|
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee
11 April 2024
|
|
Proposed
Plan Change 78 – Intensification - Next Steps
File No.: CP2024/03740
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
receive an update on Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification (PC78)
and to decide:
a) the
council’s response to the Minister for Resource Management Reform’s
expectations in granting a further one-year extension for the council to make
decisions in relation to the Independent Hearings Panel’s (IHP)
recommendations once received; and
b) the
council’s response to the 4 April 2024 minute from the IHP.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland
Council notified Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification (PC78) to the
Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) on 18 August 2022, to incorporate the medium
density residential standards (MDRS)) into relevant residential zones, in
accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA), and to give effect to
policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020
(NPS-UD), to enable more height and density in specific locations in the urban
environment.
3. PC78
incorporated MDRS into relevant residential zones (the Terraced Housing and
Apartment Buildings, Mixed Housing Urban and proposed new Low Density
Residential zone) across Auckland.
4. The
Auckland Light Rail Corridor was excluded from the PC 78 maps following
resolution of the council’s Planning Committee on 22 June 2022
(PLA/2022/86p).
5. The
council wrote to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Resource
Management Reform on 1 February 2024 and sought a further one-year extension to
notify its decisions on the IHP recommendations on PC78. The Minister for
Resource Management Reform responded on 26 March 2024. The IHP hearing the
submissions on PC78 has issued minutes dated 28 March and 4 April 2024, seeking
further clarification in relation to aspects of the Minister’s letter.
6. The
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee needs to determine next steps for
PC78.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) tuhi
ā-taipitopito / note the letter from the Minister for Resource Management
Reform granting an additional one-year extension for the council to publicly
notify decisions on the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendations on
Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification from 31 March 2025 to 31 March
2026
b) tuhi
ā-taipitopito / note the expectations from the Minister for Resource
Management Reform, including the expectation to progress policies 3 and 4 of
the National Policy Statement on Urban Development as far as practicable
c) ohia
/ endorse progressing the City Centre zone, its precincts, and
“qualifying matters” (to the extent the “qualifying
matters” are relevant to the City Centre zone and its precincts) to
become operative.
d) whakaae
/ agree that most efficient way forward for the remainder of Proposed Plan
Change 78 is for the government to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to
enable the council to integrate the following matters:
i) Auckland
Light Rail Corridor (that was excluded from PC78 on notification);
ii) strengthened
provisions relating to natural hazards
iii) extent
of incorporation of Medium Density Residential Standards into all relevant
residential zones (subject to the government amending legislation as announced)
iv) remaining
parts of policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development.
e) tuhi
ā-taipitopito / note that the approach outlined in d) is prevented by the
Resource Management Act 1991 as it currently stands
f) tuhi
ā-taipitopito / note that the government has committed to enacting a
legislative change relating to Medium Density Residential Standards being made
optional by the end of 2024, and that the option to not incorporate Medium
Density Residential Standards into all relevant residential zones will come
with caveats
Further
correspondence with the Minister for Resource Management Reform
g) whakaae
/ agree that as a matter of urgency, the Mayor, Chair and Deputy Chair of the
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee should write to the Minister for
Resource Management Reform confirming the position stated in recommendation d)
above and including the strongly held view that:
i) the
hearings on the submissions on the City Centre zone, its precincts, and
“qualifying matters” (to the extent the “qualifying
matters” are relevant to the City Centre zone and its precincts) are
almost complete, and could be progressed to become operative
ii) it
is committed to progressing the new plan change at pace while the government is
progressing the legislative change relating to Medium Density Residential
Standards that it has committed to, and notifying a plan change within three
months of the legislative change being enacted
iii) it
supports a streamlined process for the new plan change that gives immediate
legal effect to provisions relating to natural hazards, and is open to
discussing whether some of the intensification aspects of the new plan change
should take effect at the time of notification.
Response to the
Independent Hearings Panel
h) whakaae
/ agree the council should provide the Independent Hearings Panel with a copy
of the letter referred to in g) and confirm the council will not be progressing
a variation to Proposed Plan Change 78 for the Auckland Light Rail corridor
with urgency, but will be able to notify a variation to Proposed Plan Change 78
for the Auckland Light Rail corridor (if the government does not allow the
council to withdraw Proposed Plan Change 78 in part) by 30 April 2025.
