Source: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/PLA_20171128_AGN_6728_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 02:59:51
Document Index: 298322637

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', '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 1', 'art 1']

Agenda of Planning Committee - 28 November 2017
9 Approval of draft Auckland Plan for consultation 9
10 Endorsement of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan 353
11 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from King’s College to rezone land at Māngere and Hospital Road, Otāhuhu 389
12 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – Private Plan Change Request from Goodman Property Trust – 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie 403
13 Auckland Council's quarterly monitoring report on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 425
14 National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity initial assessment results (Covering report) 455
15 Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 28 November 2017 457
File No.: CP2017/22113
1. To approve the draft Auckland Plan for formal public consultation.
2. This report seeks approval of the draft Auckland Plan (Attachment B) for formal public consultation which commences on 28 February 2017.
3. The draft Auckland Plan has been developed over the course of 2017 under the direction of the Planning Committee.
4. It has been informed through two phases of engagement with our partners and stakeholders.
5. An integrated spatial plan, it sets a 30 year direction and addresses the key issues facing Auckland and Aucklanders. This is done through six outcomes that integrate social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives.
6. As a spatial plan, providing direction on Auckland’s future development, how and where communities form and how infrastructure may be provided to support them to prosper, is critically important to our ability to plan for the future.
7. The draft plan therefore also contains Auckland’s Development Strategy which sets out where and when development is expected to occur and where investment in infrastructure needs to be made to meet the significant growth that is anticipated.
8. The draft plan includes maps that identify a range of infrastructure investments required across 30 years. This gives infrastructure funders and providers a basis from which to do their own planning. The first decade of growth and investment is understandably more certain than the following two decades. Monitoring actual on-the-ground growth and development is therefore essential so that informed adjustments can be made as is needed.
9. Measuring progress is fundamental to successful implementation. The draft plan includes 33 measures which will provide an ongoing evidence base for aligning implementation and the regulatory plans and funding programmes of Auckland Council and other stakeholders.
10. The refreshed Auckland Plan is digital which will enable the plan to reflect updated data and evidence more easily and therefore remain relevant over time.
11. The digital plan will be the primary platform for formal public consultation.
12. This report also seeks approval of the Draft Auckland Plan: Overview (Attachment D). This document provides a summary of the draft plan and will be used to support consultation.
13. The Planning Committee has previously agreed to a joint consultation process for the Auckland Plan and 10-year Budget 2018-28. The consultation document, including specific questions, will be approved by the Governing Body on 7 February 2018.
14. Public consultation runs from 28 February to 28 March 2018.
15. Auckland Council is legislatively required to develop a spatial plan for Auckland and must involve stakeholders and partners in its preparation.
16. The first Auckland Plan, adopted in 2012, made a commitment to review the plan after six years. This decision recognised that whilst the Auckland Plan had a 30-year horizon, rapid change and growth in Auckland was likely to result in new challenges and opportunities which would need to be reflected in the plan.
17. In March 2017, the Planning Committee agreed (PLA/2017/30) to refresh the Auckland Plan as a streamlined spatial plan, and to create a digital platform for the plan.
18. The Planning Committee also agreed to three main stakeholder engagement phases:
a. early engagement with the communities of Auckland
b. engagement with other key partners and stakeholders throughout the preparation and development of the refreshed plan
c. use of the Special Consultative Procedure for the draft refreshed plan, concurrent with consultation for the 10-year Budget 2018-28.
19. This report seeks the Planning Committee’s approval of the draft Auckland Plan (Attachment B) for the third engagement phase.
20. The Planning Committee and local board chairs provided direction to the development of the refreshed Auckland Plan through a series of workshops during 2017.
21. The workshops canvassed:
· challenges and opportunities for Auckland
· development of a strategic framework for the refreshed plan
· refinement of draft content
· how to measure progress against the plan
· the prototype of the digital Auckland Plan.
22. Feedback from stakeholder engagement and how this informed development of the draft plan was also communicated at these workshops.
23. Stakeholders and partners have been involved throughout the preparation of the draft plan and have provided feedback during two main engagement phases.
24. During May and June 2017, stakeholders were asked to comment at a high level on a working model of the refreshed plan. The results of this first phase of engagement were reported to the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017. There were 924 items of feedback received from engagement with 86 stakeholders.
25. Overall, stakeholder feedback endorsed the need for a refresh of the Auckland Plan and the general strategic direction proposed.
26. Housing, transport and a healthy natural environment were seen as fundamental to the future wellbeing of Auckland. The lack of affordable housing and the negative impact that has on people’s sense of belonging, employment opportunities, and health and education outcomes was a shared concern across all groups.
27. This feedback informed the development of the strategic framework which was used as the basis for engagement during the second phase from July to November 2017. Stakeholders were asked to consider a proposed set of strategic directions and focus areas.
28. There were 1620 items of feedback received from engagement with 97 stakeholders during this phase. The results of this engagement were reported to the Planning Committee on 7 November 2017.
Draft Auckland Plan for approval
29. The framework and content of the refreshed Auckland Plan have been informed by:
· the current Auckland Plan
· emerging issues at a global and local level
· strategic work completed since the original plan was adopted
· engagement with stakeholders.
30. The refreshed Auckland Plan is a digital plan. However, it is presented to the Planning Committee for review in a traditional printed format. In this format, there is a range of contextual information placed at both the front and back of the draft plan. The digital Auckland Plan will provide access to some of this information directly from the landing page and from other relevant points across the plan.
31. There is also detailed supporting information for each outcome area and the Development Strategy. This information will be accessed via a “click-through” from the relevant high-level content, balancing greater readability with the need for more explanatory information.
32. The Planning Committee approved content for the Belonging and Participation and Transport and Access outcomes areas on 7 November 2017. Some changes have been made to that content following the meeting in response to feedback. For completeness, the full draft plan is included in Attachment B for approval.
