Agenda of Planning Committee - Thursday, 4 August 2022

Planning Committee

04 August 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan - Approval of Intensification Planning Instrument for Public Notification

File No.: CP2022/10357

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to endorse additional qualifying matters and policy positions to be included in the council’s Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI), and to approve for public notification the IPI and variations to existing council and private plan changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 – updated in May 2022 (NPS-UD) identifies Auckland as a tier 1 urban environment and Auckland Council as a tier 1 local/territorial authority. As a tier 1 local/territorial authority, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires the council to notify an IPI on or before 20 August 2022, with the IPI being required to give effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) set out in the RMA into the relevant residential zones of the AUP. The IPI has significant implications for almost every residential and many business-zoned properties in urban Auckland.

3. The Planning Committee has considered numerous reports on the NPS-UD since August 2020. Committee members and local board chairs (or nominees) have attended multiple workshops and the Planning Committee set preliminary policy directions during 2021 to guide how the council will give effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. In 2022 directions from the Planning Committee have also guided how the council will incorporate the MDRS. Since October 2021, local boards and Mana Whenua have also been involved in developing the IPI.

4. As a result of the feedback on the council’s preliminary response and further analysis undertaken, the Planning Committee finalised the majority of the policy directions for the IPI on 30 June 2022 (the resolutions from 30 June 2022 are attached as Attachment A). A small number of policy directions were not finalised by the Planning Committee on 30 June 2022. Those matters have been discussed in subsequent workshops with the Planning Committee and are addressed in this report.

5. Staff have completed the proposed IPI based on the policy directions agreed to by the Planning Committee on 30 June 2022 and in line with the advice provided at the workshops. Approval is now sought to notify the IPI and the variations that are required to existing council and private plan changes.

6. Once the submissions have been received, they will be considered by the Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) that has been appointed by the Regulatory Committee. The Panel will make recommendations on any changes to the IPI and the variations to existing council and private plan changes in time for the council to make its final decisions on the Panel recommendations by the statutory deadline of 31 March 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

Additional qualifying matters

a) endorse the following qualifying matters which are additional to those approved by the Planning Committee in resolution PLA/2022/84 (f)

i) Infrastructure – Water and/or Wastewater Constraints

ii) Infrastructure – Combined Wastewater Network Control

iii) Infrastructure – Beachlands Transport Control

iv) Open Space – Community zone

v) Māori Cultural Heritage - Pukekiwiriki Pā

vi) Māori Cultural Heritage - Pararēkau Island

vii) the various qualifying matters identified within Auckland Unitary Plan precincts set out in Attachment B of the agenda report.

Additional policy positions

b) endorse the following settlements as not having the Medium Density Residential Standards incorporated into their residential zones as they do not meet the definition of ‘relevant residential zone’ in section 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 due to their population size in the 2018 census being less than 5,000, and the council does not intend these areas to be part of the urban environment:

Helensville, Clarks Beach, Glenbrook Beach, Karaka, Maraetai, Riverhead, Snells Beach - Algies Bay, Wellsford, Kingseat, Te Hana, Parakai, Matakana, Whitford, Waimauku, Patumahoe, Stillwater, Kawakawa Bay, Omaha, Point Wells, Waiwera, Clevedon, Okura and Kumeu-Huapai.

c) endorse the new Low Density Residential zone, which is to be applied to specific properties associated with the following qualifying matters:

i) neighbourhoods where the special character overlays are a qualifying matter

ii) coastal sites where there is the risk of coastal erosion

iii) sites that are subject to significant risks from natural hazards (such as flooding and/or coastal inundation)

iv) sites containing approximately 30 percent or more significant ecological areas (SEAs)

v) sites subject to outstanding natural features, outstanding natural landscapes and high natural character areas

vi) properties in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay that are within the Rural Urban Boundary.

Electricity distribution assets

d) note the matters raised in the agenda report relating to the recent request by Vector to apply a qualifying matter to its electricity distribution assets.

e) delegate to the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve a qualifying matter relating to Vector’s electricity distribution assets if further analysis being undertaken by staff supports this.

Zoning and plan provisions made operative between 4 August and 18 August 2022

f) approve the inclusion of properties in the Proposed Intensification Planning Instrument, including any precincts, where the council will be making the zonings, provisions and/or precincts operative (or operative in part) between 4 August and 18 August 2022, as a result of council decisions on plan changes and/or appeals or legal proceedings having been resolved.

Approval of the Proposed Intensification Planning Instrument

g) approve for notification the Proposed Intensification Planning Instrument included as Attachments C1 (Text) and C2-C6 (Maps) to the agenda report, subject to any changes required to address any recommendations a) to f), having had particular regard to the section 32 report included as Attachments D1-D3 to the agenda report.

h) delegate to the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve minor amendments to the approved Proposed Intensification Planning Instrument and to correct any errors or omissions prior to notification.

Variations to plan changes

i) approve for notification variations to the following plan changes included as Attachments E1, E3, E5, E7 and E9 to the agenda report, having had particular regard to the associated section evaluation 32 reports included as Attachments E2, E4, E6, E8 and E10 to the agenda report:

i) Private Plan Change 49 (Drury East Precinct)

ii) Private Plan Change 50 (Waihoehoe Precinct)

iii) Private Plan Change 59 (Albany 10 Precinct)

iv) Plan Change 60 (Open Space)

v) Private Plan Change 66 (Schnapper Rock Road).

j) delegate to the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve amendments to the approved variations in recommendation i) based on feedback received from Mana Whenua, and to approve minor amendments and correct any errors and omissions prior to notification.

Horopaki

Context

7. This report follows on from the report and decisions made by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 30 June 2022. The context in that report is not repeated here.

8. The committee passed a number of resolutions on 30 June 2022 (refer Attachment A) that finalised the policy directions for the majority of the IPI. This included approval of the:

a) principles for applying NPS-UD Policy 3(a) to the City Centre zone

b) approach to walkable catchments under Policy 3(c) from the edge of the Metropolitan Centre zone and from existing and planned rapid transit stops on Auckland’s rapid transit network, and from the edge of the city centre zone subject to more work being undertaken by staff (which has been undertaken)

c) extent of intensification within and adjacent to Town, Local and Neighbourhood Centre zones under Policy 3(d) of the NPS-UD

d) government and council identified qualifying matters under sections 77I and 77O of the RMA

e) approach to the location and extent of Special Character Residential and Business Overlays, the retention of the height variation control for the Special Character Business Overlay, and the accommodation of greater levels of development while retaining special character values.

9. At the 30 June meeting the committee also requested staff to investigate and report back on the following matters:

a) walkable catchment from the city centre

b) local public views (qualifying matter)

c) water, wastewater and stormwater (qualifying matter)

d) transport (qualifying matter)

e) ensuring appropriate built transitions where sites abut open space and lower-height residential properties (qualifying matter)

f) cultural and visual qualities of the maunga (qualifying matter)

g) cultural sites of significance (qualifying matter).

10. The decisions made by the Planning Committee on 30 June 2022 are not being reconsidered as these decisions have formed the basis for the Proposed IPI that is recommended for approval in this report. However, there are two groups of issues included in this report – the first are those matters that the committee asked staff to investigate further and the second are some other matters that were not completed in time for the 30 June 2022 meeting.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Further investigation of matters from 30 June Planning Committee meeting – Walkable catchment around the City Centre zone

11. As requested by the committee, council staff have undertaken more work, including the ongoing review of feedback received on the council’s preliminary response on specific walkable catchments (including modifying factors that may affect the walkable catchment distance in a particular location). A consistency check of the mapped catchments across the different walkable catchments has also occurred. As a result of the further work undertaken by staff in accordance with Resolution PLA/2022/81(b)(iii), no changes are proposed to the walkable catchments as defined in resolution PLA/2021/80, which includes a walkable catchment of around 1,200m distance (approximately 15-minute walk), to which modifying factors apply, from the edge of the City Centre zone. The amended City Centre zone walkable catchment with changes in Saint Mary’s Bay and Parnell is shown in the Proposed IPI maps at Attachment C2.

12. A detailed explanation of the reason for retaining a walkable catchment of around 1,200m distance from the edge of the City Centre zone is included in the section 32 report for the Proposed IPI (see Attachment D1).

Further investigation of matters from 30 June Planning Committee meeting - Additional Qualifying Matters

Local Public Views

13. At the 30 June 2022 Planning Committee meeting the committee noted that staff were reviewing whether changes are required to the council-identified local public views QM. Any proposed changes to those views would be presented to the committee for endorsement on 4 August 2022 (Resolution PLA/2022/85(g)). Following further analysis, no additional amendments are proposed to the Local Public Views Overlay nor the Schedule 11 Local Public View Schedule. Therefore, all existing local views included in the AUP are identified in the Proposed IPI as a QM.

Water Supply and Wastewater Infrastructure Constraints

14. At the July 2021 Planning Committee meeting the committee resolved that areas with significant long-term infrastructure constraints should be considered for investigation as a ‘council identified’ QM.

15. Watercare has investigated the possibility of applying a water supply and wastewater QM where there are known long-term network constraints. Watercare considers there to be a significant effect arising from NPS-UD intensification and incorporation of MDRS on those properties that are currently zoned Single House in the AUP.

16. Anticipated effects of intensification where there are water supply and wastewater capacity issues include: reduced levels of service for water supply, increased wastewater overflows, inability to meet outcomes expected for Te Mana o te Wai, developer response when their application for a new connection is declined or significantly delayed due to no available capacity in the network, and reduced reputation with our communities and Mana Whenua partners.

17. Watercare has produced two maps identifying where water supply and/or wastewater constraints exist and need to be managed. These maps are included in the Proposed IPI. They apply to sites currently zoned Single House and Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (not Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban).

18. The first map is titled ‘Infrastructure – Combined Wastewater Network Control’. This displays residential sites that are connected to a combined wastewater and stormwater network. The second map is titled ’Infrastructure – Water and/or Wastewater Constraints Control’. This map identifies residential sites with existing significant capacity constraints.

19. Applying these QMs will enable early conversations about local network constraints and solutions with developers seeking to construct more than one dwelling. The QMs will also provide early warning for where network improvements may need to be brought forward.

20. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new QM be included in the Proposed IPI dealing with water supply and wastewater constraints within the urban residential zones and the subdivision chapter of the AUP. These provisions require a restricted discretionary activity resource consent application to be made for more than one dwelling per site and for subdivision in mapped areas with water and/or wastewater constraints. Additional matters of discretion and assessment criteria requiring local network infrastructure capacity assessments have been added.

Stormwater Disposal Constraints

21. The council’s Healthy Waters department has identified sites in the central isthmus of Auckland that are subject to limitations regarding the disposal of stormwater. These sites have no ability to connect to the public stormwater network, and ground soakage capacities are constrained. The sites are located in Mount Eden (being an area in the vicinity of the intersection of Mount Eden and Balmoral Roads, and bounded by Manukau Road, Epsom Avenue, Matipo Street, and Gorrie Avenue).

22. The sites subject to stormwater disposal constraints would be identified by a mapping layer in the Proposed IPI and supported by provisions that require a restricted discretionary activity resource consent for a proposal that will result in more than one dwelling on the site. Changes would also be proposed to the subdivision chapter of the AUP. The combination of these methods is expected to manage the potential adverse effects of further intensification of the identified sites.

23. A further outcome sought from applying the QM is to ensure that future purchasers are aware of the stormwater servicing constraints of the site, and the restrictions on residential intensification applicable to the site. The provisions will require resource consent applications to include information about the ability to manage the stormwater disposal effects of the proposed development, where two or more dwellings are proposed. The provisions will also enable the council to decline resource consent applications for additional dwellings in cases where stormwater disposal is not able to be appropriately managed to avoid the adverse effects of development.

24. Accordingly it is recommended that a QM be applied in relation to constraints around stormwater disposal.

Transport Infrastructure Constraints

25. Council and Auckland Transport staff have carefully considered the potential of applying transport infrastructure constraints to parts of urban Auckland as a council QM. Options were presented at the Planning Committee workshop on 6 July 2022, where council and Auckland Transport staff recommended amending the residential and transport provisions in the AUP rather than pursuing a transport infrastructure QM. The primary reason for this advice is that it is almost impossible to prove at a site-specific level that any particular part of Auckland’s urban environment is constrained to the point where MDRS would be inappropriate. The analysis required is complicated by the fact that most parts of the urban area already enable some two-storey medium density housing. Put simply, the QM framework and high evidential threshold for council QMs is only likely to support the application of a transport infrastructure QM in exceptional cases.

26. However, under the AUP, activities or subdivision that generate high amounts of traffic, and which seek to locate outside of the most intensive centres and residential zones, are required to demonstrate how the proposal would integrate with the transport network. This includes managing the transport effects of the proposal on the effective, efficient and safe operation of the local transport network. Major proposals are also required to prepare an Integrated Transport Assessment to support their resource consent application.

27. As discussed at the workshop, the Proposed IPI includes additional provisions within the residential zones that will enable an assessment of transport effects for smaller-scale developments, and provide the opportunity for conditions to be imposed on consents requiring local transport improvements.

28. Since the workshop, further consideration has been given to the transport characteristics of specific areas in Auckland. This analysis has identified that the coastal settlement of Beachlands has unique characteristics that justify the application of a transport-related QM. Beachlands is a settlement that had a population of approximately 6,000 at the 2018 census, which is just over the 5,000 threshold set out in the RMA. This means that the zones in Beachlands come within the definition of ‘relevant residential zone’ and require the incorporation of MDRS.

29. The AUP operative zone for Beachlands is currently entirely Single House zone (excluding the Pine Harbour Precinct). This settlement is not contiguous with the urban environment and is instead located a considerable distance east of urban Auckland, surrounded by rural-zoned and some open space-zoned land. The main roading access to Beachlands is via Whitford-Maraetai road which is a two-lane sealed road that provides capacity to serve traffic generated by the urban extent of Beachlands.

30. Further residential intensification in Beachlands would impact on the local road network which is already under stress because of the very limited public transport in this locality. Beachlands has a heavy reliance on the Whitford-Maraetai Road to access employment and education opportunities. There is a need for a new ferry terminal and wharf, in addition to public transport services and arterial road improvements to support population growth. None of these projects are funded. There is also a lack of local employment opportunities, requiring residents to travel outside the Beachlands area, and inability of public transport (ferry and bus) to cater for this demand. The Beachlands area also has other infrastructure issues (water supply and wastewater).

31. In summary, council and Auckland Transport staff are of the view that a general transport QM is very difficult to justify under the statutory framework. Therefore, a general QM for transport purposes is not recommended. However, in relation to Beachlands, it is recommended that a qualifying matter be applied to the Beachlands area for transport purposes.