Horopaki
Context
National Policy Statement on Urban Development
7. The
former government introduced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
(NPS-UD) in July 2020. The NPS-UD is prepared under the Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA). It contains objectives, policies and a range of methods that seek
to achieve “well-functioning” urban environments. The council is
legally required to give effect to the NPS-UD.
8. A
key requirement of the NPS-UD (policy 3) is that the Auckland Unitary Plan
(AUP) must enable:
a) as much height
and intensity of development as possible within the City Centre zone, to
maximise benefits of intensification
b) buildings of at
least six storeys within the Metropolitan Centre zone
c) buildings of at
least six storeys within the “walkable catchments” from the edge of
the City Centre zone, from the edge of the Metropolitan Centre zone and from
existing and planned Rapid Transit stops
d) intensification
in and adjacent to other centre zones.
9. As
an exception, under policy 4 of the NPS-UD, the council is able to make
the relevant building height or density requirements under policy 3 less
enabling of development where it can justify “qualifying
matters” that warrant a lower height control or intensity of
development.
Resource Management (Enabling Housing
Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
10. The council
was in the process of developing a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to
implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD when the Resource Management (Enabling
Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (Enabling Housing Supply Bill)
was introduced to Parliament.
11. The Enabling
Housing Supply Bill specified a streamlined process for implementing the NPS-UD
and included an additional requirement that detailed Medium Density Residential
Standards (MDRS) had to be incorporated into relevant residential zones in the
AUP. “Qualifying matters” were also specified as enabling the
council to make the MDRS less enabling of development.
12. The Bill
referred to the required change to the AUP as an “intensification
planning instrument” (IPI). The Bill included clauses that required IPIs
to be notified for submissions by 20 August 2022 and prevented councils from
withdrawing an IPI (or part of an IPI) once notified.
13. The Bill was
opposed by the council because it was seen as contrary to the quality compact
city approach it had endorsed since the adoption of the first “Auckland
Plan” in 2012. In particular, the quality of housing that would be
enabled by MDRS was considered to be poor, and the requirement to enable
three-storey medium density housing in areas distant from employment, shops,
entertainment and frequent public transport services was seen as being at odds
with the outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan, the regional policy statement
chapter of the AUP, the Long-term Plan and good urban planning
principles.
14. The
Environment Select Committee did not accept the council’s submission on
the Bill and the Bill was enacted with relatively minor changes.
Proposed Plan Change 78 -
Intensification
15. The council
subsequently revised its draft NPS-UD plan change to incorporate MDRS,
consulted with Aucklanders on a draft IPI and notified its IPI (Proposed Plan
Change 78 – Intensification) (PC78) for submissions as required on 18
August 2022. 2,398 original submissions were received on PC78.
16. Given the
former government’s commitment to providing light rail from the city
centre to Māngere) and indications that the route for Auckland Light Rail
(ALR) and stops along the route would be confirmed in the near future, the
council decided to exclude land within the ALR study corridor from PC78 as
notified because height and density controls would need to be greater in this
corridor, but the council did not know where the ALR route would be at the time
PC78 was notified for submissions. The situation and reasoning for the
council’s decision were acknowledged by the previous government.
17. The IHP
appointed by the council to hear the submissions and make recommendations back
to the council has broken the hearings into multiple topics. The hearings
commenced in January 2023 and were scheduled to be completed by the end of
2023. However, the devastating impacts of the Auckland Anniversary floods and
Cyclone Gabrielle put a spotlight on the issue of whether PC78 could do more to
avoid increasing the risks to life and property associated with natural hazards
such as flooding, land slips and coastal erosion. As a result, the council requested
the former Minister for the Environment to grant a one-year extension from 31
March 2024 to March 2025 for the council to publicly notify its decisions on
the IHP recommendations on PC78. The council’s request was granted and
the IHP placed the majority of the hearings on hold.
