I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 15 February 2024

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti mō te Whakarite Mahere, te Taiao, me ngā Papa Rēhia / Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Angela Dalton

 

Members

IMSB Member Edward Ashby

Cr Mike Lee

 

Cr Andrew Baker

Cr Kerrin Leoni

 

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Mayor Wayne Brown

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Chris Darby

Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Julie Fairey

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM

Cr Ken Turner

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Lotu Fuli

Cr John Watson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr Maurice Williamson

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

12 February 2024

 

Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8150

Email: Sandra.Gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 February 2024

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies                                                   5

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest                                                               5

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes              5

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                       5

4.1     Petition:  Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces - Gulf Harbour Golf Course          5  

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input                 6

5.1     Public Input: The Onehunga Enhancement Society/Manukau Harbour Restoration Society - rebuilding the Manukau Harbour and whether it needs a better management plan                            6

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input                                                            6

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     6

8          Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request – ‘Pukekohe East Precinct 2’ at 50 Pukekohe East Road and 47 Golding Road, Pukekohe                                                               7

9          Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - delegation for spoken interaction (Covering report)                                                31

10        Review of the Forward Work Programme - Planning, Environment and Parks Committee                                                                              33

11        Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings - 15 February 2024  35

12        Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 

 


1          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

 

2          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

 

3          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

            Click the meeting date below to access the minutes.

 

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 30 November 2023, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

4.1       Petition:  Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces - Gulf Harbour Golf Course

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Owen Paterson, Secretary – Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces will present a petition to the committee relating to preventing the development of housing of the Gulf Harbour Golf Course.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Representatives from Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces will address the committee, on behalf of the Gulf Harbour and Whangaparaoa communities, and present a petition relating to upholding the terms of the Encumbrance to prevent the development of housing on the Gulf Harbour Golf Course.

3.       The petition prayer is as follows:

The Gulf Harbour Country Club (GHCC) has closed.

Our group “Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces” (KWGS) has been keeping a conversation going with Auckland Council regarding the GHCC.

GHCC is zoned by Auckland Council as “Open Space – Sport and Recreation” with a 999 year Encumbrance that prevents development for housing and requires the land to be used as a golf course.

The encumbrance between the Council and GHCC was put in place long before the current owner purchased the Country Club.

Hundreds of residents in Gulf Harbour relied on the Encumbrance to provide protected open space when they purchased their properties.

KWGS is opposed to any attempt to convert this open space to housing.

We will petition Auckland Council to uphold the terms of the Encumbrance on behalf of the Gulf Harbour and Whangaparaoa communities.

4.       At the time of closing the petition, 4,600 signatures have been received.

5.       Further information can be found here.

6.       Comments made by the petitioners are attached at Attachment A.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whakaae / accept the petition in relation to preventing the development of housing on the Gulf Harbour Golf Course

b)      whakamihi / thank representatives from Keep Whangaparaoa’s Green Spaces for attending the meeting

c)       tuku ki tangata kē / forward the petition to the Chief of Strategy for consideration.

 

 

5          Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input

 

5.1       Public Input: The Onehunga Enhancement Society/Manukau Harbour Restoration Society - rebuilding the Manukau Harbour and whether it needs a better management plan

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Jim Jackson, Chairman and Deputy Chair of The Onehunga Enhancement Society and the Manukau Harbour Restoration Society will address the committee relating to The Manukau Harbour and whether it needs a better management plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the public input from The Onehunga Enhancement Society and the Manukau Harbour Restoration Society relating to The Manukau Harbour and whether it needs a better management plan; and whakamihi / thank them for their attendance.

 

 

 

 

6          Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input

 

 

 

7          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 February 2024

 

Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request – ‘Pukekohe East Precinct 2’ at 50 Pukekohe East Road and 47 Golding Road, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2024/00185

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To decide how to process a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited (the Applicants) to rezone approximately 27.15 hectares of land at Pukekohe from Future Urban Zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report considers under clause 25 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act (RMA), a private plan change request received from OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited to rezone approximately 27.15 hectares of land at Pukekohe (the subject site) from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP). 

3.       A precinct plan and precinct provisions are also proposed. The developable area of the plan change land is about 12.7 hectares and it is predicted by the Applicants that the plan change would allow about 580 new dwellings in this part of Pukekohe. A copy of the private plan change request is provided as Attachments A and B and summarised in this report.

4.       The council’s Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan was adopted in August 2019. The plan change request is generally consistent with the structure plan. It is also generally consistent with other planning documents that have been adopted by the council, including the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031. 

5.       The council has recently released decisions approving two private plan changes in this area. Plan change 76 (PC76 known as Pukekohe East Central Precinct) became operative on 20 July 2023 and is immediately opposite Golding Road from the subject site. PC76 is planned for 900 dwellings. Plan change 74 (PC74 known as the Pukekohe Golding Precinct) became operative on 8 December 2023 and is further to the south down Golding Road. PC74 will accommodate approximately 920 dwellings. PC76 and PC74 have specific infrastructure upgrading requirements to meet as development proceeds. Similar infrastructure requirements would also apply to the private plan change area.

6.       The council’s recently finalised Future Development Strategy (FDS) was published on 22 December 2023 and has resulted in amendments to various aspects of past planning directions. This private plan change request was lodged at the time a 2023 “development ready” period applied. The recent adoption of the FDS now sees the subject site sit within an area identified as being 2035+, based on the expected time by which bulk infrastructure will be available.

7.       With regard to relevant matters of infrastructure, stormwater will be addressed by the Applicants entirely within the site and at their cost. As proposed by the Applicants, there are no stormwater implications beyond the site. Wastewater from this area will be connected to a new pump station which is already required to be developed in the PC76 area. Water supply will be via an extended watermain along Golding Road which is already required for PC76 and other developments to the south. The major local roading infrastructure required is an upgrading of the Golding Road / East Street / Pukekohe East Road intersection, and the road frontages approaching that intersection in Golding Road and Pukekohe East Road.  The intersection upgrading (beyond a set threshold of development) is already required for PC74 and PC76. 

8.       For this private plan change the Applicants have undertaken to adopt the same threshold requirements, to not seek public funding towards upgrading the intersection in advance of planned timing and to not seek contributions for upgrading their side of Golding Road and Pukekohe East Road from the private plan change site up to the intersection. This leaves wider roading infrastructure related to the Pukekohe South-East Arterial and the Mill Road (Bombay) Upgrade which are interregional transport links and subject to a much wider area of need and benefit. Auckland Transport has advised there is still some scope for further development without those upgrades. The Applicants are aware they would need to pay their share of development contributions when they are implemented.

