|
Resolution
number KT/2025/460
MOVED by
Chairperson J Gillon, seconded by Member J Tupou:
That
the Kaipātiki Local Board:
a)
express frustration and
disappointment that central government is requiring the following:
i)
only allowing the exemption of Medium Density Residential Standard (MDRS) rules and withdrawal of Plan Change 78 (PC78) if an
additional 2,000,000 houses are enabled through a new plan change;
ii)
limiting Auckland Council’s
decision-making ability compared to under the RMA;
iii)
setting an incredibly tight timeframe
that restricts normal consultation processes;
iv)
requiring the Streamlined Planning
Process (SPP) to be used.
b)
tuhi tīpoka / note that while PC78 is currently only operative in the
central city, the MDRS rules do apply to any parcel in Auckland that does not
have a qualifying matter (approximately 27,000 parcels). For most parcels,
the “Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part” (AUPOP) currently
applies, however developers/planners have been able to argue to allow MDRS to
apply to other parcels.
c)
tuhi tīpoka / note that the legislation requires Auckland Council to
either proceed with PC78 or publicly notify a replacement plan change by 10
October 2025. Given that the Act only received Royal Assent on 20 August 2025,
this creates an extraordinarily short time frame to develop, consider, and
notify a significant change for Auckland’s key planning tool.
d)
tuhi tīpoka / note that the Kaipātiki 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.
e)
tuhi tīpoka / 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.
f)
tuhi tīpoka / 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.
g)
tono / request that
local boards have a further opportunity to provide feedback on the selected
plan change, and the ability to feedback on specific parcels.
Supporting Withdrawing PC78
h)
tautoko / support the withdrawal of
“Proposed Plan Change 78 - Intensification” that formally applies MDRS rules to all
parcels, as it imposes a blanket approach to planning, with inappropriate,
high-intensity zoning in areas that lack supporting infrastructure; are
subject to coastal erosion; are in flood plains; contain significant ecology;
and reduces special character areas.
Supporting replacement PC
i)
reluctantly support the proposed
replacement plan change as
included in Attachments A-F of the
agenda report as, on the whole, it is better for the community and for town
and infrastructure planning than the alternative PC78, noting that it:
i)
does not include
the MDRS rules which could allow uncontrolled intensification across the city
by enabling three homes of up to three-storeys high to be built on most
residential sites (without qualifying matters) without a resource consent.
ii)
keeps the
Residential - Single House Zone, particularly around the coastal areas which
are under highest risk from flooding and coastal hazards.
iii)
strengthens
controls for managing the risk of flooding, coastal hazards, landsides and
wildfires, giving council greater ability to avoid developments that may
create risk.
iv)
downzones areas that may
be impacted by coastal erosion/inundation, thereby minimising housing
development in these risky coastal areas.
Feedback on replacement PC
j)
tuku / provide the
following feedback on the proposed
replacement plan change:
i)
support the removal
of MDRS rules.
ii)
request a greater
set-back requirement for properties that border properties with a special
character overlay as a way to help protect and limit impact on the special
character of the area.
iii)
request the retention of the existing
Special Character Area overlays as they appear in the AUPOP.
iv)
request set back rules are
put in place for buildings greater than four-storey in all zones.
v)
support
heritage-listed buildings, objects, natural features and sites of
significance to Māori all remain protected within the Kaipātiki
Local Board area, this being one of the Government Listed qualifying matters.
vi)
request that land
stability is investigated for in-land properties that are at risk of landslip
other than due to coastal erosion, and that these properties are
appropriately down-zoned.
vii) request that the replacement plan change
resolves the anomaly where town centres, such as Northcote, would have
surrounding properties with a greater height allowance than the town centre
itself, due to existing Height Variation Control (HVC) limits that were
originally intended to enable greater density within town centres.
viii) endorse properties within a Significant
Ecological Area (SEA) being zoned as Residential - Single House Zone.
ix)
request that
existing infrastructure constraints, such as water and wastewater, are
suitably referenced and reflected in the replacement plan change.