Changes in Government Policy and other
recent events
18. Since
that time a number of events have occurred that have had a major impact on the
PC78 process:
· a major barrier to
strengthening the natural hazard rules in the AUP through a variation to PC78
was identified (section 80E of the Resource Management Act 1991) (see
Attachment A). The barrier prevents the council from making the necessary
changes to the AUP until PC78 has completed its process and is operative
· the new government
“cancelled” the Auckland Light Rail project
· the new government
confirmed, subject to meeting requirements around capacity for housing, it
would give councils the option of not incorporating Medium Density Residential
Standards (MDRS) (see the fifth action in Attachment B for the latest
confirmation of this from the government), which are a core part of PC78
· as a result of the
significant change in government policy, the council requested the current
Minister for the Environment to grant a further one-year extension from 31
March 2025 to 31 March 2026 for the council to publicly notify its decisions on
IHP recommendations on PC78 (see Attachments C and D). The council’s
request was recently supported by the Minister for Resource Management Reform
(see Attachment E). The letter granting the extension includes a set of
expectations.
· the IHP has
indicated it has progressed policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD as far as it can at
this point in time and has asked the council to respond to a number of questions
(see Attachment F).
19. Continuing
with PC78 in the face of these events and under the current legislative process
will result in multiple planning processes over the coming years, duplicating
work and costing the council (ratepayers) and submitters millions of dollars
unnecessarily.
20. Given
these events, it is important that the committee provides urgent direction in
relation to the council’s response to the Minister for Resource
Management Reform’s expectations and the council’s response to the
recent minutes dated 28 March and 4 April 2024 from the
IHP.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
21. The
Minister for Resource Management Reform has confirmed his expectation that the
council will progress as much of PC78 where practicable. In response to this,
staff and the council’s legal team have carefully considered which parts
of PC78 can be progressed to the point where the IHP could make recommendations
and the council could make decisions.
22. The
conclusion reached is that while PC78 in its entirety could be progressed to
the point of becoming fully operative (if a variation for the ALR corridor is
notified), there are significant problems with this approach. The advantages
and disadvantages of this option (Option 1), and the main alternative options
are set out in the table below.
|
Options for progressing Policies 3 and 4 of
the NPS-UD
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Option 1
Initiate a
variation to PC78 for the ALR corridor with urgency; progress PC78 to become
operative; and strengthen the provisions in the AUP that deal with natural
hazards once PC78 is operative
|
· The IPI process is concluded by mid-late
2025 (unless there are any judicial review proceedings on PC78 in the High
Court).
· Additional opportunities for housing, mixed
use and commercial development in areas supported by the Auckland Plan and
the regional policy statement chapter of the AUP come into effect by mid-late
2025 (unless there are any judicial review proceedings on PC78 in the High
Court).
|
· Delays the implementation of a plan change
to strengthen the provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards until at
least mid-late 2025 (if judicial review proceedings on PC78 are made to the
High Court this could take longer).
· Significant additional costs to the council
and the community/submitters when the council notifies a subsequent plan
change to strengthen the provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards
and potentially removes, partly removes and/or modifies MDRS. Many of the
same points made by submitters on PC78 and the ALR variation to PC78 would
need to be considered again.
· Significant public confusion and concern as
to why the council is progressing MDRS in the ALR corridor (and elsewhere)
ahead of considering the government’s option to not incorporate MDRS.
|
|
Option 2
– Recommended option
Progress the
City Centre zone and its precincts to become operative and work with the
government to amend legislation to enable the council to integrate the following
matters:
· Auckland Light Rail Corridor (that was
excluded from PC78 on notification)
· strengthened provisions relating to natural
hazards
· extent of incorporation of Medium Density
Residential Standards into all relevant residential zones (subject to the
government amending legislation as announced)
· remaining parts of policies 3 and 4 of the
National Policy Statement on Urban Development
|
· Enables a significant increase in the
development potential of Auckland’s city centre as soon as practicable.
· Enables the council to strengthen the
provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards in early 2025.
· Avoids significant additional costs to the
council and the community/submitters when the council notifies a subsequent
plan change to strengthen the provisions in the AUP relating to natural
hazards and potentially removes, partly removes and/or modifies MDRS. Many of
the same points made by submitters on PC78 and the ALR variation to PC78
would need to be considered again.