33. All components of the draft Auckland Plan are inter-dependent. Successfully delivering the plan requires us to make substantial progress towards achieving all outcomes.
34. The plan includes six outcomes that integrate social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives to set a 30 year strategic direction for Auckland. Each outcome has a set of high level directions and key focus areas.
35. Attachment A provides a description of the essence of each outcome.
36. Auckland is anticipated to grow significantly over the next 30 years. The scale of growth requires us to work together and ensure we have a clear understanding of where and when investment in planning and infrastructure needs to be made.
37. The draft Development Strategy, a core component of the Auckland Plan, provides this understanding.
38. Attachment A provides a description of the essence of the development strategy.
39. As a spatial plan, the legislation requires both text and visual illustration of how Auckland may develop in the future and how infrastructure may be provided. It also requires the spatial identification of a range of activities and services, significant recreational and ecological areas, and environmental constraints on development. Maps illustrating how Auckland will develop and grow are found at Attachment C, maps 15-28.
40. In addition, there are 14 maps which spatially represent information relevant to the achievement of the six outcomes in the draft plan. For example, the number of jobs in advanced industries across Auckland is mapped as a means of illustrating the importance of developing skills and talent for the changing nature of work.
41. The digital platform of the plan enables interaction with some maps. These are able to provide multiple views/layers and show increasing detail.
42. Final changes to the maps are underway to reflect feedback from the elected member drop-in session on 15 November and the Planning Committee workshop on 16 November. These changes will be incorporated into the digital Auckland Plan for consultation.
Other elements of the draft plan
43. In addition to the outcomes and Development Strategy, the plan also includes a number of contextual elements, some of which will be accessed directly from the landing page. These are:
· About the Auckland Plan
· About Auckland
· Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi
· Auckland Plan values
44. The digital Auckland Plan will incorporate a range of graphics such as tables, charts, photos, infographics and other illustrations. These will be designed to aid understanding and improve accessibility. The visual material will be developed as part of building the website.
Digital Auckland Plan
45. During September and October 2017, a prototype was developed to craft the visual design, determine technical specifications and carry out user testing for the digital Auckland Plan.
46. The structure of the digital plan, number of digital pages and layers, and links between content is determined by the draft content of the plan, including maps and graphics.
47. The full website is now under development to support formal consultation which commences on 28 February 2018.
Overview of draft Auckland Plan
48. A summary document which provides an overview of the draft Auckland Plan is attached for the Committee’s review and approval (Attachment D). This document will be used to support the formal consultation and will be translated into five languages and an easy-read version. The overview will be available on the Auckland Plan website and in libraries, service centres and local board offices.
49. The approach to joint formal consultation on the Auckland Plan and the 10-year Budget 2018-28 was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 November 2017.
50. The consultation questions for the draft Auckland Plan were discussed at the Planning Committee workshop on 16 November. There was general support for a question for each outcome and the Development Strategy based around the key issues. Further work is being carried out to develop the questions which will be included in the joint consultation document. The final questions will be approved by the Governing Body on 7 February 2018.
51. The decision-making responsibilities of local boards include providing early input into regional strategies policies and plans such as the Auckland Plan.
52. Local boards were involved in, and made a significant contribution to, the refresh of the Auckland Plan during 2017. This involvement included representation at Planning Committee workshops, local board cluster workshops and individual board business meetings and workshops.
53. There were two opportunities for local boards to pass resolutions on the draft plan’s development. These resolutions, reported to the Planning Committee on 1 August and 10 October 2017, have been used to inform further refinement of the plan.
54. A memo has been prepared for local boards to advise how their feedback has been addressed in the draft plan.
55. The Auckland Plan and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori. The plan sets a comprehensive long-term strategy for Auckland’s growth and development. The council provides opportunities for Māori engagement and supports Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
56. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the draft Auckland Plan. The outcome focuses on advancing Māori wellbeing; promoting Māori success, innovation and enterprise; recognising and providing for te Tiriti o Waitangi outcomes; and showcasing Auckland’s Maori identity and culture. In addition, matters of direct relevance to Māori are identified and appear throughout the plan, for example in the Homes and Places outcome.
57. Six hui with mana whenua were held over the course of the year. The hui focused on key challenges and opportunities facing Auckland, and how the plan can best address these.
58. Feedback included the need:
· for the plan to protect and advance the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of iwi
· for the plan to uphold the Treaty partnership
· to protect mana whenua cultural sites and places, harbours and productive soils
· to plan for infrastructure to uplift and drive Māori values.
59. Engagement with mataawaka was carried out through working with Māori organisations. These organisations used their networks to provide informed feedback, which has included:
· the need to work towards equity in Māori wellbeing in the urban context
· the importance of Auckland Council’s role and leverage in public health policy, planning and regulation that impacts on Māori wellbeing
· the need for dwellings that are healthy and that can cater for multi-generational needs.
60. The Independent Māori Statutory Board provided formal feedback on early drafts of the plan including the proposed measures. This feedback has been addressed in the finalisation of the draft plan. A formal response has been prepared for the board.
61. Development of the Auckland Plan website will advance during December to February to meet consultation deadlines.
62. Questions for the Auckland Plan consultation will be approved by the Governing Body on 7 February 2018 as part of the joint consultation document.
63. Formal consultation will run from 28 February to 28 March 2018.
64. Feedback will be considered and the updated Auckland Plan will be reported to the Planning Committee on 5 June 2018.
Outcomes and development strategy description
Draft Auckland Plan: maps
Draft Auckland Plan: Overview
File No.: CP2017/23584
1. To seek approval of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan.
2. The purpose of the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Area Plan (area plan) is to provide a planning framework to guide how the area grows and develops over the next 30 years.
