|
Resolution
number MO/2025/139
MOVED by Deputy
Chairperson W Togiamua, seconded by Member H Fatu Toleafoa:
That
the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
Local Board:
a) tuku
/ provides its views on:
i) the
withdrawal in part of Proposed Plan Change (PC) 78 - Intensification
ii) the
draft replacement plan change documents below:
· Chapters A, B, C, D, E, G and H
· Chapter I
· Chapters J, K, L, M and
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Map Series.
b)
tuku
/ provides the following input to the Auckland Unitary Plan – Plan
Change 78:
i)
General
1.
The
local board acknowledges PC78 can increase housing stock, support
affordability, and encourage growth near town centres and transport hubs.
However, zoning alone won’t ensure affordability; targeted
infrastructure upgrades and government-backed affordable housing are needed.
2.
Additional
support required - without complementary measures, such as, rent controls,
shared ownership schemes, or government-backed affordable housing
intensification risks pricing out existing residents rather than providing
genuine local housing solutions.
3.
Qualifying
matters - to minimise extreme natural implications - flood risks, environment
sensitivities, protect heritage and cultural elements are vital to ensure
growth is balanced, community safety, and preserving important assets i.e.
open spaces, and ensuring community wellbeing. Readers are referred to the
local board’s previous resolutions (MO/2022/166, MO/2022/92,
MO/2022/93) for guidance on consistent application of qualifying matters.
4.
Community
engagement - is essential and is a priority, to get it right! Especially
where flooding overlays affect existing properties, neighbouring properties,
and planned development to ensure PC78 apply local knowledge, uphold cultural
values, and community priorities while guiding planned intensification and
protecting our environment.
ii)
Engagement
1.
Local
network - note the critical importance of community, iwi, and stakeholder
engagement in informing the local board’s feedback on PC78. The local
board calls for effective engagement ensures that local knowledge, lived
experiences, and cultural considerations shape how intensification is
implemented in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu.
2.
Local
board support - that PC78 is being considered at pace, with limited community
input. The complexity of the information and maps, even with subject matter
experts available, makes it challenging for the board to fully understand
implications. This quick approach risks decisions being made without
meaningful local insights, particularly given the potential impact on local
neighbourhoods.
3.
Property
value - acknowledge that engagement is particularly important for sensitive
areas, such as flood-prone zones, where the board wants to support risk
mitigation measures while balancing the rights and development potential of
property owners. Limiting development in these areas under PC78 may reduce
flood risk but could also constrain housing supply or affect neighbouring
properties i.e. property value, creating potential tensions, that require
careful management.
4.
Flood
response - request that government and Council provide clear information on
how flood management, PC78 provisions, and neighbouring property impacts will
be addressed, including potential mitigation measures such as design
controls, infrastructure upgrades, or compensatory planning measures.
5.
Cultural
engagement - Māngere-Ōtāhuhu is one of Auckland’s most
ethnically diverse communities, with many residents for whom English is a
second language. Engagement on PC78 has been rushed and complex. To build
trust and ensure fair outcomes, Council must invest in genuine engagement
through local providers, in community languages, and in formats that are
accessible to residents with limited resources or digital access.
6.
Local
accountability - urge that engagement outcomes must be presented to the local
board before final feedback is adopted, ensuring that the board’s
decisions reflect the community’s priorities, protect sensitive areas,
and allow sustainable intensification while minimising unintended
consequences.
iii)
Town
Centres
1.
Note
that targeted intensification around Māngere Town Centre,
Ōtāhuhu Town Centre, Māngere East, and Māngere Bridge
villages is expected to support local businesses, retail growth, employment
opportunities, and mixed-use development.
2.
Request
that Council ensures infrastructure, public amenities, and community
facilities are upgraded and coordinated with growth, so higher population
densities do not compromise wellbeing or local streetscapes.
3.
Acknowledge
that intensification can improve access to public services, transport, and
housing choice, but caution that areas with historically lower access to open
space and amenities may experience strain without additional investment.
iv)
Transport
Hubs
1.