· Avoids significant public confusion and
concern as to why the council is progressing MDRS in the ALR corridor (and
elsewhere) ahead of considering the government’s option to not
incorporate MDRS.
|
· Additional opportunities for housing, mixed
use and commercial development outside the City Centre zone, in areas
supported by the Auckland Plan and the regional policy statement chapter of
the AUP, would not be enabled until mid-late 2026 (unless given immediate
legal effect at the time a subsequent plan change is notified).
|
|
Option 3
Progress the
City Centre zone and its precincts, and all walkable catchments outside the
ALR corridor unaffected by natural hazards, to become operative, and work
with the government to amend legislation to enable the council to integrate
the following matters:
· Auckland Light Rail Corridor (that was
excluded from PC78 on notification)
· strengthened provisions relating to natural
hazards
· extent of incorporation of Medium Density
Residential Standards into all relevant residential zones (subject to the
government amending legislation as announced)
· remaining parts of policies 3 and 4 of the
National Policy Statement on Urban Development
|
· Enables a significant increase in the
development potential of Auckland’s city centre, and an increase in the
development potential of walkable catchments unaffected by natural hazards,
as soon as practicable.
· Enables the council to strengthen the
provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards in early 2025.
|
· Significant additional costs to the council
and the community/submitters when the council notifies a subsequent plan
change to strengthen the provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards
and potentially removes, partly removes and/or modifies MDRS. Many of the
same points made by submitters on PC78 concerning the zoning and provisions
relating to walkable catchments and qualifying matters that apply across the
urban area would need to be considered again.
· Significant public confusion and concern as
to why the council is progressing aspects of MDRS that apply within walkable
catchments ahead of considering the government’s option to not
incorporate MDRS.
· PC78 does not include all walkable
catchments due to the ALR corridor not being included. As a result, decisions
on this aspect of PC78 could be perceived as predetermining the approach to
walkable catchments within the ALR corridor. This raises issues of natural
justice for those with an interest in walkable catchments within the ALR
corridor, but not involved as submitters in the process at this point in
time.
· Additional opportunities for housing, mixed
use and commercial development outside the City Centre zone, in areas
supported by the Auckland Plan and the regional policy statement chapter of
the AUP, would not be enabled until mid-late 2026 (unless given immediate
legal effect at the time a subsequent plan change is notified).
|
23. Option
2 is recommended as the advantages of this option are considered to outweigh
the advantages of Option 1 and Option 3. While enabling additional
opportunities for housing and development in the right places has benefits over
time, the AUP was developed to enable significantly more opportunities for
housing than enabled under the legacy district plans of the council’s
predecessors, and there are considerable opportunities for development to occur
in and around centres and stops on the Rapid Transit Network prior to
implementing the remaining parts of policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.
24. The
Minister for Resource Management Reform in recent speeches has provided more
direction on his overarching direction for land use across the country,
including the availability of 30 years of housing capacity. While it is still unclear
how 30 years of housing capacity will be defined, indications are that the
Minister will expect any reduction in capacity to be replaced elsewhere within
the region.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
25. This
report relates to the process of implementing central government policy rather
than the merit of that policy in terms of outcomes such as impacts on climate.
26. However,
it is noted that aspects of PC78 support a reduction in travel times and
distances by private motor vehicle (e.g. through increasing the density of
housing enabled within a short walk of the City Centre zone, Metropolitan
Centre zone and existing and planned Rapid Transit stops. This is beneficial in
terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change.
27. Other
aspects of PC78 arguably increase the likelihood of people having to travel by
private motor vehicle. In particular, PC78 is required to enable three-storey
medium density housing across Auckland’s entire urban area, including in
areas that are distant from centres and employment, and will remain poorly
served by public transport. This is detrimental as it would increase greenhouse
gas emissions and exacerbate climate change.
28. While
climate change is often associated with increases in temperature, there is also
evidence that increases in severe weather events (such as the Auckland
Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle) are linked to climate change. As
discussed above, section 80E of the Resource Management Act prevents the
council from strengthening the provisions in the AUP that deal with natural
hazards until PC78 is operative.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā
tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and
views
29. Staff
from across the council group were extensively involved in developing PC78 and
have been involved in the hearings to date. In terms of the impacts of the
NPS-UD and the MDRS on assets owned and managed by the council group, staff at
Auckland Transport, the council’s Healthy Waters department and Watercare
with the delegated authority to represent the views of those parts of the
council group have all expressed some concerns. Policy 4 “qualifying
matters” have been included in PC78 to address some of those concerns.
