|
Policy and Planning Committee
11 September 2025
|
|
Auckland Unitary
Plan - Private Plan Change Request to Rezone Land at 300, 328, 350, 370 and
part of 458 Karaka Road, Drury West
File No.: CP2025/17529
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To decide how to process a private plan change (PPC) request to the
Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) at 300, 328, 350, 370 and the part of 458 Karaka
Road, Drury West within the Rural Urban Boundary (the plan change area) from
Fisher and Paykel Healthcare Properties Ltd (FPH) (the requestor) to rezone
approximately 86.5 hectares of land from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Business
– Light Industry Zone (B-LIZ).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The council has several options for processing this request under
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). These include adopting, accepting or
rejecting the private plan change request, or treating the request as a
resource consent application.
3. The PPC request raises a strategic issue regarding land being
rezoned ahead of the indicative timing in the council’s Future
Development Strategy 2023-2053 (FDS). The FDS
identifies the plan change area as 'development ready'
in 2035+, based on the expected availability of bulk infrastructure.
4. There is no current funding available for all of
the necessary public infrastructure to support the plan change. However, the
requestor has made some commitments to upgrade public infrastructure (mainly
roading) to support the development and indicated that it will negotiate with
other parties to partially fund other aspects. The council’s Head
of Infrastructure Funding and Development Strategy advises that, if the PPC is
accepted, the council will seek to negotiate an
Infrastructure Funding Agreement before any hearing.
5. With respect to transport, Auckland Transport (AT) advises that
transport improvements will be required to support the plan change. AT notes
that provisions within the plan change should be strengthened to ensure these
occur.
6. Watercare Services Limited (WSL) advises that insufficient public
wastewater infrastructure is available. The requestor proposes interim on-site
wastewater infrastructure. WSL accepts this only as an interim measure
and seeks that the plan change area is connected to the public wastewater
network once capacity is available, and that the PPC be amended to ensure this
occurs.
7. Having reviewed the PPC request material and input from the council
group, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the plan change, and
taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account, for the above reasons
there is a ground of rejection available as aspects of the plan change are
contrary to sound resource management practice.
8. When there are grounds of rejection available, the council has a
discretion as to whether or not it rejects a private plan change request.
While the timing of the private plan change relative to the
council’s Future Development Strategy (and associated infrastructure
issues) is such that the request could be rejected on the basis that it is
contrary to sound resource management practice, or that it could be make the
AUP inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA, the nature of the development it would
enable (a “high tech campus”), and intended 30-year development
programme are such that the development could ultimately integrate with the
timeframes in the council’s Future Development Strategy Therefore,
it is recommended that the council exercise its discretion not to reject the
request.
9. The proposal is also noted as being consistent
with many of the outcomes sought for the Drury-Opākeke Structure
Plan’s Drury West Industrial area. While
there is a lack of wastewater infrastructure in the
short term, on-site solutions have been proposed.
10. On balance, it is considered that the better way to test the
conclusions reached in relation to sound resource management practice is for a
detailed merits assessment to be undertaken through the submission, hearing and
decision-making process.
11. It is therefore recommended that the council exercise its discretion
and not reject the private plan change request, and that the private plan
change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Policy and Planning Committee:
a) whakaae / agree not to reject
the private plan change request
under clause 25(4)
of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act having regard to the relevant case law,
on the basis that:
i) the
private plan change request is not frivolous or vexatious
ii) the substance of the private
plan change request
has not been considered within
the last two years
iii) while
the timing of the private plan change relative to the council’s Future
Development Strategy (and associated infrastructure issues) is such that the
request could be rejected on the basis that it is contrary to sound resource
management practice and could make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with
Part 5 of the Resource Management Act, the nature of the development it would
enable (a “high tech campus”), and intended 30-year development
programme are such that the development could ultimately integrate with the
Future Development Strategy timeframe. Therefore, it is
recommended that Auckland Council exercise its discretion not to reject the
request on these grounds.
b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request
for the following reasons:
i) accepting the private plan change request
for notification will enable a range of matters to be
considered on their merits during a public participatory process
ii) it
is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The council has no immediate
intentions to re-zone this area for development. A council plan change is not currently on the work programme.
iii) the grounds to reject a private plan change request under clause
25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are limited and while a possible ground of
rejection is available, Auckland Council can exercise its discretion not to
reject the private plan change request.
iv) it is not appropriate to deal with the private
plan change request as if it was a resource
consent application because
the Future Urban Zone is not suitable for the activities or the scale of
development proposed and the timeframe for
the development of the land by the requestor is beyond that normally associated
with a resource consent.
c) tāpae / delegate
authority to the Manager Central South Planning to undertake the required
notification and other statutory processes
associated with processing the private plan change request.