9.       Current indications are therefore that the private plan change area could be developed in advance of the 2035 period in the new FDS, subject to the same thresholds and restrictions on development that are now in place in the PC76 and PC74 areas. Having regard to Policy 8 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (which requires the council to be responsive to plan changes that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments even if the development capacity is out-of-sequence with planned land release), it is considered appropriate that the private plan change request is accepted and that it proceed to the next step of notification and further assessment.

10.     It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted for processing under clause 25(2)(b) of the RMA and publicly notified for submissions on the basis that, having regard to relevant caselaw, the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, and it is more appropriate to accept the request than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)         whakaae / accept the private plan change request by OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited as detailed in Attachments A, B and C to the agenda report, pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act (RMA), for the following reasons:

i)     The private plan change has been competently prepared, including a section 32 evaluation report and a range of supporting technical reports and responses to clause 23 further information requests.  While there are issues to be addressed, the request seeks a rezoning that is generally consistent with the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan.

ii)    Accepting the private plan change request will enable a range of matters to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process.

iii)   While the private plan change request incorporates the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as required by section 77G(1) of the RMA it is not appropriate to adopt the private plan change. The proposal is generally consistent with the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan, however this is not an area the council has placed a high priority on in respect of pursuing urban zonings at this time.

iv)   The grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause 25(4) are limited and, having regard to relevant case law the private plan change request should not be rejected because:

A)      The request is not frivolous. The Applicants have provided supporting technical information and the private plan change has a resource management purpose.

B)    The request is not vexatious, and the Applicants are not acting in bad faith by lodging the private plan change request.

C)   Following other plan changes that have recently been processed in this area there is an increasing base of knowledge about potential infrastructure effects.  Further, a coarse-grained assessment of the request indicates that any issues can be addressed, for instance by the adoption of appropriate plan change provisions supported by infrastructure agreements, so it is not considered that the plan change is contrary to sound resource management.

D)   A coarse-grained assessment does not indicate that the private plan change will make the Auckland Unitary Plan contrary to Part 5 of the Resource Management Act.

E)    The provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years.

v)    It is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application as the request seeks to rezone a substantial area of land for development over a period of time rather than undertake a single development project. Rezoning cannot occur by way of a resource consent.

b)      tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Central South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

11.     The land subject to the plan change request is located at the entry to eastern Pukekohe.  The land is bounded by Golding Road to the west, Pukekohe East Road to the north and lifestyle and rural properties to the east and south (see these boundaries marked in yellow in Figure 1).  Pukekohe East Road is a 70km/hour road, classified as an arterial route under the AUP and links the center of Pukekohe to the State Highway 1 Southern Motorway at the Mill Road interchange. 

12.     Golding Road is a collector / arterial road that will provide access to developing urban land to the south, including that now enabled by PC74 (now operative and known as the Pukekohe Golding Precinct) and PC76 (now operative and known as the Pukekohe East Central Precinct) (these plan change areas are identified on Figures 1 and 2 below).

Figure 1 – Plan change area (viewed to the south-west, approaching Pukekohe from SH1/ Bombay)

 

13.     The proposed/subject plan change area is zoned Future Urban Zone (FUZ) (see Figure 2 below). Land to the north of the proposed plan change area across East Street is in an existing and partly developed Residential Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone. Land to the east and south is currently in rural use but is zoned FUZ. Land across Golding Road to the west has recently been rezoned MHU zone in PC76 and is currently undergoing the initial stages of development.

14.     The Pukekohe Town Centre and the Pukekohe Railway Station are located approximately 1.8km west of the plan change area via the main East Street entry to Pukekohe.

Figure 2 – Existing Zoning

15.     The subject plan change land comprises two existing sites. The land has an undulating contour punctuated by multiple watercourses including two permanent streams, with associated wetlands, running through to both the western and eastern boundaries. One dwelling is located within the southwestern part of the land and there are scattered farm buildings in other locations, with the land generally otherwise being used for pastoral grazing of livestock including cattle. There are shelterbelts and a combination of riparian vegetation, groups and individual large exotic and native trees spread throughout the site.

Plan Change Request

16.     The proposed plan change map, precinct plan and provisions are provided in Attachments A and B, and the proposed plan change assessment of environmental effects (AEE) and section 32 evaluation are provided in Attachment C. There are also a wide range of supporting technical reports, all of which have been reviewed by a council team of staff and appointed consultants.

17.     The proposed zone change is intended to enable residential development of the subject land via a new MHU zoning as shown in Figure 3 below.  The rezoning of approximately 27.15 hectares is expected to allow for development of up to around 580 dwellings. The plan change application’s AEE report refers to council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (FULSS) identifying the site to be development ready within the period 2023-2027. In that respect it should be noted that the FULSS has now been replaced by the FDS that sets a new time-period for this area to be development ready, being after 2035. This is based on the expected timeline for delivery of necessary bulk infrastructure. See further comment on this in the ‘Future Development Strategy Section’ of this report below.

Figure 3 – Proposed rezoning

18.     As well as areas for residential development the private plan change application identifies areas with recognised natural values for protection and management, and recreational use. A concept masterplan (not part of the formal plan change) is shown below in Figure 4. This shows the following areas:

·    Residential Development Area (12.7ha)

·    Natural Streams/10m wide Riparian Areas (5.4ha)

·    Open Space / No Development Areas (2.5ha)

·    Road Reserve (5.8ha)

Figure 4 – Concept Master Plan

19.     The concept masterplan is intended to demonstrate that the land is capable of delivering well-integrated, well-connected and spatially coherent urban development, while also recognising and providing for protection and enhancement of natural features, including the wetlands and their margins. A shared path is shown through the site running centrally alongside the watercourse and riparian margin from west to east and to the north of a proposed Public Open Space Reserve to the east of the area. 

20.     The concept masterplan is also designed to integrate with the now operative plan change to the west (PC76) via a road linking Pukekohe East Road, Golding Road, and Birch Road to the south-west. This will give more direct access from this proposed plan change area via Birch Road to the Pukekohe Railway Station.

21.     A new precinct “Pukekohe East-Central Precinct 2” is proposed, the express purpose of which is for land use, development and subdivision to be undertaken in a manner that: allows the stream and road network to be integrated with residential and open space development within the precinct, to provide for stormwater management needs, and to recognise the relationship of mana whenua with the land and its resources.

22.     A proposed precinct plan shows key movement connections, proposed open space areas adjoining streams and wetlands inclusive of riparian buffers, and a potential future neighbourhood park.

23.     The proposed precinct plan provisions require subdivision and development to be undertaken in accordance with the precinct plan, including the stream and riparian areas and opportunity for vesting/ future development of a park. The precinct provisions also require stormwater management controls that are specific to the precinct and apply the front boundary fencing (and front yard landscaping) to adjoining open space areas. This is so that the residential interface with these areas provides for privacy as well as opportunities for passive surveillance and streetscape amenity.

