1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 August 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Puketāpapa Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

Puketāpapa Local Board

28 August 2025

Monte Cecilia Park - options for the future of the building known as The Whare, 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough

File No.: CP2025/17643

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the deconstruction of the building known as The Whare at Monte Cecilia Park, 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Whare building at Monte Cecilia Park, 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, has been empty since the former Monte Cecilia Primary School vacated the premises in 2016. The building is currently fenced off from the rest of the reserve as it is not useable in its current condition, having fallen into disrepair and has encountered vandalism.

3. The deconstruction of the building was identified as an option by staff in 2016 through a condition and heritage assessment which found the building to be in very poor condition and containing asbestos material. The local board requested that staff investigate options regarding the future of the asset.

4. Staff now seek approval to deconstruct the asset and reinstate the area to grass. This course of action is recommended as it is not financially viable to restore the building.

5. If approved by the local board, a request will be made for the project to be included and funded as part of the Delivering Differently programme that the Governing Body has approved to assist with the rationalisation of assets across the region.

6. Staff will work in partnership with the Deliver Differently programme lead who will manage the programme and distribution of funding for decommissioning works to enable the deconstruction of the Whare building.

7. Alternatively, the local board has the option to expedite the deconstruction by using the local board’s operational budget to fund the deconstruction work.

8. The removal of the building will require a resource consent process to be undertaken as the building falls within the Unitary Plan Monte Cecilia Precinct area. It may also require approval from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

9. Staff will provide regular updates to the local board through the Parks and Community Facilities workshops and monthly updates.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the deconstruction of the Whare building at Monte Cecilia Park, 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough.

b) tono / request that the project funding for the deconstruction of the Whare building be considered for inclusion in the Delivering Differently regional programme.

c) tuhi / note that, once funding is secured, staff will seek the appropriate approvals then deconstruct the building and remove it from council’s asset database.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Whare building is located within the grounds of the former Monte Cecilia Primary School adjacent to Pah Homestead at 72A Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough.

Figure 1: Monte Cecilia Park, 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough with the Whare building highlighted in the white box.

23028-B152

Figure 2 – The Whare building showing its current condition.

11. The Whare building sits within the Monte Cecilia Precinct of the Auckland Unitary Plan as outlined in the planning image below, which includes built heritage, natural archaeological and Māori cultural heritage provisions to be take into account, this means that a resource consent will be required to remove the building. The Whare building does not sit within the heritage overlay which covers most of Monte Cecilia Park.

12. The Whare building is included in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga listing number 89 for The Pah, which includes 64, 72, 72A Hillsborough Road, 40F Herd Road, 30 Korma Road, 19 Budock Road, 593-595, 615-615A Mount Albert Road, Hillsborough, Auckland. The site constitutes an archaeological site as defined by the Historic Places Act 1993.

Figure 3 – Monte Cecilia Precinct outlined in red – the green unhatched area with the yellow dot is approximately where the Whare building is located.

13. The Whare building was relocated from the St Johns College site in Tamaki to Pah Homestead in 1901. The exact age of the building is not known but it is believed to date from the 1880’s. Historic photographs show the building was originally clad in vertical timber board and batten and had double hung sash windows.

14. The Whare building has gone through several additions and alterations over the years, latterly as part of the Monte Cecilia Primary School. The building is now generally clad with compressed fibre-cement sheets, likely applied over the timber board and batten cladding. This cladding will have asbestos containing material.

15. The Monte Cecilia Primary School site, which included the Whare building was acquired from the Catholic Diocese by the council in 2010, so that Monte Cecilia Park could be expanded.

16. The Monte Cecilia Primary School was demolished in January 2016 with only the Whare building remaining. The Whare building has been unused since the demolition of the rest of the primary school in 2016.

17. A concept plan was developed for Monte Cecilia Park by the Puketāpapa Local Board in May 2016 which notes the Whare building is to be retained, restored and utilized as a community facility.

18. In September 2016 a report was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee seeking approval to reallocate capital expenditure towards the Whare building restoration project and provide information on the viability of a charitable trust to secure funding and oversee the restoration project.

19. At the 16 September 2016 Finance and Performance Committee resolved to provide $300,000 funding for the Whare building restoration. Resolution number FIN/2016/140.

