Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I do appreciate the opportunity to make what is in fact my first contribution throughout this Committee stage on the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. Relating to an earlier point of order there are a number of members on this side who have not yet had the opportunity to make any contribution to this debate. Our whip has asked for some leniency to raise matters that may span across Part 2 and other parts. I have some specific new material that is important in the local Auckland context in my own electorate of New Lynn and I wish to put that on the floor of the House today. I am going to then draw some specific conclusions from that which I would ask the Minister in the chair Hekia Parata to comment on.These are serious matters that go to probably hundreds of millions of dollars of future investment in my electorate and they relate to previous expenditure of around $400 million of public funds invested by Auckland City Council Waitakere City Council and the Crown in the development of New Lynn to date. The jumping-off point for this issue is in fact in Part 2 in new section 170 added by clause 9 which speaks about the closing date for submissions on the proposed plan. It is the definition of “proposed plan” that I wish to reflect upon. Also the issue of concurrence of sessions in section 171(1) in clause 9 becomes important in this real-life example.I need to go into the facts briefly and I hope that if I have not completed it Mr Chair you will give me some leniency on the call. In New Lynn starting about 7 years ago a major redevelopment project was undertaken pursuant firstly to the old Waitakere City district plan and then to a special charette-based planning process that was crystallised in a concept document that was circulated for consultation in 2010. There was broad buy-in to that document. It was a published book. It was a vision for the future of the New Lynn town centre which has now become one of the main metropolitan hubs under the Auckland Unitary Plan. That was in 2010 published by the then Waitakere City Council.What that led to was a series of plan changes including Plan Change 17 which rezoned much of the area around central New Lynn which is now in a large special housing area. That is important to note and I will come back to that. That in turn facilitated the dropping underground of the double-tracked Western Line the realignment of several roads and the completion of a new urban transit centre in New Lynn that has in turn transformed the town centre. An issue has subsequently arisen that that transit centre made it possible for New Lynn to intensify housing development and I am advised that over half of the property within a kilometre radius of that transit centre has now changed hands since that investment took place. It is a dynamic and very different urban environment. There is a new development on what was the Crown Lynn clay pits and the recently vacated Monier tiles site owned by the Australian corporation CSR which has been purchased by a company called Avanda. That company is looking to build around 1800 apartments on a combined site area of I believe around 9 hectares. This is a very intensive urban development for which the planning is critical. Stage—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So can we tie it to Part 2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. So the words “proposed plan” in section 170 relate in the minds of local stakeholders to the consultation document published in 2010 upon which the plan changes were based which were then reflected in the current Auckland Unitary Plan. The issue that has arisen is that the special housing area and the subsequent stage one consenting decisions appear to have been made and are arguably at odds with certainly the concept drawings and the spirit of the 2010 plan. That raises an issue for this Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel which is—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And how does it raise an issue with Part 2?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: With section 170. The Minister may wish to comment on whether the proposed plan that this refers to is the original plan upon which a large-scale development was based or whether it is the current plan at the time at which the concurrent hearings panel sits. That is the first question that comes out of this. The second is what is the interdependency between the plan and any special housing area—