|
Resolution
number HW/2025/169
MOVED by
Deputy Chairperson B Burns, seconded by Member A White:
That the Howick Local Board:
a)
oppose Plan Change
78 (PC78) and the replacement plan change (RPC).
i)
these plans impose inappropriate,
high-intensity zoning in areas that lack supporting infrastructure, threaten
the heritage and character of communities of interest, and undermine the
wellbeing of existing communities.
ii)
the Board formally
request that Auckland Council initiate a full and transparent review of PC78.
The process and outcomes proposed are not acceptable for Aucklanders and our
local suburbs.
b)
tuhi tīpoka /
note that the Howick Local Board are not the decision-makers on zoning or
planning matters and appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this
important matter, requesting that our views and those of the communities we
serve be considered in full as part of the Policy and Planning
Committee’s decision-making process.
c)
whakamihi / thank local residents and community organisations who have
provided feedback into this process in a short space of time, both in written
input and via public forum, as noted in minutes Attachment B.
d)
tuku / provide the
following feedback on the withdrawal in Part of Proposed Plan Change 78
– Intensification and the draft plan change as included in Agenda
Attachments A to F:
i)
in regard to the
timeline and process used to create the replacement plan change, the Board:
A) note that this is the result of legislation
and Auckland Council does not get to choose if there is housing
intensification or how much, only where:
1) legislation requires Auckland Council to
provide the same or higher capacity than Plan Change 78 – there can be
no net reduction.
2) legislation allows only two options –
continue with Plan Change 78 or replace it with another plan providing the
same capacity.
B) note that the legislation requires Auckland
Council to publicly notify the replacement plan change by 10 October or
proceed with Plan Change 78.
1) given that the Act only received Royal Assent
on 20 August, this creates an extraordinarily short time frame to develop,
consider, and notify a significant change for Auckland’s key planning
tool.
C) note with concern the lack of time for wider
public consultation prior to notification and that many local residents will
still be unaware of the discussion.
D) note that the proximity to the local
government elections (as required by legislation) has constrained elected
members ability to engage with the community as required by legislation.
ii)
in regard to the
lack of balanced planning, the Board:
A) note that the revised plan attempts to meet
government housing targets without due regard for environmental, social, and
community impacts. Auckland has available greenfield development
opportunities where appropriate infrastructure , including transport,
schools, healthcare, and utilities, can be planned and delivered in a
coordinated manner. We believe these options have not been adequately
explored. The Board also note the following concerns:
1)
Environmental and community
impact: Intensifying existing suburbs without necessary infrastructure (when
the infrastructure is already broken or under pressure) puts undue strain on
communities, reduces livability, and risks the unique character that makes
Auckland attractive. New Zealand is not obliged to replicate international
urban models. Our strength lies in our green spaces and lifestyle living,
which are highly valued and should be protected.
2)
Process concerns:
The consultation to date has lacked clarity, transparency and meaningful
community engagement & feedback. Residents and stakeholders expect
genuine transparency in decision-making, with open communication about
options and impacts that affect people’s lives.
3)
Social
infrastructure: healthcare, educational facilities, and other amenities are
at capacity
iii)
the Board urge
Auckland Council to:
A) halt further progression of the draft PC78 in
its current form
B) reconsider growth strategies that better
balance housing demand with infrastructure delivery in available greenfield
expansion areas
C) prioritise protecting the environmental,
social, and community values of Auckland’s suburbs, not decimating them
by focusing on an unrealistic government-driven housing target of 2 million
new dwellings.
D) re-examine the plan; it is not fit for
purpose.
E) make the Auckland Unitary plan, as operative,
work. The Board support in principle the focus of intensification around
existing infrastructure like rapid
transit and town centres in line with previous Board feedback.
iv) in regard to the replacement plan change itself, the Board:
A) support the removal of Medium Density
Residential Standard (MDRS) which has allowed uncontrolled intensification
across the city by enabling three homes of up to three storeys high to be
built on most residential sites without a resource consent.
B) support the return of Single House Zones,
particularly around the coastal areas which are under highest risk from
flooding and coastal hazards.
