Agenda of Policy and Planning Committee

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Proposed revocation of the reserve status of 2R Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga

File No.: CP2024/20890

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for Auckland Council to request the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status of the land at 2R Tī Rākau Drive, Pakūranga.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council-owned land at 2R Tī Rākau Drive, Pakūranga is reserve land subject to the Reserves Act 1977. It is mostly local purpose (utility) reserve, although there is one small parcel classified as recreation reserve.

3. The land surrounds the Pakūranga Plaza and is comprised of sealed carparks and accompanying accessways. The carparks are available to anyone wanting to park their car in the area but this will predominantly be people who work and shop at the Plaza. Auckland Council is the administering body of the reserves which are managed and maintained at public expense.

4. Auckland Council considers that:

· holding the land under the Reserves Act is no longer necessary or appropriate, primarily because the land does not have any or sufficient reserve value when assessed in terms of the Act;

· the community benefit of the land is better served by holding the land free of the Reserves Act restrictions, and in particular using it as part of Eke Panuku’s urban regeneration programme to take place alongside the Eastern Busway development.

5. In May 2022, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the land subject to the conclusion of any required statutory processes (FIN/2022/25). In this case, the necessary statutory process is the revocation of the land’s reserve status.

6. The council has followed the Reserves Act process for reserve revocation. It has given public notice of the proposed revocation and sought submissions or objections in relation to it. An Independent Commissioner was appointed to consider the submissions received, hear those submitters who said they wished to be heard in support of their submission, and provide recommendations to the council. A public hearing was held in November 2024.

7. The Independent Commissioner has provided his hearings report, which recommends that the council proceed to seek the Minister of Conservation’s consideration of the reserve revocation.

8. Approval is now sought from the Policy and Planning Committee to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status of the land.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Council notifying the Minister of Conservation that it considers the reservation of the land as reserve should be revoked;

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that in accordance with the process in the Reserves Act 1977, Auckland Council gave public notice on 18 October 2023 of its proposal to revoke the reserve status of reserve land at 2R Tī Rākau Drive, Pakūranga;

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that objections to the proposal, together with submissions and evidence, have been heard and considered by the Independent Commissioner appointed by the council, who has recommended that Auckland Council proceed to seek the Minister of Conservation’s consideration of the reserve revocation proposal;

d) whakaae / accept the Commissioner’s recommendation;

e) whakaae / agree that the reasons for the reserve revocation are that;

i) the land does not have any or sufficient value as reserve land and holding it under the Reserves Act is not necessary or appropriate;

ii) the community benefit is better served by holding the land free of the Act’s restrictions and using it as part of the urban regeneration programme to take place alongside the Eastern Busway development;

iii) the provision of the reserve land for car parking for (mainly) private benefit is not a justifiable Reserves Act purpose;

iv) the revocation of the reserve status will not result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity or value of the type intended to be protected by the Reserves Act.

Horopaki

Context

9. Auckland Council owns the land at 2R Tī Rākau Drive, Pakūranga (the land). The land has the status of reserve, held subject to the Reserves Act. The council is the administering body for the reserve under the Reserves Act. Seven of the eight lots that make up the land are classified as local purpose (utility) reserve, and one parcel classified as recreation reserve. The property details are contained in Attachment A.

10. The land is predominantly used for car parking. It surrounds the Pakūranga Plaza shopping centre. The car parks are available to anyone needing to park their car in the area, but this will mainly be shoppers at the Plaza and people who work at the Plaza.

11. The council considers that holding the land under the Reserves Act is no longer necessary or appropriate, because the land does not have any or sufficient reserve value when assessed in terms of the Reserves Act. The land will provide greater community benefit by being held free of the Reserves Act restrictions.

12. The council’s retention of the land as reserve, at public expense, is out of step with its aspirations for Pakūranga, principally those connected to the Pakūranga Town Centre Masterplan adopted by the Howick Local Board in 2015 and Eke Panuku’s programme of urban regeneration that is running alongside the Eastern Busway.

13. Eke Panuku’s urban regeneration programme aims to deliver strategic, high-quality, sustainable residential, commercial and public realm development integrated with the rapid transit project.

14. The Strategic Regeneration Overview (SRO) produced by Eke Panuku details the vision, strategy, outcomes and key strategic opportunities for the urban regeneration programme. The work proposed aims to support and stimulate the region’s economy, enable sustainable city growth, and be a major opportunity to create amazing places. It will also maximise the council’s investment in the busway.

15. Pakūranga has been identified as a key strategic opportunity within the programme. The main opportunity at Pakūranga is for mixed-use development across the council’s landholdings, integrating the proposed Pakūranga bus station, and where able partnering with other Pakūranga Plaza landowners to facilitate regeneration.

16. On 5 May 2022 the council’s Planning Committee approved the urban regeneration programme and endorsed the disposal of the land, subject to the conclusion of any required statutory processes, with the objective of contributing strategically and financially to the outcomes of the urban regeneration and renewal of the neighbourhoods in the Eastern Busway corridor (PLA/2022/49).

17. On 19 May 2022, the council’s Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of the land subject to the conclusion of any required statutory processes (FIN/2022/25).

18. This was preceded by the Howick Local Board’s endorsement of the urban regeneration programme for Pakūranga and the disposal of the land on 21 April 2022 (HW/2022/41).

Reserve Revocation Process

19. If the land is to be disposed of, its status as reserve must first be revoked. This requires the grounds for reserve revocation in the Reserves Act to be satisfied, and the process in section 24 of that Act to be used.

20. Auckland Council has followed the prescribed process:

a) On 18 October 2023 the council gave public notice (both to the public generally and to mana whenua) of its proposal to revoke the reserve status of the land, in order to enable future divestment and development of the land as part of the urban regeneration proposed for Pakūranga.

b) A total of 34 submissions were received from the public, one in support and 33 in opposition to the proposal. One objection was subsequently withdrawn. The bulk of the objections were made by the owner and tenants of Pakūranga Plaza. The most common matter raised by objectors related to the loss of parking for customers visiting the businesses at the Plaza. There were no objections/submissions from mana whenua.

c) The Reserves Act requires that the council consider any objections made to the proposed revocation. Given the level of interest in the proposed revocation, on 9 April 2024, the council’s Regulatory and Community Safety Committee approved the appointment of an Independent Commissioner with Reserves Act experience to consider the submissions and provide recommendations to the council on whether or not to proceed with the reserve revocation process (RSCCC/2024/28).

d) On 13 August 2024, the council’s Regulatory and Community Safety Committee approved the appointment of Kitt Littlejohn as Independent Commissioner (RSCCC/2024/57).

e) Two objectors, namely Pakuranga Plaza Limited (PPL), which owns most of the Plaza, and the owner of Woolworths, General Distributors Limited (GDL), wished to have their objections heard by the Independent Commissioner. That hearing was held on 27 November 2024.

21. The Independent Commissioner was delegated responsibility for considering the submissions/objections received on the proposed revocation, and providing a recommendation to the council. This recommendation informs the council’s decision whether to request the Minister to revoke the reserve status.

22. The Commissioner has now recommended that the council pursue the proposed revocation by notifying the Minister. Should the Policy and Planning Committee agree to request that the reserve status of the land is revoked, a final decision will be made by the Minister.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public Hearing

23. In addition to considering the written submissions/objections received on the proposed revocation, the Independent Commissioner held a hearing on 27 November 2024. All information is available on Council’s website.

Council hearing report and legal submissions

24. In advance of the hearing, Eke Panuku prepared a report on the matters raised in objections. That report was supplemented by legal submissions filed on the council’s behalf, which addressed matters that arose during the hearing.

25. The hearing report set out:

· the history of the land and its vesting as reserve

· detail of the current use of the land

· assessment of the reserve value of the land against Reserves Act criteria

· information on the potential use of the land should the reserve status be revoked

· the process followed by the council to progress the proposed revocation

· a summary of the objections received, and the council’s response to those objections

26. By way of summary, Auckland Council’s position was that:

a) Holding the land under the Reserves Act is no longer necessary or appropriate, primarily because the land does not have any or sufficient reserve value when assessed in terms of the Reserves Act.

b) The provision of car parking for (mainly) private benefit is not a justifiable Reserves Act purpose.

c) The revocation of the reserve status will not result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity or value of the type intended to be protected by the Reserves Act.

d) The community benefit is better served by holding the land free of the Reserves Act restrictions, and in particular freeing it up for use as part of the urban regeneration proposed for Pakūranga, as informed by the Pakūranga Town Centre Masterplan and Eke Panuku’s Urban Regeneration Programme in connection with the Eastern Busway.

Objectors’ submissions

27. Legal submissions were filed in support of the objections made by PPL and GDL. The key matters raised in those submissions, and which are discussed in more detail in the Independent Commissioner’s report, were:

a) An alleged lack of consultation in advance of the notification of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Land.

b) That the council had failed to specify the reasons for the proposed revocation in the public notice and therefore failed to comply with the requirements of the Reserves Act.

c) That since the land was originally vested as ‘utility’ reserve for car parking, the revocation of the reserve status was not appropriate because the land was still being used for this car parking purpose. This was the basis for arguments by PPL and GDL that the land still had value as reserve, and that revocation could not be justified.

d) The lack of a sufficiently concrete proposal as to the future use of the land.

Independent Commissioner’s conclusions and recommendations

28. The Independent Commissioner considered all matters raised by the council and objectors. The full report from the Independent Commissioner is attached (Attachment B). The Independent Commissioner concluded that:

a) The process followed by the council was in accordance with the Reserves Act.

b) The land was classified as local purpose (utility) reserve, and not “carpark reserve”. In the context of the revocation process, little weight can be given to the current use of the land for carparking, because that is not the specific purpose for which it was vested.

c) On balance the land has neither intrinsic community value when assessed by reference to the purpose of the Reserves Act nor warrants its continued status as reserve.

d) There is a sound legal and factual basis for the council to seek to revoke the reserve status of the land.

