|
Resolution
number FR/2025/142
MOVED by Member G
Holmes, seconded by Deputy Chairperson A Cole:
That
the Franklin Local Board:
a) tuhi
tīpoka / note the following feedback provided under Urgent Decision for
Auckland Council’s submission on National Direction package 4 – Going
for Housing Growth Pillar:
i) tautoko
/ support the key positions outlined in Auckland Council’s draft
submission and adopts the following additional points to reflect the local
context and priorities of the Franklin area
ii) tuhi
tīpoka / note the importance of aligning national direction with local
planning realities, infrastructure constraints, and community aspirations
Theme 1: System design
iii. reiterates
that localised planning input is critical to achieving
well-functioning urban environments. A system that limits planning to
externalities alone risks overlooking the nuanced needs of communities like
Franklin, where rural and urban dynamics intersect
iv. ātete/
oppose the narrowing of the planning system to address only externalities as
this approach fails to address cumulative and long-term effects and excludes
important planning principles such as nuisance and amenity
v. toai
/ reiterates its concern that nationally driven timeframes and resource
constraints have made it difficult for local communities to engage
meaningfully in planning processes
vi. tautoko
/ support a system that recognises localised impacts and enables councils to
consider the well-being of both urban and rural communities
Theme
2: Spatial Planning and Infrastructure
vii. tautoko
/ support the introduction
of regional spatial plans,
provided they are closely integrated with infrastructure
planning—particularly transport—and enable the strategic
sequencing of land release. Noting that these plans must also allow councils
to designate ‘no development zones’ in areas of high natural
value or significant hazard, ensuring that environmental and safety
considerations are embedded in long-term growth strategies
viii. tuhi
tīpoka / notes that spatial planning must reflect the realities of rural
communities, where public transport options are limited or non-existent. In
such areas, road access and parking are essential to ensure residents can
connect with services, employment, and town centres
ix. tuhi
tīpoka / notes that regional spatial strategies must accommodate these
needs to avoid disadvantaging rural populations and undermining local
economic vitality
Theme 3:
Housing Growth and Development Capacity
x. tautoko
/ supports the use of housing targets in principle but believes the proposed
method overestimates demand and ignores infrastructure constraints
xi. tuhi
tīpoka / notes that in areas like Pukekohe and Beachlands,
infrastructure limitations e.g. public wastewater servicing must be
considered qualifying matters
Theme 4:
Barriers
xii. ātete
/ oppose the removal of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) as it is a critical
planning tool in Auckland, guiding infrastructure investment and development
suitability and protecting Highly Productive Land
xiii. tautoko
/ support retaining the ability to define infrastructure servicing boundaries
and designate no-development areas, including applying constraints in coastal
locations such as Beachlands and Waiuku where long-term infrastructure
limitations exist
Theme 5:
Intensification
xiv. tautoko
/ support in principle intensification along transit corridors and greater
flexibility for mixed-use zones, recognising the potential benefits for
housing diversity and urban vitality. While intensification around
well-serviced urban corridors makes sense, this approach cannot be uniformly
applied across all of Auckland. In rural-urban areas like Pukekohe, the
imposition of uniform walkable catchments and blanket height requirements may
have unintended consequences. For example, six-storey buildings near on
the northern side of King Street would negatively impact the town
centre’s amenity and economy due to shading. The Board requests that
this be recognised as a qualifying matter
xv. tautoko
/ support requiring developers to contribute to improved footpaths and
cycling infrastructure around transport hubs, and to provide secure,
practical storage for alternative transport modes such as bikes, mobility
scooters, and prams, to ensure accessibility and safety for all users
Theme 6:
Responsiveness
xvi. ātete
/ opposes mandatory responsiveness to out-of-sequence development, as it
risks undermining strategic spatial planning and infrastructure investment.
While the Board supports the ability to consider private plan changes, these
must be assessed against clear criteria to ensure alignment with council
planning objectives. Any unanticipated development should be subject to a
comprehensive infrastructure assessment that identifies short- and long-term
requirements, clearly outlines responsibilities for funding and delivery, and
ensures that development does not compromise the integrity of planned growth
areas
xvii. the
Board reiterates that rural infrastructure and service delivery must be
considered in any responsiveness framework.
CARRIED
|