24.     The original plan change request was lodged on 22 August 2022. A request for further information was then made on 19 September 2022. Information has progressively been provided by the Applicants since that date, with the final required information having been received on 24 October 2023. 

Relevant Planning Framework

National Directives

25.     The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) came into effect in July 2020. The ‘intensification plan change’ required under the NPS-UD was notified by the council on 18 August 2022. The application AEE considers the proposed plan change to be consistent with the NPS-UD, including for the following reasons:

·    the subject land, being zoned FUZ, provides for planned residential capacity in a way that will enable the Pukekohe-Paerata residential market to increase market competitiveness

·    the plan change is able to integrate with the planned infrastructure and funding for the area

·    the height enabled by the MHU zone is appropriate and broadly consistent with the expectations of the NPS-UD.

26.     At this preliminary stage, the AEE’s assessment is generally supported, noting however that the pressure for further residential zoning in at least this part of Pukekohe has been eased though the now-operative PC74 and PC76. As further discussed under the Future Development Strategy heading below, the council’s recently released revised FDS has moved back the “development ready” timing for this area to 2035+. However, regard must still be given to Policy 8 of the NPS-UD which is:

Local authority decisions affecting urban environments are responsive to plan changes that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments, even if the development capacity is:

(a)   unanticipated by RMA planning documents; or

(b)   out-of-sequence with planned land release.

27.     The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Act came into law in December 2021. The Act requires the introduction of new standards – the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). This is being done in Auckland through the current Plan Change 78 and associated Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) plan change processes. However clause 25(4A) of Schedule 1 provides that the council must not accept or adopt a private plan change request that does not incorporate the MDRS as required by section 77G(1) of the RMA. At least as an interim measure, the plan change does incorporate the MDRS, including reference to qualifying matters where the precinct plan shows areas that are less enabling of development than the MDRS normally allows.  It is noted that the proposed Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone is the closest zone to aligning with the MDRS.

28.     The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) is relevant to the streams and wetlands that exist in the plan change area. A major objective of the NPS-FM is to ensure priority is given to the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems. The NPS-FM is recognised in the application documents which conclude that the proposed stormwater management and stream/ riparian protection approach, along with the existing AUP provisions, will ensure that development enabled by the plan change appropriately gives effect to the NPS-FM. The plan change process will further examine the extent to which the NPS-FM is relevant on the subject land, including in respect of wetlands.

29.     The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) came into effect in September 2022. The AEE notes that the north-eastern portion of 50 Pukekohe East Road was, some time ago, used for horticultural activity and the land was used for general agricultural purposes during the 19th century. However, the site has been used for dairy farming or grazing only for many years and the land is not identified as containing highly productive soils. In any case, having been specifically identified by the council for urban development, the land is not subject to protection under the NPS-HPL.

Auckland Plan

30.     The Auckland Plan 2050 is the council’s spatial plan, as required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Plan contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region based on a quality compact approach to accommodating growth. This approach anticipates most growth through intensification within existing urban areas, with managed expansion into the region’s future urban areas and limited growth in rural areas.

31.     Significant growth is anticipated in the Pukekohe area with approximately 1700 hectares of land for future urban development having been identified with the potential to accommodate approximately 14,000 dwellings by 2050 (of a total 320,000 dwellings for the region as a whole).

Regional Land Transport Plan

32.     The Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 (RLTP) acknowledges KiwiRail’s intentions, within the current planning period, for the electrification of rail services between Papakura and Pukekohe and the construction of a new rail station at Paerata. These works are currently underway. These are the only transport works proposed in the RLTP to be funded in the Pukekohe area.


 

Supporting Growth Alliance / Te Tupu Ngātahi

33.     The Supporting Growth Alliance / Te Tupu Ngātahi is a collaboration between Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) in partnership with Auckland Council and mana whenua to plan transport investment in Auckland’s Future Urban zones over the next 10-30 years.

34.     Eight Notices of Requirement (NoR) for new or upgraded strategic and arterial transport routes in and around Pukekohe were lodged and notified in 2023. The NoRs propose lapse dates of 20 years each. The Pukekohe NoRs will proceed to a hearing commencing on 11 March 2024. 

35.     Locally, the following NoRs are of greatest relevance to this proposed plan change: 

(a)  NoR 2 (NZTA) comprises the Drury Pukekohe link which will provide for a new state highway including a shared path. It includes sections of new and upgrades of existing transport corridors from Great South Road, Drury in the northeast, connecting to State Highway 22 in the west, and the area in the vicinity of Sim Road/Cape Hill Road, Pukekohe in the south.

(b)  NoR 5 comprises the Pukekohe South-East Arterial, which proposes upgrades to part of Pukekohe East Road and Golding Road, and a new connection between Golding Road (from north of Royal Doulton Drive) and across Station Road and the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line to the existing industrial development on Crosbie Road to Svendson Road. It will form a primary east-west connection to assist in redirecting traffic and freight away from the Pukekohe Town Centre to provide additional resilience to the wider network. 

(c)  NoR 8 comprises the Mill Road and Pukekohe East Upgrade which proposes to upgrade the main route from Pukekohe to Bombay which is known as Mill Road (to the east) and Pukekohe East Road (to the west). The route provides an important strategic connection between Auckland and the Waikato and from SH1 to Pukekohe for traffic and freight.

Funding Mechanisms

36.     The assessments conducted by the Applicants have concluded that developer funding will be used for water and drainage infrastructure.  In respect of wider wastewater infrastructure, Watercare has advised that an approved business case is in place for an important element of necessary works – the Isabella Pumpstation and gravity main from Cape Hill inlet pipe to the Isabella Pumpstation. Watercare’s intention is to deliver these works by mid-2025.

37.     In respect of transport matters, KiwiRail has committed to improvements to the rail corridor (including electrification from Pukekohe to Papakura). There is no funding in place for any road network improvements in the Pukekohe area to respond to the increased demands, including demands from cumulative effects of new developments. However, the analysis that has been carried out by the Applicant for this plan change has not identified the need for any significant road upgrading works beyond those that are addressed in the proposed plan change provisions.

38.     A preliminary review of assessments by Auckland Transport indicates that, subject to detailed changes to plans and provisions that can be addressed through the plan change process, there will be no public funding issues. In that respect it is noted that the future development of this land was envisaged through the detailed process of assessing transport effects that was conducted through the PC74 and PC76 processes and it is important that this plan change, if accepted and ultimately approved, is consistent with the provisions that have been accepted in these other plan changes. 

