|
Resolution
number KT/2022/131
MOVED by Deputy Chairperson D Grant, seconded by
Chairperson J Gillon:
That
the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a)
note the council’s preliminary
response to the National Policy
Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling
Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.
b)
note the feedback received
from Aucklanders on the council’s preliminary response during the
three-week public consultation in April and May 2022.
c)
note that this pre-consultation
period was immediately following Easter and contained Anzac Day and
Mother’s Day, being a total of thirteen working days and not an
appropriate amount of time for such significant feedback to be provide by the
community.
d)
express concern over the significant
distress that this rushed process has caused the community, particularly for
the residents of Northcote Point and Birkenhead Point.
e)
express concern regarding confusion
created in the community on the phrasing of some questions and selectable
answers, and request that future feedback forms adhere to the principles of
Plain English.
f)
thank the 660 submitters from the
Kaipātiki Local Board area, being 8% of the 7,886 submissions received.
g)
acknowledge
the receipt of the petition of 1102 signatories (resolution number KT/2022/69)
opposing the removal of the Special Character Areas from Northcote Point and
Birkenhead Point that will allow for greater allowances in development,
noting that the petition is ongoing and that numbers in support of the
petition have risen to 1231 signatures.
h)
provide the following
feedback as the local board’s response to the council’s
preliminary response, to be considered by the Planning Committee in
preparation of the proposed intensification plan change for notification in
August 2022:
i)
we
support warm, dry, affordable homes for our community with high standards of
design, especially in areas of frequent public transport, appropriate
infrastructure, access to adequate outdoor recreation space, and developed in
a planned way rather than an ad hoc basis, however;
ii)
we
do not support the changes to the AUP foisted upon Auckland Council by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
2020 (NPS-UD) and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other
Matters) Amendment Act 2021, without being subject to the same public,
democratic scrutiny and process as per the AUP.
iii) we request that where
possible, the Governing Body seriously consider judicial challenge as a valid
response to the NPS-UD and other National Policy Statements instead of
accepting them as “mandatory”, as they are not parliamentary
legislation and open to judicial review.
iv) we are extremely concerned
about the radical impact that the new density and height-to-boundary rules
will have on our community, which will allow far more intense and higher developments
throughout Kaipātiki Local Board area, and overrides the considerable
public consultation that was done to shape the AUP.
v)
we
note changes to most of the Kaipātiki Local Board area will likely
include:
A)
the
effective removal of the single-house zone,
B)
the
effective conversion of all Mixed Housing Suburban zoning to Mixed Housing
Urban zoning,
C)
allowance
of three dwellings allowed per site without a resource consent, preventing
Council from mitigating impacts on the surrounding area, including infrastructure,
traffic, etc,
D)
reduction
of the minimum site for a dwelling from 400-600m2 to 300-400m2.
E)
reduction
of distance to boundary to 1m,
F)
removal
of minimum on-site parking requirements,
G)
removal
of overlays, including the Special Character Areas and Significant Ecological
Areas, and removal of notable trees.
H)
introduction
of “walkable catchments” around rapid transit stops (and the city
centre and metropolitan centres not in Kaipātiki) where building heights
are required to be six or more storeys.
vi) we request the retention of
the existing Special Character Areas and boundaries, as identified in the
Auckland Unitary Plan Chapter D18 Special Character Areas Overlay (including
Birkenhead Point and Northcote Point).
vii) we request that Council
accepts that Special Character Area properties assessed at a score of 4 in
the Special Character Area threshold assessment are of sufficiently high
enough quality, and that they be added to properties that scored 5 and 6.
viii) we request that the Special
Character assessment threshold is lowered to 60% in order to accurately
reflect and preserve continuous areas of high quality special character and
the amenity to the area that it provides.
ix) we request the retention of
the existing Significant Ecological Areas and boundaries, as identified in
the Auckland Unitary Plan Chapter D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay,
with particular priority given to the private land around Le Roys Bush Reserve.
