Source: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/02/PLA_20190205_AGN_8316_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-02-16 11:44:32
Document Index: 183059392

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art\n46', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 2']

Agenda of Planning Committee - 5 February 2019
5.1 Public Input - Akarana Marine Sports Trust - strategic planning for the central Auckland waterfront and wider marine networks 7
8 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change 5 Whenuapai 3 Precinct - Next Steps 9
9 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Turnstone Capital Limited – Warkworth North 37
10 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Orakei Point Trustee Limited to rezone land at Orakei Point, Orakei Road, Orakei 77
11 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from Fletcher Residential Limited to rezone land at 90-104 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns 141
12 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Update on appeals and making additional parts of the Plan operative. 153
13 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to make Operative Plan Change 8 - Kings College
14 Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 5 February 2019 169
5.1 Public Input - Akarana Marine Sports Trust - strategic planning for the central Auckland waterfront and wider marine networks
1. Greer O’Donnell will speak to the committee on behalf of the Akarana Marine Sports Trust about strategic planning for the central Auckland waterfront and wider marine networks.
a) receive the public input from Greer O’Donnell on behalf of the Akarana Marine Sports Trust about strategic planning for the central Auckland waterfront and wider marine networks, and thank them for attending.
File No.: CP2018/24592
1. This report requests approval to prepare a variation to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Proposed Plan Change 5 – Whenuapai (Plan Change 5) and to delegate authority to a sub-group of the Planning Committee to approve the variation to be publicly notified for submissions. The variation will seek to change the proposed zoning of approximately 120 hectares of land in the part of Plan Change 5 that is within the 65 dB Ldn noise boundary, or between the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries, based on the additional noise data provided by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) the day before the hearing commenced. The noise data relates to noise effects from engine testing at Whenuapai Airbase (the Airbase).
2. Plan Change 5 was publicly notified on 5 September 2017. The plan change comprises 360 hectares of land zoned Future Urban under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). A hearing was held in May 2018 and was adjourned to allow the commissioners to carry out a site visit and to seek further comment from council officers on a number of matters. One of the matters they sought comment on was the aircraft engine testing noise boundaries from Whenuapai Airbase proposed as part of Plan Change 5. Plan Change 5 proposed to restrict residential density in areas between the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries and proposed to apply the Light Industry Zone to areas within the 65 dB Ldn noise boundary.
3. The day before the hearing commenced, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) provided additional noise data to the council. Following adjournment of the hearing, council staff engaged with the NZDF and its acoustic consultant AECOM to establish more representative extents of the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries based on the additional data. This modelling and analysis has established that the 57 dB Ldn and 65dB Ldn noise boundaries are different to the boundaries that were originally proposed in Plan Change 5. The additional data has identified that a number of properties will be subject to the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries, or will be within the 65 dB Ldn noise boundary, and the zonings proposed for these properties in Plan Change 5 are no longer appropriate.
4. Aircraft engine testing is undertaken at the Airbase for maintenance, testing and training purposes. There are a number of factors relating to the noise generated by aircraft engine testing. These factors include: aircraft type, engine testing locations, engine testing duration and frequency. In addition, the NZDF has recently decided to replace the P3 Orions with Boeing P-8A Poseidon in 2023, thus reducing noise levels. Further, after Plan Change 5 was notified, Taxiway D which is located in a relatively central location within the airbase, where some engine testing activity took place, was decommissioned.
5. To establish more representative engine testing noise boundaries, eight scenarios were modelled based on the updated data and information provided by the NZDF. The scenarios that were modelled were based on the busiest week (i.e. the longest total duration of engine tests) that commenced on 27 September 2017, and the noisiest week (i.e. the loudest engine tests) that commenced on 28 August 2017. It is appropriate to rely on data from the noisiest week to establish noise boundaries for engine testing which is not controlled elsewhere in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
6. Four options have been identified in this report. The preferred option (Option B) is to initiate a variation to Plan Change 5 to amend the zoning of approximately 120 hectares of land based on the updated engine testing noise boundaries based on the noisiest week. The zoning is proposed to be based on the scenario when the P3 Orions are no longer in operation. However, controls would be required to be applied to the area within Plan Change 5 that is affected by the current engine testing scenario until the P3 Orions are replaced by the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. This option enables the most appropriate zoning and controls to be applied to land subject to the new noise boundaries, and will provide for an additional 14 hectares of Mixed Housing Urban Zoned land than proposed by Plan Change 5.
b) delegate to the Deputy Chair, Deputy Mayor, Ward Councillors and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member the approval of the proposed variation for public notification.
7. The Plan Change 5 area comprises 360 hectares of land zoned Future Urban under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP (OP)) in the southern part of Whenuapai. The Whenuapai Airbase is not included in Plan Change 5. The plan change area is shown in Attachment A.
8. Plan Change 5 proposes to rezone approximately 113 hectares of land to Light Industry Zone and 247 hectares of land to a range of residential zones. The residential zoning is anticipated to enable development of approximately 6400 houses. There are currently numerous existing horticultural, rural lifestyle and rural production activities throughout the plan change area.
9. The Royal New Zealand Airforce (RNZAF) undertakes both air and ground operations at the Airbase. The effects of aircraft engine testing noise at the Airbase are not currently managed under the AUP (OP) or within the conditions of the Minister of Defence Designation 4310.The testing of engines is a regular part of operations at the Airbase. Aircraft engine testing at the Airbase is necessary for maintenance, testing and training purposes. The level of activity will depend on the need to undertake military training, search and rescue, or humanitarian requirements. The noise created by this testing occurs at both scheduled and unscheduled times of the day and night, and often extends beyond the boundaries of the Airbase.
10. Given the proximity of the Airbase to the Plan Change 5 area, a number of provisions are proposed in Plan Change 5 to address reverse sensitivity issues and to manage the effects of engine testing noise on future residents.
11. During the development of Plan Change 5 the aircraft engine testing noise provisions were informed by engine testing noise data and modelling provided by the NZDF. That data was depicted as 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries, and these boundaries were used to determine appropriate zoning and controls for land in Plan Change 5 located within those boundaries. These noise boundaries are shown in Attachment B. Where the noise was greater than 65 dB Ldn, the council proposed to zone that land Light Industry zone, as this zone does not provide for noise sensitive activities. Where the noise was between 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn, the council proposed to zone that land Single House zone, thereby reducing number of residents exposed to adverse noise effects. Submissions were received on the zoning of land and noise related to engine testing.
12. The Whenuapai Structure Plan was approved by the Auckland Development Committee on 15 September 2016. The structure plan area was for all land within Whenuapai. Staff were requested to prepare a plan change for the Whenuapai Future Urban zoned land (resolution number AUC/2016/117). A draft plan change for Stages 1A to 1E of the Whenuapai Structure Plan area was approved by the Planning Committee on 28 March 2017 for public comment (resolution number PLA/2017/38).
13. The Planning Committee approved the public notification of Plan Change 5 on 5 September 2017 (resolution number PLA/2017/115). The Plan Change was subsequently publicly notified on 21 September 2017, and 51 submissions and 22 further submissions were received.
14. A hearing for Plan Change 5 was held on 4, 7 and 10 May 2018. The hearing was then adjourned to allow the commissioners to undertake a site visit and to seek further comment from council officers on a number of matters raised in the hearing. Evidence on engine testing noise was presented and discussed at the hearing.
15. The day before the hearing commenced, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) provided additional noise data to the council. The data was for the period between 16 August 2017 and 19 January 2018 with 163 engine testing events. Following adjournment of the hearing, council staff engaged with the NZDF and its acoustic consultant AECOM to establish more representative extents of the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries based on the updated data. This has been peer reviewed by the council’s acoustic consultant Acousafe. Council staff have appreciated the willingness of the NZDF to assist with this analysis.
16. This modelling and analysis has established that the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn noise boundaries are different to the boundaries that were originally proposed in Plan Change 5. All of this analysis was provided to the hearing panel and the submitters in December 2018. Council has received correspondence from some submitters about this and those letters are attached at Attachment G.
17. The updated data was modelled by AECOM between September to December 2018, with input from the council’s acoustic consultant Acousafe. The new modelling was based on eight scenarios, all of which showed different engine testing noise boundaries to those that were notified as part of Plan Change 5. The results of this modelling and all analyses were provided to the hearing panel and all submitters in December 2018. The outputs of the modelling and implications on Plan Change 5 are discussed below.