39.     If it is confirmed this particular plan change is able to be accommodated without raising public funding issues, there may still be uncertainties in relation to future funding needs to address any shortfalls, for instance to mitigate cumulative effects. This is further discussed in the Future Development Strategy section of this report below.


 

Auckland Unitary Plan

40.     The AUP is Auckland’s RMA plan and is a fully combined planning document (i.e. regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan). The RMA requires that any change to the district plan and regional plan parts, as is proposed here, must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.

41.     Part B2 of the Regional Policy Statement sets out the objectives and policies that must be given effect to. The objectives and policies in B2.2 are of particular relevance. Amongst other matters, these provisions seek to ensure that sufficient development capacity and land supply is provided to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial growth and social facilities to support growth (Objective 3) and that urbanisation is contained within the Rural Urban Boundary, towns, and rural and coastal towns and villages (Objective 4). The subject land is within the Rural Urban Boundary.

42.     The Regional Policy Statement then enables rezoning of future urban zoned land for urbanisation following structure planning (Policy 3). Rezoning proposals are subject to a number of stated aims that include supporting a quality compact urban form; providing for a range of housing types and employment choices for the area; integrating with the provision of infrastructure; and following the structure plan guidelines as set out in Appendix 1 (Policy 7).

43.     The proposed private plan change is generally consistent with and will give effect to these provisions. Importantly, the council has prepared a structure plan for Pukekohe-Paerata and the subject land is within the structure planned area. As discussed below, the plan change is generally consistent with the structure plan.

Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan

44.     Development of the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) commenced in August 2017 and concluded in August 2019 when the final version of the plan was adopted by the council’s Planning Committee. The relevant part of the structure plan map is shown in Figure 5, the subject land being within the blue circle as marked. The subject land is part of Area G in the structure plan.

Figure 5 – Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan (extract)

45.     The Structure Plan shows the subject site as accommodating:

·    Mostly Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zoned land (there is a small area of Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) land on the south-eastern extent of the plan change area)

·    A 20m (possibly to be refined) Riparian Buffer along each side of Permanent and Intermittent Streams

·    A potential new Neighbourhood Park (size 3,000m2 – 5,000m2) to the east of the proposed plan change area

·    1% AEP Flood Plains

·    A collector road connection from an extension of Birch Road through to Pukekohe East Road.

46.     The private plan change request is generally consistent with the structure plan, with some exceptions. Most significantly, the structure plan illustrates a future arterial road from an extended Birch Road on the western side of Golding Road through the subject land to connect with Pukekohe East Road. That alignment has since changed, including as a result of further work undertaken by the Supporting Growth Alliance and through detailed examinations conducted in association with PC76. That has resulted in a more northerly alignment that runs through the PC76 and this plan change land. The revised alignment has been adopted in the proposed precinct plan.  

47.     The original arterial road alignment was adopted in the structure plan as a boundary between indicatively proposed MHU and MHS zonings. Now that the arterial road alignment has moved, the Applicants have simply adopted MHU zoning across the whole of the land subject to the plan change. As noted, this is consistent with the MDRS requirements of the RMA, however the appropriate density of development in the area may need closer examination through the plan change process, given factors such as the undulating contour and possible landscape effects arising from future development. 

48.     The Applicants are proposing part of a neighbourhood park at the eastern extent of the plan change area. The structure plan notation for a neighbourhood park is further to the east.  The proposed positioning and shape of a park can be more closely examined through the plan change process and may need to change as a result of that process.

49.     There is a notation on the structure plan map of the Rooseville Tuff Ring South. The submitted AEE states that the tuff ring is not located in the plan change land area.

Infrastructure

Water Supply

50.     A minimum sized 250mm watermain is already required to be extended along Golding Road for the operative PC76 area and other developments to the south. The subject land will require an extension of the water supply reticulation network from the PC76 area. For development that lies above the 60m RL contour a new booster pump station will be required which the developer(s) will need to fund and construct (that requirement for a new booster pump station also applies for any combined development exceeding 1,000 dwellings). The proposed development area would then be serviced via watermains located in the future road reserves reticulated throughout the development area.

Wastewater

51.     The Applicants have advised that, as a result of detailed design development of the PC76 area, the previous intention to link the subject site into the PC76 system has been replaced with a plan to have an independent wastewater pump station immediately east of Golding Road, with a rising main discharging into the proposed gravity network at the eastern end of the extended Birch Road. Flows would then be conveyed via a new gravity sewer down Birch Road (constructed as part of the PC76 development) to connect to the new gravity transmission line to be installed along Station Road by Watercare (programmed for completion by late 2025). Discussions are still underway with Watercare in relation to this proposal.


 

Transport

52.     The plan change land is located on a major entry road into Pukekohe and is approximately 1.8km from the Pukekohe train station. It is expected that bus and train services will be significantly enhanced over time to accommodate the anticipated demands associated with growth in Pukekohe. This includes the currently planned and funded extension of the current rail electrification from Papakura to Pukekohe which is proposed to be completed within the short-term future.

53.     The Pukekohe Notices of Requirement for strategic and arterial upgrades have been discussed earlier under the heading: Supporting Growth Alliance / Te Tupu Ngātahi.

54.     Roads within the plan change area will be provided by the developer. With regard to impacts on existing roads in the immediate locality the application identifies the three key intersections being East Street / Golding Street / Belgium Road: East Street / New Collector Road / Anselmi Ridge Road and Golding Road / New Collector Road. Precinct provisions will need to ensure that these intersections are upgraded when traffic generation meets prescribed thresholds.  The need for upgrading the key intersections has already been addressed in the PC74 and PC76 precinct provisions.

55.     In addition, future developers of the subject land will need to fund necessary upgrades to the site frontages with Pukekohe East Road and Golding Road. It is expected that the means by which these works will be secured without placing expectations on unplanned public funding will be the subject of close analysis of the precinct provisions through the plan change process, and may also need to be the subject of an infrastructure agreement between Auckland Transport, and / or Auckland Council and the Applicants. This analysis will be assisted by the work that has already been carried out, in relation to PC76 in particular.

56.     With regard to walking and cycling it is proposed that this will be managed by providing footpaths, pedestrian crossings, separated and protected cycle facilities, a low-speed local street network, and consistency with the Pukekohe-Paerata Paths Plan 2018. Precinct provisions will need to ensure that this can be implemented through future subdivision application procedures.

Stormwater

57.     Stormwater matters have been the subject of discussions with council’s Healthy Waters staff and further information has been provided by the Applicants. A stormwater management plan (SMP) has been provided with the application and has been prepared to achieve the best practicable options for the long-term management of stormwater from the site which are also addressed in the proposed precinct provisions. The network capacity assessment has found that the downstream system has sufficient capacity to cater for potential future development in accordance with the plan change land.