Should medium density progress in this area, the Little Shoal Bay catchment
will be significantly impacted by deforestation, sediment and erosion.
x)
we
request that long-term significant infrastructure constraints are included as
a qualifying matter, noting that 75% of respondents in the Kaipātiki
Local Board area supported this.
xi) we request that all walkable
catchments should be conditional on:
A)
whether
adequate infrastructure can be provided,
B)
the
retention of existing levels of public spaces, parks, and reserves, and the
provision of additional public spaces, parks and reserves commensurate with
the expected increase in population,
C)
the
adoption of a ‘sunlight admission control’ which protects
sunlight and daylight in public spaces including parks, reserves, lakes,
foreshore, and beaches, and height controls to ensure the same are not
dominated by the surrounding built environment.
D)
including pedestrian infrastructure, such as seating and
mature trees.
E) include minimum
parking spaces and appropriate spread of disabled parking and loading
zones.
xii) provide the following
responses to the questions asked during public consultation:
A)
Q1.
What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 1200 metres from the
edge of the city centre?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes the
walkable catchment should be closer, noting that 40% of Kaipātiki
respondents supported the proposal and 32% did not support the proposal -
wanting it closer.
B)
Q2.
What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres from the
edge of the metropolitan centres?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes the
walkable catchment should be closer, noting that 37% of Kaipātiki
respondents supported the proposal and 30% did not support the proposal -
wanting it closer.
C)
Q3.
What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres around
rapid transit stops?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes the
walkable catchment should be closer, noting that 39% of Kaipātiki
respondents supported the proposal and 32% did not support the proposal -
wanting it closer.
D)
Q4.
What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings Zone to residential areas up to around 400 metres from large town
centres with high accessibility?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes the
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone should be closer, noting that
26% of Kaipātiki respondents supported the proposal and 35% did not
support the proposal - wanting it closer.
E)
Q5.
What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings zone to residential areas up to around 200 metres from small town?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes the
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone should be closer, noting that
30% of Kaipātiki respondents supported the proposal, 23% did not support
the proposal – wanting it further, and 29% did not support the proposal
- wanting it closer.
F)
Q6. What do
you think of our proposal to include identified special character areas as a
qualifying matter?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes all existing special character areas should be
a qualifying matter, noting that 38% of Kaipātiki respondents supported
the proposal, and 42% did not support the proposal – wanting all existing special character areas to be a
qualifying matter.
G)
Q7:
What do you think of the proposed residential special character areas that we
have identified?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes
there are more areas that should be identified as a qualifying matter, noting
that 13% of Kaipātiki respondents supported the proposal, and 63% did
not support the proposal – there are more areas that should be
identified as a qualifying matter.
H)
Q8.
What do you think of the proposed business special character areas that we
have identified?
The Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal and believes
there are more areas or parts of areas that should be identified as a
qualifying matter, noting that 20% of Kaipātiki respondents supported
the proposal, and 40% did not support the proposal – there are more
areas or parts of areas that should be identified as a qualifying matter.
I)
Q9.
What do you think of our proposal to include areas in Auckland with long-term
significant infrastructure constraints as a qualifying matter?
The Kaipātiki Local Board supports the proposal, noting that 75% of
Kaipātiki respondents supported the proposal, and 13% did not support
the proposal.
xiii) note that the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) already
delivers sufficient supply of housing for short, medium, and long term,
including provisions for housing in centre and fringe areas, as noted in the
GM Auckland Plan Strategy & Research presentation to Planning Committee,
26 May, and 2 June 2021 as follows:
A)
Plan-enabled housing capacity –
(supply under current AUP settings) - clearly meets the forecast demand of
approximately 320,000 over the next 30 years, and could meet higher demand:
1)
At
least 909k net redevelopment opportunities exist now,
2)
840k
~ 1.4m redevelopments are considered commercially feasible ,
3)
300k
~ 320k are expected to be realised over the next 30 years.