20. The Puketāpapa Local Board provided operational funding in financial year 2018/2019 to the operator of Pah Homestead at the time, the James Wallace Arts Trust, to investigate the feasibility of fundraising for the restoration of the Whare building to enable it to be used as a community facility.

21. The James Wallace Arts Trust proposed the restored Whare building could have three core uses; it could be a learning facility in extension of the education programme provided by the Arts Centre based at Pah Homestead, a function space to be bookable for community and private functions, and the establishment of a local archive and reading room, where resources on the history of the area could be available to the community.

22. The feasibility study was completed in April 2019 and sent to the local board. At the James Wallace Arts Trust/Council Joint Liaison Body meeting on 25 November 2019 the James Wallace Arts Trust advised that the Whare building could not be restored and operated without considerable funding, which was currently unavailable to the James Wallace Arts Trust at the time.

23. In financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 the $300,000 discrete budget was deferred to financial year 2022/2023. This was due to the amount of budget required for the restoration work and restrictions in budgets, through the Emergency and the Recovery Budgets.

24. As part of the 2023-2025 Customer and Community Services work programme the Puketāpapa Local Board recommended that the Long-term Plan (LTP) discrete budget for the Whare building be funded in financial year 2022/2023. (Resolution PKTPP/2022/87).

25. Following the adoption of the 2022-2023 Annual Plan by the Governing Body, the discreet budget of $304,000 allocated in the Long-term Plan (LTP) for the restoration of the building to enable its use as a community facility, was deferred to financial year 2025/2026.

26. The condition of the asset has deteriorated as a result of vandalism and unuse. The building is in very poor condition and is fenced off as it poses health and safety risks due to the asbestos containing material in the building. The work to restore and remedy the building to enable the use of the facility by the community is not considered financially viable.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

27. An asset condition report was undertaken on 8 September 2015, by Heritage Architects Matthews and Matthews Architects Limited. The assessment has identified that the asset is in a fair to poor condition and has highlighted several issues:

· The building contains asbestos material.

· Wooden joinery has deteriorated.

· The corrugated iron roof is in poor condition and is leaking and the spouting is badly corroded.

· The interior of the building is generally in a deteriorated condition with evidence of water ingress, mould growth and flaking paint.

· The building would require substantial work to bring it up to current building code requirements.

28. Auckland Council’s Heritage Unit undertook a Built Heritage Condition Survey and Interpretation and Accessibility Audit of the building on 23 January 2019, which noted the building was in a poor condition. The report also noted that the heritage features appear to relate to historical and social values and not physical features, visible at the time, due to the considerable modification to the building over time. Nevertheless, significant heritage features of the interior such as roof framing and boarding concealed above the false ceilings as well as timber floors are likely to remain today that are of heritage value.

29. The report also notes that there are significant interpretation opportunities to recognise the former school building and its association with the park.

30. To remove the Whare building, a resource consent process will need to be undertaken and this process would involve input from the Heritage Unit. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga will need to provide advice on the proposal which may involve applying for their authority.

31. A recent condition report undertaken by the Asset Assessor from Parks and Community Facilities department in May 2025, notes the condition of the building as in a very poor condition and has reached the end of its of life (economically unsuitable for refurbishment). The cost to remediate and/to renew is now expected to outweigh the benefit. (Refer to Table 1 below).

32. The local board previously indicated a desire to restore the asset. However, due to lack of funding and the asset falling into disrepair, the cost to remediate the asset is no longer considered financially viable.

33. If the local board wishes to retain the Whare building, further work will need to be undertaken to determine what community function the building could provide. This would require input from various departments and a full assessment would need to be undertaken to determine service provisions and requirements.

34. The Puketāpapa Local Board has insufficient capex renewals funding to cover the estimated $3.72 million required to restore the building. There are several other active assets that require renewal works which have been deferred to later financial years. Further delays could have the potential to impact the service levels of these assets.

Public and stakeholder consultation / engagement

35. Consultation with the local community and stakeholders was undertaken as part of the Monte Cecilia Park concept plan development in 2016. The 2016 concept plan looked to retain the Whare building as a park asset.

36. Further investigation was undertaken with the James Wallace Arts Trust to seek the viability of the Whare building as a multi-purpose facility which would complement and act as an extension of the activities at Pah Homestead.