Horopaki
Context
Site and Surrounding Area
12. The plan change
area comprises approximately 86.5 hectares of land and is bound by Karaka Road
(State Highway 22 (SH22)) to the north and the railway network of the North
Island Main Trunk (NIMT) Line to the south (comprising 300, 328, 350, 370 and
the part of 458 Karaka Road that is within the RUB).
13. The topography
slopes down in an east to west direction towards Oira awa (creek). Vegetation
within the plan change area is highly modified and largely grazed pasture.
There are no identified ‘Significant Ecological Areas’ (SEAs)
within the plan change area itself or in its vicinity. The pasture on the plan
change area is interspersed with maintained shelterbelt planting, amenity
vegetation as well as riparian vegetation.
14. The plan change
area is currently used for agricultural purposes by a producer of hothouse
fresh produce, as well as animal grazing. Two large hothouse buildings are
located at the southern end of the plan change area directly adjacent to the
NIMT railway line, in addition to various other buildings and structures
associated with the packaging and distribution of fresh produce grown on site.
See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – The Plan change
area is shown within the yellow border.
15. The plan change
area is currently zoned FUZ in the AUP and identified within the Auckland
Council’s Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan (2019) for residential zoning
as part of Auckland’s southern growth area. Figure 2 below shows the plan
change area (black border) in the context of the surrounding area.
Figure 2 – Existing
zoning of plan change area and surrounds.
The private plan change request
16. The intention of
the proposed rezoning is to enable the establishment of a second Auckland FPH
research and development and manufacturing campus, in Drury West.
Therefore, the request is that the land be zoned B-LIZ rather than a
residential zone indicated in the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan. The B-LIZ
will enable FPH to develop a significant employment node, which the requestor
has advised could involve up to 18,000 full time jobs, when fully operational,
within the plan change area. The B-LIZ enables the construction of large
buildings with a primary light industrial land use and contains other
provisions that enable light industrial activities to operate efficiently and
effectively.
17. The private plan change request
proposes to introduce a new precinct
called the ‘Karaka Road Precinct’ into the AUP
to cover the entire plan change area. Precinct provisions have been developed
to provide for a light-industrial area that integrates with the surrounding
area, the natural environment, and respects mana whenua values and enables:
(a) access
to and from the precinct in a safe and effective manner that mitigates adverse
effects of traffic generation on the surrounding road network and encourages
mode shift to public and active modes of transport
(b) coordinated
development with transport and infrastructure upgrades through the use of
triggers and standards.
18. A concept masterplan plan (refer to Figure
3 below) has been provided with the request
and is intended to demonstrate what the land is capable of
delivering. Other precinct plans
are included as part of the proposed
precinct to help guide development by identifying key elements or features that should be provided
for within the precinct including indicative access points from Karaka Road
into the Precinct, indicative riparian margins and special landscaping area;
and an Archaeological features layer.
Figure 3 –
Concept Masterplan
19. The requestor
proposes a long-term staged development of the campus over up to 30 years. As wastewater
infrastructure is not immediately available, the requestor proposes that
wastewater be disposed of on site in the early stages of development (buildings
1 -3) until bulk public infrastructure is available.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
The Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 (DOSP)
20. The council adopted the Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019 (DOSP) in 2019. The DOSP indicates the arrangement of centres,
housing, business areas, parks and infrastructure, taking into account
constraints and opportunities identified. The DOSP identifies that a large area of new industrial business
land is needed in the structure plan area to meet future demand.
21. Three potential areas are proposed. One is located in Drury
West. Amongst other matters, the DOSP identifies that this industrial area
should be designed, zoned and serviced to promote an innovative and employment
focussed creative business environment, achieve high employment densities in
locations that are within walking distance of the DOSP’s railway
stations, provide for a high standard of building
design amenity, provide for good walking and cycling connections to the nearby
residential areas and centres avoid urban development in the 1 in 100-year
floodplain.
22. All of the plan change area,
currently zoned FUZ, is within the DOSP (see Figure 4). The DOSP
shows the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban
zones across the plan change area with the Drury West industrial area, closer
to the motorway to the east.