3. Area plans are a key mechanism to help implement the outcomes and aspirations of the Auckland Plan expected at a local level. The Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura corridor is identified as one of nine Spatial Priority Areas in Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan (2015 – 2025). These spatial priority areas align with the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy and six transformational shifts.
4. The area plan is a non-statutory, spatial plan that was developed collaboratively with the Arts, Community and Events department and The Southern Initiative team with input from key internal and external stakeholders including mana whenua on behalf of both the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards. It has also been prepared in consultation with the wider community and their feedback has helped shape the content at every stage in the development of the document.
5. Initial community engagement on the area plan occurred through various methods and events from mid-December 2016 through until March 2017. Community feedback then informed the draft area plan which was the subject of further community engagement during April-May 2017.
6. During the community engagement periods feedback was received from over 5000 respondents. Comments received during the engagement periods and feedback from internal council and external stakeholders has also been taken into account to finalise the area plan.
7. The Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards adopted the final plan at their meetings on the 19th and 25th October respectively. Following consideration by the Planning Committee the final plan will be produced and published.
b) delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to approve minor editorial changes to the plan if necessary prior to publication.
8. The Great South Road Corridor running through Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura is identified as one of nine Spatial Priority Areas in Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan (2015 – 2025).
9. Five key themes formed the basis for the preparation of the area plan.
· a voice for youth.
10. The outcomes in relation to these five themes have a physical or spatial aspect and when realised will make a transformational contribution to making the area of Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura and its surrounding areas a great place to live, work and visit. The five themes were developed and approved for consultation at the joint local board and mana whenua workshop on 23 November 2016.
11. Feedback has been received in relation to the five themes and more generally about the future of the Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura centres. The five themes were then used to inform the draft area plan which was approved for consultation at the Manurewa Local Board business meeting on 16 March 2017 and at the Papakura Local Board business meeting on 22 March 2017.
12. The area plan has been prepared in collaboration with the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards, Arts, Community and Events department, The Southern Initiative team and other key internal and external stakeholders including mana whenua. It has also been prepared in consultation with the wider community and their feedback has helped shape the content at every stage in the development of the document.
13. For this plan a key focus was to connect with existing community networks and engage locals who do not usually engage with the council, and to ask them what they want to see in the Manurewa, Papakura and Takanini areas, now and in the future. In addition to the use of more conventional consultation and engagement techniques/approaches, a digital platform ‘Share Your Ideas’ was launched in partnership with the Manurewa Youth Council to make it easier for people to contribute to the ideas for making these places better.
14. The development of the area plan has included two community engagement phases – initial engagement from mid-December 2016 through until March 2017 and consultation on a draft plan from 3 April for a 6 week period until Friday 12 May 2017.
15. Two highlights from the series of engagement events held in relation to the draft area plan included:
· "Streets to Places" event in Papakura. To celebrate the launch of the engagement, the project team in conjunction with the Papakura Local Board and Papakura Business Association closed part of Broadway on Saturday 8 April to provide for a fun-filled street event. The street closure event provided a platform to celebrate Papakura and promote the potential to make Broadway a permanent shared space for the community.
· "Rewa – Love our Centre" cultural event in Southmall Shopping Centre, Manurewa was held on Saturday 6 May. This event gave an opportunity to explore the potential to revitalise Manurewa, promote the town centre identity and showcase art/culture in the centre.
16. In addition a series of targeted stakeholder engagement events were held, including meetings with the Manurewa and Papakura Business Associations, workshops with the youth councils and online engagement with youth, meetings with resident and ratepayer groups, a pacific fono event and a lesson on town planning and place making with approximately 40 students at the Takanini School.
17. Overall, more than 5000 pieces of feedback from members of the community were received via a mixture of hard copy/online forms and through digital platforms. Based on the analysis of the feedback collected, the largest ethnic group of respondents was NZ European at approximately 36 per cent followed by Māori at approximately 30 per cent, with the highest response received from those aged between15 and 34.
18. The following provides a list of the most common ideas that emerged for the three areas from the engagement:
a. improve and upgrade use of existing spaces
b. beautify our town centre
c. promotion of heritage in our town centre
e. community/social hubs
f. introduce more free/affordable initiatives, events and festivals
g. address social issues
h. better roads, cycle ways and transport connections
i. access to the waterfront in respect of Takanini and Papakura.
19. This feedback was then used to further develop the area plan and to work with stakeholders to prioritise the key actions that responded to the feedback from the community. This will help to transform the areas over the next 30 years.
20. The area plan covers two local board areas, namely Manurewa Local Board and Papakura Local Board.
21. The Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards guided the development of the area plan. A number of workshops and meetings have been held with the boards and with mana whenua during the preparation of the area plan.
22. A joint workshop with mana whenua representatives was held on 23 November 2016 to discuss the draft themes on which the area plan is based. Following this workshop a number of changes to the draft themes were made.
23. On 1 March 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and mana whenua representatives was held to present an overview of the draft area plan and a summary of the feedback received to date which had shaped the draft area plan. The draft area plan was then endorsed for public consultation on 16 March 2017 at the Manurewa Local Board business meeting and subsequently on 22 March 2017 at the Papakura Local Board business meeting.
24. On 13 July 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and mana whenua representatives was held to provide an opportunity to consider the implications of the feedback received, provide feedback/ideas on the delivery of the final area plan including an implementation plan and provide direction on how the area plan and its delivery might shape up.
25. On 20 September 2017 a joint workshop with both local boards and to which mana whenua representatives were also invited, was held to work through the project priorities and seek to finalise the priorities / key projects.
26. The local boards both individually and together will play a significant role in realising the area plan’s future vision for the three respective centres and the corridor as a whole. The local boards’ roles may take many forms depending on the action, from direct investment in public works to advocating for positive changes.
