Sage Eugenie; Parker DavidHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So in the whole intensification streamlined planning process one of the recommendations of the select committee which has been picked up in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is that the scope of intensification planning instruments be broadened to enable provision of papa kāinga and recognising that promoting papa kāinga housing is an objective of the Government. But it's still on a different basis from the infill development which becomes a permitted activity as of right through this bill. So there is Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere proposing to have papa kāinga activity as a controlled activity in a Māori purpose zone residential zone settlement zone or any other zone on each site which is wholly or partly Māori customary land Māori freehold land or general land owned by Māori.So the planning system and plan provisions and council's failure to adequately provide and encourage papa kāinga has been a significant barrier to its development. So could the Minister provide some comment on given that the SOP doesn't go as far as enabling papa kāinga in the same way that it does enabling three-storey three unit infill development what sort of guidance will be being provided by the Ministry for the Environment to our councils as to how they will go about enabling provision of papa kāinga?The other issue is the comments that Simon Court made in terms of the select committee finding itself dealing with the detail of urban design around things like outlook space and building height to boundary recession planes and the like. There has been quite a lot of concern that the standard that was recommended by the majority of the committee for outlook for example which affects interaction with neighbours—it's 4 metres between dwellings whereas the Auckland Unitary Plan provides for a 6-metre outlook standard. Hobsonville which is widely promoted by many as epitomising very good medium-density development has a 6-metre outlook standard. What is the proposal of Government if any of these detailed standards which the select committee and the Government and National have arrived at are found to be wanting? What is the process to change them? And given the significant expertise which the urban design community architects planners and others contributed to the select committee process what is going to be the Government's processes for developing the urban design guidelines to assist councils in terms of both the National Policy Statement for Urban Development and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)? But fundamentally what is the processes for changing things that in the detail of the new Schedule 3A we may have got wrong?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. A lot of questions there and if I omit any and the member takes another call I'd be happy to address them. In respect of papa kāinga thank you for the amendments that came through from the select committee which we are adopting. Papa kāinga on land that is within these new zoned areas of course gets the benefit of the change of zonings. If there is other land that is outside of urban zones on which papa kāinga is to be to be built then councils can include similar provisions in their plans for that.In respect of the issues as to style we shouldn't I don't think in Parliament prescribe design guidelines as if we want to be the architect—and we're not. We're not. That's the error in the way in which it was put by Simon Court because we're not. We're actually just permitting a certain density of housing to be built. How that's designed whether people want to build it like that that's up to them and if they have an architect their architect. We're not prescribing how that is done. That said there has been a request that was made clear through select committee that some design guidance would be useful for both councils and developers. So in response to that Ministry for the Environment in consultation with planners from councils will try and provide some non-statutory design guidance. We are concerned that if we were to leap to design standards that were of statutory effect that we would actually be putting ourselves in the position of being the designer and we don't want to do that. That said there is probably a case for some design guidance to be developed in consultation with the planners who are dealing with these issues around the country—not just the planners; also the urban design groups and civil society groups who have an interest.In addition to that urban design guides do have a more prominent role in a lot of overseas jurisdictions where they are dealing with intensification or have been dealing with it for longer than New Zealand has been and so we're willing to consider that issue again through the replacement of the RMA the Natural and Built Environments Act. We are wary of going too far too early in respect of those design guides because we fear that they could be misused to effectively undermine the intent which is to enable—not require but enable—intensification.