30. Staff
with the delegated authority to represent the views of Auckland Transport and
the council’s Healthy Waters department have indicated support for Option
2. The views of Eke Panuku and Watercare have been sought and can be discussed
at the committee meeting.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me
ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board
views
31. All
local boards (other than Aotea-Great Barrier and Waiheke) were involved in
developing PC78 and a number of local boards have provided their views on PC78
to the IHP. Some local boards are opposed to most, if not all aspects of PC78,
while others support aspects of PC78 (e.g. the increased opportunities for
housing around centres and stops on the Rapid Transit Network).
32. Given
the need to act with urgency, it has not been possible to establish the views
of local boards in relation to the two options discussed in this report.
Regardless of which option the committee wishes to pursue, the relevant local
boards will be involved in the process and will have a further opportunity to
provide their views to the committee, and to the IHP prior to and during the
hearings.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
33. The
council sought input from Māori throughout the development of PC78 and a number of iwi authorities
have submitted on the plan change.
34. Regardless
of which option the committee decides to pursue, Māori
will be involved in the consultation process for any
future variation or plan change and will have a further opportunity to provide
their views to the committee, and to the IHP prior to and during the hearing of
submissions for any variation or plan change.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
35. PC78
has its own dedicated budget in the current and draft Long-term Plan. The
budget is based on the law as it currently stands (i.e. PC78 must be progressed
to the point of becoming fully operative by 31 March 2026). The draft Long-term
Plan also includes a dedicated budget for a plan change to the AUP to
strengthen the provisions relating to natural hazards.
36. However,
as discussed above, should option 1 or option 3 be pursued, and be followed by
another plan change that removes, partly removes and/or modifies MDRS, additional
budget would be required. A major benefit of option 2 is that a plan change
that implements the remaining parts of policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD;
strengthens the provisions in the AUP relating to natural hazards; and responds
to the option to not incorporate MDRS into all relevant residential zones could
be progressed within the budgets included in the current and draft Long-term
Plan.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā
whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
37. The
main risks associated with the recommendations made in this report are:
a) the
IHP changes its view and considers that it can and should progress through the
remainder of the PC78 hearings
b) the
government does not agree to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to enable
the council to integrate the following matters:
i) Auckland
Light Rail Corridor (that was excluded from PC78 on notification)
ii) strengthened
provisions relating to natural hazards
iii) extent of
incorporation of Medium Density Residential Standards into all relevant
residential zones (subject to the government amending legislation as announced)
iv) remaining
parts of policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development.
38. The
main mitigation for the first risk is to provide a clear and timely response to
the IHP.
39. The
main mitigation for the risk in relation to the government’s approach to
changing the relevant legislation is to ensure that the Mayor, Chair and Deputy
Chair remain in close contact with the Minister for Resource Management Reform,
and that council staff are able to undertake discussions with the
Minister’s officials.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
40. Should
the committee support the recommended option (option 2), the next steps would
be for:
a) the
Mayor, Chair, Deputy Chair to write to the Minster for Resource Management
Reform outlining the council’s views in relation to the way forward for
PC78 and implementing policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD
b) the
Mayor and Chair to discuss the letter at the meeting with the Minister for
Resource Management Reform on 17 April 2024
c) the
council to provide the IHP with a copy of the letter, together with a
memorandum that confirms the council will not be progressing to notify a
variation for the Auckland Light Rail corridor with urgency, but will be able
to notify a variation for the Auckland Light Rail corridor (if the government
does not enable the council to withdraw Proposed Plan Change 78 in part) by
April 2025
d) any
response from the Minister for Resource Management Reform and the IHP to be
provided to the committee, and if necessary, a further decision-making report
prepared.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Letter to Minister Parker regarding
section 80E and natural hazards
|
17
|
|
b⇩
|
Coaltion Government's Action Plan -
April to June 2024
|
19
|
|
c⇩
|
Letter to Minister for Resource
Management Reform and the Minister for the Environment from the Chair and
Deputy Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee seeking an
extension
|
21
|
|
d⇩
|
Letter to Minister for Resource
Management Reform from the Mayor seeking an extension
|
25
|
|
e⇩
|
Letter from the Minister for Resource
Management Reform to the Mayor granting an extension
|
29
|
|
f⇩
|
Direction from the Independent
Hearings Panel regarding the letter from the Minister for Resource Management
Reform
|
31
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans
and Places
|
|
Authoriser
|
Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy
|