29. The Independent Commissioner has therefore recommended that the council proceed to seek the Minister’s consideration of revocation of reserve status.

30. Accordingly, staff recommend that the Policy and Planning Committee approve the council requesting the Minister to revoke the reserve status of the land, for the reasons set out in paragraph 26 above.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. Revocation of the reserve status of the land is only a change in legal status and would not have any immediate climate impacts. If the reserve status of the land is revoked, the land would be held by the council as freehold land and not subject to the Reserves Act.

32. However, revocation of the reserve status by the Minister would enable the land to be considered for urban regeneration and future development. If the land was to be used for urban regeneration purposes, and in line with Eke Panuku’s Climate Change Strategy, future development on the land can be designed to ensure new communities are sustainable, low carbon and climate resilient. Sustainability and climate change adaption objectives and requirements would be embedded within masterplan design and development agreements. The development of the land, which is located in close proximity and to and integrated with the Eastern Busway transport infrastructure (Pakūranga bus station and accompanying cycleways and footpaths), would build communities with less dependence on driving and which are more climate friendly.

33. Emissions associated with any potential redevelopment can be reduced through development standards agreed through a future development agreement, application of Eke Panuku’s Homestar 6 policy and requirements to reduce carbon emissions in commercial developments.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. Prior to the Independent Commissioner’s consideration of the revocation proposal, the Council’s Land Advisory Services team (under Parks and Community Facilities Department) carried out an assessment of the reserve value of the land against the purpose of Reserves Act. That assessment informed the report that was prepared for the Independent Commissioner. The Land Advisory Services team support the revocation of the reserve status of the land.

35. Revocation of the reserve status of the land would not have any immediate consequences for other parts of the council group, as the council would continue to own the land, albeit free of the restrictions under the Reserves Act.

36. If the reserve status is revoked, the land provides an opportunity for regenerative development integrated with the transport infrastructure. If that was to occur, Eke Panuku would deliver this in alignment with the work being undertaken by Auckland Transport and the Eastern Busway Alliance at Pakūranga and along the length of the busway.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. The Howick Local Board has endorsed the urban regeneration programme for Pakūranga and, if the reserve status of the land is revoked, the disposal of the land. The local board has been updated on actions and progress throughout the revocation process during workshops, officer meetings with the Chair, and through memos. Subject to being able to successfully revoke the reserve status, local board input will be sought in a masterplanning exercise for the land at Pakūranga

38. In line with the urban regeneration programme’s communications and engagement plan, there is ongoing engagement with the Mayor, Howick ward councillors and the Pakūranga MP.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. No issues of cultural significance were raised in objections/submissions on the revocation proposal, and as noted above, mana whenua did not object to the proposed reserve revocation.

40. Through Eke Panuku forums, mana whenua have been updated on revocation process actions and progress.

41. If the reserve status of the land is revoked, mana whenua input will be sought as a part of a masterplanning exercise for the land.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. Revocation of the reserve status of the land would not have any immediate financial consequences as the council would continue to own and maintain the land.

43. It is the council’s understanding that the land has been used as car parking since the shopping centre opened in the 1960s. The council has been responsible for the costs of maintenance and upkeep since this time. The full cost of this work is not known but Eke Panuku has incurred costs of $60,000 in FY25 alone. The land mainly benefits commercial operators (the shopping centre owners and their tenants) and the council does not accrue any financial benefit.

44. The council receives no payment of rates for the land. The rates bill for FY25 is $125,000.

45. Revocation of the reserve status would enable the land to be considered for urban regeneration and divested. If that occurred, it would result in:

· capital sale receipts for the council;

· maintenance costs being transferred to a third party; and

· receipt of rate payments from the new owner (or owners) of the land.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. Revocation of the reserve status of the land is at the discretion of the Minister after receipt of a request to do so from the relevant local authority or administering body. There is a risk that the Minister will not revoke the reserve status of the land. In those circumstances the land would remain in council ownership subject to the Reserves Act. It will mean that the opportunity is lost for the council to leverage its investment in the Eastern Busway.

47. To mitigate this risk, Eke Panuku will work to address any issues raised by the Minister should the Policy and Planning Committee agree to request that the reserve status of the land be revoked.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48. Subject to Policy and Planning Committee approval, officers will request that the Minister revoke the reservation status of the land. The request to the Minister will include all relevant council resolutions, objections and submissions received, and the Independent Commissioner’s report and recommendation.

49. If the Minister approves the request, a notice will be published in the New Zealand Gazette revoking the reserve status of the land under section 24 of the Reserves Act.

50. Any development or disposal is contingent on the revocation of the reserve status. In the event the Minister revokes the reserve status, Eke Panuku will explore further the opportunities for divestment and development of the land in alignment with the council approved urban regeneration programme.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Property Details (Titles & Aerial Images)
b ⇨	Hearing Panel recommendation report 19.2.2025

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Gulina Monroe - Strategic Property Specialist, Eke Panuku

Gary Jackson - Principal Property Advisor

Authorisers

Marian Webb - General Manager Assets and Delivery, Eke Panuku

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the Auckland District Plan - Proposed Plan Change - Helipads

File No.: CP2025/02868

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for public notification of a proposed plan change to the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the Auckland Council District Plan (HGI Plan) Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities (Helipads).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In recent years concerns were raised at the (then) Planning, Environment and Parks Committee with regard to the actual and potential noise effects of an increasing number of helipads being approved by resource consent on Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier Islands. Reports on planning, resource consenting and compliance monitoring have been presented to the committee and in 2023 a change was made to amend the HGI Plan to incorporate National Planning Standard 15 for the measurement of helicopter noise from a three-day rolling average to one day.

3. On 14 March 2024 the committee resolved (resolution PEPCC/2024/14) to address matters related to community, iwi and environmental concerns and directed staff to prepare a plan change to amend Rule 13.2 of the HGI Plan to add the NZ Coastal Policy Statement as a matter of discretion to be considered in helipad consent applications.

4. Since then, work has been carried out to prepare the plan change. Consultation has taken place with the Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier local boards, iwi authorities, Civil Aviation Authority and various council departments.

5. A section 32 report (Attachment A to this report) has been prepared as required under the Resource Management Act for the development of plan changes. The s32 report analyses the current provisions for helipads against the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and against the relevant provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA). Based on the analysis the report goes on to consider four options to add the NZCPS to Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities and to make a recommendation on the best option.

7. Rule 13.8.2 as amended by the Option 3 (the Plan Change) is provided as Attachment B to this report. This option will clarify the need to consider the relevant policy directives in the NZCPS as applicable to the matters of discretion (noise and visual effects) for helipads as Restricted Discretionary Activities (RDA) in the consideration of effects.

8. Option 3 will deliver a focused plan change to better manage adverse effect of noise from helicopters on the natural and cultural environment.

9. The committee’s approval is sought to publicly notify the recommended option (Option 3) as a Proposed Plan Change to the HGI Plan – ‘Amendment to Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity (Helipads)’.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the notification of proposed Plan Change ‘Helipads – Restricted Discretionary Activities to the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the Auckland Council District Plan – as outlined in Attachment B of the agenda report

b) ohia / endorse the section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment A of the agenda report

c) tāpae / delegate to the General Manager of Planning and Resource Consents the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed plan change and/or Section 32 report prior to public notification.

Horopaki

Context

10. There are currently 64 helipads on Waiheke and 11 helipads on Aotea/Great Barrier.

11. Concern has been expressed by the community and local boards about the numbers of helipads and the impacts of noise on residential amenity values and on ecological and cultural sites.

12. A number of reports and memorandum have been provided to the (then) Planning, Environment and Parks Committee detailing the rules of the HGI Plan and the AUP as they relate to establishment and operation of helipads and the jurisdictional matters on that issue (see part A3 to Attachment A). These have confirmed that the current HGI Plan Rule for Helipads as a Restricted Discretionary Activity (Rule 13.8.2) is able to consider a wide range of effects and that, subject to early implementation of the National Planning Standard 15 (‘NPS15’) for helicopter noise measurement (removing use of a 3-day rolling average), the rule could be considered to provide an adequate effects assessment.

13. The recommendations in the reports and memorandum were that Rule 13.8.2 could be retained until the next review of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) subject to early implementation of NPS15. It was identified that the adequacy of the assessment of effects under the existing rule and the high cost of plan changes indicated that use of the AUP review was the most effective and efficient process to investigate a comprehensive review of the approach to helipad management in the Hauraki Gulf for the future. This took into consideration that the HGI Plan will not be renewed outside of the AUP. The AUP review must fully incorporate the Hauraki Gulf islands into the AUP.

14. Resolution PEPCC/2023/48 of the committee (30 March 2023) acknowledged the AUP review commencing in 2026 as appropriate for undertaking any comprehensive review. As an interim measure, the committee also resolved to amend the HGI Plan to adopt the NPS15 early (removing use of the 3-day rolling average for helicopter noise measurement), together with further reporting on consents monitoring and improvements to the complaints processes relating to helicopter activity, and for development of consent processing guidelines.

15. The implementation of the resolution was reported on 20 December 2023. It confirmed that the NPS15 was incorporated into the HGI Plan on 20 April 2023; the process for reporting complaints about helicopter activity had been improved with amendments to the council’s complaints webpage; and consent processing guidelines had been prepared. The guidelines cover all aspects of processing helipad consents applications including highlighting amenity values, ecological and cultural considerations.

16. The committee received a Notice of Motion from Cr M Lee on 14 March 2024 seeking plan changes to the AUP and HGI Plan to introduce Prohibited Activity Status. The committee remained of the view that the AUP review was appropriate for a comprehensive review of the regulatory framework but noted the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement as a specific issue to be considered and addressed in the interim period.