18. The RNZAF has established many procedures over the last 75 years based on their operational and safety requirements, and these have changed as the nature of the operations that are undertaken have evolved. There are a number of factors that contribute to the analysis of the noise modelling and the subsequent planning response. The factors relating to the noise generated by engine testing are described as follows:
a) Aircraft type – P3 Orions, C130 Hercules, Boeing 757 and Super Seasprite helicopter operate out of the Airbase. Each aircraft has different operational, testing, training and maintenance requirements. The engine noise from the Seasprite helicopter is significantly lower than the noise from the fixed wing aircraft, and was consequently omitted in the modelling.
b) Engine testing locations – engine testing occurs on numerous sites around the airbase on taxiways and the thresholds (ends) of the runways. Testing locations are shown in Attachment C. For the purposes of determining appropriate engine testing noise boundaries, two sites are key. These are Taxiway Delta (D) and Taxiway Foxtrot (F). Taxiway D is located closer to the centre of the airbase while Taxiway F is closer to the southern airbase boundary. The direction of the wind also has an effect on the distance that the engine testing noise travels.
c) Engine testing duration and frequency – both scheduled and unscheduled engine testing occurs at the airbase. The times and durations of testing can vary significantly depending on operational requirements. Scheduled testing usually occurs during daytime and is often part of regular aircraft maintenance. Depending on operational requirements, testing may also occur at night, especially if an aircraft is required at short notice to attend to an emergency situation. Engine testing between 2200 (10pm) and 0700 (7am) requires the approval of the Chief of Staff Auckland.
d) The NZDF announced the replacement of the P3 Orions by Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft in July 2018. These aircraft are expected to be stationed at Ohakea Airbase from 2023 due to the longer runway length at Ohakea. This means that the P3 Orions will be decommissioned at some time in 2023, as long as the delivery of the P-8A’s occurs as expected. The P3 Orions generate the most noise at the Airbase. This means that only the C130 Hercules and the Boeing 757 are anticipated to operate out of the Airbase once the Boeing P-8A are in service. Engine testing noise is therefore likely to decrease in both volume and frequency in 2023.
19. Since Plan Change 5 was notified, Taxiway D has been decommissioned due to poor surface condition. The NZDF has indicated that it has no plans to repair and reinstate Taxiway D. However, at the request of council staff, the NZDF has included scenarios in the modelling to show engine testing noise created on Taxiway D. This is important because Taxiway D is more centrally located within the Airbase and further away from the Plan Change 5 boundary than Taxiway F. Modelling shows that undertaking engine testing on Taxiway D would significantly reduce the extent of noise effects outside of the Airbase.
20. Eight scenarios were modelled, based upon the updated data that was provided by the NZDF. A summary of these scenarios is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of engine testing scenarios modelled
(week with the longest total duration of engine testing)
Noisiest week (worst scenario)
C130 and B757 only (from 2023)
C130 and B757 only with testing at Taxiway F moved to Taxiway D
(from 2023)
All aircraft including P3 Orions
All aircraft including P3 Orions with testing at Taxiway F moved to Taxiway D
21. The scenarios that were modelled were based on the busiest week (i.e. the longest total duration of engine tests) that commenced on 27 September 2017, and the noisiest week (i.e. the loudest engine tests) that commenced on 28 August 2017. While engine testing at the Airbase is busier on some weeks than others, it is the noisiest week that establishes the greatest extent of noise effects outside the Airbase boundary. It is appropriate to rely on data from the noisiest week to establish noise boundaries for engine testing which is not controlled elsewhere in the AUP (OP).
22. On this basis, and in the absence of any commitment from the NZDF to reinstate Taxiway D, the most appropriate scenario to base any planning decisions on until approximately 2023 is Scenario 7 (Attachment D). Scenario 7 shows the engine testing noise boundaries with all aircraft being tested at their current locations with the 57 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn engine testing noise boundaries being wider than those notified in Plan Change 5 and extending past State Highway 18. There are no submissions on Plan Change 5 that provide adequate scope to proposed to amend the boundaries to the extent shown in Scenario 7. When the P3 Orions are no longer used at the Airbase from 2023 onwards, the engine testing noise boundaries in Scenario 5 can then be relied upon. Scenario 5 is shown in Attachment E. It shows smaller noise boundaries than the Plan Change 5 noise boundaries, enabling more residential land to be provided.
23. Council staff asked the NZDF to model what would happen if engine testing was moved from Taxiway F to Taxiway D. These are depicted as Scenarios 6 and 8 in Attachment F. Scenario 6 shows that once the P3 Orions are not in operation and with Taxiway F activity moved to Taxiway D, engine testing noise from the Airbase is modelled to be mostly within the Airbase boundary. This would allow more land in Plan Change 5 to be zoned for residential use. However, without any commitment from the NZDF to reinstate Taxiway D, these scenarios have not been considered further.
24. Having considered all the factors and the modelling outputs from the eight scenarios, the following options have been identified.
Continue current Plan Change 5 process using the engine testing noise boundaries as notified.
The current plan change process could be completed quicker.
Council would be zoning land for uses that are not easily able to occur (particularly noise sensitive activities).
If the land that is subject to noise effects from engine testing is zoned residential, future residents will be subject to adverse effects from noise.
Initiate a variation to Plan Change 5 to amend the zoning of approximately 130 hectares of land based on the updated engine testing noise boundaries. The variation will apply zoning based on the scenario when the P3 Orions are no longer in operation (Scenario 5). However, development in the plan change area affected by the current scenario (Scenario 7) will be restricted until there is confirmation from the NZDF that the P3 Orions are not in operation.
Enables appropriate zoning to be applied to land with appropriate controls to ensure that any adverse effects from engine testing noise can be adequately managed.
Enables the zoning of an additional 14 hectares of Mixed Housing Urban Zone (approximately 370 houses) than proposed in Plan Change 5.
By including Scenario 5 (post-2023), much more land can be zoned for medium to high density residential than if zoning was applied based only on Scenario 7 (current operations).
Variation will “catch up” to Plan Change 5, meaning less delay than the delay created by withdrawing part of Plan Change 5.
An integrated decision for all of Plan Change 5 will be able to be made by the Commissioners.
Delays the progress of Plan Change 5 by several months.
Residential land subject to noise boundaries depicted in Scenario 7 cannot be developed until the P3 Orions are no longer in operation.
Withdraw part of Plan Change 5 subject to the new noise boundaries and initiate new plan change for the withdrawn area immediately (using the engine testing noise boundaries in Scenario 7).
Enables appropriate zoning to be applied to land
Remainder of Plan Change 5 can proceed to a decision in a short time frame.
Statutory process for new plan change starts from the beginning, meaning a longer process for the land area that is subject to the withdrawal.
Withdraw part of Plan Change 5 subject to the new noise boundaries and initiate new plan change for the withdrawn area once P3 Orions are no longer in operation (using the engine testing noise boundaries in Scenario 5)
Enables appropriate zoning to be applied to land which is subject to the new engine testing noise boundaries.
Statutory process for new plan change starts from the beginning in approximately 2023, meaning a significantly longer process for the land area that is subject to the withdrawal.
25. Option B is recommended. It enables the most appropriate zoning to be applied to land subject to the new noise boundaries, along with appropriate controls to ensure that any adverse effects arising from engine testing noise are managed. It is also considered to be the most time efficient of the options available.
26. The variation to Plan Change 5 will enable a greater area of Mixed Housing Urban Zone to be applied to the plan change area based on a future scenario without the P3 Orions in operation at the Airbase. Due to the extent of engine testing noise effects from current operations, the proposed variation will likely include provisions that restrict development in the areas subject to the current noise boundaries (Scenario 7) until 2023 when the P3 Orions are no longer in operation at Whenuapai Airbase.
27. Comment has not been sought from the council group as the recommendations do not affect any council assets. The additional time associated with a variation to Plan Change 5 will not add unacceptable delays to land acquisition processes or planning for infrastructure development.
28. The effects of noise on the future residents in Whenuapai has been an ongoing concern for both the Upper Harbour and Henderson Massey Local Boards. Ensuring that the effects of engine testing noise are adequately managed aligns with the views of both boards.
29. All nine iwi groups with interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the structure plan process. Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau ā Maki have worked in partnership with council to develop cultural values assessments that help to inform the structure plan and the preparation of the Plan Change 5. The council has undertaken site visits with Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and the iwi has met with the council’s Healthy Waters staff to discuss stormwater management in Whenuapai.
30. The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the RMA. Schedule 1 of the RMA was amended to insert clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.
31. All iwi groups with an interest in the Whenuapai area will therefore need to be contacted and provided with the draft variation and asked for their comment. Responses from iwi to the draft variation to Plan Change 5 will be communicated to the group with delegated authority when they consider the completed draft variation for approval to publicly notify it.
32. The preparation of a variation to Plan Change 5 is provided for in the Plans and Places Departmental budgets, and so there are no financial implications for council. The recommendations do not give rise to any major financial risks.
33. Option B is the recommended option. There are risks associated with the uncertain timing of the P3 Orions being replaced. These risks will be mitigated by continuing the dialogue with NZDF staff, and including provisions in the variation to ensure any activities in the area are suitable for the noise environment at the time resource consents are approved.
34. A draft variation to Plan Change 5 will be discussed with iwi prior to a proposed variation being prepared for consideration by the group with delegated authority. If approved the proposed variation will proceed through the usual statutory process for variations, including submissions, further submissions, and a hearing. This will enable an integrated decision for the whole of Plan Change 5 to be made by the Hearing Commissioners by September 2019.
Engine Testing Scenarios 6 and 8
Correspondence From Cabra Developments Limited, Neil Construction Limited and New Zealand Defence force
File No.: CP2019/00105
1. To consider the council’s response to a private plan change request from Turnstone Capital Limited to rezone 99 hectares of land in the Warkworth North area from Future Urban to a mix of residential, business and open space zones in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the change request) received on 29 March 2018 from Turnstone Capital Limited to rezone 99 hectares of land at Warkworth known as Warkworth North. The request seeks to rezone Future Urban zoned land, within the Rural Urban Boundary at Warkworth. The request more specifically seeks to:
a) rezone the Future Urban zoned land to: Residential – Single House, Residential -Mixed Housing Suburban, Residential - Mixed Housing Urban, Business – Neighbourhood Centre, Business - Light Industry and Open Space – Informal Recreation zones in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) (Auckland Unitary Plan).
b) introduce new precinct provisions over that part of the Warkworth North land between Falls Road and State Highway 1.
c) extend the Significant Ecological Area overlay along the Mahurangi River.
d) extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow Controls over the precinct area.
