|
Resolution
number KT/2023/18
MOVED by Chairperson J Gillon, seconded by Deputy
Chairperson D Grant:
That
the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a)
provide the following
feedback on proposed changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) as detailed
in PC 78, PC 79, PC 80, PC 81, PC 82, and PC 83:
General
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 that the AUP already delivers
sufficient supply of housing for short, medium, and long term, including
provisions for housing in central and fringe areas, as noted in the GM
Auckland Plan Strategy & Research presentation to Planning Committee, 26
May, and 2 June 2021, and reported in Agenda / Minutes for the Planning
Committee’s October 2021 meeting:
A)
At least 909,000 net redevelopment
opportunities exist now,
B)
840,000 to 1.4 million redevelopments
are considered commercially feasible,
C)
300,000 to 320,000 are expected to be
realised over the next 30 years,
D)
Projections allow for 15-20% greater
demand possibilities: Projected short-term demand (2020-2023) 45,000;
projected medium demand (2024-2031) 98,000; projected long-term demand
(2032-2051) 239,000.
Therefore there should be only an absolute minimum of
changes to the AUP zoning through this plan change process.
iii)
note the most recent opinion of the
late Jeremy Salmond (attached) regarding Special Character Areas, and
recognise that this may have implications for special character areas in the
Kaipātiki Local Board area.
iv)
we support warm, dry, affordable
homes for our community with high standards of design, especially in areas of
frequent public transport, appropriate infrastructure, access to adequate
outdoor recreation space, and developed in a planned way rather than an ad
hoc basis, however;
v)
we do not support the changes to the
AUP foisted upon Auckland Council by the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply
and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, without being subject to the same
public, democratic scrutiny and process as per the AUP.
vi)
as previously stated, we believe that
the Governing Body should have seriously considered judicial challenge as a
valid response to the NPS-UD (and indeed other National Policy Statements)
instead of accepting it as “mandatory”, as NPSs are not
parliamentary legislation and open to judicial review.
vii)
we are extremely concerned about the
radical impact that the new density and height-to-boundary rules will have on
our community, which will allow far more intense and higher developments
throughout the Kaipātiki Local Board area, and overrides the
considerable public consultation that was done to shape the AUP.
viii)
we note that changes to most of the
Kaipātiki Local Board area will include:
A)
the effective removal of the
single-house zone,
B)
the effective conversion of all Mixed
Housing Suburban zoning to Mixed Housing Urban zoning,
C)
allowance of three dwellings allowed
per site without a resource consent, preventing Council from mitigating
impacts on the surrounding area, including infrastructure, traffic, etc,
D)
reduction of the minimum site for a
dwelling from 400-600m2 to 300-400m2,
E)
reduction of distance to boundary to
1m,
F)
removal of minimum on-site parking
requirements,
G)
removal of overlays, including the
Special Character Areas and Significant Ecological Areas, and removal of
notable trees,
H)
introduction of “walkable
catchments” around rapid transit stops (and the city centre and
metropolitan centres not in Kaipātiki) where building heights are
required to be six or more storeys
Submission and feedback
endorsements
ix)
endorse and support the thorough
feedback provided by the Ōrākei Local Board to plan changes 78-83, much
of which also applies to the Kaipātiki Local Board area, including their
concern that council has not taken a precautionary response to zone changes.
x)
endorse and support submission 2191
from Graham and Sarah Hughes, of Northcote Point. The board acknowledges the
considerable detail provided in this comprehensive submission. In particular,
the local board supports consideration be given to applying the 'Residential
- Low Density Residential Zone' to sub-block 8.7, and that this area be given
an overlay of 'Special Character Areas Overlay Residential and Business'.