58.     Mitigation measures are to be adopted as part of future development including reuse tanks and detention in proposed wetlands which will also provide treatment. Two central wetlands are proposed to be located in the floodplain in a drainage reserve area and are intended to attenuate stormwater to achieve catchment neutrality as close as possible. The SMP approach is described as being ‘green infrastructure’ based and seeks to maintain and enhance natural assets and amenity values. It is further considered that planting around the streams will minimise erosion of stream beds.

Flooding

59.     There are flood areas associated with overland flowpaths and streams – see council’s GIS hydrology information in Figure 6 below (hatched areas are flood prone or flood sensitive areas and light blue areas are flood plains).

Figure67 – Hydrology (Auckland Council GIS)

60.     Mitigation measures proposed include substantial riparian margin enhancement. Flood modelling undertaken on behalf of the Applicants shows that, post development, flooding will be reduced from the current state. Notwithstanding this, there will still be areas subject to flooding. These have been shown on the precinct plan as open space no-development areas. It has not yet been confirmed whether these areas will be publicly owned or community managed. Precinct provisions will need to ensure there is no funding or significant maintenance burden on council asset managers. These matters are capable of being refined through the detailed plan change assessment process.

Other Matters

Ecology

61.     The permanent streams traversing the plan change land have been assessed by the Applicant as having low ecological values. The precinct plan and precinct provisions provide for the protection and significant enhancement of the streams and wetlands and their margins. Impacts on ecology are matters that would be considered through the detailed plan change assessment process.

Contamination

62.     A Preliminary Site Investigation by the Applicant has not identified any significant land contamination. A review of this investigation would be undertaken through the detailed plan change assessment process.

Land Stability / Geology

63.     The submitted geotechnical report states that initial investigative work has found no signs of large-scale instability and that the site is unlikely to be constrained by significant slope stability. It is further stated that weak, organic or compressible alluvial deposits are likely to be encountered within the gullies and overland flow paths in low-lying parts of the site and there are signs of bank erosion and localised slippage. Most of these areas are not being identified for development in the proposed precinct plan, however it is still likely in some cases that material will require removal and replacement with engineered fill.

64.     In general, it is noted that the undulating contour of the land is likely to require detailed analysis through future subdivision and development consenting stages. No fundamental issue has been identified that suggest the areas proposed for residential development are not suitable for that purpose, subject to appropriate measures being put in place.

Future Development Strategy 2023

65.     Auckland Council finalised and published the FDS on 22 December 2023. The FDS provides a current state review of urban growth drivers and constraints and sets out five principles for growth and change. The intended spatial response continues the quality compact approach to accommodate growth, as set out in the Auckland Plan 2050 with a focus on providing a greater degree of intensification in existing urban areas, with less reliance on expansion into future urban areas. There is also a renewed focus on aspects of quality.

66.     The FDS expresses concern about the timing of development and the number and spread of areas being re-zoned from future urban to urban, particularly because of private plan changes that have not followed the sequenced approach provided for through the FULSS.  This has resulted in development in an increasing number of future urban areas that has put more pressure on the council’s ability to obtain financing and provide funding to service development, especially when there are already severe affordability constraints. 

67.     In respect of future urban areas the FDS sets out adjustments to the sequencing and timing of re- zoning to reflect the realities of infrastructure funding and provision and the significant capacity for development in the existing urban area. In addition, the most hazard constrained parts of future urban areas are proposed to be re-zoned to an appropriate non-urban zoning.

68.     There is no intention in the FDS to change the FUZ zoning of the subject land, however timing for its development has moved out to 2035+. This is about 12 years beyond the past time horizon in the relevant planning documents. The FDS does however leave open the possibility for council to consider private sector initiatives which find practical ways to provide infrastructure either through direct provision, or funding council to accelerate its own infrastructure provision where that contributes significantly to housing and business capacity and meets the requirements of a well-functioning urban environment.

69.     The infrastructure and funding concerns indicated as being a major issue in the FDS are arguably not as acute here as in other locations. The FDS lists several ‘infrastructure prerequisites’ for Pukekohe East, these being:

·    Pukekohe South-East Arterial

·    Mill Road Upgrade (Bombay Interchange and Harrisville Road)

·    Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

·    Pukekohe Trunk Sewer.

70.     As discussed earlier, NoRs have been lodged by AT and NZTA for the two roading projects as part of a package of eight NoRs. Electrification of the Papakura to Pukekohe section of the North Island main trunk line (NIMT) is in progress currently, and Watercare continues to progress the upgrading of the Pukekohe Trunk sewer, with a business case in place for constructing a new pump station near Isabella Drive and a new gravity main from Cape Hill inlet pipe to the new pump station by late 2025.

71.     As noted above, infrastructure provision and planning for water and wastewater is already being progressed. The Applicants will address infrastructure for stormwater on their own site, and at their expense. In respect of transport infrastructure, the land is in reasonable proximity to the Pukekohe Centre and is closely aligned with planning for the PC76 land across Golding Road, including the provision of a collector road which is required to be constructed at the developer’s expense and will ultimately link through to the Pukekohe Rail Station and Pukekohe East Road. 


 

72.     The FDS notes that growth in Pukekohe east will ultimately require upgrades to Mill Road (south) to provide four traffic lanes from the Bombay motorway interchange through to the turn off to Tuakau at Harrisville Road. This is effectively an interregional project as it is also required to meet traffic demands from planned growth in Tuakau. The financial responsibility for this work rests with NZTA (refer to the earlier discussion on the NoRs). This work therefore does not create any funding implications for the council. As per the earlier discussion on the transport NoRs, the Supporting Growth Alliance work indicates that the remainder of Mill Road/ Pukekohe East Road can remain as a two laned road as it is currently, albeit with the addition of cycle lanes. Any development of current zoned land -adjoining Pukekohe East Road will require cycle lanes across their frontage as they would for any collector road they build.

73.     As a result, the major item of roading infrastructure that would be required is a new Golding Road / East Street / Pukekohe East Road intersection.  There is no public funding for that intersection, however it is already required to be upgraded for the PC74 and PC76 areas and would be required past a given threshold of new dwellings, for this plan change area.

74.     In order to be consistent with the FDS council would need to have confidence that there will be no call on public funding not otherwise in the Long-term Plan for this or any other unplanned works, with the possibility then being that full private funding would be required.  The Applicants have been alerted to this concern and have indicated via letter to the council’s General Manager Plans and Places that they will not seek public funding for works in advance of the timing that would otherwise be put in place. 

75.     At this stage, and considering that the issues to be addressed appear possible of resolution, it is considered that the FDS should not be a reason for this plan change not proceeding to notification.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Statutory context: Resource Management Act 1991

76.     Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.[1] The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,[2] and procedural steps added[3] including the opportunity to request information.