17. The committee recognised that the NZCPS was gazetted after the HGI Plan had been notified so the HGI Plan was based only on the HGMPA s7 and 8 (under s10 these are recognised as NZCPS policies). The committee considered this situation could have a bearing on the assessment of effects and resolved that a plan change to the HGI Plan Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity be initiated to add the NZCPS to Restricted Discretionary Activities as a matter of discretion. On the 14 March 2024 the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee resolved:

PEPCC/2024/14

That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:

…

e) noting the need to integrate the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan with the Auckland Unitary Plan, at a later date, but in the interim:

i) Direct staff to prepare a plan change to amend Rule 13.8.2 of the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan to add the NZ Coastal Policy Statement as a matter of discretion to be considered in helipad consent applications;

18. Four options were developed in the context of the above and are summarised in the analysis and advice section and detailed in chapter four of Attachment A to this agenda report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. An analysis of the directives contained in the NZCPS and HGMPA is included in the s32 report to identify the degree of alignment between the two. This investigation was carried out in light of the HGI plan having been developed prior to the NZCPS 2010 and therefore being based on the HGMPA s7 and 8 (under s10 these are recognized as NZCPS policies).

20. The analysis identifies that there is a high level of correlation between directives of the NZCPS and the matters contained in HGMPA policies 7 and 8. This finding indicates that the provisions of the HGI Plan governing helipads, although prepared under the HGMPA, may be considered consistent with the NZCPS in its current form.

Perceived Rule Weaknesses

21. The concerns raised by the Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier local boards and tangata whenua indicate there are areas of weakness in the assessment criteria of Rule 13.8.2 in relation to aspects of noise and visual effects from helipads, in particular the assessment of impacts to ecological and cultural sites, such that these effects are potentially overlooked.

22. Options development was informed by these concerns and with consideration given to the appropriate trigger points in Rule 13.8.2 to clarify and raise awareness of the scope of the NZCPS in the consideration of effects for helipads as restricted discretionary activities.

Four options

23. The following four options were investigated. An overview of each is provided below:

Option 1: Do nothing (Status quo)

24. Under Option 1, Council would not introduce any change to the Restricted Discretionary Activity provision - Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary activities.

25. This option recognises that the assessment of effects for a resource consent is undertaken in accordance with s104(1)(b)(ii) of the RMA and must have regard to the NZCPS in the consideration of effects.

26. This option continues to rely on s104 rather than introducing an ‘up front’ trigger within Rule 13.8.2 to raise awareness of the NZCPS policy directions that influence the scope of the assessment of effects.

Option 2: Amendments to Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule 13.8 for Helipads – Matters for Discretion – ADD NZCPS as a NEW line item

27. Option 2 involves amending the section of the Rule 13.8.2 titled ‘Matters of Discretion’ to add the NZCPS as a third matter of discretion.

28. A key drawback of this option is its introduction of very open-ended discretion in terms of the Matters of Discretion. This is unsuitable for the Matters of Discretion - which should place clear limits on the matters able to be considered (a necessary component of restricted activity status). Further to this, the NZCPS applied as a ‘Matter of Discretion’ would expand the matters of discretion significantly wider than noise and visual effects to include all aspects of amenity including consideration of character, landscape and general amenity.

29. The expanded discretion would be outside the scope of the current HGI Plan’s objectives and policies which are very closely aligned to noise and visual effects and designed to ensure a balance of environmental and amenity outcomes with economic and transport outcomes. The s32 analysis highlights that this means there would be no policy backing for the consideration of issues that are unrelated to noise and visual effects.

30. This option creates an issue of lack of transparency in interpretation and implementation of the provisions as it potentially removes the Restricted Discretionary Activity, replacing it with Discretionary Activity status. This also has implications for the regulatory framework balance as a whole and would be a significant change in the approach that is not supported by the current objectives and policies. This lack of integration between objectives, policies and methods is not considered to be sound resource management practice and would increase the potential for appeals on Council’s planning decisions.

Option 3: Amendments to Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule 13.8 for Helipads – Matters for Discretion – adding reference to the NZCPS; AND amending Assessment Criteria 1 and 2 by adding Māori heritage sites, ecological sites, and breeding sites/ nesting areas of threatened, endangered, or rare species as “noise sensitive”

31. Option 3 involves amendments to give further clarity to the existing matters of discretion (noise and visual) through the addition of a cross reference to the NZCPS. The proposed cross reference to the NZCPS in the Matters of Discretion would signal in the Rule 13.8.2 provisions, that the scope of the assessment of these effects is undertaken in the context of the NZCPS.

32. The approach would provide readers of the district plan rules an ‘up front’ awareness of the influence of the NZCPS in the interpretation of effects and is considered an appropriate approach to apply given the concerns that the scope of consideration of effects provided under the NZCPS is potentially overlooked for helipad applications as Restricted Discretionary Activities.

Option 4: Amendments to Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule 13.8 for Helipads – Matters of Discretion by adding “ecological effects” and “cultural heritage effects “AND amending Assessment Criteria 1, 2 and 6 (NEW) by adding Māori heritage sites, ecological sites, and breeding sites/ nesting areas of threatened, endangered, or rare species as “noise sensitive”

33. Option 4 would amend the Matters of Discretion to add ‘Cultural effects’ and ‘Ecological effects’. Amendments are also proposed to Rule 13.8.2 RDA Assessment Criteria (as per Option 3) to reference ‘Māori heritage sites’ and ‘Sites of Ecological Significance and breeding sites/ nesting areas of threatened, endangered, or rare species as noise sensitive activities (only in relation to Rule 13.8.2).

34. This option widens the matters of discretion and therefore has drawbacks arising from the widened scope of consideration – similar to Option 2. The widening of the matters of discretion is at odds with the mechanism of the Restricted Discretionary Activity status which requires clear limits on the matters able to be considered. As with option 2, there is also the issue of there being no policy backing for the consideration of issues that are unrelated to noise and visual effects.

Recommended option – Option 3

35. Having regard to the options assessment, the preferred option recommendation is Option 3.

Option 3: Amendments to Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule 13.8 for Helipads – Matters for Discretion – adding reference to the NZCPS; AND amending Assessment Criteria 1 and 2 by adding Māori heritage sites, ecological sites, and breeding sites/ nesting areas of threatened, endangered, or rare species as “noise sensitive”

36. In regard to subsections 32(1)(a) and (1)(b)(ii) of the RMA, the Option 3 is considered the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (purpose) of the proposed plan change and achieve the purpose of the RMA.

37. The change to the Assessment Criteria 1 and 2, and addition of a new assessment (criteria 6) recognising Māori heritage sites, sites of ecological significance, and breeding sites/ nesting areas of threatened, endangered, or rare species as noise sensitive activities is considered the most appropriate, effective and efficient interim measure with highest benefit; least cost and least risk to recognise less obvious aspects of noise effects which are covered by the scope of the NZCPS.

38. Option 3 benefits plan users by raising awareness of the influence of the NZCPS in the assessment of the effects of noise, giving pause to think beyond the most obvious impacts. A key benefit will be the greater certainty and transparency of the scope of consideration of noise effects for users of the HGI Plan. Guidelines to the consents process for Helicopter resource consents are also available which provide greater commentary on the assessment of effects and specifically discuss cultural and ecological effects.

39. Option 3 is also consistent with the consent category of Restricted Discretionary Activity as it retains the specified limitations to the matters to be considered, albeit amended to provide greater transparency and clarity.

40. Option 3 is also considered to be the most appropriate option to implement prior to the review of the AUP commencing in 2026, which includes bringing the Hauraki Gulf Islands into the AUP, and which will provide for a comprehensive review of all provisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. Auckland Council’s climate plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, has called for a 64 per cent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. The council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Plan, August 2022 outlines concrete actions to dramatically reduce transport emissions by 2030. It identifies that aviation emissions account for 7 per cent of Auckland’s emissions profile and sets a pathway for this to be reduced by 50 per cent by 2030. Commercial airlines are the highest contributor in the emissions profile and are the target category for aviation emission reduction. The level of helicopter activity would represent a very small quotient in the emissions profile for Auckland.

42. Of relevance to this report, the proposed Plan Change would not give rise to an increase in the level of helicopter activity (and therefore aviation emissions) in Auckland.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. The Resource Consents and Compliance and Monitoring departments have contributed to the preparation of the draft s32 report and options analysis. A number of subject matter experts were consulted in the development process. This included council staff from units/departments across council including planning, cultural heritage, built heritage, resource consents, compliance and monitoring.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local Boards

44. A memorandum was provided to the Waiheke Local Board and the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board advising on the commencement of the plan change process and to seek the local boards’ views on the development of the proposed plan change. The local board views in full are provided in Attachment C. A summary is provided below:

Waiheke Local Board Resolution WHK/2024/50 12 June 2024 (summarised)

- The Waiheke Local Board supports the addition of the NZCPS and cites the following policies as especially relevant to helipads

- Policy 2d (opportunities for Māori involvement in decision making),

- Policy 3 (proof of no harmful effects),

- Policy 7.1.d (identification of inappropriate areas),

- Policy 7.2 (cumulative effects)

- Policy 11 (protection of indigenous biological diversity),

- Policy 11.2 (effect on habitats during vulnerable life stages of indigenous species)

- Policy 13.2 (natural character may include experiential attributes)

Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board - feedback dated 19 June 2024 (summarised)

- The Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board supports the addition of the NZCPS

- Seeks consideration of gaps in protection of sites and places of significance to mana whenua when creating options for the plan change;

- Acknowledge that amenity values for Waiheke and Aotea are different and unique and different considerations may be required.