3. The private plan change request is intended to provide for approximately 1,000-1,200 dwellings, with associated open space, and 13 hectares of light industrial land and a new neighbourhood centre of 3,000m2. The applicant has prepared a structure plan to support the private plan change request. The applicant’s structure plan covers 125 hectares, including the 99 hectares proposed to be rezoned.
4. The council is separately preparing a structure plan for the future urban development of all of the Warkworth Future Urban zoned area of 1,000 hectares. The council’s structure plan includes the entire area of land that is subject of this private plan change request and is due to be completed in May-June this year.
5. The decision the Planning Committee is required to make at this time is whether to accept, adopt or reject the request in whole or in part, or to treat it as a resource consent application. Consideration of the detailed merits of the change request is not relevant at this stage in the process.
6. The applicant has verbally requested that the council adopts the private plan change. Adopting the private plan change would enable the zoning and other provisions to be taken into account in the resource consent process as soon as the plan change is notified. This could potentially enable the delivery of new housing in the Warkworth area at a faster pace than if the plan change is accepted. As the council’s structure plan is still three to four months away from being completed, adopting the private plan change is not recommended. To do so would be to pre-empt the outcome of the last step in the council’s structure planning process.
7. As the request is for rezoning of land, the council cannot decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent. It is considered there are no grounds under clause 25(4)(c) to reject the private plan change request and it is therefore recommended that the private plan change request is accepted.
ii) Significant elements of the bulk infrastructure required for the Warkworth North area are well-advanced in terms of planning, funding, design and delivery.
iii) The applicant has prepared a structure plan to inform the plan change in accordance with Appendix 1 Structure Plan Guidelines of the Auckland Unitary Plan
iv) The request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of the Schedule 1 of the RMA (having regard to relevant case law). It is not possible to deal with the request as a resource application as the request seeks to rezone land, and it is more appropriate to accept the request than adopt it given the need for further progress to be made with the council’s Warkworth Structure Plan and associated infrastructure planning/funding decisions.
8. The land at Warkworth North, within the area subject to this request, is primarily used for farming activities. It is located north-west of Warkworth township within the Rural Urban Boundary. Warkworth is the largest rural town in the northern part of Auckland.
9. The northern boundary of the area is the existing State Highway 1 and the western boundary is the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway designation, currently under construction. The Mahurangi River forms the southern boundary with the Hudson Road industrial estate to the east and the Viv Davie Martin Drive countryside living area to the south-west. Access to the area is available from Hudson and Falls Roads and off State Highway 1.
10. Flood prone lowlands form the northern section of the Warkworth North land, adjacent to State Highway 1. These lowlands rise to a clearly defined central spine, reaching an elevation of 80m above sea level. These slopes are moderate to very steep. Geotechnically, Warkworth North and the surrounding Warkworth area has a mixture of geology types that are very challenging. There is clear evidence of deep-seated block slides on landslide prone rocks and soils.
11. Most of the area is covered in pasture of limited production value. There are three isolated pockets of indigenous vegetation, some of which include streams and wetlands. The area includes a number of unnamed intermittent streams which flow to the main tributary to the Mahurangi River. A Significant Ecological Area (SEA_ T_2294 in the Auckland Unitary Plan) is located on the site at 223 Falls Road taking in riparian forest. An esplanade reserve partially extends along the Mahurangi River and is vested in council.
12. A private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in Part) (Unitary Plan) was lodged on 29 March 2018 (see Attachments A and B). The request seeks to rezone 99 hectares of land in the Warkworth area. The land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary and would be rezoned from the Future Urban zone to Residential – Single House, Residential -Mixed Housing Suburban, Residential - Mixed Housing Urban, Business – Neighbourhood Centre, Business - Light Industry and Open Space- Informal Recreation zones in the Auckland Unitary Plan. (See Figure 1 below). The applicant has prepared a structure plan to support the private plan change request. This covers 125 hectares, including the 99 hectares to be rezoned. (See Appendix 4 of Attachment B)
13. The private plan change request proposes to provide for approximately 1,000-1,200 dwellings and 13 hectares of light industrial land and a new neighbourhood centre of 3,000m2.
14. The Single House zone is characterised by single house neighbourhoods of one to two storeys. The Mixed Housing Suburban zone provides more flexibility in terms of housing options, and also has a two-storey height control. The Mixed Housing Urban zone is a medium density residential zone usually applied to land in close proximity to public transport networks and provides for three storey developments. The Neighbourhood Centre zone applies to single corner stores or small shopping strips located in residential neighbourhoods. The Light Industry zone anticipates industrial activities that do not generate objectionable odour, dust and noise, with a lower level of amenity than the centre zones. The Open Space - Informal Recreation zone applies to a wide range of parks used for a variety of outdoor informal recreation and community uses.
15. The applicant also proposes to introduce new precinct provisions with a sub-precinct over the Stubbs Farm Development Area. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for an integrated stormwater solution, protection of ecological values, provision of open space and future road connections and to guide development of the local centre. It only applies to land north of Falls Road and only to those areas which are part of the rezoning request. (See Appendix 1 of Attachment A).
Figure 1 – Proposed Rezoning
16. It is also proposed to extend the Significant Ecological Area (SEA_T_2294) along the Mahurangi River, and to extend the Stormwater Management Area Flow Controls over the precinct area (See Appendix 1 of Attachment A).
17. It is important to note that the applicant’s structure plan area encompasses a larger area (125 hectares) than the area requested to be rezoned (99 hectares) and the precinct area (78.8 hectares). Council is currently leading a structure plan for a much wider area of 1,000 hectares at Warkworth, which includes both the applicant’s structure plan and plan change areas. Refer paragraphs 31-36 for more detailed information. The applicant owns the majority of – but not all – land in the plan change area. Figure 2 below shows the location of the various areas referenced in this report.
Figure 2: Location of Turnstone Capital Ltd structure plan and proposed rezoning plan change areas at Warkworth North and council’s draft Warkworth North Structure Plan area
18. The applicant has provided a comprehensive section 32 evaluation report (see Attachment A, including the proposed precinct provisions in Appendix 1 of that attachment) and a wide range of supporting technical reports (See Attachment B).
19. The Auckland Plan is the council’s spatial plan for Auckland. It contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region which foresees a managed expansion into the region’s future urban areas.
20. Warkworth is identified as a satellite town with around 1,000 hectares earmarked for future residential and business development over the next 30 years. Refer Figure 2 above. This will potentially enable the population to reach five times the current population from 5,000 to 25,000 people.
21. Under the Auckland Plan the majority of the wider Warkworth North area is timed for development from 2022, meaning live zoning is in place and bulk infrastructure has been provided. Attachment C shows the sequencing of Future Urban areas for Warkworth. Structure planning is again recognised as the first step in urbanising Future Urban zones.
22. All of the Warkworth North land, north of Falls Road is earmarked for future business land while the land to the south of Falls Road is not identified for any specific future urban land use. More detailed geotechnical investigations by the applicant have indicated the steeper slopes are unlikely to be suitable for business development. In response to the ground conditions the applicant proposes a higher proportion of land for residential uses. Land to the south of Falls Road is also identified by the applicant for residential growth.
23. The Auckland Unitary Plan is the combined RMA planning document for Auckland. It contains objectives and policies that refer to the importance of integrating land use planning with infrastructure planning and delivery, reflecting the council’s integrated management function under s31 of the RMA. To this end, the Auckland Unitary Plan promotes the completion of structure plans as a precursor to plan changes to rezone land within the Future Urban zone. As noted above, Turnstone Capital has prepared a structure plan in accordance with the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017
24. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (the Strategy) implements the Auckland Plan and gives effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity by identifying a programme to sequence future urban land over 30 years. The strategy relates to greenfield land only and ensures there is 20 years of development capacity at all times and a seven year average of unconstrained and ready to go land supply. The strategy allows the council to consider the balance between the development of brownfield and greenfield land and ensure that the majority of Auckland’s growth is located within the existing urban area.
25. The Strategy anticipates the development capacities, the number of new centres and the timings for development ready growth in Warkworth, as set out in Table 1 below. Some 7,500 dwellings are proposed for an additional 20,000 people between 2022 and 2037. Only one new centre in Warkworth South is proposed, recognising the presence of existing local centres and the desirability of supporting the town centre. To date 69 hectares of land have been ‘live’ zoned in the wider Warkworth North area (north of the Showgrounds) and a large area of land is anticipated to become business land. No new business land is anticipated in Warkworth North East and only a local centre in Warkworth South. The Strategy has combined the total areas of anticipated business land in Northern Auckland, making it difficult to determine the totals for individual areas. However, the spatial extent of business land in the wider Warkworth North area will be determined through the Warkworth Structure Plan process.