C) support the strengthening of controls to
manage risks from flooding, coastal hazards, landsides and wildfires, giving
council greater ability to avoid developments that may create risk.
v) in regard to the upzoning of Howick
Village to a “Business
– Town Centre
Zone”, the Board:
A) oppose the proposal to upzone Howick Village
to a “Business – Town Centre Zone”.
B) note that on Stockade Hill the existing view
shaft protections remain (D20A), but there are some increases around the area
which may negatively impact amenity and views to the North, South and West.
The Board and community still support protection of the 360 degree views.
C) note that the Special Character Business
Overlay for Howick remains, providing some protection for properties on
Picton St, Fencible Drive, and the top of Uxbridge Road and Wellington
Street.
D) note that Howick Village, Howick Beach,
Uxbridge Road, Picton Street and Stockade Hill are all notable locations
depicting the arrival of Fencible settlers to the area which occurred in
1847. These locations still house significant buildings from this era –
Shamrock Cottage and All Saints Church, with graveyards at All Saints, and
Star of the Sea Catholic Church. The Howick community values and celebrates
its history. Māori still retain strong spiritual and emotional links
with Howick and Cockle Bay.
E) note that for many years Howick has
successfully retained its “village” persona. The main street
shopping strip is popular and profitable for business owners and loved by the
locals, with many people have moved to or returned to Howick because of the
“village atmosphere.” Its proximity and access to the historic
buildings continues to make it a valuable tourist destination. It is popular
with tourists, many of whom return to Howick to enjoy this location and is
actively promoted by those in the tourism industry.
vi)
in regard to the
Howick to Botany Frequent Transit Network (FTN) corridor upzoning to Terrace
Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB), the Board:
A) oppose the upzoning of housing along the
corridor.
B) note concern that the corridor includes Cockle
Bay (including Sandspit Road) which was previously under an infrastructure
qualifying matter. Removal of infrastructure constraint impact on Cockle Bay
assumes that infrastructure will be upgraded.
C) note that Litten and Sandspit Roads are on a
ridgeline which means the visual impact that upzoning will have on the
surrounding neighborhood will be higher.
D) note the concern around the lack of data to
support upzoning along this corridor between Howick and Botany.
1)
The Board
understand that this corridor was marginal in terms of its inclusion in the
top 26.
E) note that the Howick Beach area is known to
have an aging infrastructure. Houses changed from septic tanks to a sewerage
system in 1960. Since then, there has been an extreme amount of sub-dividing;
the addition of tacked on units, and an assortment of infill housing and
multi- unit blocks.
1)
the Howick Local
Board has dealt with numerous inadequacies around stormwater and flooded
creeks causing damage to properties in the area.
2)
we are well aware
of the flooding issues that lie in the Cockle Bay area (below Sandspit
Road/John Gill/Litten – with constant concerns brought to this board
and council over many years; and highlighted during applications to build a
development in Sandspit Road.
3)
the Board note
concerns around sewage pollution in waterways, the huge reduction in biomass,
and threats to the ecosystem from the soil lost from local streams due to
increased water flow and the resulting silt in the ocean.
vii) in regard to Bucklands Beach
Peninsula, the Board:
A)
note its
concerns about the impact of more housing in the peninsula will have on the
already struggling transport network with the only one road in/out
of the area already heavily congested.
B) note its concerns that the irregular upzoning
in some areas (like Bucklands Beach) may have unintended consequences and suggest
that zoning should be more concentrated.
viii)
in regard
to possible upzoning, the Board suggest the
following locations when considering upzoning:
A) along Te Irirangi Drive to acknowledge Airport to Botany
rapid transit project.
B) around Botany, Ormiston and Pakuranga Town
Centres
C) large Residential – Large Lot Zone
around Gracechurch and Chateau Rise to Mixed Housing Suburban Zone as
requested by local residents.
ix) in regard to general feedback, the Board:
A) note that parking is already a serious concern
of many local residents, with an increasing
number of vehicles left on the street. We note that the previous Government removed the parking minimums and the current
Government has made no move to return them, leaving council limited
powers to influence the provision of car parking.
B) request that the government return the ability
of Councils to require off-street parking to reduce a congestion on the roads
and allow people to be able to charge electric vehicles.
CARRIED
|