Figure 4 – Drury- Opāheke
Structure Plan Map with plan change area overlaid
23. The DOSP map shows
the plan change
area as accommodating:
(a) residential use of the land with the Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing
Suburban zones being
applied over its entirety
(b) an
indicative collector road connection (location may change)
(c) a 20m (subject to refinement) riparian
buffer along each side of permanent and intermittent
streams
(d) an indicative suburb park (size
5-10ha)
(e) a commercial centre.
24. As Light Industry zoning is shown on the structure plan
further to the east / closer to the motorway, the private plan change request is not geographically consistent
with the DOSP, with the exception of some of the riparian margins identified
within the Precinct Plans.
25. The requestor
has provided as part of the background material for the plan change request,
their own alternative structure plan that would replace part of the DOSP over
the private plan change area. The amended DOSP is extended to the west over
land that is part of 458 Karaka Road that is outside the RUB, and currently
zoned Rural – Mixed Rural zone, that the requestor owns but this land is
not included in the private plan change area (see Figure 5 below).
Figure 5 – Drury- Opāheke
Structure Plan Map with proposed amendment
26. The changes
proposed in the private plan change request (in addition to the proposed zone
change) include the introduction of an active mode connection on the eastern
boundary of the plan change area together with a frequent bus link to the
Ngākōroa rail station location. The indicative collector road shown
in the DOSP has not been included in the PPC.
27. The indicative
suburb park shown in the structure plan (with the notation: ‘location may
change’) is also not proposed as the residential development shown in the
council structure plan for the plan change area will no longer occur if this proposal
for a business zoning goes ahead. A smaller park is proposed in the higher
density residential area to the east.
28. It is understood
that the requestor sees the rezoning of the land as fitting into its long-term
strategy to provide a campus type development for its business in the plan
change area which will be in addition to their existing East Tamaki site which
is now reaching capacity. The requestor intends to develop the land in
the plan change area over 30 years.
29. However, the
approach taken by the requestor appears to be that the plan change area is
suitable for a large campus type development to serve its needs and that the
changes proposed can be inserted into the existing Structure Plan with some
modifications. If the private plan change is accepted, these are matters
that can be assessed through the submission and hearing process.
30. There are also
likely to be some issues arising in how the proposed rezoning and the
activities that will be enabled will fit with the other activities that are
provided for in the surrounding areas such as providing good access to the
proposed Ngākōroa railway station (which is due to open in 2026) and
the deletion of the collector road. The impact of the removal of a large area
of residential zoning indicated in the DOSP also needs to be considered in
capacity and urban design terms, the latter particularly concerned with the
urban design and connectivity implications of a campus type development.
31. It is considered
that the private plan change request is worthy of further consideration given
its employment benefits for Drury and the desire of the requestor to secure a
favourable zoning on a large area of land within the Rural Urban Boundary to
accommodate its activities.
32. The challenge
will be to ensure that the plan change provisions provide sufficient certainty
that the anticipated form of development will occur and that it will integrate
well in urban design terms with surrounding urban development. These are
matters that can be worked on through the detailed hearing and submission
process.
Future Development Strategy 2023 – 2053
33. Auckland Council finalised and published the FDS on
22 December 2023. The FDS made amendments to various
aspects of past planning directions under the Future Urban Land Supply
Strategy 2017 (FULSS). The plan change
area is in the ‘Drury West Stage 2’ section
of the FUZ.
34. While the FDS did not alter the FUZ zoning of the plan change
area from what was in the FULSS, the timing for its development has moved out
to 2035+. This is based on the expected timing for the delivery of necessary
bulk infrastructure. The FDS lists
several ‘infrastructure prerequisites’ for Drury
West Stage 2, those being:
The Drury Arterials, SH22 upgrade, Ngākōroa
Railway Station, Hingaia Rising Main and the Southern Auckland Wastewater
Service Scheme.
Infrastructure
Transport
35. The FDS notes that growth in the Drury West
area will ultimately require provision of the Drury Arterials, SH22 Upgrade and
the Ngākōroa Railway Station. Designations are in place for these
works and some of them are funded, although there is some ongoing uncertainty
about potential changes to existing funding arrangements.
36. The requestor
has provided an Integrated Transport
Assessment (ITA) to confirm that
they consider there is sufficient capacity in the
existing roading network (subject to provision of local upgrades) to
accommodate the expected level of growth.
37. The proposed
plan changes provide a staged approach to development in respect of the local
upgrades identified in the ITA. In addition, three access points to the plan
change area from SH22 have been identified in the ITA and requested plan change
provisions. All internal roads will be provided by the developer.
38. This ITA and the
proposed plan change have been the subject of an initial assessment by the
council’s transport specialist. The initial assessment concluded
that no further information is required and that there are no fundamental
issues that would prevent the council considering the private plan change
request.