x)
recommend the
language used to potential consent applicants for development in natural
hazard zones is “DO NOT” build here, rather than
“AVOID” building here.
xi)
request further
investigation into ways to improve the Beach Haven Local Centre, focusing on
transport and design quality perspective, in response to the proposed
upzoning for much of the area.
xii) request that conditions made under Plan Change
99 continue to apply and are not overridden by provisions in the replacement
plan change.
xiii) request the following higher controls in the
replacement plan change for all resource consents:
A)
that consent applications
neighbouring or within a flood plain are publicly notified,
B)
that subdivision development in flood
prone areas are not allowed,
C)
that irrespective of whether the
development meets the rules of the zone, that if they are proposing greater
than 75% utilisation of allowed height, they must apply for a resource
consent and notify their neighbours.
k)
tono / request that
the public feedback timeframe is increased from 4 to 7 weeks as requested at
the extraordinary Policy and Planning Committee meeting on 21 August 2025 (resolution
number PEPCC/2025/123).
Reiterate previous feedback on special
character areas
l)
reiterate the
following feedback that was provided by the Kaipātiki Local Board at
their January 2023 business meeting on plan changes 78-83, much of which is
pertinent to the proposed replacement plan change:
Submission and feedback endorsements
i)
endorse and support the thorough
feedback provided by the Ōrākei Local Board to plan changes 78-83, much
of which also applies to the Kaipātiki Local Board area, including their
concern that council has not taken a precautionary response to zone changes.
ii)
endorse and support submission 2191
from Graham and Sarah Hughes, of Northcote Point. The board acknowledges the
considerable detail provided in this comprehensive submission. In particular,
the local board supports consideration be given to applying the 'Residential
- Low Density Residential Zone' to sub-block 8.7, and that this area be given
an overlay of 'Special Character Areas Overlay Residential and Business'.
Sub-block 8.7 is defined as the block bordered by Queen Street, Princes
Street, Duke Street and Beach Road, being the odd numbered properties on
Queen Street from 55 through to 83 inclusive, and even numbered properties on
Princes Street with numbers 56 through to 72 inclusive.
iii)
endorse and support submission 2064
from Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society. In particular, the local
board supports consideration being given to reducing the amount of allowable
impermeable site coverage on sites that have a Significant Ecological Area
– Terrestrial (SEA-T) overlay from 60 per cent of the site to less than
50 per cent; and that the minimum amount of SEA-T coverage on a site to
qualify for SEA-T protection be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent in
order to prevent fragmentation and cumulative loss and harm from development.
iv)
endorse and support submission 1404
from Birkenhead Residents Association. The board acknowledges the
consultation undertaken by the Association during the pre-consultation phase
and believes their submission reflects the feedback of the wider community,
specifically around the impact on Special Character Areas. In particular, the
local board supports consideration being given to the following points:
1.
The relatively narrow extent of the
SCA Overlay in Birkenhead means that: (a) many individual properties scored
by council as having high character value will lose the protection of the SCA
Overlay and may be replaced with non-character buildings (with limited design
controls to protect the local amenity) – this will erode the
area’s connection to its distinctive built heritage; and (b) even in
areas of Birkenhead that under PC78 would retain the SCA Overlay, these areas
are surrounded by areas of only slightly lesser special character but that
are proposed to lose the SCA Overlay. This means that properties that are actively
detrimental to the area’s special character may be built in close
proximity to properties of high character value.
2.
Support the inclusion of
infrastructure constraints relating to water and wastewater as a qualifying
matter in PC78. Our particular concern in relation to water and wastewater is
that Wai Manawa / Little Shoal Bay and Le Roys Bush are already badly affected
by freshwater flooding and sewage overflows after heavy rainfall. Increased
intensification will only make that worse, because more building site
coverage means more stormwater runoff. The area does not have the stormwater
infrastructure to manage that – it is a sensitive ecological area that
would be badly harmed by increased silting and runoff. Auckland Council is
already responding to these issues through its work on a Mini Shoreline
Adaptation Plan for Wai Manawa / Little Shoal Bay. It would be counterproductive
to allow increased intensification in the hydrological catchment of Wai
Manawa at the same time as Council is already trying to mitigate the effects
of existing stormwater runoff in the same area.
v)
tautoko / support submissions
encouraging the provision of sufficient open space across the city.
Walkable Catchments
vi)
we request that all walkable
catchments be conditional on:
1.
whether adequate infrastructure can
be provided.
2.
the retention of existing levels of
public spaces, parks, and reserves, and the provision of additional public
spaces, parks and reserves commensurate with the expected increase in
population.
3.
the adoption of a ‘sunlight
admission control’ which protects sunlight and daylight in public
spaces including parks, reserves, lakes, foreshore, and beaches, and height
controls to ensure the same are not dominated by the surrounding built environment.
4.
including pedestrian infrastructure,
such as seating and mature trees.
5.
including minimum parking spaces and
appropriate spread of disabled parking and loading zones.
vii) we do not support walkable catchments where they will
adversely affect Special Character areas.
viii) we do not support walkable catchments being applied to
ferry terminals. The Kaipātiki Local Board area has three ferry
terminals within its catchment: Northcote Point, Birkenhead Point and Beach
Haven. The majority of land surrounding the ferry terminals currently has an
overlay of, special character, coastal instability, or protected tree
schedules. The three ferry terminals within the Kaipātiki area all have
historical significance. Both Northcote and Birkenhead ferry terminals have
historical walks that encompass the wharf area and the surrounding streets.
Northcote Point Ferry Terminal do not provide all weather service. The ferry
is often unable to provide a service, and so it is therefore disingenuous to
provide intensive housing based on transport connectivity.
Special Character Areas
ix)
tautoko / support Special Character
Areas (SCAs), both residential and business as a qualifying matter.
x)
we request the retention of the
existing Special Character Areas and boundaries, as identified in the
Auckland Unitary Plan Chapter D18 Special Character Areas Overlay (including
Birkenhead Point and Northcote Point). Our particular concern is that the change
creates a bias towards further erosion of the SCA Overlay, by:
1.
undermining the SCA Overlay, even in
areas where PC78 currently leaves it intact; and
2.
authorising the destruction of
properties of high character value, where PC78 removes the SCA Overlay.
Those two impacts would be a great loss to the city, but
with only a minimal effect on overall housing capacity. We seek an amendment
to PC78 that modifies the application of Council’s scoring system for
identifying where to retain the SCA Overlay. Our proposal is that a 50 per
cent threshold (still a majority of character-supporting buildings) should be
sufficient, with properties scoring 4, 5 or 6 counting towards this
percentage. Council’s own materials refer to properties scoring 4 as
“character-supporting” – such properties should count
towards inclusion in the SCA Overlay, not towards removal. This approach
would result in materially greater coverage of Birkenhead as a Special
Character Area, which we believe is an accurate reflection of the
area’s distinctive character value and heritage.
Other feedback
m)
tūtohu / recommend
that the Urban Design panel is strengthened to provide confidence to our
communities that we are ensuring building designs achieve quality design
features.
n)
tūtohu / recommend
creating an Architecture Design Review panel to ensure architecture design
and quality in new developments and that they do not detract from the
surrounding areas.
o)
tono / request the
Auckland Council Flood Viewer tool is used to determine the flood plain so
the public can make decisions about where to purchase and build homes. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cbde7f2134404f4d90adce5396a0a630
p)
āhukahuka / acknowledge
the work and advocacy the Policy and Planning Committee have achieved since
January 2023 for this work to legislatively prevent building homes in
flood-prone and erosion-prone areas.
q)
tuhi tīpoka / 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 with
limited powers to influence the provision of car parking.
r)
tono / 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.
s)
tono / request that references to
Integrated Residential Development (IRD) are removed or changed to
“Prohibited” for the Residential – Single House Zone, due
to the incompatibility of such developments from the intention of the zone.
CARRIED
|