37. No specific community consultation has been undertaken specifically on the future of the Whare building.

Options assessment

38. The feasibility study that was completed in April 2019 by the James Wallace Arts Trust was presented to the local board at a James Wallace Arts Trust/council Joint Liaison Body meeting on 25 November 2019. The study confirmed that the Whare building could not be restored and operated without considerable operational funding, which was currently unavailable to the James Wallace Arts Trust or the local board.

39. A summary of the current options for the building is outlined in the table below.

Table 1: Summary of options assessment for the Whare building

Options	Finance/budget		Comments
Options	Local capital (CAPEX) (preliminary estimate only)	Regional operational (OPEX) (preliminary estimate only)	Comments
Option 1 – Do nothing	$0	$2,500	This option is not recommended as the building is unsafe to be left in its current condition.
Option 2 - renew and upgrade the asset	$3,752,170	$TBC	This option is not recommended as there is insufficient budget to undertake the renewal with the required changes to bring the building up to current building code and to run and operate the facility. The capex figure is based on a report provided 2019 and adjusted using the consumer price index (CPI) to 2025.
Option 3 -deconstruct and reinstate the area to grass	$0	$250,000	This is the recommended option as it will provide more open green space within Monte Cecilia Park and remove the unsafe building. This may be funded from the Delivering Differently programme regional fund or from the local board’s operating budget.

Preferred option

40. Staff advise that as the asset no longer serves a purpose, that the local board approves option three, to deconstruct the asset.

41. The recommendation aligns with local board plans and is financially prudent due to the local board’s ongoing funding constraints and the significant expense that would be required to remediate the buildings, given the properties’ poor condition, are also addressed by this option.

42. Removal of this asset will result in the asset being removed from council’s asset database. If the service is required again in the future, the local board will need to prioritise other development capital expenditure (capex) in order to establish a new asset and a new service.

43. This option provides more open green space in the park for the community to use and enjoy. The removal of the building will also restore sightlines to the Manukau Harbour.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

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

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

45. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in carbon emissions from deconstruction, including contractor emissions. Staff will seek to minimise carbon and contractor emissions through implementing Auckland Council's sustainability guidelines.

46. This includes maximising the upcycling and recycling of existing material, including the development of a Site-Specific Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Plan in accordance with the Auckland Council – Deconstruction and Salvage Specification. Although the presence of asbestos containing material may impact on the amount of material that we can recover we will still endeavour to reuse or recycle as much material as possible.

47. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved through sourcing local services where possible to reduce carbon emissions.

48. The Whare building sits outside of the flood plain and its removal will have no impact on reducing flooding in the area.

Figure 4: aerial map showing flood prone areas and flood plains in Monte Cecilia Park and The Whare building (highlighted in white box).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

49. Council staff from Parks and Community Facilities specialist teams (Area Operations, Project Specialisation Office, Community Leasing and Specialist Operations teams) as well as the Community Wellbeing department and Heritage unit have been consulted. They are supportive of the proposed option as it will reduce the maintenance costs and address the health and safety concerns raised.

50. The Heritage Unit note that as the building has pre-1900 origins consultation should take place with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) to seek their advice (including any authority needed) on both the proposed deconstruction and managing any wider heritage effects from land disturbance involved, prior to any resource consent application being lodged.

51. Parks and Community Facilities recognise that the cost to restore the Whare building is restrictive. On taking into account the feedback received from HNZPT, the Heritage Unit may consider accepting in principle its deconstruction as an exception. Given the present circumstances outlined following an assessment of the effects including alternatives considered to deconstruction (eg the viability of retention or relocation) through the resource consent process, and provided that as much of the remaining heritage material is properly recorded in-situ, salvaged and appropriately reused.

52. Other potential measures may be needed to recognise and secure the heritage values of the building and those of the Precinct and surrounding park. Assuming the recommended option is agreed the Heritage Unit also request that an interpretative sign is installed to outline the history of the Whare building including its original location and its connection to the park.

53. Collaboration with staff from the Heritage Unit will be ongoing through the resource consent process and if consented to ensure that the deconstruction of the building is recorded and documented and any salvageable material is reused where possible.

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

Local impacts and local board views

54. Staff discussed the current condition of the building with the local board at their workshop on 18 August 2022 and tabled a memorandum outlining the status of the building.

