requirement to complete a Future Development Strategy (FDS) in time to inform the 2024 Long-term Plan. The purpose of the FDS is to help Council set the high-level vision for accommodating urban growth over the long term and identify strategic priorities to inform other development-related decisions. The FDS will spatially identify where long- term growth should happen.	Decision required: endorsement of the interim strategic direction of the Future Development Strategy Progress to date: Workshops are planned for March, May June and July 2022. Report due 1 September. Further committee decisions will be needed in the first half of 2023.
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 Report due August 2022.
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.
Updated Area Plans for parts of Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Plans and Places	Area plans are non-statutory documents which provide a framework to support growth and development in the area over the next 30 years. Approval of the area plans by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards will be sought in August 2022.	Decision required: consider and adopt the updated area plans Report due 1 September.
Integrated Area Plan for parts of Albert Eden and Puketāpapa Local Boards Plans and Places	Area plans are non-statutory documents which provide a framework to support growth and development in the area over the next 30 years. Endorsement of the integrated area plan by the Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local boards will be sought in July/August 2022.	Decision required: consider and adopt the area plan Report due 1 September.
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 a series of monitoring reports delivered in a phased way from 2022 onwards. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Māori 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. Reports due 5 May, 2 June, 30 June and 4 August 2022.
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. Report due 5 May 2022.
Auckland Plan 2050
Auckland Plan Annual Scorecard (monitoring report) and Annual Update Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	To report annual progress against the 33 measures of the Auckland Plan 2050	Decision required: Receive annual scorecard and approve updates to measures and the plan Progress to date: The next annual monitoring report is due 30 June.
Resource Management Act framework reform
Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	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. The bill is expected to be introduced in the second half of 2022. Progress to date: authority delegated to approve council’s input on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system discussion materials PLA/2022/3 February 2022							TBC	TBC
Resource Management system reform – Strategic Planning Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	The Strategic Planning Act 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. The bill is expected to be introduced in the second half of 2022.							TBC	TBC
Resource Management system reform – Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Bill Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research	The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act 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 is likely to occur alongside consultation on the National Adaption Plan in early or mid-2022.				TBC	TBC
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. A high -level implementation plan has been approved; preceding plan changes required before the end of 2024.	Decision required: to approve key policy responses developed with Mana Whenua to enable next steps, including broader engagement. Progress to date: Memo update August 2021. Report due 2 June 2022.
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 2022. 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 after May 2022. 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.
Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)
Congestion Question	The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is conducting an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.	Decision required: A Cabinet decision on legislative change is expected in July 2022. Following Cabinet’s decision, a committee paper would be provided asking approval for council staff to begin work with Auckland Transport to develop a scheme proposal by 2024 for consideration by the Government. 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 Progress update memo planned for late March 2022. Report due in August (dependent on Cabinet decision).
Auckland Light Rail	Cabinet announced its decisions on the next steps for Auckland Light Rail in January 2022.To date Auckland Council has been represented on the Sponsor’s Group and on the Establishment Unit Board. Council staff are working with central government officers on the next iteration of governance arrangements for councillors to make decisions on these and other matters.	Decision required: to be confirmed
Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	Increasing the cycling mode share is a priority for Council. The Programme Business Case will recommend the package required to increase cycling mode share as well as recommending policy changes to lift and normalise cycling. Council’s support for these aspects of the programme will be crucial.	Decision required: formal consideration of Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case Progress to date: Workshop held December 2021. Report due 31 March 2022.
Auckland Transport
Northwest Interim Bus Improvements	Construction at the Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road interchanges will take place from February 2022 - mid-2023 to allow for the new bus network rolled out in West Auckland. The Westgate Bus Station is in the design phase. Temporary bus stops will be in place by mid-2023 to support the new bus network.	Receive updates
Access for Everyone business case	The A4E Programme Business Case was endorsed by the Auckland Transport Board 24 February 2022. It is now proceeding through the Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency approval processes.	Receive updates
Northern Busway enhancements	Auckland Transport has completed the Detailed Business Case and earlier implementation funding is being sought as the funding for the project in the Regional Land Transport Plan is allocated in financial years 2027/28 – 2030/31.	Receive updates
Auckland Parking Strategy	AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy. The indicative completion date is August 2022.	Decision required: strategic direction and delegation to approve discussion document. Endorsement of draft strategy, public consultation on draft strategy and the adoption of the final parking strategy. 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 due on 31 March and 4 August.
Auckland Rapid Transit Plan	The Auckland Rapid Transit Plan has significant implications for Auckland’s future growth and urban form, and development of the preferred network will involve significant capital investment over the next three decades.	Decision required: Endorsement of Auckland Rapid Transit Plan. Progress to date: Workshop planned for August. Report due 1 September.
Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan	The Regional Public Transport Plan is a statutory document that needs to be updated every 3 years to reflect the outcomes of the RLTP. It outlines the current public transport system, the changes planned over the next decade and details policies related to the operation of the transport network. Auckland Transport are seeking council’s endorsement of the strategic direction for public transport in Auckland to help guide the development of the RPTP.	Decision required: Endorse strategic direction for the project. Progress to date: Workshops indicated to take place in April and June. Report due 30 June.
Programme development for Waka Kotahi’s Streets for People fund	The Waka Kotahi Streets for People programme is seeking projects and programmes that will be designed using the learnings from the Innovating Streets programme (2019). This new programme will aim to deliver trials, tactical urbanism interventions and complementary initiatives across the region, to reduce transport emissions through encouraging mode shift to active modes.	Decision required: Endorsement of a proposed programme to be submitted to Waka Kotahi by Auckland Transport Progress to date: Workshop planned for 25 May. Report due 30 June.
Auckland Transport’s Interim Speed Management Plan	The Auckland Plan envisages a transport network free of death and serious injury by 2050. To meet this goal, Auckland Transport has developed Vision Zero for Tāmaki Makaurau with the council and other partners. The interim speed management plan will play a significant role in delivering Vision Zero.	Direction required: Provide feedback on the next phase of safe speeds. Progress to date: Workshop planned for 6 April.
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. Possible briefing from the Infrastructure Commission on ministerial decisions before June 2022.
Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	The results of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund request for proposal are expected from the Crown by May 2022.	Receive updates. Memo update on results of request for proposal process May 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 Māori 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 Workshops indicated for June with a report due mid-2022.
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.
Plan Change 60 – Open Space and Other Rezoning Matters

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
2/3/2021	5. Confidential: National Policy Statement for Urban Development Intensification Plan Change - Proposals for initial preliminary response (no attachment)
16/3/2021	Confidential: Parking Strategy Review – discussion document feedback and draft Parking Strategy and policies (no attachment)

Date	Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item
January 2022	Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Auckland Programme Activity Update
March 2022	Auckland Monthly Housing Update – March 2022
2/3/2022	7. Memo: Auckland Council’s Feedback on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion
4/3/2022	Auckland Council’s Feedback on Kia kaha ake te tiakina o ngā puna wai-inu / Improving the protection of drinking-water sources: Proposed amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007: consultation document
18/3/2022	Correspondence sent to the Minister for the Environment about the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee forward work programme	617
b ⇨	Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Auckland Programme Activity Update (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Monthly Housing Update - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memo: Auckland Council’s Feedback on Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system - Materials for Discussion (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Council’s submission on National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Correspondence sent to the Minister for the Environment about the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (Under Separate Cover)

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