Sub-block 8.7 is defined as the block bordered by Queen Street, Princes
Street, Duke Street and Beach Road, being the odd numbered properties on
Queen Street from 55 through to 83 inclusive, and even numbered properties on
Princes Street with numbers 56 through to 72 inclusive.
xi)
endorse and support submission 2064
from Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society. In particular, the local
board supports consideration being given to reducing the amount of allowable
impermeable site coverage on sites that have a Significant Ecological Area
– Terrestrial (SEA-T) overlay from 60% of the site to less than 50%;
and that the minimum amount of SAE-T coverage on a site to qualify for SEA-T
protection be reduced from 30% to 20% in order to prevent fragmentation and
cumulative loss and harm from development.
xii)
endorse and support submission 1404
from Birkenhead Residents Association. The board acknowledges the
consultation undertaken by the Association during the pre-consultation phase
and believes their submission reflections the feedback of the wider
community, specifically around the impact on Special Character Areas. In
particular, the local board supports consideration being given to the
following points:
A)
The relatively narrow extent of the
SCA Overlay in Birkenhead means that: (a) many individual properties scored
by Council as having high character value will lose the protection of the SCA
Overlay and may be replaced with non-character buildings (with limited design
controls to protect the local amenity) – this will erode the
area’s connection to its distinctive built heritage; and (b) even in
areas of Birkenhead that under PC78 would retain the SCA Overlay, these areas
are surrounded by areas of only slightly lesser special character but that
are proposed to lose the SCA Overlay. This means that properties that are
actively detrimental to the area’s special character may be built in
close proximity to properties of high character value
B)
Support the inclusion of
infrastructure constraints relating to water and wastewater as a qualifying
matter in PC78. Our particular concern in relation to water and wastewater is
that Wai Manawa / Little Shoal Bay and Le Roys Bush are already badly
affected by freshwater flooding and sewage overflows after heavy rainfall.
Increased intensification will only make that worse, because more building
site coverage means more stormwater runoff. The area does not have the
stormwater infrastructure to manage that – it is a sensitive ecological
area that would be badly harmed by increased silting and runoff. Auckland
Council is already responding to these issues through its work on a Mini
Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Wai Manawa / Little Shoal Bay. It would be
counterproductive to allow increased intensification in the hydrological
catchment of Wai Manawa at the same time as Council is already trying to
mitigate the effects of existing stormwater runoff in the same area.
xiii)
support submissions encouraging the
provision of sufficient open space across the city.
Walkable Catchments
xiv)
we request that all walkable
catchments be conditional on:
A)
whether adequate infrastructure can
be provided,
B)
the retention of existing levels of
public spaces, parks, and reserves, and the provision of additional public
spaces, parks and reserves commensurate with the expected increase in
population,
C)
the adoption of a ‘sunlight
admission control’ which protects sunlight and daylight in public
spaces including parks, reserves, lakes, foreshore, and beaches, and height
controls to ensure the same are not dominated by the surrounding built
environment.
D)
including pedestrian infrastructure,
such as seating and mature trees.
E)
including minimum parking spaces and
appropriate spread of disabled parking and loading zones.
xv)
we do not support walkable catchments
where they will adversely affect Special Character areas,
xvi)
we do not support walkable catchments
being applied to ferry terminals. The Kaipātiki Local Board area has
three ferry terminals within its catchment: Northcote Point, Birkenhead Point
and Beach Haven. The majority of land surrounding the ferry terminals
currently has an overlay of, special character, coastal instability, or
protected tree schedules. The three ferry terminals within the Kaipātiki
area all have historical significance. Both Northcote and Birkenhead ferry
terminals have historical walks that encompass the wharf area and the
surrounding streets. Northcote Point Ferry Terminal do not provide all
weather service. The ferry is often unable to provide a service, and so it is
therefore disingenuous to provide intensive housing based on transport
connectivity.
Special Character Areas
xvii)
support Special Character Areas
(SCAs), both residential and business as a qualifying matter.
xviii)
we request the retention of the
existing Special Character Areas and boundaries, as identified in the
Auckland Unitary Plan Chapter D18 Special Character Areas Overlay (including
Birkenhead Point and Northcote Point). Our particular concern is that the
change creates a bias towards further erosion of the SCA Overlay, by:
A)
undermining the SCA Overlay, even in
areas where PC78 currently leaves it intact; and
B)
authorising the destruction of
properties of high character value, where PC78 removes the SCA Overlay.