Table 1 - Proposed Warkworth timing and anticipated residential capacities and new centres
Proposed timing – development ready
Anticipated dwelling capacity
Actuals contracted or planned 2012-2107
Decade One 1st half 2018-2022
Decade Two 1st half 2028-2032
Decade Two 2nd half 2033-2037
26. In August 2017 the council’s Planning Committee agreed to a programme of structure planning for Auckland, including Warkworth. The committee also agreed that ‘...the sequencing for the supply of development-ready greenfield land set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme is paramount in providing for development in the Future Urban zone.’
27. By setting a high bar for private plan changes and non-complying resource consent applications, the committee sought to recognise the critical importance of ensuring high quality environmental outcomes, aligning development with the efficient and effective provision of infrastructure, and focusing the council’s effort and resources in a coordinated way. This reflects one of the council’s functions under s31 of the RMA to achieve ‘integrated management of the effects on the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district.’
28. The scale of growth envisaged for Warkworth and the choices to be made mean it is critical that the full 1,000 hectares of Future Urban zoned land is structure planned in an efficient, cost effective and sustainable way. It aims to produce a comprehensive and integrated plan for how the greenfield areas will be laid out and linked back to the existing town.
29. The Warkworth Structure Plan project is well-advanced, with a high level of community involvement and has completed the following phases:
· December 2017 – March 2018: Background research
· 2018 ongoing: Working with the Supporting Growth Alliance to identify future transport networks
· April – August 2018: Two rounds of public and stakeholder consultation. Council reported back to the community on the ideas generated.
30. The current intention for the next key phases in the project are:
· 25 February – 25 March 2019: Release draft structure plan for feedback
· April – May 2019: Review feedback and make any required amendments to the structure plan
· May – June 2019: Adoption of Warkworth Structure Plan by the Planning Committee
· July – August 2019: Plan change to implement the structure plan notified (for the areas timed to be ‘development ready’ in 2022 in the Strategy including the private plan change request area)
31. Progress on the Warkworth Structure Plan has continued independently of the private plan change request (although it is noted that the applicant is a regular submitter on the structure plan project).
Bulk infrastructure projects for Warkworth
32. In order to develop the Warkworth North area, the applicant proposes to leverage off wider infrastructure improvements being progressed for Warkworth by New Zealand Transport Agency, Watercare, Auckland Transport and the council. The applicant advises of their intention to enter into an Infrastructure Funding Agreement with the relevant parties to arrange their financial contributions. However, no such agreements are yet in place. The infrastructure improvements proposed for Warkworth are discussed below.
33. Watercare has commissioned a new wastewater facility to serve the combined Warkworth, Snells Beach and Algies Bay communities. This will enable sufficient capacity to provide for a population of around 30,000 and will be constructed and operational by the end of 2021. In terms of water supply a freshwater treatment plant has been commissioned to treat bore water by the end of 2018 that will provide for medium term growth. Watercare has advised that these works will cover the estimated demand for all of Warkworth including the applicant’s area.
34. On 1 November 2018 council notified a notice of requirement from Auckland Transport to designate a proposed road connecting Matakana Road and State Highway 1. This road is designed to provide for strong east-west and north-south connections, bypassing central Warkworth and improving access to new growth areas. Two lanes are scheduled to be completed by late 2021 with all four lanes completed sometime between 2036-2046. The Puhoi to Warkworth motorway being constructed to the immediate north-west of Warkworth North is also due for completion in late 2021. A park and ride facility is proposed by Auckland Transport to support public transport in this general area. The location, funding and timing for this facility are yet to be finalised.
35. Included in the transport improvements for Warkworth proposed by the Supporting Growth Alliance is a series of new ‘western links’ to improve the access to the west of the existing State Highway 1. This link will pass through the applicant’s Warkworth North land. This link road will have implications for the layout and functioning of the development pattern at Warkworth North. Stage 1 of the western link road has recently been completed, connecting Mansel Drive to Falls Road, south of Warkworth North land. Community feedback on options for the western link road and other transport options was sought by the Alliance in August 2018. At the time of writing, no decision had been made.
36. Auckland Transport advises that as the private plan change request is proceeding ahead of the preferred route selection there is currently no funding allocated for the construction of the western link in the Regional Land Transport Plan. A preliminary review of the applicant’s proposed precinct provisions by Auckland Transport indicates they are not sufficiently flexible enough to respond to the current degree of uncertainty regarding the location, timing, funding and form of the new link road and other local connections. If the private plan change is accepted, the council and Auckland Transport have the opportunity to address these matters via a submission.
37. The applicant proposes to provide all necessary stormwater infrastructure within the Warkworth North land area and to extend the Stormwater Management Area: Flow controls over the precinct. Healthy Waters are of the view that any development of Warkworth North should align with the wider outcomes sought in the council’s Warkworth structure plan and should occur at the same time. Alignment with the council’s structure plan and detailed stormwater infrastructure matters can be address through a council submission on the private plan change.
38. Based on the above analysis it is concluded that significant elements of the bulk infrastructure necessary to service the land is in the process of being delivered and are anticipated to be in place by late 2021. However, key elements of this bulk infrastructure, such as route selection and funding for infrastructure such as the Western Link Road and stormwater infrastructure, are uncertain. Nevertheless, these matters can be the subject of submissions by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport
39. Under the RMA, private plan change requests can be lodged at any time. This includes applications and requests to give ‘live’ urban zones to land zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Such requests can enable a market response to enabling development but also have the potential to undermine the goals set out in the Auckland Plan, the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the intent of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.
40. The process for the council to consider private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1 to operative plans.
41. The applicant is required to include the information set out in clause 22, which states that:
· a request made under clause 21 shall be made to the appropriate local authority in writing and explain the purpose of, and reasons for, the proposed plan or change to a policy statement or plan and contain an evaluation under Section 32 of the RMA for any objectives, policies, rules, or other methods proposed; and
42. Following requests from council for further information, additional information was received on 9 July, 17 October and 15 January 2018. The council staff who evaluated the request consider that the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered. Therefore, there are no grounds to reject the application as providing insufficient information under clause 23(6) of Schedule 1.
43. While there are a number of matters that need to be resolved, a fine-grained merits assessment of the request has not been considered in this report. Should the request be adopted or accepted by council, such matters would be assessed through the submission and hearing process or for non-RMA matters resolved in parallel to the plan change process.
44. Under clause 25 (refer Attachment D for the full wording), 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:
· 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
· 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
· Reject the request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4).
45. The next section of this report assesses the various options available to the council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.
Option 1 - Reject the private plan change request in whole or in part
46. The council may reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1 The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
47. Frivolous means not having any serious purpose or value. Vexatious means denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance.
48. The request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation and specialist reports. The investigations undertaken do support their structure plan and plan change process.
49. The location and timing of the development is generally consistent with council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. Bulk infrastructure is being planned for the Warkworth area with wastewater and water supply schemes already under construction and intended to be delivered in late 2021/2022. Significant transport infrastructure is also anticipated in 2021/22, although some key elements such as the Western Link Road are not certain. However, this lack of certainty is not considered to render the application ‘frivolous or vexatious’.
50. It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
51. These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. The Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part on 15 November 2016 and applied a Future Urban zone over 1,000 hectares of land in the Warkworth area. The substance of the request has not been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council in the last two years. The land was also not subject to a Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act application in the past nor has the zoning been considered by the Environment Court within the last two years.
52. It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on the basis of that the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan have been operative for less than two years.
53. The substance of the request or part of the request has not been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A of the RMA. These relate to coastal regulations and are not applicable to this request.
54. It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the request on the basis that the substance of the request has been given effect to by regulations make under section 360A.
55. The term “sound resource management practice” is an often-used planning term but is not defined in the RMA. Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (2009) 15 ELRNZ 307, [2010] NZRMA 1 where one of the issues on appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause 25(4), considered:
“‘We conclude that the question of sound resource management practice goes well beyond questions of planning merit to include fundamental issues as to appropriate process, timing and the like. It can include non-planning matters such as engineering, cultural, and other issues.” (para 60)
56. In the subsequent High Court case, Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572), ‘the High Court considered:
“I accept that there is nothing about the appellant’s proposal which offends against sound resource management practice. The issue is whether the timing of the appellants request offends” (para 97) [The context is this case was that the council had proposed a different outcome for the applicant’s land in what was essentially a structure plan process.]
“In general terms I think it is drawing a long bow to hold that a timing issue (assuming a request’s timing is not frivolous or vexatious) will result in an otherwise unobjectionable proposal offending. But, in the particular factual context of the appellant’s request and its proximity to the Structure Plan processes, I am not prepared to hold that, on that specific issue, the Environment Court was wrong. I consider that the proximity to which I have referred makes this case unique” (para 98)
57. Similar circumstances around timing apply here. If the private plan change request is accepted by council and publicly notified before the draft structure plan is adopted there are three risks for the community and the council. The first is simply that it will be very difficult for the community to gauge the substantive merits of the request in the absence of an adopted council structure plan. Secondly it will be confusing for the community having two overlapping but different statutory processes to follow under the RMA for the private plan change and under the Local Government Act 2001 for the draft Warkworth Structure Plan.
58. The third issue is that the outcome of the private plan change process (for 99 hectares) could dictate and compromise what the wider council structure plan is attempting to achieve for all of the Future Urban zone and the wider Warkworth area. If these matters cannot be addressed then the process would arguably be contrary to sound resource management practice.