45. The local board’s concerns have been considered in recommending Option 3.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. Consultation with mana whenua / iwi authorities involved two separate consultations. The first under section 3.1.(d) of the RMA sought input at development stage of the plan change. The second consultation under Schedule 1, clause 4A of the RMA sought the views of mana whenua on the proposed draft plan change. This second consultation closed on 21 February 2025.

47. No comments were given by mana whenua from these consultations.

48. Previously expressed views of Ngāti Rehua Ngāti Wai ki Aotea Trust in a letter to Local Board, dated 21 February 2020, and attached to the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board Notice of Motion of 22 March 2022 GBI/2022/25 are set out in the s32 Report Attachment A – part 3A).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. The proposed plan change is budgeted for as part of the Planning and Resource Consents department work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. The s32 report includes an analysis of risk from each of the four options analysed. This is part of the statutory requirements for development of a plan change.

51. Given that the plan change is intended to be an interim measure ahead of a full plan review, Option 3 which provides improved clarity without risk of creating misalignment with the current objectives and policy framework is considered the most appropriate option and carries the least risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. If the recommendation is approved the next step is public notification of the proposed Plan Change under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	s32 report
b ⇨	Proposed plan modification
c ⇨	Local Board Views

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Auckland Council Group project list to be submitted to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme (Part of the National Infrastructure Plan)

File No.: CP2025/02832

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Council Group’s project list for inclusion in Te Waihanga / New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) will create a list of Aotearoa / New Zealand’s top unfunded infrastructure challenges and solutions.

3. The purpose of the list is to have an independent project list of unfunded projects that would assist future central government, local government and private sector investment decision making. It also seeks to create a more visible and certain pipeline of future infrastructure investment across Aotearoa / New Zealand.

4. Te Waihanga / New Zealand Infrastructure Commission (Te Waihanga) launched the IPP in September 2024, drawing on successful UK and Australian models to enhance the prioritisation and long‑term certainty of infrastructure projects across Aotearoa / New Zealand.

5. Each submission must meet several criteria to be considered. Each submission must be nationally significant, align with strategic or sector objectives, demonstrate value for money and deliverability, remain unfunded/uncommitted, and be supported by robust evidence and documentation.

6. Submissions can apply to any of the three stages:

· Stage 1: where a high‑level problem or unrealised opportunity is defined

· Stage 2: where rigorous longlisting (optioneering) and shortlisting of high-value solutions occurs.

· Stage 3: where a high‑value, deliverable, funding‑ready solution has been developed

7. Successful submissions will be included in the Infrastructure Commission’s “National Infrastructure Plan”, which is expected to be published around December 2025.

8. By participating, Auckland Council can showcase its infrastructure challenges alongside other nationally significant issues, signalling to central government and the public that these challenges are a national priority, and that the resulting proposed projects or packages of infrastructure projects are worthy of future central government consideration, support and investment. It does not reduce or limit Auckland Council’s future decision-making rights on these issues and projects in any way.

9. A list of packages of projects has been developed and refined through a consultative process across the Auckland Council Group (initiated in October 2024). This list was workshopped with this committee on 26 February 2025 in preparation for this meeting.

10. Approval is sought for this list to the infrastructure priorities programmes. Submissions close 17 April 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the submission of the following packages of projects (further information included as Attachment A to this agenda report) to the second round of submissions to Te Waihanga / New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme:

i) Infrastructure to support growth in Auckland

ii) Making Auckland's transport system more efficient

iii) Managing Auckland’s Growing Travel Demand Through Rapid Transit Expansion

iv) Using ‘Time-of-Use Charging’ to reduce congestion

v) Renewing our ageing Ferry Fleet

vi) Delivering blue-green networks for flood resilience to parts of Auckland

vii) Alternative stormwater management methods for intensification.

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that Watercare is preparing four Stage 1 submissions that cover water supply, wastewater and biosolids.

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that Auckland Transport is proposing to include a further four submissions that sit under ‘Managing Auckland’s Growing Travel Demand Through Rapid Transit Expansion’ (see recommendation a) iii) above) - two projects are proposed to be submitted as Stage 2 (optioneering), and two are proposed to be submitted as or Stage 3 (preferred option).

d) tāpae / delegate authority to the General Manager Policy to approve the final submissions ahead of the 17 April 2025 deadline.

e) tāpae / delegate authority to the Director of Policy Planning and Governance to prepare and issue a letter of support for the Level Crossing Removal Programme component of KiwiRail's Rail Business Case submission.

Horopaki

Context

11. Te Waihanga was established in 2019 through an Act of Parliament to be the Government’s independent advisor on infrastructure. It works closely with central government agencies, providing advice on infrastructure planning, investment, and delivery. Te Waihanga is not an infrastructure delivery agency.

12. Te Waihanga is distinct from Infrastructure New Zealand (a private member association) and the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Company, and Crown Infrastructure Delivery, together formerly Crown Infrastructure Partners.

13. Te Waihanga is tasked with developing The National Infrastructure Plan that provides an independent view of New Zealand’s infrastructure needs and priorities. It is structured around three key questions:

· Future Needs – What infrastructure will be required over the next 30 years?

· Current Plans – What investment is already planned for the next 10 years?

· The Gap – How does planned investment compare to future needs, and how do we address any shortfalls?

14. Within the National Infrastructure Plan, Te Waihanga aim to establish a list of unfunded infrastructure projects that have been robustly assessed for value for money, which central government can use when making funding and policy decisions.

15. Although inclusion in the list does not guarantee funding, it raises a project’s profile and builds momentum through independent assessment – including cost‑benefit analysis. Participants receive free, independent advice from Te Waihanga assessors, regardless of outcome. Endorsed submissions will be made public, while unsuccessful ones remain confidential (unless released via an official information act process).

16. The IPP, the subject of this report, is a process to inform the list. The process requires an independent assessment of value for money which creates a prioritised list. How the IPP informs the National Infrastructure Plan is illustrated in Figure 1.

17. The IPP is being run as a pilot this year but is expected to become a regular process.

18. Key features of the IPP include:

· It is an independent and voluntary process led by Te Waihanga.

· It evaluates projects based on strategic alignment, value for money, and deliverability.

· It welcomes submissions from a range of stakeholders, including local councils, private companies, and other infrastructure providers.

· It places particular emphasis on non-built solutions and better utilisation of existing infrastructure.

Figure 1: Diagram illustrating the relationship between the Infrastructure Priorities program and the National Infrastructure Plan. (blue box denotes those items within the control of Te Waihanga).

19. To qualify for the Infrastructure Priorities Programme, projects must:

· Be nationally significant and aligned with Te Waihanga’s national strategic objectives.

· Demonstrate value for money and deliverability.

· Be unfunded or uncommitted, typically falling within a five to 15 year commencement timeframe or in the case of Local Government, from year four of the Long-term Plan.

· Have a high level of information and/or documentation, including evidence completed and available for assessment.

20. Endorsed projects are then included in the National Infrastructure Plan.

21. There are three stages of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme that a submission can apply to:

a) Stage 1: High-Level Problem Statement or Unrealised Opportunity – The problem is identified, well-articulated and quantified, but has no specific solution proposed.

b) Stage 2: Optioneering – Multiple potential solutions are explored and assessed. These options are evaluated based on feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and strategic alignment.

c) Stage 3: Preferred Solution – A high-value option is chosen from the shortlist, demonstrating a clear path to implementation while remaining unfunded.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. Auckland contributes 38 per cent of New Zealand’s GDP and infrastructure is what keeps the region able to support the communities and businesses that operate every day to make Auckland the city that it is. Infrastructure is 86 per cent of Auckland Council Group expenditure across our planned capital and operational expenditure over the period 2024-2034. This is from a total of $86.1 billion. Most of that planned investment is to make the most of and renew our existing assets. We have a limited fiscal envelop so funding additional investments need additional funding streams or require careful trade-off with other planned investment.

23. Auckland Council has undertaken a consultation process across the council group. In October 2024, we issued an internal call for projects that might meet the requirements of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme and received 12 packages or projects for internal consideration.

24. An internal screening group was set up to assess these projects against the Infrastructure Priorities Programme requirements and other key factors. Direction was also sought from the Auckland Council executive leadership team and the CCO chief executive officer forum through December and January.

25. Following these reviews, the packages/projects were refined into potential submissions for April 2025, excluding those from Watercare Services Ltd.

26. All packages or projects will be submitted to Stage 1 “High-Level Problem Statement or Unrealised Opportunity” unless noted below.

27. Table 1 below outlines the packages of projects for submission to the infrastructure priorities programme in April 2025. The table quantifies the scale of the problem and explains how that figure has been developed. This occurs either by quantifying the likely costs to Auckland (such as the potential loss in productivity) or through identifying the likely cost of any potential solutions required.

28. Auckland Transport are proposing four additional submissions to the IPP, focusing specific projects within the broader ‘Managing Auckland’s Growing Travel Demand Through Rapid Transit Expansion’ Stage 1 submission. Two submissions will be at Stage 2 (Optioneering) and two will be at Stage 3 (Preferred Solution), reflecting their more advanced development. Each will build on and reference the Stage 1 submission. The council’s General Manager Policy will review the final packages prior to their submission on the 17 April 2025. The additional submissions and a short description of each is listed in paragraph 30.

29. Attachment A to this agenda report contains further detail on each programme.

Table 1: Packages of projects for submission to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme and their associated scale of the problem in approximate dollars.