Support
walkable catchments - around Ōtāhuhu and Middlemore train stations,
and the Māngere Town Centre bus interchange, are intended to encourage
public transport use, reduce car dependency, and support the economic
viability of rapid transit infrastructure.
2.
Request
forecasting information from Auckland Transport to its assessment of
potential congestion, parking pressure, and safety risks, and implements
mitigation measures such as enhanced feeder services, safer
pedestrian/cyclist connections, and park-and-ride options.
3.
Recognise
that if intensification is dispersed too widely under this proposal, to
isolated areas (where land is available) public transport patronage may be
lower than projected, reducing the benefits of significant public investment,
such as the City Rail Link and future Light Rail lines.
4.
Ōtāhuhu
train station - allowing development up to 50 metres / 15 storey’s in
the Ōtāhuhu walkable catchment would go beyond the modest
intensification expected, overshadowing the town centre and conflicting with
nearby heritage areas:
A)
Noting,
misalignment with previously modest intensification and would be detrimental
to supporting a sense of community through built environment. This portion of
the suburb would be, oddly, higher than the town centre. The local board
believe it is out of line with proposals for Papatoetoe and Middlemore train
stations, with such heights being more appropriate for Papatoetoe.
B)
Compounding
this matter, parking, traffic, trucks, and industrial and commercial business
activities are already cheek by jowl with schools and ECEs, for example.
Putting more families and children into this area could be quite unsafe. The
proposed change, under which very high buildings might be placed in this
area, is also widely out of character while just a street or two away from a
heritage overlay area, which would potentially be overshadowed by large
apartment blocks.
C)
Ōtāhuhu
is already driven by a railway line and State Highway, has light industrial
and commercial patches at various points, including part of the walkable
catchment, which already make enjoyment of life as a coherent community
difficult. The board further expresses concern that such large-scale towers,
alongside existing challenges such as the railway line, State Highway, and
light industrial activity near schools and early childhood centres, could
increase risks and weaken community character.
D)
Note,
more modest heights of dwellings might not produce quite the population of
the larger developments, but would achieve the benefits of intensification,
increased use of public transport, less use of cars is envisaged by this
approach while still keeping with the wellbeing of the community.
E)
While
acknowledging that higher densities may be more appropriate in places such as
Middlemore, where the hospital and transport hub naturally support more
intense development, the local board supports a balanced approach to
intensification in Ōtāhuhu, preferring lower building heights that
better reflect the local environment and community needs.
v) Affordability and Economic
Opportunities
1.
Note
that the policy aims to attract investment and stimulate economic activity in
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu during financially challenging periods for
residents.
2.
Unaffordable
- highlighting the local board’s adopted position to central
government’s National Direction package 4 - Going for Housing Growth
Pillar 1: ‘freeing up land for urban development and removing
unnecessary planning barriers. And, calling government for improved
affordability in home ownership by addressing the fiscal gaps our community
faces in securing local housing, such as low household budgets, through low
wages, high unemployment, high interest rates and cost of goods and services.
3.
Fiscal
support needed - while PC78 allows more intensive housing, zoning alone will
not make homes affordable for our community. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
has a high proportion of low-income households already struggling with
housing costs. Without complementary measures such as government-backed
affordable housing, rent controls, or shared ownership schemes and
intensification risks pricing out existing residents rather than providing
genuine local housing solutions:
A)
request
complementary fiscal and regulatory measures to support affordable housing
delivery, rental stability, and mixed housing types, so growth benefits are
accessible to households below the Auckland average income
B)
request
council and central government develop and implement targeted local
initiatives and incentives that ensure employment and retail opportunities
from intensification benefit all residents, particularly financially
vulnerable households, preventing exclusion from local economic growth. Noting
Qualifying Matters paragraph 10. in this feedback.
vi)
Qualifying
Matters
1.
Note
that applying these qualifying matters may limit some property owners’
ability to fully utilise PC78 development rights, such as building to three
storeys or higher. This creates tension between enabling housing supply and
managing risks. Engagement is therefore critical to test whether communities
understand, accept, or oppose these trade-offs particularly in flood-prone
areas, like, Māngere East, Māngere, Māngere Bridge, and Ōtāhuhu
coastal areas, where restrictions may apply unevenly across neighbouring
sites.