59. In partial recognition of these concerns, the applicant is in agreement with an approach delaying notification of the private plan change request until after the close of submissions on the council’s draft Warkworth Structure Plan. A copy of this commitment dated 19 December 2018 is attached as Attachment E to this report.
60. This approach reduces the strength of the arguments relating to being contrary to sound resource management practice because the Warkworth Structure plan would be available (but not adopted) for the public to determine how well the two plans align with and addresses issued raised in the draft structure plan.
61. However, this is still not as sound an approach as waiting for the formal adoption of the Warkworth Structure Plan, likely to be in May or June 2019. Delaying notification of the private plan change until immediately after the Warkworth Structure Plan is adoped, would remove any issue of being contrary to resource management practice and would still be within the four month period specified in clause 26 of Schedule 1 within which council is required to publicly notify any accepted private plan change requests.
62. In essence, there are two options for notification of the plan change with little time between them. but a significant difference in how well ‘sound resource management practice’ is achieved. On balance, the second option of public notification after the Warkworth Structure Plan is adopted is the preferred option.
63. Based on the above reasoning, it is considered there are no grounds under clause 25(4)(c) to reject the private plan change request.
64. Part 5 sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
65. The proposal to rezone Future Urban zoned land to Residential and Business zones in conjunction with the necessary structure planning and new precinct provisions would not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. As outlined in paragraphs 29-31 the development is slightly ahead of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy overall timeframe but there is no significant issue with the proposed rezoning and the delivery of bulk infrastructure.
66. It is therefore concluded that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
67. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this case, the request seeks to rezone land and introduce precinct provisions to manage subdivision, use and development. As stated in the Auckland Unitary Plan itself, the most appropriate process for achieving development within the Future Urban zone is through structure planning followed by a plan change. Rezoning cannot occur through a resource consent application.
68. It is therefore concluded that the council cannot decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
69. The applicant has verbally requested that the council adopts the private plan change. Adopting the private plan change would enable the zoning and other provisions to be taken into account in the resource consent process as soon as the plan change is notified. This could potentially enable the delivery of new housing in the Warkworth area at a faster pace than if the plan change is accepted. As the council’s structure plan is still three to four months away from being completed, adopting the private plan change is not recommended. To do so would be to pre-empt the outcome of the last step in the council’s structure planning process.
Option 4 - Accept the request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request
70. The council could accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The council would hold a hearing to consider submissions, and a decision would be made by the council in relation to the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. The costs associated with the private plan change request would sit with the applicant.
71. This is the only remaining option and is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA (having regard to relevant case law), and it is more appropriate to accept the request than adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application. In particular:
· The proposal does not undermine the Auckland Plan 2050 (2018) or the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (2017) in terms of the timing of development.
· Significant elements of the bulk infrastructure required for the Warkworth North area are well-advanced in terms of planning, funding, design and delivery.
· Notification following further progress being made with the council’s Warkworth Structure Plan will ensure both the community and the council can see how the private plan change request could fit into the wider vision for Warkworth.
· The applicant has prepared a structure plan to inform the plan change in accordance with Appendix 1 Structure Plan Guidelines of the Auckland Unitary Plan
72. The Turnstone Capital Limited private plan change request seeks to rezone 99 hectares of Future Urban zoned land in Warkworth North to a mix of residential, business and open space zones. Work to support the private plan has been ongoing since 2017 and is supported by comprehensive technical reports.
73. The private plan change, if accepted and if successful, would become an important part of the future growth of Warkworth. Having carefully assessed the private plan change request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that the request be accepted and notified for submissions. If accepted, a substantive assessment would take place after submissions and further submissions were received. Discussions regarding the provision of bulk infrastructure could progress in parallel with this.
74. The only relevant council controlled organisations are Watercare Services Ltd and Auckland Transport. Both have provided advice to council on this private plan change request.
75. Key departments within council have provided been consulted to confirm that the applicant has provided sufficient information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. These include:
· Community and Social Policy
· Engineering and Technical Services
· Auckland Plan Strategy and Research
· Environmental Services – Infrastructure and Environment
76. It is not appropriate for other departments of the council to provide advice on the merits of the application at this stage. Assuming the application is accepted or adopted, the views of departments will be sought as part of the substantive assessment of the private plan change request. It is highly likely that staff will recommend the council makes a submission on the private plan change to ensure alignment with the Warkworth structure plan once adopted.
77. The Rodney Local Board was briefed by staff from North West & Islands Planning on 22 November 2019. Feedback at the time of writing this report was that the Rodney Local Board does not support the private plan change request. At this time, they considered it could undermine the draft Warkworth Structure Plan and result in a future land use pattern which is not necessarily best placed or scaled to serve the long term future of Warkworth.
78. Since then the applicant has offered to align notification of the private plan change request with the close of submissions to council’s draft structure plan and has modified the proposed zoning pattern, with new information received on 15 January 2019. Key changes include replacing proposed business zones from General Business and Local Centre to Light Industrial and Neighbourhood Centre. The size of the centre has been reduced from 3 hectares to 3,000m2
79. The Local Board Chair, Deputy Chair and Infrastructure Committee Chair will be updated of these changes in late January 2019. An update of the position of the local board will be reported verbally to the Planning Committee on Tuesday 5 February.
80. On 17 April 2017 a number of amendments to the RMA came into force which places an increased focus on engagement and consultation with iwi authorities as part of various plan-making processes. This is particularly the case for plan change processes that are initiated or adopted by a Council, but not necessary for privately initiated processes. Although engagement with mana whenua and all relevant iwi authorities by a private plan change requester is encouraged before lodgement, it is not a mandatory requirement under Part 2 of Schedule 1. If the council accepts the private plan change request, it is not required to complete this step.
81. The applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with 12 iwi groups (See Attachment B – Appendix 6 page 3) in conjunction with the development of the private plan change for Warkworth North. Two iwi groups, Te Kawerau ā Maki Settlement Trust and Ngāti Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust have prepared Cultural Impact Assessments.
82. Consultation undertaken with Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust to date has not identified any matters that are unable to be resolved. However, the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust has recently informed the council that their position has changed since they prepared their Cultural Value Assessment for the applicant in November 2017.
83. Where the applicant recognises and accommodates Ngāti Manuhiri’s values and aspirations, Ngāti Manuhiri will continue to support their Cultural Value Assessment. However, Ngāti Manuhiri advised council on 10 October 2018 that:
“With the interests of the whole of Warkworth (and the wider area) in mind - it’s overall form, connectivity, community, recreation and business/retail hubs, schools and natural environments, it is our preference that Auckland Councils Warkworth Structure Plan is adopted as a more holistic and inclusive strategy for the growth and development of Warkworth.”
84. Ngāti Manuhiri’s revised position reflects the importance of an integrated management approachto the planning and development future of Warkworth.
85. If accepted or adopted, all 19 mana whenua entities will be notified and have the opportunity to make a submission on the plan change.
86. If accepted for processing, costs will be recoverable from the applicant up until any appeals to the Environment Court.
87. While the timing of the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Auckland Plan and the council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, the key risks associated with the recommendation to accept the private plan change are that:
· notification of the private plan change may confuse members of the Warkworth community about the role of the council’s structure planning process for Warkworth
· it may prompt other land owners/developers who wish to have land in the Future Urban zone rezoned ahead of the council completing its structure planning processes to make private plan change requests.
88. These risks can be mitigated by the council completing its structure plans for Warkworth, Silverdale, Drury-Opaheke and Pukekohe-Paerata by mid-2019.
89. If the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must then proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26 by June 2019, within four months of agreeing to accept the request. As previously discussed, it would be appropriate for the council to make a submission on the private plan change.
90. The council would need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions. The hearing should ideally take place at the same time, and with the same commissioners as the hearing of submissions on the council-initiated plan change for the Warkworth North area, which is currently expected to be notified shortly after the adoption of the Warkworth structure plan.
Due to the size and complexity of Attachments A and B they have been published under separate cover at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Planning Committee 5 February 2019 > attachments
Request Part 1 S32 Report & Appendix 1 Planning Maps & Precinct Provisions (78 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
Request Part 2 Appendices 2 - 22 (1239 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
FULSS Future Urban Area Sequencing Warkworth
Clause 25 Part 2 First Schedule RMA
Memo B&A 18 Dec 2018
Michele Perwick - Principal Planner
File No.: CP2018/24043
1. To consider a private plan change request from Orakei Point Trustee Limited to rezone land at Orakei Point from Open Space-Informal Recreation to Business-Mixed Use.
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the change request) received on 20 November 2018 from Orakei Point Trustee Limited to rezone 413m2 of privately-owned land at 236 Orakei Road, Orakei, from Open Space-Informal Recreation to Business-Mixed Use.
a) accept the private plan change request by Orakei Point Trustee Limited for rezoning of land at 236 Orakei Road, Orakei (included as Attachment A to the agenda report) for the following reasons:
5. Orakei Point precinct applies to approximately 5.4ha of land at Orakei Road adjoining the coastal marine area. The precinct is bisected by the North Island Main Trunk Railway (NIMT). The Auckland Unitary Plan enables a transit orientated development (TOD) around Orakei Station. The operative precinct provides for the construction of a plaza over the NIMT and substantial retail, commercial and residential development above.