Submission Name	Indicative scale of the problem	Costs based on impact to Auckland	Costs based on Solution
Infrastructure to support growth in Auckland	$150 billion (indicative) Cost of construction for over 30 years using existing solutions		ü
Making Auckland's transport system more efficient	$2.6 billion^{^[1]} Economic cost of congestion per annum to Aucklanders $25 billion (indicative) Cost to deliver solutions over 30 years	ü	ü
Managing Auckland’s Growing Travel Demand Through Rapid Transit Expansion	$2.6 billion Economic cost of congestion per annum to Aucklanders $30-50 billion (indicative) Cost of construction over 30 years of some of the solution developed to date	ü	ü
Using ‘Time-of-Use Charging’ to reduce congestion	$2.6 billion Cost of congestion per annum to Aucklanders	ü
Renewing our ageing Ferry Fleet	$600 million Estimated cost to renew the entire ferry fleet, including land side improvements ($145 million approved within the capital plan till FY27).		ü
Delivering blue-green networks for flood resilience to parts of Auckland	$4 billion - The cost of the anniversary weekend floods across all of Auckland.	ü
Alternative stormwater management methods for intensification	$700 million to $2 billion depending on option selected (costs developed for a single suburb in Auckland).		ü

30. Additional projects proposed by Auckland Transport for submission to the IPP in April as follows:

· Airport To Botany – Stage 3. Connecting Auckland Airport, Manukau, and Botany, with rapid transit.

· Northwest Rapid Transit – Stage 2. A bi-directional busway with seven stations along SH16.

· Northern Busway Enhancements – Stage 2. Extending and expanding the successful Northern Busway by upgrading stations, city infrastructure, and addressing missing links.

· Eastern Busway Botany Station – Stage 3. Eastern Busway Stage 4 including the Botany station

31. Watercare are also preparing packages of projects for submission to the IPP in April, as follows:

· water servicing for growth and resilience

· waste water network improvements for cleaner waterways and beaches

· wastewater treatment plant climate change resilience and asset protection – Māngere and Rosedale

· biosolids servicing beyond 2035.

32. The council’s General Manager Policy will review the final packages prior to their submission on the 17 April 2025.

33. KiwiRail's Rail Business Case submission to the IPP (made in December 2024), has been identified by Auckland Transport, that a letter of support from Auckland Council for the Level Crossing Removal Programme component within would help reinforce its importance.

34. Since KiwiRail’s submission, new data and updated value-for-money assessments is now available and could further strengthen the case for level crossing removals. An Auckland Council letter of support would incorporate this latest evidence, highlighting key benefits such as improved safety, reduced congestion, and enhanced network efficiency. Auckland Council is the lead delivery agency for this part of the Rail Business Case.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. Participation and submission to the IPP has no climate change impacts. The projects themselves will have significant climate change considerations.

36. Proposals to the IPP will need to be assessed through a cost-benefit lens that considers environmental costs, climate change and resilience benefits. This will occur in detail when each project or package of projects are submitted to Stage 2. Note most of Auckland Council Group’s submissions are Stage 1.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. All CCOs have been kept informed of the Auckland Councils internal IPP process and have been asked to submit their initial lists of potential projects or package of projects for submission to the IPP. CCOs have been consulted on the development and refinement of each of the package of projects they individually put forward, resulting in the list presented in Table 1.

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

Local impacts and local board views

38. Local board views have not been sought on this list, however the individual projects or issues may have sought Local Board views. There are local impacts of the projects and packages of projects, however this report is not making decisions about Auckland Council funding for infrastructure. Should that occur, the council’s standard decision-making processes would seek Local Board view and assess impact.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. There will be impacts on mana whenua and mataawaka of the packages of projects in this list however this report is not making decisions about Auckland Council funding for infrastructure. Should that occur, normal processes would seek views and assess impacts, including developing appropriate governance and decision-making structures.

40. The Infrastructure Priorities Programme, run by Te Waihanga, does not specifically require mana whenua impacts to be sought at this stage, but using a cost-benefit approach, as the process requires for Stage 2 and Stage 3 submissions, costs and benefits in the broad sense would need to be assessed.

41. The Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance Report 2021 (note that the 2025 update was not available at time of writing) includes, but is not limited to, the issues of infrastructure planning with mana whenua, infrastructure access for Māori, enabling papakāinga, water quality, environmental resilience and resilient infrastructure. These all require an infrastructure response. Further work could be done to develop these into submissions for future Infrastructure Priorities Programme rounds.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. This report does not have financial implications for the Auckland Council Group. The report does contain information about costings for infrastructure which are unfunded. The report also references costs of infrastructure problems, such as the cost to society of congestion. Any decision-making on funding for infrastructure mentioned in this report would go through normal Auckland Council Group budget decision-making processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. There are risks with both participating or not participating in the Infrastructure Priority Programme. There is a risk of highlighting issues, projects or solutions that are supported by Auckland Council but are not seen to have value by Te Waihanga. This risk has been managed through our internal process with staff and senior management and working with Te Waihanga.

44. If we do not participate, Auckland Council could miss out on representing its infrastructure issues and potential solutions, including those that have a high return on investment but are not yet funded. On balance, we recommended Auckland Council Group participate in the Infrastructure Priority Programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Once the list has been endorsed, council staff will work with the relevant teams (including our CCOs) to finalise the required information for the Infrastructure Priorities Programme submission.

46. Information will then be entered into the online Infrastructure Priorities Programme submission portal and reviewed prior to the closing date of 17 April 2025.

47. Dates of note are May 2025 when we are expecting the public release of endorsed projects from first round submissions (in which Auckland Council will not feature as we did not participate in the first round).

48. Public release of endorsed projects from second round submissions is expected in September 2025 with the final National Infrastructure Plan expected in for public release in December 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	Further information on the list to be submitted to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Prasad - Principal Advisor

Greer Lees - Manager Infrastructure Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Priority submissions for Auckland Council Group

File No.: CP2025/02263

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for staff to prepare submissions to priority government consultations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The government’s reform programme is significant and requires substantial resource from the Auckland Council Group.

3. In early 2023 staff developed a process for identifying and prioritising government consultations. All upcoming submission opportunities are assessed against a set of criteria and a recommendation made to this committee on the priority consultations relating to policy and legislative proposals.

4. This report seeks approval to prepare submissions on the following consultations: Building Act changes to enable building granny flats and other small structures, local government reforms, national policy direction and standards packages, a four-year Parliamentary term, and wastewater environmental performance standards.

5. Staff will prepare these submissions when consultations open and follow the usual committee procedures for approval.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Council Group to prepare submissions to the following consultations: Building Act changes to enable building granny flats and other small structures, Local Government Systems Improvement Bill, national policy direction and standards packages, a four-year Parliamentary term, and wastewater environmental performance standards.

Horopaki

Context

6. Responding to central government consultations is one important route for communicating the issues, risks, and opportunities of proposed policy and legislative changes on Auckland and Auckland Council Group functions and services.

7. Consultations take significant resource for the council to respond to and are not always equal in importance. The time taken to respond can distract from other priorities.

8. In early 2023, a process was developed (with input from staff across the council group) for identifying and prioritising government consultations. All upcoming submission opportunities are assessed against a set of criteria and a recommendation made to this committee on priority consultations which relate to political or legislative proposals.

9. This committee has previously approved submissions in the following areas: emergency management, climate change, transport, planning, waste, fishing regulations, fast track consenting, resource management amendments, rate payer roll amendments, vaping regulations, and water services - resolutions PEPCC/2023/33, PEPCC/2023/73, PEPCC/2024/17 and PEPCC/2024/83.

10. In the current legislative environment responding to consultations efficiently and effectively is more challenging than usual due to short notice periods for release of proposals and short timeframes for providing feedback. As a result, a number of submissions have been prepared and approved by the relevant committee since the last priority submissions report in August 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The prioritisation criteria have now been applied to consultations expected over the next six months. Those consultations relate to Building Act changes to enable the building of granny flats and other small structures, local government reforms, national policy direction and standards packages, a four-year Parliamentary term, and wastewater environmental performance standards.

12. The findings of the assessment on the policy related consultations are provided in full in Attachment A. This attachment also includes an update on previous consultations approved as a priority by this committee.

13. The Governing Body and the Transport, Resilience and Infrastructure Committee have recently approved preparation of submissions on, respectively, the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill (GB/2025/8) and the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill (TICCC/2024/139). These have also been listed in Attachment A for completeness.

14. It is expected that other policy and legislative change will arise that the council group may want to respond to, including that signalled in the Coalition Government’s Q1 2025 Action Plan for New Zealand. There is no detail available on these proposals or timeframes for consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. No adverse impact identified by using these criteria or approving priority submissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. Staff have engaged with CCO/External Partnerships staff to bring the list of submissions to this Committee for approval.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. Staff have engaged with Operations and Policy staff to bring the list of submissions to this Committee for approval.

18. Staff will engage with local boards when developing submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. Many government consultations will be of interest to and/or have an impact on Māori. This was considered in the development of the criteria, with assistance from Ngā Mātārae. Input from iwi will be sought on all submissions made as timeframes allow. A copy of this report will be provided to iwi so they are aware of upcoming opportunities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20. Prioritisation of government consultations expected in 2025 will enable submission work to be done within existing budget provision and as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21. Government priorities change from time to time and there are unexpected consultations. To mitigate this risk, in these cases the decision to prepare a policy related submission is delegated to the chair and deputy chair of this committee (resolution PEPCC/2023/33). This is because short consultation timelines often do not allow for committee meeting dates and approval.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22. Prepare priority submissions when consultations open and follow the normal political procedures for approval with the relevant committee.

23. Continue to review and assess the central government work programme and consultations.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Priority submissions for Auckland Council Group

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Boswell - Senior Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request to Rezone Land at 70, 70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2025/01159

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 (AUP) at 70, 70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive, Pukekohe (the plan change area) from SR and DS Smith (the requestor) to rezone approximately 18.64 hectares of land at 70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive, Pukekohe from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (MHU).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) the council may either:

a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or

b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or

c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or

d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.