27. The area plan has been reported to the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards and was adopted at their business meetings on the 19th and 25th October respectively. Key actions within the area plan have been aligned with those in the emerging local board plans. The two local boards have recommended that the Planning Committee endorse the draft area plan contained in Attachment A for final release.
28. The process of engagement on the area plan with mana whenua and mataawaka in the region has been developed in collaboration with The Southern Initiative team and the Arts, Community and Events department. The project team has been responsive to the requests of mana whenua in the development of the draft area plan.
29. An initial hui was held with representatives from Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Ahiwaru on 14 September 2016. At this hui it was requested that specialist staff from across the council group be invited to a hui to discuss specific areas of interest (i.e. water quality, community facilities and transport). The project team acknowledged this request and set up the hui for 31 October 2016 with the relevant specialist staff present. Feedback from both of these hui including input sought from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki shaped the draft themes and subsequently the project priorities on which the draft area plan is based.
30. Mana whenua representatives have been sitting as a partner at the table with local board members at the workshops. The first joint workshop with mana whenua representatives and local board members was held on 23 November 2016 at which the draft concepts were presented. This joint approach continued with all subsequent joint local board workshops (to which all iwi groups with interest in the area were invited). At each of these an update on progress and presentation of a summary of the details of the draft area plan were provided. There is a commitment to continue this approach throughout the implementation stage.
31. Area plans are a key mechanism to implement the Auckland Plan and provide a greater level of detail in terms of outcomes and aspirations expected with a specific area.
32. Working towards achieving the area plan’s five key themes has required input from across the council group and beyond. A collaborative and inclusive process to the development of the area plan will ensure there is a commitment to deliver on the aspirations and actions once the area plan is adopted. To implement the actions of the area plan will require commitment from a multitude of parties, including Auckland Council, Council Controlled Organisations, the local community, landowners, and developers. Ultimately both local boards will have a key advocacy role to play in driving actions forward.
33. The delivery of the key projects is supported by a project prioritisation schedule. These projects will help transform Manurewa Takanini and Papakura over the next 30 years. The plan shows where work will be focussed and will support ongoing alignment between the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan, Unitary Plan and projects of other infrastructure investors.
34. The implementation and prioritisation of actions in the area will inform the Long-term Plan and help to shape the forward work programmes for the council, council controlled organisations and other key delivery partners. The area plan will be subject to review and reporting on progress on actions to both local boards and the Planning Committee in conjunction with key stakeholders and delivery partners.
35. The recommendation to endorse the Manurewa Takanini Papakura Area Plan is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and the Auckland Plan.
File No.: CP2017/24074
1. To consider a private plan change request from King’s College to rezone land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and land adjacent to Hospital Road from THAB and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 31 October 2017 from King’s College. The request seeks to rezone land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and land adjacent to Hospital Road from THAB and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School.
c) rejects 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
d) decides to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).
4. Given the unique characteristics of the request, and for the more detailed reasons discussed in this report, it is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and notified for submissions.
5. King’s College’s land holding comprises of approximately 24.2ha. It has frontages to Māngere Road, Middlemore Road, Golf Avenue, and Hospital Road. The main entry to the College is from the southern end of Golf Avenue.
6. King’s College main campus adjoins Otāhuhu College to the north and the Royal Auckland Golf Club to the east. Middlemore Hospital is located on Hospital Road, approximately 250m south-east of King’s College. Land use surrounding the site is comprises predominantly residential with low to medium density suburban housing of one to two storeys.
7. The main campus contains the school playing fields and main school buildings. The school buildings are between one and three storeys in height and are grouped together in the southern extremity of the site.
8. On 31 October 2017, King’s College lodged the request to rezone two land parcels, one to the north east of the main campus and the other to the south of the main campus, namely:
· the Māngere Road land parcel (3.11 ha) located north east of the main school campus and fronting Māngere Road. This is proposed to be rezoned from Special Purpose – School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB); and
· the Hospital Road land parcel (1.55ha) adjoining the southern end of King’s College main campus which is currently owned by the Royal Auckland Golf Club and contains an existing clubhouse and parking. This is proposed to be rezoned from THAB and Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone.
9. The request is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.
Figure 1: King’s College site and its surroundings and land parcels subject to rezoning
10. The applicant has provided documentation relating to the following in support of the request (Attachment B):
· Private plan change report with assessment of environmental effects
· Section 32 evaluation
· Urban design report
· Transport report
· Infrastructure report
· Iwi consultation letter
· Ngāti Whanaunga response on private plan change
· Zoning and location
· Concept schemes
· Certificate of titles
11. The purpose of rezoning the Māngere Road land parcel from Special Purpose – School to THAB is to enable residential development of a density that optimises the efficient use of land that has become surplus to school requirements. The rezoning of the Hospital Road land parcel from THAB and Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone will enable various education activities to occur in an integrated and consolidated manner with the adjacent main campus.
12. Existing zoning of the Māngere Road and Hospital Road land parcels is shown in Figure 2 and the requested zoning is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2: Existing zones of the Māngere Road and Hospital Road parcels under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)
Figure 3: Proposed zones of the Māngere Road and Hospital Road parcels under the proposed Private Plan Change
13. The Auckland Plan is the council’s spatial plan for Auckland and contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region. The proposed rezoning will assist in enabling an increase in housing supply in the Otāhuhu area and to continue providing a quality education facility for present and future generations. It would be consistent with the Auckland Plan’s strategic directions in relation to an increase in housing supply for Auckland, promoting of a quality compact urban form and provision of social and community infrastructure for present and future generations.
14. The Auckland Unitary Plan is the council’s primary land-use document prepared under the RMA. It contains objectives and policies that encourage a quality compact urban form, higher residential densities and provision of social facilities meeting the needs of people and communities.