6. The majority of the land in Orakei Point is zoned Mixed Use but with a strip of Open Space-Informal Recreation around the perimeter of the precinct and in particular a serrated strip along the south-western edge. The land was originally zoned Open Space to provide public access to what was intended to be the Hobson Bay walkway/cycleway and to provide landscape treatment along this part of the foreshore.
7. Circumstances have changed since the precinct was originally developed, and the council’s Parks and Recreation Policy staff no longer support acquiring this land for access to the Hobson Bay walkway. The preferred Hobson Bay walkway/cycleway route is along Orakei Road and Ngapipi Road. Figure 1 below depicts the current zoning pattern at Orakei Point.
Figure 1 – existing zoning at Orakei Point precinct
8. Orakei Point Trustee Limited (OPTL), which effectively owns and controls the land south of the NIMT, has obtained a resource consent to construct a 7-9 level building containing 32 apartments on the south-western end of the precinct as stage one of a larger development proposal (LUC60318588 & DIS60318620).
9. OBTL lodged a private plan change request on 20 November 2018 (see Attachment A) which seeks to rezone a 413m2parcel of land at 236 Orakei Road from Open Space-Informal Recreation to Business-Mixed use. Subject to a subsequent resource consent process, the proposed rezoning would enable the movement of the approved apartment building 15.75m westward.
10. The location of the approved development (black dashed outline) and the location to which OBTL proposes to relocate the development (purple outline with light grey shading) via a subsequent resource consent (should this plan change request be approved) are shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 – Approved and proposed location of development
Figure 3 below depicts the relevant part of the Orakei Point precinct, the operative zoning, and the land sought to be rezoned from Open Space to Mixed Use.
Land sought to be rezoned from open space to mixed use
11. OBTL has provided the following documentation in support of the request (see Attachment A):
· Landscape/Visual assessment
· Zoning and location maps
· Certificates of Title.
12. A copy of the decision on approved resource consent BUN60318586 (LUC60318588 and DIS60318620) is also attached at Attachment A.
13. The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made to the appropriate local authority by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1. After a request has been lodged, a local authority can request further information under clause 23, and modify a request under clause 24, but only with the applicant’s agreement.
14. Under clause 23(6), if an applicant refuses to provide any requested further or additional information, a local authority that considers it has insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request, may reject the request or decide not to approve the plan change requested
15. Under clause 25, after receiving the request, receiving all required information and modifying the request (where relevant), the local authority is required to make a decision that either:
e) Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA is set out in full in Attachment G to this report.
16. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and therefore do not consider the grounds for rejection in clause 23(6) to be applicable.
17. The council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4). If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of Schedule 1.
18. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
Clause 25(a) - If the request is frivolous or vexatious
19. The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation and a planning report containing a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering landscape assessment, transport and infrastructure. The proposal is for a rezoning that is consistent with the adjacent zoning pattern.
20. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request under clause 25(a).
Clause 25(b)(i) - If the substance of the request has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the last two years.
21. These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. Orakei Point precinct was subject to submissions and hearing during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan, however it is more than two years since the council made its decisions in response to the recommendations made by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.
22. It therefore recommended that the council not reject the request under clause 25(b)(i).
Clause 25(b)(ii) – If the substance of the request has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A.
23. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request or part of the request, being rezoning of land at Orakei Point does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.
24. It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the request under clause 25(b)(ii).
Clause 25(c) - If the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.
25. The term “sound resource management practice” is not defined in the RMA. The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572), where the issue on appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause 25(4), considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and stated:
26. The applicant has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning will facilitate a better environmental outcome by providing a greater separation distance between the apartment building and the NIMT while ensuring that environmental effects of future development proposals are avoided, minimised or mitigated. The private plan change request includes technical reports which support the proposed rezoning.
27. Consultation undertaken with mana whenua to date has not identified any matters that are unable to be resolved.
28. The private plan change request is therefore considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice and its is recommended that the council not reject the private plan change under clause 25(c).
Clause 25(d) - If the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
29. Part 5 sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
30. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
Clause 25(e) - If the plan provisions to which the request relates have been operative for less than two years
31. The provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The plan change request was lodged on the 20 November 2018. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years and the council cannot reject the private plan change request on this basis.
32. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request under clause 25(e).
33. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to rezone a portion of land to facilitate the movement of an approved apartment rather than apply for a non-complying resource consent. It is considered that the most appropriate process for facilitating a consideration of this change is through a plan change process.
34. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
35. The council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were a council-initiated proposed plan change. A decision to adopt triggers the process set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, which would then require the council to consult as required in clauses 3 to 3C of Part 1.
36. Following consultation, the council would then need to notify the proposed plan change for submissions and conduct a hearing into submissions, if required. If a request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan change would rest with the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change.
37. Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the request, that there would be no public benefit associated with the plan change request, and that the council would need to account for all costs associated with the adopted request, it is recommended that the council not adopt the private plan change request.
38. If the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must then proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26. After the submission period has closed, the council would need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and a decision would then be made by the council in relation to the request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. All costs associated with the request (including notification and any hearing) would rest with the applicant.
39. This is the only remaining option and is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, having regard to relevant case law, and it is more appropriate to accept the request than adopt it or treat it as a resource consent application.
40. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.
41. The private plan change request by OPTL seeks to rezone 413m2 of land at 236 Orakei Road, Orakei from Open Space-Informal Recreation to Business-Mixed use. OPTL has lodged technical reports in support of the plan change request. The plan change request, if accepted and if successful, and subject to a subsequent resource consent process, would facilitate the movement of an approved apartment 15.75m westward.
42. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council accepts the plan change request and notifies it for submissions. If the council accepts the plan change request, a further assessment by council staff would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.
43. There are no water or wastewater issues associated with the proposal. As such, Watercare staff have no specific feedback on the proposal.
44. Healthy Waters states that the change in zoning will in theory allow for an increased total maximum impervious area across the site. The open space zone has a maximum impervious area of 10% (H7.11.7) whereas the Business mixed use zone has no maximum impervious area (excepting within the riparian yard which is not relevant here) allowing development up to 100% impervious area. The Precinct rules do not add or remove any controls in relation to impervious area.
45. The effects on water quality and quantity and the mitigation of these specific to this development will need to be addressed through the resource consent process.
46. Auckland Transport staff are concerned that development of the Orakei Point precinct will progress on an ad-hoc basis (i.e. assessed on a building-by-building basis and contrary to the outcomes sought in the Orakei Point Precinct), and that this will not result in a coordinated and integrated land use and transport response for both sides of the precinct.
47. These concerns are considered to be more relevant to an assessment at the resource consent stage rather than at the initial stage of considering this specific private plan change request.
48. The Parks and Recreation Policy unit’s position is the same as in 2016. The subject site is not a priority open space acquisition as it would not contribute or add value to the existing open space network. In addition, they do not have any fundamental concerns/issues with the proposal that would justify the private plan change request being rejected.
49. After the lodgement of the private plan change request by OPTL on 20 November 2018, Plans and Places staff briefed the Orakei Local Board on 7 December 2018 formally seeking their views on the private plan change. On 14 December 2018, comments were received from Orakei Local Board:
“There is a majority view to reject this plan change proposal. The proposal rezones a small piece of land for residential rather than open space and has potential to limit public access options adjacent to the area.
The Urban Design Panel (UDP) were supportive of the communal open space (the location of the proposed zone change) – in the original Tattico report and this proposal appears to negate that. We note there is no reference to the UDP or consultation in the zone change document.
The proposal raises more uncertainty than obviating that to accept the proposal would make good sense. Some of that uncertainty includes reference in the Tattico report that Kiwi Rail would ‘desire’ a wider separation to the main trunk railway. Desire does not mean essential. And if it were essential – why was it not mentioned in the original Tattico report (Oct 2017).
We note also from the Council memo to OLB that Kiwi Rail have yet to confirm on the setback. It is difficult for OLB to make an informed decision or recommendation – if key stakeholder input has yet to be received.”
50. The comments from the Orakei Local Board are an assessment of the detailed merits of the request rather than a response to the matters set out in clause 25 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. While there are a number of issues that would need to be addressed if the request is accepted, these are matters properly considered through the planning assessment rather than as part of this decision to accept, reject or adopt the request under clause 25.
51. If the request is accepted, staff from the Plans and Places department will contact the Orakei Local Board again prior to the hearing to ensure that the Local Board’s views are clearly presented to the independent hearing commissioners.
52. On 17 April 2017, a number of amendments to the RMA came into force which place an increased focus on engagement and consultation with iwi authorities as part of various plan-making processes. This is particularly the case for plan change processes that are initiated or adopted by a council. In relation to private plan change requests, although engagement with mana whenua and relevant iwi authorities is encouraged before lodgement under clause 21, it is not clear whether it is a mandatory requirement under Part 2 of Schedule 1. If the council accepts a private plan change request for notification, it is not required to complete any additional pre-notification steps.
53. The applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with Ngati Whatua o Orakei. At the time of writing this report no written feedback from Ngati Whatua o Orakei has been provided by the applicant. If the council accepts the plan change for notification, all mana whenua entities will have the opportunity to make submissions on the private plan change and be heard by the independent hearing commissioners.
54. Aside from potential impacts on mana whenua the private plan change is not considered to have any specific impacts on Māori.