4)
Projections allow for
15-20% greater demand possibilities: Projected short-term demand (2020-2023)
45,000 / projected medium demand (2024-2031) 98,000 / projected long-term
demand (2032-2051) 239,000.
xiv) note the following excerpts from Parliamentary Hansard
that confirm that the understanding of members of parliament was that under
the NPS-UD, Auckland Council would have the discretion to retain Special
Character Areas:
A)
Nicola Willis (National Party): We
also listened intently to local authorities who said that they needed to
maintain some discretion so that they could exclude areas from intense
housing development that were not properly suited to it—areas, for
example, that were subject to natural hazards, areas that had historic
heritage, areas which would not be able to support the level of housing that
this bill implies. So, we tidied up the qualifying matters section of this
bill to ensure that local authorities were able to carry over assessments
formed during previous planning processes.
B)
Eugenie Sage (Green Party): But it is
on those matters that there were changes to the bill to provide a little bit
more flexibility for councils to ensure that medium density happens in more
suitable—well, doesn't happen in unsuitable areas.
C)
Simon Watts (National Party):
An issue that was raised a lot in my electorate was around the exclusions
around particularly heritage zoning. If any of you have been to the beautiful
Devonport Peninsula on the North Shore, it is a stunning location. I'm
slightly biased, but it is a lovely part of our city, and I'm glad to see
that a number of the considerations around special character zones—that
the council will be able to ensure that those protections remain. And that's
really important, not only for heritage but also for environmental aspects
and other risk considerations.
xv)
endorse the following
feedback provided by the Birkenhead Village Association in regards to retaining
Special Character in Birkenhead:
A)
Birkenhead has played a key part in Auckland
Council’s Heritage Festival for a number of years. Our Village Centre
reflects that with a number of restored heritage buildings. A Heritage Walk
is offered, paved footpaths and heritage globe lights all add to the very
special character of Birkenhead.
In conjunction with Auckland Council, Birkenhead Village has invested
hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Auckland Heritage Festival with key
events to drive economic activity in the area, these events have been hosted
for the last decade since 2010 and have included vintage car shows,
Clydesdale horses, music of the art deco period, heritage walks and talks,
and showcasing of entrepreneurs and leading professional personalities of
Auckland City ie Henry Haywood - Luna Park producer, WF Hammond - North Shore
Map Surveyor and Creator, William Thompson - president of Fruit Growers
Association and entrepreneur of Thompson and Hills brand which went on to
become nationally sold Oak Jam , and Edward Leroy - visionary of Auckland's
only inner-city rainforest. Written about in The Story of Birkenhead by
Margaret McClure.
B)
It might have been helpful if the Council had bothered to
send their inspectors out to Birkenhead and Northcote, to see the very
dwellings they are condemning should this mad proposal go through. There are
irreplaceable dwellings en masse in these suburbs that need to be retained
and protected. These are some of the oldest suburbs on the North Shore
– still part of Auckland – and are part of Auckland’s
heritage. Many owners of these homes have lovingly restored them and retained
their heritage features. To walk down Hinemoa Street in Birkenhead, is
to feast upon special homes that have a place in Auckland’s history. To
allow a developer to bowl a house and then erect 3x3 rectangular monstrosity
in a heritage area is an outrage. It would destroy the unique special
character of these suburbs.
xvi) endorse the following feedback provided by individual
members of the public from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:
A)
This legislation has been rushed
through with insufficient analysis and planning.
B)
Infrastructure constraints are
already of major concern in Birkenhead Pt. Morning and evening traffic
is already an issue, as is parking due to the ferry terminal at one end of
the Point and the shopping centre at the other. Public transport is
inadequate as are pedestrian crossings; there are no cycleways. Rubbish
trucks have difficulty manoeuvring. Old wastewater and storm water
pipes are problematic, run off is already an issue and drainage doesn’t
cope in heavy rain.