15. The proposed rezoning will provide for approximately 1.56ha of residential zoned land in a location close to the Otāhuhu town centre, community facilities and transport nodes. The rezoning will also enable the efficient use of land for educational purposes meeting the need of communities. The private plan change will therefore assist in achieving the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
16. Future redevelopment of the Māngere Road site from the existing Special Purpose - School Zone into a more intensive residential THAB zoning would increase the infrastructure demand compared with the existing situation. The applicant’s Engineering Infrastructure Report indicates that given intensive zoning of THAB and Mixed Use around the proposed site on Māngere Road, there is unlikely to be fundamental wastewater constraints that will prevent the rezoning of the site. The availability of wastewater networks in the surrounding area to service rezoning of the site has been confirmed by Watercare. Watercare have also confirmed that specific capacity assessments would be undertaken when detailed site development proposals are submitted.
17. The proposed THAB zoned site can readily be connected to the existing Watercare reticulation in Māngere Road where watermains are located on both sides of the road. Any future development of the site will require an extension to the public roading network with new public watermains installed within the new road reserve.
18. The proposed THAB zoning will likely increase the impervious area on the site from its current situation. The applicant acknowledges that this will require appropriate stormwater mitigation measures to be implemented on-site at the resource consent stage, and this has been confirmed by the council’s stormwater specialists.
19. Transport infrastructure upgrades will be required to manage future vehicle access and traffic effects associated with the new development on Māngere Road. In-principle, Auckland Transport has no objection to the proposed zoning and notes that the required traffic engineering and road safety mitigation measures identified in the submitted Integrated Traffic Assessment (ITA) will need to be further investigated at the detailed design stage.
B STATUTORY ANALYSIS
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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).
23. 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:
24. See Attachment B for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
25. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25. 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.
26. 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.
27. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
28. 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 housing capacity, neighbourhood built character, residential amenity, transport, infrastructure, ecology and natural resources and cultural values. The proposal is for a simple rezoning that is consistent with the adjacent zoning pattern.
29. It is therefore recommended that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
30. 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.
31. The requested rezoning was not subject to submissions or hearing during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The opportunity for King’s College to acquire land on Hospital Road only arose in 2016 which was after the hearings of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Therefore the substance of this private plan change request has not been considered within the last two years.
33. 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 does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.
34. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
35. 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:
“… the words “sound resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. I agree too with the Court’s observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption.”
36. The private plan change request includes numerous technical reports which all support the proposed rezoning. Advice from Auckland Transport has indicated that the proposed THAB zoning on Māngere Road is generally appropriate due to the proximity of the site to the Otāhuhu Town Centre and Mixed Use area along Great South Road and accessibility to existing public transport. Watercare Services Ltd staff are not in a position to provide detailed comments on water and wastewater capacity issues until a particular development proposal is provided, however, no significant concerns have been raised at this stage. The proposed rezoning does not raise any issues in terms of natural hazards such as flooding.
37. Consultation undertaken with mana whenua to date has not identified any matters that are unable to be resolved.
38. The applicant has considered the zoning options for both Māngere Road and Hospital Road land parcels and concluded that the proposed rezoning will increase housing capacity close to Otāhuhu Town Centre and enable the expansion of the King’s College campus on the adjacent land while ensuring that environmental effects of future development proposals are avoided, minimised or mitigated.
39. The private plan change request is therefore considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice and it is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change
40. 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 is generally consistent with the direction provided in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and as a result, is not inconsistent with part 5 of the RMA.
41. 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.
42. 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 less than two years and the council could reject the private plan change request on that basis. However, case law has suggested that this ground for rejection must be exercised in a principled manner having regard to the purpose of the RMA. It is important to note that the wording of clause 25(4) provides that the council may reject a private plan change request if one of the grounds under clause 25(4) exists.
43. The proposed rezoning was not subject to the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process. As the proposal only relates to zone changes, provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan that were made operative in part on 15 November 2016 will not be affected.
44. Given the specific circumstances of the request and for reasons previously discussed, 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 less than two years.
45. 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 two parcels of land and involves a large area of rezoning along Māngere Road for higher intensification. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for higher intensification is through a plan change process.
46. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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, it is recommended that the council does not decide to adopt the private plan change request.
50. If the council accepts the request, in whole or in part, it must then 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.
51. 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. In particular:
· the rezoning of the Māngere Road land parcel to THAB will not be inconsistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan zoning purpose which encourages land adjacent to centres and near the public transport network be efficiently used for high-density urban living that increases housing capacity.
· the rezoning of the Hospital Road land parcel for the Special Purpose – School zone will enable King’s College to use land for educational activities adjacent to the main campus. While the rezoning would result in land zoned THAB and Single House being used for non-residential purposes, this loss is offset by the increased housing capacity on the THAB land proposed on Māngere Road.
· accepting the private plan change request will not create inconsistencies with the Auckland Plan and Auckland Unitary Plan’s strategic direction.
52. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.
53. The private plan change request by King’s College seeks to rezone 3.11ha of land within King’s College on Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and 1.55ha of land within the Royal Auckland and Grange Golf Course from THAB and Single House to Special Purpose – School Zone. The plan change has been supported by comprehensive technical reports.
54. The private plan change, if accepted and if successful, would increase housing capacity near the Otāhuhu Town Centre and better enable the use of King’s College land for an integrated educational campus.
55. Having carefully assessed the request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that council decides to accept the request and notify it for submissions. If accepted, a further assessment will take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.
56. After the lodgement of the request by King’s College on 31 October 2017, the private plan change documentation was sent to both Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards formally seeking their views on the private plan change. On 2 November, comments were received from Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board that the local board has no issues in relation to the request.
57. The request information has been previously presented to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board on various occasions and a separate meeting was held with King’s College representatives. The local board’s comments received on 2 November confirm that they support the request.
58. The applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with mana whenua groups and has received feedback from Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua in conjunction with the development of the private plan change for King’s College.