39. The plan change
request has also been initially assessed by Auckland Transport and the
requestor has held several meetings with AT representatives to refine the plan
change request. The comments from AT are set out in a subsequent section
of this report and include that AT considers that the collector road shown in
the DOSP must be shown on the precinct plan, that AT considers that the
developer should fund or construct the active mode path from the station to the
private plan change area, and that activities not meeting transport upgrades
should be a Non Complying Activity in the activity table.
40. Based on the conclusions of the ITA lodged in support of the private plan
change request, on a preliminary or coarse level assessment, the existing road
network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development that would be enabled by rezoning to B-LIZ. The council’s transport
expert considers that the requestor has sufficiently addressed the
transport effects for the private plan change to be accepted and proceed to
notification.
Water Supply
41. The
requestor’s assessment identifies that a new water supply main is
required along SH22, extending from the Bulk Supply Point (BSP) on Flanagan
Road. A loop back to the BSP on Flanagan Road via Bremner Road and Jesmond Road
is also required to be completed, as part of the network to provide resilience.
The plan change area can be serviced via this new public watermain. It advises
that alternatively, the plan change area may be serviced by an on-site bore and
water treatment plant.
42. The
council’s Development Engineer advises that Watercare and Veolia Water
have both been consulted on the proposal.
43. Watercare has advised that there is sufficient
capacity in the existing bulk water supply network to enable development of the
plan change area ahead of the timing anticipated by the FDS without
compromising the ability of the bulk network to provide service to their
current customers and the existing live zoned area. The private plan change
request proposes to connect to the existing bulk supply point (BSP) at Flanagan
Road. The point of connection to the water supply network will need to be
confirmed by Veolia.
Wastewater
44. The requestor’s infrastructure report
identifies that wastewater will be serviced via a permanent public pumpstation
located on the western portion of the plan change area which pumps flows via a
public rising main along SH22 and Jesmond Road where it connects with the
Watercare Services Limited (WSL) transmission network. Alternatively, the plan
change area may be serviced by on-site wastewater until such time as the future
trunk infrastructure is available from WSL.
45. The
council’s Development Engineer advises that Watercare and Veolia Water
have both been consulted on the proposal.
46. WSL has advised
that the existing bulk wastewater network servicing the wider area does not
have available capacity to accept connections from the private plan change
area. The full suite of upgrades required are not expected to be
available until 2035+. Once the upgrades are completed and commissioned,
the bulk wastewater network is expected to have capacity to service development
of the private plan change area.
47. The requestor
has therefore proposed that on site management of wastewater be undertaken for
the initial stages of the project. WSL advises that while the number of
people on the site is relatively low (i.e. the first 1-3 buildings), on-site
treatment of wastewater is proposed along with discharge to ground. The initial
three buildings on site are proposed to be relatively closely located on the
site, enabling the remainder of the site to be available for a land treated
wastewater disposal system. Long-term, it is anticipated that FPH would connect
to the public wastewater system.
48. Watercare’s
preference is that while initial stages may use on site treatment the private
plan change area is connected to the public water supply and wastewater
networks once capacity is available. Some amendments to the standards
proposed in the PPC will be required to ensure this occurs. This aspect could
be worked out through the submission and hearing process.
Stormwater
49. A draft stormwater management plan (SMP) has
been prepared for the plan change area to achieve compliance with Auckland Council’s Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (‘NDC) and relevant AUP provisions. The Healthy Waters and
Flood Resilience Department has reviewed and commented on the SMP, which has
been amended by the requestor in response to further information requests.
While the SMP has not been fully resolved, the Healthy Waters team have not
indicated that these are matters that cannot be resolved.
50. The Stormwater Management Flow 1 (SMAF1) overlay
is proposed to apply over the plan change
area. The SMP proposes a stormwater management approach which will meet the
hydrological mitigation requirements of the SMAF1 overlay.
51. At this stage, the requestor’s SMP demonstrates that there are feasible stormwater management solutions for the plan change area. All local stormwater infrastructure is the
responsibility of the developer.
Flooding
52. The flood
modelling undertaken uses the 3.8°C climate change assumptions to ensure
flood resilience, which exceeds the current Auckland Council Stormwater Code of
Practice requirement of 2.1°C. The model results show that post-development
flooding of the plan change area in the conservative (3.8°C) climate change
scenario, can still be contained within the stream network and would not pose a
risk to either upstream or downstream development areas.