55. If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
56. The only risk associated with the recommendations made in this report are a judicial review by a third party. This risk is considered to be very low and mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.
koringa ā-muri
57. If the private plan change is accepted for notification, the implementation of this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified within four months of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in accordance with section 37 of the RMA.
Due to the size and complexity of Attachment A it has been published under separate cover at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Planning Committee 5 February 2019 > attachments
Orakei Point - Private plan change request report Final (62 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
Council open space Letter
Hulena Landscape Assessment
Extracts and Masterplan
Approved Consent
Clause 25 Schedule 2 RMA
Bruce Young - Principal Planner
File No.: CP2018/24117
1. To consider a private plan change request from Fletcher Residential Limited to rezone 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, St Johns from Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) lodged on 13 November 2018 from Fletcher Residential Limited (Fletcher). The request seeks to rezone 4,380m2 of land at 90 Felton Mathew Avenue, formerly a part of 90-104 Felton Mathew Avenue from Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban zone.
5. The site subject to the request is currently vacant. It has been largely cleared of trees and is fenced off from neighbouring sites. The site has an approximate 5m difference in elevation from its highest point along Felton Mathew Avenue sloping towards the south-east extent of the site (refer Figure 1).
6. A gated entrance to Gerard Roofs (the primary brand for the Fletcher Building Roof tile group) located on the south-eastern boundary, provides access from Felton Mathew Avenue to an uncovered area with containers and car parking. A transformer that faces Felton Mathew Avenue is located outside of this entrance.
7. The site forms the northern extent of the existing industrial area within St Johns which begins from the subject site south toward Morrin Road. The industrial area is separated from the railway line by the Eastern Transport designation. A shared path for cyclists and pedestrians (Merton Road to St Johns Road) runs along the north-eastern boundary of the designation. Currently, there is no access to the shared path from the site.
8. The site is bounded by the wider residential neighbourhood of St Johns to the west and north. Residential development within the area can be characterised as low-density, suburban residential development that is typically single storey.
9. Beyond the railway line to the east is the Glen Innes Town Centre and the residential suburb of Glen Innes.
Figure 1: Locality Plan - 90 Felton Mathew Avenue and surroundings
10. The request was lodged on 13 November 2018 (refer Attachment A) and seeks to rezone 90 Felton Mathew Avenue (comprising 4,380m2) from Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban zone.
11. Fletcher has provided the following documentation in support of the request:
· Section 32 analysis
· Urban design assessment
· Industrial property market analysis
· Iwi engagement letter
· Consultation and engagement summary
· Approved subdivision plans
· Notification assessment
12. The request seeks residential development on the subject site located on the periphery of an existing light industrial area, that has not been used for industrial uses. It will enable residential development of a density that is consistent with the low density, suburban residential development of St Johns to the north and west of the site that has become surplus to Fletcher’s requirements.
13. The existing zoning of land at 90 Felton Mathew Avenue is shown in Figure 2, and the proposed zoning under the request is shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 2: Existing zoning of 90 Felton Mathew Avenue under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)
Figure 3: Proposed zoning of 90 Felton Mathew Avenue under the Private Plan Change request
14. The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. A request can be made to the appropriate local authority by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1. After a request has been lodged, a local authority can request further information under clause 23, and modify a request under clause 24, but only with the applicant’s agreement. If an applicant refuses to provide any requested further or additional information, a local authority that considers it has insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request, may reject the request or decide not to approve the plan change requested under clause 23(6).
15. Under clause 25, 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:
· adopt the request 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
· accept the private plan change 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
· reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4); or
16. See Attachment B for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
17. Council staff consider that the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the request to be considered, and so do not consider the ground of rejection in clause 23(6) to be available. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25.
Option 1 – Reject the request
19. The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation and a planning report containing a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering a wide range of issues including acoustics, industrial land supply, urban design, transport, and infrastructure. The proposal is for a rezoning that is consistent with the residential properties located to the north and west of the subject site and is not intended to create difficulties for any other party.
20. It is therefore recommended that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
21. These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community. The requested rezoning was not subject to submissions or hearing during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Therefore, the substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years.
22. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
23. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The substance of this private plan change request or part of the request, being the rezoning of land at 90 Felton Mathew Avenue does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.
24. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
25. The term “sound resource management practice” is an often used planning term but is not defined in the RMA. The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572), where the issue on appeal was determining the correct interpretation of clause 25(4), considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of Schedule 1 and stated:
26. The private plan change request includes a number of technical reports, which support the proposed rezoning. Watercare Services has advised that in principle there do not appear to be any water or wastewater constraints that would prevent the rezoning of the site. The council’s transport specialist considers that that traffic generated from the future development of the site can be accommodated by the existing road network.
27. The applicant has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning will result in a residential development which makes a positive contribution to the existing residential character and amenity of the area, while adverse effects of future development proposals can be managed through the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).
28. The applicant also considers that the proposed residential development of the site will not adversely affect the on-going operation and functioning of the adjoining Gerard Roofs site at 104 Felton Mathew Avenue.
29. Having reviewed the applicant’s planning and specialist reports and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, the private plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change on the basis that it is contrary to sound resource management practice.
30. Part 5 sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
31. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
32. The district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years. The proposed rezoning was not subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process. As the proposal only relates to a zone change, provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan that were made operative in part on 15 November 2016 will not be affected.
33. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan have been operative for more than two years.
34. The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent. However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to rezone the subject site from Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban zone. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for residential development of the site is through a plan change process.
35. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
36. The council is able to decide to adopt the request and process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change. If a request is adopted, all costs associated with the plan change would rest with the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change.
37. Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the request and that the council would need to account for all costs associated with the adopted request, staff do not recommend that the council decide to adopt the private plan change request.
41. The private plan change request by Fletcher seeks to rezone 4,380m2 of land at 90 Felton Mathew Avenue from Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The plan change is supported by comprehensive technical reports.
42. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council decide to accept the request and notify it for submissions.
43. Watercare Services has advised that in principle there do not appear to be any water or wastewater constraints that would prevent the rezoning of the site. However, it advises that Watercare Services will need to undertake a capacity assessment for water and wastewater at the resource consent stage, and the cost of any infrastructure upgrades that are required, would need to be met by the applicant.
44. At the time of preparing this report, comments have not been received from Auckland Transport. Staff will follow up with Auckland Transport and update the Planning Committee at the meeting.
45. The views of the Ōrākei Local Board were sought on the private plan change request. The local board advised on 17 December 2018, that it was not opposed to the proposal. It noted that a mixed housing suburban development will have fewer adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties than light industrial activities. Additionally, the Board noted that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Auckland Unitary Plan, in providing more residential development close to public transport.
46. The local board advocates that the developer set aside and construct at its cost, a public accessway from Felton Mathew Avenue to the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path to meet the requests of local residents in Howard Hunter Avenue for better access to the shared path.
47. The applicant has advised that pedestrian access is not part of the plan change request, but if the site is rezoned, pedestrian access to the shared path can be discussed at the resource consent stage.
48. On 17 April 2017, a number of amendments to the RMA came into force which place an increased focus on engagement and consultation with iwi authorities as part of various plan-making processes. This is particularly the case for plan change processes that are initiated or adopted by the Council. In relation to private plan change requests, although engagement with mana whenua and relevant iwi authorities is encouraged before lodgement under clause 21, it is not clear whether it is a mandatory requirement under Part 2 of Schedule 1. If the council accepts a private plan change request for notification, it is not required to complete any additional pre-notification steps.
49. The applicant advised that it has engaged with 15 iwi groups, with letters being sent providing opportunity for queries to be addressed, before the plan change request was lodged with the Council. Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Ākitai Waiohua accepted the opportunity to meet with the applicant.
50. The applicant has advised that iwi representatives were appreciative of the forewarning of the intentions of the plan change, could see value in the plan change request and would wait to be approached by the Council following lodgement of the plan change.
51. If the council accepts the plan change for notification, the iwi groups engaged by the applicant will have the opportunity to make submissions on the private plan change on issues that are important to them.
52. Aside from potential impacts on Mana Whenua the private plan change is not considered to have any impacts on Māori.
53. If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
54. The only risk associated with the recommendations made in this report is a judicial review by a third party. This risk is considered to be very low and mitigated by the analysis provided in this report.
55. If the private plan change is accepted for notification, the implementation of this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified within four months of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in accordance with section 37 of the RMA.
Private Plan Change Request Report (62 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
File No.: CP2019/00069
1. To update the committee on the outcome of two appeals against the council’s decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and two subsequent appeals:
ii) CIV-2016-404-2343 – Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Limited
iii) ENV-2018-AKL-000150 – Brookby Quarries Limited
iv) ENV-2018-AKL-000149 – Fulton Hogan Limited.
2. To obtain resolutions to allow staff to undertake the statutory processes to publicly notify the additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) that are no longer subject to appeals.
3. To note that two regional coastal plan map items, and regional coastal plan provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan relating to genetically modified organisms, that are no longer subject to appeal, must be referred to the Minister of Conservation for approval before they are publicly notified as operative, and to request staff to take further steps necessary to make those provisions operative if approval is given by the Minister.
ENV-2016-AKL-0000238 – Housing New Zealand Corporation
4. The council’s decision version of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), chapter B5.3.1 Special character objectives was appealed by Housing New Zealand Corporation (ENV-2016-AKL-0000238). Housing New Zealand appealed the council’s decision to include an additional objective (Objective B5.3.1(1)) in the regional policy statement relating to the historic heritage values of special character areas. The Environment Court did not uphold the additional objective the council had added. The district plan rules relating to special character areas remain unchanged.