Walkable Catchments - Six Storey Buildings that abut Open Space or Residential Properties that have a Low Density Zoning

32. At its 30 June 2022 meeting, the committee requested staff to report back on additional QMs to provide for transitions between:

a) six storey buildings in walkable catchments where they abut open space

b) sites with a low-density residential zoning.

33. As discussed at the subsequent workshop with the Planning Committee, QMs are not able to be supported for the following reasons:

a) the evidential requirement for this matter is high - the RMA requires site-specific analysis to be undertaken if the council proposes a qualifying matter that would prevent buildings of at least six storeys on sites adjacent to open space or low-density zones within walkable catchments

b) there are hundreds of parks within walkable catchments, each with specific characteristics - the 20 August 2022 statutory deadline to notify the IPI, together with the scale and complexity of the task, has prevented the necessary analysis from being undertaken

c) initial modelling for open spaces and six storey development, while sufficient to develop potential provisions, is unlikely to satisfy the statutory requirements

d) there are hundreds of properties within walkable catchments that are proposed to have a low-density zoning (e.g. those within Special Character Areas) that are adjacent to properties that will be zoned for six storey buildings - the 20 August 2022 statutory deadline to notify the IPI, together with the scale and complexity of the task, has prevented the necessary analysis from being undertaken

e) advice from the council’s Heritage unit indicates that the six storey buildings adjacent to the edges of Special Character Areas is unlikely to compromise character values.

34. Accordingly it is recommended that no additional QMs be identified to address these matters.

Culturally Significant Sites for Mana Whenua

35. At the 30 June Planning Committee meeting, staff advised that Mana Whenua advice received by the council had identified two sites of cultural significance that are at risk due to the incorporation of MDRS into relevant residential zones. These sites currently lack existing AUP protections for the key elements of cultural concern. Both sites have been nominated as Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua, and the council holds sufficient information about these sites to assess and provide a planning response. The two sites are Pukekiwiriki Pā in Red Hills and Pararēkau Island in the Hingaia Islands (Pahurehure Inlet).

36. Pukekiwiriki Pā is a historic reserve owned by the council and managed by the Pukekiwiriki Pā Joint Management Committee. This is one of six co-management arrangements with the council and contains representatives from six Mana Whenua groups and the Papakura Local Board Chair.

37. This fortress pā site was extensively used and occupied by ancestors of several Mana Whenua groups of Tāmaki Makaurau. What is now Papakura was once open to attacking tribes and Pukekiwiriki guarded coastal flat land which provided a natural and convenient path for invaders. The commanding views from the Kirikiri ridge, on which the pā is located, is intrinsic to its historical context and its ongoing role as an education site.

38. Investigation has identified that four residential properties that are located adjacent to the reserve currently encroach into these culturally significant views. Greater height enabled by MDRS has the potential to exacerbate this encroachment. A QM to limit the houses to their existing permitted height of 8m + 1m height for roof variation is proposed through the application of a Height Variation Control and corresponding provisions in the amended Mixed Housing Urban zone.

39. The Hingaia Islands, including Pararēkau Island, are identified as wāhi tapu, wāhi nohoanga and wāhi taonga by several Mana Whenua groups of Tāmaki Makaurau. This has been substantiated through two cultural values assessments drafted jointly by three Mana Whenua (Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua).

40. The gradual urbanisation of Pararēkau Island has been consistently opposed on cultural grounds as it is both taonga in its own right and also an important cultural marker in a wider cultural landscape. The developer and iwi have reached agreement regarding the currently proposed single house density of development.

41. The incorporation of MDRS could significantly increase the scale and intensity of development on the island, both through the density provisions and also the subdivision standards. Mana Whenua advice has been that this will generate an inappropriate level of adverse effect on the cultural relationship they have with the Island. The application of a low-density residential zone and some amendments to the operative precinct is proposed as a QM to retain the development potential of the island at the current AUP Single House zone level. The proposed QM will not alter the granted resource consents that enable development on the Island.

42. Accordingly it is recommended that a QM be applied to Pukekiwiriki Pā and Pararēkau Island.

Cultural and Visual Qualities of the Maunga

43. The purpose of the operative Chapter D14 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay in the AUP is to protect significant views of Auckland’s volcanic cones. It achieves this through the use of viewshafts and height sensitive areas. As part of the developing the IPI it was resolved by the committee in July 2021 that the D14 Overlay would be a QM in order to protect the values associated with the maunga.

44. At the 30 June 2022 Planning Committee meeting, the committee noted that staff were investigating appropriate controls to manage the effects of potential development on the cultural and visual qualities of the maunga. This work was on-going as part of the QM workstream.

45. Staff have been working closely with the Tūpuna Maunga Authority on changes to the D14 Overlay to firstly preserve the current AUP provisions through the IPI process, and secondly, to improve protection of the maunga through changes to the height sensitive areas around the maunga. The culmination of this work is set out in Attachment D1.

46. As part of the overall iwi consultation process, work on the D14 Overlay has been presented to Mana Whenua on several occasions. Formal and informal feedback from this consultation shows strong support for retaining existing protection mechanisms and support for the proposed extension of further protection in height sensitive areas.

47. The approach proposes to allow intensification beneath the D14 Overlay, but to restrict height through the Overlay (this is the operative approach that has been working well for more than four decades). The approach also introduces additional controls on building coverage, landscaped area, yards and earthworks within the residential zones in Height and Building Sensitive Areas. It is envisaged that these controls (combined with the Overlay height controls and other operative controls on the maunga themselves) will ensure that the visual character, identity, physical integrity and form of the maunga are protected.

48. The results of this work are included in the Proposed IPI and no further decisions are required from the Planning Committee.

Additional matters not considered at 30 June 2022 Planning Committee meeting

Urban Design and the Quality of the Built Environment

49. As stated in the council’s submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, there are some fundamental issues with the MDRS (albeit improved through the Select Committee process). There are also some fundamental issues with the requirement under the NPS-UD to enable buildings of at least six storeys on almost every residential property within walkable catchments, even relatively small properties.

50. Those issues have the potential to result in poor urban design outcomes, in particular poor quality outdoor living spaces, loss of privacy and poor privacy outcomes, and unnecessary shading and dominance of neighbouring properties. The restriction placed on councils that prevents the standards from being modified (unless there is a QM in play) remains a concern to many council urban design and planning staff, as well as urban designers and planners outside the council.

51. Working within the restrictive framework established by central government, with support from the Auckland Urban Design Panel, staff have attempted to make improvements wherever possible. The focus has been on situations where four or more dwellings are proposed, as there appears to be greater flexibility in these situations. The improvements include introducing new standards and changes to existing standards to:

a) encourage developments to focus their bulk towards the street through more enabling height in relation to boundary controls closer to the street, while increasing outlook distances for developments higher than three storeys

b) manage visual dominance, shading and privacy effects on adjacent sites via building frontages so they address the street (e.g. reducing the potential for long “sausage-flat” typologies which exacerbate shading and privacy concerns)

c) requiring common outdoor living spaces for developments of 20 or more dwellings to enhance on-site amenity in higher intensity living environments

d) retention of daylight and outlook space standards

e) focus on high-quality landscaped areas by strengthening the definition of “Landscape Area” and requiring deep soil areas/canopy tree(s) based on the size of the site. These ensure quality vegetation and tree cover that contributes to biodiversity and climate change resilience

f) require provision of well-designed on-site waste storage to ensure on-site amenity and manage effects on the public realm.

52. Additionally, changes to matters of discretion and assessment criteria will emphasise design during the resource consent process. This means that matters such as external appearance (as expressed through bulk, building mass and orientation), the relationships between the development and adjoining sites, the street, open spaces and character/heritage areas can be managed.

53. While MDRS limits the scope for the council to introduce additional standards to achieve a quality built environment outcome for developments of up to three dwellings, amendments in the Proposed IPI include the following standards which will not affect density:

a) the quality of landscaped areas required by MDRS

b) the provision of on-site waste storage.

Rural and coastal settlements

54. The RMA requires the council to apply MDRS to all “relevant residential zones”. However, as a result of submissions on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Bill by the council and others, there are specific exemptions for residential areas that are zoned Large Lot, Rural and Coastal Settlement, located on an offshore island, or have a population below 5,000 (at the time of the 2018 census). When these exemptions are applied to Auckland’s rural settlements it results in only four settlements having the MDRS applied to them. These rural settlements are: Pukekohe, Waiuku, Beachlands (note that QMs apply to this settlement) and Warkworth.

55. The following settlements in Auckland’s rural area had a population of less than 5,000 in 2018, and so do not to have the MDRS applied to them in the Proposed IPI.

Helensville, Clarks Beach, Glenbrook Beach, Karaka, Maraetai, Riverhead, Snells Beach - Algies Bay, Wellsford, Kingseat, Te Hana, Parakai, Matakana, Whitford, Waimauku, Patamahoe, Stillwater, Kawakawa Bay, Omaha, Point Wells, Waiwera, Clevedon, Okura and Kumeu-Huapai.

56. The RMA does state that the council can apply MDRS to these settlements. Given matters such as the sensitive environments in which a number of these settlements are located, and the limited local employment opportunities and infrastructure constraints, it is recommended that the council does not apply MDRS to these locations.

Low Density Residential zone

57. A new Low Density Residential zone (LDRZ) has been developed to ensure a lower intensity of development than MDRS is provided where one or more QMs apply, and those QMs require a zone-based response. The LDRZ can limit development only to the extent necessary to accommodate a relevant QM (e.g. limiting the number of permitted dwellings to avoid exposing people to natural hazard risks, or reducing building heights to avoid affecting special character). The LDRZ has been developed to apply to the following:

a) neighbourhoods where the special character overlays are a QM and special character is being retained

b) coastal sites where there is the risk of coastal erosion

c) sites that are subject to significant risks from natural hazards (such as flooding and/or coastal inundation)

d) sites containing substantial significant ecological areas (SEAs)

e) sites subject to outstanding natural features, outstanding natural landscapes and high natural character areas

f) properties in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay that are within the Rural Urban Boundary.

58. The application of LDRZ is constrained by the narrow legal scope of the IPI, and so it is not appropriate to use the zone to implement all QMs. While the Planning Committee has been advised about the use of this zone during workshops, the approach as not been formally endorsed.

59. Accordingly it is recommended that the low density residential zone is applied in the circumstances identified in the paragraph above.

Open Space – Community Zone

60. Open space is recognised in the NPS-UD as a qualifying matter that is an essential element of creating well-functioning urban environments. Recognition of all open space zones as qualifying matters is consistent with direction from central government and the community’s expectation that open space should be excluded from the intensification required under Policy 3. The open space zones have been applied across the region to all land that is publicly owned open space and there is a small amount of privately owned land that has been zoned open space.

61. The Planning Committee has previously agreed that Open Space-Conservation, Open Space-Informal Recreation, Open Space-Sports and Active Recreation and Open Space-Civic Spaces zones should be qualifying matters in the IPI.

62. The Open Space-Community zone was inadvertently left out of reporting to the committee on 30 June 2022 for the open space qualifying matters. This zone includes places such as the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki. These open space zones are not intended to have the intensification requirements of Policy 3 applied to them.

63. Accordingly it is recommended that the Open Space-Community Zone is identified in the Proposed IPI as a QM.

Auckland Unitary Plan Precincts

64. There are 190 precincts in the AUP with about half of those in the urban area. Precincts enable local differences to be recognised by providing detailed place-based provisions that can vary the use and built form outcomes enabled by the underlying zone or Auckland-wide provisions. Precincts can be more restrictive or more enabling than the zone (or zones) to which they apply. Many of the AUP precincts have been the subject of extensive community involvement over many years, plan changes to the AUP or the legacy district plans, and in a number of cases, Environment Court and High Court hearings and decisions.

65. It has been determined that the 19 Special Housing Areas Precincts should be excluded from the IPI. Changes cannot be made to those precincts through the IPI process because of a conflict with other legislation that created those precincts.

66. Council staff have analysed all remaining precincts in the urban area to determine if they require changes as part of the IPI. Where a precinct contained a provision contrary to Policy 3 of the NPS-UD or MDRS (e.g. reduced building height below six storeys in a walkable catchment or less enabling of density standards in MDRS areas) it was then determined whether to apply local QMs under Policy 4 of the NPS-UD or sections 77I or 77O of the RMA to retain those provisions.

67. Where a QM was identified, the provision has been retained, where no QMs were identified the provisions were removed or amended to give effect to Policy 3 or to incorporate the MDRS. The result of this investigation is set out in Attachment B to this report.

68. Of the 65 remaining precincts analysed, two are proposed to be deleted entirely, 29 are proposed to be amended to accommodate additional height or densities of urban form, and 34 will be retained as operative due to the presence of QMs. This has resulted in additional section 77I/77O(j) “other” qualifying matters needing to be approved by the committee.

69. The two precincts to be deleted are I337 Riddell Road Precinct and I500 Albany 3 Precinct. These precincts do not have qualifying matters that could justify their retention. The I337 Riddell Road Precinct proposes additional residential development to a scale similar to MDRS, and is no longer required. The land under the I500 Albany 3 Precinct is now developed or consented for development in accordance with the precinct, and is no longer required.

70. It is proposed to retain all the City Centre zone precincts except where an amendment is required to align provisions with the new City Centre zone provisions (e.g. removal of bonus provisions). The exception to this is I209 Quay Park Precinct, where additional height achieves better urban form outcomes for the area in accordance with Policy 3(a) of the NPS-UD.

71. Of the 29 precincts which have been amended to a certain extent to incorporate Policy 3 of the NPS-UD and/or to incorporate the MDRS, the following are notable:

a) I412 Flat Bush Precinct which has been amended to retain some landscape and amenity provisions while enabling increased density in accordance with MDRS

b) I433 Pukekohe Hill Precinct which will enable MDRS in some areas located away from the flanks of Pukekohe Hill itself and retains stormwater soakage and recharge provisions

c) I446 Gatland Road Precinct which has now been amended to incorporate MDRS (this was made operative in March 2022 through Private Plan Change 58)

d) I519 Long Bay Precinct which has been amended to incorporate MDRS while retaining the outcomes of Plan Change 6 and Variation 66 to the legacy North Shore District Plan.

72. Accordingly it is recommended that the Planning Committee approves the precinct QMs in accordance with Attachment B.

Electricity distribution assets

73. Vector has recently contacted the council to request a QM be introduced through the IPI to ensure safe distances are achieved between buildings and Vector’s electricity distribution assets (e.g. overhead powerlines and power boxes). A key driver for Vector’s concerns is the significant increase in buildings that will be enabled as close as 1.5m to the front boundary of a site through the IPI.