77.     The Applicants are required to include the information set out in clause 22, which states that:

·   a request made under clause 21 shall be made to the appropriate local authority in writing and explain the purpose of, and reasons for, the proposed plan or change to a policy statement or plan and contain an evaluation under Section 32 of the RMA for any objectives, policies, rules, or other methods proposed; and

·   where environmental effects are anticipated, the request shall describe those effects taking into account clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule 4, in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential environmental effects anticipated from the implementation of the change, policy, statement or plan.

78.     Additional information has been received from the Applicants following a formal request for further information under clause 23 of Schedule 1. The council staff who have evaluated the request consider that the Applicants have provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered.


 

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

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

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

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

·   Reject the request in whole or in part, in reliance on one (or more) of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4).

80.     Having regard to the principles established by the relevant case law, the consideration of private plan change requests under clause 25 involves a "threshold test" and a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the private plan change is determined.

81.     Case law has also established that “where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change” (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22, applied in Orakei Point Trustee Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117).

Options available to the council

82.     The next section of this report assesses the various options available to the council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself

83.     The council can decide to adopt the request, or part of the request. The council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. If the council adopted the request, or part of the request, it would not be able to significantly modify the plan change (as that would mean that the plan change council advanced was no longer the plan change which it adopted). Adoption of the private plan change would also likely constrain the council’s ability to lodge substantive submissions.

84.     The Applicants have not requested that the council adopts the private plan change request and, given that there have been recent plan changes made operative in this area which arguably relieves growth pressures that previously existed, there is no great justification for council adopting the plan change.

85.     It is therefore recommended that the private plan change request is not adopted for the following reasons:

a)   the request does not address a currently recognised gap in the AUP or change provisions that apply locally or across the Auckland region

b)   the request is a site-specific proposal that is likely to be of most immediate or direct benefit to the Applicants, rather than the wider public.

Option 2: Reject the request, in whole or in part

86.     The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one (or more) of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the Applicants have the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1.


 

87.     The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:

a)   the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

b)   within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:

i.    has been considered, and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

ii.   has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

c)   the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

d)   the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

e)   in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

88.     Frivolous means not having any serious purpose or value. Vexatious means denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance.

89.     The plan change is generally accompanied by a detailed analysis under section 32 of the RMA and is generally consistent with the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan. In that respect the request cannot be considered to be frivolous.

90.     The Applicants are not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request.

91.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

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

92.     These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. The AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016 and applied a Future Urban zone over the majority of land in the subject plan change area. The substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council in the last two years.

93.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on this basis.

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

94.     Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The site is not within the coastal marine area and does it involve aquaculture activities, and therefore section 360A regulations are not relevant.

95.     It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on the basis that the substance of the request has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

96.     In a recent Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:

“[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009)

[14] Priestley J said in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95) that the words sound resource management practice should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act's purpose and principles. He agreed with the Environment Court's observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act's purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption (CIV-2009-404-005572).

[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).”

97.     Consideration of this ground should therefore involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level” - and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles – noting that a full merits assessment will be undertaken if the request is accepted.

98.     The courts have also accepted that "sound resource management practice" can include issues of timing and process. For example, the Environment Court in Malory Corporation v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 stated:

"[60] We conclude that the question of sound resource management practice goes well beyond questions of planning merit to include fundamental issues as to appropriate process, timing and the like.  It can include non-planning matters such as engineering, cultural, and other issues.”

99.     The term “sound resource management practice” is not defined in the RMA. However, relevant case law indicates Part 2 of the RMA provides an important starting point to developing criteria as to whether sound resource management practice has been followed. The following matters may be relevant (and are addressed in the paragraphs which follow):

(a)   will the plan change undermine sustainable management of natural and physical resources?

(b)   will the plan change enable people and communities across the region to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing?

(c)   section 32 is another important aspect of sound practice is there sufficient justification of the proposed provisions, at a coarse level?

(d)   the plan change preparation process and the nature and extent of consultation expected under Schedule 1 is important. Has best practice been followed?

100.   A coarse-grained analysis indicates that management techniques in respect of the natural stream and wetland systems in particular are generally consistent with the expected strategies. Those systems are identified and are proposed to be protected. It is possible that the management techniques may need to be further refined, however there is no reason to conclude that sustainable management of natural and physical resources cannot be achieved.

101.   The subject area of the private plan change request is within the Rural Urban Boundary and within an area that has been structure planned. The plan change is accordingly generally consistent with the measures that have been planned to serve community wellbeing in this area.


 

102.   Necessary infrastructure upgrading and funding mechanisms for that upgrading will need to be adequately addressed, including in the final plan change provisions. However, the current coarse-grained analysis has not indicated any issue that suggests the proposal can be considered contrary to sound resource management or significant enough to justify rejection of this private plan change request. The advancement of NoR 5 (AT) and NoR 8 (NZTA), as well as the other Pukekohe Transport Project NoRs, together with the electrification works underway for the Papakura to Pukekohe section of the NIMT and the upgrading of Watercare’s Pukekohe Trunk sewer network, indicates progression towards providing for the listed FDS Infrastructure prerequisites for Pukekohe East.’

103.   In any event, the zoning pattern and provisions now proposed are subject to review through the plan change process. Most importantly, council accepting the plan change as currently proposed does not indicate that council agrees with all parts of the plan change content.  The council itself, for instance, may make a submission on the plan change. 

104.   If approved, the plan change request would provide for housing in an area that has been generally identified for such development. It would complement other growth within the wider area.

105.   A competent section 32 analysis has been provided with the application, with further information provided subsequent to council requests. At a coarse level sufficient justification has been given for the proposed provisions.

106.   The Applicant’s representatives have consulted with iwi and have worked with council departments during the preparation of the private plan change request.

107.   Based on the above reasoning, it is considered that the plan change should not be rejected on the grounds that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.

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

108.   Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan.

109.   These matters have been addressed earlier in this report. It has been concluded that, on balance, the council should not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

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

110.   The plan provisions of the AUP relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.

111.   It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts of the AUP have been operative for less than two years.

112.   To conclude in relation to this option it is considered there are no grounds under clause 25(4) to rely on to reject the private plan change request.

Option 3: Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

113.   The council could decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 would then apply accordingly.

114.   In this case, the request seeks to rezone land and introduce precinct provisions to manage subdivision, use and development. As stated in the AUP itself, the most appropriate process for achieving development within the Future Urban zone is a plan change following the structure planning process. Rezoning cannot occur through a resource consent application.