C)
Council’s scoring system [Special Character Area threshold assessment] is
too restrictive. The proposal requires 66% of individual properties in an
area to score 5/6 or 6/6 on a character assessment, before the area would
qualify to keep its “special character area” status. The 66%
threshold should be lower, (eg 50% – still a majority of character
houses). Also, properties scoring 4/6 (which Council accepts are still
“character supporting”) should be counted towards the percentage
test as well, not just 5/6 or 6/6. Many other suburbs that are keeping their
“special character area” status were surveyed in person by
Council representatives doing site visits. Northcote and Birkenhead Points
were just assessed using Google Street View, which means Council’s
scoring for those areas does not properly show their true character status.
D)
Infrastructure is a fundamental requirement
to support any intensification. It is simply negligent to not include it as a
qualifying matter. Much of the water, stormwater and wastewater
infrastructure in Birkenhead is already under stress and there are
significant issues, eg with stormwater overflow and wastewater leaking in the
bush.
Birkenhead Point has a rich history (as does Northcote Point and other
special character areas, hence the zoning!), it tells the story of pre-bridge
Auckland when people would travel across from the city on the car ferry, land
at the Wharf and drive up Hinemoa to go north (through the strawberry fields
and orchards). People would stop at the top of Hinemoa near Maritime Tce to
shop at the dairy and bakery (I think the former is corner Bridgeview and
Hinemoa and the latter corner Hinemoa and Maritime), get petrol, go to the
post office, butchers etc.
There are a lot of houses in Hinemoa St, Maritime Terrace and the surrounding
areas (Bridgeview, Wakanui) that are worthy of protection and still retain
their unique and distinctive architecture.
Examples: Wakanui St (west side) there are historic homes whose character has
been retained. In addition, on the opposite side of the road on the
corners of Maritime and Hinemoa there are Historic Heritage homes, so it
would make sense to retain a small area or cluster of homes which are
protected. Likewise, in the same triangle 'block' (Wakanui, Maritime,
Hinemoa) the house at the corner of Maritime and Hinemoa (81 Hinemoa St),
referenced above.
There are other houses in both Hinemoa St and Maritime Terrace that have
special and unique character that should be protected, eg 30 Martime (the
maps are not clear if it is the one with Historic Heritage protection), 42
& 46 Maritime, as well as the villas across the road from them at #29 and
35.
In Hinemoa St, the houses which I think should be considered further are # 9
-1 3 and 19 (one of which I think is Historic Heritage but not clear which).
I support the retention of Special Character protections on the properties
identify further along Hinemoa St opposite Glade Place and le Roy Terrace,
thank you.
I also support the retention of the Special Character overlay in Awanui St.
As an added point - most of the special character homes on the Point are NOT
close to any form of rapid transport, and the transport options are limited
in frequency. There is the ferry - but it’s a steep hill to walk
down/up for many people.
E)
Google street was used for 100% of
the Birkenhead Point & Northcote Point survey. There are issues with
Google Street - for example a property down a slip road might
show a neighbouring property.
The Queen Street, Northcote Point
properties from Bartley Street to Duke Street should not be classed as Medium
Density. They should retain the Unitary Plan zoning. Most have
well cared for villa houses, dating from the 1890s to around 1910.
It is unlikely that the waste and water infrastructure would cope with 3 X 3
homes being built on the proposed Queen Street rezoned medium density
property.
There is almost no public transport infrastructure in Northcote Point.
The ferry has been closed and / or not operated reliably for the past four
years
F)
We support careful and considered
development and intensification of our historic Highbury Precinct (Heart of
commercial development of what is now Birkenhead Village) in line with
council overseas expert Donovan Rypkema commissioned to speak by Auckland
Council March 10 2015 for the following reasons:
1)
Heritage is a public good,
2)
Heritage delivers economic benefits,
we have created a tourism drawcard through our Highbury Heritage Walks,
3)
Heritage is good urbanism,
4)
Heritage provides environmental
benefits in line with the green economy the cost to develop existing
buildings is less than the cost to develop new buildings.
i)
request
the opportunity for the Chairperson or delegate to address the Planning
Committee and Independent Hearing Panel on our feedback.
CARRIED
Note: Under Standing Order 1.9.7 Member A Shaw requested
his abstention noted against this item and he did not take part in the vote.
|