74. Staff have expressed some initial reservations about the need for this control to be included in the AUP, as compliance with safe distances is already required under regulations set through the Electricity Act. In response, one of the concerns Vector has identified is that awareness of the need to comply with the regulations is low, and that including the control in the AUP would raise that awareness at the appropriate time, and therefore ensure safe distances are achieved between consented buildings and Vector’s electricity distribution assets.

75. Delegation is sought to the Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to determine whether or not to include this as a QM in the IPI, so that staff can have more time to evaluate the request from Vector.

Subdivision Controls

76. The Subdivision Variation Control (SVC) in the AUP sets minimum lot sizes for subdivision in areas that are subject to constraints, or which have local values that warrant retention. For most of the SVC areas, the minimum lot sizes were adopted from their respective legacy district plans into the AUP. The SVC control is applied spatially across specific localities for the following reasons:

a) to manage the existing patterns and density in certain locations to maintain a low-density character

b) to manage natural landscape qualities and maintain a low-density settlement pattern

c) to manage development as a result of infrastructure constraints.

77. The MDRS applies to the following areas that are subject to the Subdivision Variation Control:

a) Eastern Whangaparaoa Peninsula (the SVC only applies over coastal properties)

b) Herald Island

c) Bucklands Beach

d) Beachlands (the SVC only applies in the earlier established area near the coast).

78. The SVC control is not included in the Proposed IPI for the following reasons:

a) where infrastructure constraints (such as water and wastewater servicing) remain relevant, they are proposed to be QMs and will restrict development as necessary

b) the use of QMs will adequately manage any relevant issues such as infrastructure and Significant Ecological Areas without the need to ‘double up’ (i.e. SVC and QM managing the same matter)

c) infrastructure has been upgraded in areas where historical constraints were a justification for the application of the SVC to limit growth potential

d) historical context and reasons for the application of the SVC are no longer applicable and it is appropriate to rely on the new zoning and region-wide subdivision rules

e) there are no qualifying matters which require the continued application of the SVC as a method to modify the requirements of the MDRS.

Variations to Existing Plan Changes

79. The council is required to notify variations to the following plan changes to incorporate the MDRS: Private Plan Changes 49 (Drury East Precinct), 50 (Waihoehoe Precinct), 59 (Albany 10 precinct), 66 (Schnapper Rock Road) and the council’s Plan Change 60 (Open Space). These variations must be notified at the same time as the council’s IPI is notified. These variations are necessary because the legislation requires that plan changes in train must be varied at the time of notification. These variations are separate to the IPI but will be heard by the Independent Hearings Panel at the same time as the IPI.

80. The variation to PC49 (Drury East Precinct) makes amendments to give effect to the MDRS. The changes include rezoning land in the east of the Drury East Precinct from Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone, and amendments to the subdivision activity rules and the notification standards. The variation also sets out the qualifying matters applying within the Drury East Precinct.

81. The variation to PC50 (Waihoehoe Precinct) makes amendments to give effect to the MDRS. The changes include amendments to the subdivision activity rules and the notification standards. The variation also sets out the QMs that apply within the Waihoehoe Precinct.

82. The variation to PC59 (Albany 10 Precinct) makes amendments to give effect to the MDRS. The variation also sets out the QMs that apply within the Albany 10 Precinct.

83. The variation to PC 60 (Open Space) (a council initiated plan change) makes amendments to apply relevant residential zones to land that is proposed to be rezoned from an open space zone to a residential zone. The sites that are included in this variation are a subset of all of the sites that are in PC60, as not all of the proposed rezonings in PC60 are applying a residential zone to a site.

84. The variation to PC 66 (Schnapper Rock Road) makes amendments to apply a relevant residential zone (being Mixed Housing Urban) to land that is proposed to be rezoned at Schnapper Rock Road in Greenhithe.

85. The variations and associated section 32 reports are included as Attachments E1 to E10.

Recent decisions on plan changes, and resolved appeals and legal proceedings

86. There are two reports in the confidential part of the agenda relating to private plan changes where decisions have been made and any appeals resolved. Should the committee approve these plan changes to be made operative then the provisions can be included in the Proposed IPI.

Section 32 Reporting

87. Section 32 evaluation reports have been prepared for all Policy 3 related residential and non-residential zoned land intensification, QMs, precincts affected by the requirement to give effect to the NPS-UD and incorporate MDRS, and all business and residential zones. The section 32 reports provide statutory assessment of the provisions that give effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and incorporate the MDRS, as well as how QMs make the MDRS and the relevant building height or density requirements under Policy 3 less enabling of development in the IPI. That analysis includes details of alternatives, costs, benefits and policy choices.

88. The documents are reasonably technical and draw on a range of expertise including (where appropriate) population and data modelling. This modelling data is critical to understand the effects on housing and business capacity that are likely to occur as NPS-UD Policy 4 QMs and QMs under sections 77I and 77O of the RMA make the MDRS and the relevant building height or density requirements under Policy 3 less enabling of development. These reports will provide the public and the Panel with information on how policy positions have been reached and the quality of data that supports those policy approaches.

89. An overall section 32 report has also been prepared for the Proposed IPI that provides a high-level summary of the approach taken in the Proposed IPI to intensification, QMs, and a range of other complex issues such as the identification of the indicative Light Rail Corridor. Given the time constraints in preparing the Proposed IPI alongside several non-IPI plan changes (addressed in separate reports on this agenda) and variations, further refinement of these draft reports will be required prior to public notification on 18 August 2022. It is recommended that approval of minor changes to the reports is delegated to the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

90. At present the council has a limited ability to address climate change issues under the RMA. When initiating a plan change to the AUP the council can introduce plan provisions that provide for natural hazards and coastal hazards and sea level rise, but it has no jurisdiction to make rules for the explicit reason of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Once the amendments to the RMA introduced by the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020 come into force on 30 November 2022, when amending the AUP, the council will be required to have regard to any ‘emissions reduction plans’ and ‘national adaptation plans’ prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

91. Objective 8(a) and Policy 1(f) 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.

92. Objective 8(a) of the NPS-UD provides that New Zealand’s urban environments support reductions in greenhouse emissions. Policy 1(f) provides that Planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments, which are urban environments that, as a minimum: are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change. However, Objective 8(a) and Policy 1(a)(f) of the NPS-UD do not operate to override the current RMA framework, in which climate change mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) is presently essentially beyond the scope of the council’s resource management responsibilities.

93. The climate-related objectives and policies in the NPS-UD are 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."

94. Giving effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD in the Proposed IPI will enable additional residential intensification to occur in areas where jobs, services and amenities can be easily accessed by active modes and public transport. In addition, higher density housing is typically more energy efficient and has lower lifecycle emissions than detached housing. These factors 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.

95. Incorporating the MDRS into relevant residential zones will support reductions in household emissions and enable intensification in central Auckland and other areas that have rapid and/or frequent public transport. However, a key aspect of the council’s submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was that enabling three-storey medium density housing across all of 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. This means that the requirement to incorporate MDRS in relevant residential zones in these areas, where a high level of public transport service is not likely/possible, will reduce the efficacy of the intensification in walkable catchments and around centres. It is also likely to increase vehicle kilometers travelled from those areas where intensification is enabled and where there are no viable alternatives other than to travel by car.

96. With respect to avoiding risks from natural hazards associated with climate change, QMs relating to flooding, coastal erosion and coastal inundation have been identified to ensure intensification does not occur in hazardous areas.

97. Including Special Character as a QM will impact intensification within the walkable catchments of the City Centre, some train stations such as Remuera, Ellerslie and Parnell, and in areas with frequent public transport (such as Devonport and Grey Lynn). This impacts emission creation by reducing the effectiveness of public transport investment in these areas. It therefore has an opportunity cost by way of not enabling intensification – and the potential emissions reduction associated with that – from occurring in Special Character areas. It is not possible to quantify the scale of this impact due to the high degree of complexity involved in modelling impacts of this nature and the limited time provided by the government to prepare the IPI. It is also relevant to note that Special Character areas such as Ponsonby (for example), currently have some of the highest residential densities outside of the City Centre.

98. Overall, while the government’s policy framework seeks to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience, the council’s view (as stated in its submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Bill) is that the current requirements of the RMA to enable intensification right across the urban environment may undermine a compact, quality land use pattern and the desired climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

99. All relevant council departments and Council Controlled Organisations have been actively involved in preparing the Proposed IPI. Among other things, this has resulted in the identification of various QMs (e.g. those relating to significant infrastructure constraints) and the development of transport-related provisions that will be included in the Proposed IPI and a companion plan change (addressed in a separate item on the Planning Committee agenda).

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

Local impacts and local board views

100. Local boards were briefed in October and November 2021 on the implications of the NPS-UD and local board chairs were invited to the series of committee workshops run in 2021 and 2022. Local boards also received briefings on the council’s preliminary response, the contents of companion non-IPI plan changes and the feedback received in March and May 2022.

101. Contributions from local board members at Planning Committee workshops, and the feedback received from local boards (by way of resolutions passed in June 2022), has informed the Proposed IPI.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

102. The council has legal obligations to consult with Māori on matters that may affect them. This is a specific requirement under the RMA, and also more broadly in accordance with the council’s Māori Outcomes Framework, Significance and Engagement Policy and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. The council must also comply with Clause 3(1)(d) and 3B (of Schedule 1) of the RMA, and the clause 4A (of Schedule 1) pre-notification requirements concerning iwi authorities.

103. The widespread intensification enabled by the NPS-UD, and the incorporation of MDRS in relevant residential zones, 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 Māori facilities where customs and traditions are observed (such as marae).

104. The relevant QMs set out in sections 77I and 77O of the RMA include matters of national importance that decision-makers are required to recognise and provide for under section 6 of the RMA. This includes matters necessary to implement, or to ensure consistency with, iwi participation legislation. The provisions of the NPS-UD have wide-reaching implications for how the urban environment will be enabled to develop in the future. As a result of the breadth of these implications, considerable engagement has been undertaken with both Mana Whenua and mataawaka to inform the Proposed IPI.

105. Mataawaka feedback has been more focussed on the extent to which intensification adjacent to existing marae and other cultural facilities would impact on their taonga. The feedback received is that intensification would have limited effects on the use of these sites for cultural activities.

106. The widespread application of MDRS brings with it particular effects for Māori. Scheduled Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua are a government-identified QM under section 6(e) of the RMA. An evaluation of all existing scheduled sites in the urban environment has identified limited effects due to a combination of their current zoning and overlay controls, the presence of existing infrastructure and development, or by potential effects on these sites being managed by other QMs. Sites scheduled as urupā have been raised as a particular concern given their cultural incompatibility with residential activities.

107. Unscheduled cultural heritage sites are a common concern. Where these are known and a sufficient level of evidence exists, they are included as QMs in the Proposed IPI. As previously discussed, two sites are included, being Pukekiwiriki Pā and Pararēkau Island.

108. The protection of Maunga Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas has been of particular importance to Mana Whenua as an important part of the cultural landscape. Retaining protections for significant ecological areas, outstanding natural landscapes, coastal areas of high and outstanding natural character and ridgeline protection areas have also been identified as being culturally important. The committee has previously endorsed these matters as QMs.

109. The ability for infrastructure to appropriately manage ancestral water is a central issue for iwi and hapū, as is ensuring that development does not exacerbate flooding within the region. QMs are proposed to address these matters and these are strongly supported by Mana Whenua representatives.

110. A full range of the matters raised by Mana Whenua was included as an attachment to the 30 June Planning Committee report and an update of this is at Attachment F.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

112. Work on the NPS-UD since August 2020, and on the IPI since December 2021, has been progressing within existing budgets. However, the passing of the RMA Amendment Act in December 2021 has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the work to be undertaken, without any changes to the NPS-UD implementation timeframes (with the deadline remaining at 20 August 2022). This has required a greater than anticipated level of work to be undertaken by staff to incorporate MDRS into relevant residential zones, in addition to the existing requirements to give effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.

113. The financial implications of the IPI will be significant and will affect the 2022-2023 financial year, and potentially the following year. Costs to date have been met through a re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Chief Planning Office. Further costs (primarily relating to the appointment and operation of an independent hearings panel to hear the submissions on the IPI and make recommendations to the council, and engagement of specialists to support the council at the IPI hearings throughout 2023) may require re-prioritisation of other work programmes from across the organisation.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

114. In its submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Bill, the council stressed the extremely high risks associated with the scale and complexity of the work required to complete the Proposed IPI within the proposed 20 August 2022 statutory timeframe. Despite this, no real change was made to the scope of work required and the timeframe remained the same.

115. This extremely high risk has been mitigated to the best extent possible by maximising the resources allocated to the project, staff working greater than normal working hours, and a strong approach to project management and integration between the multiple workstreams involved in preparing the Proposed IPI. However, there remains a risk that some matters have been overlooked, and that environmental, cultural and other outcomes may be compromised by the unrealistic timeframe.

116. There is also a risk that when the Proposed IPI is notified, Aucklanders are unclear about the provisions in the Proposed IPI that have been directed for inclusion by the government (and which cannot be changed) and the provisions that can be changed through the Panel’s recommendations and final council decision-making in 2024. This risk will be mitigated by a clear communications campaign in the lead-up to notification of the Proposed IPI and during the submission period. A team is also being established to respond to public enquiries during the submission period.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

117. Once approved, staff will complete the final steps required to notify the Proposed IPI and variations to existing council and private plan changes. Public notification is the beginning of formal submissions and hearings of those submissions by the Independent Hearings Panel (appointed by the Regulatory Committee). The Independent Hearings Panel will hear the submissions in 2023 and make recommendations to the council by March 2024.