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

Option 4: Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part

116.   The council could accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part under clause 25 of Schedule 1, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The council would hold a hearing by independent commissioners to consider submissions, and a decision would be made in relation to the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. All associated costs (including notification and any hearing) would rest with the Applicant.

117.   This option is the only remaining option available to the council for consideration. It is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, having regard to relevant case law, and it is more appropriate to accept the request for processing than to adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application, the reasons for which are outlined above. If the private plan change is accepted, the matters raised by the application can be considered on their merits during a public participatory planning process. If accepted, and notified, the plan change would not have legal effect until it is approved and made operative by the council.

Conclusion: options assessment

118.   To comply with RMA timeframes, the council must now make a clause 25 decision to accept, adopt, treat as a resource consent application or reject the private plan change request by the Applicant. If the private plan change request is accepted, the private plan change will be publicly notified for submissions. Any issues raised will be a matter for the independent commissioners to consider when making a substantive decision on the private plan change request, in terms of whether it should be approved, approved with modifications or declined.

119.   The caselaw on clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides that:

·   where a private plan change request, on a coarse merits assessment, does not accord with the purpose and principles of the RMA, it will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption; but

·   where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change.

120.   In this case, on a coarse merits assessment and based on the relevant case law, it is considered appropriate for the council to accept the private plan change request and for it to go through to the public participatory process (i.e. accepting the plan change for public notification and hearing). Accepting the private plan change request for processing would enable the more detailed benefits and costs of the plan change to be assessed.

121.   Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA, case law and associated documents, it is recommended that the council accepts the request and notifies it for submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

123.   It is noted that the decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself.

124.   The subject site is in an area identified by the council for urban development. The relatively central location and medium density residential development proposed, in an area reasonably close to public transport modes (including the Pukekohe railway station), will assist with mitigating the effects of climate change. While parts of the site are subject to localised flooding, the plan change proposes a range of mechanisms to address this. 

125.   Should the council accept the private plan change request for processing, climate impacts can be considered in a future hearing report on the private plan change request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car dependency, enhances connections to public transport, walking and cycling or supports quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks (such as flooding).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

126.   The Applicant has held discussions with Auckland Transport staff and AT have provided the Applicant with detailed comments. No fundamental concerns have been raised at this stage.  Generally, AT considers many of the issues raised could be appropriately addressed within the plan change through adoption and adaptation of the PC 76 precinct provisions that were agreed through expert caucusing. As is often the case with private plan changes, it is to be expected that Auckland Transport will conduct its own further review, and if accepted by the council, may lodge a submission on the plan change.

127.   As noted under the Funding section of this report above, Watercare has been consulted and has advised that development of this area is contingent on measures being put in place by the developer and capacity improvements in the public system.  These are not currently seen as being impediments to the plan change proceeding.  However, noting that wastewater infrastructure planning has been ongoing, Watercare will conduct its own further reviews and may lodge a submission on the plan change.

128.   Key assessments by the council staff and consultant team, including in the areas of urban design, landscape architecture, ecology, stormwater, development servicing, heritage and transport confirm that the Applicant has provided sufficient information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

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

Local impacts and local board views

129.   Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application. Although the committee is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. The clause 25 decision does not affect the Franklin Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

130.   If accepted, staff will prepare a summary of any submissions received and provide the opportunity for the local board to give feedback on the private plan change. Any feedback received must be taken into account by the independent hearing commissions appointed to hear and make the council’s decision on the private plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

131.   An important objective in part B.6 of the AUP’s Regional Policy Statement is that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi are recognised through Mana Whenua participation in resource management processes. This in turn recognises Mana Whenua as specialists in the tikanga of their hapū or iwi and as being best-placed to convey their relationship with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga. 

132.   Ultimately, mana whenua values, mātauranga and tikanga need to be properly reflected and accorded sufficient weight in resource management decision-making. An applicant should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.

133.   Through the development of the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan the council engaged with four iwi with mana whenua customary interests over the structure plan area, being Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Ākitai Waiohua. Huakina Development Trust was also involved with this engagement. The subject site is within a Ngāti Tamaoho Whangapōuri Statutory Acknowledgement area.

134.   The application AEE provides the following commentary on the consultation that has been conducted:

In response to the initial correspondence sent to iwi groups, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata both requested engagement and an opportunity to provide a Cultural Values/ Impact Assessment in regard to the PPC. No response was received from other iwi groups. It is noted that Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata were two of the four iwi with mana whenua customary interests over the structure plan area that actively engaged with the council as part of their preparation of the Structure Plan (see Section 6.1.3 of this report).

Both iwi group representatives have undertaken a site visit, and a CIA has been provided by Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua.  Ngāti Tamaoho has advised it is to provide an addendum CVA to that provided for the first plan change application (Plan Change 76).   

A further letter was provided to Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua on 29 June 2022, to provide the Concept Master Plan and the draft Precinct Plan, and to set out the key aspects of these.

During ongoing consultation, Ngāti Tamaoho has initially advised that it that did not support stormwater devices within floodplains due to flooding resuspending discharges directly into the receiving environment. [Ngāti Tamaoho’s representative advised that she would be happy with work with the Applicant’s team to design a wetland that will not become inundated. In this regard, Civix’s Engineers have acknowledged Mana Whenua values in the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), noting comments on stormwater matters within the CVA/CIA and Section 4 of the SMP states that the stormwater designs for the site align with Mana Whenua values and concerns.  It is also relevant that the Precinct rules are drafted to recognise and provide for Mana Whenua considerations and for input into stormwater management designs at the resource consent stage. 

Further liaison was also held with Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua on the proposal and some of the key concerns and issues set out in the CIA.  An email was provided in response to these matters on 21 July 2022, including further information on the Rooseville Tuff Ring and clarification that the Site is located outside of this, and further comment on the issue of adopting 10m riparian reserves widths instead of the 20m riparian widths specified in the Structure Plan.  This email also noted that amendments to the draft Precinct Rules would be made to provide further recognition of Mana Whenua values.


 

Amendments have been made to the draft Precinct Provisions to reflect the feedback received to date and the amended provisions have been provided to both [Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho’s representatives]. There has also been a further hui (via Teams) with [Ngati Te Ata’s representative] on 2 August 2022. At that hui, [Ngāti Te Ata’s representative] advised that the concerns around impacts on the Rooseville Tuff Rings have been addressed and provided further comment on the draft Precinct Provisions. The draft provisions included with this AEE have accordingly been prepared in consultation with (and input from) Mana Whenua. 

Both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua have been advised that the Applicant views the engagement process as an ongoing one, for as long as is required.