2.
Request
that PC78 must continue to recognise and protect Qualifying Matters, which
are essential to maintain the unique environmental, cultural, and historical
character of Māngere-Ōtāhuhu. The board emphasises that these
areas require careful planning controls to balance intensification with
protection of sensitive sites.
3.
Heritage
and Special Character Areas - protect areas with significant heritage or
architectural value, including Rosella Road, Tioro Lane, Teo Lane,
Middlemore, and the Ōtāhuhu Train Station neighbouring residential
precincts. Development in these areas must be carefully managed to retain
historical character, maintain streetscape integrity, and prevent
overshadowing or overdevelopment.
4.
Volcanic
Height-Sensitive Areas & Outstanding Natural Features - safeguard
volcanic view shafts and outstanding natural features, including Māngere
Mountain, Mount Richmond, Ōtāhuhu, Kuranui Place, Māngere
Road, and Ihumātao Quarry Road. Ensure that new development respects
height-sensitive limits, protects sightlines, and maintains public access to
culturally significant landscapes.
5.
Infrastructure
Constraints - acknowledge limitations in stormwater and transport networks
around our local board area due population growth and dated pipes and drains,
and transport networks i.e. road corridors. Growth in these areas should be
matched with infrastructure upgrades and design solutions that mitigate
flooding, congestion, and safety risks for residents.
6.
Aircraft
Noise Areas - retain Single House zoning and restrict sensitive development
in areas affected by high cumulative aircraft noise, such as Jaylo Place and
Shah Place. Development must comply with the Aircraft Noise Overlay and
prevent adverse health or amenity impacts for residents.
7.
Walkable
Catchments - maintain walkable catchments as a qualifying matter to ensure
new development occurs within 1,200 m of city centres, 800 m of metropolitan
centres, and 800 m around rapid transit stops. These catchments support
sustainable transport, accessibility, and community integration, preventing
dispersed, ad hoc development.
8.
Education
facilities – support schools and colleges being recognised as a
qualifying matter, noting their role as vital community infrastructure.
Multi-storey developments beside schools can create safety, access, shading
and compounding traffic issues. Protection is needed to ensure
intensification supports, not undermines, children’s learning and
wellbeing. For example, feedback from local students highlights real concerns
about oversurveillance and privacy, such as high-rises overlooking schools.
PC78 must include stronger protections around sensitive sites: schools,
parks, and cultural landmark so intensification does not compromise safety,
privacy, or mana of local spaces.
9.
Light
Rail Corridor - provide clarity on the proposed Light Rail corridor in
Māngere, including stop locations, zoning implications, and potential
intensification impacts. Ensure that development along this corridor aligns
with future transport infrastructure, supports public transport uptake, and
does not adversely affect neighbouring communities.
10.
Environmental
and Cultural Considerations - protect areas of ecological, environmental, and
cultural significance, including waterways, wetlands, and green spaces,
ensuring that intensification does not compromise biodiversity, flood
management, or cultural heritage.
vii)
Housing
Stock and Land
1.
Integration
- request that government through Kāinga Ora (KO), Auckland Council
through Eke Panuku, and private developers coordinate to deliver housing that
meets demand, provides social and affordable options, and complements local
infrastructure such as schools, parks, and stormwater networks.
2.
The
local board request that central government complete its planned local social
housing builds as a priority to ensure low-income families and individuals
are provided with affordable and much need housing.
3.
Note
that dispersed development under the blanket proposed intensification
including the Medium Density Residential Standards approach may increase
infrastructure costs, reduce efficiency, and challenge the intended outcomes
of a compact city.
viii)
Infrastructure
and Community Safety
1.
Our
area already experiences pressure on infrastructure (stormwater, transport
corridors, schools, health services). Intensification under PC78 will
exacerbate these strains unless upgrades are prioritised. We urge Council and
central government to coordinate investment in infrastructure, green spaces,
and community amenities to ensure intensification supports wellbeing rather
than undermining it.
c)
tāpae
/ delegate authority to the Chairperson to make minor changes to this input.
CARRIED
|