5. In its decisions, the Environment Court confirmed that while the special character areas may have some heritage values, the purpose of the special character areas is to manage the character and amenity values within these areas. The Environment Court issued the third and final decision on 30 October 2018, Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council [2018] NZEnvC213. Read together with the earlier decisions, the Court directed amendments to: RPS Objective B5.3.1(1), Issue B5.1, Policy B5.3.2, and the explanation and principal reasons for adoption.
CIV-2016-404-2343 – Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Limited
6. The High Court decision on Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Limited appeal (CIV-2016-404-2343) gave rise to two new Environment Court appeals - Brookby Quarries Limited (ENV-2018-AKL-000150) and Fulton Hogan Limited (ENV-2018-AKL-000149).
ENV-2018-AKL-000149 – Fulton Hogan Limited
7. The Fulton Hogan Limited appeal has now been resolved in full by way of consent order.
ENV-2018-AKL-000150 – Brookby Quarries Limited
8. The Brookby Quarries Limited appeal has been set down for hearing in the Environment Court in the week beginning 25 March 2019.
9. Section 152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) provides for those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are no longer subject to appeal, either as a result of being withdrawn or determined, to have been approved by the council. Section 160 of the LGATPA requires the council to publicly notify the date on which these parts of the plan become operative.
10. Section 152(3) provides for a slightly different approach with respect to the regional coastal plan. Section 152(3) provides for those parts of the regional coastal plan that are no longer subject to appeal to have been deemed as adopted by the council, but requires that the proposed plan or parts thereof must be sent to the Minister of Conservation for her approval under clause 18(3) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act before it can become operative. Under clause 19(1) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act, the Minister can require amendments to be made to provisions prior to giving approval.
11. The Environment Court issued its third and final decision on 30 October 2018 - Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council [2018] NZEnvC213. This decision confirmed that only one objective relating to maintaining and enhancing character and amenity values within special character areas would remain. Consequential amendments were also made to B5.1(3) Issues, B5.3.2 Policies and B5.4 Explanation and principal reasons for adoption. This decision was not appealed.
12. Council’s decision with respect to the Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) Overlay provisions was appealed in the High Court by the Royal Forest and Bird Society of New Zealand Incorporated (CIV-2016-404-2343). The High Court issued its judgment on the first point of law in that appeal on 18 May 2018 (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand v Auckland Council [2018]NZHC 1069) and a second supplementary judgment on that point on 8 June 2018 (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 1344).
13. The council (by virtue of the High Court Judgment) is deemed to have rejected the recommendation of the Independent Hearings Panel, and instead imposed an alternative solution, giving rise to a right of appeal to the Environment Court under section 156(1)(b) of the LGATPA.
14. Fulton Hogan Limited and Brookby Quarries Limited filed appeals in the Environment Court against the ‘alternative solution’ reinstated in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part).
15. The Fulton Hogan appeal sought the removal of the southern area of the SEA Overlay SEA_T_5588 at Clevedon Quarry. Ecological experts were in agreement over the extent of area to remain within the SEA overlay at Clevedon Quarry. An Environment Court order issued 31 October 2018 settled the appeal.
16. Brookby Quarries appealed the provisions reinstated in the Auckland Unitary Plan for vegetation alteration or removal in a SEA within a Quarry zone, and sought changes to the objectives, policies, matters of discretion and assessment criteria. The Brookby appeal was not resolved by mediation with the parties, and a hearing date is set for has been scheduled for the week of 25 March 2019 at the Environment Court.
17. The determination of this appeal was previously addressed at the 7 August 2018 Planning Committee meeting. However, the agenda report did not specifically refer to the need to refer the regional coastal plan provisions relating to genetically modified organisms to the Minister of Conservation for approval prior to public notification. Therefore, this report notes that these provisions will be sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
18. This report deals with procedural matters – notifying additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan now operative; and referring part of the regional coastal plan to the Minister of Conservation for final approval.
19. No analysis or additional advice is required in relation to the SEA Overlay or the provisions for genetically modified organisms.
20. Attachment A contains a list of remaining appeals. There are Environment Court appeals, six High Court appeals, two judicial review proceedings and two Court of Appeal appeals remaining.
21. The following advice relates to the implications of the Environment Court amendments to the Special Character provisions in the regional policy statement (chapter B5).
22. The amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) in response to the Environment Court decisions are only to the regional policy statement (chapter B5). As such there are no changes to the district plan rules for the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business. This includes the special character statements for each area – the values identified in these remains the same (chapter L Schedule 15).[1] This means there is no effect on the resource consenting process, either in the rules that apply to a site or assessment of the resource consent application.
23. The amendments will strengthen the overlay district plan objectives and policies (chapter D18) because it clarifies the policy framework they seek to give effect to as they recognise that historic heritage values underpin the identified character and amenity values of special character areas. Previously this was not as explicit in the regional policy statement.
24. In the future, if the council is considering adding new special character areas to the Auckland Unitary Plan, then it will need to be clear about the values it wants to manage and choose the appropriate method accordingly. If the primary focus of the new area is to maintain and enhance the character and amenity values of the area then the Special Character Areas Overlay will be the method to use. However if the primary focus is to protect historic heritage values then the Historic Heritage Overlay is the appropriate method.
25. The final step in making additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on the council group.
26. If new special character areas are considered in the future, any impacts on and views of the council group will be considered then.
27. Local Boards have been involved in the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan since mid-2012. Their views were not sought for this report as it addresses factual and procedural matters.
28. If new special character areas are considered in the future, local impacts and local board views will be considered then.
29. The final step in making additional parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan operative is a procedural step and therefore does not have any impact on Māori. Impacts on Māori have been considered throughout the process of developing the Auckland Unitary Plan and the resolution of appeals.
30. If new special character areas are considered in the future, any impacts on Māori will be considered then.
31. The cost of making the Auckland Unitary Plan operative is covered by the Plans and Places department’s operational budget.
32. There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.
33. Following the Planning Committee’s consideration, staff will:
a) publish a public notice advising of the date on which further parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan will be made operative
b) refer two regional coastal plan Significant Ecological Area sites and the genetically modified organisms provisions to the Minister of Conservation for approval
c) amend the relevant parts of Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) as required.
List of remaining Auckland Unitary Plan appeals
Katrina David - Planner
File No.: CP2019/00114
1. To make operative Plan Change 8 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
2. Plan Change 8 rezones land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and land adjacent to Hospital Road from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School (refer Attachment A).
3. The plan change is a private plan change requested by King’s College which was notified to a limited number of parties on 7 December 2017. Four submissions were received and were considered by Independent Commissioners. The council released the decision on 18 October 2018. No appeals were received, and the plan change can now be made operative.
4. Plan Change 8 rezones land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and land adjacent to Hospital Road from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School (refer Attachment A).
5. The plan change is a private plan change requested by King’s College which was notified to a limited number of parties on 7 December 2017. Four submissions were received and were considered by Independent Hearings Plan Commissioners. The council released the decision on 18 October 2018. No appeals were received and the plan change can now be made operative.
7. Making the plan change operative has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.
8. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards were briefed on the plan change after it was lodged with the council. In response, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board confirmed that they had no objections to the private plan change, while the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board expressed their support for the private plan change.
9. Prior to the plan change being limited notified, and pursuant to clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, King’s College consulted with the following mana whenua groups which were identified as having an interest in land subject to the plan change:
· Ngāti Whatua o Orakei
10. Feedback was received from Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated Society and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua requesting their engagement when future development proposals are received for land subject to the plan change. Ngāti Whanaunga also provided a cultural assessment in support of the plan change which was included with the documents lodged by King’s College.
11. The mana whenua groups with an interest in land subject to the plan change were directly notified of the request when it was limited notified on 7 December 2017. No submissions were received to the plan change from mana whenua.
12. There are no financial implications associated with making the plan change operative.
13. There are no risks associated with making the plan change operative.
14. The final step in making the plan change operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to update the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Plan showing zoning to be made operative
File No.: CP2019/00264
· Planning Committee workshop schedule February 2019 (Attachment A)
· Auckland Monthly Housing Update January 2019 (Attachment B)
· 4 December 2018 – Government announcements on the proposed resource management reforms and a new Housing and Urban Development Authority
· 17 December 2018 – Urban design terminology (Attachment D)
5. The following letters are attached:
· 3 December 2018 – National accessibility legislation (Attachment E)
· 14 December 2018 – Auckland Council elected member engagement with city centre to Māngere Light Rail Project (Attachment F)
The attachments for this report have been published under separate cover at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Planning Committee 5 February 2019 > extra attachments
Planning Committee workshop schedule February 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
Auckland Monthly Housing Update January 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
Memo on Government announcements on the proposed resource management reforms and a new Housing and Urban Development Authority (Under Separate Cover)
Memo on Urban Design Terminology (Under Separate Cover)
3 December 2018 Letter to relevant ministers about National accessibility legislation (Under Separate Cover)
14 December Letter to the Minister for Transport regarding Auckland Council elected member engagement with the City Centre to Mangere Light Rail Project (Under Separate Cover)
[1] All special character areas, except Howick Village, have a special character statement.