135.   If accepted, all iwi authorities within an interest in the plan change area will be notified and will be able to make a submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

136.   Please refer to the Future Development Strategy section of this report above. Some relevant public works have been approved (rail and wastewater), however further funding for public infrastructure is not provided for in the current Long-term Plan. While it is not envisaged there will be significant works required specific to development in this area, and that any issues associated with those works appear to have the potential to be addressed, there may be works required, for instance as a result of cumulative effects on infrastructure. 

137.   The FDS notes that growth in Pukekohe east will ultimately require upgrades to Mill Road (south) to provide four traffic lanes from the Bombay motorway interchange through to the turn off to Tuakau at Harrisville Road. This is effectively an interregional project as it is also required to meet traffic demands from planned growth in Tuakau. The financial responsibility for this work rests with NZTA who has recently lodged notices of requirements for it. This work therefore does not create any funding implications for the council. 

138.   The Supporting Growth Alliance work inclusive of the NoRs discussed earlier in this report, indicates that the remainder of Mill Road/ Pukekohe East Road can remain as a two laned road as it is currently, albeit with the addition of cycle lanes. Providing for active modes (walking and cycling) between the subject site and Pukekohe town centre (via plan change provisions and a related infrastructure agreement) is a matter that can be investigated further during a detailed assessment of the proposed plan change.

139.   It is noted that the Applicant has undertaken via a letter to the General Manager Plans and Places to fund, or arrange funding themselves, for infrastructure that is not otherwise funded. To ensure that no non-developer funding obligations arise, attention will need to be given to ensuring that the detailed precinct provisions do not allow development to occur that results in any new or upgraded public infrastructure unless it is funded and that an infrastructure agreement is entered into that reflects the content of the letter from the applicant. 

140.   If accepted, costs for processing the private plan change will be recoverable from the Applicant up until any appeals to the Environment Court.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

141.   There are legal risks in either accepting or rejecting the private plan change request. If the request is rejected, the requestor may appeal the clause 25 decision to the Environment Court.

142.   An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision to:

a)   adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

b)   accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)

c)   reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6)

d)   deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.[4]

143.   It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted in whole for processing. The Applicants have requested the private plan change be accepted, and the risk of a legal challenge by the Applicants using clause 27 appeal rights is therefore not high.

144.   Risks associated with the plan change requiring council funding to be allocated to the area ahead of the timing in the FDS are addressed in the Future Development Strategy and Financial Implications sections of this report. A coarse-grained assessment of the request indicates that any risks can be addressed, for instance by the adoption of appropriate plan change provisions supported by infrastructure agreements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

145.   The private plan change request requires decision-making pursuant to clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, to determine whether it will be adopted, accepted, rejected or dealt with as if it were a resource consent application.

146.   If the private plan change is accepted, the council will publicly notify it and hold a hearing to consider any submissions and any local board views, and a decision would then be made in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

147.   If the private plan change request is rejected, the Applicant could appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court and an Environment Court hearing would be held in due course.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Zoning and Precinct Plan

 

b

Revised Precinct 2 Provisions Jan2024

 

c

AEE and s32

 

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Reaburn – Planning Consultant

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 February 2024

 

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - delegation for spoken interaction (Covering report)

File No.: CP2024/00719

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To delegate responsibility to hear feedback at consultation events on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 15 February 2024 Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 February 2024

 

Review of the Forward Work Programme - Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

File No.: CP2024/00266

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To arotake / review and tuhi / note progress on the 2024 Planning, Environment and Parks Committee forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The forward work programme for the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee adopted by the committee at its meeting held on 2 March 2023 (Resolution number PEPCC/2023/38) and reviewed on 7 September 2023 (Resolution number PEPCC/2023/127).  It was agreed that the forward work programme would be reported for information and reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

3.       All committees have been requested to review their forward work programme, by the end of March 2024.

4.       Following approval, all committee forward work programmes will be reported to the Governing Body in April and October each year, for oversight as per the Terms of Reference.

5.       The current forward work programme for the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee is appended as Attachment A.

6.       Specific amendments have been made since the last review, as follows:

·    Accelerating a Resilient Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland programme of work has meant that some items have been clarified and are noted on the work programme

·    items have been added on the legislative reform programme and as the timeframes have become clearer

·    reporting on several matters has been moved to the “completed” section of the document

·    items that do not require a committee decision have not been included in this report and will be communicated via briefings or memos

·    any new additions will be highlighted in red text

·    any deletions will be shown in strikethrough.

7.       Following the approval of the forward work programme, it will be reported to the Governing Body, for oversight as per the Terms of Reference. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      riro / receive and arotake / review the progress on the 2024 forward work programme as appended in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      whakaae / approve the updated forward work programme.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Forward Work Programme

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Miriana Knox - Executive Officer CPO

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 

 


Planning, Environment and Parks Committee

15 February 2024

 

Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings - 15 February 2024

File No.: CP2023/19804

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To whiwhi / receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following memoranda/information have been sent:

Date

Subject

13/12/2023

Memorandum – Update on the Safeswim programme 2023/2024

14/12/2023

Memorandum – Sport Recreation Facilities Investment Fund – FY25 funding round

20/12/2023

Memorandum - Kauri dieback management programme combined annual report 2021/2022 and 2022/2023

20/12/2023

Memorandum – Update on exotic Caulerpa incursions

20/12/2023

Memorandum – Helicopter activity

21/12/2023

Memorandum - Resource management reform: transitional National Planning Framework

9/1/2024

Memorandum – Response to the committee resolution PEPCC/2023/158

1/2/2024

Memorandum - Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023

7/2/2024

Memorandum - Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour – progress update

12/2/2024

Memorandum - Update on Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification

4.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place for the committee:

Date

Subject

7/2/2024

Strengthening the AUP - engagement plan and proposed National Policy Statement on Natural Hazards Decision-making, and updates - CONFIDENTIAL

5.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/te hui “Planning, Environment and Parks Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

a)      whiwhi / receive the Summary of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 15 February 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Memorandum – Update on the Safeswim programme 2023/2024, 13 December 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Memorandum – Sport Recreation Facilities Investment Fund – FY25 funding round, 14 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memorandum - Kauri dieback management programme combined annual report 2021/2022 and 2022/2023, 20 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memorandum – Update on exotic Caulerpa incursions, 20 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memorandum – Helicopter activity, 20 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Memorandum - Resource management reform: transitional National Planning Framework, 21 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Memorandum – Response to the committee resolution  PEPCC/2023/158, 9 January 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Memorandum - Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023, 1 February 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

Memorandum - Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour – progress update, 7 February 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

Memorandum - Update on Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification. 12 February 2024 (Under Separate Cover)

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 



[1] Clause 21, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[2] Part 1 Schedule 1 applies, as modified by clause 29 Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.

[3] Part 2 Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.

[4] Clause 27, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.