59. In August 2017 Ngaati Whanaunga gave a response to the applicant stating that they supported the proposed rezoning. Ngaati Whanaunga have identified some issues that are important to them including landscape, costal marine area, discharges to the sea and streams to be considered at the development stage.
60. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua have responded to the applicant and indicated that they wish to be engaged at the development stage of the sites subject to rezoning under the private plan change.
61. 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, no additional engagement with iwi or mana whenua is required prior to notification. Iwi authorities and individuals will be able to make a submission on the plan change once it is publicly notified.
62. 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. As previously discussed, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
Note: Due to the size and complexity of Attachment A it will be available under separate cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
Private Plan Change Request Report (Under Separate Cover)
Extract from Clause 25 Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
Nicholas Lau - Planner
File No.: CP2017/24073
1. To consider a private plan change request from Goodman Property Trust to rezone 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 5 October 2017 from Goodman Property Trust (Goodman) (Attachment A). The request seeks to rezone a 3867m² site spread across three allotments held in two titles from Business Park to Mixed Use. The request also seeks the removal of the, 47,000m² Gross Floor Area (GFA) cap from the site (Attachment B).
4. Given the unique characteristics of the request, and for the more detailed reasons discussed in this report, it is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2) (b) and notified for submissions.
5. The land to the plan change request is located in a commercial part of Ellerslie on Great South Road, south west of the Southern Motorway (see Figure 1 below). The site contains two buildings plus accessways and car parking. The total site area is 3867m² spread across three allotments held in two titles. The applicant Goodman owns the site.
6. Formerly Goodman also owned the Millennium Centre located immediately north-west of the site at 600-612 Great South Road (see Figure 1). As the applicant has now sold the Millennium Centre, 614-616 Great South Road is separated from the existing office park and can no longer be developed as part of the centre. The Millennium Centre itself consists of seven multi-storey offices, and a multi-storey car park. These buildings are of a much larger scale and dominate those on the site. The Millennium Centre site also has higher ground elevation (Attachment C).
Figure 1, Locality map site 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie
Figure 2 Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie and surrounding area
7. To the north, and bordering the rear boundary of the site is Ellerslie School. Screening from the school is provided by several well established trees on the Ellerslie School grounds. The school buildings are all located some distance from the site, towards Kalmia Street. To the south east of the site is a single storey commercial building, occupied by a Wendy’s fast food outlet. Similar lower scale commercial buildings are located at the rear of the Wendy’s site and further south along Great South Road. On the opposite side of the road is a three storey building. The school, the Wendy’s site and the sites on the opposite side of Great South Road are all zoned Mixed Use. West along Waiohua Road is Mixed House Urban zoning.
8. As the site is now separated from the Millennium Business Park, the potential of the size, configuration and physical disconnection from the larger property, undermine the efficient development of the site for Business Park purposes.
9. The recent zoning history of the site is:
· Formerly under the legacy Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus section) the site had a Business 4 zone. This allowed for a range of business activities (Attachment D).
· Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) 614-616 Great South Road was proposed to be zoned Light Industry.
· Goodman and the Auckland Council both supported Mixed Use zoning in their evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel.
· The Independent Hearings Panel recommended the site to be Business Park zone. The Panel did not provide reasons for individual zoning decisions.
· The combined sites of 600-612 Great South Road (Millennium Centre) and 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie has a Business Park Office GFA cap of 47,000m² in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
· Goodman has advised that this cap is in fact exceeded by the existing development on the Millennium Centre site and there is no remaining GFA for office development on 614-616 Great South Road. Office development on the site would have a non-complying activity status.
10. The request was lodged on 5 October 2017 and seeks to rezone land at 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park to Mixed Use with a consequential amendment to remove the Business Park Zone Office GFA Control of 47,000m² from the site.
11. The applicant has provided documentation relating to the following in support of the request:
· Description of the plan change request;
· Strategic framework;
· Assessment of environmental effects;
· Section 32 evaluation report; and
12. The Auckland Plan seeks the development of a quality compact Auckland. A more compact form of growth will require greater intensification in both new and existing urban areas. The private plan change aligns with these objectives with Mixed Use Zoning encouraging residential intensification along transport corridors.
13. The chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement seeks to:
(5) Enable higher residential intensification: (a) in and around centres; (b) along identified corridors; and (c) close to public transport, social facilities (including open space) and employment opportunities.
14. The Business Park zoning encourages the development of a “campus like” environment. The 614-616 Great South Road site is comparatively small and not well connected to the larger Millennium Centre site. This raises concerns in relation to the Business Park zoning and whether the site can be part of an integrated “campus like” office development.
15. Development of the 614-616 Great South Road site is also restricted by the Business Park Office GFA cap. Goodman indicates the GFA cap of 47,000m² has already been maximised by the Millennium Centre which would mean that further office development on this site would be a non-complying activity (Attachment D).
16. The rezoning of the site from Business Park to Mixed Use would allow for the more efficient and effective development of the site. The site is located on a main transport corridor and close to the Ellerslie railway station. The Mixed Use Zoning was considered more appropriate for this site in Council submissions to the Independent Hearings Panel as it reflected the existing use and has the ability to support a mix of residential and employment activities.
17. 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie is located in the Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board area and is included under the auspice of the Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board Plan. A key outcome for the Local Board Plan is:
“working with partners and developers and advocating for a built environment that creates and strengthens communities, is environmentally friendly, integrates public transport and facilitates walking and cycling.”
18. There are no other planning documents, such as area plans, structure plans related to the site.
Analysis of Private Plan Change Request
19. The private plan change request for 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie seeks a change of zoning from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone. Consequent to the change of zoning the applicant also seeks the removal of the existing Business Park Zone Office Control of 47,000m² GFA from the site.