55. The local board sought further advice on the Long-term Plan (LTP) budget allocated to restore the Whare building and whether this funding could be allocated to other projects on Monte Cecilia Park.

56. Due to financial restrictions the Long-term Plan (LTP) restoration funding for the Whare building, was pushed out from financial year 2022/2023 to financial year 2025/2026.

57. In July 2024 the local board requested that a report come to a local board business meeting to consider options for the future of the Whare building.

58. The proposed deconstruction of the asset will potentially have a positive impact on park users by the removal of an asset which is in poor condition, not in use and has no service need and will provide more green open space for use

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

59. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Unitary Plan (operative in part), Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and local board plans.

60. The recommended option as discussed in this report will benefit Māori and the wider community. This is achieved through the provision of quality open spaces that promote good health, the fostering of family and community relationships and providing a connection to the natural environment.

61. Engagement with mana whenua will be undertaken as part of the resource consent process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

62. High level indicative cost estimates for each option are included in the options assessment table (refer to table 1 under analysis and advice section of the report).

63. Restoring the Whare building is considered not financially viable.

64. If the project is approved by the local board, a request will be made for the project to be included and funded in the Delivering Differently programme that the Governing Body has approved to assist with the rationalisation of assets across the region.

65. Staff will work in partnership with the Deliver Differently programme lead who will be managing the distribution of programme funding to enable the deconstruction of the Whare building.

66. Deconstructing the asset is estimated to cost $250,000, including the removal of asbestos containing material and resource consent requirements.

67. The local board has the option to prioritise the deconstruction itself by using the local board’s opex budget to fund the deconstruction instead of relying on regional funding availability. This would reduce the safety risks associated with the deteriorating asset.

68. The processes of surveying and recording features of the Whare building, alongside the asbestos remediation and meeting other requirements of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Toanga in protecting the historic and cultural heritage values of the site will have other cost implications.

69. The Group Finance unit advises that the Long-term Plan (LTP) discreet budget of $304,000, #18183 Monte Cecilia Park investigate future options of the historic Whare, cannot be reallocated to another project within Monte Cecilia Park. With the removal of the Whare building this LTP discrete budget will go back to the Governing Body.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations https://aklcouncil.sharepoint.com/sites/how-we-work/SitePages/report-writing-guidelines.aspx - risks-and-mitigations

70. A resource consent will be required for the deconstruction. The preparation and processing of this consent may have an impact on the timeframe for the project.

71. Approval might be needed from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

72. Additional engagement with external stakeholders, iwi and the community will be undertaken as part of the resource consenting phase. There is a risk that individuals within the community may not support the deconstruction. This may delay the project and result in additional costs through the resource consent and engagement stages.

73. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Risks identified	Mitigation
Timeframe
Resource consent	Preparation and processing of the consent may have an impact on the timeframe of the completion of the project, especially given the heritage requirements.
Health and Safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during deconstruction	The site is currently fenced off and will remain so while the building is deconstructed. The removal of asbestos containing material will follow strict health and safety protocols and the work will be undertaken by specialist contractors.
Reputational
Community support	Deconstruction of the historic building may not be supported by the community causing negative feedback. Communications could reference the building is at the end of its life and the cost to restore the building is not financially viable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74. If the local board approves the option to deconstruct the asset and reinstate the area to grass, staff will forward the local board’s decision to seek funding from the Delivering Differently programme to rationalize assets across the region. This work programme is funded through a regional operational budget, and assets listed will be prioritised as and when funding becomes available.

75. Staff will continue to keep the local board informed on progress through our monthly workshops noting that a resource consent process will need to be undertaken before the deconstruction works can commence.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jody Morley Manager Area Operations

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

28 August 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan – Local board views on the withdrawal in part of Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification and draft replacement plan change

File No.: CP2025/18740

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To enable the local board to provide its views to the Governing Body (via the Policy and Planning Committee) on:

a) the withdrawal in part[1] of Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification

b) the draft replacement plan change documents below:

· Chapters A, B, C, D, E, G and H

· Chapter I

· Chapters J, K, L, M and Puketāpapa Map Series.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Enabling significant opportunities for development, in particular housing in the right places, is a fundamental aspect of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Under the previous government, the council was required to make widespread changes to the unitary plan to enable even greater levels of intensification. The resulting changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan were included in Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification notified in August 2022.