3. The plan change area is located on the north-eastern edge of urban Pukekohe. It consists of three sites totalling approximately 19.1 hectares. The requestor seeks to rezone approximately 18.64 hectares of land at two sites (70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive) from FUZ to MHU to enable residential development (175 – 350 dwellings) of the land.

4. The request includes a new precinct for the plan change area to align future subdivision and development with the provision of the necessary transport, wastewater and other infrastructure as well as achieving specified stormwater management and ecological outcomes.

5. The majority of the plan change area is covered by council’s Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan (PPSP) which was adopted in August 2019. The PPSP indicated a preference for the Single House (SH) zone within this area. While the proposed MHU zone is not consistent with the zoning preferred by the PPSP, it is consistent with the MHU zone proposed through council’s intensification plan change (PC78) for the surrounding urban environment (relevant residential zones not subject to qualifying matters).

6. Auckland Transport’s designation 1846 – the ‘Pukekohe North-East Arterial’, runs through the south-eastern corner of the plan change area for the purposes of a new transport corridor between State Highway 22 and Pukekohe East Road. The requestor has provided for the designation in the proposed precinct plans.

7. The council’s Future Development Strategy 2023-2053 (FDS) identifies the plan change area as being ‘development ready’ in 2040+, based on the expected time by which bulk infrastructure will be available. The FDS lists several ‘infrastructure prerequisites’ for Pukekohe Northeast, those being:

· Pukekohe North-East Arterial

· Paerata Arterial

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Isabella Drive Pump Station

· New Bulk Supply Point at Pukekohe East Reservoir.

8. The Pukekohe North-East Arterial and Paerata Arterial are designated in the AUP to provide long term route protection for the proposed works. At this stage, no funding has been announced for implementation of the arterials nor is there any certainty of when funding might be allocated. The development of the plan change area is proposed to be enabled prior to the completion of the arterials. The Integrated Transport Assessment and clause 23 responses from the requestor indicate that there is sufficient capacity in the existing roading network (subject to provision of local upgrades) to accommodate the level of growth proposed within the plan change area.

9. As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, KiwiRail received funding to electrify the train network from Papakura through to Pukekohe. This included redeveloping the train stations to allow for longer trains. These works have now been completed.

10. The plan change area is subject to wastewater servicing constraints. The requestor has been made aware that connections to the public wastewater network for development from the plan change area cannot be provided prior to the completion of the Isabella Transmission Wastewater Pump Station (Isabella WWPS) and the Pukekohe Transmission Trunk Sewer project. Both projects are funded in the Watercare 2025-2034 Asset Management Plan with completion currently forecast for mid- 2028.

11. Watercare has confirmed that to service this plan change area, a new bulk supply point at Pukekohe East Reservoir is not required. There is sufficient capacity in the existing water supply network to service development of the plan change area.

12. Current indications are therefore that the plan change area could be developed in advance of the 2040 period in the FDS, subject to thresholds and restrictions on development that are proposed in the provisions of the new precinct. If the private plan change request is accepted for processing, it will be subject to notification and a more detailed assessment.

13. Having undertaken a coarse level assessment of the proposal at this time, it is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted for processing under clause 25(2)(b) of the RMA on the basis that, having regard to relevant case law, 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 Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / agree not to reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA as there are no grounds of rejection available, on the basis that:

i) the private plan change request is not frivolous or vexatious;

ii) the substance of the private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years;

iii) a coarse level of assessment of the private plan change request does not indicate that it is not in accordance with sound resource management practice;

iv) a preliminary assessment indicates the private plan change request will not make the AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA; and

v) the private plan change incorporates the Medium Density Residential Standards as required by section 77G(1) of the RMA.

b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request for the following reasons:

i) accepting the private plan change request for notification will enable a range of matters to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process.

ii) it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The council has no immediate intentions to rezone this area for development. A council plan change is not currently on the work programme.

iii) it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was a resource consent application because the FUZ is not suitable for the scale of residential subdivision and development proposed.

c) tāpae / 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.

Horopaki

Context

Site and Surrounding Area

14. The sites subject to the plan change include 70, 70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive, Pukekohe (Figure 1). The total plan change area is approximately 19.1 hectares. The proposed rezoning affects 70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive (approximately 18.64ha) while 70 Lisle Farm Drive (approximately 0.5 ha) is included in the plan change to secure access to the surrounding transport network.

15. The plan change area has an undulating form punctuated by broad south-north and west-east running ridgelines. Two areas of indigenous habitats around streams and wetlands are located in the fenced gullies at the north-eastern part of the plan change area.

Aerial view of a farm

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 – Plan change area

16. One dwelling with associated residential amenities is located on 70A Lisle Farm Drive. An existing farm/commercial building occupies 70 Lisle Farm Drive close to the road. Most of the plan change area comprises grazed exotic grassland.

17. The majority of the plan change area is zoned Future Urban (70A and 70B Lisle Farm Drive) with the relatively smaller site at 70 Lisle Farm Drive being zoned Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS). The plan change area is located approximately 1.8 km northeast of the Pukekohe Town Centre and the Pukekohe Train Station. The plan change area adjoins:

· residential sites to the west

· residential land currently undergoing development for the majority of the southern edge of the plan change area, with the remaining southern edge adjoining the Rural Production Zone

· FUZ land to the north and east.

The zoning pattern of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Existing zoning of plan change area and surrounds

The request

18. The requestor considers that the proposed MHU zone (see Figure 3) would enable residential development of the plan change area in a manner that is consistent with the zoning proposed through PC78 on adjoining land. The smaller site at 70 Lisle Farm Drive and the urban environments surrounding the plan change area are proposed to be rezoned to MHU as part of PC78 as shown in Figure 4.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3 – Proposed zoning of plan change area

Figure 4 – PC78 rezoning around plan change area

19. The private plan change request proposes to introduce a new precinct called the ‘Lisle Farm Precinct’ into the AUP to cover the entire plan change area. The key precinct provisions are:

· subdivision and development to be undertaken in accordance with the precinct plans and to incorporate MDRS

· to ensure that development is supported by the appropriate infrastructure

· to protect stream and riparian areas

· to provide stormwater management controls.

20. A series of precinct plans are included as part of the proposed precinct to help guide development by identifying key elements or features that should be provided for within the precinct:

· key movement connections including indicative local roads, connections with adjoining sites, walking and cycling routes and designation boundaries; and

· identification of areas with recognised natural values for protection and management (including streams, wetlands and vegetation), and areas intended for recreational use.

21. A concept plan (refer to Figure 5) has been provided with the request and is intended to demonstrate that the land is capable of delivering well-integrated and well-connected urban development, while also recognising and providing for protection and enhancement of natural features, including streams and wetlands.

Figure 5 – Concept Plan

22. The ‘Pukekohe North-East Arterial’ designation (designation 1846 – refer to Figure 6) runs across the eastern corner of the plan change area. The requestor has designed the proposed precinct to provide for the designation.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 6 – Extent of Designation 1846 in purple. Plan change area in red

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Pukekohe – Paerata Structure Plan 2019

23. All of the FUZ in the plan change area is within the PPSP (see Figure 7), in an area identified as ‘Area D1 (east) – Pukekohe north-east’. The PPSP indicates a preference for the SH zone across this area.

Figure 7 – Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Map with plan change area overlaid

24. The structure plan map shows the plan change area as accommodating:

· residential use of the land with the SH zone being applied over its entirety

· an arterial road connection

· a 20m (subject to refinement) Riparian Buffer along each side of permanent and intermittent streams

· an indicative Neighbourhood Park (size 3,000m² – 5,000m²).

25. The private plan change request is generally consistent with the structure plan, with the exception of the zoning. The PPSP indicated a preference for the SH zone in ‘Pukekohe north-east’ due to the generally steeply undulating topography, geotechnical constraints (which likely leads to high development premiums) and environmental characteristics (such as areas of indigenous vegetation). The requestor has provided specialist reports on matters including ecology, geotechnical engineering, transportation and landscape and urban design, along with a planning assessment to justify the MHU zone. The requestor is of the view that there are no compelling Qualifying Matters under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2022 to justify the SH zone in this location.

26. The appropriateness of the MHU zone and the effects of the density enabled through the zoning will need closer examination through the plan change process.

27. The PPSP structure plan map shows an indicative neighbourhood park within the plan change area. The Council’s Parks Planning team have advised recently that upon further review, the indicative PPSP neighbourhood park is better located elsewhere and is therefore not supported within the plan change area based on existing open space provision and assessment against the Open Space Provision Policy 2016.

Future Development Strategy 2023 – 2053

28. Auckland Council finalised and published the FDS on 22 December 2023. The FDS made amendments to various aspects of past planning directions under the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (FULSS).

29. The plan change area is in the ‘Pukekohe Northeast’ quadrant of the FUZ. While the FDS did not alter the FUZ zoning of the plan change area from what was in the FULSS, the timing for its development has moved out to 2040+ (from 2nd Half, Decade One, 2023 – 2027 in the FULSS). This is based on the expected timing for the delivery of necessary bulk infrastructure.

30. The FDS lists several ‘infrastructure prerequisites’ for Pukekohe Northeast, those being:

· Pukekohe North-East Arterial

· Paerata Arterial

· Papakura to Pukekohe Rail Electrification

· Isabella Drive Pump Station

· New Bulk Supply Point at Pukekohe East Reservoir.

31. For wastewater servicing, Watercare has plans for a new Transmission Wastewater Pump Station at Isabella Drive. The project is funded, and completion is expected in mid-2028.

32. Watercare have confirmed that to service this plan change area, a new bulk supply point at Pukekohe East Reservoir is not required. Watercare have confirmed that the existing bulk water supply network has sufficient capacity to service development of the plan change area.