20. The Business Park zone and the Business Park Office GFA Control relates both to the 600-612 Great South Road, Ellerslie (Millennium Centre) and 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie sites. The Business Park Zone Office GFA Control of 47,000m² was based on the existing GFA of the sites.
21. Goodman has recently advised that the net leasable area of the Millennium Centre is 43,609m². It is commonly accepted that an additional 10 per cent of net leasable area equates to GFA. Auckland Council calculations based on coverage and floor levels indicate nearly 50,000m² of GFA is currently occupied by the Centre. On this basis, the Millennium Centre has already exhausted the cap, which affects the site’s development potential. Rezoning and removal of the GFA cap over the site would address this issue.
22. As the Millennium Centre and the site are not well connected there are significant constraints to establishing an integrated development and meeting the Business Park objective for a “campus style” development. The ground level of the Millennium Centre is also significantly higher than the site. Development as part of the Millennium Centre could require the site to be raised to match the Millennium Centre and may add cost to any development. (Attachment C).
23. Auckland Transport has stated that in-principle it has no objection to the proposed rezoning. Watercare Services has indicated the wastewater and water networks have serviceability for potential developments on the site.
24. A summary of consultation undertaken was submitted with the private plan request. This indicated consultation with the neighbours:
· Ellerslie School,
· 620 Great South Road (Wendy’s restaurant),
· 381 Great South Road, Ellerslie, and
· 600-612 Great South Road, the Millennium Centre (owned by the Oyster Group).
25. The applicant has also sought comment from mana whenua and the Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board. The response of these organisations is outlined in Attachment A. Correspondence has been received from the Ellerslie School Board of Trustees stating they have a neutral view on the proposal at this stage. A letter of support from the Oyster Group has also been received.
26. 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 by any person under clause 21 of Schedule 1 and is required to include the information set out in clause 22. 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.
27. 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).
28. 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:
· adopts 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
· accepts 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
· rejects 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
· decides to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).
. See Attachment E for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
29. The next sections of this report assess the various options available to the council under clause 25. 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.
30. 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.
31. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
32. The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation report and a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering a range of issues including storm water management, wastewater and water, transport and traffic and urban design. The transport analysis incorporates an Integrated Transport Analysis (ITA) which considers three different development options for the site. The applicant also provides detailed analysis of relevant policies including the Auckland Unitary Plan Business Park and Mixed Use zones objectives and policies.
33. It is therefore recommended that the council cannot reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
34. This provision largely seeks to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community.
35. The change to a Mixed Use zoning was considered in evidence by the Independent Hearings Panel during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Council in its evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel supported the rezoning of the 614-616 Great South Road to Mixed Use with consequential removal of the GFA cap.
However, the Independent Hearings Panel did not hear evidence relating to:
· the difficulties of developing the 614-616 Great South Road site with the Business Park zoning and Business Park Zone Office Control, which would result in any future office development being a non–complying activity;
· this control means that the site cannot be developed in a way that would allow for “the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources”; and
· the difficulties of developing the 614-616 Great South Road site as a separate site from 600 -612 Great South Road in relation to Business Park zoning objectives and policies.
36. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
37. Section 360A of the RMA relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans in relation to aquaculture activities. The substance of the private plan change request does not relate section 360A of the RMA. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
38. 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:
39. The private plan change request aligns with the purposes and principles of the RMA 1991. The change in zoning to Mixed Use at the site and the removal of the Business Park Zone Office Control cap will allow for the more efficient resource management and sustainable development of the site.
40. The constraints of size and land configuration (Attachment C) of the 614-616 Great South Road site do not align well with the Business Park zoning objectives and policies. This does not encourage sound resource management practice as it is unlikely the landscape and amenity controls can be achieved on the site. Similarly, the exhausting of the Business Park Office GFA cap means that office development would require non-complying resource consent. The proposed Mixed Use zoning provides for residential intensification around town centres and transport corridors. It also allows for a compatible mix of residential and employment activities.
41. The private plan change request is therefore considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice and it is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change.
42. 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.
43. The request to re-zone the site Mixed Use and remove the Business Park Office GFA cap from the site would not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA 1991. The development options for the small (3867m²) and disconnected site do not align with the Business Park zoning objective and policies including the campus style development. The proposed Mixed Use zoning aligns with the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statements allowing for residential intensification and business around town centres and centres and transport corridors. The Mixed Use zoning would give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The necessary infrastructure to service the proposed change of zoning is available and this has been supported by correspondence received from Watercare Services, Healthy Waters and Auckland Transport.
44. 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.
45. 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 less than two years and the council could reject the private plan change request on that basis. However, case law has suggested that this ground for rejection must be exercised in a principled manner having regard to the purpose of the RMA to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It is important to note that the wording of clause 25(4) provides that the council may reject a private plan change request if one of the grounds under clause 25(4) exists.
46. Given the specific circumstances of the request, the fact that relevant matters were not presented to the Independent Hearings Panel and for the reasons listed below,
· the size and configuration of the site
· the limitations of the Business Park Office GFA and its restrictions on possible office development
· the lack of capacity to provide for an integrated development that meets the Business Park zones objectives and policies,
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 less than two years.
47. 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 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park to Mixed Use and to remove the 47,000m² GFA cap from the site. The most appropriate process for achieving the rezoning from Business Park to Mixed Use and to remove the 47,000m² GFA cap from the site is a plan change.
48. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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, it is not recommended that the council decide to adopt the private plan change request.
52. 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.
53. 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. In particular:
i) the limited extent of the site (3867m²) makes development of the site in a manner that aligns with Business Park zone objectives and policies hard to achieve;
ii) the presence of the of the 47,000m² GFA cap related to the Business Park zoning of the site makes it difficult to develop the site in a manner that would ensure the efficient use of physical resources;
iii) the proposed change to Mixed Use zoning for the site at 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie aligns better with the chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement: objectives and policies and with sound resource management principles.
54. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.
55. The Goodman private plan change request for 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie seeks to rezone 3867m² of land from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone with a consequential amendment to remove the Business Park Zone Office Control 47,000m² cap from the site. Mixed Use zoning will allow for the efficient use and development of the site and be in alignment with the strategic direction of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
56. As part of this request the applicant Goodman has undertaken consultation with neighbouring property owners, mana whenua and the Maungakiekie –Tāmaki Local Board. Watercare Services, Auckland Transport and Healthy Waters have indicated that the existing infrastructure is able to manage the development that would be enabled by the proposed plan change.
57. 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. If accepted, a further assessment by council officers would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.
58. The applicant has sought the views of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and provided the Local Board with the private plan change document. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has indicated that it does not have any issues or comments in regard to the proposed plan change at this stage.
59. Goodman through their planning consultants has undertaken consultation with mana whenua. This is outlined in the Consultation Summary (Attachment A). Mana whenua contacted were: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki; Ngāti Maru; Ngāti Paoa; Ngāti Tamaoho; Ngāti Tamaterā; Ngāti te Ata; Ngaati Whanaunga; Ngāti Whatua Orakei; Te Ãkitai Waiohua; Te Kawerau ā Maki; Te Patukirikiri; Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua; Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara; Waikato‐Tainui; and Te Ahiwaru.
60. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki advised they had no further interest in the application;
61. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei advised they had no comment to make on the application; and
62. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua supported the proposal.
63. Ngāti te Ata have requested that they would like to be further involved in the consultation process and the Iwi have been contracted by the applicant to prepare a cultural response report on the private plan change.
64. In the case of Waikato-Tainui a letter was sent to Waikato-Tainui outlining the proposal. Waikato-Tainui requested that the proposal be assessed against the Waikato-Tainui Iwi Management Plan and details of consultation with mana whenua is provided. The applicant has assessed the private plan change against the Waikato-Tainui Iwi Management Plan and this was provided to Waikato-Tainui. A key aspect of the assessment was consideration of the ecological impact of the proposal. Waikato Tainui have indicated they have no further issue with this request but would like to be updated on the progress of the application.
65. 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. As previously discussed, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
Request For Plan Private Change 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie (Under Separate Cover)
Business Park Office Control Cap
Auckland Unitary Plan (OiP) Zoning Activity Status
File No.: CP2017/24207
1. To receive the first housing monitoring quarterly report required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.
2. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) became operative in 2016. The policy requires quarterly monitoring reports on housing and business land.
3. The first quarterly report is attached for information. The key findings include:
· detached dwellings remain the dominant type of housing consented which makes up more than half of the total number of dwellings consented
· the 12-month consents for attached dwellings have grown by 18 per cent at the end of the September 2017 compared to the same period in 2016
· three quarters of all consented residential dwelling growth is within Auckland’s urban area
· average residential sale prices have declined in recent months
· understanding the distribution of sale prices is important; there is major price variation by type and location
· most residential properties (39 per cent) are sold to individuals that own multiple properties
· average rents vary considerably throughout Auckland and by dwelling type
· large amounts of non-residential floor space have been consented
4. Future reports will be provided to the Planning Committee for information.
5. National Policy Statements are a legislative tool in the Resource Management Act 1991. They are a means for central government to prescribe objectives and policies for matters of national significance which all local authorities must implement within their planning framework.
6. The NPS-UDC came into effect in December 2016. Its purpose is to enable urban environments to grow and change in response to the changing needs of the communities and to provide enough space for their populations to live and work.
7. NPS-UDC has four objectives. These are:
· outcomes from planning decisions
· evidence and monitoring to support planning decisions
· responsive planning
· coordinated planning evidence and decision-making.
8. Each objective has an associated set of policies.
9. The evidence and monitoring objectives require a robustly developed, comprehensive and frequently updated evidence base to inform planning decisions.
10. Local authorities are required to monitor a range of housing and land indicators on a quarterly basis. These include:
· prices and rents for housing
· residential land and business land by location and type
· indicators of housing affordability
· building and resource consents
· price differentials and price efficiency.
11. Councils are encouraged to publish the results of their monitoring reports.
12. The Quarterly Monitoring Report focuses on the region. However, the data can be analysed at different scales e.g. the number of residential dwellings consented in town centres, and RIMU can do further analysis as may be requested.
13. Future quarterly reports will be provided to the Planning Committee for information.
14. There has been no engagement with local boards in preparing this report. The report includes data and information disaggregated to local boards which provides an insight into the markets of those areas. Further analysis at this scale can be provided on request.
15. There has been no engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka in preparing this report.
16. Vulnerable Māori are extremely sensitive to housing affordability. The report monitors changes in the housing market and identifies areas that are adversely affected by the decline in housing affordability.
17. There are no directly related implementation actions stemming from this report.
National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity Quarterly Monitoring Report
Chad Hu – Growth Analyst, Research and Evaluation
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity initial assessment results (Covering report)
File No.: CP2017/24995
1. To receive the preliminary high level results of the housing demand capacity assessment required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.
2. This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 28 November 2017 Planning Committee meeting.
File No.: CP2017/24119
· Auckland Council’s final submission on the proposed Northland Regional Plan (Attachment A)
· Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Attachment B)
· Schedule of December 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Attachment C)
· 30 October 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh 21 (Attachment D)
· 1 November 2017 – Confidential Ports of Auckland (no attachment)
· 16 November 2017 – Confidential Enhancements Plan Change (no attachment)
6. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.
Auckland Council's final submission on the proposed Northland Regional Plan (Under Separate Cover)
Planning Committee Forward Work Programme 28 November 2017 (Under Separate Cover)
Schedule of December 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Under Separate Cover)
Auckland Plan refresh workshop 21 minutes (Under Separate Cover)