3. Since early 2023, the Policy and Planning Committee (via the Mayor, and the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Policy and Planning Committee) has strongly advocated to central government for a better way to enable even more development than the Auckland Unitary Plan already provides for, while addressing risks from natural hazards such as flooding and coastal erosion/inundation.

4. The very recently enacted Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act enables the council, if it chooses, to withdraw in part, Plan Change 78, provided the council notifies a replacement plan change that satisfies new requirements. The council had previously been unable to withdraw Plan Change 78 (in whole or in part).

5. On 21 August 2025 the Policy and Planning Committee endorsed a draft replacement plan change to enable staff to consult on it with iwi authorities, government ministries and adjoining councils, and to request local board views on the draft replacement plan change and a corresponding withdrawal in part of Plan Change 78. Due to the timeframes set by central government in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act, the council will need to decide in September 2025 whether or not to withdraw from Plan Change 78 and, if so, to proceed with a replacement plan change.

6. Consultation feedback and local board views will be reported at a meeting of the Policy and Planning Committee in September 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) tuku / provides its views on:

i) the withdrawal in part of Proposed Plan Change 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 Puketāpapa Map Series.

Horopaki

Context

Introduction

7. Enabling significant opportunities for development, in particular housing in the right places, is a fundamental aspect of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). Under the previous government, the council was required to make widespread changes to the AUP to enable even greater levels of intensification. The resulting changes to the AUP were included in Proposed Plan Change 78 – Intensification (PC78) notified in August 2022.

8. Since early 2023, the Policy and Planning Committee (via the Mayor, and the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Policy and Planning Committee) have strongly advocated to central government for a better way to enable even more development than the AUP already provides for, while addressing risks from natural hazards such as flooding and coastal erosion/inundation.

9. The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act enables the council, if it chooses, to withdraw in part, PC78, provided that the council notifies a replacement plan change that satisfies new requirements. The council had previously been unable to withdraw PC78 (in whole or in part).

10. On 21 August 2025 the Policy and Planning Committee endorsed a draft replacement plan change to enable staff to consult on it with iwi authorities, government ministries and adjoining councils, and to request local board views on the draft replacement plan change and a corresponding withdrawal in part of PC78. Due to the timeframes set by central government in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act, the council will need to decide in September 2025 whether or not to withdraw PC78 and, if so, to proceed with a replacement plan change.

11. Consultation with iwi authorities is a legal prerequisite for any plan change. Consultation with adjoining councils and government ministries is also mandatory. The council must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. Consultation feedback and local board views will be reported at a meeting of the Policy and Planning Committee in September 2025.

Different plan making context for PC78 and any replacement plan change

12. The statutory settings for PC78 differ from how the council normally undertakes plan changes. Particular legal requirements apply to PC78, for example:

· Ministerial directions apply

· the span of the council’s decision-making is constrained compared to the usual plan-making process under the Resource Management Act (RMA)

· the council cannot fully address significant risks from natural hazards.

13. Consultation remains a mandatory requirement for any replacement plan change.

14. The latest RMA amendments:

· enable the council to withdraw PC78 (in whole or in part) which would then trigger a mandatory replacement plan change

· make any replacement plan change subject to different legal requirements, in particular, any replacement plan change must enable the same or more capacity for development as PC78

· constrain the span of the council’s decision-making compared to the usual plan-making process under the RMA

· enable the council to fully address risks from natural hazards.

15. Two key procedural factors of relevance to this report are:

· the limited window in which the council can decide whether to withdraw PC78: between the day the RMA amendments commence, and 10 October 2025

· the mandatory requirement to consult on a draft replacement plan change with iwi authorities, government ministries and adjoining councils and to obtain local board views, before deciding whether to approve a proposed replacement plan change for notification (after seeking a direction from the relevant Minister).

Different timing for consultation driven by legislation and timeframes

16. The very recently enacted Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act provides Auckland Council with specific provisions to withdraw PC78 (in whole or in part) and replace it with a new plan change.

17. Staff have been unable to formally consult on any replacement plan change until the RMA amendments became law. Given delays in the parliamentary process, these amendments have only just become law, but the council is required to make a decision on notification of a replacement plan change by 10 October 2025.