53. The flood
assessment and modelling undertaken concludes that development within the plan
change area will not result in any adverse flood effects upstream or downstream
of the plan change area nor will it result in any increases or flood impacts as
a result of the proposed development.
Infrastructure funding
54. The assessments undertaken by the requestor state
that developer funding
will be used for
local water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and temporary water and
wastewater infrastructure until such time as the planned wider network upgrades
are made.
55. For transport infrastructure, internal roading
and the necessary upgrades to the access points will be funded by the
requestor. The requestor considers that no external transport
infrastructure is required to support the plan change request. The direct
connection to the Ngākōroa Train Station is proposed to be funded by
the requestor and AT, with some potential cost sharing with adjacent
landowners, depending upon where the connection occurs.
56. The requestor
has met with staff in the council’s Infrastructure Funding and
Development Strategy department and has provided a proposed funding plan to
support the private plan change request. If the
private plan change is accepted, the council’s Head of Infrastructure
Funding and Development Strategy will seek to negotiate an Infrastructure
Funding Agreement before any hearing so that F&P can be locked in to commit
to delivering and paying, or part paying, for the agreed infrastructure. No agreement has been entered into at this time.
57. Auckland
Transport has undertaken a preliminary review of the private plan change
request. AT has not agreed to fund or construct the
active mode path from the station to the private plan change area proposed by
the requestor. AT supports the idea of the connection but considers that
it is a developer mitigation and should be funded by the requestor.
58. WSL advises that
future servicing by the public bulk networks is contingent upon payment of
infrastructure growth charges.
Statutory Context: Resource Management Act 1991
59. Any person may
request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal
plan. The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of
Schedule 1, RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted, and
procedural steps added including the opportunity to request information.
60. Under clause 25
of Schedule 1 of the RMA, after receiving the request, receiving all required
information, and modifying the request (where relevant), the local authority is
required to make a decision to either:
(a) Adopt
the request, in whole or in part, as if it were a proposed plan made by the
council, which must then be processed in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule
1 (clause 25(2) (a)); or
(b) Accept the request, in whole or in part,
which then triggers
a requirement to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25
(clause 25(2)(b)); or
(c) Decide to deal with the request
as if it were an application for a resource
consent (clause 25(3));
or
(d) Reject the request in whole or in part,
in reliance on one (or more) of the limited
grounds set out in
clause 25(4).
61. Additional
information has been received from the requestor following two formal requests
for further information under clause 23 of Schedule 1.
62. Having regard to
the principles established by the relevant case law, the consideration of
private plan change requests under clause 25 involves a "threshold
test" and a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change
request - noting that if the request is accepted or adopted the full merits
assessment will be undertaken when the private plan change is determined.
Unless one of the limited rejection grounds in clause 25(4) exists, the request
must proceed to public notification, submissions, and a hearing in accordance
with the well-established procedures of the Act.
63. Case law has
also established that “where there is doubt as to whether the threshold
has been reached to reject a private plan change request on the grounds of the
request not being in accordance with sound resource management, the cautious
approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and
participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change” (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District
Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at
para 22, applied in Orakei Point Trustee Limited v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117).
Options available to the council
64. Attachment A to
this report contains a detailed assessment of the options available to the
council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.
65. The private plan
change has been assessed against the options available and the relevant
matters.
66. These include
clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA matters, having particular regard to the
requestor’s section 32 evaluation report, and case law that provides
guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change
request. It is recommended that while there are potential grounds for rejection
available, the council exercise its discretion to accept the private plan
change for processing. The section 32 report is attached as Attachment B.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
67. It is noted that the decision whether to
adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a
resource consent application is a decision relative to those procedural
options, rather than a substantive decision on the private plan change request
itself. That being said, a coarse merits assessment of the private plan change
request indicates that it would have benefits in increasing land available for
a valuable employment centre in close proximity to existing housing and
proposed housing areas and in a location identified in the FDS for future urban
development, and that climate related natural hazards (such as flooding) have
been properly considered. The location of the private plan change area has the
potential to reduce longer commuter trips from this part of Auckland.
68. Should the
council accept the private plan change request for processing, climate impacts
can be considered in a future hearing report on the private plan change
request. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall
greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (whether it encourages car
dependency, enhances connections to public transport, walking and cycling or
supports quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or
alleviates climate risks (such as flooding).
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
69. The Healthy
Waters and Flood Resilience Department has raised several issues which required
a response as part of the Clause 23
(further information request) process.
