Source: https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/07/PLA_20190702_AGN_6746_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-10-22 21:29:44
Document Index: 149972940

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 285', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Agenda of Planning Committee - 2 July 2019
I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:
Komiti Whakarite Mahere/ Planning Committee
This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:
· Relevant regional strategy and policy
· Infrastructure strategy and policy
· Spatial plans
· Housing policy and projects
· Special Housing Areas
· City centre development
· Tamaki regeneration
· Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities
· Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets
Activities of the following Council Controlled Organisations:
o Panuku Development Auckland
o Auckland Transport
o Watercare Services Limited
(a) approval of a submission to an external body
(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.
(ii) The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.
(iii) The committee does not have:
(a) the power to establish subcommittees
(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).
5.1 Public Input: Boopsie Maran – Input on Road Closures for Town Centre throughout the Auckland Region 7
5.2 Public Input: Heart of the City - City Centre Masterplan 8
8 City Centre Masterplan refresh 9
9 Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities Bill, Auckland Council Submission 35
10 Auckland Plan 2050 Six-monthly update 49
11 Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space (Covering report) 117
12 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - proposed private plan change request - Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote 119
13 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from James Kirkpatrick Group Limited at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush 227
14 Request to make Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) operative in part 285
15 Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 2 July 2019 305
Apologies from Cr D Simpson and Cr L Cooper have been received.
a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 4 June 2019, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
5.1 Public Input: Boopsie Maran – Input on Road Closures for Town Centre throughout the Auckland Region
1. Boopsie Maran will speak to the committee about road closures for town centres throughout the Auckland region and how we can better facilitate and support this process for various wards working with Auckland Transport in this process.
a) receive the public input from Boopsie Maran regarding road closures for town centres throughout the Auckland region and thank her for her attendance.
5.2 Public Input: Heart of the City - City Centre Masterplan
1. Viv Beck, Chairperson Heart of the City will be in attendance to speak to the committee regarding the City Centre Masterplan.
a) Thank Viv Beck, Chairperson Heart of the City for her presentation regarding the City Centre Masterplan and thank her for her attendance.
City Centre Masterplan refresh
File No.: CP2019/07696
1. To seek approval from Planning Committee to proceed to public consultation on the City Centre Masterplan refresh.
2. This report seeks approval from Planning Committee to begin public consultation on the refresh of the Auckland City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).
3. This is the culmination of the actions approved at Planning Committee on 27 November 2018 (PLA/2018/121), which unanimously requested the production of a digital document which would permit rolling updates. Throughout 2019, Council has engaged with the Planning Committee in a series of workshops in March, May and June to shape the structure, direction and content of the refreshed CCMP. The intention is now to seek public input on the high-level outcomes, transformational moves and content of the CCMP, incorporating the Waterfront Plan.
4. If the recommendation of this report is approved, an eight-month period of consultation will begin. Targeted engagement with Council group and external stakeholders would occur in July to shape and refine consultation material prior to wider public engagement.
5. Public consultation on the high-level content, outcomes and transformational moves is proposed for six weeks from mid-August to late September.
6. The planned approach will indicate the level of public support and, along with the feedback already gathered from various internal and external stakeholders, inform the contents and development of the new digital CCMP in early 2020.
7. To make it accessible to as many people as possible, information on the consultation will be available online and in hard copy in local board areas.
8. Feedback will be gathered from written responses in addition to the targeted stakeholder engagement.
9. A critical element of the CCMP refresh is the consideration and application of Te Ao Māori and Māori perspectives as part of the refresh process. Engagement will take place with mana whenua and mataawaka before and during the consultation period.
10. Following the consultation period, a summary of the feedback received will be communicated widely to all submitters and stakeholder groups involved in the process.
11. This input will shape the development of the refreshed digital CCMP. The programme allows time for further targeted engagement as necessary from October to January. The complete digital CCMP will be presented to Planning Committee in February 2020.
a) approve for public consultation the refresh of City Centre Masterplan content set out in paragraphs 36-61 of this report, starting in mid-August 2019
b) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member the power to correct any identified errors or minor edits, and to give effect to changes requested by the Committee at this meeting.
c) approve the proposed approach to public consultation from mid-August to late September 2019 on the City Centre Masterplan refreshed as outlined in Attachment A of the agenda report.
d) note that a refreshed City Centre Masterplan which will reflect public consultation, will be reported to the Planning Committee for adoption in early 2020.
12. The City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan were both adopted in 2012. In line with Council’s other high-level strategies such as the Auckland Plan they need to be kept up to date and relevant.
13. CCMP and Waterfront Plan refresh work has been ongoing for more than two years. Work to update the CCMP Implementation Strategy began in early 2017. This approach avoided the need for a full refresh while the Auckland Plan refresh was itself underway. Three areas of work were proposed: Downtown, Midtown and Queen Street, all underpinned by existing CCMP transformational moves.
14. At a Planning Committee meeting on 28 March 2017, elected members resolved (PLA/2017/31) to support this approach. The targeted refresh of the Waterfront Plan was also noted (PLA/2017/32).
15. In September 2017, Planning Committee approved (PLA/2017/111), the updated implementation of the City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan to incorporate:
i) Downtown
ii) Waterfront corridor
iii) Midtown streets
iv) Central wharves
v) Wynyard Quarter
16. The remaining area of work from March 2017 (Queen Street) led to the development of the Access for Everyone (A4E) concept in 2018 as a way to maintain access in the city centre during mass rapid transit (MRT) construction and operation while delivering wider wellbeing benefits.
17. During 2018, the scope of the CCMP refresh was confirmed as a light-touch digital document, integrating the Waterfront Plan into the CCMP and incorporating rolling updates. At the Planning Committee meeting on 27 November 2018, elected members gave unanimous support to this approach and for including the following new workstreams: Māori Outcomes, Grafton Gully Boulevard and A4E (PLA/2018/121).
18. The extent of engagement and support from wider stakeholders was also in evidence that day. Supporting statements were provided by:
· Pippa Coom; Waitematā Local Board chair (PLA/2018/118)
· Viv Beck, Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) chair and Heart of the City chief executive (PLA/2018/116), with support from the City Centre Residents Group, Generation Zero, Greater Auckland, Urban Auckland, and Walk Auckland.
19. In 2019 the CCMP has been developed based on these resolutions and thorough engagement with Planning Committee. A4E was the subject of a Planning Committee workshop on 26 March, receiving broad support. Consultation timing during the election period was also discussed.
20. Refreshed CCMP Outcomes were discussed at a Planning Committee workshop on 16 May 2019. As a result of informal feedback that day, greater reference is now made to Auckland’s multiculturalism and diversity and the need for the city centre to be child-friendly.
21. The final Planning Committee workshop in this series took place on 12 June 2019 which focused on transformational moves, Waterfront Plan integration, Grafton Gully and Māori Outcomes. This has shaped the direction and content of this material.
22. This work is thus the latest step in a continuous thread of Planning Committee engagement over the past two years. It has received considerable input from other representative bodies, in particular Waitematā Local Board and Auckland City Centre Advisory Board. The material has been updated to reflect the level of stakeholder engagement to date and we would now like to seek public feedback.
Overview of Communication and engagement approach
23. Extensive face-to-face consultation has already taken place with city centre partners, stakeholders, reference groups, local boards and Council family. This will continue prior to wider public consultations and throughout the drafting process. This mahi tahi has been key to the development of the plan and we acknowledge the value it has added to the process.
24. Consultation will be opened to allow the general public to have their say on the high-level content: Outcomes, Transformational Moves, A4E and Low Emissions City Centre.
25. The proposed period for public consultation is from mid-August to late September 2019. It is proposed that the consultation period runs for six weeks. In order to support Aucklanders to be able to provide feedback in a way that suits them best, all information will be provided online and will consider making available in hard copy on request.
26. All relevant information and documentation will be available online at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say. Members of the public will be able to read through this information and provide their feedback here.
27. A hard copy of the relevant information will be made available in libraries, local board offices and service centres upon request.
28. Written feedback will be gathered through forms (online and hard copy), emails, letters and proformas etc.
29. Submitters who gave feedback for the previous consultations on the CCMP, Auckland Plan 2050 (in the areas relevant to the CCMP), relevant Local Board Plans and provided their email addresses will be directly contacted and asked if they wish to comment. In addition to the targeted stakeholders, this gives access to submitters who are already engaged and wishing to be kept informed of the consultation process.
30. The 36,000 People’s Panel members and 12,000 members of the Auckland Conversations database will also be contacted and asked for their feedback. We will also consider how to engage with the diverse communities in the city centre.
31. The submitter databases and stakeholder lists will be cross-referenced to avoid duplication.
Targeted stakeholder activity
32. Following the 2 July Planning Committee meeting, a programme of targeted engagement will take place with parties who have shaped the content to date including (but not limited to) Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs), local boards, Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, business associations and city centre representatives. This will provide an opportunity to update these parties. It will also enable them to shape the consultation material and ensure that there is consistent knowledge of the CCMP refresh process across Council groups.
33. In addition to the various emails to targeted groups, the consultation will be promoted via Council’s official digital channels:
· Auckland Council and the 21 Local Board Facebook pages
· OurAuckland online
· Auckland Council LinkedIn and Auckland Council Twitter
CCMP Outcomes, Transformational Moves, A4E and ACAF
34. The proposed consultation material is centred on the following components:
· 10 Outcomes
· 8 Transformational Moves (incorporating Māori Outcomes, Grafton Gully and Waterfront Plan Integration)
· Access for Everyone (this is the remaining content from 27 November 2018 that is not confined to a Transformational Move)
· Auckland Climate Action Framework (ACAF)
CCMP Outcomes
35. The 2012 CCMP contains 10 city centre-wide Factors. These shape the CCMP projects. For 2020, the Factors are to be updated and re-cast as Outcomes. The text describing the Outcomes has been drafted by subject matter experts within Council groups and external organisations.
36. Changes proposed to the Factors are limited. Almost all the 2012 Factors have a 2020 Outcome equivalent as set out in the table below:
2012 CCMP Factor
2020 CCMP Outcome
10. Celebrating our culture
1. Tāmaki Makaurau: Our place in the world
2. Access to and within the city centre
2. Accessible city centre
3. Inclusiveness and child-friendly city
3. Inclusive, engaging and child-friendly city centre
4. Value of open space
4. Green city centre
5. Public life
6. Strengthening the quarters
6. Liveable city centre
7. Quality built form
8. The importance of heritage
8. Heritage-defined city centre
9. Progressing sustainability
9. Sustainable city centre
1. Changing economic picture
10. Prosperous city centre
37. Outcome 1 Tāmaki Makaurau: Our place in the world: This outcome has been prepared with direct involvement of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. It includes aspirations and specific initiatives that the Forum have identified as core components of an authentic and thriving Māori identity and culture within the city centre. These include Māori enterprise, innovation and investment, a prominent, authentic and active mana whenua presence in the city and a Tāmaki Makaurau design approach founded on Māori design.
38. Outcome 2 Accessible City Centre: This outcome envisages continuation of the remarkable mode shift in city centre access towards walking, cycling, micro-mobility and public transport. Major investment in CRL and MRT will bring thousands more people into the city centre each morning. Auckland Council’s Access for Everyone concept will create a roadmap to reorganise the traffic network, provide more space for more efficient transport modes, make transport more inclusive and create more space for people to enjoy.
39. Outcome 3 Inclusive, Engaging and Child-Friendly City Centre: The city centre should be relevant, engaging and accessible to all who call Tāmaki Makarau home, as well as the thousands of annual visitors, irrespective of age, ethnicity, gender or disability. Auckland's diversity is one of its greatest strengths. We need to support this and enable full participation in the city centre, applying principles of universal design that safeguard access for all.
40. Outcome 4 A Green City Centre: Access to green space – both green open spaces such as parks, waterfronts and reserves and the urban greening of streets and public spaces – is highly valued by Aucklanders. This outcome recognises the importance of increasing access to green space as the city centre continues to grow. It also acknowledges its positive impact on ecosystems, air and water quality and mental health.
41. Outcome 5 Public Life: This is an update of the existing outcome. It envisages better public space in Auckland’s postcard locations as well as everyday streets within the city centre. It acknowledges continued growth in the level and diversity of public life and reflects greater understanding of the multiple benefits of high-quality public space.
42. Outcome 6 Liveable City Centre: This outcome acknowledges the growth in city centre population and formally recognises the importance of the city centre as a place to live. It provides direction around housing affordability, homelessness, safety and public space, highlighting the need for social infrastructure in the city centre.
43. Outcome 7 Quality Built Form: This outcome links the City Centre Masterplan to statutory planning and design tools in Auckland. These include the Unitary Plan, the Auckland Urban Design Panel and the refreshed Auckland Plan to deliver a well-designed and planned city centre:
44. Outcome 8 Heritage-Defined City Centre: This outcome envisages increased understanding, protection and conservation of city centre heritage places, landscapes and stories. City centre development will reinforce our unique cityscape, streetscapes and heritage.
45. Outcome 9 Sustainable City Centre: This outcome is centred on the forthcoming Auckland Climate Action Framework (ACAF) and Outcome 5 of the Auckland Plan. It shapes Council’s approach to transport, air quality and water quality in the city centre.
46. Outcome 10 Prosperous City Centre: Auckland city centre generates 7.4% of New Zealand’s GDP and accommodates a uniquely rich mix of functions in a relatively compact area. The Masterplan sets out practical interventions for how we develop the city centre to continue to flourish as an economic centre and cater for the different needs of its cosmopolitan population.
CCMP Transformational Moves
47. The 2012 CCMP contains eight place-specific Transformational Moves (“the moves”). These show where city centre projects are envisioned to take place and inform subsequent design, development and delivery. A similar approach is proposed for 2020.
48. Changes proposed to the moves reflect wider changes to Auckland city centre over the past seven years. Every 2012 moves has a 2020 equivalent; there is also a brand-new move: Māori Outcomes, which addresses a specific gap in the 2012 CCMP. The moves are shown below:
2012 CCMP Transformational Move
2020 CCMP Transformational Move
1. Harbour Edge Stitch
1. Māori Outcomes NEW
2. The East-West Stitch
2. East and West Stitch
3. The Engine Room
3. Queen Street Valley
4. Innovation Cradle
5. Rapid Transit-Oriented Development
6. The Green Link
7. City to the Villages
8. Water City
8. Harbour Edge Stitch
49. Move 1 Māori Outcomes: This new move proposes nine interventions through the city centre and waterfront to reflect the aspiration for a Māori identity that is Tāmaki Makaurau’s point of difference in the world. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum has approved text and mapped preliminary concepts for further development to deliver this outcome. The concepts will be refined and further developed over the next six months and will then inform the CCMP refresh.
50. Move 2 East and West Stitch: Land at both the east and west edges of the city centre is under-used and under-valued, cut off by major roads. This move proposes interventions to stitch the sides of the city centre together, enabling high-density, high-quality, high-value development. The Eastern Transformation proposes to complete SH16 to Tāmaki Drive, improving access from the Port to the motorway and from Parnell to the city centre. It is also essential for A4E.
51. Move 3 Queen Street Valley: The arrival of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) in Queen Street will transform city centre access. This move envisages a pedestrian-friendly design for Queen Street, with access and movement coordinated via A4E. Queen Street valley will become a zero emissions area as per the Auckland Climate Action Plan. Albert Street will become a complementary commercial address to Queen Street, supported by City Rail Link (CRL).
52. Move 4 Innovation Cradle: The city centre university campuses are two of the city centre’s most important economic assets, with many undergraduate and postgraduate students, highly-respected faculties and significant commercial arms. This updated move seeks to leverage the value and prominence of the Universities and improve connections between the city centre and inner-city campuses.
53. Move 5 Rapid Transit Supported Growth: CRL and MRT will concentrate access and activity in the city centre along the Waihorotiu Queen Street Valley. CRL and MRT station / stop areas in close proximity at Britomart (downtown), Aotea Quarter (midtown) and Karangahape Road (uptown) will become key development areas, accessible by CRL, MRT, bus and, in Britomart’s case, ferry. Further out in the city fringe, the proposed Dominion Road Junction MRT station, supported by the nearby Mt Eden CRL station, will become similarly connected High levels of footfall across the day will make these areas viable, 24-hour, mixed-use locations.
54. Move 6 Green Link: Updating the 2012 move, a growing city centre needs to maintain and enhance access to green spaces. This move delivers a connected network of green parks and street spaces from the Auckland Domain through to Albert Park, Victoria Park, Wynyard Quarter and the future headland park. It improves east-west pedestrian connectivity and provides new public open space across midtown.
55. Move 7 City to the Villages: Updating the 2012 move, this reflects changes such as city centre population growth and improvements such as Te Ara I Whiti / The Lightpath. Better connections to the city fringe are needed to provide access to multiple destinations that are missing from or complement the offering in the city centre.
56. Move 8 Harbour Edge Stitch: This new move is a combination of TM1 (Harbour Edge Stitch) and TM8 (Water City) from the 2012 CCMP and integrates the Waterfront Plan into the CCMP. The waterfront axis from Harbour Bridge Park in the west to Teal Park in the east is transformed into a high-quality harbour edge pedestrian-friendly space. Regeneration of Wynyard Quarter continues, with planning underway for the extended linear park and headland open space. Street connections north-south across the axis will stitch harbour edge public spaces and destinations back into the city.
57. As port operations consolidate to the east and long-term cruise berths are developed, Queens Wharf becomes part of the ‘golden T’ people place from lower Queen Street and along Quay Street. Running parallel with the waterfront axis will be intimate mid-block east-west laneways as part of the Laneway Circuit as well as an upgraded vehicle and public transport movement corridor – Fanshawe Street, Custom Street, Beach Road and the Strand.
58. A4E is a strategy to provide more space for people by reorganising transport circulation and street operations in Auckland’s city centre. It aims to future-proof the city centre to accommodate its growing population and leverage transformational transport investments.
59. A4E divides the city centre into 11 separate low-traffic neighbourhoods, including one expansive pedestrian priority zone across the Queen Street Valley. General traffic would access individual neighbourhoods from the city’s edge. This traffic circulation and street concept would unlock city centre space for people walking, people cycling, emergency services, mobility access, business services and deliveries. An initial concept has been developed and further work will be required with AT, the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and city centre stakeholders to see how best to progress the outcome.
Auckland Climate Action Framework (ACAF) – Low Emissions City Centre
60. Auckland Council unanimously declared a Climate Emergency on 11 June 2019. One of the five flagship actions from the 2019 Auckland Climate Symposium in March was to: ‘Establish a zero carbon, resilient city centre’. The refreshed CCMP will contribute to this by creating a low-emissions area in the Queen Street Valley and favouring zero-emissions transport modes. This is consistent with A4E and CCMP Transformational Move 3. It also supports the delivery of the Mayor of Auckland’s commitments to the C40 Cities Fossil-Fuel-Free Streets declaration. The CCMP team will be working with the ACAF team as it progresses to ensure appropriate alignment.
61. This work has entailed constant input from CCOs, particularly Panuku and AT. Content development has taken place with frequent input and counsel from strategy and operational departments within AT. Other council departments have helped to map the relationship between the CCMP outcomes and moves, Auckland Plan outcomes and business case frameworks. This has ensured a high degree of internal coordination with Council group strategies, plans and processes. It has also shaped ongoing projects, for example engagement with AT Network Management regarding city centre bus network development.
62. A policy mapping exercise has been undertaken to map CCMP outcomes to the Auckland Plan outcomes. This exercise has shown a high level of consistency between the two levels of outcomes. Each CCMP outcome delivers at least three Auckland Plan outcomes and that two CCMP outcomes deliver all six. This shows the CCMP’s ability to apply the Auckland Plan outcomes to a specific area of the city.
63. A similar exercise was carried out mapping the moves to the Auckland Plan outcomes, directions and focus areas. This again shows a constant policy thread between the politically-endorsed statutory plan for the city, the spatial plan for its centre and detailed, area-based proposals for its implementation.
64. The outcomes and moves also embed the five waterfront goals from the 2012 Waterfront Plan including the Mana Whenua goals adopted by the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum.
65. The Port Future Study (2015-2016) consensus working group recommended council establish a port relocation option for freight (with cruise remaining in the Waitematā waterfront) which would likely be needed 30-50 years from 2016. The group made recommendations for investigating locations and for monitoring at the current port site to determine timing of any necessary move.
66. The Ports of Auckland Ltd 30-year master plan caters for Auckland's growing freight needs until 2050. The Port Future Study and the Port’s master plan are broadly in alignment in that the eventual move of the port operations is likely in the next 30-50 years, in which case investments in the port here on the Waitematā and surrounding land use decisions should be not preclude redevelopment of this space over the long-term time horizon (30-50+ years).
67. In addition, the Government has appointed a Working Group to undertake the Upper North Island Supply Chain study. The Study will provide recommendations to government for priorities for investment in the upper North Island supply chain infrastructure. The working group’s work includes a feasibility study to explore moving the location of the Ports of Auckland, with serious consideration to be given to Northport. The group’s interim report was published in May 2019 with two further reports to Cabinet due in June and September 2019.
68. While the time horizons for this work is 30-50 years in the future, over that period there will be decisions made about individual wharves and their functions, with impacts on surrounding land use. There is a high degree of community interest in wharves and the surrounding land use potential. Community views will be sought to inform council decisions and to ensure integration with the CCMP which may need to be updated at the appropriate time
69. Auckland city centre sits entirely within the Waitematā Local Board area. A workshop on 31 July 2018 introduced the Board to the proposed components of the CCMP refresh. Feedback from this workshop informed the material approved at Planning Committee in November 2018. At this meeting, a supporting statement was provided by Pippa Coom on behalf of Waitematā Local Board (PLA/2018/118).
70. Engagement was offered to all local boards in December 2018. This offer was taken up by Waitematā and Ōrākei Local Boards. Workshops were undertaken with both local boards in February 2019 and this feedback has shaped the development of content and subsequent engagement. The opportunity for further engagement with all local boards will be re-offered throughout the update.
71. The Auckland Plan Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome identifies that: “A thriving Māori identity is Auckland’s point of difference in the world – it advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders.” The objective is that the city centre reflects this aspiration. This has shaped the CCMP refresh.
72. The greatest changes around the CCMP are centred on the Māori Identify and Wellbeing outcome in the Auckland Plan 2050. This has resulted in both a new outcome and a new transformational move in the CCMP. The CCMP refresh team has actively supported the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (MWKF) Culture and Identity pou over the past year in developing this content.
Outcome 1 Tāmaki Makaurau: Our place in the world envisages contemporary Māori life and culture and Mana Whenua having a prominent, authentic and active presence in the city centre. Through working closely with Mana Whenua, a range of unique initiatives and developments will provide all Aucklanders and visitors with a deeper understanding of Mana Whenua histories, associations and aspirations within the City Centre and Waterfront.
Transformational Move 1 Māori Outcomes: This new move proposes nine interventions through the city centre and waterfront, based around the following goals:
§ Tāmaki Makaurau – Our Place in the World;
§ Te Taiao – The Environment;
§ Tapuwae - Cultural Footprint
73. In support of the goals expressed above, the MWKF has approved text and mapped preliminary concepts for further development over the next six months.
74. Transformational Move 2 considers the east and west edges of the city centre. This includes Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei landholdings in the area around Quay Park and the Strand. Since July 2018, Auckland Design Office (ADO) representatives have worked with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to develop a concept that is compatible with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’ long-term plans for the area. This addresses Directions 1 and 3 and Focus Area 4 in the Auckland Plan’s Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome.
75. The CCMP outcomes and transformational moves have both been mapped against the Auckland Plan Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome. In both cases, the degree of alignment is substantial. All 10 CCMP outcomes address the directions and factors of Māori Identity and Wellbeing.
76. CCMP content will continue to be developed in partnership with the MWKF.
77. It is also important for Council to engage with mataawaka to share the material produced to date and discuss how the team updating and revising the City Centre Masterplan can engage with Māori and Māori communities who use, live and work in the city centre.
78. It will also be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance. Additional advice will be provided by Auckland Council’ Māori Design subject matter experts.
79. The consultation costs for the CCMP Refresh are estimated at up to $70,000. This includes allowances for hui, consultation and engagement analysis, consultation reporting and production of consultation material as necessary.
80. The CCMP will shape future inputs and submissions to the Long-Term Plan (LTP), starting from 2020.
81. Timing: The CCMP refresh has been designed to be fully-complete by Q1 2020 in order to inform the 2021-24 LTP process. A delay to the CCMP refresh process would thus have knock-on effects on the funding of city centre and waterfront programmes and projects.
82. Proceed with internal and public engagement as outlines in the proposed consultation approach as outlined in Attachment A.
83. Develop structure and content for digital masterplan, informed by engagement.
84. Present digital CCMP for Planning Committee consideration and approval in February 2020 prior to wider release.
CCMP Consultation and Engagement Plan
CCMP Project Timeframe Diagram
George Weeks - Principal Urban Design
Ludo Campbell-Reid – General Manager - Auckland Design Office
Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy
Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities Bill, Auckland Council Submission
File No.: CP2019/10475
1. To provide advice on council’s submission to the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill and outline the process for finalising the submission.
2. The Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill (the Bill) was introduced in to Parliament on 31 May 2019. The Bill establishes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities as a new Crown entity bringing together Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC), HLC (Homes. Land. Community.) and the KiwiBuild Unit of the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development.
3. Submissions on the Bill close on 11 July 2019. The intention is that it will come into force on 1 October 2019.
4. The Bill is the first of two pieces of legislation applying to the new entity. A further Bill is expected in the third quarter of this year which will sets out the powers that Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities can assume to enable it to undertake urban development in specified development areas.
5. In May 2017 the council’s submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) “Urban Development Authorities: Discussion Document”, February 2017, supported, in principle, the establishment of urban development authorities but raised some issues relating to its powers and the process for selecting development locations.
6. Auckland Council will have a keen interest in the powers of the urban development authority and how they can be applied. These are matters that will be dealt with in the second Bill which will be the subject of a separate submission later this year.
7. The draft submission (attachment A) supports a number of aspects of the Bill but seeks much greater recognition of the significant overlaps between the functions of local government and those of the new entity.
8. Despite the nature and extent of the overlapping functions, local government is not explicitly recognised in the Bill. While there are provisions that reference partnering, engaging and consulting with ‘other persons and organisations’ (or similar), these provisions fall well short of what is required to ensure that local government’s responsibilities are recognised, and interests protected.
9. The draft submission also requests a number of changes, additions, or clarifications including a new provision that would have the effect of ensuring that the new entity is required to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and a provision that would clarify that the new entity is liable for development contributions.
10. The report recommends that the committee delegates authority to the Chair, Deputy Chair and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve the final submission following receipt of all local board input by 9 July.
a) approve the draft submission (Attachment A) to the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill subject to receiving input from local boards which will be appended to the submission and incorporating any changes requested by this committee.
b) delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to approve the final submission.
11. The Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill (the Bill) was introduced in to Parliament on 31 May 2019. The Bill establishes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities as a new Crown entity by:
· disestablishing HNZC and HLC
· putting HNZC and HLC’s assets into Kāinga Ora- Homes and Communities
· repealing the Housing Corporation Act 1974
· putting some of the functions and assets related to KiwiBuild that currently sit in the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development into Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities
· setting up a new board of 6-8 members.
12. Submissions on the Bill close on 11 July 2019. The intention is that it will come into force on 1 October 2019.
13. The Bill is the first of two pieces of legislation applying to the new entity. A further Bill is expected in the third quarter of this year which will sets out the powers that Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities can assume to enable it to undertake urban development in specified development areas.
14. In May 2017 council’s submission to MBIE’s “Urban Development Authorities: Discussion Document”, February 2017, supported, in principle, the establishment of urban development authorities but raised some issues relating to its powers and the process for selecting development locations.
15. Auckland Council will have a keen interest in the powers of the urban development authority and how they can be applied. These are matters that will be dealt with in the second Bill which will be the subject of a separate submission later this year.
Summary of Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities Bill
16. The objective of the new entity is to “contribute to sustainable, inclusive and thriving communities that:
· provide people with good quality, affordable housing choices that meet diverse needs; and
· support good access to jobs, amenities and services; and
· otherwise sustain or enhance the overall economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of current and future generations.”
17. The entity has two key functions;
· being a public housing landlord
· leading and co-ordinating urban development.
18. The Bill in section 13 elaborates on those functions, and in section 14 operating principles for the entity are set out under the following themes
· Public housing solutions that contribute positively to well-being
· Housing supply meets needs
· Well-functioning urban environments
· Stewardship and sustainability collaboration and effective partnership.
19. A key aspect of the Bill is the introduction of a Government Policy Statement (GPS) on housing and urban development. This GPS will set out:
· the Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development
· how the Government expects Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities to manage its functions and operations to meet the Government’s directions and priorities
· how the Government expects other agencies to support that direction and those priorities
· the Government’s expectations relating to Māori interests, partnering with Māori and protections for Māori interests.
20. The Ministers (the Minister of Finance and the Minister who has authority for the administration of the Act) must issue the GPS no later than 1 October 2020. It will cover a period of at least ten years from date of issue and must be reviewed at intervals of no more than three years.
21. In preparing the GPS the Ministers must:
· be satisfied that the GPS promotes a housing and urban development system that contributes to the current or future well-being of New Zealanders; and
· consult Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities and persons, and representative groups of persons, who have an interest in housing and urban development in New Zealand.
22. Another key focus is on Māori interests. Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities is charged with understanding, supporting and enabling the aspirations of Māori in relation to urban development. The GPS must include the government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protecting Māori interests.
23. The Government’s intention to create a new urban development agency and to combine the assets and functions of HNZC, HLC and the KiwiBuild Unit has been clearly signalled and government officials have kept council staff well informed of the process to establish the new entity.
24. The draft submission supports a number of aspects of the Bill but seeks much greater recognition of the significant overlaps between the functions of local government and those of the new entity.
25. Specific concerns arising from these overlaps are highlighted in the draft submission and include:
· the potential for interruptions to Panuku Development Auckland’s delivery programme
· the potential operational and financial implications for the council family of the new entity providing or enabling infrastructure that has impacts on wider infrastructure networks
· the council family’s responsibility for managing and maintaining infrastructure after Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities exits a development project
· the implications of the new GPS on housing and urban development (GPS) for the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Auckland Development Strategy which have been through extensive community consultation processes.
26. Despite the nature and extent of the overlapping functions, local government is not explicitly recognised in the Bill. While there are provisions that reference partnering, engaging and consulting with ‘other persons and organisations’ (or similar), these provisions fall well short of what is required to ensure that local government’s responsibilities are recognised, and interests protected.
27. Another area of significant concern is the lack of clarity about whether Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities is liable for development contributions. While we believe the intent is for the entity to be liable, this needs to be explicit as the impact on local government would be substantial if the entity was found not to be liable.
28. Key points in the draft submission (Attachment A) include:
· The need for an explicit provision to specify that the Act will be administered and interpreted to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
· Support for the requirement for expertise in local government to be part of the skill-set of the board and request inclusion of expertise in Treaty of Waitangi settlements to be part of the required skill-set.
· Support for the overarching objective of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities ‘to contribute to sustainable, inclusive and thriving communities’.
· The need to limit the entity’s activities to locations where it can add value, for example for complex urban projects where there is a recognised market failure.
· Adding reference to ‘universal design’ in the functions and operating principles.
· Adding reference to ‘employment opportunities’ in the operating principles.
· Ensuring that the entity’s obligations to enable the aspirations of communities in relation to urban development require it to recognise aspirations reflected in local government plans and strategies that have been adopted following community consultation.
· Supporting the broad focus reflected in the operating principles on quality housing, tenant wellbeing and community connections.
· Ensuring that the entity is required to consider ‘value for money’ in its infrastructure investments as well as ‘whole of life costs’.
· Noting that requirements to partner and have early and meaningful engagement with Māori and offer Māori opportunities to participate in urban development will require the entity to partner and engage with both mana whenua and mataawaka in urban locations.
· Requesting a new operating principle “partnering and having early and meaningful engagement with local authorities within the areas in which Kāinga Ora- Homes and Communities is operating.
· Supporting the restriction on disposal of Rights of First Refusal (RFR) land which prevents Kāinga Ora- Homes and Communities from using HNZ’s exemptions in Treaty settlement legislation to override RFR but noting that this provision does not protect iwi where settlement processes have not been concluded.
· Supporting the role of the GPS on Housing and Urban Development to guide the focus of the new entity while raising a number of issues about the GPS including:
- the need for alignment of the GPS with the GPS on Land Transport and with the new (proposed) National Policy Statement on Urban Development.
- the need to clarify that the ‘other agencies’ required to support the direction and priorities of the GPS refers to central government agencies rather than local government or private sector agencies.
- requesting specific reference to a requirement to consult with local government when preparing a GPS.
· Requesting an explicit provision that any development undertaken by, or on behalf of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, is liable for development contributions.
29. Staff have worked with Watercare, Auckland Transport, and Panuku staff in preparing the draft submission.
30. Watercare and Auckland Transport raised issues about the impact of the entity’s activities on wider infrastructure networks. Auckland Transport has also raised the need to ensure that the GPS on Land Transport and the GPS on Housing and Urban Development, are aligned.
31. Panuku noted their support for many of the Bill’s provisions but raised a number of matters including: the need to acknowledge the role of local government in urban development; the need to focus the entity’s activities where it can add value because the market and other players cannot deliver; the importance of the GPS in prioritising the entity’s focus; and the need for a partnership approach to ensure that Panuku’s extensive programme is not disrupted.
32. While the activities of Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities will have significant local benefits and impacts the main areas of interest for local communities will be the process by which the entity selects development projects and the specific powers it utilises in different locations. Provisions relating to these matters will be part of the second Bill.
33. As noted, the draft submission raises concerns about the lack of specific recognition of local government with respect to partnering and engagement. It also raises concerns about the potential for the GPS to override local government’s spatial and strategic plans which have been the subject of extensive public consultation.
34. Consistent with normal processes, local boards have been informed of the opportunity to provide feedback that will be appended to the submission. We expect that some local boards may provide feedback but due to the tight timeframes no feedback has been received to date.
35. The Bill has a number of provisions which seek to recognise and provide for Māori interests. These provisions appear as different clauses in the Bill but are also brought together in a single clause 4 ‘Māori interests’. These provisions cover:
· Ensuring the board maintains systems and processes and has the capability and capacity to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi, understand and apply Te Ture Whenua Māori Act (1993), and be able to engage with Māori and understand Maori perspectives.
· Giving the entity a function to understand, support, and enable the aspirations of Māori in relation to urban development.
· Identifying and protecting Māori interests in land and the relationship of Māori with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga.
· Partnering and having early and meaningful engagement with Māori and offering Māori opportunities to participate in urban development.
· Preventing Kāinga Ora- Homes and Communities from using Housing New Zealand’s exemptions in Treaty settlement legislation to override RFR.
· Requiring that a GPS must include the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori and protections for Māori interests.
36. The Bill also requires Ministers to appoint members to the board with knowledge, experience and capability in perspectives of Maori and, the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.
37. The activities of the new entity have the potential to provide significant benefits to Māori through provision of public housing, affordable housing and opportunities for Māori to participate in urban development. There is also the risk of impacts, for example on wāhi tapu, sites of significance and wider environmental interests. The provisions of the second Bill will be important to ensure the protections offered by this Bill are effective.
38. While the draft submission supports many of the provisions in the Bill relating to Māori interests it also raises some concerns including:
· that the provisions fall short of requiring Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and that a specific provision is required to ensure this
· that the restriction on disposal of RFR land does not protect iwi where settlement processes have not been concluded
· that the requirements to engage should clarify that, in urban environments, this will require engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka. The submission also notes that Auckland has 19 mana whenua groups
· that board expertise should also cover knowledge and expertise in Treaty settlements.
39. Staff have worked with Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff in preparing the draft submission. IMSB staff have indicated that the Independent Māori Statutory Board may consider its own submission.
40. The submission raises concerns about how the activities of Kāinga Ora could have financial implications for local government. Specific concerns include:
· the need for an explicit provision to clarify that the entity will be liable for development contributions
· the need for the entity to consider value for money and ‘whole of life costs’ as well as its impact on wider network infrastructure.
41. The Bill does not have any specific risks for council beyond the matters raised in the draft submission and reflected in paragraphs 25-28.
42. The report recommends that the committee delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member for approval of the final submission following receipt of all local board input by 9 July.
Kainga Ora - Homes and Communities Bill, Auckland Council draft submission
Catherine Syme - Programme Mgr Urban Growth & Housing
Penny Pirrit - Director Urban Growth and Housing
Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities – Draft Auckland Council Submission
Auckland Council has previously submitted that it supports, in principle, the establishment of urban development authorities. We have further submitted that we support urban development that provides for local aspirations and aligns with current and future, plans and takes a collaborative approach to urban regeneration (17 May 2017 Auckland Council response to MBIE “Urban Development Authorities: Discussion Document”, February 2017).
We recognise that the Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities Bill establishes a new entity and prescribes its objectives, functions and operating principles, but does not address its powers. While our previous submission raised some concerns about the potential powers of the new entity, we understand that these will be the subject of a second Bill. We would be very happy to assist with the preparation of that Bill including the provisions relating to Māori interests if that would be useful. We note the specialised nature of Māori land interests and activities and the need for a deep understanding of these matters in order to ensure that the protection the Bill seeks is achieved.
We agree with the intent of this Bill to consolidate the government’s housing and urban development initiatives, currently spread across multiple agencies, into a ‘one-stop-shop’. This will avoid duplication and create efficiencies in collaboration, coordination and expertise.
While we support many aspects of the Bill, our primary concern is to ensure that the establishment legislation recognises the significant overlap in functions between local government and the functions of the new entity as specified in clause 13. This means that the decisions of Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities, have significant implications for Auckland Council and other local authorities. For example:
· Auckland Council’s urban development agency, Panuku, has an advanced delivery programme for urban regeneration across agreed and prioritised locations in Auckland. We would like to ensure that Panuku can continue to deliver Auckland’s regeneration programme at scale and pace without unnecessary relitigation, duplication of effort and delay.
· Provision or enabling of infrastructure and amenities by the new entity will have implications for wider infrastructure networks outside the development project area -for example water treatment plants and public transport services. This could have significant operational and financial implications for local authorities and their CCOs.
· Councils and their CCOs will be responsible for managing and maintaining much of the infrastructure and amenities enabled by the new entity, after it exits a development project
· Local authorities undertake strategic planning though tools such as spatial plans, development strategies and infrastructure strategies adopted after consultation with local communities. For example, Auckland Council has the Auckland Plan 2050 which includes the Auckland Development Strategy. These plans provide certainty to developers and communities about the location and sequencing of urban development.
Our view is that these significant overlaps need to be recognised and better provided for in the establishment legislation by:
· including operating principles that recognise the overlapping functions
· including explicit requirements for Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities to engage with local government
· clarifying how the GPS on housing and urban development will apply to local government
· including explicit requirements for Ministers to engage with local government in the preparation of the GPS on housing and urban development.
Māori interests (clause 4)
As summarised in clause 4 of the Bill, there are a number of provisions in the Act that seek to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to consider and provide for Māori interests. Our view is that this clause 4 should explicitly reference the Crown’s obligations with respect the Treaty of Waitangi in addition to Māori interests. As currently drafted the Bill requires the board to have systems and processes and the capability and capacity to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles but does not explicitly require it to do so. Our strong preference would be for the legislation to include a provision similar to that of section 4 of Conservation Act 1987, “This Act shall so be administered and interpreted to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
We make further comments on the provisions summarised in clause 4 under the relevant clause below.
Interpretation (clause 5)
Auckland council requests that “agencies” referred to in clause 24(1)(d) are defined as meaning Crown entities and that the definition clarifies that it does not include local government or other third parties, such as developers, with an interest in urban development.
Membership of Board of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (clause 10)
It is important to ensure that the board reflects a wide variety of perspectives including those of Māori, local government, and developers/industry, and has experience of New Zealand’s housing and urban development systems. Auckland Council supports the skills that will be sought in appointing board members and agrees that they broadly reflect the experience and capabilities required for an effective board.
We acknowledge the recognition of the need for expertise in Māori perspectives, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles and Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, however, we request the addition of expertise in Treaty settlements. We note that Māori capability will need to be well represented at the Board level to satisfy these requirements.
Objective of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (clause 12)
Auckland Council supports the purpose of the legislation and the overarching objective of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities “to contribute to sustainable, inclusive and thriving communities” as set out in section 12(1) and the subpoints (a) through (c).
This objective aligns well with the purpose of local government under section 10(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future” It also aligns with the council’s strategic outcomes and objectives for Auckland as set out in the Auckland Plan and other core council strategies and plans. Council particularly supports the broad focus of this objective on the factors that contribute to well-functioning communities. We would be concerned about targets to deliver specific numbers of houses without this wider focus.
We note that the Bill does not include a purpose and suggest that the addition of a purpose for the Act could assist with interpretation.
Functions of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (clause 13)
Urban development function
As noted in the introduction, the council is concerned that there is no specific mention or consideration in the Bill of local government and how the new entity will work with them in achieving its objectives and functions, given that many of the proposed functions of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities are similar to the role and function of local government, e.g. (f),(i), (ii) and (iii) and (g).
We are also concerned that 13(1)(f) provides a broad mandate for the entity to initiate or undertake any type of urban development in any location. In our view 13(1)(f) should be limited to situations where the market and current players cannot deliver and where Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities can add value. International experience indicates this will create a focus on complex urban development projects such as contaminated brownfields or where there is a recognised market failure, a desire to trial new methods/innovations; or a lack of commercial feasibility for regeneration, despite clear public/strategic benefit.
The council supports 13(1)(g) to provide a leadership or co-ordination role in relation supporting innovation within the sector and leading and promoting good urban design. We consider that 13(g)(i) should include “capacity” as well as “capability” as this would provide the entity with a clear mandate to invest in training and development to ensure that the sector has sufficient numbers of workers with the required skills.
The council suggests that 13(1)(g)(ii) could be strengthened by making a specific reference to ‘universal design’ – which will be essential to delivering a quality urban environment and inclusive communities.
We support operating principle 13(1)(h) and suggest the addition of “including the aspirations reflected in any adopted spatial plan or development strategy that the community has been consulted on” after the words “urban development.”
We support operating principle 13(1)(i) and highlight the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient capacity at the board and operational level to give meaningful effect to this clause.
Operating Principles (clause 14)
‘Public housing solutions that contribute positively to well-being’ and ‘Housing supply meets needs’
The council supports 14(1)(a)-(f) and the broad focus on quality housing, tenant wellbeing, and community connections. We believe this provides stronger direction than provisions of the Housing Corporation Act which requires HNZC to exhibit a sense of social responsibly by having to regard to the interests of the community (in which it operates) while acting in a business-like manner.
Well-functioning urban environments (14(1)(g) and (h))
The council suggests that (g) should include reference to ‘value for money’. While it is important to deliver quality infrastructure that meets community needs this should be balanced with making prudent investment decisions for current and future infrastructure needs.
We consider employment opportunities to be critical to well-functioning urban environments and suggest a new operating principle “ensuring that communities have access to employment opportunities.”
Consistent with our previous comments, we would support the inclusion of an additional operating principle in this section about universal design.
Stewardship and sustainability (14(1)(i) and (j))
We strongly support principle (i). We also support (j) however, we recommend that sustainability should include reference to financial and economic sustainability. It is essential that investment by the new entity in housing, community amenities and infrastructure (e.g. parks and open space and community facilities) factors in the “whole of life cost” of any new assets. These include the ongoing capital and operational costs to operate, programme and maintain the assets. This will be particularly important if there is any intention to hand these assets to local government to manage in the future.
Collaborative and effective partnerships (14(1)(k)-(m)
Clause (14)(1)(k) requires the entity to partner and have early and meaningful engagement with Māori and offering Māori opportunities to participate in urban development. While we support the intent, we note that in urban environments this needs to acknowledge both maatawaka and mana whenua, while recognising the significance of ancestral areas/rohe to mana whenua. We note that Auckland Council has 19 mana whenua groups.
We would also like similar operating principle in relation to local government and suggest a new principle, “partnering and having early and meaningful engagement with local authorities within the areas in which Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community is operating.”
We note that the Housing Corporation currently has a function under Section 19(1A) of the Housing Corporation Act 1974 to “take any action in the performance of its functions or achievement of its objectives jointly, or in conjunction, with – (a) a local authority.” Whilst we appreciate that the second Bill will contain more detail on the powers of the new entity we note that the entity will come into being well before that Bill is enacted. Auckland council is currently working with Housing New Zealand and HLC on a number of development projects and we would be concerned if this was interrupted.
Restriction on disposal of RFR land (clause 20)
We support clause 20 “Restriction on disposal of RFR land” which prevents Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities from using Housing New Zealand’s exemptions in Treaty settlement legislation to override Rights of First Refusal (RFR). However, we note that there are outstanding Treaty claims in Auckland and we await details of the second Bill that should ensure the new entity will not have the ability to assemble land in a manner that could frustrate treaty settlements.
GPS on housing and urban development (clauses 22-29)
We support the requirement for ministers to issue a GPS on housing and urban development to guide the focus of the new entity, however we have some questions about the wider application and purpose of the GPS.
We believe the GPS needs to set out a clear direction for Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities and help the agency to prioritise and focus its efforts where they will have the most impact. Without this guidance there is a risk that the agency will be spread too thinly across multiple locations which will hamper its ability to implement programmes efficiently and effectively. The GPS therefore has an important role to play in setting clear expectations and priorities for the new entity across the complex urban and housing system. This will also help provide certainty to developers, communities and local government. We suggest that interim guidance may be required for Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities as the GPS may not be available for the first year of its operation.
We would like to see some clarity in the legislation on the wider implications of the GPS for local government. For example, we are unsure about the role of the GPS relative to the forthcoming NPS on Urban Development which we understand is likely to replace the NPS on Urban Development Capacity and provide stronger direction to local government on spatial planning.
We are also unclear about how the GPS would align to other planning instruments such as the GPS on Land Transport. It is critical for Auckland Council and Auckland Transport that the GPS on Land Transport and GPS on Housing and Urban Development are fully aligned. The GPS on Land Transport drives funding for Auckland Transport and to achieve our mode shift objectives we need to create urban form that supports this. As noted earlier in our submission in relation to clause 5, we seek clarity that clause 24(1)(d) does not apply to local government. We note that the GPS on housing and urban development is different in nature from the GPS on Land Transport as the latter guides funding decisions for local government. In our view it is not appropriate for the GPS on urban development to override requirements for local government to consult with communities on strategic direction, set urban development and housing policy, and determine funding priorities.
We would also like to see specific reference to a requirement to consult with local government when preparing a GPS in clause 23(b).
With respect to clause 29, while we acknowledge the need for flexibility with respect to providing direction to Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, we are concerned about the potential for ad hoc changes in Government’s direction and priorities for urban growth and housing and the impact of the lack of certainty this provides. Utility/infrastructure providers, developers, community sector providers and our Treaty Partners require certainty in order to make long-term investments and we are concerned that the ability to amend the GPS at any time removes this. Again, this points to the need for the legislation to provide clarity about the role of the GPS and its wider application beyond providing direction to the new entity.
Other matters – Development Contributions
We request a provision establishing that any development undertaken by, or on behalf of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities is liable for development contributions assessed under section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002. We note that Local Government Act 2002 exempts the Crown from paying development contributions but that this privilege does not extend to Housing New Zealand Limited (HNZL). Without an explicit provision we are concerned that there is ambiguity about the status of the new entity with respect to development contributions. Given that the new entity is expected to deliver a large proportion of the total new dwellings in Auckland in the future, this would represent a substantial loss of revenue for the council if the new entity was found to share the Crown’s exemption from paying development contributions.
Auckland Plan 2050 Six-monthly update
File No.: CP2019/00856
1. To update the committee on events related to the Auckland Plan 2050 since its adoption and to report the first Annual Monitoring Report.
2. The Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018. It sets the long term strategic direction for Auckland. It is a digital plan which means it can be kept up to date when data and information changes.
3. Reporting on progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 is done in three ways:
a) Six-monthly updates (of which this report is the second)
b) Annual Monitoring Reports (the July 2019 Monitoring Report is included as Attachment A)
c) Three Yearly Progress Reports (providing detailed analysis of measures and additional data – due in 2020)
4. This second six-monthly update on the Auckland Plan covers:
· central government reforms and initiatives that indicate the plan is providing a strong strategic direction for advocacy for Auckland Plan outcomes. Central government’s Budget 2019 contained a wellbeing approach and several new initiatives which aligned closely to the Auckland Plan. Recent adoption of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 is consistent with the Auckland Plan. The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill and legislation to create the urban development agency Kāinga Ora shows that central government are active in addressing matters of interest in the Auckland Plan, and these reforms offer opportunities to ensure alignment of central government with the Auckland Plan
· required changes to data and information contained in the plan following the release of the 2018 Serious and fatal injury data, RIMU’s climate change risk assessment series, and clarification of the sources utilised for certain data tables in the Development Strategy
· anticipated data changes in the plan when the 2018 Census data is released (and potential impacts of its delay).
5. The Auckland Plan 2050 – Annual Monitoring Report 2019 is Attachment A. It uses 33 measures to measure general progress and trends across the six outcomes and the Development Strategy of the plan. The report uses seven categories for reporting trends. At the time of reporting:
· eight measures had increasing positive trends
· two measures had increasing negative trends
· eleven measures with no significant change
· one had a decreasing positive trend
· one had a decreasing negative tend
· seven had insufficient data to establish a clear trend
· for the three modelled transport data measures no trend could be determined.
6. The Three Yearly Progress Report – due in 2020 – will provide detailed analysis of the trends identified in the annual monitoring report, drawing on additional data and context to explain the trends.
7. At the time of adopting the plan, the Planning Committee instructed staff to commence a process for developing a set of core targets in collaboration with central government to incorporate into the monitoring framework.
8. To achieve that objective, this report proposes working with central government and other key stakeholders through already established cross-sectoral working groups which could include the development of targets as an output.
a) receive the six-monthly update on the Auckland Plan 2050.
b) approve changes to the digital Auckland Plan 2050 as set out in the report.
c) receive the Auckland Plan 2050 – Annual Monitoring Report July 2019.
9. The Auckland Plan 2050 is a 30-year spatial plan for Auckland adopted in June 2018 (PLA/2018/62).
10. The legislation for the Auckland Plan sets out the requirements for implementing the plan. It must:
· enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland
· provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council
· identify policies, priorities, land allocations and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction and specify how resources will be provided to implement the strategic direction.
11. The plan is a digital plan. This report sets out central government reforms and initiatives underway that are relevant to the plan, and ways that the data in the plan is being kept up to date.
12. The Annual Monitoring Report (Attachment A) supports the evidence base of the plan by identifying trends across the six outcomes and Development Strategy.
13. The Three Yearly Progress Report – due in 2020 – will provide detailed analysis of the trends identified in the Annual Monitoring Report, drawing on additional data and context to explain the trends.
Six-monthly update
14. This report is the second six-monthly update and covers changes that impact on Auckland’s context or any new data or information that may have an impact on the plan and its implementation. The content from this update will be made available on the ‘what’s new’ section of the digital plan website. Any developments or events that could have a significant impact on the plan would be brought to committee as they arise.
Reforms and initiatives since adoption of the plan
15. There has been activity relevant to the Auckland Plan 2050 since its adoption. This includes:
· central government legislative reforms
· announcement and delivery of new programmes
· adoption of plans and strategies by Auckland Council.
16. This section of the report provides a summary of that activity and what it means for Auckland and the Auckland Plan. This activity will be reported in the “what’s new” section of the website with the updates to the digital plan.
17. Central government’s Budget 2019 seeks to measure government progress against GDP alongside five ‘wellbeing’ priorities. There is strong alignment between central government’s selected ‘wellbeing’ priorities and the Auckland Plan outcomes, making it likely central government investment will be delivered in ways which helps implement the Auckland Plan. A number of these initiatives will be covered in future updates as they are implemented, however some key initiatives to note include:
· An expansion of the Housing First programme. This will increase the number of people this programme delivers for in Auckland. The actual number of extra funded people and families for Auckland is being determined over the next few months by central government working with providers and stakeholders. This programme is key in the implementation of the Homes and Places outcome.
· $12 million to support innovative, community-led initiatives to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever among Māori and Pasifika people and to support better management of the illness. This initiative is focused on Auckland as two thirds of rheumatic fever cases occur here. This announcement aligns with the direction set in Belonging and Participation Direction 2: Improve health and wellbeing for all Aucklanders by reducing harm and disparities in opportunities.
· In response to the He Ara Oranga report into mental health and wellbeing the Government will "significantly" increase access to publicly-funded mental health and addiction services for people with mild to moderate and moderate to severe mental health and addiction needs and will establish a mental health commission. This announcement also aligns with the direction set in Belonging and Participation Direction 2: Improve health and wellbeing for all Aucklanders by reducing harm and disparities in opportunities.
· The Government will spend $320 million over four years on a package of initiatives aimed preventing family and sexual violence and breaking the cycle of violence. The funding will deliver more support services to more New Zealanders, major campaigns aimed at stopping violence occurring and major changes to court process to reduce the trauma victims' experience. This programme supports implementation of the Belonging and Participation outcome.
· Expansion of the Pacific Employment Support Service to reduce the rate of Pacific young people Not in Employment, Education or Training. This expansion aligns with the direction set in Opportunity and Prosperity Focus Area 5: Increase educational achievement, lifelong learning and training, with a focus on those most in need.
· Investigating a Green Transport Card to make public transport more affordable for low-income households. The implementation of such a scheme would support implementation of the Transport and Access Focus Area 4: Make walking, cycling and public transport preferred choices for many more Aucklanders.
18. Central government has commenced work in several areas of importance to Auckland that indicate the plan is providing a strong strategic direction for advocacy for the outcomes in the Auckland Plan on behalf of Aucklanders:
· Adoption of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 introduces minimum standards for rental properties in terms of heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. These regulations will apply from 1 July 2019, with compliance being required between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2024, depending on the category and tenure of the rental accommodation.
· Passing of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Act 2019. As well as reintroducing the four wellbeings in the purpose statement of local government, this legislation also broadens the classes of assets that development contributions can be gathered for. Expansion of what development contributions can be used for allows for a greater investment in the long-term plan to deliver on the Auckland Plan.
· The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament in early May. It is now being considered by the Environment Select Committee. The intended purpose of this bill is to provide a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies that contribute to the global effort under the Paris agreement. The bill would set greenhouse gas reduction targets into law. The bill’s proposed reduction target of 1.5◦C is the same as Auckland’s regional target (since November last year) and is the same target that is proposed for Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework.
· Central government has introduced legislation to create an urban development authority, Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities. The stated objective of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities is to contribute to sustainable, inclusive, and thriving communities. It will have two key functions – being a public housing landlord, and leading and co-ordinating urban development projects. This first bill establishes the new entity by disestablishing Housing New Zealand, and its development subsidiary HLC (Homes, Land, Community), and putting the assets of those two disestablished entities into the new Crown entity. In addition, the bill proposes to transfer certain functions of the current KiwiBuild Unit to Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities. A second bill later this year will propose to give the entity enabling development powers which it can choose to utilise when undertaking urban development in specified development areas. Exactly what those powers are will not be known until the second bill is introduced but previous announcements have suggested those powers could include planning, consenting, land acquisition, rating, funding and infrastructure delivery.
19. Auckland Council has recently adopted several strategies and plans which support implementation of the Auckland Plan outcomes. Links with descriptions of their role will be added to the digital copy of the Auckland Plan as supporting strategies and plans:
· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019 was adopted in March 2019. This statutory plan under the Biosecurity Act supports the implementation of the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome by seeking to protect Auckland’s priority ecosystems, threatened species and primary production by setting objectives and rules to manage over 400 pests in the region.
· The Auckland Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy was released in March 2019. This strategy supports the implementation of the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome by establishing a clear framework to protect and grow Auckland’s urban ngahere.
Keeping the digital Auckland Plan up to date
20. One benefit of the digital Auckland Plan is that it can be kept up to date when data and information that has informed the plan changes. The plan takes a 30-year view and therefore changes in data are not expected to drive a change in strategic direction at this stage.
21. The plan needs to be updated to reflect new sets of information and data released since it was adopted and last updated:
• 2018 Serious and fatal injury data
The 2018 data was extracted from the Transport Agency Crash Analysis System (CAS). The CAS records all traffic crashes as reported to the Transport Agency by the NZ Police. The digital version will be changed to incorporate the updated graph which includes this new data.
• RIMU’s climate change risk assessment series
This series of reports was commissioned in support of the Auckland Climate Action Framework (ACAF). The series of eight reports provides information about the risk and vulnerabilities Auckland may face from climate change. The reports consider various components of key risks – hazard, exposure and vulnerabilities. The following five technical reports will be added to the Auckland Plan evidence in the digital version, with a further three technical reports to be added in future updates.
· Development of the Auckland Heat Vulnerability Index. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/013
· Air quality and societal impacts from predicted climate change in Auckland. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/012
· An assessment of vulnerability to climate change in Auckland. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/011
· Climate change risk assessment for terrestrial species and ecosystems in the Auckland region. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/015
· Climate change risk and vulnerability assessment for marine and freshwater ecosystems. Auckland Council technical report, TR2019/014
• Development strategy updates
In response to feedback from central government, footnotes will be added in the digital version of the plan to make clear the sources of information for several tables in the Development Strategy. The updates will apply to the following sections:
· Anticipated growth in population and dwellings (2018 -2048)
· Anticipated timeframe of development in existing urban area
· Anticipated development and employment capacities and timing for future urban areas
· Anticipated development and employment capacities and timing for future urban areas – rural settlements
· Node – City Centre
· Node – Albany
· Node – Westgate
· Node – Manukau
· Node – Warkworth
· Node – Pukekohe
· Development Areas
· Remaining existing urban area.
22. Further changes to data and information in the Auckland Plan are anticipated as follows.
· Census 2018
Due to the low response rate necessitating supplementing the census data with additional data sets, Stats New Zealand has delayed the release of Census 2018 data from March 2019 until late September 2019. Census data will be released in stages and so regional and other demographic breakdowns will be released sometime after this, with population modelling currently being estimated to be available in mid-2020. Stats NZ has also confirmed that due to low response rates it will not be reporting Iwi affiliation as an official statistic. It is possible that there will be other metrics which will also now not be reported at all or as official statistics, but this is subject to confirmation.
This could have impacts on release of long-term growth projections for Auckland which is one of the key assumptions of our 10-year budget. The projections determine the provision of services and infrastructure we need and inform the proposed funding approaches for these. As the new data is released, staff will review it against the Auckland Plan and make the necessary adjustments to data, infographics and related text. These changes will be reported in an upcoming six month update.
· Te Kupenga 2018
This is a national survey of Māori wellbeing conducted by Stats NZ. It is due to be released after the initial census results are released in late September. This may require adjustments to related data, infographics, and text.
Auckland Plan 2050 monitoring
Auckland Plan Annual Monitoring Report
23. This is the first Annual Monitoring Report since the adoption of the plan in June 2018. It follows on from the 2018 Auckland Plan baseline measures report presented to this Committee on 27 November 2018.
24. The Auckland Plan 2050 – Annual Monitoring Report 2019, uses 33 measures to measure general progress and trends across the six outcomes and the Development Strategy of the plan.
25. The monitoring framework is a work in progress, but good progress has been made since the baseline report was presented to Committee in November 2018 as demonstrated by the table below:
Measures with established baselines
Measures with identified data sets, but data is not yet available
2 (pending release of census data)
Measures that require further development of data sets
3 (Environment and Cultural Heritage)
1 (Māori Identity and Wellbeing Measure 1 - whānau wellbeing)
New measure needed
26. The measures table above will continue to change over time as the availability and quality of data improves. Anticipated areas of improvement are:
· Belonging and Participation – commitment by central government to measuring wellbeing may provide improved and more standardised measures in this area.
· Māori Identity and Wellbeing - Stats NZ through their work, “Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand – Ngā Tūtohu Aotearoa” are developing a measure for ‘intergenerational transfer of knowledge” which should help to measure components of whānau wellbeing.
· Homes and Places – development of a more robust monitoring framework for measuring homelessness is being proposed through the Auckland cross-sectoral leadership homelessness group.
· Transport and Access – Auckland Council (with Auckland Transport), Ministry of Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency are working on the development of an agreed set of transport measures that uses actual data to measure regional transport benefits resulting from the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
· Environment and Cultural Heritage – development of the Auckland Unitary Plan monitoring framework currently underway should help provide more current and robust data.
27. At the time of reporting the following trends were evident across each of the outcomes:
· Belonging and Participation - people’s sense of community, safety, health and overall quality of life is the same or improving.
· Māori Identity and Wellbeing – little change across the measures.
· Homes and Places – housing supply is increasing, and the typology of dwellings being built is changing as the number of attached dwellings increases as a percentage of total new builds. Housing costs as a percentage of household income remains high along with homelessness and severe housing deprivation.
· Transport and Access – transport costs as a percentage of household costs remains stable. While there was a reduction in 2018, combined serious injuries and fatalities have shown a rising trend since 2012.
· Environment and Cultural Heritage – native land-based ecosystems are relatively stable, stream water quality is declining although lake and coastal environments are showing signs of improvement. Air quality based on pollutants is improving as is green-house gas emissions on a per-capita basis, although total green-house gas volume continues to increase.
· Opportunity and Prosperity – Auckland’s economy remains relatively strong but there are groups consistently lagging behind the regional average in terms of wages, education and employment.
28. The Annual Monitoring Report uses a fixed set of 33 measures to report on trends. The measures should not change, however the supporting data sets can if they add value and robustness to the measure. The 3-yearly progress report will use additional data sets as necessary to support the more detailed analysis of trends to provide a greater richness and context to reporting.
Auckland Plan Targets
29. As part of the 5 June 2018 Planning Committee resolution (PLA/2018/62) to adopt the Auckland Plan 2050, the committee agreed to commence the process of developing a set of core targets in collaboration with central government.
30. A political working group was established to provide staff with guidance and timely advice through what was anticipated to be fast paced discussions with central government across the four areas of housing, transport, natural environment and social inclusion. To date central government have not engaged formally in a process to develop targets as it is not part of their work programme. Staff therefore propose a different approach.
31. The revised approach recommends that existing and/or evolving processes with central government and other key stakeholders are used for developing shared targets. This includes development of strategies/plans and major projects which would provide the following advantages:
· council’s formal commitment to secure and maintain the ongoing support of stakeholders is already established
· targets are based on thorough analysis and co-design resulting in a greater understanding of key stakeholder needs
· clearer ownership of targets that is likely to be closer to the source of implementation leading to clearer KPIs and actions
· reinforces alignment between supporting strategies, plans and projects to the Auckland Plan.
32. The following table provides a summary of current relevant work and its status:
Through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity we have an agreed minimum target of 408,300 dwellings over the next 30 years. (This number has been incorporated into the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement)
Agreed – central government and council
Central government’s Housing and Urban Development agenda - Council has been working with central government on improving the pace and scale of housing delivery across Auckland.
This work is ongoing and has the potential to determine further housing targets with council.
Working Group currently developing set of agreed measures. Targets are not part of the current discussions but could potentially be introduced.
Turning the Tide – from Cars to Active Transport.
A working group looking at the change required in terms of increasing active transport numbers to deliver health benefits.
Staff have committed to working further with members of the Turning the Tide working group, which includes investigating targets required to meet national active transport objectives.
Auckland’s Climate Action Framework
Auckland Transport have committed to emissions reduction through providing greater transport choice by transitioning to electric buses. These discussions could lead to the identification of targets.
Council is required to maintain or improve water quality. Implementation targets will need to be set in discussion with central government for achieving the desired levels required by 2040.
Auckland Council has committed the region to a target aligned with the net zero emissions intention of the Zero Carbon Bill. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework is meant as the main framework for delivering on this emissions reduction target, as well as increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change impacts, through local action plans.
Auckland Council became a member of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) in 2015, a strategic global network of over 90 cities working together to reduce GHG emissions and climate risks. In 2018 the council recommitted to membership of C40. The main component of the council’s commitment are the aims of Deadline 2020 which says that temperature increases must be held to a rise of no more than 1.5 Celsius.
Auckland cross-sectoral leadership homelessness group
Monitoring framework currently under development with potential to introduce targets.
34. As targets are proposed from each of the workstreams above, staff will engage with the political working group to seek their feedback on targets proposed and their appropriateness for measuring progress on the Auckland Plan. Any decision would then be brought to the Planning Committee for approval.
35. There are also legacy targets from the Auckland Plan 2012 that council remains committed to such as “smoke-free by 2025” and “zero waste 2040”. The plans to achieve those targets are both referenced in Auckland Plan 2050.
36. Setting targets will require a collaborative approach based on thorough analysis and a greater understanding of key stakeholder needs and responsibilities.
37. The achievability of core targets developed for the Auckland Plan 2050 would most likely require a commitment of funding from council. For example, transport targets delivered by Auckland Transport may require additional funding to be set through the LTP process.
38. Of the 33 Auckland Plan measures the Local Board Services Department have identified 19 measures that may help develop and track the progress of local board plans.
39. Staff will work with Local Board Services to improve the alignment between the regional and local reporting of the Auckland Plan.
40. The availability and range of specific and enduring data sets for the Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome are relatively limited. There are new metrics being developed internal to council (Unitary Plan, Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta) and external to council (Stats NZ – Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Pou Matakana) that could potentially provide for more robust data sets. The Independent Māori Statutory Board, through the Māori Plan, continues to undertake work in this area that would further help to inform the Auckland Plan monitoring framework.
41. Input from the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat was fundamental to the development of the Māori Identity and Wellbeing – Whānau wellbeing measure. Their input and advice will also be sought once potential data-sets for that measure are identified.
42. The strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 is a key vehicle to support decision-making on council’s long-term plans. Staff are working to ensure that the programmes that have been funded through the current long-term plan are tracked to support better decision-making for the next long-term plan.
43. Inconsistencies in council’s reporting will reduce the ability to provide robust advice to decision-makers. The new long-term plan reporting initiative will help address this risk.
44. The Planning Committee will receive the following regular reporting on the Auckland Plan 2050:
· impacts on the content or implementation of the plan – reported six monthly, next report due February 2020
· Auckland Plan measures report, containing a commentary on observed trends – reported annually
· a three year ‘deep dive’ analysis report that uses the measures as well as additional data-sets to explain the trends. This will provide a stronger evidence base for decision making in time to help inform decision making on the next long-term plan – first report due in 2020.
July 2019 Auckland Plan Monitoring Report
Simon Randall - Team Leader Strategic Scanning
Richard Hughes – Principal Specialist Auckland Plan
Tanya Stocks - GFR Programme Manager
Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space (Covering report)
File No.: CP2019/11976
1. To identify options for using road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) as open space and to highlight some of the potential issues that could be involved.
2. To recommend the most appropriate mechanism(s) for investigating potential conversions of road reserve and unformed legal road to open space.
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 02 July 2019 Planning Committee meeting.
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - proposed private plan change request - Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote
File No.: CP2019/10248
1. To consider a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) from Homes Land Community (HLC) 2017 Limited to change the zone on 1367 square metres of land in Cadness Street, Northcote, from Open Space – Informal Recreation zone and public road to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone.
2. HLC 2017 Limited has made a private plan change request (plan change) to change the zone on 1367 square metres of land in Cadness Street, Northcote from Open Space – Informal Recreation zone and public road to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone. Refer to Attachment A (private plan change request).
3. The plan change will reflect land exchanges and acquisitions that have been agreed, to enable the development of a block of new housing as part of HLC’s ongoing Northcote redevelopment, and the reconfiguration and enlargement of Cadness Loop Reserve.
4. The plan change is signalled in the HLC development masterplan for the area and also the reference design plan for the Awataha Greenway, to which a reconfigured Cadness Loop Reserve will directly connect. HLC have already obtained superlot resource consents for new housing blocks to the north and east of the existing Cadness Loop Reserve. This proposed plan change will enable superlot consents to be sought for new housing to front the enlarged reserve on the south side.
5. The plan change requested does not however include the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zoned land immediately to the north adjacent to the land sought for a change of zone, where the enlarged reserve will occupy. It is proposed therefore to modify the plan change request to include the change of zone across this land from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone and public road to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone.
6. The council is required to make a decision under clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to either adopt the request as a council plan change, accept the plan change for processing, reject it, or require it to be subject to resource consent processes.
7. The council decision at this stage is largely a process one and does not involve a full evaluation of the merits of the plan change. However, part of the decision involves being satisfied that the request does not fail on grounds the Act sets out enabling its rejection: the most pertinent in this case is being ‘not contrary to sound resource management practice’.
8. An analysis has concluded that the plan change should not be rejected nor made subject to resource consent processes. It could be accepted by council as it stands. However, the recommendation is to adopt and modify the proposed plan change to include the change of zone on adjacent land to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone across a reconfigured and enlarged local reserve. This could not be achieved by accepting the plan change.
9. If the plan change is adopted, it will be prepared for notification, and then proceed to a hearing, at which point the detailed merits of the plan change will be fully evaluated.
a) agree to adopt the private plan change request by Homes Land Community (HLC) 2017 Limited for changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to change the zoning of an area of Open Space – Informal Recreation zone and public road to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone pursuant to clause 25(2)(a) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:
i) having regard to relevant case law the request does not meet the limited grounds for rejection under clause 25(4);
ii) it is more appropriate to adopt the request rather than ‘accept’ it or treat it as a resource consent application.
b) agree to modify the private plan change request to include a change of zone of an adjacent area of Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone and public road to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone pursuant to clause 24 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 in order to include the reconfiguration of an enlarged Cadness Loop Reserve in the proposed plan change.
c) authorise the Manager Planning North, West and Islands to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the Cadness Loop Reserve plan change request by HLC 2017 Ltd pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10. Cadness Loop Reserve is a local community park surrounded by roads and Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) housing in Cadness Street, Northcote. The reserve area is 1756 square metres and contains a basketball half-court and a children’s playground, with the balance grassed with a small number of trees. The reserve was first formed in the 1950s as part of the new state housing area in Northcote. It is 300 metres from Northcote town centre along Cadness Street and through Cadness Reserve. The reserve is shown circled in red in the aerial map in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – Location of Cadness Loop Reserve in Northcote
11. Northcote is undergoing housing and town centre redevelopment, through ongoing efforts of HLC and Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku). An area framework plan was approved in 2017 by HLC and Panuku for the general redevelopment layout of Northcote, followed by a housing development area masterplan by HLC.
12. HLC is presently undertaking the clearance of all existing buildings to the north and west of the site, as authorised under approved superlot subdivision consents. Existing HNZC housing stock remains to the south of the site as tenants are gradually relocated to facilitate future stages of the Northcote redevelopment.
13. Current development plans build on earlier concept and framework plans for the area, and a town centre plan, prepared by HNZC and the former North Shore City Council. These plans identified the importance of a new green link through the area, which became the Awataha Greenway project. The plans also indicate the opening up and connection of Cadness Loop Reserve to the greenway, in the general location of the plan change request. This reconfiguration is shown outlined in red on the greenway reference design plan at Figure 2, sourced from the Awataha Greenway Design Guide (Isthmus 2018) commissioned jointly by Panuku and HLC.
Figure 2 – Awataha Greenway reference design plan
14. Panuku and HLC have sponsored the design of the Awataha Greenway, extending from the south-west end of the Northcote redevelopment area, through Greenslade Reserve and the town centre to Tonar Street. A new road will extend from the southern end of Cadness Street along the existing boundary with the two local schools to Tonar Street.
15. Cadness Loop Reserve is zoned Open Space – Informal Recreation zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The surrounding housing area is Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone. Unzoned public road immediately surrounds the reserve on all sides. The zoning pattern for the area is shown below in Figure 3, with green Open Space – Informal Recreation zone at Cadness Loop Reserve circled in red, surrounded by public road (white) and orange THAB zone.
Figure 3 – Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) zone map for Northcote
Land exchange and acquisition
16. The Environment and Community Committee on 11 September 2018 resolved to publicly notify, under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977, the intention of the council to undertake a land exchange involving 525 square metres of Cadness Loop Reserve for 525 square metres of land at 68-82 Cadness Street, Northcote, owned by HNZC. The map below at Figure 4 shows the relevant parcels of land to be exchanged i.e. sections 5 and 7.
17. The land subject to the plan change request relates to sections 2 and 5 in Figure 4 below, shown in orange (Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone). The proposed land exchange will combine with acquisition of section 2 by HLC and section 4 by the council, along with required road stopping, to enable reconfiguration and enlargement of Cadness Loop Reserve from 1756 square metres to 3217 square metres.
Figure 4 – Proposed zone change plan (from private plan change request application)
18. Rezoning of sections of land to create the enlarged reserve (sections 1, 4 and 7 in Figure 4) would normally be undertaken through council-initiated rolling plan changes to take account for vested roads and reserves following subdivision. The next of these plan changes is not expected until the second half of 2020.
19. It is noted by HLC that a concurrent/future subdivision application by them will seek to realign existing roads that define the existing Cadness Loop Reserve, as shown in the current zone map from the Auckland Unitary Plan at Figure 3.
Statutory and planning context
20. The council is required to make a process decision under clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to either adopt the private plan change as a council plan change, accept it for processing, reject it, or require it to be subject to resource consent processes. Council is required to have particular regard to the evaluation report lodged with the application, setting out the purpose of, and reasons for the plan change.
21. This process decision does not involve a full evaluation of the planning merits of the provisions of the plan change (and its intended environmental outcomes). Primarily, the council must be satisfied that the plan does not fail on various grounds the Act sets out.
22. The Act provides that council may adopt the plan change as its own. This would generally only be appropriate where wider public interest factors are at stake, or significant public benefits might accrue, and the processing costs can justifiably be borne by the council. If adopted, the request has legal effect once publicly notified.
23. This plan change request is for the rezoning of land to enable more intensive housing development, now anticipated by the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, which is an outcome that has been supported by the council in this area over a number of years. The proposed change also recognises the land exchange agreements between the council and HNZC that will enable the housing development on the southern portion to the existing Cadness Loop Reserve, and the land acquisition that is required by HLC of public road that borders it to the south and west (sections 2 and 5 in Figure 4).
24. The plan change request does not include changes to the zoning on Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone land immediately to the north to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone, to recognise and enable the enlarged public open space of a reconfigured Cadness Loop Reserve (sections 1, 4 and 7 in Figure 4). This component has broader public interest value as part of the Northcote housing development and the Awataha Greenway project, and represents a significant addition to the amount of open space available to a growth area where there will be a substantial number of additional dwellings and residents.
25. Having regard to the significant public benefit that will result from the open space reconfiguration it is recommended that the council adopt the plan change and modify it to include sections 1, 4 and 7 in Figure 4, by changing the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone across section 4 and 7 to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone and zoning public road at section 1 to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone. Together with the land exchange and acquisition agreements that are progressing, this modification will enable the comprehensive land-use outcome sought for this part of the Northcote development masterplan, and the Awataha Greenway design plan.
26. At the other end of the spectrum is a ‘reject’ decision. The Act provides that the council may reject the plan change, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4) of the First Schedule to the Act. An applicant is able to appeal against a ‘reject’ decision to the Environment Court.
27. The limited and specific grounds for rejection of a requested plan change under clause 25(4) are:
a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or
b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:
i) has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or
ii) has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or
c) the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or
d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 (sustainable management); or
e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.
Is the request frivolous or vexatious?
28. The request is not considered frivolous or vexatious. It is part of a long-term comprehensive redevelopment planning programme and area-wide plan that has involved extensive stakeholder and community engagement over many years. It has been well researched and is supported by various technical reports prepared by experts in environmental planning. The purpose of, and reasons for, the plan change are considered by council staff to be aligned in principle with the strategic directions of the relevant planning documents.
Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the last two years or given effect to by regulations?
29. The Auckland Unitary Plan became substantially operative on 15 November 2016 and the request has not been considered (or given effect to or rejected) in the last two years, by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel or the council, nor given effect to by ‘regulations’.
Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice or would it make the policy statement or plan (i.e. the Auckland Unitary Plan) inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?
30. The key test in this case is whether the plan change is in accordance with sound resource management practice, or whether it would render the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with part 5 of the Act (sustainable management).
31. The statements in the plan change application that the proposal would give effect to the regional policy statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan are accepted by staff and council’s experts and are not disputed. The change of zone will support quality, compact development in the existing urban area close to a town centre and will facilitate through land exchange the increase in size and connectedness of Cadness Loop Reserve. This would particularly be the case should the change be adopted and modified to include a reconfigured and enlarged reserve.
32. The statements in the plan change application that the proposal would give effect to the THAB zone objectives and policies in the Auckland Unitary Plan are also accepted. It will enable additional residential development to locate close to a town centre in a comprehensive and integrated manner, coordinated with the provision of public infrastructure, connections and open space. The Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone is the prevalent zone around Northcote town centre and also surrounds the plan change site, therefore it is the most appropriate zone to be applied.
33. The plan change would also promote some key ‘directions’ and ‘focus areas’ of the newly adopted Auckland Plan 2050. The Auckland Plan identifies Northcote as a development area, expected to be developed for additional housing and employment growth in the short term between the years 2018-2021.
34. Accordingly, on a coarse merits assessment, the plan change request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice and consistent with part 5 of the Act.
Should the request be considered as if it were an application for resource consent?
35. The final consideration under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule to the Act is whether the request should be subject to resource consent processes. The proposal is for the rezoning of open space and also public road to an intensive residential zone that can enable comprehensive medium density development. It is part of an area-wide masterplan that establishes superlots that have been and will continue to be consented as they are brought forward in the development sequence.
36. Large, medium to long-term development schemes such as being undertaken by HLC in Northcote will occur in stages, such as this future housing block where the zone change is sought. This will be enabled and assessed by Auckland Unitary Plan provisions where each stage is subject to a resource consent application and detailed evaluation in terms of structuring elements, urban design criteria, and residential and open space amenity factors. A plan change is the appropriate process to set up this framework.
37. The conclusion therefore is that the plan change should be adopted so as to proceed to notification and a detailed assessment of its planning merits. It should also be modified to include land immediately adjacent to the north associated with an enlarged Cadness Loop Reserve (sections 1, 4 and 7 in Figure 4), in order to achieve a comprehensive zoning outcome for this location.
38. The relevant council departments and agencies, including Auckland Transport, have reviewed the requested plan change for adequacy of information and have not identified any issues at this stage. Furthermore, staff from Panuku Development Auckland, the Auckland Design Office, Development Programme Office and the Community & Social Policy Department have been involved in the design and development of the framework plans and masterplans that have identified the location of reconfigured blocks and reserves in Northcote, including Cadness Loop Reserve. These groups are supportive of the proposed plan change.
39. Bearing in mind that the committee’s decision is a process one and not a detailed merits or outcomes one, it is nevertheless appropriate to note that the applicant and council’s experts have identified that the plan change could have a range of generally positive potential environmental effects. All matters would be fully evaluated in the course of processing the plan change (if it is adopted).
40. The Kaipātiki Local Board has considered the plan change request. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Local Board have expressed their support for it. The Local Board has been informed and involved in the development of plans for the Northcote housing development at every stage since HLC initiated the development project in 2016.
41. The Kaipātiki Local Board will have the opportunity to comment on the merits of the plan change once it is notified (if it is adopted by the committee).
42. The applicant has been engaging with a mana whenua forum in relation to the Northcote development and the Awataha Greenway since 2017 and as part of the wider Northcote framework plan development with Panuku. The mana whenua forum involves representatives from Ngāti Whātua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Marutūahu and Ngāti Paoa.
43. The applicant has established partnership arrangements with mana whenua across their Auckland housing programme. These have been advanced through individual relationship agreements as well as collective and individual forums that meet regularly.
44. In terms of the Awataha Greenway project, which the Cadness Loop Reserve open space proposal connects with, the applicant has engaged in co-design with mana whenua as well as local stakeholders in conjunction with Panuku. The Te Aranga Māori design principles have formed a basis to the greenway reference design. Design input of mana whenua into the HLC housing masterplan has occurred at various points in the past two years and is continuing to progress.
45. The Act’s relatively new clause 4A to the First Schedule anticipates that a draft plan change will be pre-circulated to all mana whenua groups (iwi authorities) for comment, giving adequate time to consider the plan change before it is formally notified and submissions called for. This process will be followed in consultation with the applicant.
46. It is also anticipated that if the plan change is ‘adopted’ there will be discussions with the applicant about the extent to which Te Aranga Design Principles can be incorporated into the provisions of the plan change.
47. If the plan change is ‘adopted’ all costs of processing the plan change are normally borne by the council. In this case, given the benefits that will accrue to the applicant from a change in zoning, the council will seek to share some of the costs with the applicant.
48. There are not considered to be any significant risks other than Environment Court costs to council in the event of a ‘reject’ decision, as identified above.
49. If the recommendations to ‘adopt’ and to modify the plan change request are supported, council staff will work to prepare for notification. The Act provides four months for this. Following notification and submissions the matter proceeds to a hearing and a decision by independent commissioners appointed by the council’s Regulatory Committee. After resolving any appeals to the Environment Court, it will be reported back to the council for final confirmation and the setting of a ‘plan change operative’ date. The plan change if adopted will have immediate legal effect from the day it is notified.
Private Plan Change Request - Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote
Northcote Development - Urban Design Plan Change document
S32 Option Evaluation Table
Land exchange and scheme plans
Cadness Loop Reserve Private Plan Change - Transport Assessment
Cadness Loop Reserve Plan Change and Infrastructure
AT Board December 2018 resolutions - road stopping
Environment and Community Committee 12 March 2019 resolutions - land exchange
j⇩
HNZC land exchange agreement letter
k⇩
Cadness Loop Reserve plan change - consultation
l⇩
Northcote Masterplan engagement with mana whenua 1
m⇩
Northcote Masterplan engagement with mana whenua 2
n⇩
Land exchange consultation with Council
o⇩
Council advice on extent of plan change
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request from James Kirkpatrick Group Limited at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush
File No.: CP2019/07381
1. To consider the private plan change request from James Kirkpatrick Group Limited (the applicant) to rezone 9.34 hectares of land at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
2. This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 19 November 2018 from James Kirkpatrick Group Limited. The request seeks to rezone 9.34ha of land at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The request also seeks to introduce new precinct provisions over the subject site.
3. Under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the council is required to make a decision that either:
a) 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
b) 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
c) 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
d) decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).
4. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) and notified for submissions.
a) accept the private plan change request by James Kirkpatrick Group Limited for the rezoning of land (comprising 9.34 ha) at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush included as Attachment A to the agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:
i) having regard to relevant case law the request does not meet the limited grounds for rejection under clause 25(4); and
ii) it is more appropriate to accept the request than 'adopt' it or treat it as a resource consent application.
b) delegate authority to the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by James Kirkpatrick Group Limited pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991.
5. The site subject to the request is located at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush, at the corner of Ormiston Road and Te Irirangi Drive (refer to Figure 1). The subject site contains an area of 9.34 hectares and is currently vacant and grassed. The land is generally flat, with a gentle slope towards the northern boundary.
6. The subject site comprises six vacant lots recently created by an approved subdivision consent. All of the lots have access from Florence Carter Avenue and respectively front Ormiston Road to the north, Te Irirangi Drive to the east and Rongomai Park to the south.
7. To the north of the sites, on the opposite side of Ormiston Rd, is an area of sites zoned Mixed Use, described as the Bishop Lenihan Place subdivision. All of these sites have been developed with predominantly 1-2 level buildings used for retail, commercial and industrial uses.
8. Diagonally across from Te Irirangi Drive is an area of land zoned Open Space covered in native bush, centred by a stream.
9. Across Te Irirangi Drive to the east is land zoned Business – Local Centre, known as the ‘Botany Junction’ shopping centre. The centre contains several two-storey retail/commercial buildings and ancillary parking. Immediately to the east and south of this shopping centre are several three-storey apartment buildings, with a Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone. To the south-east the area is zoned Mixed Housing Urban.
10. To the south is Rongomai Park, zoned Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation zone, and currently used as sports fields.
11. To the west, running for approximately 700m, sites on both the north and south of Ormiston Road are zoned Light Industry, with a wide range of uses from childcare centres to industrial uses.
Figure 1: Locality Plan – plan change area in yellow
Private Plan Change Request
12. The request was lodged on 19 November 2018 (see Attachment A) and seeks to rezone 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use.
13. The request seeks to establish a Business – Mixed Use zone which according to the applicant aims ‘to provide an appropriately scaled mixed use centre, with a range of supporting activities that are complementary, well designed and integrated with the surrounding area’. The request also seeks to introduce new precinct provisions over the subject site. The precinct provisions would limit the gross floor areas for retail, office and commercial services in order to avoid adverse effects to nearby centres, provide for an additional height variation control within the precinct that will change the existing 20m height limit to between 20m and 28m and to manage any potential transport effects should they arise. These precinct provisions will apply to the entirety of the rezoning request.
14. The proposed rezoning of land at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Existing zones under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – plan change area in red
Figure 3: Proposed rezoning under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) – plan change area in red
15. The applicant has provided documentation relating to the following in support of the request:
· Private Plan Change Request
· Certificates of Title
· Section 32 evaluation report
· Integrated Transport Assessment
· Economic impact assessment
· Urban Design Statement
· Acoustic Assessment
· Infrastructure and flood report
· Ecology report
16. The subject sites are also subject to a number of approved land use resource consents and whilst unimplemented, do provide for a wide range of activities, including traveller’s accommodation, a hotel, retail and office activities. These consents are still valid at this time. As such, the request is also seeking through this plan change to bring the zoning of the subject site into better alignment with the existing approved consents and likely future use of the subject sites.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Following requests from council for further information, additional information was received on 15 March 2019 in relation to planning, urban design, transport and economics matters. At the time of preparing this report the council and the applicant are in the process of finalising the outcomes of the additional information requests in relation to transport matters. None of the information requested is material to this stage of the plan change process. The information being sought is primarily to further refine the specificity of the precinct and to provide a reasonable degree of certainty for how effects can be managed.
20. 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.
21. 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:
a) 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
b) 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
22. See Attachment B for the full wording of the clauses that make up Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
23. 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 private plan change request, in whole or in part (clause 25(4))
24. 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.
25. The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
i. has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or
ii. has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or
d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or
26. The private plan change request contains a comprehensive section 32 report evaluation, including an assessment of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) objectives and policies, and a sufficiently detailed assessment of environmental effects. The request is also accompanied by a range of specialist assessments in relation to the key matters considered to be material to the request, including transport, economic effects and urban design/landscape. The request enables the nature of the plan change and its effects to be reasonably understood.
27. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.
Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the last two years?
28. 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. A similar request (to rezone the same land to the Business – General Business Zone) was considered during the Auckland Unitary Plan hearings process.
29. However, it has been more than two years since the council made its decisions in response to the recommendations made by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.
30. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?
31. 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 land from a business zone to another business zone does not relate to section 360A of the RMA.
32. It is therefore recommended that the council not reject the request on the basis of this ground of rejection.
Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?
33. 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. "
34. The applicant has considered the zoning options for the site and concluded that the proposed rezoning along with the introduction of new precinct provisions will result in a mixed use development which makes a positive contribution to the existing mixed business and 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).
32. The request includes a number of specialist reports, which all support the proposed plan change. Council has consulted Auckland Transport, Healthy Waters and Watercare and engaged experts to consider the plan change. While there are aspects of the private plan change request that need to be tested through the submission and hearings process, the scope and extent of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered at this stage.
35. 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.
Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?
36. 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.
37. 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.
Has the district plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?
38. 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.
39. 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.
Option 2 - Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
40. 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 site from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use zone and introduce precinct provisions to manage use and development. It is considered that the most appropriate process for achieving rezoning for this mixed-use development of the site is through a plan change process.
41. It is therefore recommended that the council not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.
Option 3 - Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council itself
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
Option 4 - 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.
48. 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 staff would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing.
49. 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 that the cost of any infrastructure upgrades that are required would need to be met by the applicant.
50. Auckland Transport has reviewed the private plan change request and has not reported any fundamental constraints which would prevent the plan change from being accepted. AT has provided detailed feedback and identified several transport issues where further information will be required. Auckland Transport will review the response when it is available and will continue to be involved in the plan change process.
51. Healthy Waters has been sent a copy of the private plan change and accompanying infrastructure assessment for review. No issues of concern have been raised.
Local impacts and local board views 52. The site subject to the request is located within the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area. The views of both the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Howick Local Boards (due to close proximity to the subject site) were sought on the private plan change request following lodgment of the plan change with council.
53. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board provided a memo to Council dated 12 December 2018, noting their support for the private plan change. In providing their support the board has requested consideration on the following matters:
· Provision of community spaces (eg hall and pocket parks)
· Provision of easy public access and interface between this development and Rongomai Park, including good design on the boundary
· Public transport requirements - if this is to be a retail and residential area then public transport must be factored into the design, flowing through the development, and future proofing for Te Irirangi light rail
· (Advocacy) Encourage the group to recruit locals for the range of jobs that the development will create (across the range, not just in construction). This may not be a planning issue/requirement but is something the local board would like to strongly advocate for and communicate to this applicant as it will meet identified needs in the local community in this area.
· Impact of proposed height on Rongomai Park specifically in relation to blocking light/shadow. The local board would oppose a height that would diminish the public use of the park
54. A number of the above matters are outside the scope of what can be considered under this request whilst others have been adequately addressed through the range of specialist assessments accompanying this request. Notwithstanding this position the applicant has advised that they have made a commitment to meet with the Local Board once all submissions are received: this will be honoured once they get to that position.
55. No comments have been received from the Howick Local Board.
56. 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
58. The applicant has advised that it has engaged 11 iwi groups (see below). The proposed rezoning information including plans were sent to the iwi groups via email, providing an opportunity for queries and feedback on 17 September 2018, before the plan change request was lodged with the council.
Mana Whenua Group
Defer to other Mana Whenua groups
Defer to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
Te Ākitai Waiohua
Waikato - Tainui
59. 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.
60. If accepted, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.
61. 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.
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.
Private Plan Change Request Report
Excerpt from Clause 25 RMA
Michael Luong - principal planner
Request to make Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) operative in part
File No.: CP2019/11035
1. To make operative in part Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part).
2. In November 2017, the Planning Committee approved the proposed Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) Plan Change (Plan Change 10) for public notification (PLA/2017/144). Plan Change 10 seeks to amend a number of historic heritage places identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) (the Unitary Plan) Historic Heritage Overlay. The amendments correct errors and update place information for 146 historic heritage places.
3. Plan Change 10 was notified on 25 January 2018. Submissions were heard in November 2018. The independent hearings commissioners released their decisions, and these were publicly notified on 21 March 2019. The period for lodging appeals has closed. One appeal has been received on Plan Change 10. The appeal is from the Auckland Hebrew Congregation and relates only to the Auckland Synagogue and community centre at 108-116 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central.
4. There are three historic heritage places included in Plan Change 10 that are located (in part) in the Coastal Marine Area. These places are subject to the regional coastal plan provisions of the Unitary Plan. Section 28 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires approval from the Minister for Conservation before provisions relating to these places are made operative. The committee can adopt the proposed amendments to these three historic heritage places and refer these to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
5. The proposed amendments to the remaining 142 historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 are submitted to the Committee for approval. An index of these historic heritage places is included in Attachment A to this report.
6. Staff recommend that Plan Change 10 be made operative in part except for:
· proposed amendments subject to appeal
· proposed amendments to the part of the historic heritage places located in the Coastal Marine Area and therefore subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, identified in Attachment B.
7. Both the appeal and the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places located (in part) in the Costal Marine Area are discrete issues. These parts of Plan Change 10 will be made operative separately, at a later date.
a) approve the proposed amendments under Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) that are not subject to appeal or subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, being the proposed amendments to the 142 historic heritage places set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.
b) adopt proposed amendments to the historic heritage places subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan, set out in Attachment B to the agenda report, and refer to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
c) request the General Manager, Plans and Places to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make operative in part Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part).
d) request the General Manager, Plans and Places to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the parts of Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan operative once they are approved by the Minister of Conservation.
8. Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update) seeks to amend a number of historic heritage places in the Auckland Unitary Plan (the Unitary Plan). These places are identified in the Historic Heritage Overlay, and Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The amendments correct errors and update place information for 146 historic heritage places.
9. An index of the historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 is Attachment A.
10. In November 2017 the committee approved Plan Change 10 for public notification (PLA/2017/144). Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) sets out the process for a change in a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the Act, Plan Change 10 was:
· publicly notified on 25 January 2018
· open for public submissions until 8 March 2018, with submissions for identified owners / occupiers open for submissions until 24 July 2018
· open for further submissions until 4 May 2018
· heard by independent commissioners for one day in November 2018
· publicly notified the decisions from the independent commissioners on 21 March 2019.
11. The independent commissioners were delegated the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 10 by the Regulatory Committee in May 2019 (REG/2018/46).
12. The Plan Change 10 decisions are available on the council’s website. The decisions supported the position of Council at the hearing, with the exception of one recommendation.
13. The period for lodging any appeals in the Environment Court has closed and one appeal on Plan Change 10 was received, from the Auckland Hebrew Congregation, outlined below.
14. There are three historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 that are located (in part) in the Coastal Marine Area and therefore subject to regional coastal plan provisions. These places are identified in Attachment B. Amendments to regional coastal plan provisions cannot be made operative until these are approved by the Minister of Conservation.
15. Staff recommend that Plan Change 10 be made operative in part except for:
16. The proposed amendments to the remaining 142 historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 are submitted to the Committee for approval.
17. Both the appeal and the proposed amendments to the historic heritage places located (in part) in the Coastal Marine Area are discrete issues. These parts of Plan Change 10 will be made operative separately, at a later date.
Appeal from the Auckland Hebrew Congregation
18. The Auckland Hebrew Congregation’s appeal relates to the identification of the Auckland Synagogue and community centre at 108-116 Greys Avenue (Unitary Plan Schedule 14.1, ID#01965), being a Category B historic heritage place within the Historic Heritage Overlay. The Congregation seeks to amend the identified heritage values, amend the extent of place, and include more extensive exclusions for the exterior and interior of the Synagogue.
Regional coastal plan amendments require approval by the Minister of Conservation
17. There are three historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 that are located (in part) in the Coastal Marine Area and are therefore subject to the regional coastal plan provisions. These places are identified in Attachment B.
18. As per section 28 of the Act, any amendments to the regional coastal plan will require the approval of the Minister of Conservation before these can be made operative.
19. The committee can adopt the regional coastal plan amendments and refer these to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
20. As this report is procedural in nature, no further analysis and advice is required.
21. As part of Plan Change 10, submissions were received from Auckland Transport and Panuku Development Auckland. Following discussions, both submissions were subsequently withdrawn and neither organisation were part of the formal process of Plan Change 10.
22. As part of Plan Change 10, local boards were advised of the public notification and were invited to provide feedback. No formal feedback was given on Plan Change 10.
23. As part of the development of Plan Change 10, staff:
· sent a letter to all 19 iwi authorities in July 2017 to signal that the proposed plan change was in the pipeline and to determine interest in consulting on this plan change
· sent the draft proposed plan change in September 2017 for feedback in accordance with Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Act.
24. Four iwi authorities responded (Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust, Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust, and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei) seeking further information, which was provided. Council staff met representatives from Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust to discuss the draft proposed plan change. No amendments were sought to the draft proposed plan change during these discussions.
25. No submissions were received from iwi authorities during the public notification process.
26. There are no financial implications associated with making this plan change operative.
27. There are no risks associated with making this plan change operative.
28. Proposed amendments under Plan Change 10 are currently annotated as such in the Unitary Plan (text and maps). Staff will incorporate amendments from Plan Change 10 into the Unitary Plan (text and maps) and remove/ amend annotations by 12 July 2019. Proposed amendments subject to appeal and regional coastal plan provisions awaiting ministerial approval will remain annotated until these are resolved and approved, respectively.
29. The part of Plan Change 10 that is subject to the regional coastal plan will be sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
Index of historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10
Historic heritage places subject to Plan Change 10 that are subject to the provisions of the regional coastal plan
Megan Patrick - Principal Advisor Special Projects
Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 2 July 2019
File No.: CP2019/10354
1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been distributed to committee members.
2. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.
Update on the Paturoa Road Tree
Auckland Unitary Plan Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential
Supporting Growth Programme Update - CONFIDENTIAL
St James Update June 2019
Options for Protection of the Paturoa Road kauri Trees
4. The following workshops and briefing information is attached:
Workshop/Briefing
Planning Committee/Finance and Performance Committee Joint Workshop: Unlock Northcote Programme Description and Indicative Financials – CONFIDENTIAL
Counties Manukau DHB Plans for Catchment - CONFIDENTIAL
City Centre Masterplan Refresh Workshop Minutes
5. Note that 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.
6. The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 2 July 2019 > Extra Attachments
a) receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings –
Update on the Paturoa Road Tree (Under Separate Cover)
Auckland Unitary Plan Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential (Under Separate Cover)
City Centre Masterplan Refresh Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
Memo - St James Update June 2019
Memo - Options for Protection of the Paturoa Road Kauri Trees
Kalinda Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor