|
MOVED by
Member A Matson, seconded by Chairperson G Sage:
That the
Waitematā Local Board:
a)
provide the following feedback on
the currently proposed changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). We:
i)
note that the AUP became operative in 2016 after
what is widely considered to have been a robust consultation and hearings
process
ii)
note the recent changes to
the AUP that were mandated through the National Policy Statement - Urban
Development (NPS-UD) 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing
Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, have expanded the enabled
supply of dwellings in Auckland some threefold, from approximately 900,000
currently provided under the AUP, to some 2.7 million after providing for
‘qualifying matters’ but note that some of this is unsuitable for
intensification.
iii)
appreciate the opportunity
that local boards have to express their views on Plan Changes 78-83, note the
assistance of Council staff in formulating the local board’s up-to-date
feedback, and thank them in advance for conveying this feedback to the Panel
iv)
affirm the Board’s
consideration of the well-being of all communities in our local board area
v)
note this feedback
reflects our views based on the interests and preferences of people in the
local board area that have been conveyed to board members during the recent
local body elections, and through information more recently to hand including
the current submissions on Plan Changes 78-83
b)
under various headings as
follows, provide the following feedback on Plan
Change 78 - Intensification. We:
City Centre
i)
observe that most residents seek good design
outcomes, green space, sunlight and outlook, and consider that controls need
to be strengthened to deliver these broader holistic benefits
ii)
support the use of controls to transition building heights down towards the Waitematā Harbour’s edge in order to maintain open space, public views and
harbourside amenity
iii)
support the continued use of bonus
provisions, including through-site links and public art, to incentivise new
developments to contribute to an interesting, accessible, finely-grained
walkable city centre
iv)
support a focus on enabling good design
outcomes for future residents, such as minimum floor-to-ceiling heights,
minimum apartment sizes, setbacks to create human scale development and
enable air flow, and access to both daylight, and to the public realm
Walkable catchments
v)
support intensification close to provision
of rapid transport, but not where that will adversely affect Special
Character areas
vi)
consider that Ponsonby Road is not a town
centre but rather a long linear retail strip and as such oppose its
characterisation as a Town Centre justifying a walkable catchment under
Policy 3(d) of the National Policy Statement - Urban Development (NPS-UD)
vii)
oppose the walkable catchment of 400 metres
from the Ponsonby Road Town Centre zone imposed over St Mary’s Bay
viii)
oppose any walkable catchment extending into
St. Mary’s Bay being imposed and/or measured from any part of Ponsonby
Road
ix)
oppose the walkable catchment of 1200 metres
imposed on Freeman’s Bay and St Mary’s Bay, as measured from the
western edge of the City Centre Zone, because we consider it an arbitrary
measure that does not have a logical origin point nor an adequate
consideration of factors that may limit ‘walkability’
x)
oppose the walkable catchment of 1200 metres
imposed on Parnell as measured from the eastern edge of the City Centre zone,
for the same abovementioned reason
xi)
oppose the 200 metre area of intensification
adjacent to the Grey Lynn Local Centre
xii)
support submissions questioning
Council’s methodology in determining walkability, and support any
consequent zoning amendments necessary to achieve intensification where
appropriate
xiii)
recognise that factors such as topography,
climate and accessibility challenge the practicable application of
walkability from designated centres, and transport hubs like Parnell Station
Qualifying matters
xiv)
support Special Character Areas (SCAs), both
residential and business as a qualifying matter
xv)
support the retention of City Centre
character buildings and built form controls
xvi)
note the opinion about the SCA assessment
methodology included as Attachment B on the agenda report for item 12 Notice
of Motion - Member A Matson - Plan Change 78, at the meeting on 6 December
2022, and support the retention of Special Character Areas as identified in
the AUP prior to notification of PC78
xvii)
support consideration of whether more
streets, or parts of streets in suburbs with Special Character Areas like St
Mary’s Bay may qualify as historic heritage areas, either as a
qualifying matter under PC78, or by way of inclusion through Plan Change 81
xviii)
support infrastructure constraints as a
qualifying matter, noting the constraint is removed when infrastructure is
built
xix)
support insufficient water pressure or
access to water to fight fires as a qualifying matter
xx)
support the inclusion of flood plains, water
courses and areas at risk of coastal inundation as a qualifying matter
xxi)
Support a process being developed that will
enable local communities in collaboration with Council to facilitate the
designation of low traffic neighbourhoods on non-arterial roads, in order to
reduce emissions, improve walkability, and safety for children to access
school and recreational spaces.