Infrastructure

Transport

33. The FDS notes that growth in Pukekohe Northeast will ultimately require provision of the Pukekohe North-East Arterial and the Paerata Arterial. NoRs for the Pukekohe North-East Arterial and the Drury to Pukekohe Link (the ‘Paerata Arterial’ is a segment of the ‘Drury to Pukekohe Link’) projects were lodged by the Te Tupu Ngātahi/Supporting Growth Alliance (SGA) in 2023 for route protection. Both NoRs have since been confirmed and are included in the AUP as designations.

34. For the number of dwellings (175-350) likely to be enabled through the plan change, the requestor has provided an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) to confirm that there is sufficient capacity in the existing roading network (subject to provision of local upgrades) to accommodate this level of growth without requiring completion of the Pukekohe North-East Arterial or the Paerata Arterial.

35. For upgrades to public transport services, electrification of the Papakura to Pukekohe section of the North Island main trunk line has been completed.

36. Roads within the plan change area will be provided by the developer. There are two new intersections proposed to ensure connectivity between the precinct and the surrounding road network. These local upgrades are the responsibility of the developer.

37. The application identifies the key intersection of East Street/Anselmi Ridge Road (around 90m south of the plan change area) as being potentially affected by the proposed development. Traffic modelling has been undertaken, and the ITA concludes that additional traffic generated from the developed plan change area will have no discernible effect on the efficiency and safety of the intersection and no upgrade to the intersection is considered necessary.

38. Based on the conclusions of the ITA lodged in support of the private plan change, on a preliminary or coarse level assessment, the existing road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the development. The requestor considers that future development is not reliant on the completion of the ‘Pukekohe North-East Arterial’ though there are opportunities to connect into future arterial network from the plan change area. The council’s transport expert considers that the requestor has sufficiently addressed the transport effects for the private plan change to proceed to notification.

Water Supply

39. Servicing of the plan change area will require an extension of the water supply reticulation network, which is available from Lisle Farm Drive to the west of the plan change area and from William Andrew Road to the north of the plan change area. The proposed development will ‘loop’ into the network by connecting to both watermains.

40. Watercare have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the existing network to service the proposed development (based off the concept plan).

Wastewater

41. The requestor’s infrastructure report advises that there are two existing wastewater pipes under Lisle Farm Drive and William Andrew Road which can be extended and connected to the plan change area.

42. The requestor has approached Watercare to seek advice on wastewater servicing. Watercare has advised that the existing local wastewater pump station within Colin Lawrie Fields (which services the catchment where the plan change area sits) does not have sufficient capacity to support any further development. Also, a section of the existing 200mm wastewater pipe which conveys wastewater into the pump station requires either upgrading or duplication. Local network upgrades to support the plan change area can be assessed at the time of resource consent applications and engineering plan approval and would need to be fully funded by the developer.

43. The Franklin Pump Station, which is the receiving Network Wastewater Pump Station, is also at capacity. To relieve demand on this Pump Station, a new Network Wastewater Pump Station is being constructed at Isabella Drive and is expected to be completed in mid-2028. Once the Isabella WWPS is operational, the Franklin Road Pump Station will be able to support further development.

Stormwater

44. A draft stormwater management plan (SMP) has been prepared for the plan change area to achieve compliance with Auckland Council’s Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (‘NDC) and relevant AUP provisions. The Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience Department has reviewed and commented on the SMP, which has been amended by the requestor in response to further information requests.

45. The Stormwater Management Flow 1 (SMAF1) overlay is proposed to apply over the plan change area. The SMP proposes a stormwater management approach which will meet the hydrological mitigation requirements of the SMAF1 overlay.

46. At this stage, the requestor’s SMP demonstrates that there are feasible stormwater management solutions for the plan change area. All local stormwater infrastructure is the responsibility of the developer.

Flooding

47. The plan change area contains flood plains associated with overland flow paths and streams. No development is expected in flood plains, which are largely adjacent to streams. On the precinct plan, such areas are reserved as ‘existing bush’ and separated from areas intended for development by planted buffer requirements and indicative walking/cycling tracks.

48. Post development overland flow paths (outside of the wetlands and streams) would be managed through the road network and designed to be conveyed within the road reserve.

49. Mitigation measures are proposed in the plan change area for the 10 per cent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) and 1 per cent AEP rainfall events to ensure that the development will not exacerbate flood risk for surrounding/downstream properties.

Infrastructure funding

50. The assessments conducted by the requestor has concluded that developer funding will be used for local water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. In respect of wider wastewater infrastructure, Watercare has advised that the Isabella WWPS and Pukekohe Transmission Trunk Sewer projects are funded in the Watercare 2025-2034 Asset Management Plan.

51. No upgrades to the bulk water supply network are required as there is sufficient capacity in the existing network to service development of the plan change area. Local upgrades to connect the plan change area into the public system are the responsibility of the developer.

52. For transport infrastructure, there is no funding in place for any large-scale road network improvements in the Pukekohe area to respond to the increased demands (including demands from cumulative effects) from new developments. However, the analysis that has been carried out by the requestor for this plan change has not identified the need for any significant road upgrading works beyond those that are addressed in the proposed precinct provisions.

53. A preliminary review of the private plan change by Auckland Transport (AT) has not identified any significant public funding issues, subject to further refinement to the precinct provisions and precinct plans that can be addressed through the plan change process.

Statutory Context: Resource Management Act 1991

54. 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.

55. 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).

56. Additional information has been received from the requestor following a formal request for further information under clause 23 of Schedule 1.

57. 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.

58. 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

59. Attachment A to this report contains a detailed assessment of the options available to the council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

60. The private plan change has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA matters, having particular regard to the requestor’s section 32 evaluation report, and case law^{^[2]} that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change is accepted for processing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

61. 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 private plan change request itself. That being said, a coarse merits assessment of the private plan change request indicates that it would have benefits in increasing land available for housing and correspondingly housing availability and choice in an area immediately adjacent to existing housing and in a location identified in the FDS for future urban development, and that climate related natural hazards (such as flooding) have been properly considered.

62. 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

63. The Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience Department has raised several issues which required a response as part of the Clause 23 process. Following meetings with Healthy Waters staff, the private plan change request has been amended with respect to communal stormwater devices, hydrological modelling and the SMP.

64. AT has reviewed the private plan change and provided high-level comments, including identifying some concerns, namely:

· the precinct provisions need to provide certainty that the transport infrastructure required to support subdivision and development will be provided; and

· access to Pukekohe North-East Arterial from future roads and the integration between this infrastructure and development enabled by the plan change should be given appropriate consideration now, especially if precinct provisions may be required.

65. Watercare has reviewed the private plan change 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. Watercare advised the following:

Watercare confirms that it is technically feasible to service the PPC area for bulk water supply and bulk wastewater ahead of the 2040+ timing in the FDS, that is immediately for bulk water supply and by 2028 for bulk wastewater. However, development must be staged to remain within available bulk infrastructure capacity, primarily the existing Pukekohe WWTP, and noting the risks of out of sequence growth set out above.

66. As noted above, connections to the public wastewater network from the plan change area is not expected to be enabled until 2028 as servicing of the area is contingent on the completion of the Isabella WWPS and Pukekohe Transmission Trunk Sewer project. Both projects are funded in the Watercare FY25-FY34 Asset Management Plan with completion currently forecast for mid-2028.

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

Local impacts and local board views

67. Local board views have not been sought on the clause 25 decision as it does not affect the Franklin Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.

68. If the private plan change is 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

69. The requestor has sent correspondence (including a summary of the plan change proposal, concept plan and the preliminary findings from all specialists) to the following six iwi authorities seeking feedback on the plan change and whether they had an interest in ongoing engagement on the plan change:

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Waikato – Tainui

· Ngāti Maru

70. The requestor states that they were contacted by Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata who requested further engagement. The requestor met Ngāti Tamaoho on site to discuss the plan change and the preparation of a cultural values assessment. A cultural values assessment by Ngāti Tamaoho was not submitted with the private plan change request, however, the requestor responded to potential matters of interest to mana whenua by addressing them in the precinct. The proposed precinct provisions seek to:

· protect and enhance streams, wetlands and indigenous vegetation

· require the planting of 15-20m vegetated buffers around natural features

· ensure stormwater runoff will be sufficiently treated before entering any water bodies

· establish an agreed cultural context within the precinct.

71. Support from mana whenua for the proposed precinct provisions (with or without amendment) needs to be further addressed if the private plan change is accepted under Clause 25.

72. If the plan change is accepted, all iwi authorities with an interest in the plan change will be notified and will be able to make a submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73. 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

74. 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.

75. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted in whole for processing. The requestor has requested that the private plan change be accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the applicant using the clause 27 appeal rights is negligible if the recommendation is accepted.

76. If accepted, risks to the council associated with bringing forward infrastructure funding (or re-allocating existing funding) are mitigated for the following reasons:

a) relevant funding is identified in the Watercare FY25 - FY34 Asset Management Plan to address the Isabella WWPS and the Pukekohe Trunk Sewer projects (completion of both projects is expected in 2028)

b) the limited scale of local network upgrades (water, wastewater, stormwater and transport infrastructure) required to support the plan change area, which are to be undertaken at the developer’s expense

c) the proposed precinct includes triggers to align development with the provision of infrastructure, including limits to development until the necessary wastewater infrastructure is in place

d) zoning and other provisions in the AUP do not pre-determine/lock in future funding decisions made by the council

e) when reviewed at a coarse level, the requestor has demonstrated that the development would by supported the necessary infrastructure, ahead of the development readiness timing in the FDS

f) the opportunity exists for more detailed analysis to occur in conjunction with Auckland Transport and Watercare, and for the plan change to be declined if that analysis demonstrates a lack of integration between development and the necessary infrastructure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

77. The private plan change request requires decision-making under 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.