118. The council is required to make its final decisions by 31 March 2024. Recommendations made by the Independent Hearings Panel that are accepted by the council can only be appealed to the High Court on points of law. Where the council rejects a recommendation from the Independent Hearings Panel, the Minister for the Environment will make the final decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Planning Committee Resolutions 30 June 2022	29
b ⇩	Attachment B Auckland Unitary Plan Precinct Qualifying Matters	45
c	Attachment C1 Intensification Planning Instrument Auckland Unitary Plan Text (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇩	Attachment C2 Intensification Planning Instrument Zoning and Management Maps	55
e ⇩	Attachment C3 Intensification Planning Instrument Built Heritage and Character Maps	75
f ⇩	Attachment C4 Intensification Planning Instrument Hazards Maps	95
g ⇩	Attachment C5 Intensification Planning Instrument Infrastructure Maps	115
h ⇩	Attachment C6 Intensification Planning Instrument Natural Heritage Maps	135
i	Attachment D1 Intensification Planning Instrument Combined Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
j	Attachment D2 Intensification Planning Instrument Section 32 Engagement Report and Appendices (Under Separate Cover)
k	Attachment D3 Intensification Planning Instrument Section 32 Economic Executive Summary (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇩	Attachment E1 Plan Change 49 Variation 1	155
m	Attachment E2 Plan Change 49 Variation 1 Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
n ⇩	Attachment E3 Plan Change 50 Variation 2	185
o	Attachment E4 Plan Change 50 Variation 2 Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
p ⇩	Attachment E5 Plan Change 59 Variation 3	215
q	Attachment E6 Plan Change 59 Variation 3 Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
r ⇩	Attachment E7 Plan Change 60 Variation 4	251
s	Attachment E8 Plan Change 60 Variation 4 Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
t ⇩	Attachment E9 Plan Change 66 Variation 5	261
u	Attachment E10 Plan Change 66 Variation 5 Section 32 Report (Under Separate Cover)
v ⇩	Attachment F Whakarāpopoto for Mana Whenua Feedback	263

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 August 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan - Proposed Plan Changes to accompany the Intensification Planning Instrument - Regional Policy Statement, Transport and Historic Heritage

File No.: CP2022/09779

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the notification of plan changes to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) (Unitary Plan) that accompany the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) plan change.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers the notification of three plan changes to the Unitary Plan that are complementary to the IPI plan change. The report also considers amendments to a plan change that was approved for notification in September 2021.

3. The IPI plan change is a plan change to the district-level provisions of the Unitary Plan to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD).

4. The complementary plan changes are:

· Proposed Plan Change 79 Transport (PC79)

· Proposed Plan Change 80 Regional Policy Statement (PC80)

· Proposed Plan Change 81 Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule (PC81)

· Proposed Plan Change 82 Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule (PC82).

5. PC79 proposes to amend:

· Chapter E27 Transport to require accessible parking, an increase in the width of private pedestrian access (including passing bays), loading spaces and bicycle parks according to number of units, and ducting for electric vehicle (EV) charging.

· Chapter E24 Lighting to require artificial lighting to meet relevant technical standards.

· Chapter E39 Subdivision – Urban to align provisions with the Transport chapter.

· Chapter M Appendices, Appendix 17 Documents incorporated by reference, to include materials incorporated by reference.

· A new appendix (23) is proposed to be added to Chapter M Appendices, which reflects parking demand calculations according to the activity.

6. PC80 proposes to amend the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (RPS) to add references to well-functioning urban environment, resilience to the effects of climate change, and qualifying matters.

7. PC81 proposes the addition of 11 historic heritage places, including four historic heritage areas, to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps (Schedule 14).

8. The changes proposed by PC79, PC80 and PC81 cannot be included in the IPI plan change because the IPI does not allow for amendments to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) (as this is a regional plan not a district plan), nor amendments that are not related to provisions that support or are consequential on the MDRS or policies 3 and 4 of the NPS UD.

9. It is recommended that PC79, PC80 and PC81 are publicly notified for submissions.

10. A plan change to amend the Unitary Plan Schedule 14 (Historic Heritage Schedule) was approved for notification in September 2021 (PLA/2021/116). This plan change, now known as PC82, will also be notified on 18 August 2022.

11. Amendments have been made to PC82 since it was approved for notification. It is recommended these amendments are publicly notified for submissions along with the rest of PC82.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the notification of Proposed Plan Change 79, which makes amendments to Chapter E27 Transport, Chapter E24 Lighting, Chapter E38 Subdivision – Urban, and Chapter M Appendices, included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) approve the notification of Proposed Plan Change 80, which amends the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement to add references to well-functioning urban environment, resilience to the effects of climate change and qualifying matters, included as Attachment C to the agenda report.

c) approve the notification of Proposed Plan Change 81, which makes additions to the Unitary Plan Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the Unitary Plan, included as Attachments E, F, G and H to the agenda report

d) approve the amendments to Proposed Plan Change 82, which amends the Unitary Plan Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the Unitary Plan, included as Attachment J to the agenda report.

e) endorse the section 32 evaluation reports for Proposed Plan Changes 79, 80, 81 and 82 included as Attachments B, D, I and K to the agenda report.

f) delegate to the Planning Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan changes, if required, in advance of public notification.

Horopaki

Context

12. Auckland Council (Council) is required to notify the IPI on or before 20 August 2022 to change the Unitary Plan to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS UD. Other amendments are required to the Unitary Plan that are not part of the IPI but that are complementary to it. These amendments relate to transport, the RPS and historic heritage.

Plan change 79 - Transport

13. Plan Change 79 has three principal components relating to parking, vehicle and pedestrian access, and lighting:

· the removal of parking minimums from the Unitary Plan as required under the NPS UD has led to a need for subsequent amendments for accessible parking, safe pedestrian access (where no vehicle access is required), provision of loading spaces, and enabling provision for future transport modes including e-bikes and EVs.

· the proposed greater intensification across Auckland has highlighted the need to address gaps and inconsistencies in the residential access provisions of the Unitary Plan, in particular the prioritisation of pedestrian access and safety, and to improve efficiency and convenience for all user groups.

· corresponding amendments to Chapter E24 Lighting, which respond to the proposed amendments in PC79 that address pedestrian safety and way-finding along private accessways.

Plan change 80 – Regional Policy Statement

14. The NPS UD introduces the concept of ‘well-functioning urban environment’ and sets out the meaning of the term in Policy 1 of the NPS UD (see Attachment L). Policy 1 also includes objectives and policies on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and resilience to the effects of climate change. The NPS UD requires the contribution to a ‘well-functioning urban environment’ to be considered when:

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

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

· preparing Future Development Strategies.

15. The NPS UD does not require the council to make any changes to its plans in respect of well-functioning urban environment but the reference in Policy 1 to the minimum factors for a well-functioning urban environment provides scope for additional matters to be included in the RPS.

16. The NPS UD also introduces the concept of qualifying matters. These are addressed in detail in the IPI plan change, but also need to be considered in terms of the RPS.

Plan change 81 – Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

17. The Unitary Plan identifies significant historic heritage places in Auckland and contains objectives, policies and rules to protect these places from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

18. Significant historic heritage places and areas in the Unitary Plan are identified in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage. Historic heritage areas are described in Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance. The location and spatial extent of each place or area is shown by the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (extent of place) in the planning maps.

19. PC81 seeks to recognise the values of eleven historic heritage places, including four historic heritage areas, by adding them to Schedule 14 and the planning maps.

Plan change 82 – Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

20. A plan change to amend 91 historic heritage places already identified in Schedule 14 was approved for notification in September 2021 (PLA/2021/116). This plan change, now known as PC82, proposes amendments to a further seven historic heritage places. The amendments to PC82 need to be considered for notification.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change 79 - Transport

21. The reason for notifying PC79 is to ensure that pedestrian access and safety are prioritised in medium and high-density residential zones. In addition, the plan change seeks to improve the efficiency and convenience of accessways for all transport user groups within all types and scales of residential development anticipated by these zones.

22. The plan change will support the overall well-being of the community by providing safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicle accessways to meet the current and future needs of residents.

23. PC79 will also address the resilience to climate change by providing new infrastructure to support the modal change towards low-emission forms of transport (including EVs, micro-mobility devices and bicycles).

Plan change 80 – Regional Policy Statement

24. An assessment of the RPS and the NPS UD policy on well-functioning urban environment and a literature review on well-functioning urban environments concluded that the RPS already sufficiently addresses the matters that the NPS UD considers contribute to well-functioning urban environments. The exception is greenhouse gas emissions.

25. While the RPS covers the well-functioning urban environment matters, it is considered best practice that specific reference to well-functioning urban environment be included in the RPS. In particular, it would be useful because the well-functioning urban environment concept is a critical part of the NPS UD as it sets a broad urban development context. It is also important in terms of the section 32 evaluation report required under the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) to assess policies, such as qualifying matters, and the plan changes for the NPS UD and MDRS, and subsequent private plan changes. It is therefore proposed to add the words “well-functioning urban environment” to key existing policy.

26. PC80 also addresses resilience to the effects of climate change by adding a policy to the RPS.

27. NPS UD policies that reference reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are out of scope for the August 2022 plan changes because the council’s functions under the Act do not include consideration of greenhouse gas emissions until December 2022. However, the Hearing Panel will have jurisdiction to consider the effects of urban greenhouse gas emissions within the IPI plan change if this topic is raised in submissions to be heard after December 2022.

28. While qualifying matters are addressed in the IPI plan change, it is best practice to integrate the concept into the RPS to provide regional policy guidance for the district plan provisions. Therefore, references and policy are proposed to be included within the RPS relating to qualifying matters.

Plan change 81 – Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

29. The reason for notifying PC81 is to recognise the values of 11 historic heritage places, including four historic heritage areas, by adding them to Schedule 14 and the planning maps. Information about the four historic heritage areas will also be added to Schedule 14.2.

30. Each historic heritage place included in PC81 has been evaluated for its historic heritage significance in accordance with the RPS and Council’s Methodology and guidance for evaluating Auckland’s historic heritage.

31. The evaluations and the section 32 evaluation report accompanying PC81 conclude that each place meets the criteria and thresholds outlined in the RPS for including a place in the Unitary Plan Schedule 14.

Plan change 82 – Amendments to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

32. PC82 seeks to amend historic heritage places that are already included in the Unitary Plan Schedule 14. The plan change originally related to the amendment of 91 Category A* historic heritage places and was approved for notification in September 2021.

33. An additional seven places are proposed to be added to this plan. These places were intended to form part of PC81 but are proposed to be included in PC82 to enable PC81 to relate only to the addition of historic heritage places to Schedule 14.

34. The amendments to PC82 are:

· changes to a further two Category A* historic places to update their category status, being Donner House, 50 Kohu Road, Titirangi (ID 00252) and Our Lady Star of the Sea Church and cemetery, 18 Picton Street, Howick (ID 01372).

· the amendment of Munro homestead and stables, 120 Monument Road, Clevedon (ID 02501) to reduce the extent of place to reflect the subdivision of part of the site.

· the deletion of four historic heritage places:

o Residence, 147 Sturges Road, Henderson (ID 00075) and Residence at 8 Kellys Road, Oratia (ID 00106) as these places have been relocated and do not meet the RPS criteria and thresholds for inclusion in Schedule 14.

o St Andrews Sunday School Hall (former), 40 Rankin Avenue, New Lynn (ID 00189), as the place was demolished in 2021 by resource consent.

o Major Bremner’s Cottage, 99 McQuoid’s Road, Flat Bush (ID 02267), as the place has been destroyed by fire.

35. These amendments require approval to be notified with PC82.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36. PC79 proposes amendments to Chapter E27 Transport which are considered to positively affect our overall adaptations to the impacts of climate change.

37. The proposed amendments require on-site charging for e-bikes and EVs to facilitate a modal shift towards low/no-emission transport options, as well as recognising and providing for the growing uptake of e-bikes and other micro-mobility devices. These amendments make a positive contribution towards the goal of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan (Climate Plan), which anticipates that 40% of light vehicles will be electric or zero emission by 2030.

38. In PC80, objective 8 and policy 1 of the NPS UD set out a policy framework that signals the need for decisions to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience. This framework is in line with the 'built environment' priority of the Climate Plan, which has a goal of achieving "A low carbon, resilient built environment that promotes healthy, low impact lifestyles". The Climate Plan recognises that:

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

40. The amendments in PC80 directly address the issue of climate change by strengthening references and policies in the RPS relating to resilience to the effects of climate change.

41. The addition and amendment of historic heritage places in PC81 and PC82 is unlikely to alter emissions directly or significantly or alter our adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. Feedback was sought on the draft plan changes from the relevant areas of the Council group.

43. Relevant departments from the Council group were consulted during the development of the PC79 Transport provisions. Auckland Transport were involved in identifying the issues at an early stage and provided regular feedback on the drafting process.

44. Auckland Transport has provided feedback on the heritage plan changes (PC81 and PC82). Auckland Transport advised that they had no issue with the proposed inclusion of the historic heritage places in Schedule 14 (PC81). No comment was made on the amendments and deletions to be included in PC82.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. The proposed plan changes were reported to the relevant local board business meetings in June 2022, with local views from boards sought.

Plan Change 79 – Transport

46. The key themes received from local boards were:

· pressure on infrastructure because of intensification,

· general opposition to the removal of minimum parking requirements,

· addressing access and parking matters are important to ensure the development community responds to growth opportunities appropriately,

· general support for the proposed transport provisions, including EV charging, adding ‘dwellings’ as a trigger for determining the relevant vehicle access width standards, the tiered approach to access requirements, prioritisation of pedestrian safety and access, and ongoing operation and maintenance requirements,

· general support for cycle parking and encouragement for a safe cycling network to match the intent of cycle provisions,

· support for accessible parking so that people can participate in everyday life, but also to recognise the need for the health and disability workforce to be able to access people with disabilities,

· support for the consideration of emergency and waste vehicle access with further refinement of requirements to ensure improved safety for both residents and Fire and Emergency vehicles,

· general support for kerbside waste-services, and encourage multi-use kerbside function (including for loading, pick-ups, furniture removal vehicles etc.), and

· recognition that there is still a long way to go before people make a modal shift from cars to public transport, and that some local board areas are under-served by public transport, with limited multi-directional public transport available.

Plan Change 80 – Regional Policy Statement

47. Due to timing constraints, local boards were not specifically consulted on the draft RPS text in PC80. However, local boards were briefed in 2021 on the general concepts of well-functioning environments and qualifying matters as they apply to the Unitary Plan generally. Local board representatives participated during 2022 in Council processes on well-functioning environments (which includes climate resilience) and qualifying matters, in terms of their implementation through district plan or regional plan provisions and the IPI plan change in particular.

Plan change 81 – Additions to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage

48. PC81 includes historic heritage places within the Albert-Eden, Howick, Ōrākei, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau local boards. Feedback was received from these boards.

· Albert-Eden – supported the addition of Hartsholme at 8 Allendale Road, Mount Albert to Schedule 14 and the proposal to remove buildings which no longer exist (AE/2022/108).

· Howick – noted that significant heritage elements across Auckland must be included as qualifying matters so they are protected and maintained to keep the historic thread of Auckland’s development over time ‘alive’ and accessible to all people (HW/2022/82).

· Ōrākei – do not support the inclusion of Leicester Hall at 20 Findlay Street or the reserve at 3-5 Cawley Street within the proposed Lawry Settlement Historic Heritage Area but support the remaining houses within the settlement to be added to Schedule 14 (OR/2022/82).

· Rodney – support the proposed historic heritage places to be added to Schedule 14 for the Rodney Local Board area (RD/2022/89).

· Waitematā - support the proposed changes to Schedule 14, particularly scheduling all the properties in the board area that are proposed (being Parkfield Terrace Historic Heritage Area, the former Sisters of St Francis Convent, the former Auckland Masonic Temple and the former Gladstone Brewery) (WTM/2022/116).