Design in suburbs
xxii)
Note that suburbs have traditionally been
places for families to raise children and children's needs should be
considered in design standards
xxiii)
Support the standard to consolidate outdoor
areas in larger developments - as this is likely to improve the wellbeing of
children by giving them space to play with other children
xxiv)
support zone standards that enable perimeter
blocks in MHU, THAB zones and walkable catchments
xxv)
support greater planning ease to accommodate
shops, cafes etc along frequent bus routes to reduce car dependency and improve local amenity
xxvi)
consider that care needs to be taken in the
design of transition between the bulk and mass of buildings in adjoining
zones of differing density
xxvii)
consider that care needs to be taken to
avoid over dominance when building along ridgelines
xxviii)
strongly support initiatives to ensure
sufficient landscaping across the city, to mitigate emissions, and to absorb
and clean stormwater
xxix)
support standards for deep soil
areas to incentivize the retention of mature trees, or planting of young
trees, as we strongly support the intention to enable sufficient tree canopy
cover as this will help mitigate urban heating and improve air quality
Other Matters
xxx) support initiatives that focus on assisting
with adaption to climate change
xxxi) note that the urban growth agenda is a
laissez-faire market solution to the complex problem of unaffordable housing
with many causal factors. A laissez-faire approach in the 90s led to the
building of many sub-standard apartments and leaky homes, and we strongly
recommend council uses the levers at its disposal to ensure new development
is resilient and promotes wellbeing.
xxxii)
recognize that much of the
demand for greater density is driven by developers in pursuit of short-term
profit rather than quality affordable housing close to centres, public
transport and amenities
xxxiii)
recommend focusing on
enabling good quality density close to reliable frequent transport within
practicable walking distance
xxxiv)
note that notwithstanding
the NPS-UD’s strategic intention of enabling more housing close to
transport and within centres, the wide application of the MDRS (which will
allow development to occur randomly whether or not within a walkable
catchment or near a centre or serviced by infrastructure), make it difficult
to plan infrastructure and run a reliable and affordable public transport
network
xxxv)
consider that under the
AUP, where buildings of six storeys are permitted along arterial roads where
there are clearways and reliable public transport options, that the Plan
should provide effective incentives to encourage landowners to develop their
sites up to their AUP potential.
xxxvi)
support 15-minute
neighbourhoods
xxxvii) support the development of active street
frontages while maintaining appropriate consideration through the use of setbacks
of adequate sunlight access and the avoidance of over-shadowing.
xxxviii)
note that narrow road
reserve widths that predominate through Freeman’s Bay, St Mary’s
Bay and parts of Ponsonby could become highly congested if substantially more
development is enabled there.
xxxix)
support the request by
Emergency Services that new design enables access for paramedics.
xl)
support submissions
encouraging the provision of sufficient open space across the city.
xli) support initiatives to investigate and adopt
incentives to retain trees
xlii) strongly support, whether or not it is out of
the scope of this plan change, the investigation of alternative forms of
revenue, including betterment charges to fund the provision of
infrastructure, affordable housing, senior housing, heritage protections and
community amenities
xliii) oppose the inclusion of the Auckland Light
Rail Corridor in PC78 on the basis that as that area was excluded from the
notified plan change, it would be unfair to impose plan change provisions on
those in the area who did not have the opportunity to submit on the matter
xliv) support councils to plan precincts and enforce
and inform codes / design standards (height/ setbacks / landscaping / parking
controls etc) for mid/height density development. The Wynard Quarter and
Hobsonville are two exemplars of density done well – both are master
planned.
c)
provide the following feedback on Plan
Change 79 - Transport:
i)
strongly support the proposals to improve
pedestrian safety on private ways in developments
ii)
support consideration of how heavy vehicles
will access rubbish for collection at the design stage but note that ideally
loading and collection can take place kerbside
iii)
support future proofing new developments to
include electric vehicle charging, noting that there may be some safety considerations
to this
iv)
provide the following feedback on Plan
Change 80 - Regional Policy Statement:
A)
support including the concept of a
well-functioning environment
B)
Support this concept including the
well-functioning and wellbeing of human residents of all ages
C)
Support this concept to include being
resilient to climate change, and increasing numbers of storm events. This
would include ensuring sufficient planting and permeable spaces
D)
Recommend the regional planning approach of
a quality compact city as envisaged in the Auckland Plan
d)
provide the following feedback on Plan
Change 81: Additions
to Historic Heritage Schedule
i)
support the addition of the three heritage
places:
E)
St Benedict’s Convent (former), 2 St
Benedicts Street, Newton
F)
Auckland Masonic Tavern (former) 24 St
Benedicts Street, Newton
G)
D Arkell Bottling Store (former), 29 St
Benedicts Street, Newton and consider the appropriate classification for
scheduling in light of evidence presented to the Panel
ii)
support the addition of the two historic heritage
areas proposed:
H)
Parkfield Terrace Historic Heritage Area,
Newmarket
I)
Jervois Road Streamline Moderne/Art Deco
Block Historic Heritage Area, Herne Bay
iii)
support the Panel’s consideration of
submissions seeking the addition of further historic heritage places or
areas, either by way of inclusion through Plan Change 81, or as a qualifying
matter under PC78
e)
provide the following feedback on Plan
Change 83: Notable Trees:
i)
support the addition to AUP Schedule 10:
Notable Tree Schedule of both individual trees as well as groups of trees,
and in particular, several avenues of Plane trees in Grey Lynn
f)
appoint Member A Matson and to
speak to the local board views at a hearing in 2023
g)
delegate authority to Chair G
Sage to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member
appointed in resolution g) is unable to attend the hearing.
|