78. If the private plan change is accepted, the council will publicly notify the plan change 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.

79. If the private plan change request is rejected, the applicant could appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Assessment of options
b ⇨	Zoning and Precinct Plans
c ⇨	Lisle Farm Precinct
d ⇨	Assessment of Environmental Effects

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jimmy Zhang - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

13 March 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan – Making Plan Change 92 (Private) Wellsford North operative

File No.: CP2025/03156

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Change 92: Wellsford North to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 92 is a private plan change request to rezone approximately 75 hectares of land in the northeastern edge of Wellsford currently zoned predominantly Future Urban and includes land zoned Rural – Countryside Living Zone, Rural – Rural Production Zone, and a small area of Residential – Single House Zone under the AUP to: predominantly Residential – Single House Zone and Mixed Housing Suburban Zone with the balance to be rezoned a mixture of Residential – Large Lot Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone and Countryside Living Zone - and to apply a new precinct, Wellsford North Precinct to approximately 62 hectares of land within the PC92 area.

3. Plan Change 92 was publicly notified on 14 September 2023 and 50 submissions and five further submissions were received.

4. The hearing was held on 21 August 2024. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve Plan Change 92 (the Decision) with modifications, was notified on 24 October 2024. The Commissioners were delegated authority to make the Decision on the plan change.

5. The appeal period closed on 6 December 2024 and no appeals were received.

6. The relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) can now be amended to make Plan Change 92 operative in accordance with the Decision (and as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 92 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report

b) tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

7. Plan Change 92 (PC92) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan) is a private plan change request by the Wellsford Welding Club Limited. It seeks to rezone around 75ha of land north of the existing Wellsford township at Rodney Street/State Highway 1 (SH1) and Monowai Street.

8. The land to be rezoned has existing zonings of predominantly Future Urban Zone (FUZ), Rural – Rural Production Zone, Rural – Countryside Living Zone and a small area of Residential – Single House Zone. PC92 proposes to change these zones to:

· Residential – Single House Zone (predominant zoning);

· Residential - Large Lot Zone (in the south east);

· Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone (in the west near SH1);

· Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (adjoining the Business - Neighbourhood Centre Zone); and

· Rural - Countryside Living Zone (to the north).

9. PC92 includes a new precinct (Wellsford North Precinct) to be included into Chapter I which details the indicative collector road network, stormwater quality management, more enabling minimum net site areas within the Single House Zone (to 300m²) and Large Lot Zone (3,000m²) and sets out triggers so that development capacity is staged with the release of infrastructure.

10. The plan change was publicly notified on 14 September 2023 and 50 submissions and five further submissions were received. Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change. The council group impacts and views section of this report includes more information about their submissions.

11. A panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners was delegated authority to hear and make the Decision on the plan change. A hearing on the plan change was held on 21 August 2024.

12. The Commissioners’ Decision to approve the plan change (with modifications) was notified on 24 October 2024. The Decision on the plan change amends the Unitary Plan by:

· rezoning around 75ha of land north of the existing Wellsford township (to the zones set out above)

· adding a new precinct – the Wellsford North Precinct.

13. Maps showing the area to be rezoned and the new precinct are in Attachment A of this report.

14. The purpose of the plan change and the precinct is primarily to provide for the establishment of a new residential community that logically extends the existing Wellsford settlement and offers a range of housing types and choice.

15. The Wellsford North precinct applies to around 62ha of land. The only rezoning areas excluded from the precinct are the Rural – Countryside Living Zone in the north and a small area of the Residential – Single House Zone in the west.

16. The precinct provides for a range of residential densities, including medium residential densities enabled close to the Neighbourhood Centre and State Highway 1 in a variety of sizes and forms. Lower residential densities are enabled in the northern and eastern parts of the precinct, to integrate with the existing character of Wellsford. The precinct also provides for large lot zoning in the southern portion of the precinct, where the topography lends itself to lower density residential land use.

17. A key component of the proposed precinct is the staging of development with transport upgrades and infrastructure upgrades and the provisions set out when and how those upgrades would occur. This includes the upgrade to the proposed intersection of the main collector road and SH1 and adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure prior to any subdivision or development.

18. The precinct also includes provisions to manage reverse sensitivity effects on the operation of SH1 and the North Auckland Line.

19. The appeal period for the plan change Decision closed on 6 December 2024, and no appeals were received. Therefore, the plan change can now be made operative and the relevant parts of the Unitary Plan amended as set out in the Decision and included in Attachment A of this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

21. Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

22. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Planning and Resource Consents staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Policy and Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

24. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were considered through the hearing process. It is acknowledged that PC92 will likely result in an increase to Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT), given the distance from Auckland and other employment-based centres.

25. The hearing report commented that a reduction in VKT for small rural communities will not be easily achievable as these communities, by their design and composition, are unlikely to be able to provide or sustain an integrated public transport system (either in the expected zoning sequencing in the Future Development Strategy or the longer term).

26. It was also accepted that most of the land had been long identified and anticipated as a future area for expanding Wellsford, with the land being predominantly zoned Future Urban for 25 years.

27. PC92 seeks to mitigate effects on climate change by providing and/or enabling active mode connections towards the town centre along SH1. PC92 also includes a Neighbourhood Centre Zone to provide for local convenience retail activity.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 92. Therefore, no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

29. It is noted that through the plan change process input from the council’s Healthy Waters department was sought. Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change.

30. The specific transport issues raised during the hearing were in relation to a new pedestrian crossing on Rodney Street, urbanising SH1 to the north of the collector road, and future proofing for a potential roundabout. Each of these matters is addressed in the precinct provisions.

31. Watercare gave evidence at the hearing relating to precinct provisions around servicing the development with bulk wastewater and water supply. The PC92 applicant and Watercare agreed to a ‘package’ of changes to the text which are reflected in the final precinct provisions.

32. A key issue for Watercare was ensuring the precinct provisions were clear that development of the land for residential and commercial needed to be able to connect to reticulated wastewater and water supply services. This is now covered in the provisions by a non-complying activity status and the use of the term “avoid” in the relevant policies.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of the plan change.

34. While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Rodney Local Board formally resolved to provide views on the proposed plan change (RD/2024/25). The local board views were included in the council’s hearing report and were considered in the Decision on the plan change.

35. Rodney Local Board members Michelle Carmichael and Colin Smith spoke to the board’s resolution at the hearing. The Board’s position was that it supported the plan change as it would provide additional housing in Wellsford, particularly as the location of this proposed development is near to the town centre, allowing access to essential services for future residents (schools, shops, and medical centre, etc.). It also noted that the development would have economic benefits for local businesses (including support for the proposed village centre).

36. The Board sought, among other things; that the development be timed so as not to put unmanageable pressure on the existing Wellsford wastewater and water treatment plants; and integrated stormwater planning for all drainage sub-catchments be completed before any development occurs. It also addressed traffic management issues including its support for the proposed landscape buffers along State Highway 1 and recommended including a landscape buffer along the railway line. A number of these issues are addressed in the precinct provisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37. In July 2021 the PC92 applicant sent correspondence outlining the details of the proposal to the nine mana whenua groups who have expressed interest in the area. Responses were received from Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai. Representatives of these iwi visited the site with the private plan change requester in February 2022.

38. A cultural values assessment/Kaitiaki report was prepared by Ngāti Manuhiri and this was generally supportive of the proposal.

39. No mana whenua groups lodged submissions on PC92.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision.

41. As a private plan change costs associated with processing the plan change, including making it operative, are cost recoverable from the applicant who requested the private plan change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42. There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. The final step in making Plan Change 92 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to update the Unitary Plan.

44. Planning and Resource Consent Department staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 92 operative, including the public notice and seals.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC92 Decision (including changes to zoning and new precinct provisions in Appendix 4)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Lead Planner

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager Regional, North, West and Islands Planning

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Resolution Number	Item	Status
PEPCC/2025/5	Aquatic network review: Key findings and next steps	Staff have commenced development of an aquatic network programme business case to investigate a multi-pronged approach to delivering aquatic facilities in the future. This will include engagement with local boards and the Policy and Planning Committee at key stages of development.
PEPCC/2025/6	Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Request - Heights Road (9, 33 and 49 Heights Road), Pukekohe	The plan change is being prepared for notification. The reporting planner has been liaising with the planning technicians on this.
PEPCC/2025/7	Auckland Unitary Plan - Private Plan Change Application 84-100 Hobsonville Road - Hobsonville Grove	This private plan change application is expected to be publicly notified for submissions on 27 March 2025, with a four-week submission period
PEPCC/2025/11	CONFIDENTIAL: Delegation of authority to the Chief Executive	Key staff are progressing the committee’s resolutions.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Committee Work Programme
b ⇨	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth – Update on Airport to Botany project, 17 February 2025
c ⇨	Memorandum - Resilient Tāmaki Makaurau – Community Planning for Climate Disruption: Papakura Pilot, 12 November 2024
d ⇨	Memorandum - Auckland Unitary Plan – plan change update, 4 March 2025
e ⇨	Waste Political Advisory Group – agenda, minutes and minutes attachments, 24 February 2025
f ⇨	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth – South projects – Update on appeals, 6 March 2025

[2] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392 (HC)

Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Angela Dalton
Members	Houkura 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
	Houkura Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Cr Shane Henderson

Date	Subject
12/11/2024	Memorandum - Resilient Tāmaki Makaurau – Community Planning for Climate Disruption: Papakura Pilot Please note this submission was omitted from the Summary of Information report for the committee’s meeting on 10 December 2024 due to an administrative error.
17/2/2025	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth – Update on Airport to Botany project
4/3/2025	Memorandum - Auckland Unitary Plan – plan change update
6/3/2025	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth – South projects – Update on appeals

Author	Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance