Governing Body - Unitary Plan Feb 16

8/20/2019 Governing Body - Unitary Plan Feb 16

1/106

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Wednesday, 24 February 2016 2.00pm Reception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Governing BodyOPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor Len Brown, JP Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Councillors Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Dick Quax

Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Wayne Walker Cr Ross Clow Cr John Watson Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Penny Webster Cr Chris Darby Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Alf FilipainaCr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSOCr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeCr Calum Penrose

(Quorum 11 members)

Elaine StephensonDemocracy Advisor

23 February 2016

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/106


3/106

Governing Body

24 February 2016

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

10 City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update 5

11 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's current position onthe zoning maps 73


4/106


5/106

I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016

City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update Page 5

City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update

File No.: CP2016/02691

Purpose1. To provide an update on developments relating to the City Rail Link (CRL) and the Auckland

Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP), and authorise the negotiation with Government ofa joint business plan for the CRL project.

Executive Summary2. On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s support for, and intent

to part fund, the CRL.

3. The next step is for Council and the Government to negotiate a joint business plan for theproject.

4. On 19 February 2016, the ‘Foundation Report’ for ATAP was released. This report providesthe framework for the remainder of the project which will provide advice on interventionpackages in April 2016 and a final report including recommendations regardingimplementation in July 2016.

Recommendation/sThat the Governing Body:

a) receive an update on the Government's position on the City Rail Link and relatednext steps.

b) authorise the Mayor, Cr Bill Cashmore and chief executives of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to negotiate a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with theGovernment for adoption by the Governing Body.

c) receive an update on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

DiscussionCity Rail Link

5. In November 2015, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that the Government confirm thenature and timing of its funding contribution to the CRL. On 27 January 2016, the PrimeMinister confirmed his Government's support for the CRL by announcing that it wouldfomalise its funding commitment by bringing forward work on the joint business plan for theproject to 2016.

6. This commitment of funding from the Government provides the certainty to Council and Auckland Transport to progress the project, based on the time frame set out in the 2015Long Term Plan.

7. As a result of the Government's funding confirmation there are a range of details that nowneed to be confirmed with the Government regarding the project. The issues to benegotiated are expected to include ownership, governance, project risk and funding details.


6/106

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016


8. The Government has proposed that the business plan largely be confined to the mattersabove, as opposed to it representing a wholesale rework of the analysis and detail of theproject that has previously been undertaken. The amount of work that Council has alreadyundertaken on the project and related issues will position us well for these negotiations.

9. To advance this work there will need to be continued discussions at a governance-level, withthe Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport and at an officers-level led,from Council's perspective, by the chief executives of the Auckland Council and AucklandTransport.

ATAP Foundation Report

10. The Budget Committee, at its 7 May 2015 meeting, resolved the following in relation toengaging with the Government on alternative transport funding (BUD/2015/10):

"that the Mayor and Chief Executive engage with the government to enable theimplementation of an alternative funding system by 2018/2019 to fund the implementationof the Auckland Plan Transport Network for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028"

11. On 27 August 2015, the Minister of Transport joined with me to release the terms ofreference for the ATAP process. The focus of the project was to improve the alignmentbetween Council and the Government regarding Auckland's transport programme in order toadvance the following broad objectives:

To support economic growth and increased productivity by ensuring access toemployment/labour improves relative to current levels as Auckland's population grows

To improve congestion results, relative to predicted levels, in particular travel time andreliability in the peak period and to ensure congestion does not become widespreadduring working hours

To improve public transport's mode share, relative to predicted results, where it willaddress congestion

To ensure any increases in the financial costs of using the transport system deliver netbenefits to users of the system

12. Since that time the partners in the project (Ministry of Transport, The Treasury, StateServices Commission, NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport)have worked closely and collaboratively to advance the first deliverable of the project, the"ATAP Foundation Report" which was released by the Minister of Transport, Hon SimonBridges and myself on Friday 19 February.

13. The Foundation Report (a copy of which is appended as Attachment A) provides anoverview of the context, problem definition includes the following information:

A summary of Auckland's current transport situation, including recent trends and how Auckland compares with similar cities internationally

An outline of future trends that will impact on Auckland's transport system, includinggrowth changing land-use and travel trends

An evaluation framework to test an intervention's (or combination of interventions)contribution to desired outcomes

A presentation and description of key issues for future stages of the project to focus on.


7/106

I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016


14. The foundation report provides a framework through which intervention packages can bedeveloped and assessed. This work will result in a further two deliverables for the project,specifically:

Initial advice reporting on the development, testing and evaluation of broad interventionpackages - April 2016.

A final report detailing the best performing intervention packages the related preferredstrategic approach and recommendations regarding implementation - July 2016.

15. By achieving agreement on the optimal transport programme for Auckland, ATAP willprovide for Council and Government to discuss and agree a sustainable long-term fundingmodel for transport infrastructure. This in turn will conclude the almost five years of work thatCouncil has undertaken on alternative funding sources for transport infrastructure.

Consideration

Local Board Views

16. Both the CRL and ATAP are regional in their impacts.

17. The CRL is designed to increase the transport system’s ability to move people to and fromthe region’s business and entertainment centre.

18. ATAP is designed to review and agree on the significant elements of the entire region’s landtransport planning from 2018 onwards.

Māori Impact Statement

19. Impact on Māori is expected to be positive, in that the CRL will enable more people toaccess the City Centre for employment and social activity, via a more cost effective andenvironmentally less harmful means of transport than most feasible alternatives.

20. ATAP also is designed to improve both social and environmental outcomes.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A ATAP Foundation Report 9

Signatories

Author His Worship the Mayor


8/106


9/106

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



10/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



11/106


12/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



13/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



14/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



15/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



16/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



17/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



18/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



19/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



20/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



21/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



22/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



23/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



24/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



25/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



26/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



27/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



28/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



29/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



30/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



31/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



32/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



33/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



34/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



35/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



36/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



37/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



38/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



39/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



40/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



41/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



42/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



43/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



44/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



45/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



46/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



47/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



48/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



49/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



50/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



51/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



52/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



53/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



54/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



55/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



56/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



57/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



58/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



59/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



60/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



61/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



62/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



63/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



64/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



65/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



66/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



67/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



68/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



69/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



70/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



71/106


I t e m 1

0

Governing Body

24 February 2016



72/106

AttachmentA

Item 10

Governing Body

24 February 2016



73/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's current position on the zoning maps Page 73

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's current positionon the zoning maps

File No.: CP2016/02689

Purpose1. The purpose of this report is to explain:

the special legislation established for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);

the current and next steps in the hearings process and in particular the decision-makingprocess on the zoning maps (and all other aspects of the Proposed Auckland UnitaryPlan) in July and August 2016;

the process undertaken to confirm the council’s position and evidence for the re-zoninghearings that commenced on 15 February 2016;

the approach taken in the council’s evidence relating to the proposed revised zoningmaps; and

the implications of a number of options that could be taken by the council in response toconcerns raised about the council’s position and evidence on the zoning maps.

Executive Summary2. Approximately 4,000 submissions and 2,500 further submissions were made on the zoning

maps in the PAUP. The submissions raised approximately 20,000 separate points. Thescale and complexity involved in addressing the submissions is unprecedented in NewZealand.

3. No decisions have been made by the council on the final form of the zoning maps. Thosedecisions will be made in August 2016 by the Governing Body, after the Auckland UnitaryPlan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) has listened to and read all of thesubmissions, and has made its recommendations to the council on 22 July 2016.

4. The Panel directs the hearings process. For all intents and purposes the council is asubmitter at this stage and must provide evidence to the Panel on any position it takes to ahearing.

5. Currently the Panel is hearing evidence from submitters on the zoning maps and precincts. As part of its evidence, the council has proposed changes to the zoning maps, based on aseries of principles endorsed by the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015 and

guidance issued by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in July 2015.

6. The proposed revised maps give effect to the Regional Policy Statement chapter of thePAUP and seek to avoid spot-zoning or pepper-potting the maps. There are over 413,000properties zoned residential in Auckland. The proposed changes to the maps involveapproximately 14 per cent (57,820 properties) of all residential properties in Auckland, withapproximately seven per cent clearly within the scope of submissions and seven per centpotentially outside the scope of submissions. The remaining 86 per cent, or approximately351,180 properties, have no proposed changes to the notified PAUP zoning maps.

7. This report responds to concerns that have been raised about the council’s position on thezoning maps, as set out in the comprehensive evidence that was filed with the Panel on 3December 2015, and 26 January 2016. It discusses the implications of a number of options,

some of which are extremely significant in terms of their impact on the overall hearingsprocess.


74/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


8. Over 990 submitters have indicated to the Panel that they wish to be heard at hearings onthe zoning maps. Some of those submitters are requesting significant changes to the mapsto enable more housing (up-zoning), while others are requesting down-zoning. If the councilwithdraws its evidence on the zoning maps, the discussion over up-zoning and down-zoningwill still occur at the hearings. The material difference will be that the council will not be ableto provide professional advice to moderate the extremes of both sides of the discussion.

9. Staff therefore recommend that the council should maintain its current position, but clearlystress to the Panel the need to consider issues of natural justice and fairness whenreviewing the council’s position and that of other submitters during the course of thehearings in March and April 2016.

RecommendationsThat the Governing Body:

a) note that the council has not made any decisions on the zoning maps in theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This decision will be made in August 2016 after

considering the recommendations from the Auckland Unitary Plan IndependentHearings Panel.

b) note the proposed changes discussed in the council’s evidence respond to guidancefrom the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in relation to avoidingspot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps. Remaining strictly within the scope ofsubmissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan would not meet the Panel’sguidance.

c) note that the special legislation for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan passed bythe Government allows the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel torecommend changes that are not within the scope of submissions, but balances thisby enabling anyone who is prejudiced by the council agreeing to accept the Panel’srecommendations to appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court.

d) note the concerns expressed by members of the public and community groups aboutthe council’s current position on the zoning maps in the Proposed Auckland UnitaryPlan.

e) request staff to instruct the council’s lawyers to stress to the Auckland Unitary PlanIndependent Hearings Panel on 3 March 2016, the importance of considering natural justice and fairness issues when considering the council’s position and thatpresented by other submitters at the re-zoning hearings.

f) direct the Auckland Development Committee to hold two workshops specifically onthe zoning maps as soon as practicable after recommendations on changes on the

zoning maps are received from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent HearingsPanel on 22 July 2016. These workshops are over-and-above the two full dayworkshops already planned in August, prior to the council making its decisions on theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan.


75/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


Comments

Part A - Recap on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Process

Special Legislation - Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

10. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is speciallegislation enacted by the Government that sets out a process for the development of thefirst combined planning document for Auckland Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

11. The LGATPA provides for the following:

the preparation of the PAUP;

the public notification of the PAUP for submissions;

the closing date for original submissions on the PAUP;

the requirement for the council to summarise the original submissions received and

publicly notify them; the closing date for further submissions;

the establishment of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, aChairperson and Panel Members, outside of the council, to hear submissions on thePAUP and make recommendations to the council on the PAUP;

the ability of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) torecommend changes to the PAUP that are not within the scope of submissions;

the date the Panel must provide its recommendation report(s) to the council – 22 July2016;

the date the council must publicly notify its decisions on recommendations, and alsomake the Panel’s recommendations public – 19 August 2016;

the Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and non-submitters inrelation to the council’s decision, which include:

o Environment Court rights of appeal for submitters where the council rejects a Panel

recommendation and decides an alternative solution;

o Environment Court rights of appeal for any person (whether a submitter or not)

where the council accepts a recommendation of the Panel that is identified by thePanel as beyond the scope of submissions on the PAUP, and that person is or willbe unduly prejudiced by that decision.

12. With regard to costs that could be awarded in relation to any Environment Court appeals on

the council’s decisions on the PAUP, the Environment Court of New Zealand: Practice Note2014 states at clause 6.6(b) “The following issues are relevant to the practice of the Court inconsidering costs issues: (b)Where an appeal against a proposed policy statement, plan, orplan change under Schedule 1 to the RMA has proceeded to a hearing, costs will notnormally be awarded to any party”.

13. In the absence of special legislation, the PAUP would have been developed entirely underthe Schedule 1 process in the RMA. As a result, the PAUP would have been notified forsubmissions, submissions would have been received and summarised, the summary wouldhave been notified and further submissions called for. Any submitters who wished to beheard would attend a council hearing, and the council would make a decision on the PAUP.

Submitters who were unhappy with the council’s decision could appeal to the EnvironmentCourt and seek the changes to the Plan that they had sought in their submission.


76/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


14. While the council is the decision maker for the PAUP, the council does not conduct thehearings – that is the role of the Independent Hearings Panel. The council attends thePAUP hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel, as it is required to under theLGATPA (section 137, LGATPA).

Timeline for submissions, hearings and decision-making

15. The diagram below sets out the overall timeline for the submissions, hearings and decision-making process for the PAUP, as set out in the LGATPA:

Role of the Panel

16. It is the role of the Panel to:

hold hearings into submissions on the PAUP; regulate its hearings (or alternative resolution approaches) in accordance with the

LGATPA;

adhere to a hearing procedure that is appropriate and fair in the circumstances; and

provide its recommendation report(s) to the council by 22 July 2016, with the LGATPAexplicitly providing that the recommendations can include changes to the PAUP that areout of scope of submissions.

17. The panel does not need a submitter to raise out of scope matters – it can do so itself.

18. It is not the role of the Panel to make decisions on the PAUP. The Panel is only required toprovide its recommendations to the council on any changes it considers should be made tothe PAUP.

Role of Auckland Council

19. It is the role of the council to:

attend all hearing sessions unless excused by the Panel;

participate in pre hearing meetings, expert conferencing and mediation;

provide evidence to support the PAUP or any proposed amendments to the PAUP; and

Consider the recommendations of the Panel and make decisions on thoserecommendations.


77/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


Scope and Rights of Appeal

20. As outlined above, the Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and non-submitters in relation to the council’s decision on the Panel’s recommendations on the PAUPinclude:

Environment Court rights of appeal to any person (whether a submitter or not) where the

council accepts a recommendation of the Panel that is identified by the Panel as beyondthe scope of submissions on the PAUP, and that person is or will be unduly prejudicedby that decision.

21. The Panel has issued two directions on scope – one on 14 January 2016, on residential re-zonings and issues of scope, and a subsequent direction on 18 February 2016, providingclarification of the earlier directions. However, the Chairperson highlights the direction that itis important to note that the legal position set out in that decision is altered in relation to thePanel’s powers under section 144(5) of the LGATPA which provides that the Panel is notlimited to making recommendations only within the scope of submissions on the PAUP.

22. As summarised in the Panel’s 14 January 2016 direction, Housing New Zealand Corporationhas filed legal submissions with the Panel, which argue that the scope for amending

residential zonings in Auckland is not as limited as the council position indicates.

23. While the council has taken a conservative view of scope, and sought to rely on specificsubmissions for scope, we note that scope is determined as being anywhere between theposition in the PAUP as notified and the relief that is sought in any original submissions onthe PAUP – whether that original submission is specific to a property address or street, orwhether that original submission is more broad and general in nature.

24. It is Housing New Zealand Corporation’s position that their original submission on the PAUPand the Government’s submission provide the scope for the re-zoning that is proposed bythe council in evidence, and that the council’s proposed changes to residential zonings arenot in fact out-of-scope. This will be a matter for the Panel to determine, as the Panel inmaking its recommendations is required to clearly identify any recommendations that areout-of-scope of submissions.

Part B Where are we at in the submissions, hearings and decision-makingprocess?

Hierarchy within the PAUP and hearings completed to date

25. The PAUP is a fully combined planning document prepared under the ResourceManagement Act (RMA). It contains the following key components:

Regional Policy Statement

Regional Plan (including the Regional Coastal Plan) District Plan (including the zoning maps).

26. These three components are based on the hierarchy set out in the RMA, with the RegionalPolicy Statement at the top of the hierarchy. The zoning maps are a tool that is required togive effect to the Regional Policy Statement and the objectives and policies set out in theDistrict Plan for each of the zones.

27. Since September 2014, the Panel has completed the hearings for some sixty PAUP topics.The first tranche of hearings addressed submissions on the Regional Policy Statement.Since then, the Panel has completed hearings in respect of the Regional Coastal Plan(excluding coastal re-zoning and precinct submissions), other regional plan provisions and

the District Plan (excluding re-zoning and the majority of the precinct submissions).


78/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


Re-zoning and precinct hearings

28. The council received over 4,000 submissions and 2,500 further submissions on the zoningmaps in the PAUP, comprising over 20,000 specific submission points affecting over 80,000properties. In order to manage the re-zoning hearings, the Panel has split the hearings intotwo separate hearings, Topic 080 (Re-zoning and Precincts – General) and Topic 081 (Re-zoning and Precincts – Geographical Areas).

29. Hearing Topic 080 addresses re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to Public OpenSpace zones, Regional Coastal Plan zones and various Special Purpose zones and theirrelated precincts. Topic 080 also addresses general submissions relating to zoning andprecincts. The hearing for Topic 080 started on 15 February 2016 and is due to becompleted by the end of March 2016. At the beginning of this hearing, the council presentedits overall approach to zoning and outlined the principles the council adopted in preparingzoning maps showing proposed changes for the re-zoning hearings.

30. Hearing Topic 081 addresses re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to the remainingzones, including the business, residential and rural zones. The timeline below sets out thekey dates for Topic 081.

Topic 081 Timeline

31. Over 1,200 pieces of evidence have been lodged with the Panel in relation to Topic 081,with over 990 submitters scheduled to attend the hearings in March and April. A diverserange of individuals and organisations have made submissions on the business, residentialand rural zoning maps in the PAUP, including the Government, Housing New ZealandCorporation, developers, resident and business associations, advocacy groups and privateindividuals. As with all previous hearings, some submitters support the council’s position asset out in its evidence, while others are opposed to the council’s position. The evidencelodged by these submitters has directly r esponded to the council’s position. Preparing theevidence has required considerable time, cost and effort on the part of many of thesesubmitters.

32. Attachment C sets out the list of resident and advocacy groups with submissions that formpart of the Topic 081 hearings.

33. The Panel office has advised that a number of submitters have indicated they will not belodging evidence in support of their submission because they have read the council’sevidence and support the council’s proposed changes to the zoning maps.


79/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


Next steps after April 2016

34. As outlined above, the council is due to receive the Panel’s recommendations on 22 July2016. At this stage two full day Auckland Development Committee workshops are planned toconsider the Panel’s recommendations, prior to a full day decision-making meeting of the Auckland Development Committee/Governing Body in August 2016. A series of Unitary Plan

Unitary Plan Committee workshops are also proposed between March and June 2016. Inlight of the importance of the zoning maps, it would be advantageous to schedule anadditional two days specifically on any recommended changes to the maps as soon aspracticable after the council receives the recommendations from the Panel.

Part C - Recap on how the zoning submissions and further submissions wereassessed

35. The zoning maps in the PAUP are one of the main tools to implement the Regional PolicyStatement and the objectives and policies of the zones themselves. A major challenge facedby the council in assessing the approximately 4,000 zoning submissions and 2,500 furthersubmissions was how to avoid a piece-meal approach and ensure an appropriate degree ofconsistency across Auckland. That is not to say that the PAUP should not recognise thedifferences between different parts of the region, but rather that areas with similarcharacteristics should be located in a similar zone.

36. In order to manage the highly complex exercise of assessing the submissions on the zoningmaps, a set of guiding principles were developed based on the position the council hadtaken at the Regional Policy Statement hearings and the various zone hearings during 2014and 2015. The principles were adopted by the Auckland Development Committee in May2015 (see Attachment A) and these principles guided the various teams of planners inpreparing revised maps for the Unitary Plan Committee to consider in November 2015.

37. The high level principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee set out below:

To achieve a quality compact urban form with housing choice within neighbourhoods,contained within the Rural Urban Boundary and primarily focused within the metropolitanarea 2010

Rezoning proposals should not reduce overall capacity for housing

Emphasis should be given to residential ‘upzoning rather than ‘downzoning’ to ensurehousing supply issues are not exacerbated.

Upzoning should be in concentrated areas such as around defined centres or nodes

There should be no large scale rezoning or upzoning in coastal or rural settlements dueto the significant investment required to support this

There should be no rezoning from Future Urban zone to another zone other than toreflect operative Special Housing Areas or to correct an error (e.g. the land already has a‘live’ zone in the operative plan)

Avoid ‘reverse sensitivity’ at the interface between industrial zones and more intensiveresidential zones

Avoid increasing risks in areas affected by coastal hazards (erosion or inundation)

Protect regionally and nationally significant infrastructure from ‘reverse’ effects.


80/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


38. Guidance from the Panel was also taken into account (see Attachment B), in particular theneed for:

the overall zoning maps to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement;

the zoning maps to give effect to the zone objectives and policies; and

“spot-zoning” to be avoided.

39. The diagram below illustrates in simple form how the various principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee are used to locate the residential zones (decreasing withintensity away from centres and rail stations).

• Chapter B2.1 of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) seeks to enable higher residentialdensities in neighbourhoods within moderate walking distances from the city centre,metropolitan, town and local centres, or the rapid and frequent network facilities

• Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone should generally apply withinapproximately 250m walking distance of metropolitan, town and local centres, the rapid

and frequent transport network and arterials• Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone should generally apply within approximately 250m

walking distance of the THAB and Mixed Use zone, the rapid and frequent transportnetwork and arterials. The zone is also applied close to neighbourhood centres.

40. As the following diagrams illustrate, council’s approach is to enable intensification muchcloser to town centres and public transport than some other submitters have proposed. Forexample, Council’s expert evidence on this point supports a lessor spread of the moreintensive residential zones than Housing NZ is proposing.


81/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


41. The following diagram includes the specific distances set out in the principles for the THABand MHU zones from Metropolitan, Town, Local and Neighbourhood Centres, and theFrequent Transport Network (FTN) and Rapid Transport Network (RTN).

42. Other submitters, in particular Housing New Zealand, have adopted their own principles (asset out in their evidence for Hearing Topic 080 and Hearing Topic 081). Housing NewZealand Corporation’s approach is illustrated below.

43. Of particular note is the considerably more expansive distance adopted by Housing NewZealand Limited for the THAB and MHU zones relative to Metropolitan and Town Centres (at

total of 800 metres as opposed to 500 metres). Housing New Zealand presented theirevidence to the Panel in support of this approach on 23 February 2016 and will present theirrevised zoning maps in March 2016.

44. In addition to developing a series of principles, staff also mapped the approximately 20,000submission points within approximately 100 geographical submission areas, and began tolook for common themes. The maps below show examples of the mapping of submissionpoints. They also show the complexity of the task involved in developing a council responseto the submissions, and the difficulty in avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoningmaps. For example, if five separate property owners on a street requested a sensiblechange in their submission, but no-one else on the street made a submission, should thezoning only change for those who submitted? Taking this approach would result in spot-

zoning, where one property owner has one set of planning rules and their neighbour (whoseproperty has identical characteristics) has a different set of planning rules.


82/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


Area with a small number of submissions

Area with a large number of site-specific submissions

45. Applying the principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee and following theguidance issued by the Panel has enabled the council to address the approximately 20,000zoning submission points while avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps. Thecouncil’s evidence for the zoning hearings shows the proposed changes that are clearlywithin the scope of submissions and those that are not specifically requested in thesubmissions. Approximately 14 percent of all residential properties in Auckland areproposed to be rezoned in the council’s evidence, with approximately seven percent of thosechanges clearly within the scope of submissions and approximately seven percent notspecifically requested in the submissions. Approximately 413,000 properties are proposedto be zoned residential in Auckland under the P AUP. The council’s evidence recommendsretaining the notified PAUP zoning for approximately 86 percent of residential properties in Auckland.


83/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


46. It is important to note that some of the proposed changes that are not within the scope ofspecific submissions:

would down-zone properties within the council’s proposed revised pre-1944 overlay;

would re-zone properties from the Single Housing zone to another residential zonedue to new information relating to flood plains;

would change the zoning of properties from the Single House zone to the MixedHousing Suburban zone in places where the Single House zone is more restrictivethan the current Operative District Plan.

47. As previously noted, responding to submissions on the PAUP zoning maps is anunpr ecedented undertaking. The council’s evidence includes 258 separate planning andother technical statements in support of the proposed changes to the zoning maps. Theevidence is aligned with the principles set by the council and is based on the professionalviews of the council’s planning and other technical experts.

Part D - Options at this point in the hearings process

48. The following options have been prepared to assist the Governing Body in responding toconcerns about the council’s current position as set out in the evidence lodged with thePanel on 3 December 2015 and 26 January 2016.

Options Implications

Option 1

Withdraw out of scope changes from thecouncil’s evidence

Addresses the concerns of some

members of the public

Results in a piecemeal approach as the

evidence is completely integrated

(geographic areas and in and out ofscope)

A re-write of the expert evidence will be

required; and there is no time for that to

occur before the specific residential

zone hearings commence on 3 March

2016.

Results in a major disconnect between

the zoning maps and the council’s

evidence

Disadvantages submitters who have

not filed evidence on the basis they

were happy with the council’s position

Disadvantages submitters who have

spent money and time putting evidence

together after reading the council’s

evidence

No council planning witnesses to

support piecemeal zoning as such an


84/106

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016


approach is contrary to planning best

practice

No council planning witnesses there to

provide a view on Housing New

Zealand Corporation’s request for

substantial up-zoning

Option 2

Withdraw all of the council’s zoning evidence

Generally as above

Less complex for the Panel andsubmitters to understand the council’sposition.

Council’s expert evidence that supports

or responds to in scope submissionswill be lost and council’s experts willnot be able to attend the hearings.

Option 3

Not withdraw the council’s zoning evidence(in whole or part). Auckland Council legalsubmission to request that the Panelcarefully considers issues of natural justiceand fairness when considering any proposedout of scope changes.

Avoids the adverse implications ofOptions 1 and 2

Does not derail the hearings process

Allows participants to have their say atthe hearings without changing theprocess or their evidence

The council stays in the hearings togive a balanced view to diametricallyopposing views

Option 4

Not withdraw the council’s zoning evidence(in whole or part). Ask for a preliminaryhearing on Housing New ZealandCorporation’s position in relation to thescope provided within its submission and the

Government’s submission.

As per Option 3

Would confirm the Panel’s view inrelation to the extent of out of scopechanges proposed by the council andothers

Legislation allows out of scopechanges so the Panel may not want to

bind itself until it has heard all the

evidence.

Option 5

Not withdraw the council’s evidence (inwhole or part). Arrange two full dayworkshops in August solely on the zoningmaps with a focus on any out of scope

recommendations from the Panel.

As per Option 3

Allows the council the opportunity to

consider in greater detail the Panel’s

recommendations on the zoning maps

prior to making decisions in August2016


85/106

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016


49. The adverse implications of Options 1 and 2 are significant. A combination of Options 3 and5 is therefore recommended.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications50. Due to the urgent nature of the Governing Body meeting, it has not been possible to obtain

the views of local boards. However, it is understood that a number of local board chairs willbe in attendance at the meeting to convey their views to the Governing Body.

Māori impact statement

51. The council engaged extensively with Māori during the preparation of the PAUP. Aside fromthe location and extent of the Māori Purpose zone, the zoning maps were not a major areaof focus for Māori. There is however general support from Mana Whenua for the qualitycompact city approach embodied in the PAUP zoning maps.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Zoning Principles adopted by Auckland Development Committee - May2015

87

B Independent Hearings Panel Guidance - Zoning Precincts and RUB 101

C Community and Resident Groups - Topic 081 105

Signatories

Author John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Authoriser Stephen Town - Chief Executive


86/106


87/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



88/106

AttachmentA

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



89/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



90/106

AttachmentA

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



91/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



92/106

Governing Body

24 February 2016



93/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



94/106

Governing Body

24 February 2016



95/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



96/106

Governing Body

24 February 2016



97/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



98/106

AttachmentA

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



99/106


I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



100/106

AttachmentA

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



101/106

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



102/106

AttachmentB

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



103/106

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



104/106

AttachmentB

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016



105/106

A t t a c h m e n t C

I t e m 1

1

Governing Body

24 February 2016



106/106

AttachmentC

Item 11

Governing Body

24 February 2016

Documents

Governing Body - Unitary Plan Feb 16