· Whau – applaud the addition of Ceramic House and 3 Totara Avenue, New Lynn to Schedule 14 and note with regret that such historic heritage status did not protect St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall from deterioration and eventual demolition (WH/2022/72).

49. Other local boards provided general support for the proposed plan change to amend Schedule 14. Some specific feedback was provided, including requests to add or amend additional historic heritage places that are not related to PC81 or PC82.

50. PC81 has been amended following feedback from Ōrākei Local Board to remove the reserve at 3-5 Cawley Street.

Plan change 82 – Amendments to historic heritage

51. Relevant local boards were engaged in the review of Category A* historic heritage throughout the review process. The plan change was reported to the relevant boards in the first quarter of 2022, with the views of the boards sought.

52. Feedback received from the boards was mostly in support of the proposed plan change. However, the Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipātiki local boards requested that some historic heritage places within the plan change be identified as Category A places (rather than Category B) and that specific historic heritage places not be deleted from Schedule 14.1. The boards provided information to support their views.

53. Council heritage staff reviewed the feedback from the Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipātiki local boards but did not find any new information that altered the re-evaluation report for each place or warranted a Category A status for any place.

54. Local boards have a further opportunity to provide views on the plan changes once they are notified, and submissions have been received. Boards will be given a copy of the summary of decisions requested, following the submission period. Any views provided by local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of the hearing and decisions process on the plan changes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Auckland Council has legal obligations to consult with Māori on matters that may affect them. This is a specific requirement under the Act, and also more broadly in accordance with the council’s Māori Outcomes Framework, Significance and Engagement Policy and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. The council must also comply with clause 4A (of Schedule 1) of the Act, which sets out pre-notification requirements concerning iwi authorities.

56. Mana Whenua groupsrecognised by Auckland Council^,Mana Whenua forums, co-governance and co-management entities were engaged with on the plan changes complementary to the IPI plan change from October 2021 through to July 2022. Mana Whenua groups were invited to a series of hui about the IPI plan change and complementary plan changes in May and June 2022.

57. Iwi authorities were sent copies of the draft plan changes, including the draft section 32 reports, where available. The following feedback has been received.

Plan change 79 - Transport

58. Feedback on the transport plan change included:

· concerns about the mandatory removal of on-site car park minimums with no ability for Mana Whenua representatives to change the outcomes from a Treaty Partnership perspective,

· more cars being parked on the street raised issues for larger whanau, particularly in terms of additional restrictions on road access,

· service industry vehicles having difficulty accessing properties accessed by the street,

· support for on-site visitor parking,

· support for on-site accessible parking, with comments regarding the estimated percentage of Aucklanders with a physical disability to be too low,

· concerns regarding bicycle usage as a main form of transport (particularly in some South Auckland areas) compared to the proposals for cycle lanes etc.,

· EVs as the transport of the future is a presumption, and there is a cost to developments of providing electric vehicle charging points.

59. The majority of the concerns raised by Mana Whenua are unable to be addressed through the Auckland Unitary Plan (e.g., concerns about the removal of car parking minimums, which is a mandatory requirement set by the government under the NPS UD). However, PC 79 does seek to address the issues associated with service industry vehicles (though loading space requirements) and accessible parking requirements.

Plan change 80 – Regional Policy Statement

60. Feedback received from Mana Whenua is relevant to well-functioning urban environments, qualifying matters and resilience to the effects of climate change. In summary this included the points in the following table.

61. Not all of the points raised will be addressed in detail at the RPS level, as some points are focused on detailed matters that are addressed in different ways in the district and regional plan components of the Unitary Plan as affected by the IPI plan change.

Issue	RPS topic
Retain outstanding natural features as a qualifying matter	Supported as a qualifying matter
No intensification in public open space and no effects on public open space from intensification	Supported as a qualifying matter
Sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua to be retained as a qualifying matter (except for a few already developed)	Supported as a qualifying matter
Retain all volcanic view shafts and height sensitive areas with qualifying matters	Supported as qualifying matters
Require a resource consent process for intensification where there is limited water or wastewater capacity.	Supported as a qualifying matter
Significant Ecological Areas to be retained with a qualifying matter.	Supported as a qualifying matter
Support for precincts that recognise and protect M āori cultural values being treated as qualifying matters and those protections to be retained.	Supported as qualifying matters
Include qualifying matters to reduce intensification around specified culturally significant sites.	Supported as a qualifying matter
Inclusion of Māori design principles.	Supported as part of a well-functioning urban environment
Effect of intensification on around Māori special purpose zone sites	No specifically addressed in the RPS
Provision for intensification and Papakainga on Māori owned land.	Supported as part of a well-functioning urban environment
Effects of development on the coastal environment including sea level rise.	Supported under resilience to the effects of climate change
Concern about inadequate transport accessibility, including lack of car parking generally and excessive walking distances to public transport	Supported as part of a well-functioning environment (other than car parking due to mandatory removal of car parking minimums)
Concern about the effects of intensification on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and request for low density zoning	Supported as a qualifying matter
Provision for better urban tree coverage supported, particularly native trees	Supported under resilience to the effects of climate change

Historic heritage

62. Feedback from Te Ahiwaru Trust Board requested the amendment of the category of three scheduled historic heritage places at Ihumātao to provide greater protection to these sites. It is not clear which places are referred to, as there are more than three scheduled places in the Ihumātao area. None of these historic heritage places are part of this plan change (or part of PC81). Council heritage staff will clarify this feedback with Te Ahiwaru Trust Board to understand their request, and any potential amendment as part of a future programme of work.

63. All feedback received from iwi authorities will be summarised and incorporated in the section 32 evaluation report for each plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Work on the NPS UD, since August 2020, and on the IPI, since December 2021, has been progressed within existing budgets. However, the passing of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Supply) Amendment Act 2021 has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the work to be undertaken, without any changes to the NPS UD implementation timeframes (with the deadline remaining on 20 August 2022). This has required a greater than anticipated level of change to the Unitary Plan.

65. The financial implications of the IPI and these accompanying plan changes is significant, with unforeseen costs in the 2021-2022 financial year having been met through the re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Chief Planning Office. Further costs anticipated in the 2022-23 and 2023-2024 financial years will be met from additional budget allocated through the Annual Plan refresh process. This budget will support the costs of appointing and operating an independent hearings panel to hear the submissions on the IPI and accompanying plan changes, to make recommendations to Council, and the engagement of specialists and legal experts to support the Council at the hearings for all the proposed plan changes throughout 2023.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

66. These plan changes will be notified on 18 August, the same day as the IPI plan change. There is a risk that Aucklanders are confused by multiple plan changes and about what is within scope and out of scope. This risk will be mitigated by a clear communications campaign in the lead-up to and during the submission period for the plan changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67. If approved for notification, the four plan changes will be publicly notified on 18 August 2022, the same day as notification of the IPI plan change. The process set out for the preparation, change and review of plans set out in Schedule 1 of the Act will be followed.

68. In accordance with Schedule 1, the submission period will be 30 working days, followed by a further submissions period. Submissions on the proposed plan changes will be heard by a panel of independent commissioners. The timetable for hearings will depend on the submissions received. Following the hearings and deliberations, independent commissioners will make the council’s decision on each of the plan changes under delegated authority.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	PC79 - Transport	289
b	PC79 – Section 32 report (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	PC80 - Amendments to Regional Policy Statement	321
d	PC80 – Section 32 report (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇩	PC81 - Additions to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage - Table 1 Places	333
f ⇩	PC81 - Additions to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage - Table 2 Areas	337
g ⇩	PC81 - Additions to Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas	341
h ⇩	PC81 - Additions to Planning maps	353
i	PC81 - Section 32 report (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇩	PC82 - Amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage	365
k	PC82 - Section 32 report (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇩	National Policy Statement on Urban Development Policy 1	379

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Dave Paul - Principal Planner

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Megan Patrick - Team Leader Heritage Policy

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 August 2022

Auckland Unitary Plan Proposed Plan Change 83: Additions and Amendments to Schedule 10 - Notable Tree Schedule

File No.: CP2022/08664

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) that accompanies the Intensification Planning Instrument plan change. The proposed plan change makes additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule, Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay and the corresponding mapped overlay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers the notification of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)(AUP) that accompanies the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) plan change. The Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) plan change is a plan change to the district-level provisions of the Unitary Plan that incorporates the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and gives effect to policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD).

3. This proposed notable trees plan change proposes additions and amendments to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule (the Schedule), Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay and the corresponding mapped overlay. This includes:

- Additions to Schedule 10

o The addition of 24 individual trees and four groups of trees to Schedule 10

o The introduction of an automatic update clause which will ensure the continued protection of notable trees where a site is subdivided, and will also pick up on trees that have been consented for removal and verified to have been physically removed

- Addressing inaccuracies/inconsistencies in Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule and Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay

o the amendment of a further 64 listings in Schedule 10

o the removal of 51 trees in Schedule 10 where the trees are no longer present or health has deteriorated considerably

o the removal of reference in Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay to diagrams which have been removed.

4. In alignment with the Mayor’s February 2022 press release, officers continue to make progress towards a May 2023 plan change which addresses the remaining nominations database (as at 5 November 2020).

5. An out of court settlement has been reached with The Tree Council (TTC) regarding the Judicial Review (CIV-2021-404-2288) filed against the 5 November 2020 Planning Committee notable tree resolutions (PLA 2020/96). A joint notice of discontinuance in relation to the proceeding was filed with the High Court on 14 July 2022 and on the same day the proceeding was confirmed to be discontinued and the hearing fixture vacated.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) that includes the following additions and amendments to Schedule 10 - Notable Trees Schedule and Chapter D13 Notable Trees Overlay, included as Attachment A and B of the agenda report;

i) the addition of 24 individual trees and four groups of trees to Schedule 10

ii) the introduction of an automatic update clause which will ensure the continued protection of notable trees where a site is subdivided, and will also pick up on trees that have been consented for removal and verified to have been physically removed

iii) the amendment of a further 64 listings in the Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule to address inaccuracies/inconsistencies in the Schedule

iv) the removal of 51 trees in the Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule where the trees are no longer present or their health has deteriorated considerably

v) the removal of the text in Chapter D13.1 Background referring to diagrams in the Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule, which have been removed.

b) approve the Section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment C to the agenda report.

c) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member the authority to review and approve the final schedule and make minor amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification.

d) note the discontinuance of the Judicial Review proceedings by The Tree Council with respect to the 5 November 2020 Planning Committee resolutions.

e) note that a further 125 notable tree nominations have been received from members of the public since November 2020.

Horopaki

Context

6. Notable Trees are a high-profile issue and have generated a lot of public and stakeholder interest. There are several things happening which relate to the protection of trees, including the notable tree schedule that are briefly outlined here for context. This report addresses a proposed plan change to support the NPSUD/MDRS process. The report also outlines future work currently being scoped/progressed, additional to this plan change.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process

7. The PAUP was publicly notified in 2013. This notification process invited the public to participate in the consideration of the PAUP by making submissions on its contents. The scope of the PAUP notification and submission exercise was wide and this meant that the council could consider, among many other issues, submissions seeking removals, additions and amendments to the notable tree schedule.

8. The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) then issued Procedural Minute 6 (Attachment D) and directions to all submitters in relation to requests to add items to the schedules. The Panel indicated that they expected submitters seeking new trees to provide the appropriate information required to support their submission and in that required an assessment by an arborist of the relevant trees. Very few submitters provided sufficient supporting evidence and due to time constraints, these nominations were not able to be considered as part of the PAUP process. These submissions have been sitting in a database and in November 2020 Planning Committee directed officers to consider this database as part of this nominations investigation process, when resources permitted.

The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP)

9. The AUP identifies, manages and protects notable trees across the region and recognises their section 6 and section 7 values. This is because subdivision, development and consents for removal/alteration as well as emergency works affect the description of listings on the schedule. Given that there are nearly 3000 listings in Schedule 10, representing 6-7000 trees across the region, errors will continue to be identified and further updates will therefore be required. It is important that these inaccuracies and inconsistencies are addressed to ensure the correct application of Schedule 10. To update Schedule 10 requires a plan change. These changes cannot be addressed through any other process.

10. A long-term approach is also required, to enable those changes which are of neutral effect to be made outside the Schedule 1 process. It is also important that notable trees do not lose protection as a result of legal descriptions/addresses changing through the subdivision process and that those trees which have been removed are not unnecessarily managed by the Overlay. The introduction of an automatic update clause to capture future subdivisions and allow for schedule updates where trees have physically gone will improve the management of Schedule 10 in the future by allowing amendments to the schedule in a timelier manner.

11. The ability exists for members of the public to nominate trees for inclusion on the Schedule. In order for nominated trees to be considered for scheduling they must meet the Notable Tree criteria set out in Regional Policy Statement B4.5.2. An evaluation of each of the proposed additions against these criteria has determined that they meet the threshold for inclusion in Schedule 10. The only way they can be afforded any protection under the AUP is by adding them to the Schedule through the proposed plan change process.

November 2020 direction

12. A resolution was made at Planning Committee November 2020 (PLA 2020/96) (Attachment E) that enables the Council to review or make changes to the notable tree schedule in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) when resources permit. As a result, as resources (particularly in relation to staff time) become available, this work is being progressed. The scope of this work involves evaluating the existing database or nominations already received, ongoing maintenance of the current Schedule, and a review of current schedule listings.

13. This resolution enabled officers to begin to evaluate the existing database of nominations. The 5 November 2020 report referenced 587 nominations, it acknowledged that this was the raw data set that had not filtered out those nominations that did not need to be assessed (for example, duplicates, non-descript nominations or current scheduled trees). A memo to Planning Committee in August 2020 and the more fulsome report in November 2020 acknowledged that there were several assumptions made against the raw data set when quantifying costs. Due to duplications in the raw data set the final number of nominations to be investigated after the data had been processed appropriately is 443. The time needed by officers to evaluate these nominations has been less than what was estimated in November 2020.

Judicial review

14. On 3 November 2021 TTC filed an application for judicial review with the High Court. Their Statement of Claim considered the resolutions made by Planning Committee on 5 November 2020 regarding notable trees an error of law and a breach of natural justice. In response, affidavits were filed from council officers and without prejudice discussions between parties were held from 8 April 2022 to 13 May 2022. Parties were able to reach agreement on out of court terms of settlement (the details of which are to remain confidential) and the judicial review proceedings were withdrawn and discontinued on 14 July 2022.

IPI and non-IPI August plan change

15. Auckland Council is required to notify the IPI on or before 20 August 2022 to change the AUP to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPSUD.

16. PPC83 forms part of the bundle of complementary plan changes proposed to be notified in August alongside the IPI. Notable trees have been identified as a qualifying matter and any further trees which meet the notable tree criteria must be identified on the Schedule, so they are protected and maintained.

17. At the time this report was prepared 147 of 443 (33 per cent) existing nominations had been evaluated with 24 individual trees and four groups of trees being found to meet the criteria. To date 20 per cent of those nominations which have been evaluated have been found to meet the criteria. These are ready to be scheduled in August 2022.

18. Staff continue to record inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the schedule. These are brought to staff attention through consenting processes, and routine correspondence between the Heritage Arborist and members of the public. Many of these discrepancies have been researched and will be addressed through the August plan change.

19. The scope of the plan change is limited to the following:

· Scheduling 24 individual and four groups of those nominated trees which have been found to meet the Notable Trees criteria and adding them to the Notable Trees Overlay. These additions ensure the provisions of the AUP apply, including the Notable Trees Overlay provisions.

· The introduction of an automatic update clause which ensures all future subdivisions are captured and amendments as a result of removals can be undertaken outside the Schedule 1 process

· amendments to 64 listings which:

o update legal descriptions and/or addresses where they have changed as a result of development and subdivision

o correct minor errors such as spelling and grammar

o improve the location of symbology in the Notable Trees Overlay to ensure the trees are accurately identified where the location has been verified

o update the number of trees for different species where this has been omitted

o improve species descriptions where these are not specific enough

o remove 51 notable trees (27 listings in full and 11 partial listing removals) where there is evidence they have been physically removed as a result of consents (often development or subdivision related), emergency works and/or deteriorated health.

20. It is intended that the amended schedule text and maps be notified with the changes indicated by strike-through, underline and before and after aerial imagery (via PDF). The revised schedule is included as Attachment A.

21. While additions and amendments have now been identified, the detailed work to mark up the revised schedule will continue to progress over the next few weeks prior to notification. Given the large number of line items, it is anticipated that the final proposed schedule will be subject to approval of the Chair, Deputy Chair and a Member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board prior to notification.

22. PPC83 does not propose to add any additional trees to the Schedule other than those specifically identified in this report. The plan change does not propose to re-evaluate existing trees in Schedule 10. Therefore, any inclusions, deletions (aside from those notable trees which have been confirmed as removed) or re-evaluation of any existing notable tree currently listed in Schedule 10 is out of scope of the proposed plan change.

23. Further, PPC83 does not seek to alter the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the AUP. Nor does it introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, or zoning. The policy approach to Notable Trees, its purpose and function remains unchanged, and this report does not evaluate these unchanged purposes and functions in any more detail.

24. Finally, PPC83 does not re-visit the previous plan changes of legacy councils which developed or amended their respective notable tree lists. In some cases, the legacy maps of previous councils were consulted to assist with the location of previously identified listed trees and groups. PPC83 focuses on the operative Schedule 10, which contains the current and accepted list of notable trees, having undergone a Schedule 1 RMA process as part of the development of the AUP.

25. Inviting further additions through submissions would potentially require significant resources and time, depending on the number of submissions received. Addressing further nominations would be subject to political decision and it is therefore appropriate that addressing the existing nominations database and calling for further nominations from the public are treated as two separate issues. Additions through submissions and re-evaluations or amendments to the policy approach for notable trees would be subject to a future plan change.

May 2023 plan change and further nominations

26. The Mayor provided a press release on 25 February 2022 (Attachment F) that provided an indicative timeframe for completing this nominations work and committed to notifying a plan change in 2023. Officers are currently on track to deliver this plan change around May 2023.

27. The ability still exists for members of the public to nominate trees for inclusion on the Schedule. Current nomination investigations are limited to those nominations that were received prior to 5 November 2020 in accordance with the resolution received from Planning Committee. The resolution from 5 November 2020 was made based on the data that was presented at the time and did not include any direction for future nominations. A further 125 nominations have been received since 5 November 2020 planning committee.

28. It is also anticipated that any plan changes which propose additions to the Schedule will attract submissions seeking further additions. The scope of the proposed plan change is limited to those additions specifically identified in the evaluation report, it does not include evaluation of any submissions seeking further additions. If these are determined by independent hearing commissioners to be out of scope of the plan changes these will also need to be addressed through a separate future plan change – this approach would be subject to further political decision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29. In reality the schedule becomes less comprehensive over time and by relating to living things there will always be the need for updating. Officers continue to scope options for updating the schedule and will continue to report back with recommendations.

30. To recognise the values of the trees and groups of trees identified in paragraph 5 of this report a plan change process must be followed to add them to the Schedule. Each of the proposed additions has been evaluated against the current notable tree criteria in accordance with the Regional Policy Statement and council’s methodology and guidance for evaluating for Notable Trees.

31. PC83 also identified a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies which require amendments to ensure the schedule is functioning as originally intended. As it currently exists, the Schedule cannot be updated outside the plan change process. In many cases it continues to manage trees after they have been removed (resulting in unnecessary time constraints on consenting processes) and unfortunately in some cases trees which have been affected by subdivision processes have lost their protection. The introduction of the automatic update clause will address these issues and allow the schedule to be maintained and brought up to date in a timelier manner.

32. The additions and amendments proposed by PC83 require approval to be notified.

33. PC83 responds to a portion of the existing nominations database. Several further nominations have been received which fall outside the scope of the 5 November 2020 resolution. The database will grow as council continues to accept new nominations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. Notable trees form 1 to 1.5 per cent of Auckland’s urban canopy cover. It is acknowledged that they make a positive contribution to Auckland’s climate, for example increasing carbon sequestration and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. An increase in notable trees would have further positive effects on Auckland’s climate by protecting additional trees from removal, however general tree protection (if re-introduced by the Government) would likely have a far more positive impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. Council-controlled organisations, statutory bodies and internal departments will be sent memorandums in August 2022 to inform them of the plan change. No direct consultation was undertaken with these bodies given the scope of the plan change and that it does not result in any policy changes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. The important role of local boards in tree protection is recognised, particularly at the non-regulatory community level.

37. Proposed plan change 83 was reported to all local board business meetings in June 2022, with local views from boards sought.

38. Given the broad geographic nature of the changes proposed to Schedule 10 text and maps it has been determined that the proposed plan change directly affects all local boards. These local boards gave the following feedback on the proposed plan change to amend Schedule 10:

· Generally support the proposed plan change

o Albert-Eden (AE/2022/108)

o Devonport-Takapuna (DT/2022/93)

o Henderson-Massey (HM/2022/84)

o Howick (HW/2022/82)

o Kaipatiki (KT/2022/132)

o Māngere-Ōtāhuhu (MO/2022/93)

o Manurewa (MR/2022/90)

o Ōtara-Papatoetoe (OP/2022/98)

o Puketāpapa (PKTPP/2022/113)

o Waitākere (WTK/2022/79)

o Waitematā (WTM/2022/116)

o Whau (WH/2022/72)

· Request Auckland Council advocate to central government for the restoration of general tree protection

o Albert-Eden (AE/2022/108)

o Devonport-Takapuna (DT/2022/93)

· Request the addition of nominated notable trees are addressed in a timely manner and that adequate resource is provided for the process

o Devonport-Takapuna (DT/2022/93)

o Kaipatiki (KT/2022/132)

o Waitākere (WTK/2022/79)

· Requests an education campaign to inform the public about nominating trees for inclusion on the Schedule

o Manurewa (MR/2022/90)

39. Other local boards provided general support for the proposed plan change to amend Schedule 10 and specific comments, including requests to add additional trees within their local board area.

40. Local boards have a further opportunity to provide views on the proposed plan changes once they are notified and submissions have been received. Boards will be given a copy of the summary of decisions requested in submissions. Any views provided by local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of the hearing and decisions process on the proposed plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

41. The proposed plan change does not result in any policy or rule changes which affect Māori in a greater way than the general public. There are proposed additions, removals and amendments which affect notable tree listings right across the region.

42. The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Act. Schedule 1 of the Act was amended to insert clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to public notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.

43. A letter was provided in May 2022 to all 19 iwi authorities that are recorded by council as being associated with the Auckland region. The letter provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and the draft plan change documents were made available to all iwi on 23 June 2022. The plan change also formed part of the matters that were workshopped with iwi on 14 and 17 June 2022 as part of the wider NPSUD project. Letters were also sent to all iwi authorities to determine whether iwi sought a hearing commissioner with tikanga experience for the plan change hearing process, no responses were received.

44. To date iwi authorities have been generally supportive of the plan change with no specific written feedback having been received at the time this report was prepared.

45. Any feedback received from iwi authorities will be incorporated into the evaluation report for the proposed plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. Work on the NPS UD, since August 2020, and on the IPI, since December 2021, has been progressed within existing budgets. However, the passing of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Supply) Amendment Act 2021 has resulted in a significant increase in the scale and complexity of the work to be undertaken, without any changes to the NPS UD implementation timeframes (with the deadline remaining on 20 August 2022). This has required a greater than anticipated level of change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

47. The financial implications of the IPI and these accompanying plan changes is significant, with unforeseen costs in the 2021-2022 financial year having been met through the re-prioritisation of work programmes within the Chief Planning Office. Further costs anticipated in the 2022-23 and 2023-2024 financial years will be met from additional budget allocated through the Annual Plan refresh process. This budget will support the costs of appointing and operating an independent hearings panel to hear the submissions on the IPI and accompanying plan changes, to make recommendations to Council, and the engagement of specialists and legal experts to support the Council at the hearings for all the proposed plan changes throughout 2023.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. There are risks associated with not addressing the existing nominations database, identified technical errors and inconsistencies in the schedule. Those trees which merit inclusion on the schedule will be without the protection of the Notable Trees Overlay and issues and anomalies may result in incorrect assumptions about the protection of notable trees and therefore have a negative impact on the functionality and integrity of the AUP.

49. There are no material risks associated with undertaking the proposed plan change to the AUP.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. If approved for notification, the proposed plan change will be publicly notified on 18 August 2022, the same day as notification of the IPI plan change. Unlike the IPI plan change, the process set out for the preparation, change and review of plans set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA will be followed. A period of 30 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change.

51. Once submissions and further submissions have been received on the plan changes, council staff will prepare a report for the hearing. The report will outline the summary of submissions, an analysis of all submissions received, and recommendations about which parts of the plan changes should be adopted, removed, or modified.

52. Independent commissioners will be appointed, and the council will hold a hearing on each plan change if any submitters request to be heard. The independent commissioners will make the council’s decision on the plan change under delegated authority.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Schedule 10 amendments	391
b ⇩	Chapter D13 amendments	405
c ⇩	Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Unitary Plan procedural minute 6	411
d	S32 Evaluation Report PC83 Notable Trees non IPI plan change (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇩	Planning Committee minutes 5 November 2020	417
f ⇩	Mayoral Press Release 25 February 2022	421

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Teuila Young - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Planning Committee

04 August 2022

Auckland's Future Development Strategy - strategic direction

File No.: CP2022/07402

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the strategic direction to guide development of a draft Future Development Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD) requires an update to the Future Development Strategy (FDS), which will replace the existing Development Strategy in the Auckland Plan 2050.

3. The Planning Committee approved an approach to develop the FDS in November 2021 (PLA/2021/137).

4. This report sets out the high-level strategic direction – in the form of nine principles - for updating the FDS. Approval of the strategic direction is sought.

5. The report also addresses various matters as they relate to the proposed strategic direction, such as:

· the overall approach to growth, and three areas of particular impact; hapū and iwi values and aspirations for urban development, climate outcomes and emissions reduction, land use and infrastructure integration

· cross-cutting themes to support the strategic direction

· what the strategic direction means more specifically for existing urban, future urban and rural areas.

6. If approved the strategic direction will guide preparation of a draft FDS. The draft will be brought back to the relevant committee in early 2023, for approval to publicly consult.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a) approve the strategic direction, based on the following principles, to guide development of a draft Future Development Strategy:

i) Inclusion of Māori values and aspirations for urban development

ii) Focusing growth (homes and jobs) within centres, nodes and corridors based on walkable catchments and access to high quality public transport

iii) Reconsidering some future urban areas for development and avoiding urban expansion in rural areas

iv) Emphasising quality aspects of the built and natural environment

v) Protecting and enhancing the natural environment

vi) Reducing greenhouse emissions and avoiding locations impacted by climate change

vii) Making the best use of existing and planned infrastructure

viii) Focusing on key economic places now and in the future

ix) Protecting elite and prime soils.

b) note that any proposed changes to the strategic direction, because of further developing the Future Development Strategy evidence base, will be worked through with the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in early 2023.

Horopaki

Context

7. This report sets out the proposed strategic direction for updating Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s FDS as required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS UD). The updated FDS will replace the existing Development Strategy in the Auckland Plan 2050.

8. The purpose of the FDS is to provide the basis for integrated, strategic and long-term planning. It should assist with the integration of land use planning with infrastructure planning and funding decisions and set out how Auckland will:

· achieve outcomes across the four well-beings

· achieve a well-functioning urban environment

· provide sufficient development capacity to meet housing and business land demand over the short, medium, and long-term.

9. Much has changed in Auckland and Aotearoa / New Zealand since the Development Strategy was adopted as part of the Auckland Plan 2050 four years ago. This changing context, and specifically the requirements of the NPS UD, means Auckland’s long-term spatial plan must be updated.

10. This report follows a 30 November 2021 report to the Planning Committee (PLA/2021/137) where the committee approved development of an update to the FDS and endorsed the work programme.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Focus for this review of the Future Development Strategy

11. Over the last four years the council has continued developing and updating strategy documents to implement central government initiatives. The council’s responses to new national policy statements such as the NPS UD are one aspect of this. In addition, the council has led strategy and policy work focused on environmental and social challenges. This includes responses to climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Consideration also needs to be given to aligning growth with other statutory obligations and central government direction, such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, draft National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land, and National Emissions Reduction Plan.

Housing capacity assessment

12. A key objective of the NPS UD is to ensure Auckland can accommodate housing and business growth. The current Housing Capacity Assessment (July 2021) showed that, across Auckland, there was sufficient plan-enabled development capacity and feasible development capacity under July 2021 market conditions to cater for growth and the projected demand for housing over the next 30 years.

13. The Housing Capacity Assessment is currently being updated and will provide information on both housing and business land. It is required to inform the FDS and the Long-term Plan in 2024.

14. This update will consider the additional capacity enabled through the Auckland Unitary Plan changes as required by the NPS UD and Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). Current evidence anticipates that Auckland will continue to have sufficient capacity to provide for housing demand over the short, medium and long terms.

15. Assuming the updated Housing Capacity Assessment finds that capacity remains sufficient, the question becomes how to use that capacity to achieve the best outcomes for Auckland. The review of the FDS is therefore focused on integrated planning to achieve well-functioning urban environments, as intended by the NPS UD, and the wider outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2050.

Quality compact approach

16. As a starting point, the current FDS follows a quality compact approach to accommodating growth as its underlying principle. The aim of this approach is that:

· most development occurs in areas that are easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling

· most development is within reasonable walking distance of services and facilities, employment opportunities and open space

· future development maximises efficient use of land

· delivery of necessary infrastructure is coordinated to support growth in the right place at the right time.

17. The current quality compact approach will be examined and updated to include FDS requirements for the NPS UD. It will focus on areas where the most impact can be made, in particular:

· working with hapū and iwi to understand their values and aspirations for urban development

· supporting climate change outcomes and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

· integrating land use and infrastructure planning.

18. The Auckland Plan 2050 includes Māori identity and wellbeing as one of the six broad outcomes. The FDS will particularly focus on Māori values and aspirations for urban development and its spatial aspects. Engagement with hapū and iwi, as well as mataawaka and relevant Māori organisations, is underway.

19. Climate change is a significant driver for how we plan strategically. Planning needs to account for impacts such as severe weather events, particularly in areas with natural hazards. It needs to address exposure and risk, including future exposure and risk, and must therefore consider where and how Auckland grows. Quality built form outcomes are closely interrelated to how growth protects, restores and integrates with the natural environment.

20. Reducing transport emissions requires a reduction in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT). Urban form and the pattern of land uses plays a major role in achieving this. Past experience shows that land use change is a long-term lever in achieving climate outcomes. Auckland started a journey towards a quality compact urban form in the 1990’s; the changes are only now starting to be visible. The need for urgency in reducing emissions however means that land use can no longer be viewed as a long-term aim (though it has long-term impacts). Land use decisions must recognise this urgency and the review of the FDS must identify what needs to be done now to support VKT reduction and to minimise future exposure and risk.

21. With significant capacity for housing and business enabled, and further increased over a wide area through the NPS UD and MDRS, providing infrastructure is an acknowledged challenge. Council cannot fund infrastructure everywhere at the same time. Infrastructure provision is an important strategic planning lever that can focus development in areas which support strategic intent. Choices must be made about what to fund, or not fund, dependent on the strategic outcomes sought. Large infrastructure projects take time to plan and deliver. This means there needs to be strong direction on how such projects are prioritised, particularly in the short to medium term, to provide clear signals on strategy to infrastructure providers, the development sector and the wider community. This in turn means that the FDS must identify development priorities and sequencing of development.

22. To progress the matters set out above, FDS work concentrates on three main aspects:

· the proposed strategic direction for the overall approach to growth across Auckland. This is based on nine principles (see below)

· the cross-cutting themes which are fundamental aspects needed to support or enable the strategic direction

· more detailed research to inform the strategic direction. This relates to growth scenarios and the three spatial areas – existing urban, future urban and rural.

23. These three aspects are explained in more detail in the sections below.

Proposed strategic direction – overall growth approach

24. A series of FDS Steering Group meetings and Planning Committee workshops were held over the first half of 2022. These focused on the key spatial issues facing Auckland over the next 30 years and, along with evidence to date, resulted in the following strategic direction (in the form of nine principles):

· Inclusion of Māori values and aspirations for urban development

· Focusing growth (homes and jobs) within centres, nodes and corridors based on walkable catchments and access to high quality public transport

· Reconsidering some future urban areas for development and avoiding urban expansion in rural areas

· Emphasising quality aspects of the built and natural environment

· Protecting and enhancing the natural environment

· Reducing greenhouse emissions and avoiding locations impacted by climate change

· Making the best use of existing and planned infrastructure

· Focusing on key economic places now and in the future

· Protecting elite and prime soils.

25. Together these principles provide the high-level strategic direction for the FDS update.

26. Planning Committee approval of the strategic direction is sought. This will allow staff to continue development of a draft FDS.

27. A draft FDS will be brought back to the relevant committee in early 2023 and the accompanying report will outline what, if any, changes to the strategic direction arise from further work (such as the ongoing development of an evidence base).

Cross-cutting themes

28. To support the above strategic direction, the following fundamental aspects, or cross-cutting themes, apply to the FDS as a whole. The themes work as a ‘package’ to achieve multiple outcomes impacting Aucklanders’ wellbeing (social, environmental, cultural and environmental).

· Te Tiriti o Waitangi – ensuring the council meets its Treaty obligations and commitments by taking into account the principles of Te Tiriti and maintaining and improving opportunities for Māori to participate in local government decision-making and fostering capacity to engage.

· Social and equity outcomes – considering the existing socio-economic inequities in Auckland and contributing to creating a fairer, more sustainable Auckland where every Aucklander feels like they belong.

· Housing capacity and affordability – ensuring Auckland can accommodate housing growth over the next 30 years and contributing to housing affordability.

· Business and employment – ensuring Auckland can accommodate business (and employment) needs over the next 30 years and providing direction on strategic aspirations, key economic places and industrial and land-extensive activities.

· Links to other strategies and plans – aligning with and drawing on current council strategies and plans such as Te Tāruke ā Tāwhiri, the Water Strategy, and Auckland Unitary Plan Changes in response to the NPS UD.

· Robust evidence base – includes consideration of different high level spatial scenarios as well as more detailed work on specific topics across the four well-beings.

· Monitoring –monitoring of development through council’s annual reporting of the Auckland Plan outcomes and the Development Strategy. Results from the council’s monitoring across the four well-beings will be a key information source for the FDS.

· Legislative requirements – ensuring minimum requirements are satisfied. As well as the requirements of the NPS UD, the FDS also serves as the high-level development strategy as part of the Auckland Plan required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Research to support the strategic direction

Growth scenarios

29. The NPS UD requires consideration and assessment of different growth scenarios for a broad comparison between alternative land use patterns.

30. Staff are currently developing and assessing different scenarios. Four scenarios are being assessed:

· an updated quality compact scenario

· a more intensive scenario

· a more expansive scenario and,

· a scenario based on reducing climate change impacts.

31. Assessment of the scenarios looks at how each performs against the outcomes of the Auckland Plan and a range of assessment criteria, grouped under the following headings: Climate change mitigation and adaptation, Protecting and enhancing natural systems and heritage, Quality places and spaces for healthy communities, Māori identity and wellbeing, Thriving economy, and Implementation, funding and feasibility.

32. Scenarios can only provide a high-level comparison of outcomes. However, they do provide guidance and informed understanding of the split between development in existing urban and future urban areas that delivers the best outcomes against the assessment criteria. The results of this work will guide more detailed work on the various FDS workstream topics.

33. Evaluation of the four scenarios is programmed for August 2022.

Spatial areas

34. As well as providing an overall strategic approach to accommodating growth, the current FDS also considers Auckland’s existing urban, future urban and rural areas. It looks in more detail at specific challenges and opportunities these spatial areas face and ways to address these.

35. The current FDS brought together information on prioritising ‘development areas’ in the existing urban area, with sequencing and timing of future urban areas. This is because of the interrelationships in how land development is supported in both existing urban and future urban areas. The trend over recent years shows that most development has been in the existing urban area with significant infrastructure projects underway to support this. These infrastructure projects – such as the CRL, public transport network improvements and the central interceptor - have the potential to be transformational in the way Auckland grows, contribute to emissions reduction, increase accessibility and improve water quality for all Aucklanders.

36. The FDS’s strategic assessment of growth needs to again consider how these spatial areas relate as prioritisation of areas cannot happen in isolation. The FDS review must therefore look at how land use and infrastructure provision can best be aligned. There is a finite amount of growth (population and dwellings) projected over the next 30 years. There is also a finite amount of funding available for infrastructure and services to support this growth. The best value must be extracted from transformational infrastructure projects and services. Dispersal of growth will not support the strategic direction of this FDS review, nor will there be sufficient funding to support highly dispersed growth. The FDS must therefore give as strong direction as possible on focusing, sequencing and timing of development.

37. As part of the FDS review staff are focusing on priority topics identified to strengthen strategic planning and implementation. For example:

· a focus on business and employment. Challenges include the supply of business land (including for land extensive businesses), improving accessibility to jobs (linkages to the transport network), the role of mixed use, the impact of on-line retail etc.

· looking at Auckland’s urban network. For example, strengthening the role of the centres network, focusing development (place-based design) and how growth can protect, restore and integrate with the natural environment. A critical part of this is understanding Auckland’s key employment areas and nodes. Creating additional capacity in or near these areas has the potential to enable people to live closer to where they work. Research shows that this is an important factor in lowering VKT.

Existing urban area

38. Monitoring indicates that most dwellings consented (82 per cent in the 2020/2021 year) are within the existing urban area. There is a trend that more intensive development typologies, such as townhouses and apartments, are increasing.

39. Legislative changes will enable growth across much of Auckland’s existing urban area. This brings challenges around where and when the council should focus effort and investment.

40. Work as part of the review will look at how to accommodate most growth in the existing urban area. It will also look at focusing intensification in areas with access to good public transport, such as nodes, centres and corridors, and development areas.

41. To achieve this, staff are focusing on understanding and prioritising growth locations, clarifying the role of mixed use, and making best use of existing and planned infrastructure.

Future urban area

42. Approximately 15,000 hectares of land was identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) as a Future Urban zone, intended to provide a 30-year supply of land for urbanisation.

43. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) subsequently identified the sequencing and timing of growth over this period to provide a long-term pipeline for development. The FULSS provided a comprehensive approach to aligning land use and infrastructure provision and enabling efficient urban development (and network infrastructure roll-out) within the future urban areas. The sequencing and timing was subsequently incorporated into the FDS in 2018. It is important to note that sequencing over the 30-year period was in line with housing capacity requirements, i.e., there was no need to develop this future urban land faster to meet housing capacity requirements.

44. However, there have been significant challenges in the roll out of this sequencing. The proactive approach in the FULSS and FDS has been overtaken by the need for council and infrastructure providers to respond reactively to Private Plan Changes. To June 2021, 32 per cent of the future urban zone has been live zoned and more live zoning is sought through Private Plan Changes. Consequential infrastructure provision, and the remaining (and growing) funding gap, is a significant issue for council. At the same time, the council is also aware of new information about climate change and natural hazards in some of these areas and the future risks this represents.

45. In terms of the proposed strategic direction, this means the council will not identify any new future urban areas or extend any of the existing future urban areas.

46. Development within current future urban areas should be coordinated to achieve the best built and natural environment outcomes. For the natural environment, this means protecting, connecting and restoring the natural environment, including ecological integrity, biodiversity, natural heritage, and water quality outcomes.

47. The proposed strategic direction also means the council will reconsider current future urban areas, particularly where an area is vulnerable to natural hazard risks, such as flooding, coastal inundation, sea level rise or coastal erosion and instability. Areas will also be reconsidered if they do not contribute to the council’s and government’s climate objectives, particularly around emissions reduction, if they contain large areas of elite or prime soils, or if development would not make best use of existing or committed infrastructure.

48. A package of tools will be considered to consolidate and coordinate development over the short, medium and long term. This package could include sequencing and triggers, and funding and financing of infrastructure.

Rural area

49. While the NPS UD does not specifically mention rural areas, rural Auckland is no less important than urban Auckland. Over 70 per cent of Auckland’s land area is rural. Rural areas are valued for their living environments on rural land and within settlements, its rural productivity and contribution to Auckland’s economy, and for their environmental qualities.

50. The proposed strategic direction means limited housing growth is anticipated in rural areas.

51. This approach would protect highly productive land and rural ecosystems / biodiversity and where practicable, look to restore degraded systems. Further growth will be avoided in areas vulnerable to natural hazard risk, such as flooding, coastal inundation, sea level rise or coastal erosion and instability. This includes investigation into high-risk areas where managed retreat may need to be considered.

52. Limiting growth in rural areas also supports maintaining rural values, reducing rural fragmentation and enabling ongoing rural production (such as farming, horticulture, forestry and quarrying).

How we work: collaboration, stakeholder engagement and consultation

53. The FDS as a strategic document requires collaboration to understand the interrelationships between topics, the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and the interests of communities.

54. The NPS UD sets out the requirements for consultation and engagement in the preparation of future development strategies. To fulfil these requirements, the council is engaging with the following groups:

· Central government agencies: Staff are engaging with a wide range of central government agencies (for example, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, Kāinga Ora, Waka Kotahi, Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Education) on relevant matters individually as required and collectively through forums such as the Joint Central Government/Auckland Council working group.

· Māori: A two-phase approach for engaging with mana whenua, mataawaka and Māori organisations has been endorsed by the FDS Steering Group and discussed at a Planning Committee workshop (31 May 2022). Phase 1: pre-consultation engagement to inform and guide the development of the draft FDS, has begun.

· Auckland Council and CCOs: A wide range of staff across the council is providing technical input through workshops and meetings, as are staff from Watercare, Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

· Other stakeholders: engagement with other key stakeholders, such as other local authorities, the development sector, and additional infrastructure providers is being planned and will provide input into the development of the draft FDS.

55. Public consultation on the draft FDS will occur in early-mid 2023 following committee approval. The special consultative procedure (section 83 of the Local Government Act) will be followed to seek public feedback on the draft document.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

56. There is an increasing national focus on climate change through legislation, including the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, through initiatives such as declaration of climate emergencies and the report of the Climate Change Commission (June 2021). The council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan in 2020. The plan provides a long-term approach to climate action, with a target to halve regional emissions by 2030 and transition to net zero emissions by 2050. It also calls for a planned approach to adaptation. The built environment is one of the priority areas within the plan and the associated action areas focus on reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

57. The government’s Emissions Reduction Plan was published in May 2022 and the council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP) is under development. The TERP will provide a pathway for achieving a modelled 64 per cent reduction in transport emissions by 2030 in Auckland. Staff are working to align land use aspects of the TERP and the FDS to 2030, while acknowledging that land use and planning decisions typically see impacts over the longer-term. However, as noted earlier in this report, there is urgency in reducing emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change, meaning decisions need to be made now to realise benefits as soon as possible and to reduce future risk.

58. Land use and planning decisions, particularly those around urban form, development and infrastructure, are fundamental to climate action. The impacts of different growth scenarios on climate change mitigation and adaptation are essential to the development of the FDS. These decisions influence and lock in our emissions trajectory and our ability to deal with the risks and impacts of a changing climate for decades to come.

59. For example, in relation to transport emissions, more expansive urban forms generally lead to longer travel distances. Longer trip lengths typically result in higher transport emissions and less propensity for mode shift. Strategic land use decisions also consider climate change risks and impacts such as the effects of coastal inundation and sea level rise.

60. The approach taken in the FDS and the council’s subsequent approach to implementation has the potential for significant long-term implications, and potentially future liability, depending on the approach taken. These aspects will be further researched, developed and brought back to committee as part of the draft FDS.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

61. The FDS provides Auckland-wide alignment on growth and development approaches and influences council strategies, programmes of work and investment decisions. Involvement, information and support from staff across the council group is a critical aspect needed to achieve alignment.

62. The FDS project team have identified topic areas and workstreams and are working with a range of staff across the organisation, including the Council-Controlled Organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

63. The FDS is the long-term strategic plan for Auckland. The FDS provides more detailed information on how, when and where growth is anticipated. This is a relevant matter to local boards as growth and development can have significant impacts at a local board level and informs local board plans.

64. An introductory memo was sent to local boards in January 2022, outlining the committee resolutions that approved the development on an update to the FDS and endorsed the high-level work programme (Committee resolution PLA/2021/137). The memo also provided indicative timeframes for engagement.

65. Local board chairs, or alternates, have been invited to FDS-related Planning Committee workshops over the first half of 2022.

66. Local boards were presented with a briefing on the FDS (July 2022) and invited to provide feedback at their business meetings in July and August 2022. Feedback was specifically sought on the initial strategic direction relating to:

i. Hapū and iwi values and aspirations for urban development

ii. Climate change, emissions reduction and urban form

iii. Inundation and natural hazards

iv. Intensification – dispersed or focused

v. Infrastructure

vi. Greenfields and future urban areas

vii. Business and employment.

67. The feedback received from local boards as at time of writing is included in Attachment A.

68. Due to the timing of business meetings, we are still awaiting feedback from Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards.

69. The graph below shows local board feedback on the proposed strategic direction of the FDS. Seventeen boards supported the strategic direction, with some requests for specific content or focus. Two boards provided mixed views.

70. Of the boards that requested specific content or focus, common themes included:

· climate change needs to be a top priority with a strong emphasis in all parts of the strategy

· quality aspects of urban form should be an important focus

· the timing and sequencing of development needs to be clear to support infrastructure provision in the right places

· elite and prime soils must be protected

· provision and protection of green space is vital, particularly in under-served areas and where intensification is occurring.

71. Of the two boards that provided mixed views, the concerns related to:

· their desire to slow the rate and extent of intensification

· the impact on infrastructure and service provision from changes to the timing of greenfield development/future urban areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

72. Council has committed to achieving Māori outcomes through Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, influenced by the Māori Plan and Issues of Significance, and Auckland Plan 2050. These documents provide guidance in understanding the priority areas for Tāmaki Makaurau Māori and a number of these priority areas are relevant to the development and implementation of the FDS, for example:

· involve Māori early in the decision-making process

· Māori housing aspirations

· protection of existing natural resources

· allowing for kaitiakitanga

· benefits to Māori, for example, housing, economic opportunities, and improved access

· impacts of climate change, for example, on marae, whānau, and sites of significance

· opportunities to showcase Māori identity.

73. The priority areas already identified, along with feedback from previous engagement will be incorporated in the development of the FDS. A review of past Māori engagement is underway and will provide a starting point for engaging with Māori, in a way that supports their capacity to genuinely participate in the development of the FDS.

74. In addition to this, and specific to the FDS, a two-phase approach for engaging with mana whenua, mataawaka and Māori organisations was endorsed by the FDS Steering Group and discussed at a Planning Committee workshop (31 May 2022). Phase 1: pre-consultation engagement to inform and guide the development of the draft FDS, has begun.

75. This engagement will help the council understand Māori values and aspirations for urban development and will inform the overall growth approach, as well as the more specific approach in the existing urban, future urban and rural areas.

76. The next step is to make initial contact with each iwi/organisation/forum to understand their preferred engagement approach. A panel of independent advisors has been established, and funded, to assist iwi with their involvement in the FDS.

77. Tāmaki Makaurau Mana Whenua Forum heard from staff at its July Forum hui. The FDS touches on all of the Forum’s Pou. Staff and the Forum are working through how best to support their involvement in the FDS.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

78. Costs for developing the FDS largely fall in Financial Year 23 and funding is provided in the 22/23 Annual Budget. This includes engagement and consultation aspects of the programme.

79. The FDS, once adopted, plays a significant role in future asset and service planning, especially assets and services related to growth. Decisions on this are subsequently made through processes such as Annual Plans, Long-term Plans, Regional Land Transport Plans etc.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

80. The council faces significant risks (achieving desired development outcomes, financial and reputational) in the absence of a clear, cohesive and strategic approach responding to the FDS requirements of the NPS UD and LGACA. The approach proposed in this report seeks to establish a process to address those risks.

81. Changes to the council following the local body elections may mean that more time is needed for the new council to endorse the approach and its implications, or not. Some time has been built into the work programme to accommodate this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

82. If the strategic direction is approved, staff will:

· use the strategic direction to further develop the content of the FDS and produce a draft document

· confirm Planning Committee (or equivalent) workshops in early 2023 to seek input on the draft document

· continue engaging with mana whenua, mataawaka and key stakeholders to inform the draft FDS

· continue work with local board services to involve local boards in the work programme

· continue work with staff from communication & engagement teams to plan public consultation in 2023.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local board feedback on the Future Development Strategy	435

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Gray - Principal Advisor Growth & Spatial Strat

Dawne Mackay – Manager Growth and Spatial Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Unitary Plan - Lake Road and Promenade Blocks Takapuna to be made operative	475

Planning Committee

04 August 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 Endorsed council’s preliminary response to the NPS UD and Enabling Housing Supply Act for public engagement PLA/2022/31 The 2022 work programme includes workshops in February, March, May, June and July with reports due on 31 March, 30 June and 4 August. 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 Agreed and confirmed policy directions for the city centre zone, walkable catchment of the city centre and metro centre zones and stops on the rapid transit network, intensification in other locations, qualifying matters, and other matters PLA/2022/81 – PLA/2022/86
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, and July 2022. Report due 4 August. 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 Memo 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. Progress to date: Memo updates due in August and September. This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
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. This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
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 will be presented to the committee in September 2022.
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 late 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 and submission made February 2022.
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 late 2022 and will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent in the next term.
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 updates August 2021 and 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. Update member planned for August 2022.
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 late 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. An update will be provided to the new council in the next term.
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
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: Workshops held June and October 2021 and March 2022. 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 Endorsement of Draft Parking Strategy for public consultation PLA/2022/24 This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
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 held 25 May.
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 held 6 April.
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: This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
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: This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
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.
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.
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
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 Plans and Plans / Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Plan change to rezone land to recognise land recently vested or acquired as open space, correct errors or anomalies, facilitate Eke Panuku’s land rationalisation and disposal process, and facilitate council or Kainga Ora’s redevelopment of some neighbourhoods.	Decision required: Approve plan change in part. Part of the plan change will form part of the intensification plan change required by the National Policy Statement for Urban Development.
Coastal hazard maps plan change Plans and Places	Plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan definition of “coastal erosion hazard area” with a reference to new coastal erosion maps and to remove the coastal storm inundation map from the plan. Funding for this plan change was approved as part of the targeted rate for climate change in 2021/22.	Decision required: Approve notification of the plan change
Eke Panuku urban regeneration
Wynyard Point Precinct Plan and Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Refreshed Wynyard Point Precinct Plan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.	Decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Precinct Plan for public consultation. Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Plan Change for public notification. Workshop held February 2022.
Onehunga Wharf Precinct Plan & Plan Change Eke Panuku Development Auckland	Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery. Status update pending from Eke Panuku.	Direction required: Support for a revised approach that covers feasibility of mixed-use development, options for wharf renewal and open space plans.
Eke Panuku Future Programme Eke Panuku Development Auckland	TBA Status update pending from Eke Panuku.	Decision required: Approval of the process to develop and engage on recommendations for the Eke Panuku future urban regeneration programme and funding models This will be reported to the Planning Committee (or equivalent) in 2023.
City Centre Masterplan Implementation update Eke Panuku Development Auckland	On 30 Nov 2021 the Planning Committee endorsed Eke Panuku as the lead agency for the implementation of City Centre Masterplan 2020 and the establishment of a council group matrix team.	Decision required: Receive updates on implementing the City Centre Masterplan, engagement, programme business case and priorities. Updates will be provided through quarterly reporting.
Decisions of other committees which are relevant to the Planning Committee
Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)	As capacity allows staff from council and ATAP partner agencies will commence work on recommended indicative packages for decades two and three.	Decision required: There is no ATAP work this year which will require decisions from the Planning Committee. The focus this year on transport emission reduction – which is being considered by the Environment and Climate Change Committee.
Briefings to be confirmed
Ministry of Education – development programme for Auckland Chief Planning Office	A briefing is being explored in conjunction with the Future Development Strategy work. The committee has indicated interest in hearing from the Ministry of Education on its plans for schools long term, and the current issues and challenges it faces. Including how legislative change affects schools particularly and the impacts of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Waka Kotahi/New Zealand Transport Agency Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Waka Kotahi in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Kainga Ora Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Kainga Ora in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Kiwirail Chief Planning Office	The committee has indicated interest in hearing from Kiwirail in terms of its Auckland Programme.	No decision or direction required from the committee.
Urban Design Chief Planning Office	The committee is interested in hearing about the work programme of the Urban Design unit.	No decision or direction required from the committee.

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work		Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
Chief Planning Office	Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill		Approval process for council’s submission	Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019 PLA/2019/92
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/9
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Urban Development Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020 PLA/2020/10
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/15
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research	Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring		Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report	Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/16
Auckland Design Office	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption		Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan	City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19
Financial Strategy and Planning	Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020 PLA/2020/20
Development Programmes Office	Shovel-ready projects for Central Government		Agreement on list for submission to central government	Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020 EME/2020/13
Chief Planning Office	Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package		Review and approve council’s submission	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020 EME/2020/23
Chief Planning Office	Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan		Consider and approve the final structure plan	Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020 GB/2020/38
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of council approach and submission	Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	NZTA Innovating Streets Fund		Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA	Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/30
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, Chief Planning Office	Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan		Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan	Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020 EME/2020/56
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission		Approve council submission	Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/31
Chief Planning Office	Resource Management Act Framework Fast-track consenting legislative change		Approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020 PLA/2020/32
Plans and Places	Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas		Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.	Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/37
Plans and Places	Plan Change - Whenuapai		Approve next steps.	Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020 PLA/2020/44
Plans and Places	Plan Change – Events on Public Space Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.		Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.	Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020 PLA/2020/68
Plans and Places	Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule		Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities	Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee. PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Additional Harbour Crossing		Consideration of finalised business case. The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council.	Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee PLA/2020/100
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.	Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee PLA/2020/116
Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council	Downtown Carpark development outcomes		Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.	Development outcomes confirmed in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120 and strategic transport outcomes agreed in June 2021 PLA/2021/52
Auckland Transport	Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review		Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.	Members delegated to the political reference group PLA/2021/7
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Project		Agree funding package.	Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation		Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures	New measures confirmed PLA/2021/26
Auckland Transport	Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031		Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board	Endorsed Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2931 for the Auckland Transport board to adopt.
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Infrastructure Strategy		Provide strategic insights and direction 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee)	Strategy adopted by Finance and Performance Committee in June 2021 (as part of Long-term Plan)
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Plan 2050 implementation and monitoring		To note progress against the measures in the Auckland Plan 2050	2021 monitoring report received PLA/2021/69
Chief Planning Office	Unit Titles Act		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/27
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)		To approve the recommended Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package.	Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package approved PLA/2021/15
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Regional Fuel Tax		To consider components and changes to current status	Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal adopted by the Governing Body in May 2021 GB/2021/55
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	Congestion Question		To approve council’s submission to the select committee on the Inquiry into congestion pricing	Authority delegated to approve submission PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research	National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy		To approve council’s submission	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/54
Plans and Places	Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) – Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua		To approve the plan change and make it operative	Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 (Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) made operative PLA/2021/6
Development Programme Office	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund		To approve council’s submission to the Crown’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund	Endorsed preliminary list of programmes for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and authority delegated for approval of final list for submission PLA/2021/92
Chief Planning Office		Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Bill	To approve council’s submission on the Bill	Group delegated to approve council’s submission on the bill November 2021 PLA/2021/123
Eke Panuku		Wynyard Quarter Tram	To endorse the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operated of the tram in 2022.	Endorsed the Eke Panuku Board decision to cease operation of the Wynyard Quarter Tram by late 2022 PLA/2021/126
Chief Planning Office		Affordable Housing: advocacy plan, research findings and consider options	To receive updates on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan and initial engagement, consider affordable housing research, implications and options.	Received memo update on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan in November 2021, considered options relating to increasing housing for older people PLA/2020/92, and inclusionary zoning PLA/2020/93, PLA/2020/94
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research		Public Transport Operating Mechanism review	To receive updates on Public Transport Operating Mechanism review.	Received memo related to Ministry of Transport’s discussion paper 22 July 2021.
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research		Government Policy Statement – Housing and Urban Development	To approve council’s submission.	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission PLA/2021/70
Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research		Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill (exposure draft)	To approve council’s approach and submission.	Authority delegated to approve council submission on bill exposure draft PLA/2021/75 July 2021. Received memo on select committee report November 2021.
Chief Planning Office		National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach	To receive an updated council implementation approach for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and associated instruments.	High-level implementation plan approved, working group formed to provide political oversight PLA/2021/12.
Chief Planning Office		Auckland Light Rail	To provide feedback and receive updates.	Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53 Workshops with Establishment Unit held in June and August 2021 Confidential report considered September 2021 PLA/2021/109
Plans and Places		Regional Historic Heritage Grant	To approve the grant recommendations.	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2021/2022 funding round allocation approved March 2022 PLA/2022/9
Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research		National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water	To approve council’s submission on the proposed amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 and a package of related technical drinking water standards.	Authority delegated to approve council’s submission March 2022 PLA/2022/10
Eke Panuku Development Auckland		Thriving Town Centres - Town Centre Guidelines for Eke Panuku locations	To endorse the guidelines for Eke Panuku locations to support future urban regeneration delivery and engagement with stakeholders and partners.	Endorsed Thriving Town Centres – Guidance for urban regeneration in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland PLA/2022/33
Auckland Transport		Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)	To endorse the direction and intent of the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case as a pathway to achieving 7 percent cycling mode share by 2030.	Endorsed direction and intent of the Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case PLA/2022/41 and PLA/2022/43
Eke Panuku Development Auckland		Transit-oriented development opportunities – Eastern Busway	Consider and provide feedback on the Strategic Regeneration Overview for the Eastern Corridor development opportunities	Report considered 5 May Planning Committee PLA/2022/49

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
6/7/2022	Confidential: National Policy Statement on Urban Development – Review of proposed Intensification Policy Instrument plan change (no attachment)

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