It is understood from Healthy Waters that the responses have not fully
addressed the requests for further information, but that these are not
fundamental issues and these matters can be addressed/resolved through the
submission and hearing process.
70. AT has reviewed the private plan change request and provided high-level comments, including identifying
some matters that can be addressed through the submission and hearing process,
namely:
(a) The
requestor’s proposed additions to precinct provisions in respect of
transport are supported.
(b) It
needs to be noted that AT has not agreed to fund or
construct the active mode path from the station to the private plan change
area. AT supports the idea of the connection but considers that it is a
developer mitigation and should be funded by the requestor.
(c) The
collector road shown in the DOSP must be shown on the Precinct Plan
– it is essential to service other future development in that area and AT
modelling shows the need for it.
(d) AT
has a strong preference for activities not meeting transport upgrades to be a
Non-Complying Activity in the activity table (whereas the proposal is for a
Discretionary Activity status to apply).
71. WSL has advised
that:
(a) The
PPC is out-of-sequence with the FDS, which is used to align infrastructure
investment with growth priorities. Watercare confirms that the PPC Area can be
serviced immediately by the bulk water supply networks and by 2035+ for the
bulk wastewater networks.
(b) The
PPC proposes to develop initial stages utilising onsite water supply and
wastewater servicing. Watercare’s preference is that the PPC Area is
connected to the public water supply and wastewater networks once capacity is
available.
(c) Watercare
opposes the PPC unless Precinct Provisions are included which require the PPC Area
to be connected to the public water supply and wastewater networks once
capacity is available, and for any interim onsite solutions to be
decommissioned once connections to the public networks occurs.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
72. Local board views have not been sought on the clause
25 decision as this
procedural decision does not affect
the Franklin Local
Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.
73. If the private
plan change is accepted, staff will prepare a summary of any submissions
received and provide the opportunity for the local board to give feedback on
the private plan change, which will be included in the section 42A report for
the hearings panel.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
74. The requestor has sent correspondence (including a summary
of the plan change proposal, concept plan and the preliminary findings from all specialists)
to 18 iwi authorities seeking feedback on the plan change and whether they had
an interest in ongoing engagement on the plan change.
75. The requestor states that Ngāti Tamaoho,
Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua, and Te Ākitai Waiohua have all expressed interest
in the plan change and have requested ongoing involvement. Since then, multiple
hui have occurred between the requestor and the mana whenua who are involved in
this plan change, including focused hui with subject matter experts and hui to
work through the plan change request and the proposed Precinct.
76. The requestor
also advises that engagement with mana whenua will be ongoing both throughout
the plan change process as well as during future master planning, detailed
design, resource consenting and construction stages. Cultural Values
Assessments have been provided by Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua,
and Te Ākitai Waiohua.
77. The proposed
precinct provisions seek to:
(a) Respect
mana whenua values (objective 2)
(b) Deliver
a green corridor following the Oira awa (Creek)
(c) Take
an integrated approach to stormwater management
(d) Ensure
the design of communal green spaces incorporate Te Aranga design principles
(e) Engage
with mana whenua to inform the design of development in the Precinct
(f) Manage
the impact of earthworks on mana whenua cultural heritage, including within the
archaeological alert area in Precinct Plan 3 and protecting, where practicable,
and identifying archaeological and cultural features.
78. If the plan change
is accepted, all iwi authorities with an interest
in the plan change will be notified
and will be able to make a submission.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
79. If
accepted, costs for processing the private plan change will be recoverable from
the requestor up until any appeals to the Environment Court.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
80. There are legal
risks in either accepting or rejecting the private plan change request. If the
request is rejected, the requestor may appeal the clause 25 decision to the
Environment Court.
81. It is
recommended that the private plan change request is accepted in whole for
processing. The requestor has requested that the private plan change be
accepted. The risk of a legal challenge by the requestor using the clause 27
appeal rights is negligible if the recommendation is accepted.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
82. The private
plan change request
requires decision-making under
clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule
1 of the RMA to determine whether it will be adopted,
accepted, rejected, or dealt with as if it were a resource consent
application.
83. If the private
plan change is accepted, the council will publicly notify the plan change and
hold a hearing to consider
any submissions and any local
board views, and a decision
would then be made in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.
84. If the private plan change request is rejected,
the requestor could appeal the council’s decision to the Environment
Court.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Clause 25 of the Resource Management Act - Assessment
of Options
|
19
|
|
b⇩
|
Section 32 evaluation report
|
25
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
David Wren – Consultant Planner
Craig Cairncross - Lead Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents
Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance
|