18. This means the Governing Body has very little time to consult with iwi, ministries and adjoining councils, and to seek the views of local boards, before making a decision on whether or not to withdraw in part PC78 and notify a replacement plan change.

Draft replacement plan change

19. With feedback from the Policy and Planning Committee, staff have prepared a draft replacement plan change to meet the requirements they understood would be included in amendments to the RMA. It also provides for improved management of development in areas affected by natural hazards. The draft replacement plan change documents can be found below:

· Chapters A, B, C, D, E, G and H

· Chapter I

· Chapters J, K, L, M and Puketāpapa Map Series.

20. Relative to PC78, in the draft replacement plan change:

a) there are stronger controls relating to managing risks from flooding, coastal hazards, landslides and wildfires

b) there are changes to the zoning (down-zoning) of properties that are at the highest risk from flooding and coastal hazards

c) Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) have been replaced with different/improved standards

d) there is an increase in the amount of land zoned for two-storey medium density housing (the Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone)

e) there is a reduction in the amount of land zoned for three-storey medium density housing (the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone)

f) building heights of up to 10 storeys are generally enabled in 23 walkable catchments around Rapid Transit Stops, except where qualifying matters apply

g) building heights of up to 15 storeys are generally enabled in 21 walkable catchments around Rapid Transit Stops, except where qualifying matters apply

h) outside of walkable catchments, building height controls for most of the Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone are increased to enable buildings of six storeys (up from five storeys), with a more permissive height in relation to boundary control

i) the area of land zoned for the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone around 14 town centres is increased (within generally 200 metres to 400 metres of the edge of the Town Centre zone)

j) the area of land around 11 additional town centres and local centres is zoned for Terrace Housing and Apartments Buildings zone (within generally 200 metres of the edge of the Town Centre zone or Local Centre zone)

k) sites within approximately 200 metres either side of 24 corridors on Auckland Transport‘s Frequent Transport Network is zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone

l) intensification requirements have been applied to the previously excluded Auckland Light Rail Corridor, to give effect to policies 3 and 4of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the specific intensification requirements set out in the RMA amendment for increased building heights in the walkable catchments around the rail stations at Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, Morningside, Baldwin Ave and Mount Albert; except where qualifying matters apply

m) removing additional areas of special character that are currently identified in the AUP, in the walkable catchments around the rail stations at Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland and Morningside

n) to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Regional Policy Statement, a new qualifying matter has been applied to a small number of walkable catchments and NPS-UD policy 3(d) locations to make the building heights or density requirements less enabling of development.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. The purpose of this report is limited to seeking the local board’s views on:

a) the withdrawal in part of Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification

b) the draft replacement plan change documents below:

· Chapters A, B, C, D, E, G and H

· Chapter I

· Chapters J, K, L, M and Puketāpapa Map Series.

22. In considering a), it is important to note that:

a) should the council not withdraw PC78, it will be required to:

i) prepare and notify a variation to PC78 for the missing ‘Auckland Light Rail Corridor’ between the city centre and Māngere as soon as possible

ii) seek an extension of time for the hearings and decision-making on PC78 from the Minister for Resource Management Reform (currently 31 March 2026)

iii) prepare evidence and, along with the many submitters, attend hearings before the PC78 independent hearings panel

iv) consider developing an interim plan change that partially strengthens the rules in the AUP relating to natural hazards

v) receive recommendations from the independent hearings panel and make decisions on those recommendations:

· any recommendations accepted by the council cannot be appealed to the Environment Court

· any recommendations rejected by the council would be referred to the Minister for Resource Management Reform for a decision.

b) should the council withdraw PC78:

i) it will be required to make a decision by 10 October 2025 to notify a replacement plan change

ii) the replacement plan change must enable the same or more capacity for development as PC78

iii) the Minister for Resource Management Reform will determine detailed matters relating to the submissions and hearings process after considering the council’s views

iv) an independent hearings panel would be appointed jointly by the council and the Minister for Resource Management Reform to hear submissions and make recommendations to the council:

· any recommendations accepted by the council cannot be appealed to the Environment Court

· any recommendations rejected by the council can be appealed to the Environment Court.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

· to prepare the region for the adverse effects of climate change (e.g. increased risk from natural hazards such as flooding and coastal erosion/inundation).

24. The local board may wish to express its views on:

a) whether withdrawing in part PC78 has a positive, neutral or negative impact in terms of climate-related matters

b) climate-related matters associated with the draft replacement plan change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Views and infrastructure constraints and opportunities have been taken into account. Auckland Urban Development Office, Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited staff contributed to confidential workshops in which potential choices, risks and mitigations were discussed. Staff within the council have similarly contributed, led by Planning and Resource Consents, but also including Policy, Chief Economist’s Office, Legal and Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The purpose of this report is to obtain the views of the local board on the draft replacement plan change and associated withdrawal in part of PC78.

27. Local board chairpersons and portfolio leads were invited to participate in the seven Policy and Planning Committee workshops regarding development of a potential replacement plan change (held on 9, 16 and 30 April, 14 and 23 May, 25 June, and 6 August 2025).

28. All local board members were briefed on the replacement plan change at an elected members’ briefing on 18 July 2025. Local boards were updated on 8 August 2025 on the results of capacity modelling completed for a mid-June version of a draft replacement plan change. The second briefing addressed:

· additional changes required to address issues with capacity for development

· changes to the provisions of the draft replacement plan change to manage the increased levels of intensification

· application of additional qualifying matters that limit intensification in some places

· a review of the draft replacement plan change map viewer for local board areas, which has since been updated further.

29. The views of the local board will be provided at a meeting of the Policy and Planning Committee in September 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Many issues raised by iwi authorities in consultation on PC78, and raised in iwi authorities’ PC78 submissions, may remain relevant to any replacement plan change. As the replacement plan change would be a new plan change subject to different statutory requirements, it creates new council obligations for consultation with iwi authorities and participation. Iwi authorities may identify new matters. This requires a fresh approach informed by lessons learnt.

31. Consultation with iwi authorities on how the AUP manages natural hazards started with hui in late 2023, progressing to hui on a possible replacement plan change on 21 and 22 July 2025. The consultation process is ongoing, and it is necessary to provide iwi authorities with the draft replacement plan change to enable this to continue.

32. Outcomes of iwi authorities’ consultation on natural hazard matters, including issues of concern, were twice reported to the council before decision making and notification of PC78 in 2022 (Planning Committee reports 30 June 2022 and 4 August 2022).

33. Houkura members and secretariat staff were invited to the confidential workshop series to date on 9, 16 and 30 April, 14 and 23 May, 25 June, and 6 August 2025.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. There are no financial implications associated with the local board providing its views on the matters discussed in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The draft replacement plan change proposes significant changes to the urban parts of the AUP. A key requirement (set by central government) has been to achieve the same or more capacity for development as PC78. Therefore, both PC78 and the draft replacement plan change both provide significantly more enabled capacity for development than the AUP.

36. The draft replacement plan change is intended to distribute this capacity across Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland in a more focused way with different implications in different locations. There has been limited time to develop provisions and to test them. Given the timeframes, there is limited time available to undertake consultation with iwi authorities, and there is insufficient time for engagement with the public.

37. The council has previously sought to engage with the public on significant draft plan changes: the absence of wider consultation creates a reputational risk. If a subsequent decision is made to withdraw in part PC78 and notify a replacement plan change, an extended timeframe for making submissions would be recommended when seeking directions from the Minister for Resource Management Reform. It would also be important to undertake a significant communications and engagement campaign to ensure Aucklanders know about the proposed replacement plan change and the opportunity to inform the final outcome by making a submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. The views of local boards, and any feedback from iwi authorities, central government ministries and adjacent councils will be provided at a Policy and Planning Committee meeting in September 2025. If the committee agrees to withdraw in part and replace PC78, the proposed replacement plan change will be notified for submissions in late October 2025.

39. Once submissions have closed, staff will prepare a summary and report back to the local board so it can express its views to the independent hearings panel.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft PC78 Replacement Plan Change Puketapapa Map Series_A3	27

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Oliver Roberts - Head of Governance Programmes and Policies

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

[1] The City Centre zone provisions within PC78 have been heard and decided so can no longer be withdrawn.

Chairperson	Ella Kumar, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Fiona Lai
Members	Roseanne Hay
	Mark Pervan
	Bobby Shen
	Jon Turner