Those two impacts would be a great loss to the city, but
with only a minimal effect on overall housing capacity. We seek an amendment
to PC78 that modifies the application of Council’s scoring system for
identifying where to retain the SCA Overlay. Our proposal is that a 50%
threshold (still a majority of character-supporting buildings) should be
sufficient, with properties scoring 4, 5 or 6 counting towards this
percentage. Council’s own materials refer to properties scoring 4 as
“character-supporting” – such properties should count
towards inclusion in the SCA Overlay, not towards removal. This approach
would result in materially greater coverage of Birkenhead as a Special
Character Area, which we believe is an accurate reflection of the
area’s distinctive character value and heritage.
xix)
note the following excerpts from
Parliamentary Hansard that confirm that the understanding of members of
parliament was that under the NPS-UD, Auckland Council would have the
discretion to retain Special Character Areas:
A)
Nicola Willis (National Party): We
also listened intently to local authorities who said that they needed to
maintain some discretion so that they could exclude areas from intense
housing development that were not properly suited to it—areas, for
example, that were subject to natural hazards, areas that had historic
heritage, areas which would not be able to support the level of housing that
this bill implies. So, we tidied up the qualifying matters section of this
bill to ensure that local authorities were able to carry over assessments
formed during previous planning processes.
B)
Eugenie Sage (Green Party): But it is
on those matters that there were changes to the bill to provide a little bit
more flexibility for councils to ensure that medium density happens in more
suitable—well, doesn't happen in unsuitable areas.
C)
Simon Watts (National Party): An
issue that was raised a lot in my electorate was around the exclusions around
particularly heritage zoning. If any of you have been to the beautiful
Devonport Peninsula on the North Shore, it is a stunning location. I'm
slightly biased, but it is a lovely part of our city, and I'm glad to see
that a number of the considerations around special character zones—that
the council will be able to ensure that those protections remain. And that's
really important, not only for heritage but also for environmental aspects
and other risk considerations.
Historic
Heritage
xx)
support the changes
proposed within plan change 83:
xxi)
support the list of
historic heritage places being a dynamic current schedule.
xxii) enable the addition of new historic places to
the historic schedule. Note that Auckland Council officers have acknowledged
that many sites within Kaipātiki have not yet been assessed for addition
to the schedule.
Infrastructure
xxiii)
note that the wide application of the
Medium Density Residential Standards (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.
xxiv)
support the inclusion of
infrastructure constraints relating to water and wastewater as a qualifying
matter in PC78.
xxv)
support insufficient water pressure
or access to water to fight fires as a qualifying matter.
xxvi)
support the inclusion of flood
plains, water courses and areas at risk of coastal inundation as a qualifying
matter.
Transport
xxvii)
support the proposed changes to
transport provisions in PC79, with the following changes:
A)
require all new builds to have
compulsory minimum on-site car parking per dwelling,
B)
require all new builds to have
adequate vehicle access for emergency services and support the request by
Emergency Services that new design enables access for paramedics.
C)
undertake further consultation with
disabled people around requirements for accessible parking,
D)
amend references to the provision of
cycling and walking to include micro-mobility vehicles.
E)
strongly support the proposals to
improve pedestrian safety on private ways in developments
F)
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.
G)
support future proofing new
developments to include electric vehicle charging, noting that there may be
some safety considerations to this.
Notable Trees
xxviii)
support the following changes
proposed within plan change 83:
A)
update legal descriptions and/or
addresses where they have changed as a result of development and subdivision,
B)
correct minor errors such as spelling
grammar,
C)
improve the location of symbology in
the Notable Trees Overlay to ensure the trees are accurately identified where
the location has be verified,
D)
update the number of trees for
different species where this has been omitted,
E)
improve species descriptions where
these are not specific enough,
F)
remove 51 notable trees (27 listings
in full and 11 partial listings) 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.
xxix)
note that a long-term approach is
required to support the protection of notable trees being managed.
xxx)
support the list of notable trees
being a dynamic current schedule.
xxxi)
enable the addition of new nominated
trees to the Schedule on an on-going basis.
xxxii)
strengthen the provisions which
protect notable trees and annually review and add nominated trees.
xxxiii)
support initiatives to investigate
and adopt incentives to retain trees.
xxxiv)
support the Notable Tree criteria set
out in the Regional Policy Statement B4.5.2
b)
does not provide feedback
on variations 4 and 5, as they do not apply to the Kaipātiki Local Board
area.
c)
appoint Chairperson John
Gillon and Deputy Chairperson Danielle Grant to speak to the local board
views at a hearing in 2023.
d)
delegate authority to the
chairperson to make a replacement appointment in the event Chairperson and/or
Deputy Chairperson appointed in resolution c) are unable to attend the
hearing.
CARRIED
|
