Auckland Plan Committee 28-30 Aug Agenda

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Plan Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Wednesday, 28 August 2013 9.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland
Auckland Plan Committee OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Councillors Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Michael Goudie Cr Ann Hartley, JP Cr Mike Lee Member Anahera Morehu
Cr Des Morrison Cr Richard Northey, ONZM Cr Calum Penrose Cr Dick Quax Cr Noelene Raffills, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Member David Taipari Member Glen Tupuhi Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Wayne Walker Cr Penny Webster
(Quorum 11 members) Crispian Franklin Democracy Advisor 23 August 2013 Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6205 Email: crispian.franklin@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE The Auckland Plan Committee will have responsibility for: The future and sustainable development of Auckland while promoting the social, economic environmental and cultural wellbeing of its citizens; Preparing and making recommendations to Councils Governing Body in relation to the implementation of the spatial plan for Auckland (the Auckland Plan); Submissions on legislative changes and central government policy in relation to the development of Auckland, including infrastructure and amendments to the Resource Management Act; The development and recommendation of the Unitary Plan; Adopt Area Spatial Plans; and Oversight of City Transformation Projects.
Relevant Legislation includes but is not limited to: Local Government Act 2002; Resource Management Act 1991; and Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Petitions Public Input Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Auckland Unitary Plan Consideration of Extraordinary Items PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7
Page 3
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 1 Apologies At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. 2 Declaration of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have. 3 Confirmation of Minutes That the Auckland Plan Committee a) confirm the minutes of its meeting held on Tuesday, 13 August 2013, as a true and correct record.
Petitions At the close of the agenda no requests for petitions had been received.
Public Input Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker. At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
Local Board Input Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
Page 5
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 7 Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,(i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i) (ii) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.
Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 6
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013
Auckland Unitary Plan

File No.: CP2013/20351
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) project and to seek decisions from the committee in respect of the issues and interim directions provided at the Auckland Plan Committee Unitary Plan workshops in June, July and August 2013. The report also seeks the committees endorsement of a revised version of the AUP (that reflects the feedback received during the enhanced engagement process and the interim directions provided at the Auckland Plan Committee workshops). A final decision on notification of a Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) will be sought at the 5 September 2013 Governing Body meeting. One of the major opportunities identified by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance was the ability, through local government reform, to prepare a far simpler and more integrated planning framework for Auckland under the Resource Management Act. As this report outlines, the current framework comprises a Regional Policy Statement, four regional plans and seven district plans (one of which is broken into three major components). Other than the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the former Auckland City Council District Plan, these legacy policies and plans date back to the early to mid-1990s. While they have been updated through plan changes over time, a number of the legacy councils were about to, or had already embarked on full reviews of their policy statements and plans. It is fair to say that many of the legacy plans are old and do not reflect Aucklands current and future needs. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act required the Mayor to articulate a vision for Auckland, and the council to adopt a spatial plan for Auckland. The spatial plan for Auckland, known as the Auckland Plan, was adopted in March 2012 after extensive research, testing of options and community consultation. The two most important tools the council has to implement the vision, goals and directives in the Auckland Plan are the Long Term Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The Long Term Plan sets out the councils budget over a ten-year period. The AUP provides the land use framework and rules for development, and for the management of the environment in Auckland. The Auckland Plan has been a guiding influence on the development of the AUP, as have the requirements of the RMA. The AUP was developed under the guidance of a political working party of councillors and two members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board initially established through the Regional Development and Operations Committee in 2011. In 2012 the decision was made to transfer the oversight of the process to the Auckland Plan Committee. Local board chairs were subsequently asked to nominate six chairs to join the political working party. The working party generally met on a fortnightly basis to consider a wide range of directionsetting topics throughout 2011, 2012 and the first half of 2013. The initial working party workshops assisted in setting the principles for and structure of the AUP. Subsequent workshops assisted in developing the core content of the AUP and provided direction on matters such as the consultation and engagement programme. On 3 July 2012 the Auckland Plan Committee made a key decision to release the AUP as a draft document, rather than as a proposed plan under the First Schedule of the RMA. The draft AUP was subsequently released for public discussion and feedback between 15 March 2013 and 31 May 2013. This was the first time that an Auckland RMA policy statement or plan had been released to the public in draft form since the RMA came into being in 1991. The release of the draft AUP generated significant public interest and resulted in approximately 22,000 pieces of feedback from individuals and organisations based in Auckland and beyond.
Page 7
Executive Summary
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 7. Council officers registered and coded all of the feedback in a database and used this information to establish a work programme for the Auckland Plan Committee. 22 Auckland Plan Committee workshops were held in June, July and August. All local board chairs were invited to attend the workshops. In addition to the topic-based workshops, two all-day workshops were held with all councillors and local board members to discuss possible changes to the AUP zoning maps, two all-day were held for local boards to present their feedback and resolutions on the draft AUP, and a full-day hui was held for Mana Whenua to present their feedback on the draft AUP. The interim directions received at these workshops were reported back to the Auckland Plan Committee at formal business meetings in July and August Officers have amended the text of the March draft of the AUP to reflect the feedback received and the interim directions given at the Auckland Plan Committee workshops. The amended draft of the AUP is Attachment 1 to the agenda report. The maps have also been amended as result of feedback, directions received and the mapping workshops. Decisions are now required from the committee in order to finalise the AUP for public notification. In order to assist the committee in making decisions on the content of the AUP, this report is structured into five key parts. Part one provides a background to the development of the AUP. Parts two and three discuss the major topics raised through feedback on the draft AUP. These topics were the focus of the workshops on June, July and August. Part four provides an overview of the structure of the AUP. Part five provides a high level overview of the report prepared under section 32 of the RMA in support of the AUP. The draft section 32 report is Attachment 2 to the agenda report. The recommendations contained in this report seek endorsement of the interim directions provided at the Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops in June, July and August. Decisions are also sought in respect of matters where a direction has yet to be provided. The report also seeks that the Auckland Plan Committee recommends to the Governing Body approves the notification of the amended version of the Auckland Unitary Plan, subject to any amendments agreed to during the consideration of this report and approved under delegated authority.
Item 9
8. 9. a)
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Plan Committee: Preliminary Thanks Aucklanders for their feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. The feedback has confirmed the issues of most interest to the community and provided invaluable information that has enabled officers, the Auckland Plan Committee and local boards to consider a wide range of improvements to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Thanks local boards, the Independent Maori Statutory Board and Mana Whenua for their feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan and their involvement in the process of developing the Auckland Unitary Plan.
b)
Residential c) Endorses the interim directions in relation to residential issues outlined in Attachment 1 to the agenda report that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the feedback from local boards in relation to residential issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses of the full suite of residential development controls summarised in Attachment 3 to the agenda report and presented in full in the amended draft of the AUP.
d) e)
Page 8
f)
Endorses the inclusion of concept plans for the following retirement villages, summarised in Attachment 4 to the agenda report, and presented in full in the amended draft of the AUP: Elizabeth Knox, 10 Ranfurly Road, Epsom Selwyn Heights, 42 Herd Road, Hillsborough Selwyn Village, 43-94 Target Street, Point Chevalier subject to amendments to reflect the existing concept plan in the relevant legacy district plan, with some allowance for additional height, but only in those areas where the legacy district plan has a lower height control than the 10 metre height control in the Auckland Unitary Plan Retirement Village zone. The Poynton, 142 Shakespeare Road, Takapuna.
g)
Endorses the residential zones shown on the updated planning maps, including the zoning of particular locations within seven local boards areas shown on Attachment 5 to the agenda report.
New Growth Areas h) Endorses the interim directions in relation to new growth areas outlined in Attachment 1 to the agenda report that were given at the Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board feedback in relation new growth areas in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the location of the Rural Urban Boundary in the southern, northern and north-western Greenfield Areas of Investigation as shown on Attachment 6 to the agenda report. Endorses other minor amendments to the Rural Urban Boundary as discussed in the agenda report, including its location in the Takanini area, as shown on Attachment 7.
i) j)
k)
Affordable Housing l) Endorses a requirement for all residential development of 15 or more dwellings to include at least 7 percent of the dwellings as retained affordable housing, as defined in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Business m) Endorses the interim directions in relation to business issues outlined in Attachment 1 to the agenda report that were given at the Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board feedback in relation to business issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses discretionary activity status for large format retail in the Mixed Use zone. Endorses the application of an Identified Growth Corridor along Lincoln Road.
n) o) p)
Page 9
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 City Centre
Item 9
q)
Endorses the interim directions in relation to City Centre issues outlined in Attachment 1 to the agenda report that were given at the Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to City Centre issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the retention of the current height controls in the operative district plan for the Wynyard Precinct. Endorses non-complying activity status for any further reclamation within the Port precinct. Endorses a review of the Port precinct provisions at the conclusion of the pending stage 2 Port study.
r) s) t) u)
Design v) Notes that the Auckland Design Manual will provide guidance and examples of how the urban design rules and assessment criteria in the Auckland Unitary Plan can be implemented. Endorses the interim directions in relation to design matters outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to design issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
w)
x)
Social Infrastructure y) Endorses the interim directions in relation to social infrastructure outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board feedback in relation to social infrastructure issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the retention of the underlying zones for schools in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the addition of a provision in the school precinct rules that requires a discretionary activity resource consent for dwellings.
z) aa) bb)
Physical Infrastructure cc) Endorses the interim directions in relation to physical infrastructure outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to physical infrastructure issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the introduction of minimum parking rates for town and local centres outside the main metropolitan area (e.g. Warkworth and Helensville).
dd) ee)
Page 10
Public Open Space and Recreation ff) Endorses the interim directions in relation to public open space outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to public open space issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses permitted activity status for early childhood education centres up to 100m2 within existing buildings on land zoned Public Open Space Sport and Active Recreation, Public Open Space Community and Public Open Space Informal Recreation, and non-complying status in other situations. Endorses the approach to noise and lighting controls presented by officers at the committee meeting. A copy of the presentation will form part of the minutes of the meeting.
gg) hh)
ii)
Rural jj) Endorses the interim directions in relation to rural issues outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to rural issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the approach in the amended draft Auckland Unitary Plan of only providing for transferrable rural site subdivision where Significant Ecological Areas are protected or sites are amalgamated.
kk) ll)
mm) Endorses the approach of rolling over the legacy operative district plan minimum site sizes for the Countryside Living zone. The minimum site sizes are set out in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan. nn) Endorses the approach in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan in relation to farm parks (i.e. non-complying activity status unless provided for in the cluster housing provisions within specific Countryside Living precincts). Endorses the additional land zoned Mixed Rural at the mapping workshops and shown in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses minor amendments to the Rural Production zone (for example the activity status of rural industry changing from discretionary to restricted discretionary, equestrian centres changing from discretionary to restricted discretionary, visitor accommodation changing from non-complying to discretionary). These changes are shown in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
oo) pp)
Natural Environment qq) Endorses the interim directions in relation to natural environment issues outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation natural environment issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
rr)
Page 11
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 ss) Endorses the approach in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan that enables the removal of mangroves back to their 1996 extent as a permitted activity (except in specific locations such as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) where mangroves are one of the reasons for the SEA); and endorses the ability for a resource consent to be granted if evidence is provided that establishes an earlier date where mangroves were not present. The specific requirements are outlined in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Endorses the requirement for a resource consent to be obtained for the removal of street trees and works in the vicinity of street trees. Endorses the application of the permitted clearance rules for dwellings within SEAs to other buildings greater than 100m2 in SEAs. Endorses the inclusion of the Inter Council Working Party provisions for the control of Genetically Modified Organisms, subject to minor amendments to match the drafting style of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Item 9
tt) uu) vv) xx)
ww) Endorses a reduction in the height control for the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre zone to 32.5 metres due to conflict with the volcanic cone viewshaft. Endorses the 8 metre height control in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan for all buildings within the Blanket Height Sensitive Areas around the base of a number of the volcanic cones until such time as a comprehensive landscape analysis of alternatives is undertaken. Endorses the reduction in the extent of the SEA covering the Waikumete Cemetary in order to enable efficient operation of the cemetery and extend the life of the cemetery. Endorses the alignment of the coastal and freshwater provisions for discharges as outlined in the agenda report.
yy)
zz)
Coastal aaa) Endorses the interim directions in relation to coastal issues outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. bbb) Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to coastal issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. ccc) Endorses the inclusion of concept plans for Bayswater Marina as outlined in Attachment 10 to the report. ddd) Endorses the following widths for the Coastal Protection Yard in rural zones: Rural Conservation Coastal protection yard 50m Countryside Living 40m Rural Coastal 50m Mixed Rural 50m Rural Production 50m
Treaty of Waitangi eee) Endorses the interim directions in relation to Treaty of Waitangi issues outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. fff) Acknowledges the feedback from Mana Whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
Page 12
Historic Heritage and Special Character hhh) Endorses the interim directions in relation to historic heritage and special character outlined in Attachment 1 that were given at the Auckland Unitary Plan workshops held in June, July and August 2013. iii) jjj) Endorses the scheduling of 66 new historic heritage places, four historic heritage areas and the identification of nine special character areas. Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation to historic heritage and special character issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
kkk) Endorses amendments to the pre-1944 demolition control overlay based on further analysis carried out since the release of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan and the removal of Housing New Zealand and Treaty Settlement land. The amended overlay is shown on the amended version of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan maps. lll) Endorses amendments to the pre-1944 demolition controls which require each application to be assessed against the tests of the RMA in regard to notification.
Zoning mmm) Endorses the planning maps in the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan, including the zoning of the particular residential and business areas discussed in the agenda report and shown on Attachments 11. Heights in Centres nnn) Endorses height controls of 16.5 metres/four storeys for parts of Browns Bay and Orewa town centres, but with a height controls of 24.5 metres/six storeys in the core of these centres as shown in detail on the amended planning maps. ooo) Endorses the height controls in the March draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan for Mission Bay town centre (16.5 metres/four storeys), St Heliers (12.5 metres) and Remuera (16.5 metres/four storeys). General ppp) Endorses the amendments made to the following chapters of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan which have been made to fix errors, ensure consistency and legal robustness and reflect feedback: Auckland-wide objectives and policies Zone objectives and policies Overlay objectives and policies Precinct objectives and policies Auckland-wide rules Zone rules Overlay rules Precinct rules Remaining provisions.
Auckland Unitary Plan Page 13
Item 9
ggg) Acknowledges the local board resolutions in relation Treaty of Waitangi issues in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
Item 9
Overall qqq) Delegates authority to the Chair, the Deputy Chair and one member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board the ability to approve minor amendments to the amended draft Auckland Unitary Plan prior to the Governing Body meeting on 5 September. rrr) Recommends that the Governing Body approves the notification of the amended draft of the Auckland Unitary Plan, subject to any amendments agreed to during the consideration of this report and approved under delegated authority.
Discussion
PART 1 BACKGROUND TO THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN Relationship to the Auckland Plan 10. The Auckland Plan was adopted in March 2012 after extensive public consultation and engagement. The Auckland Plan is the councils first spatial plan and will guide the direction of the region for the next 30 years. The figure below is from the introductory section of the Auckland Plan. It set outs Aucklands vision to become the worlds most liveable city, together with the seven outcomes and six transformational shifts that are required in order for Auckland to achieve this vision.
11.
The Auckland Plan is prepared under the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act and is intended to be implemented by the council working in partnership with many organisations and individuals over many years. The Auckland Plan recognises that the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) is one of the key tools the council has to achieve the vision and outcomes of the Auckland Plan. It does this by setting out objectives, policies and rules for development (in the broadest sense of the word) and for management of the environment in Auckland. The AUP has been developed to strongly align with the various directives set out in the Auckland Plan. Part 2 of this report is structured in a way that shows the strong alignment between these two significant council documents. The AUP is, however, prepared under the RMA, and must also meet the particular requirements of the RMA.
Page 14
Aucklands current RMA policies and plans 12. Aucklands current planning framework under the RMA comprises the following: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Auckland Regional Plan Coastal Auckland Regional Plan Air, Land and Water Auckland Regional Plan Sediment Auckland Regional Plan Farm Dairy Discharges Auckland City District Plan (Central Area, Hauraki Gulf Islands and Isthmus Sections) Franklin District Plan Manukau City District Plan North Shore City District Plan Papakuara District Plan Rodney District Plan Waitakere District Plan. 13. Most of these policy statements and plans were developed in the early to mid-1990s, and while they have been subject to plan changes over the years, many are well overdue for a major review. A number of the legacy Auckland councils recognised this, and were about to embark on full reviews of their district plans prior to the Governments decision to establish Auckland Council.
Political process 14. Officers presented the first report on the AUP to the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) in April 2011. RDOC endorsed the officers recommendation to establish a political working party (PWP) comprising councillors and members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board. The PWP started to meet on a fortnightly basis shortly thereafter. Its role was to provide guidance to officers on the development of the AUP. It did not have the ability to make any decisions, however the outcomes of the various workshops held with the PWP were reported to RDOC (and later the Auckland Plan Committee) on a regular basis. A wide range of topics were considered in detail by the PWP. In July 2012 the responsibility for oversight of the AUP was transferred to the Auckland Plan Committee. Around this time officers were asked to identify the best way forward for involving local boards in the development of the AUP. After discussions with the Chair of the Auckland Plan Committee and local board chairs, it was decided that a representative group of local board chairs would also form part of the PWP. The PWP continued to meet up until the release of the draft AUP in March 2013. After the release of the draft AUP, the Chair decided that the PWP workshops would be replaced by workshops comprising all members of the Auckland Plan Committee, including members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board and all local board chairs. Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops have been held on a frequent basis since the close of feedback on the draft AUP at the end of May 2013.
15.
16.
Page 15
Item 9
Item 9
Options considered for the Auckland Unitary Plan 17. The council had a number of options available in terms of the overall scope of the AUP. For example, the council could have staged the preparation of the AUP by releasing a Proposed Regional Policy Statement, followed by regional and district plans provisions. It could also have elected to prepare and notify the AUP by geographic area (e.g. north, west, central and south). During the very early phases of the project, officers considered these options in detail, and ultimately presented a recommendation to RDOC that the AUP comprised a Regional Policy Statement, regional and district plan provisions to ensure integrated, consistent and effective resource management planning for Auckland, as envisaged by the Auckland governance reforms. Officers were requested to report back on possible areas or topics to excluded from the initial version of the AUP. A decision was subsequently made by RDOC to exclude the islands subject to the Auckland City Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section). The Auckland City Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) is Aucklands only second generation regional or district plan, having undergone a full review not long before local government amalgamation.
Principles for the Auckland Unitary Plan 18. One of the first tasks undertaken by the PWP was to discuss the principles for the development of the AUP. The following principles were discussed and subsequently agreed to. First Order Principles Give effect to the Auckland Plan Take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti O Waitangi) and kaitiakitanga in relation to land, fresh water and coastal environments by providing for the inclusion and involvement of Iwi Hapu ensuring that tangata whenua interests and aspirations are identified and reflected in the policy framework of the Unitary Plan Bold Simple Fast Innovative Second Order Principles Outcome focused User friendly (includes: use of plain English, intuitive flow and navigation, consistency in formatting and use of text, maps as key entry points into the Plan, use of overlays to accommodate specific matters) Minimum repetition and better cross referencing Transparency and collaboration / consultation Defendability / robustness Ensure planning burden is relative to planning gain Activity statuses and notification: Clarify the circumstances under which each activity status is to be used and minimise, where possible, the use of certain activity statuses Increase, where possible, the use of provisions in the plan that predetermine the level of notification necessary for any application. Minimum content as allowed by the RMA (ie objectives, policies and rules for the regional and district plan components). But with additional information such as the statement of issues, or monitoring strategy being non-statutory and sitting outside the Plan.
19.
These principles have guided the development of the AUP. Consultation and Engagement 20. The council has engaged extensively with Aucklanders on the development of the draft AUP. The level of consultation has been far greater than that which has been undertaken in Auckland previously on a RMA planning policy statement, regional or district plan. This is entirely appropriate given the significance of the AUP to Aucklands future. Two key phases of engagement have been undertaken to date. The first phase took place in the second half of 2012. Very early drafts of key parts of the AUP and the associated planning maps were presented to local boards, and a series of workshops were held with regional stakeholders such as central government departments, tertiary institutions, environmental groups, other sector groups and professional institutes. A number of local boards invited local interest groups to attend these early workshops. Feedback from these workshops informed the development of the draft AUP. A key decision was made by the council on 3 July 2012 to release the AUP as a draft document as opposed to formally notifying it for submissions under the First Schedule of the RMA. This was a first in Auckland, and provided the opportunity for all Aucklanders to provide feedback on a draft document. The feedback period commenced on 15 March 2013 with a launch at the Viaduct Events Centre. Over the next 11 weeks, councillors, local board members and council officers attended over 250 events across the city. This was supported by a strong on-line presence via the shapeauckland.co.nz website. Approximately 22,000 pieces of feedback were received at the conclusion of the feedback period on 31 May 2013.
21.
Direction-setting 22. Over 70 topics were discussed during the 22 Auckland Plan Committee, Unitary Plan workshops. Interim directions were provided by the Auckland Plan Committee and local board chairs in response to most of the topics discussed (refer Attachment 3). With the exception of the topics that were discussed in workshops since the last Auckland Plan Committee meeting on 13 August 2013, the interim directions were subsequently reported to the Auckland Plan Committee. However, it is important to note that no decisions have yet been made in relation to possible changes to the draft AUP. A key purpose of this report is therefore to seek the committees endorsement of the interim directions at the workshops, and decisions in respect of those matters for which a clear direction has yet to be given.
PART 2 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN MAJOR TOPICS (EXCLUDING ZONING AND HEIGHTS IN CENTRES) 23. This section provides an outline of key AUP issues under seven major themes. It provides a link to the relevant statements in the Auckland Plan, highlights the matters that require a decision and in some parts addresses specific issues raised by local boards that are yet to be resolved.
Page 17
Item 9
Greater use of illustrations and diagrams (but not to the detriment of significantly increasing the length of the document) Reduce the instances of site-specific provisions.
Item 9
Residential, New Growth and Affordable Housing Auckland Plan 24. The figures below sets out the strategic directions and priorities in relation to residential and new growth issues in the Auckland Plan:
25.
The Auckland Plan contains a chapter that describes the 30-year development strategy for Auckland. Key elements of the strategy are quoted below: Most growth inside the existing urban area Given the extent of our growth challenge, Auckland needs to enable balanced residential and business growth in existing urban areas and in new greenfields areas. This means taking advantage of existing and planned greenfields areas in the short to medium term, while actively planning for intensification of both residential and business activity in appropriate areas. We will provide for 60% to 70% of total new dwellings inside the existing core urban area as defined by the 2010 MUL. Consequently, between 30% and 40% of total new dwellings will be outside of the baseline 2010 MUL in new greenfields, satellite towns, and rural and coastal towns. By enabling quality urban intensification, we aim to achieve the 70% inside figure at the end of the 30-year life of the Plan. We will also have flexibility to provide for 40% outside the MUL.
26.
The Auckland Plan notes that a quality compact form will benefit Auckland because: Denser cities have greater productivity and economic growth A compact urban form is much more likely to foster improvements in productivity and creativity. Clustering of people and economic activity can improve overall productivity by better enabling the exchange of ideas, the building of relationships/networks and better connectivity.
Page 18
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 It makes better use of existing infrastructure A quality compact form enables greater network efficiency through the cost-effective provision and servicing of physical infrastructure (transport, communications, water supply, wastewater, stormwater, energy) and social infrastructure (schools, community facilities). Better use of existing infrastructure costs less, and these cost savings are passed on to ratepayers, taxpayers and home buyers. Improved public transport is more viable An effective, efficient city relies on high levels of accessibility, where people can get around easily, and goods and services are moved quickly. A quality compact form supports residential areas that are well serviced by a mix of roads and public transport to move residents across the region to places of employment and recreation. Public transport is important as it gets people to their destination, and frees up capacity on Aucklands roads for freight movement. Rural character and productivity can be maintained An important benefit of a quality compact city is enhanced urban amenity, complemented by rural and coastal lifestyle opportunities. Lifestyles affect the international perception of Auckland as a good place to live and work. Encouraging growth within the existing urban footprint protects Aucklands rural hinterland and its productive potential: it enables ready access to coastal, marine and other recreation areas. Negative environmental effects can be reduced A quality compact form allows better protection of valued environmental qualities. Expansion into the rural environment is carefully managed to ensure areas of high biodiversity can be protected. At the same time, the potential adverse effects from urban activities (pollutants and greenhouse gases, stormwater flows into the marine environment, emissions to air) are minimised. It creates greater social and cultural vitality Developing more compact urban neighbourhoods supported by quality networked infrastructure offers opportunities to create healthy, stimulating, and beautiful urban environments. These in turn enhance social cohesion and interaction by attracting people across all demographic groups to a mix of cafes, restaurants, shops, services and well-designed public spaces. Such places provide a range of activities to meet the full spectrum of peoples everyday needs for work, for play, for shopping and for education. 27. The following Auckland Plan directives are also strongly relevant to the approach that has been adopted to residential development and new growth areas in the AUP. Directive 10.1 Adopt a Rural Urban Boundary in Aucklands Unitary Plan that provides for land capacity over the next 30 years for 280,000 new dwellings within the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit baseline, 160,000 new dwellings in new greenfields land, satellite towns and other rural and coastal towns, and at least 1,400 hectares of new greenfields business land. Directive 10.2 Plan for a seven-year average of unconstrained development capacity (zoned and serviced with bulk infrastructure) at any point in time with a minimum of five years and a maximum of 10 years capacity.
Page 19
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Auckland Unitary Plan Approach
Item 9
28.
Residential and new growth issues are addressed in the RPS chapter of the AUP under the section Enabling Quality Urban Growth. The relevant objectives of this section of the RPS state the following: Providing for growth in a quality compact urban form Objectives 1. A quality compact urban form with a clear defensible limit (Rural Urban Boundary RUB) to the urban expansion of the metropolitan area, satellite towns, rural and coastal towns and serviced villages. Urban growth is primarily focussed within the metropolitan area 2010. Land within and adjacent to centres, frequent public transport routes and facilities is the primary focus for residential intensification with a lesser degree of intensification in surrounding neighbourhoods. The focus for urban growth outside of the metropolitan area 2010, is greenfield land within the RUB that is contiguous with the urban area and the satellite towns of Pukekohe and Warkworth.
2. 3. 4.
Development capacity and supply of land for urban development Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. Sufficient development capacity and land supply to accommodate projected population and business growth. Up to 70 per cent of total new dwellings by 2040 occurs within the metropolitan area 2010. Up to 40 per cent of total new dwellings by 2040 occurs outside of the metropolitan area 2010. The development of land zoned future urban within the RUB occurs in an orderly, timely and planned manner.
Rural and coastal towns and villages Objectives 1. Growth in towns and villages is sustainable and efficient, capturing and enhancing the local character and sense of place of the town or village and the surrounding area. Growth within un-serviced villages is contained within their urban zones existing at 2013 Growth in towns and serviced villages is contained within the RUB. New towns and villages are avoided outside the RUB.
2. 3. 4.
Page 20
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Neighborhoods that retain affordable housing Objective 1. Neighborhoods contain quality homes that help meet the housing needs of current and future, low to moderate income households. 29. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: Residential The six residential zones (Rural and Coastal Settlement, Large Lot, Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban, Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings), and in particular, the application of the Mixed Housing zones and Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zones in locations that have good access to centres and public transport. New Growth The RUB The Future Urban zone this zone is applied to land between the urban zones and the RUB. It is a transitional zone that allows rural activities to continue, but prevents urban development from occurring until such time as a structure plan and plan change are completed. Structure plans and plan change will be completed in an orderly, planned sequence over the next two to three decades. 30. The key feedback received in relation to residential, new growth and affordable housing matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Residential The approach to achieving design quality in the AUP, with strong overall desire to ensure a high standard of design in multi-unit developments. The spatial extent of the Mixed Housing and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zones, with an overall concern expressed about the extent of the Mixed Housing zone. Building heights around centres in the THAB zone, with concerns raised about the heights permitted in this zone. Notification of height infringements in the THAB zone, with a strong overall desire expressed for height infringements to be notified. The residential development controls detailed feedback on specific controls. Retirement villages specific feedback from retirement village owners and operators for the inclusion of concept plans that allow greater development potential than the base Retirement Village zone. New Growth Areas The location of the RUB. Additional areas to include within the RUB outside the Greenfield Areas of Investigation.
Page 21
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Affordable Housing
Item 9
Provisions for retained affordable housing (previously inclusionary zoning) were contained in the Addendum to the draft AUP. There was support and opposition to the AUP including requirements for a certain proportion of dwellings within a development to be retained affordable housing. 31. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1.
Local Board Issues To Be Resolved - Residential 32. The bulk of the feedback from local board in relation to residential matters concerns the location of the zones rather than the development controls for the residential zones. Part 3 of this report addresses the location of the residential zones. Some local boards did seek changes to the development control (e.g. minimum site size, density and yards), in some cases to align them more closely with the relevant legacy district plans. Local board chairs have played an active role in assisting with the refinement of the residential development controls through the committee workshop process. There are no specific matters that require a decision from the committee other than an overall decision on the full suite of amended residential development controls outlined in Attachment 4.
Local Board Issues To Be Resolved New Growth Rodney 33. Parakai, Huapai South and Helensville are examples where the Rodney Local Board requested that the Single House zone be applied to areas previously zoned Future Urban. In the case of Parakai, the land (Chic Gardens) is subject to severe coastal inundation risk and has been rezoned back to Future Urban. This will enable a proper investigation of the potential for urban development through a structure plan and potential plan change process in the future. For the Helensville and Huapai South areas, an intensive planning session by officers was held to develop a base zoning to support precincts that have been prepared to manage the development of these areas. It is recommended that the zoning as currently contained on the maps be agreed. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 5.
34.
Decisions Required - Residential 35. A In addition to endorsing the interim directions given by the committee during the workshops, officers now seek decisions in relation to: The full suite of residential development controls The residential development controls are one of the most fundamental aspects of the AUP and were the subject of considerable feedback. In addition to a workshop on urban design, two half-day workshops were dedicated to the residential development controls. The directions received from the committee at the workshops have assisted officers to prepare a revised set of controls for a decision. A key focus of the revised controls has been the splitting of the Mixed Housing zone into two zones Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban. The Mixed Housing Urban zone has a higher height control than the Mixed Housing Suburban zone, and allows for a greater level of intensity. The full suite of residential development controls are summarised in Attachment 4 to the report. Officers will present a summary of the controls at the committee meeting.
Page 22
Officers recommend the incorporation of the concept plans summarised in Attachment 6 for the following retirement villages: Elizabeth Knox, 10 Ranfurly Road, Epsom the changes sought to the Retirement Village zone through the concept plan are relatively minor (small increases in height, particularly in the middle of the site) Selwyn Heights, 42 Herd Road, Hillsborough the concept plan enables the same development potential as the existing concept plan in the relevant operative district plan Selwyn Village, 43-94 Target Street, Point Chevalier subject to amendments to reflect the existing concept plan in the relevant legacy district plan, with some allowance for additional height, but only in those areas where the legacy district plan has a lower height control than the 10 metre height controls in the AUP Retirement Village zone The Poynton, 142 Shakespeare Road, Takapuna the concept plan reflects the existing built and consented development. 36. Officers recommend that the remaining requests for concept plans (summarised in Attachment 6) are not supported due to the high degree of change sought from the relevant legacy district plans and the AUP Retirement Village zone provisions, and the character of surrounding development.
Decisions Required New Growth A 37. The location of the RUB The Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) replaces the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MuL) in the operative regional policy statement and will act as the 30-year limit that differentiates urban Auckland from rural Auckland. Work to define the RUB has involved four discrete stages: Stage 1: updating the MuL to reflect minor anomalies Stage 2: responding to requests by landowners to be included in the RUB Stage 3: defining the RUB in the greenfield areas of investigation identified in the Auckland Plan as the main areas of change for the RUB Stage 4: defining the RUB in rural towns and serviced villages Stages 1, 2 and 3 have been completed. Stage 4 will be undertaken after notification of the AUP and will be introduced as plan changes. Stage 2: The Edge 38. Stage 2 of the RUB work sought to define the RUB along the urban edge (excluding the greenfield areas for investigation). The Addendum to the draft AUP enabled landowners at the edge to seek the inclusion of land within the RUB, and provided criteria for assessment of such requests. Over 80 requests, in 12 locations, were received as part of the feedback process. Requests were categorised into simple and complex. Simple requests reflected sites that can be considered in isolation. Complex requests reflected areas where a more comprehensive approach is required to consider the wider area and insufficient information was provided to determine a defensible RUB.
39.
Page 23
Item 9
The incorporation of concept plans for retirement villages
Item 9
40.
Simple requests were assessed and it is recommended to amend the RUB in two areas (Massey and Flat Bush). The addresses of these sites are set out below:
Massey requests 1-11 and 10 Crows Road, 8 Yelash Road, Massey 155-163 Birdwood Road, Massey Flat Bush requests 19 Fairhill Place, Flat Bush 98 Chateau Rise, Flat Bush Takanini requests Porchester Road to Mill Road south of Alfriston 1185 Alfriston Road, Alfriston 1270 Alfriston Rd, Manurewa 22 Taipan Place, Randwick Park 437 Porchester Road Takanini 1345 Alfriston Road 106 Airfield Road, Papakura
Attachments 7 shows the recommended RUB for Massey and Flat Bush. 41. Okura, Albany, Puhinui and Takanini were identified as complex requests and direction was sought from the committee at the AUP workshop on 9 August 2013. The committee supported the deferral of Okura, Albany and Puhinui. However, officers were directed to consider Takanini and report back to the committee on 28 August 2013. Assessment of the requests against the draft AUP Addendum criteria identifies where land can be included in the RUB. Options for a defensible RUB in Takanini were considered, and it is recommended that the RUB be aligned with the Mill Road Corridor because it will be upgraded to an arterial road. Although the alignment of Mill Road is yet to be confirmed through a Notice of Requirement, future investigation can be integrated with a comprehensive structure planning process of the area to address this issue. Attachment 7 shows the recommended RUB at Takanini.
42.
Stage 3: Defining the RUB in the Greenfield Areas of Investigation 43. The Auckland Plan signalled the need for expansion of Aucklands urban area to accommodate up to 40% of Aucklands projected growth to 2041. Of this, the RUB in the greenfield areas of investigation needs to cater for 90,000 additional dwellings and 55,000 jobs. The greenfield areas of investigation have been broken down into three study areas the north (Warkworth and Silverdale) the north-west (Kumeu/Huapai) and the south (Pukekohe, Paerata, Drury). Each are discussed in turn:
The RUB in the North and Northwest (Warkworth, Silverdale and Kumeu/Huapai) 44. The RUB in the North and North West seeks to enable approximately 35,000 new dwellings and 18,000 new jobs. For each RUB area, options were developed, based predominantly on technical analysis of the prevailing issues and consultation undertaken. Each of the areas are summarised below:
Page 24
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 45. Warkworth has some outstanding natural landscapes, is challenged by its rolling topography, a transport bottle-neck, flooding in some areas and water supply to meet growth expectations. Feedback to the RUB option contained in the draft AUP Addendum included the need to avoid growth in the high value landscape area of Hepburn Creek, reduce growth to the south of Warkworth, avoid urban expansion towards Snells Beach, recognise the importance of locating a clear defensible boundary, and a need for additional employment land. At the committee workshop on the RUB, officers recommended a RUB for Warkworth that is significantly different from that in the Addendum to the draft AUP. It strongly reflects feedback received and technical information and analysis. Key changes are: More business land provided in the north-west of Warkworth Avoidance of growth into the Hepburn Creek area and a reduction in growth to the south of Warkworth Expansion into Warkworth North but clearly defined by Matakana Road Protection of environmentally sensitive areas. 47. Silverdale has long been identified for urban expansion, however it is challenged by steep, unstable topography in places and flooding in other areas. Parts of it drain into the sensitive Okura catchment while most of Dairy Flat drains into the already degraded Upper Waitemata Harbour. However, it is well located adjacent to State Highway 1 and State Highway 17, with good access to Orewa. Feedback to the RUB option contained in the draft AUP Addendum included the maintenance of distinct settlements and prevention of urban sprawl, avoidance of growth in the northern part of Wainui East, protection of the North Shore airfield, protection of Okura and Weiti from further development, and the creation of buffer areas between business zones and residential areas. At the committee workshop on the RUB, officers recommended a refined RUB for Silverdale, that takes into account feedback received and further technical analysis. Key changes are: A clear gap between the business area in Silverdale West and the future urban areas in Wainui East Retention of the North Shore airfield and its Special Purpose Zone, overlay and underlying zone of Large Lot Residential Expansion of the urban area around Dairy Flat but avoidance of Okura and Weiti areas Additional Future Urban land and General Business zone provided to the east of State Highway 1 south of Silverdale town centre. 50. Kumeu/Huapai is characterised by widely varying landforms, including flood-prone areas, coastal margins, existing rural towns and undulating countryside. Feedback to the RUB option contained in the draft AUP Addendum included the need to maintain separate settlements (Kumeu-Huapai, Riverhead, Taupaki and Whenuapai), protection of rural productive land (especially vineyards and horticulture), protect the Upper Waitemata Harbour, landscape and natural features and avoiding floodplains. There was support for urbanisation of Scott Point and Red Hills areas and recognition of the importance of Whenuapai Airbase. At the committee workshop on the RUB, officers recommended a RUB for Kumeu/Huapai that accommodates feedback received plus further technical analysis. Key changes are: Removing the coastal area south of Riverhead to SH16 from within the RUB Reducing the extent of the RUB in Kumeu West to Puke and Tawa Roads Reducing the extent of the RUB west of Redhills Extending the RUB in Huapai north-east.
46.
48. 49.
51.
Page 25
Item 9
Item 9
The RUB in the South (Pukekohe, Paerata, Drury) 52. The RUB in the south seeks to enable approximately 55,000 new dwellings and 35,000 jobs. The southern RUB investigation area is relatively large and has a variety of landforms and issues. It has a major service centre in Pukekohe, which is envisaged to grow to become a major satellite of Auckland. The land varies from prime agricultural soils around Pukekohe with rolling countryside around Paerata and Karaka strongly influenced by a north-south stream network. Heavily indented coastal margins border the sensitive and shallow Pahurehure Inlet. Feedback to the RUB proposals contained in the draft AUP Addendum included the need to protect rural production on the best agricultural land, opposition to configuring the RUB in a way that promotes a possible future bridge from Karaka to Weymouth, keeping Pukekohe separate from urban Auckland, avoiding impacts of sensitive coastal margins and receiving environments, and planning for employment growth. Mana Whenua groups in particular provided strong feedback making it clear that they had concerns about the extent of growth proposed in the south, and in particular, opposition to any deterioration of the Manukau Harbour from wastewater and stormwater discharges. They also signaled that there are no-go areas for development, which need to be identified and protected. They were clear that there needs to be detailed cultural assessments before growth occurs and the importance of Mana Whenua playing a role at each stage of decision making providing for growth. At the committee workshop on the RUB, officers recommended a RUB for the south that is significantly different from that in the draft AUP Addendum. It reflects feedback received as well as further technical analysis. Key changes are: A RUB that extends from Drury east to the base of the Hunua Ranges, southwards to Runciman and north of Paerata, but including a green gap separation or greenbelt between Paerata North and the growth area west of Drury Exclusion of Karaka West and Karaka North from the RUB Exclusion of Pukekohe West and limited growth west of Pukekohe Exclusion of Pukekohe North East RUB, the Ramarama South RUB and the Alternative Business Area Growth focused along the core option areas and including additional development areas in Drury, north of Paerata and south of Pukekohe. 56. 57. The Drury South plan change will be included or excluded from the RUB depending on the outcome of the private plan change currently being deliberated. Attachment 8 shows maps of the recommended RUB in the Greenfield Areas of Investigation.
53.
54.
55.
Decisions Required Affordable Housing 58. 59. The addendum to the draft AUP sought feedback on a proposal to require a certain proportion of new housing to include retained affordable housing. The objectives and policies in the revised draft of the AUP for retained affordable housing recognise the need to intervene in the housing market to increase the supply of housing that is affordable to households in the intermediate housing market for current and future generations. The intermediate market includes households currently in the private rental market, not eligible for social housing, with at least one member of the household in paid employment unable to afford to buy a dwelling under standard bank lending criteria.
Page 26
60.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 61.
62.
Following discussion at the Auckland Plan Committee workshop on affordable housing, officers recommend that the AUP requires new large-scale residential development that contains more than 15 dwellings, or involves the creation of more than 15 vacant sites, to provide at least 7 per cent of the total number of dwellings or vacant sites as retained affordable housing.
Business, City Centre and Design Auckland Plan 63. The figures below set out the strategic directions and priorities in relation to business, city centre and design issues in the Auckland Plan:
64.
In addition to the strategic directions and priorities outlined above, the Auckland Plan sets out a hierarchy of centres. The centres hierarchy is explained as follows: The City Centre the focus of national and international business, tourism, educational, cultural and civic activities. It provides significant capacity for business and high density residential development within a variety of precincts. It is the focus for regional transportation services. It is surrounded by the city fringe, and lies within a 2km walkable catchment (approximately): it provides complementary living, business and entertainment activities within traditional and higher-density neighbourhood living and specialist precincts. Metropolitan centres these serve regional catchments or have strategic roles within the region. They provide a diverse range of shopping, business, cultural, entertainment and leisure activities, together with higher-density residential and mixed-use environments. They have good transport access and are served by igh-frequency public transportation. These centres have the greatest opportunities for additional business and residential growth.
Page 27
Item 9
The priority given to the intermediate housing market recognises and complements the role government plays in the provision of social housing and the broader objective of the AUP to increase the supply of housing and neighbourhoods that provide a wider range of market rate homes.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Town centres these act as local hubs for communities, providing a wide range of retail and business services and facilities, and community facilities. They are generally accessible by frequent public transport services, and provide a range of residential living options, including mixed-use and higher-density options. They have variable capacity for accommodating new residential and business development. Local centres these act as a focus for a community and provide a range of convenience shops and small business services together with some community facilities. These centres are focused on walkable catchments supported by public transport services. They have variable capacity for accommodating new residential and business development, but to a lesser extent to town centres, due to their individual and accessibility constraints. Neighbourhood centres these provide day-to-day convenience shopping within walkable neighbourhoods. Based on a small group of shops, they may also be aligned with a community facility, such as a school.
Note: Satellite towns, rural and coastal towns, and rural and coastal villages have urban characteristics within the rural area. See Chapter 9: Rural Auckland of the Auckland Plan for descriptions of each.
Item 9
65.
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach Business, city centre and design issues are addressed in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) chapter of the AUP under Enabling Quality Urban Growth and Enabling Economic Prosperity. The relevant objectives of these sections of the RPS state the following: Commercial and industrial growth Objectives 1. Employment and business opportunities meet the current and future needs of Aucklanders. 2. Commercial growth is focussed within a hierarchy of centres and identified growth corridors that support the compact urban form. 3. Industrial growth occurs in appropriate locations that: (a) promote sustainable and on-going economic development (b) provide for the efficient use of buildings, land and infrastructure in business areas (c) avoid conflicts between incompatible activities. A quality built environment Objective 1. A quality built environment where development, including subdivision, across the site, street, block, neighbourhood and city scales: a. recognises Aucklands sense of place and enriches its landscape, character, heritage and legibility (identity) b. provides for a rich mix of choice and opportunity for our communities and can adapt to changing needs (diversity) c. considers and reinforces use, activity centres, energy systems and movement networks which are well connected and provide convenient and equal access for all (integration) d. supports and optimises the full potential of a sites intrinsic qualities, including its shape, landform, outlook and relationship to its surroundings (efficiency).
Page 28
The five centres zones (City Centre, Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre) with their differing controls relating to height and activities The two industrial zones (Heavy Industry and Light Industry) that provide for Aucklands manufacturing sector and a wide range of businesses other than retail and office The General Business zone and its provision for large format retail through resource consent applications The Mixed Use zone and its provisions that enable a mix of business and residential activities The Business Park zone and its provision for campus-style office development on key transport routes. 67. The key feedback received in relation to business, city centre and design matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Heights in centres Location and supply of land for retail Heights along the City Centre Waterfront Provisions for the Port of Auckland Ensuring high quality design Universal design Sustainable design. 68. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1.
Local Board Issues To Be Resolved 69. The majority of the local board feedback on business issues concerned the height controls in centres and the zoning of specific sites. The issue of heights in centres is addressed in Part 3 of this report. With respect to specific zoning issues, the vast majority of local board concerns were addressed at the two full-day mapping workshops.
Decisions Required 70. In addition to endorsing the interim directions given by the committee during the workshops, officers now seek decisions in relation to: Large format retail in the Mixed Use zone Officers were asked to consider a more stringent activity status for large format retail in the Mixed Use zone. Having considered the matter further, it is considered that a change to noncomplying status (from discretionary) would be inappropriate, as the zone has been applied to a number of locations where large format retail that meets the design and other requirements of the Mixed Use zone would be appropriate.
A 71.
Page 29
Item 9
These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include:
Item 9
B 72.
Identified Growth Corridor Lincoln Road The Identified Growth Corridor sets out additional objectives and policies for sites that abut Lincoln Road. The objectives and policies give additional guidance on the appropriateness of commercial activities along the corridor. The Identified Growth Corridor concept is supported by the Henderson-Massey Local Board. Other Identified Growth Corridors were discussed with local boards at the mapping workshops and were not supported. Officers agree that these areas require further analysis and do not propose to include them in the AUP. Wynyard Quarter Height Controls On the basis of a study commissioned by Waterfront Auckland, the draft AUP included a provision that allowed for an additional two storeys in height at Wynyard Quarter through a framework plan process. Council officers have considered this matter further, and believe that additional analysis is required in order to support the provision. Ports of Auckland At its meeting on 6 December 2012, RDOC received a report which set out the findings of an independent ports technical study, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and sponsored by the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA). At this meeting, RDOC endorsed some further work to review the provisions in the AUP for activities within the Port Management Area 1A1, particularly as they relate to potential reclamation. The key findings of the PwC study were as follows: Strong growth is projected for the Upper North Island (UNI) ports over the next 30 years. All three ports (Ports of Auckland, Port of Tauranga and Whangarei Ports) are required to meet the projected freight task. Incremental change is more cost-effective than substantial, systemic change (for example, establishing a new UNI port). Most efficient and cost-effective options are likely to be based around: - improved efficiency and incremental growth at each port - planned improvements in the land transport system - complemented by changes in relative prices that direct customers to where spare capacity exists in the UNI port system. Ports of Auckland can meet projected freight demand over the next 30 years through: - efficiency gains - some additional berth and storage development including some reclamation - though not to extent previously contemplated. When this infrastructure is required depends on: - timing of any operating efficiencies - timing of any release of Captain Cook and Marsden wharfs - spikes in demand.
C 73.
D 74.
75.
76.
At the Auckland Plan Committee meeting on 16 April 2013, a report was considered which outlined a range of port development planning options over the next 30 years, proposed by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) to meet projected freight demand. The report also set out potential policy responses to these options and sought council endorsement of a policy direction and changes to the Port precinct boundary.
The area currently known as PMA 1A has been renamed as the Port precinct in the AUP. The Port precinct is the same as the operative regional coastal plans PMA 1A with the westward addition of Marsden Wharf. POAL have a consent for occupation, under section 384A of the Act, which does not extend as far north of Bledisloe Wharf as the Port precinct.
Page 30
77.
The committee noted that POAL was about to release an updated draft Port Development Plan (PDP) for public engagement and feedback, which would outline their preferred port development options. The options set out by POAL were based on port operational and configuration planning to meet the demand projected in the PwC report, with input from TBA (Netherlands based), a leading international marine/port consultancy. The options set out in the draft PDP were an expand and release Captain Cook option (involving 6.6 ha reclamation) or an expand and retain Captain Cook option (involving 5.5 ha reclamation), both of which propose a seaward extension of Bledisloe Wharf. The committee requested that this draft Port Development Plan include for consultation the alternative planning provisions proposed by POAL, and also the facilitative/directive policy option 2, incorporating proposed changes to the Port precinct boundary. A draft Auckland Unitary Plan workshop was subsequently held on 31 July 2013. Port development was one of the topics discussed. The workshop included a presentation of the following: A high level summary of relevant feedback from public engagement on the draft AUP relating to development in the Port precinct A high level summary of feedback from public engagement on the draft Port Development Plan undertaken by POAL Five potential options for how reclamation could be classified in the Port precinct (refer Attachment 9 for an indicative illustration of these2).
78.
79.
80.
Options 1 and 5 - are the status quo planning provisions, which reflect the operative coastal plan and draft AUP approach (reclamation proposals are a discretionary activity within the entire Port precinct). The difference between options 1 and 5 is that option 5 proposes further public engagement and a possible future change to the Port provisions through a submission or plan change to the AUP. It is important to note that in this context status quo means that the same planning provisions apply in this area as have done since the Regional Plan: Coastal was made operative in October 2004. Options 2, 3 and 4 these options propose methods which, to varying degrees, narrow and restrict the extent of area in the Port precinct within which reclamation proposals would be treated as a discretionary activity. This would limit the potential extent of any proposed reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour. Outside these areas reclamations would be treated as non-complying activities, the same restrictive approach as in the vast majority of the coastal marine area (CMA). These options are based on technical evidence presently available the PwC study and POALs own development planning. Reclamation is a non-complying activity in most of the CMA and is prohibited in marine reserves and other areas of high environmental significance. The draft AUP recognised the Port precinct as one of the few areas where reclamation may be appropriate due to the already modified character of the environment and the significance of the Port to the region. The March draft of the AUP continued the approach of the operative regional coastal plan and enabled a discretionary activity resource consent application to be made for reclamation within the entire Port precinct. Policy 9 in the draft AUP indicated that further reclamation of land within the Port precinct could occur provided: there is no practicable alternative; and it is the most appropriate form of development; and potential adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
81.
82.
83.
The options are indicatively illustrated based on the expand and retain Captain Cook port development option, but also provides for the expand and release Captain Cook option, (which envisages slightly less total port area), should this option exercised at some future time.
Page 31
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 84. Direction was sought at the workshop on 31 July 2013 on: (a) (b) 85. 86. the retention of Policy 9 in the draft Unitary Plan; and how the notified AUP should classify applications for reclamation within the Port precinct.
Item 9
The results of the workshop were reported to the Auckland Plan Committee meeting on 13 August 2013. On 9 August 2013, the Mayor announced his intention to commission a study (commonly referred to as stage 2) to look at the long-term future of the Auckland Ports. He said that: Before we make any decisions about whether the Port expands or otherwise, we need an informed discussion with Aucklanders, underpinned by a robust study that includes consideration of economic, social and environmental factors. We need to closely look at every alternative for the delivery of port services and work out what is best for Auckland.
87.
Details of the scope and aim of the study will be announced in the coming weeks. Once this stage 2 study has concluded and the results have been considered, the council can decide what (if any) planning provision changes it may wish to progress, either through a council submission on the notified AUP or through notifying a plan change as soon as the AUP is operative. The notified AUP will, however, need to contain planning provisions as they relate to reclamation in the Port precinct. Some key stakeholders have seen the five proposed options for the notified AUP as giving preference to proposed reclamations within the more narrowly defined sub-areas in options 2, 3 and 4. There is also a concern that since the stage 2 study has not been undertaken or completed at this point, it is too soon to be at all definitive in the notified AUP. This interpretation is correct to the extent that an application for reclamation in these subareas (options 2, 3 and 4) would be treated as a discretionary activity instead of a more restrictive non-complying activity. The council has been clear since the initial PwC study was commissioned, that a stage 2 study was going to be needed at the appropriate time, to inform longer-term decisions. It is important to note that should POAL apply for a resource consent for reclamation seaward of Bledisloe Wharf, regardless of its size, it would be treated as a discretionary activity under all the options considered. Noting the Mayors commitment to the stage 2 study, decisions are now sought from the committee on the planning provisions for the Port precinct as it relates to reclamation activity, being Policy 9 of the draft AUP, with one of the following options: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Status quo planning provisions (operative coastal plan and draft AUP approach) Facilitative/directive option POALs alternative option Alternative approach Status quo planning provisions (operative coastal plan and draft Unitary Plan approach), plus additional engagement.
88.
89.
90.
91.
OR new option: (6) Make any further reclamation in the Port precinct a non-complying activity.
Options 1-4 are shown in Attachment 9. 92. If the committees preference is to leave things as they are at present, along with a commitment to a stage 2 study, options 1 or 5 best achieve this. However, it should be noted that this provides for a reclamation resource consent application to be treated as a discretionary activity anywhere within the Port precinct.
Page 32
93.
If the committees preference is to more precisely define a smaller area for reclamation proposals based on current information, options 2, 3 or 4 will achieve this to varying degrees. It should, however, be noted that for many stakeholders this may appear to give support to a reclamation seaward of Bledisloe Wharf, for which there is some public/stakeholder concern. Officers suggest that in light of the pending stage 2 study, the committee should endorse Option 6: Make any further reclamation in the Port precinct a non-complying activity. Once the stage 2 study has been concluded and the results have been considered, the council can then decide what (if any) changes to planning provisions it may wish to progress, either through a council submission to the notified AUP or through notifying a plan change as soon as the AUP is operative.
94.
95.
Social Infrastructure, Physical Infrastructure, Public Open Space and Recreation Auckland Plan 96. The figure below sets out the strategic directions and priorities in relation to social and physical infrastructure issues in the Auckland Plan:
Page 33
Item 9
Item 9
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 97. Social and physical issues are addressed in the RPS chapter of the AUP under the section Enabling Quality Urban Growth and Enabling Economic Well-being. The relevant objectives of this section of the RPS state the following: Social infrastructure Objective 1. A high-quality network of social infrastructure that meets Aucklanders needs both locally and regionally. 2. Social infrastructure is located where it is accessible by a range of transport modes. Significant infrastructure and energy Objectives 1. A resilient infrastructure and high-quality service. 2. The benefits of significant infrastructure which service the wider community, Auckland or New Zealand are recognised, including: a. the essential services provided by infrastructure networks, which provide for the functioning of communities, businesses and industry b. enabling economic growth c. providing for public health, safety and the well-being of people and communities d. contributing to a well functioning and liveable Auckland e. protecting the quality of the natural environment f. enabling interaction and communication. 3. Development, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of significant infrastructure is provided for and enabled, while managing any adverse effects it may have on: a. areas with significant landscape, cultural and historic heritage, and natural ecological and biodiversity values b. the health, safety and amenity of communities. 4. Renewable electricity generation is enabled, and energy efficiency and conservation promoted. 5. Infrastructure planning and development is integrated and co-ordinated at an early stage with land use and development to support residential and business growth. 6. Aucklands significant infrastructure is protected from reverse sensitivity effects and incompatible subdivision, use and development. 7. The locational or function-based requirements of significant infrastructure are recognised. Public open space and recreation facilities Objectives 1. A high-quality network of public open spaces and recreation facilities that meets the needs of the diverse communities of Auckland.
Page 34
3.
Public access to Aucklands coastline, foreshore, beaches and special natural areas is maintained and enhanced.
4. Mana Whenua values and associations with public open space are identified and enhanced. Transport Objectives 1. An effective, efficient and safe transport system that supports the integrated movement of people, goods and services throughout Auckland and to other regions and nations. 2. An effective, efficient and safe integrated transport system that is integrated with, and supports, a quality, compact form of urban growth and associated land use. 3. A well developed, operated and maintained transport system that manages potential adverse effects on the natural environment and the health, safety and amenity of people and communities. 4. A transport system that facilitates transport choices and enables accessibility and mobility for all sections of the community. 98. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: Social Infrastructure The school and tertiary education precincts The Special Purpose Healthcare Facilities zone Zone provisions for schools and community facilities. Physical Infrastructure The network utility rules The port and airport zones and precincts The transmission lines buffer areas The Quarry zone and other quarry provisions The transport rules (including required and maximum parking rates). Parking Electricity transmission corridors Aircraft noise routes Quarry zones and quarry transport routes. Open Space and Recreation The five Public Open Space zones and associated precincts The Major Recreation Facilities zone and associated precincts.
Page 35
Item 9
2. The protection and enhancement of the natural environment of public open spaces and cultural heritage places.
Item 9
The key feedback received in relation to social and physical infrastructure matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Capacity of existing infrastructure The zoning of tertiary institutions and schools The need for a community facilities zone The zoning of privately-owned open space Provisions for buildings and structures on public open space The zoning of Auckland Museum Provisions for Major Recreation Facilities.
100. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1. Local Board Issues To Be Resolved 101. A key issue for a number of local boards was the general approach to the zoning of schools. A number of local boards also gave feedback on specific sites. This feedback was discussed at the two full-day mapping workshops and a number of changes were made. Two key sitespecific rezoning requests (Unitec and Colin Maiden Park) are discussed in Part 4 of this report. Decisions Required 102. In addition to endorsing the interim directions given by the committee during the workshops, officers now seek decisions in relation to: A The Zoning of Schools
103. This topic was discussed in detail at the 9 August Auckland Plan Committe workshop. Under the draft AUP, tertiary institutions and schools have an underlying zone (e.g. Mixed Housing or Mixed Use) based on a consideration of the characteristics of the surrounding area. Precincts are applied on top of the underlying zone in order to permit education and associated activities. 104. The legacy councils dealt with this issue in a variety of ways, with the majority applying an underlying residential or business zone. Particular concerns were raised by local boards and councillors in the central part of Auckland in relation to this approach. This partly reflects the fact that the former Auckland City Council applied a special purpose zone to schools that restricted their ability to use the land for other activities. It also reflects the concerns of the community and local boards that the Ministry of Education is not providing adequately for the growth in school roles in some parts of central Auckland. 105. The Ministry of Education and private schools strongly support the approach in the draft AUP as it reflects the current zoning of schools in many parts of Auckland and enables greater flexibility than a more restrictive special purpose zone. 106. Officers have considered this matter further, and recommend that a consistent approach is applied across Auckland. The approach is to zone school and tertiary education sites the same zone as adjoining properties or a zone that reflects an appropriate alternative use. However, the school precinct is amended to make dwellings a discretionary activity. This will ensure that any proposals to develop housing on land within a school precinct goes through a resource consent process in order to consider any potential adverse effects.
Page 36
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 B Early Childhood Education Centres on Public Open Space
107. The interim direction provided at the workshop was to make early childhood centres a noncomplying activity on land zoned Public Open Space (due to the need to maintain recreation as the primary purpose of public open space), but to investigate the possibility of permitting small centres within existing buildings. It is recommended that early childhood centres (up to 100m2) are permitted within existing buildings in the Public Open Space Sport and Active Recreation, Public Open Space Informal Recreation and Public Open Space Community zones. C Major Recreation Facility Precincts and Concept Plans
108. Feedback from a number of Aucklands Major Recreation Facility owners/operators requested the incorporation of concept plans within the relevant Major Recreation Facility precincts contained in the draft AUP. As discussed earlier in this report, concept plans generally allow for a greater level of development potential than the underlying zone. 109. The overall approach in the AUP is to apply the Major Recreation Facilities zone, plus different precincts racing, sports, stadiums and showgrounds, and Auckland Zoo and MOTAT, to Aucklands major recreation facilities. The precincts apply different activity and development controls in recognition of the differences between the various facilities. The following is a summary of the approach in the AUP. C1 Major Recreation Facilities Zone carnivals, concerts, fairs, markets, conferences, meeting, receptions & functions entertainment facilities food & beverage operation of major recreation facilities retail up to 500m2 community facilities healthcare facility informal recreation organised sport and recreation recreation facilities.
110. Land Use - a wide range of activities are permitted:
111. Development small-scale buildings and sport and recreation structures are permitted: buildings less than 500m2 floodlighting not exceeding 18m parks infrastructure. 112. Larger-scale buildings and structures require a restricted discretionary activity consent: buildings greater than 500 GFA floodlighting exceeding 18m in height. 113. Permitted activities must comply with the performance standards, including: traffic and transport plan for the large stadia building height 18m , where within 20m of a residential, future urban or public open space zone building height 35m, where more than 20m of a residential, future urban or public open space zone height in relation to boundary yards 10m front, 5m side and rear where borders a residential, future urban or public open space zone screening of outdoor storage or rubbish collection areas.
Item 9
Item 9
114. Noise and lighting controls are proposed to be included in the precincts. Officers will present in detail on this matter at the committee meeting. C2 Precincts
Racing precinct (Avondale, Counties, Ellerslie and Pukekohe) 115. Land Use additional land uses associated with horse and motor car racing are provided for as permitted activities: healthcare services, including veterinary services motor sport activities (Counties racing Club only) race and trial meetings and horse training activities equestrian activities and associated retail, office administration sales and auction of horses and stock totalisator agency premises.
Land Use Controls 116. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. Development Controls 117. More restrictive height, yard and maximum building coverage controls for Avondale and Ellerslie than the underlying zone. C3 Sports precinct (AUT/Millennium, Bruce Pulman Park)
118. Bruce Pulman Park more restrictive than the underlying zone: temporary camping grounds controlled activity food and beverage restricted discretionary activity grandstands - restricted discretionary activity. Land Use Controls 119. Traffic and transport management plan required for Bruce Pulman Park where threshold crowd capacity is exceeded. 120. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. Development Controls 121. More restrictive height, yard and site coverage controls than the underlying zone for AUT Millennium. C4 Stadiums and Showgrounds precinct (ASB Showgrounds, ASB Tennis Arena, Eden Park, ECOLight Stadium, Mt Smart Stadium, North Harbour Stadium and Domain, North Shore Events Centre, Pukekohe A & P Showgrounds, Trusts Stadium, Vodafone Events Centre, Western Springs Stadium) Eden Park 122. Land Use additional land uses Offices not exceeding 500m2 and 5,000m2 cumulative permitted Retail not exceeding 500m2 and 5,000m2 cumulative permitted Dwellings restricted discretionary Visitor accommodation discretionary.
Page 38
123. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. Development Controls 124. More and less restrictive heights than the base zone depending on location, but 35m maximum in the legacy operative district plan retained. 125. Reduced front yards along Sandringham Road and Cricket Avenue relative to the base zone. 126. Link to Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone controls for dwellings and visitor accommodation. North Harbour Stadium 127. Land Use additional land uses Visitor accommodation controlled activity Stadium buildings controlled activity Aquatic centre permitted activity. Land Use Controls 128. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. Development Controls 129. Great height controls than the underlying zone for light towers 65m Lesser front yard than the underlying zone 5m. North Shore Event Centre Land Use as per the underlying zone Land Use Controls 130. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. Development Controls 131. Height in relation to boundary control adjacent to Fred Thomas Park of 8.5m plus 45 degrees Building coverage control of 50%. C5 Zoo and MOTAT precinct
132. Land Use additional land uses associated with the Auckland Zoo and MOTAT are provided for as permitted activities: Management of flora and fauna Display of objects of interest in the filed of transportation and technology Elevated walkways and viewing platforms (Zoo) 133. Noise and lighting controls to be discussed in detail at the committee meeting. 134. No additional development controls.
Item 9
Land Use Controls
Item 9
135. Officers recommend the inclusion of the precincts outlined above and set out in full in the amended version of the draft AUP. Officers also seek a decision on the noise and lighting controls to include for Aucklands Major Recreation Facility zone and associated precincts. A specific presentation on this topic will be made at the committee meeting. Rural Auckland Plan 136. The figure below sets out the strategic direction and priorities in relation to rural issues in the Auckland Plan:
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 137. Rural issues are addressed in the RPS chapter of the AUP under the section Sustainably Managing Our Rural Environment. The objectives of this section of the RPS state the following: Rural activities Objectives 1. Rural areas are a significant contributor to the wider economic productivity of Auckland. 2. Rural communities undertake rural production and other activities that support them while rural character is maintained. 3. Aucklands rural areas outside the RUB, and rural and coastal towns and villages, are protected from inappropriate subdivision, urban use and development. Land with high productive potential Objectives 1. The subdivision, use and development of elite and prime land is managed to maintain its capability, flexibility and accessibility for primary production. 2. The productive potential of land of lower soil quality is recognised. Rural subdivision Objectives 1. Land subdivision does not undermine the productive potential of rural land. 2. Further fragmentation of rural land by sporadic and scattered subdivision for urban and rural lifestyle purposes is prevented. 3. The use and development of existing titles rather than subdivision of land for new sites is encouraged. 4. The amalgamation and transfer of rural sites to areas that can best support them is encouraged.
138. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: The four rural zones (Rural Production, Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, Rural Conservation and Countryside Living) The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area precincts. 139. The key feedback received in relation to rural matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Rural subdivision Countryside Living zone minimum site sizes Location of the Mixed Rural zone Additional dwellings on sites in rural zones Provisions for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. 140. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1. Local Board Issues To Be Resolved 141. Franklin and Rodney Local Boards sought identification of further land for the Countryside Living zone (and made reference to some specific areas such as Taupaki). This issue was discussed with the local boards at the mapping workshops. Officers believe significant work is required prior to zoning any additional land for Countryside Living. No new areas have been mapped in the amended draft Auckland Unitary Plan. 142. Franklin Local Board sought that the minimum site size for subdivision is reduced in the Mixed Rural zone. Officers do not support a reduction in the minimum site size for this zone as there are sufficient opportunities for smaller sites in rural areas through the transferrable rural site subdivision provisions. 143. Franklin and Rodney Boards also sought relaxation of the second dwelling provision in rural zones. This is reflected in the amended version of the draft AUP which provides for a second dwelling on sites greater than 40Ha in the Rural Production, Mixed Rural and Rural Coastal zones as a permitted activity, and a third dwelling where sites are over 100 hectares. Decisions Required A Transferable Rural Site Subdivision for Ecological Restoration 144. The draft AUP did not include provisions for the transfer of rural subdivision entitlements as a bonus for ecological restoration. At the committee workshop on rural issues, officers were requested to investigate this matter further. Having considered the matter further, officers are of the view that introducing transferable rural site subdivision opportunities for ecological restoration should be undertaken with caution and would require considerable analysis. 145. Identifying specific areas where restoration would be justified, and setting up a monitoring regime to ensure that the restoration takes place are two of the key issues that would need to be explored further. There are situations in Auckland where additional subdivision opportunities have been provided on the basis of ecological restoration, where little ecological benefit has actually occurred. Officers therefore recommend no changes to the March draft of the AUP.
Page 41
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 B Countryside Living zone minimum site size
Item 9
146. The draft AUP essentially rolled over the legacy minimum site sizes for subdivision. These minimum site sizes have mostly be introduced through lengthy planning processes that have, in a number of cases, resulted in extensive Environment Court litigation. At the committee workshop on rural issues, officers were asked to investigate the possibility of smaller site sizes. In light of the contentious nature of the planning history for many of the Countryside Living zone areas in Auckland, and in consideration of the level of analysis that would be required in order to justify any changes, officers recommend that the approach in the draft AUP is retained (subject to any recent Environment Court decisions). C Farm Parks 147. At the committee workshop on rural issues, officers were asked to investigate whether the AUP should provide for farm parks (clusters of housing within rural areas). Having investigated this issue further, officers are of the view that farm parks should only be provided for in the specific Countryside Living zone areas that enable opportunities for cluster housing. D Mixed Rural zone 148. At the committee workshop in rural issues, officers were asked to investigate applying the Mixed Rural zone to additional areas, particularly in the southern part of Auckland. Additional areas were discussed with the rural local boards at the mapping workshops and additional land was zoned Mixed Rural. E Changes to the status of activities in the Rural Production zone 149. At the committee workshop on rural issues officers were asked to review the status of activities in the Rural Production zone. A number of changes have been made to the March draft of the AUP as outlined in detail in the amended version of the AUP. Examples of the proposed changes are: the activity status of rural industry changing from discretionary to restricted discretionary equestrian centres changing from discretionary to restricted discretionary visitor accommodation changing from non-complying to discretionary. Treaty of Waitangi Auckland Plan 150. The figure below sets out the strategic direction and priorities in relation to Treaty of Waitangi issues in the Auckland Plan:
Page 42
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 151. Treaty of Waitangi issues are addressed in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan under the section Addressing Issues of Significance to Mana Whenua. The objectives of this section of the RPS state the following: Recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnerships and participation Objectives 1. The principles of the Treaty are recognised and provided for in the sustainable management of ancestral lands, water, air, coastal sites, whi tapu and other taonga, and natural and physical resources. The Treaty is articulated in law through an evolving set of principles. These include: a. reciprocity b. rangatiratanga c. partnership d. shared decision-making e. active protection f. mutual benefit g. right of development h. redress. 2. 3. Mana Whenua can exercise Tino Rangatiratanga through participation in resource management processes and decisions. The relationship of Mana Whenua with Treaty settlement land is provided for, recognising: a. Treaty settlements provide redress for the grievances arising from the breaches of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the Crown b. the historical circumstances associated with the loss of land by Mana Whenua and resulting inability to provide for Mana Whenua well-being c. the importance of cultural redress lands and interests to Mana Whenua identity, integrity, and rangatiratanga d. the limited extent of commercial redress land available to provide for the economic well-being of Mana Whenua. The development and use of Treaty settlement land is enabled in ways that give effect to the outcomes of Treaty settlements recognising that: a. cultural redress is intended to meet the cultural interests of Mana Whenua b. commercial redress is intended to contribute to the social and economic development of Mana Whenua.
4.
Recognising Mana Whenua values through integrating mtauranga and tikanga in the sustainable management of Aucklands natural and physical environment Objectives 1. Mana Whenua values, mtauranga and tikanga are properly reflected and accorded sufficient weight in resource management decision-making. 2. 3. 4. The mauri and the relationship of Mana Whenua with freshwater, geothermal, land, air and coastal resources is enhanced. Mana Whenua are involved and empowered in the management of natural resources. The relationship of Mana Whenua and their customs and traditions with areas scheduled for natural heritage or historic heritage values is recognised and provided for.
Page 43
Item 9
Item 9
Mori economic, social and cultural development Objective 1. Development supports the economic, social and cultural aspirations of Mori. 2. Mana Whenua occupies, develops and use their land within their ancestral rohe, particularly in areas identified as Mori cultural landscapes. Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage Objectives 1. The tangible and intangible values of Mana Whenua cultural heritage are identified, protected and enhanced. 2. 3. 4. The relationship of Mana Whenua with their cultural heritage is provided for. Mana Whenua cultural, spiritual and historical values associated with their cultural landscapes are recognised, protected and enhanced. The knowledge base of Mana Whenua cultural heritage in Auckland continues to be developed, giving priority to areas where there is a higher level of threat to the loss or degradation of Mana Whenua cultural heritage. Mori cultural heritage and related sensitive information and management approaches are respected.
5.
152. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: Auckland-wide provisions for Maori Land Auckland-wide provisions for Treaty Settlement The Maori Special Purpose zone and precincts Scheduled sites of significance to Mana Whenua Schedule of archaeological sites of Maori origin Accidental discovery rules and protocols Reference to Mana Whenua values throughout the AUP. 153. The key feedback received in relation to Treaty of Waitangi matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Mana Whenua participation in decision-making Development of Maori land Development of Maori land with natural heritage values Planning for Treaty settlement land Development of Treaty settlement land Maori cultural heritage.
Page 44
154. The interim directions provided by the committee are outlined in Attachment 1. Independent Maori Statutory Board Issues 155. Two issues of concern to the Independent Maori Statutory Board were the need to protect a far greater number of sites of significance to Mana Whenua through the AUP and the impact of the natural heritage overlays on Maori land. Mana Whenua have also expressed a similar concern. These issues were discussed in detail at the committee workshop on Treaty of Waitangi issues. 156. The draft March AUP scheduled a number of sites of significance to Maori. It also included an alert layer (which displayed over 6000 potential sites of significance) and an associated rule requiring a resource consent if earthworks were undertaken within 50m of an unscheduled site. 157. The proposed approach in the amended AUP is to remove the majority of rules for unscheduled sites. Officers have strong doubts that the approach taken in the draft AUP would survive the hearing process, and believe that a far more robust approach is to work with Mana Whenua to identify additional sites and include them through a plan change to the AUP. In the interim, a significant degree of protection is afforded to Mana Whenua cultural heritage through: the ongoing protection of existing scheduled sites of significance to Mana Whenua from the legacy plans the addition of some of the sites nominated through the feedback process the protection of over 600 sites of Maori origin on the schedule of archaeological sites the accidental discovery rules and protocols in the amended version of the draft AUP the requirement to consult with Mana Whenua and prepare a Cultural Impact Assessment when applying for a resource consent for a wide range of activities, in particular those affecting natural resources the requirement to prepare a Cultural Impact Assessment and avoid sites of significance to Mana Whenua when carrying out a structure plan prior to the rezoning of any Future Urban zoned land to an urban zone. 158. The concern about the impact of the natural heritage overlays is that a disproportionate amount of Maori land is covered by them. Officers have looked at a number of options and recommend that no changes to the overlays be made as the rules applying to the overlays do enable development through an Integrated Maori Land Development Plan. 159. While officers recognise that the amended version of the draft AUP does not satisfy all of the feedback received from Mana Whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board, they are firmly of the view that the approach in the amended version of the draft AUP to the protection of Mana Whenua cultural heritage, and recognition of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in general, is a vast improvement on that which currently exists in Auckland under the legacy district and regional plans. Decisions Required 160. Officers seek the committees endorsement of the interim directions given at the Treaty of Waitangi workshop.
Page 45
Item 9
Item 9
Natural Environment and Coastal Auckland Plan 161. The figure below sets out the strategic direction and priorities in relation to natural environment and coastal issues in the Auckland Plan:
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 162. Natural Environment and coastal issues are addressed in the RPS chapter of the AUP under the sections Sustainably Managing Our Natural Environment and Sustainably Managing Our Rural Environment. The relevant objectives of these sections of the RPS state the following: Natural Environment Landscape and natural features Objectives 1. Aucklands ONLs and ONFs are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. 2. The ancestral relationships of Mana Whenua with, and their perspectives on, the landscapes and natural features of Auckland is identified and provided for. 3. The restoration and enhancement of natural features and landscapes, including in the Waitkere Ranges heritage area and the Hauraki Gulf/Te Moana-nui o Toi/T kapa Moana islands is promoted. 4. The visual and physical integrity and values Auckland's volcanic features that are of local, regional, national and/or international significance are protected and where practicable enhanced. 5. The significant views to and between Aucklands maunga are protected. 6. The multiple values of ONFs are protected and enhanced. 7. The role of existing rural production is recognised in the management of landscape values. Trees and vegetation Objectives 1. Aucklands sense of place and identity is maintained and enhanced through the recognition and protection of the contribution of trees and vegetation to our cultural and natural heritage.
3. The retention of trees and groups of trees in urban areas which contribute to neighbourhood amenity and character are promoted. Biodiversity Objectives 1. Areas of significant indigenous biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal environments are protected from the adverse effects of subdivision use and development 2. Indigenous biodiversity is maintained through protection and restoration in areas where ecological values are degraded, or where development is occurring . 3. The protection and restoration of natural heritage features of the Waitkere Ranges heritage area and the Hauraki Gulf/Te Moana-nui o Toi/Tkapa Moana is promoted 4. Coastal ecosystems and their life supporting capacity are protected, and where possible, enhanced. 5. The relationship of Mana Whenua and their customs and traditions with Aucklands and its biodiversity is acknowledged. Air Objectives 1. Air discharges and the use and development of land are managed to improve air quality, enhance amenity values and reduce reverse sensitivity in Aucklands urban areas and to maintain air quality at existing levels in rural and coastal marine areas. 2. The Auckland Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Environmental Standards are met, and in particular priority is given to meeting the annual average standards for fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5) and hourly and 24-hourly standards for nitrogen dioxide. 3. The directives of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality to reduce PM10 contaminant levels are implemented through Unitary Plan provisions and other relevant techniques available to the council. 4. Adverse effects of air discharges on human health, property and the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated including those from: a. domestic solid fuel burning b. outdoor burning c. industrial and trade premises d. application of chemicals e. motor vehicles. Freshwater and Geothermal Water Objectives 1. The natural, social, economic and cultural values of freshwater and geothermal water resources are safeguarded when land, freshwater and geothermal water is used and developed. 2. The quality of freshwater and the natural and cultural values of freshwater systems are maintained and restored and enhanced where they have been degraded below levels necessary to safeguard life supporting capacity and meet community values.
Item 9
2. The contribution of trees and vegetation to the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity, and the provision of ecosystem services including soil conservation, water quality, stormwater control and the mitigation of natural hazards is recognised and enhanced.
Item 9
3. Freshwater and geothermal resources are managed and allocated to support their natural and cultural values and to make efficient use of available water for economic, social and cultural purposes. 4. The amount of freshwater used by Auckland is progressively reduced on a per head basis. 5. The adverse effects of stormwater runoff and wastewater discharges on communities, natural freshwater systems and coastal waters are minimised and existing adverse effects are progressively reduced. 6. Mana Whenua values and interests, mtauranga and tikanga associated with freshwater resources are recognised. 7. Mana Whenua actively participate in freshwater management processes and decisionmaking. Land - hazardous substances Objectives 1. The environment is protected from the adverse effects and risks associated with the storage, use, disposal and transport of hazardous substances, while recognising and providing for the social and economic benefits of these activities. Land - contaminated Objective 1. Human health and the quality of air, land and water resources in Auckland are protected by the identification, management and remediation of contaminated land. is proposed. Natural hazards Objectives 1. Reduce risk to people, property and infrastructure from natural hazards while minimising any adverse effects on the environment. 2. Protect the natural functions of floodplains and overland flow paths from the adverse effects of development and infrastructure. Coastal Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment Objectives 1. Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment is located in appropriate areas, taking into account the range of uses and values of the coastal environment. 2. The natural and physical resources of the coastal environment are used efficiently and activities that depend on the use of the natural and physical resources of the coastal environment are provided for in appropriate locations. 3. Conflict between activities is minimised, and rights to occupy parts of the CMA are limited to activities that have a functional need to be located below MHWS. 4. There is integrated management of activities on land and in the CMA, to ensure that the efficient operation of established activities that depend upon the use of the CMA, is not adversely affected by other land or CMA activities.
Page 48
Natural character of the coastal environment Objectives 1. Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment is designed and located to avoid significant adverse effects on natural character, and to retain the particular elements or features that significantly contribute to the natural character of an area. 2. The natural character of areas with high or outstanding natural character value is preserved, and subdivision use and development is managed to maintain their high levels of naturalness. 3. Where practicable areas with degraded natural character are restored or rehabilitated, and areas of high and outstanding natural character in the coastal environment, including in the Waitkere Ranges Heritage Area and the Hauraki Gulf/To Moana Nui o Toi/Tkapa Moana, are enhanced. Public access and open space in the coastal environment Objectives 1. Public access to and along the CMA is maintained and enhanced in a manner that is sensitive to the use and values of an area. 2. The open space, recreation and amenity values of the coastal environment are maintained or enhanced, including through the provision of public facilities in appropriate locations. 3. Public access is restricted where necessary to ensure health or safety, the efficient and safe operation of activities, or to protect the value of areas that are sensitive to disturbance.
163. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: Rules relating to discharges to air, land and water (including the Coastal Marine Area (CMA)) Rules relating to the damming and diverting of streams Rules relating to streams lakes and aquifers Rules relating to excluding stock from streams The Outstanding Natural Landscapes overlay The Outstanding and High Natural Character overlay The Outstanding Natural Features overlay Volcanic Cone Viewshafts and Blanket Height Sensitive Areas around a number of the cones The Significant Ecological Areas overlay Scheduled tree rules
Page 49
Item 9
5. The risk of subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment being adversely affected by coastal hazards is minimised.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Coastal protection yards
Item 9
Rules for reclamation and structures in the CMA Rules for marinas and wharfs Rules for aquaculture. 164. The key feedback received in relation to natural environment and coastal matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Air quality and the heavy industry zone Stock access to freshwater and the Coastal Marine Area Provisions for street trees and utilities Genetically modified ogansims Significant Ecological Areas Mangroves Stormwater Volcanic cone viewshafts and height sensitive areas Coastal degraded areas Coastal protection yards Coastal trees Coastal inundation House boats Marinas Network discharges. 165. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1. Local Board Issues To Be Resolved 166. Local boards were generally supportive of the approach to the protection of the natural environment and coastal areas in the draft AUP. There were some suggested amendments including a date threshold for vegetation removal controls (this is reflected in the amended version of the draft AUP) and alternative criteria for the scheduling of trees. There was also some support for bonus provisions for the ecological restoration. A variety of views were expressed on the issue of mangrove removal. Decisions Required A Street tree rules 167. Officers have been in discussions with Auckland Transport, Watercare, utility operators and the Parks, Sport and Recreation Department about the possibility of using Auckland Transports Corridor Access Request (CAR) process to manage the removal of street trees or works in the vicinity of trees. An agreement on the nature of the assessment undertaken through the CAR process has yet to be reached. In light of this, it is recommended that the permitted activity rule for tree removal and works in the vicinity of trees is removed from the AUP. Should an agreement be reached between the parties, this will be reported to the Auckland Plan Committee to determine how the outcome of the discussions can be implemented.
Page 50
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 B Mangroves
168. The following options were presented at the AUP workshop on Mangroves: Option A - Operative Regional Coastal Plan Approach 169. Discard date-based permitted activity (i.e. require a resource consent to be obtained except as specified below): Retain permitted activities for: - maintenance of assets (e.g. boat ramps) and infrastructure - seedlings removal Enable removal of mangroves from wading bird habitats as a controlled activity Promote omnibus consents coordinated at a local board level for other removal Clarify and strengthen policies supporting clearing with amenity, cultural, coastal access and other community benefits Consent applications for local board supported proposals processed free of charge. Option B - Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 170. Retain date-based permitted activity and: Enable the removal of mangroves in areas that were free of mangroves in 1996 from: - the General Coastal Marine zone; and - Significant Ecological Areas that are wading bird habitats; and - Significant Ecological Areas where the values are not from mangroves. Undertake a prioritised investigation through Marine Spatial Planning and mapping exercise to identify further areas where mangrove removal has a low environmental risk and can be permitted. 171. Officers are of the view that Option B should be retained in the AUP. This option recognises the strong desire from a number of local boards and members of the community for a more permissive approach to the removal of mangroves. The permitted activity rules in the amended version of the draft AUP will ensure that any adverse effects associated with mangrove removal are appropriately managed. Provision has also been made for a restricted discretionary resource consent to be considered where applicants hold valid information that identifies an earlier date at which the area was free of mangroves. C Clearance rules around buildings in SEAs
172. At the Auckland Plan Committee workshop on SEAs, officers were asked to consider whether the permitted clearance rules that apply around dwellings within SEAs could be extended to all buildings within SEAs. Having considered this matter further, officers consider that it is appropriate to apply the permitted clearance rules to larger buildings but not all buildings. To apply the permitted clearance rules to all buildings would put the ecological values of SEAs at risk. It is therefore recommended that the clearance rule applies to site buildings which have a footprint of 100m2 or less. D Genetically Modified Organisms
173. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were also the subject of an Auckland Plan Committee workshop. This was followed up with a comprehensive report to the committee on 13 August. The only additional information to hand since the 13 August workshop is a proposal by the Ministry for the Environment to amend the RMA to exclude the possibility of RMA plans including controls on GMOs. The Ministry is currently seeking feedback on the proposal. If this proposed legislative change occurs then Auckland Council would need to amend the AUP.
Item 9
Item 9
174. The recommended approach from officers remains as outlined at the workshop: include the provisions from the Inter-Council Working Party on GMOs in the AUP, subject to minor changes to reflect the drafting style of the AUP. This recognises the fact that all but one piece of feedback received on GMOs supported the AUP including controls on GMOs. The Minster for the Environment provided the only feedback that did not support GMOs controls in the AUP. E Volcanic Cone Viewshafts - Height in Newmarket
175. At the workshop on heights in centres and volcanic cone viewshafts, an interim direction was given that the volcanic cone viewshafts should clearly over-ride the zone height controls. In most cases, the zone height control is not considerably greater than the volcanic cone viewshaft height control. Applying non-complying activity status is therefore considered to be a clear reflection of the direction from the committee. 176. A major exception to this is the conflict between the Newmaket Metropolitan Centre zone height control (72.5 metres) and the volcanic cone viewshaft, which cuts across most of the Metropolitan Centre zone and generally restricts height to less than 35 metres. 177. In light of the interim direction received and the clear conflict between the zone height and the volcanic cone viewshaft height, officers recommend that the zone height for the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre zone is reduced to 32.5 metres/8 stories. This is a similar height control to the one that exists in the relevant legacy district plan. Also of note is the fact that Newmarket was recently subject to a comprehensive plan change that included heights similar to the control proposed in the amended version of the draft AUP. F Blanket Height Sensitive Areas for specific locations
178. At the workshop on heights in centres and the volcanic cone viewshafts, officers highlighted the conflict between the zone height for a number of centres and the blanket height sensitive areas around the base of a number of the cones. The blanket height sensitive area restricts buildings to 8 metres in height, whereas the zones allow up to 16.5 metres/four storeys in some cases. 179. The issue was discussed at the mapping workshop and a diverse range of proposals were put forward, from support for the 8 metre height control to allowing parts of centres to exceed the 8 metres and other to be limited to 8 metres. Having reviewed the proposals, officers consider that a comprehensive landscape analysis is required in order to come up with a consistent and robust option for possible exceptions to the blanket height sensitive area control. G Marina Precinct Plans
180. At the coastal provisions workshop, officers presented an overview of the requests from a number of the marina owners/operators for precinct plans to be included in the AUP that would allow for greater development potential than the Marina zone and associated precincts. More detailed information was subsequently circulated to councillors and local board chairs in a memo from the Chief Planning Officer. 181. Officers have considered the requests for inclusion of the precinct plans and consider that three (West Park, Gulf Harbour and Bayswater) of the five requests should be included, but in a modified form. A summary of the recommendations from officers is included in Attachment 10.
Page 52
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 H Coastal Protection Yard in Rural zones
182. At the AUP workshop on coastal issues, officers were asked to investigate the possibility of reducing the coastal protection yards in rural zones. Having considered this matter further, officers remain of the view that the yard widths for rural zones set out below and in the amended draft of the AUP are appropriate. Rural Conservation Coastal protection yard 50m Countryside Living 40m Rural Coastal 50m Mixed Rural 50m Rural Production 50m
183. The main reasons officers support these coastal protection yards are as follows: They reflect legacy provisions from Rodney and Franklin district plans (50m and 60m respectively for the equivalent of the AUP Rural Production zone) There is a long-standing expectation that setbacks from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) should be greater in rural areas The visual effects of buildings on natural coastal character in are greater than in urban areas Larger setbacks are necessary to mitigate effects associated with future sea level rise and erosion in high-energy west coast environments Rural sites have the capacity to set buildings and earthworks further back from MHWS without significant disruption of rural activities. Network discharges 184. Feedback has been received on the need to align the rules for network discharges to freshwater and to the CMA. In particular, by providing for discharges from wastewater overflow events to the CMA as permitted and controlled activities, subject to a number of standards. 185. A lack of alignment can make it easier to discharge to freshwater because of the rules of the Plan, rather than any environmental benefit. Further, requiring a resource consent for discharges from overflow events to the CMA would add substantial cost to the operation of the wastewater network. 186. Provisions for discharges, including from public and private wastewater treatment plants would remain largely unchanged. 187. Officers have considered the feedback received and are of the view that the rules governing discharges of waste water to the Coastal Marine Area should be aligned with the rules governing wastewater discharge to freshwater. This reflects the approach to coastal discharges agreed between parties in the recently resolved variation one to chapter 20 of the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal. Specific provisions will be presented at the committee meeting. SEA location on Waikumete Cemetery 188. Feedback has been received that the proposed SEA applying to 40 hectares of the Waikumete Cemetery would, if retained in its entirety, require a resource consent for normal burial processes. This could constrain the ongoing viability of the cemetery. In 2010 the former Waitakere City Council commissioned a study on the Waikumete Cemetery which indicated 22 hectares of the bush on the site should be retained with the other 18 hectares being made available for burial. This would allow the cemetery to continue operating for another 50 years. Officers are recommending that the proposed SEA be reduced to be 22 hectares. The SEA overlay in the amended version of the draft AUP reflects this.
Page 53
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Historic Heritage and Special Character
Item 9
Note: The term special character is used in this report and in the amended version of the draft AUP in response to a recent Environment Court decision on Plan Change 163 to the legacy Auckland City Council District Plan (Isthmus Section). Auckland Plan 189. The figure below sets out the strategic direction and priorities in relation to historic heritage issues in the Auckland Plan:
Auckland Unitary Plan Approach 190. Historic heritage and special character issues are addressed in the RPS chapter of the AUP under the section Protecting Our Historic Heritage, Special Character and Natural Heritage. The relevant objectives of this section of the RPS state the following: Historic Heritage Objectives 1. Aucklands significant historic heritage places are identified and protected. 2. Significant historic heritage places are used appropriately and owners and the community are encouraged to actively protect and conserve these places.
191. These objectives are implemented through a range of objectives, policies and rules in the Auckland-wide, zone, overlay and precinct chapters of the AUP. Particular provisions include: The schedule of historic heritage places Special character overlays (previously historic character overlays) The pre-1944 demolition control. 192. The key feedback received in relation to historic heritage and special character matters contained in the draft AUP concerned: Protection of historic heritage Special character areas (previously historic character areas) Pre-1944 demolition control.
Page 54
Local Board Issues To Be Resolved 194. A number of local boards expressed a strong desire to ensure the AUP protects additional historic heritage places and special character areas. There were mixed views on the pre1944 demolition control overlay. Some local boards provided specific feedback on the rules relating to historic heritage and special character. 195. Albert/Eden, Devonport/Takapuna, Franklin, Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu, Orakei Whau Boards requested that additional investigation be undertaken to include further historic heritage places/areas and special character areas. Future heritage and character assessments are factored into the Heritage unit's work programme. 196. Devonport/Takapuna Local Board sought specific provisions for the Devonport town centre. The town centre is subject to Plan Change 33 to the relevant legacy district plan. A final decision on that plan change is expected soon. The outcome of the plan change can be included in the AUP via a submission. 197. Devonport/Takapuna Local Board sought that the all buildings, objects and places identified in Plan Change 38 to the relevant legacy district plan are included in the AUP. Plan Change 38 is still under consideration. A final decision on this plan change is expected soon. If appropriate, the outcome of the plan change can be included in the AUP via a submission. 198. Mangere-Otahuhu, Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa Local Boards sought that the results of heritage assessments are included in the AUP. The results of the heritage assessments are included in the amended version of the draft AUP. 199. Rodney Local Board sought that a historic character overlay be applied to Puhoi in a similar manner to the Helensville overlay. Puhoi is not proposed to be covered by a special character or historic heritage overlay. A number of places in Puhoi are scheduled as historic heritage and are subject to historic heritage extent of place controls. The area is also subject to the pre-1944 demolition control overlay. 200. Whau Local Board was concerned that past local heritage planning in the Roberton Road area, Avondale was not included in the draft AUP. This area was assessed in 2006 and it was determined that it did not meet the threshold for scheduling or for inclusion as a special character overlay. 201. Manurewa, Orakei, and Puketapapa Local Boards sought that significant post-1944 special character areas be included in the AUP. To include any post-1944 heritage places and/or special character areas would require additional assessment through survey work. No new post-1944 special character areas are recommended to be included in the amended version of the draft AUP. Decisions Required Pre-1944 demolition control 202. No clear direction was given to officers at the committee workshop on the pre-1944 overlay. The following options were presented: Option 1 Remove the overlay and associated rule. Option 2 Keep the overlay but reduce the mapped area based on work undertaken since the draft AUP was released. Commit to completing area surveys within the overlay area in the next 3 years. Option 2A As above but also remove Housing New Zealand Corporation land, Treaty settlement commercial redress areas e.g. Ngati Whatua on North Shore, areas identified by local boards as being more suitable for intensification.
Page 55
Item 9
193. The interim directions provided by the committee in relation to these topics are outlined in Attachment 1. Of note, the directions supported the inclusion of 66 new historic heritage places, four new historic heritage areas and 9 new special character areas.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Option 3 Retain the overlay but reduce as in Option 2 (or 2A) and re-draft the demolition control to only require assessment for historic heritage (not historic character). 203. Officers are of the view that Option 2A is the most appropriate way forward on the issue. It would maintain the precautionary approach to areas of historic heritage and special character but would enable development opportunities on major parts of the city that would benefit significantly from redevelopment. In the case of Housing New Zealand in particular, discussions can take place outside the AUP process to ensure an assessment of historic heritage and special character is carried out by Housing New Zealand on its overall housing stock in Auckland with a view to identifying specific sites or areas for inclusion in the AUP through a submission or future plan change. 204. A review of the provisions for the pre-1944 demolition control identified the potential for unintended consequences if all applications were always non-notified. Therefore officers recommend that each application should be assessed against the normal tests for notification contained in the RMA. PART 3 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN MAJOR TOPICS (ZONING OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND HEIGHT IN CENTRES) 205. Two all-day mapping workshops were held with all local board members and councillors in July and August. These workshops considered feedback on the spatial application of the zones as well as feedback on the height controls for centres. 206. In order to ensure a consistent approach to how zones are mapped and heights applied, principles that had been agreed by the political working party were presented at the start of each workshop. Many changes to the maps were agreed between local board members, councillors and officers. Since then, the draft AUP maps have been updated to reflect all of these agreed changes. 207. There were a very small number of instances where local boards requested mapping changes or height controls that were not consistent with the principles presented at the start of the workshops. These outstanding issues are discussed below. Local Board Issues To Be Resolved Residential Zones Albert-Eden Local Board 208. Across the suburbs of Mt Eden, Balmoral and Sandringham, the Albert-Eden Local Board seeks the re-zoning of sites previously zoned Residential 5 under the Auckland City Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) to Single House zone. On the draft AUP maps these areas comprise a fine-grained mix of zones that reflect proximity to centres and main public transport routes. Officers recommend that the mix of zones shown on the amended version of the AUP maps be retained. 209. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10. Manurewa 210. Around the Manurewa town centre and across the suburbs of Weymouth and Clendon, the Manurewa Local Board requested that the predominant zone be the Single Housing zone. The amended version of the AUP zone maps shows these areas as Mixed Housing Suburban zone. This is considered a closer reflection of the existing character of these areas and the development controls contained within the relevant legacy district plan zone. One area (Hill Road surrounds) is recommended to remain as Single House zone due to the character of this area and the additional subdivision controls contained within the overlay that applies to the land. 211. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10.
Item 9
Page 56
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Orakei 212. Along Tamaki Drive (except in front of cliffs) and on streets to either side of the St Helliers Local Centre zone - Goldie and Lombard Streets), the Orakei Local Board seeks the removal of the THAB zone. Officers recommend the retention of the zone due to the existing built character of these areas and the proximity to good public transport (and in the case of St Helliers, the local centre). 213. Across the northern slopes of Remuera and within the suburb of Orakei, many streets were given the Single Housing zone through the mapping workshops. This zoning is considered inappropriate for suburbs in close proximity to centres and the city centre. Where residential areas within these suburbs had been zoned Single Housing and were not overlaid with the Special Character overlay, these sites have now been rezoned to Mixed Housing Suburban. It is recommended that the zoning as now applied to the maps be retained. 214. In Ellerslie, the local board seeks the down-zoning of the Arthur and Amy Street areas from THAB to Mixed Housing Suburban. The higher parts of these streets have been zoned Mixed Housing Urban in the amended version of the draft AUP, however the area next to the town centre has been retained as THAB zone. Officers recommend that this remain given its proximity to the Ellerslie town centre and the rail station. 215. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10. Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board 216. The Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board seeks that Wymondley Road, Otara be rezoned to Mixed Housing Urban from the current Mixed Housing Suburban zone. Due to its separation from the Otara town centre (approximately 2km), officers do not support the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards feedback on the zoning of this area. 217. The local board also seeks that the two town centres of Old Papatoetoe and Hunters Corner are clearly separated by applying the Single House zone through the Rangitoto, Kolmar and Wilmay Avenue areas. Given the proximity of these streets to the nearby town centres, officers do not support this proposal and recommend that the Mixed Housing Urban zone be retained in this area. 218. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10. Puketapapa 219. The Three Kings Quarry site is the subject of a precinct. The site was zoned Special Purpose Quarry in March draft AUP. This zone is supported by the local board rather than applying a zone reflecting the lands future use. In order to reflect the development potential enabled under the precinct, it is considered that the THAB zone is a more appropriate zone to apply to the site, being one that presents a clearer representation to the community of the envisioned development resulting from the implementation of the precinct plan. The amended zone maps show the site as THAB zone. 220. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10. Waitemata Local Board 221. In the amended version of the draft AUP, Westmere and Grey Lynn have been zoned THAB (around Surrey Crescent), Mixed Housing Urban (Richmond Road, West End Road, Garnett Road and Surrey Crescent), and Mixed Housing Suburban for most of the remainder of the residential areas across these suburbs. As an exception, locations identified as Special Character (previously Historic Character) have been zoned Single House. The Waitemata Local Board seeks the Single Housing zone across these suburbs as a precautionary zoning until a Special Character study is undertaken. Given the proximity of these areas to good public transport, centres and the city centre, officers do not support all of the Waitemata Local Boards feedback on the zoning of these areas. 222. The zoning recommended by officers for these areas is show in Attachment 10.
Item 9
Item 9
Local Board Issues To Be Resolved Other Zones Albert-Eden Local Board 223. The Albert-Eden Local Board requests that the Unitec site in Mt Albert be rezoned as Business Park or Special Purpose Education. The site is currently zoned Mixed Use with a precinct over it that enables education activities. Officers recommend that this combination of the Mixed Use zone together with the precinct (Wairaka precinct) is the best approximation to the current and intended future uses of the site. Manurewa Local Board 224. Manurewa Local Board seeks that land in the vicinity of the Vodafone Pacific Events Centre be zoned Mixed Housing. Officers recommend that the land should be zoned Mixed Use to the north and south of Pacific Events Centre Drive. This is a more logical transitional zoning for the site, given its proximity to the Manukau Metropolitan Centre zone, and its location adjoining State Highway 1. Orakei Local Board 225. Colin Maiden Park in Tamaki is zoned THAB in the draft AUP. The site is privately-owned but has been used as a sports field. The Orakei Local Board seeks that the site be zoned Public Open Space. Officers recommend that the THAB zone be retained, as Environment Court case law indicates that a Public Open Space zoning can only be applied to private land where the owner agrees. The current owner does not agree to a public open space zone being applied. The THAB zone is the most logical zone to apply in consideration of the proximity of the site to the Glen Innes town centre and rail station. Local Board Issues To Be Resolved Heights in Centres Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 226. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board seeks that Orewa and Browns Bay town centres have a height control of 16.5m or 4 storeys. Officers consider that as large town centres, and in order to be consistent with the principles and directions provided by the political working party, the height control for the central core areas of these two areas should be 24.5m or 6 stories in height. 227. It is recommended that the higher six-storey heights apply at the core to ensure consistency across similar scale centres elsewhere in Auckland. Orakei Local Board 228. The Orakei Local Board seeks height reductions in the centres of St Heliers (9 metres), Remuera (12.5 metres) and Mission Bay (10 metres). Remuera and Mission Bay had height controls of 16.5m (4 storeys) in the draft AUP, while St Helliers had a height control of 12.5 metres. 229. Retaining the height controls of the draft AUP is supported by officers to ensure alignment with similar centres across Auckland.
Page 58
230. The full list of proposed heights for Aucklands centres is set out below:
Metropolitan Centres 1 2 3 4 5 6 Albany Botany Henderson Manukau New Lynn Newmarket Height / Storeys 72.5m / 18 storeys 72.5m / 18 storeys 72.5m / 18 storeys 72.5m / 18 storeys 72.5m / 18 storeys Subject to volcanic cones sightline and special character overlay restrictions 32.5m / 8 storeys 7 Papakura 40.5m / 10 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys 8 9 10 Sylvia Park Takapuna Westgate / Massey Specific provisions dictate height Specific provisions dictate height Specific provisions dictate height Variables
Town Centres 1 2 Avondale Browns Bay
Height / Storeys 32.5m / 8 storeys
Variables
16.5m 4 storeys & 24.5m 6 storeys & specific provisions dictate height
3 4
Devonport Ellerslie
12.5m / 3 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay
5 6 7
Glen Eden Glen Innes Glenfield
24.5m / 6 storeys 32.5m / 8 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys
Helensville
12.5m / 3 storeys & 16.5m / 4 storeys Subject to special character overlay
Highbury
16.5m / 4 storeys, 20.5m / 5 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys
10 11
Highland Park Howick
24.5m / 6 storeys 9m, 10.5m, & 12m Subject to special character overlay
Page 59
Item 9

Town Centres Height / Storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 24.5m / 6 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys 17 18 Mt Albert Newton / Upper Symonds St Northcote Onehunga 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys Variables
Item 9
12 13 14 15 16
Hunters Corner Kumeu / Huapai Mangere Manurewa Milford
19 20
24.5 / 6 storeys 24.5 / 6 storeys Subject to special character overlay
21
Orewa
8.5m / 2 storeys, 16.5m / 4 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys
22 23
Ormiston Otahuhu
32.5m / 8 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys Subject to special character overlay
24 25 26
Otara Pakuranga Panmure
16.5m / 4 storeys 48.5m / 12 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys
27 28
Papatoetoe Parnell
24.5m / 6 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay
29
Ponsonby
12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay
30
Pt Chevalier
16.5m / 4 storeys & 20.5m / 5 storeys
31 32 33 34
Pukekohe Remuera Royal Oak Silverdale
16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 24.5m / 6 storeys 8.5m / 2 storeys & 16.5m / 4 storeys
35
St Lukes
16.5m / 4 storeys & Specific provisions dictate height
Page 60

Town Centres 36 37 38 39 40 Stoddard Road Sunnynook Takanini Te Atatu (North) Three Kings Height / Storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys & 24.5m / 6 storeys 41 Warkworth 16.5m / 4 storeys & 8.5m / 2 storeys Variables
42 43
Wellsford Whangaparaoa
16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys
Local Centres 1 2 3 Addison Albany Village Balmoral
Height / Storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys
Variables
12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Beach Haven Belmont Blockhouse Bay Botany Junction Chatswood Clendon Dawson Road Drury Eden Valley
16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay
13 14 15 16 17 18
Favona Glendene Grafton Greenlane East Greenlane West Greenwoods Corner
16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys
Page 61
Item 9

Local Centres Height / Storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys & 16.5m / 4 storeys Subject to special character overlay 21 22 23 24 25 26 Gulf Harbour Hauraki Corner Hingaia Hobsonville Homai Jervois Road 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys & 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay 27 28 29 30 31 Karaka Kaukapakapa Kelston Kepa Road / Eastridge Kingsland 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Leigh Long Bay Lynfield Mairangi Bay Mangere Bridge Mangere East Market Road Massey West Matakana Meadowbank Meadowlands Mission Bay Morningside Mount Eden 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys Specific provisions dictate height 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys 8.5m / 2 storeys Specific provisions dictate height Specific provisions dictate height 12.5m / 3 storeys Variables
Item 9
19 20
Greville Grey Lynn
Page 62

Local Centres 46 47 48 Mt Roskill Mt Wellington Northcross Height / Storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys & 16.5m / 4 storeys 49 50 51 52 Panama Road Ranui Riverhead Sandringham 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay 53 Saint Heliers Specific provisions dictate height (12.5m) 12.5m / 3 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Specific provisions dictate height 12.5m / 3 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys 16.5m / 4 storeys 12.5m / 3 storeys Subject to special character overlay 66 Windsor Park 16.5m / 4 storeys Variables
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Snells Beach Stonefields Sturges Sunnyvale Swanson Te Atatu (South) Te Hana Titirangi Torbay Waimauku Waiuku West Lynn
PART 4 - AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND STRUCTURE 231. The amended version of the draft AUP reflects the feedback on the March draft of the AUP and the interim directions given during the Auckland Plan Committee workshops. Where a direction was not given or generally agreed at a workshop, officers have made the amendments recommended in this report. Additional amendments have been made to fix errors, ensure consistency and legal robustness and reflect the feedback received. The amended draft of the AUP was provided to all councillors and local board chairs on 22 August 2013. 232. The amended version follows a similar structure to the March draft of the AUP. The amended structure is set out below:
Item 9
Item 9
PART 1 - INTRODUCTION AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION Chapter A: Introduction 1 Background 2 Statutory Framework 3 Strategic Framework 4 How to use the Unitary Plan Chapter B: Regional Policy Statement 1 Issues of regional significance 2 Enabling quality urban growth 3 Enabling economic well-being 4 Protecting our historic heritage, historic character and natural heritage 5 Addressing issues of significance to Mana Whenua 6 Sustainably managing our natural resources 7 Sustainably managing our coastal environment 8 Sustainably managing our rural environment 9 Responding to climate change 10 Methods 11 Cross boundary issues and processes 12 Anticipated environment results 13 Monitoring and review procedures PART 2 - REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Chapter C: Auckland-wide objectives and policies 1 Infrastructure 2 Mana Whenua 3 Natural resources 4 Subdivision 5 General 6 Historic Heritage 7 Natural Heritage 8 Trees in Streets and public open space Chapter D: Zone objectives and policies 1 Residential zones 2 Public Open Space zones 3 Business zones 4 Future Urban zone 5 Coastal zones 6 Rural zones 7 Strategic Transport Corridor 8 Special Purpose zones Chapter E: Overlay objectives and policies 1 Infrastructure 2 Historic heritage 3 Built environment 4 Mana Whenua 5 Natural heritage 6 Natural resources Chapter F: Precinct objectives and policies
Page 64
PART 3 - REGIONAL AND DISTRICT RULES Chapter G: General provisions
Chapter H: Auckland-wide rules Infrastructure Mana Whenua Natural resources Subdivision General Historic Heritage Natural Heritage Chapter I: Zone rules 1 Residential zones 2 Public Open Space zones 3 Business zones 4 City Centre zone 5 Future Urban zone 6 Coastal zones 7 Rural zones 8 Strategic Transport Corridor zone 9 Special Purpose 10 Green infrastructure zone
PART 5 REPORT PREPARED UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE RMA 233. Section 32 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires Auckland Council to carry out an evaluation that assesses whether the provisions of the AUP are appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA. Consideration must also be given to the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed policies, rules and other methods contained in the AUP. This evaluation must occur prior to the public notification of the AUP. 234. The RMA Reform Bill 2012 introduces amendments to the RMA specific to section 32 and also to the development of Aucklands first combined plan the AUP. While the Bill replaces section 32 in its entirety, it contains similar requirements to those that currently exist, with the key changes requiring that the evaluation: contains a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects anticipated from the implementation of the proposal identifies and assess the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including the opportunities for: economic growth that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and if practicable, quantifies the above benefits and costs. 235. In addition, the Ministry for the Environment is required to audit the section 32 evaluation prepared in support of the AUP. The draft evaluation of the AUP has been undertaken in accordance with the current section 32 of the RMA and the requirements of the Bill, which is about to be passed into legislation.
Page 65
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 236. The draft evaluation report is Attachment 2 to this report. It has focused on the provisions within the AUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the current operative Auckland RMA policies and plans. As a result, not all matters contained within the AUP have been specifically included within the evaluation report under section 32. The greatest level of detail in evaluation is given to those objectives and provisions that most enable or constrain, relative to current planning approaches. 237. The section 32 evaluation has been set out so that Part 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the development of the AUP, the statutory framework and other legislative requirements, governance, consultation and engagement and decision-making. Within this section, a matrix of the relevance between papers is included to demonstrate the relationship and interdependencies between evaluations. The remaining parts of the evaluation contain the specific topics evaluated, appendices and reference documents. 238. Significance has been identified through the degree of outcomes/effects constraint or enablement of the proposed new objectives and provisions compared to the existing operative provisions in the legacy policy statement and plans, and have been gauged through direct evaluations and feedback from the community, Mana Whenua and sector groups through the development of the AUP. This approach is considered to be in line with the significance criteria of the Resource Management Reform Bill outlined above. 239. The evaluation report considers costs and benefits to a greater extent in relation to matters where the constraint or enablement is greatest. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used in the identification and analysis of costs and benefits, and multi-criteria weighted evaluations have been used. Officers within the councils Research Investigation and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) and the Chief Economist and his team have advised (where needed) on how to identify the evidential basis and evaluation techniques best matching each proposal. The report will need to be updated as a result of any decisions made by the committee between 28 and 30 August. An updated section 32 report will be tabled as part of the report to the Governing Body and the final section 32 report will be made available to the public at the same time as the AUP is notified. 240. It is important to note that the section 32 and the AUP itself will be modified through submissions, further submissions, evidence presented at the AUP hearings and then possible Environment Court appeals, before the AUP becomes operative. The draft section 32 report reflects available information at this point in time, and at this stage in the development of the AUP.
Item 9
Consideration
Local Board Views
241. Local boards have played a significant role in development of the AUP. This has occurred through: The appointment of a number of local board chairs to the AUP Political Working Party, and subsequently all local board chairs being invited to the Auckland Plan Committee workshops over June-August 2013. Workshops with all local board members and their nominated local stakeholders on very early drafts of the AUP text and maps in September/October 2012. Officer attendance at numerous local board stakeholder events across Auckland during the March-May engagement period on the draft AUP. Two all-day workshops with all local board members on the draft AUP zoning maps after the close of feedback on the draft AUP. A two-day workshop where local board presented their feedback directly to the Auckland Plan Committee.
Page 66
Maori Impact Statement

242. Maori in Auckland have been extensively involved in the development of the draft AUP. This has occurred through: Three major governance hui with Mana Whenua. Over 20 technical hui with Mana Whenua throughout the development of the AUP. The release of very early drafts of the AUP to Mana Whenua in September/October 2012. Assistance provided to Mana Whenua to prepare their feedback on the very early drafts and feedback on the March draft of the AUP. The appointment of two members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board to the AUP Political Working Party. Numerous meeting between staff from the Independent Maori Statutory Board and council officers to discuss options and approaches. A workshop where Mana Whenua presented their feedback directly to the Auckland Plan Committee.
243. As noted earlier in this report, officers are firmly of the view that the draft AUP represents a major step forward for Auckland in taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as required under the RMA. The section in Part 3 of this report that address Treaty of Waitangi issues explains this in detail.
Implementation Issues
244. The majority of the provisions contained in the notified AUP will not come into effect until after a hearing on the AUP and the release of decisions. This is potentially three years from now. Some provisions relating to section 6 of the RMA (e.g. historic heritage and natural resources) will, however, have immediate effect at the time of notification. The notified version of the AUP will clearly indicate which objectives, policies and rules take effect from notification. 245. Should the Governing Body agree to notify the AUP, the main implementation issue in the short term is the need to train staff in the councils Resource Consents department on the provisions contained in the AUP. A training programme will commence once the decision is made to notify the AUP. The other major implementation issue is the need to ensure that the web-based version of the AUP is fully functional at the point of notification and that hard copies of the AUP are available at council service centres and libraries. A detailed programme is in place to ensure this is the case.
Page 67
Item 9
Item 9
Attachments
No. A B C D E F G H I J K Title Amended version of the Draft AUP (supplied on USB stick) (Under Separate Cover) Draft Section 32 Report (supplied on USB stick) (Under Separate Cover) Interim directions provided at the Auckland Plan Committee workshops Summary of full suite of residential zone development controls Residential zones in part of the Rodney Local Board area (to be delivered on 26 August 2013) (Under Separate Cover) Retirement village concept plans Proposed RUB at Massey, Flat Bush and Takanini (to be delivered on 26 August 2013) (Under Separate Cover) Proposed RUB in the Greenfield Areas of Investigation (to be delivered on 26 August 2013) (Under Separate Cover) Port precinct options previously present to Auckland Plan Committee Marina precinct plans (recommended) summary Residential zones in seven local board areas (to be delivered on 26 August 2013) 121 123 129 95 69 85 Page
Signatories
Authors Authorisers John Duguid, Manager Unitary Plan Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 68
ATTACHMENT 3 INTERIM DIRECTIONS PROVIDED AT THE AUCKLAND PLAN COMMITTEE WORKSHOPS AucklandUnitaryPlanWorkshopsJunetoAugust2013
Topic
Residential provisions - approach to design quality
Interim Direction Residential

The following interim directions were generally agreed: Continuewiththecurrentapproachofincludingspecificobjectives,policies,developmentcontrolsandassessmentcriteriaintheUnitaryPlan. Continuewiththecurrentapproachofrequiringadesignstatementforalldevelopmentsthatrequirearesourceconsent. ProvideclearhyperlinksbetweentherelevantpartsoftheUnitaryPlan,ePlanandrelevantpartsoftheAucklandDesignManual.
Principles for Building Height around Centres in the Terrace House and Apartment Building zone
The following interim directions were generally agreed: ApplytheTHABzonegenerallywithin250metresofrailstationsandMetropolitan,TownandLocalCentrezones. Heightsshouldrangefromfourtosixstoreysdependingonthescaleoftheadjacentcentre Where five and six storey heights are permitted, this should step down to four storeys at the edge of the THAB zone. Heights should enable flexibility to achieve good design outcomes. Only apply a six storey height limit in the THAB zone in appropriate locations that are immediately next to the ten Metropolitan Centres In all other cases apply a four or five storey height limit using the principles that informed the Draft Unitary Plan. Consider topography and geography of a place.
Principles for Notification of Height Infringements in centres and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone
The following interim directions were generally agreed: At a minimum, the Unitary Plan should stay silent on notification to ensure a case by case notification assessment is undertaken
Officers are required to come back to a future workshop with further advice on this issue (NOTE: This was discussed at the second residential provisions workshop). Mixed Housing Zone The following interim directions were generally agreed: (a) Investigate splitting the mixed housing zone into two sub-zones and investigate options as follows: Amixedhousingsubzone,generallylocatednexttotheTerraceHouseandApartmentBuildingzoneandcentres;
- up to 3 storeys (10m) in height, restricted discretionary consent with design assessment, nonnotified; undertake further work on a possible 11m height considering practical and architectural merits. - over 10m in height fully discretionary consent, silent on notification. Amixedhousingsubzone,generallybetweentheabovezoneandthesinglehousezone; 2storeys(8m)permittedheightlimit;
Page 69
Attachment C
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 over8mheightfullydiscretionaryconsentwithdesignassessment,silentonnotification. Officerstodevelopafullpackageofcontrolsforbothmixedhousingsubzonesincluding: density landscaping height to boundary set backs site coverage (different between both sub zones) neighbourhood character infrastructure availability (including community facilities) topography
Item 9
(b) -
Investigate opportunities to zone areas of the current Single House zone into the two storey Mixed Housing sub-zone where there are no heritage or environmental constraints. This requires discussion with local boards at the mapping workshop. Terrace House and Apartment Building Zone The following interim directions were generally agreed: Reviewthespatialextentofthezonetoensurelogicaledgespriortomappingworkshops. Alterationsandadditionstoanexistingdwellingbeapermittedactivity.
Attachment C
InvestigateoverseasmodelssuchasSydneyandMelbourneintermsoftheapproachtoreplacingexistingsingledwellingsinthistypeofzone(NOTE:Thiswas discussedatthesecondresidentialdevelopmentcontrolsworkshop). Improvetheoutlookandprivacycontrols.
Amendtheminimumfloortofloorheightatgroundfloor(4metres)intheTerraceHouseandApartmentBuildingzonesoitonlyappliestoarterialroutesand reviewwhetherthiscontrolshouldapplytoallorsomearterialroutes.Investigateimplicationsofareducedgroundfloorstudheightonoverallheightlimitseg.possible 13.5mheightonnonarterialroutes. Investigatechangestotheprovisionstobetterenableterracehousinginthezone(NOTE:Thiswasdiscussedatthesecondresidentialprovisionsworkshop).
Asaprinciple,applythemorerestrictiveheightinrelationtoboundarycontrolattheresidentialzoneinterface.Investigatewhatthisprinciplewouldmeanatthe boundaryofanopenspacezone(NOTE:Thiswasdiscussedatthesecondresidentialprovisionsworkshop).
Minimum Dwelling Size Controls
The following interim direction was generally agreed at the 26 June 2013 workshop in relation to minimum dwelling size: Agreetohaveaminimumdwellingsize. IncreasetheminimumdwellingsizeintheMixedHousingzonefrom30m2(plusbalcony)to40m2(plusbalcony) InvestigatetheminimumdwellingsizesapplyingintheTerraceHouseandApartmentBuildingzoneandotherpartsofthecitye.g.centresandmixedusezones. Investigateincentivesfor23bedroomunitswithgooddesign,includingapercentageof23bedroomunitsinadevelopment
Investigatetheneedforminimumdwellingsizecontrolsfortwoandthreebedroomdevelopments(NOTE:Thiswasdiscussedatthesecondresidentialprovisions workshop). Notification of Residential Development Control Infringements The following interim directions were generally agreed:
Page 70
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Restricteddiscretionaryactivityconsenttoinfringe Anyheightinfringementinallresidentialzones; Yards,setbacksandheightinrelationtoboundary Buildingcoverage TheUnitaryPlantobesilentonnotification,requiringacasebycaseassessment,fortheaboverestricteddiscretionaryactivities Restricteddiscretionaryactivityconsent,nonnotified,toinfringeremainingdevelopmentcontrols
Officersarerequiredtocomebacktoafutureworkshopwithfurtheradvicearoundnonnotificationofcomplying5+dwellingdevelopmentsintheTerraceHouse andApartmentBuildingzoneandMixedHousezone(NOTE:Thisoccurredatthesecondresidentialprovisionsworkshop). Residential provisions (second workshop) This was the second workshop on the residential provisions of the AUP. There were no proposed changes to two of the five residential zones in the draft AUP (Rural and Coastal Settlement and Large Lot). With respect of the Single House zone, officers outlined two proposed changes: one to the height in relation to boundary control and one to the building on a boundary control. The changes were generally supported, subject to a minor change to the building on a boundary control (reduction in the maximum permitted height from 3.6 metres to 3 metres). A key focus of the workshop was proposed provisions for the Mixed Housing (Urban) and Mixed Housing (Suburban) zones. This followed the interim direction previously given to split the Mixed Housing zone into two sub-zones. The full suite of potential development controls for the two Mixed Housing zones (Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban) and the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone were discussed. There was general support for most of the proposed controls (including changes that would allow greater scope for limited or public notification of proposals to infringe development controls). Refinements were suggested to a number of the controls (e.g. increasing the setback requirement for garages in the Mixed Housing zones and the outdoor living space requirements in the Mixed Housing (Suburban) zone. Further discussion and decisions are required on the proposal to enable two-storey terraced housing at a higher density in the Mixed Housing (Suburban) zone. Retirement Villages The following interim directions were generally agreed: Activity status in residential and business zones Retain Discretionary and Non-Complying activity status for retirement villages in the residential and business zones and apply Discretionary activity status in the Metro Centre, Town Centre and Mixed Use zones.
Special Purpose Retirement Village additional sites
Page 71
Attachment C
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Apply the Special Purpose Retirement Village zone to: 7 Flat Bush School Rd, Flat Bush Fully-operational retirement village 31 Mansel Drive, Warkworth Large-scale retirement village under development 15 Sel Peacock Drive, Henderson Fully-operational retirement village 101 Red Beach Rd, Red Beach Fully-operational retirement village 123 Stanley Rd, Glenfield Undeveloped site (have obtained resource consent for retirement village)
Item 9
Special Purpose Retirement Village development controls No density limits where sites above 1200m2 Outdoor living space 15m2 per unit at ground level, 8m2 above ground level
Communal open space to be provided at a rate of 8m per unit and be directly accessible from a communal living room and located on flat land with adequate solar access. Impervious area threshold, building coverage, landscaping, outlook, daylight to dwellings, minimum dwelling size and minimum dimension of principal living rooms/bedrooms controls cross-referenced to THAB zone.
Attachment C
Concept Plans Further discussion is required at the 28-30 August APC meetings.
Affordable Housing
Retained Affordable Housing The following interim directions were generally agreed: Mandatory7%ingreenfield Voluntarymodestbonusinbrownfield Somesupportforabonusapproachbutnotinrelationtoadditionalheight.
New Growth
RUB The fllowing interim directions were generally agreed: Complex requests for changes to the RUB outside the Greenfield Areas of Investigation Okura,Albany,Puhinuiagreeddirectionwaittostage4process Takaninilookatdefensibleboundary.
RUB South The proposed RUB in the Drury/Ramarama area was agreed. RUB North/West ThattheBoundaryfortheRUBinRedHillsNorthareaisretainedatTaupakiRoad/NixonRoad Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) ThatManaWhenuaissuesareworkedthroughaspartofongoingconsultationpostnotificationoftheAucklandUnitaryPlan.
The following interim directions were provided: Manawhenua
Page 72
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Avoidknownareasofconcern(e.g.wahitapu,coastal)andmitigateimpactsonwaterquality.
Capacity Strivetoachievetargetcapacitiesbutgoodurbanformistheultimategoal.
Transport IntegrationoftransportandlanduseisacriticalAucklandPlanrequirement. ApplythefollowingprinciplestohelpdeterminetheRUB: Efficientuseoftransportinfrastructure Supportingmodalshifttopublictransport,walkingandcycling Enablingefficientfreightmovement Supportingplacemakingandconnectedurbanform Minimiserelianceonriskyprojects.
Environmental Protection Seektoavoidsensitiveareasand/ormitigateviastructureplanningprocesses.
Wastewater, water supply and stormwater ConcentrateRUBurbanareatoenableacomprehensivewastewaterresponse Ensurehighlevelstormwatermitigationviastructureplans.
General ConfirmdirectionthatofficersundertakefurtherworkontheRUBaspertheworkshopnotesrelatedtoalloftheareas(south,northandnorthwest) Whereappropriate,feedthisadditionalworkintothemappingworkshopson12Julyand2August2013 EndorseasaninterimdirectionthattheRUBworkforruralandcoastaltownsandservicedvillagesbeundertakenpostnotificationoftheAucklandUnitaryPlan
Endorseasaninterimdirectionthattheprocessforlarge,complexedgeworkbedonepostnotificationoftheAucklandUnitaryPlan,butthattheOkura catchment,PuhinuiandTakaninicomplexedgefeedbackbereportedbackatasubsequentworkshop Endorseasaninterimdirectionthattheprocessforsmaller,lesscomplexedgeworkproceedandthatlocalboardsbeinvolvedthroughthemappingworkshops on12Julyand2August2013.
Business
Retail - General Business zone The following interim directions were generally agreed: Continue the use of the General Business zone as an option for appropriate out-of-centre retail development
Page 73
Attachment C
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Identified Growth Corridors Examine if some additional areas should or should not be rezoned General Business zone Discuss any proposed changes at the mapping workshops Investigate non-complying activity status for large format retail in the Mixed Use zone.
Item 9
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Implement the Identified Growth Corridor policy approach (Change 6) for enabling appropriate commercial development along corridors Examine if segments of some corridors are appropriate to be Identified Growth Corridors (Part of: Link Drive, Mount Wellington (between Ellerslie Panmure Highway and Sylvia Park), Lincoln Road, Ti Rakau Drive and Stoddard Road) Discuss any proposed segments at the mapping workshops.
Signs
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Continue with the approach in the draft Unitary Plan for billboards outside the road reserve:
Tightcontrolovernewbillboardsinallzonesexceptindustrialzones(i.e.restricteddiscretionary,discretionaryornoncomplyingactivitiesdependingonzone,size andlocation)considermorerestrictiveapproachtolightindustryasagainstheavyindustry
Attachment C
Principles for building height in centres
Freestandingbillboardsgenerallyhaveatougheractivitystatusthanbillboardsattachedtobuildings(excludingheritagebuildings) Billboardsattachedtothefrontfaadeofbuildingsgenerallyhaveatougheractivitystatusthanbillboardsattachedtothesideorrearfaadebuildings Managebillboardsintheroadreserveasrestricteddiscretionaryactivitieswheretheyareplacedonstreetfurniture(busshelters,phonebooths,etc). Manageotherbillboardsintheroadreserveaccordingtotheactivitystatusoftheadjacentzone. EnsureStrategicTransportCorridorisincludedintheseprovisions Reviewprovisionsforwelcometoxvillagetypesignstomakethemmorepermissible NeedtoworkwithNewZealandTransportAgencyandAucklandTransport.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: (a) (b) Height controls should take into account: the status of the centre in the Auckland Plan hierarchy; public transport/transport projects (e.g. AMETI); the size and depth of the centre; the interface between zones; current building heights; topography; landscape features; historic heritage; and existing design controls/guidelines previously developed for a centre through a precinct or master planning exercise. Centres with similar characteristics should have similar controls (rules).
Page 74
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 (c) (d) (e) Heights should decrease from centres out to surrounding residential areas. Heights should enable buildings to adapt to different uses over time (e.g. generous floor to ceiling heights at ground floor level).
(f) Apply a more refined approach to larger town centres, (i.e. heights may vary within the centre). [This was revised to include all town centres not just larger ones]. (g) Heights in centres should not be reduced from existing operative plan heights except where a centre has an unlimited height control.
City Centre
City Centre waterfront heights The following interim directions were generally agreed: Retain north-south height transition across the City Centre and east-west transition to fringe areas Retain specific precinct height strategies to maintain a distinctive built form across parts of the waterfront and provide opportunities for taller buildings where they are appropriate for local character, topography, views, sunlight and heritage. Undertake a comprehensive review of the heights applying along the city centre waterfront during the Unitary Plan submission phase.
Viaduct Harbour precinct Retain existing heights along the Viaduct waterfront to ensure buildings achieve a human scale, maximise sunlight access and enable views through the city to the harbour. Enable some additional height to the south of the precinct, as provided for in the draft AUP. Retain existing height for 204 Quay Street given its heritage status and to ensure consistency of height for buildings directly adjoining the waters edge. Wynyard precinct During the preparation of the draft AUP, Waterfront Auckland commissioned a review of the building heights at Wynyard Quarter. The review recommended that allowing for an additional two storeys in height could achieve a better overall urban design outcome for the area, as it would allow for a more varied form of development (i.e. less squat buildings within the same overall development envelope/gross floor area). Based on this analysis, the March draft AUP included a provision that allows for an additional two storeys in height to be applied for as a restricted discretionary activity through a framework plan process. The framework plan process seeks to achieve an integrated development of the various blocks of land at Wynyard Quarter. Waterfront Auckland staff have also indicated they would support removing the potential for development on a site in the vicinity of Silo Park if the additional two storeys in height is enabled through the framework plan process. At the workshop, officers suggested the control should be retained in the AUP, but it was not clear that this control was a change from the current planning rules. Therefore, officers consider that this issue should be discussed in more detail at the Auckland Plan Committee meetings at the end of August and a decision made. Downtown West and Central Wharves Apply a precinct to enable the introduction of tailored provisions to guide future development that is consistent with the general approach to height along the waterfront Retain the Quay Street harbour edge height control plane to ensure building height transitions to the waterfront Continue working with landowners on a development strategy for the area the outcome of which could be incorporated into the Unitary Plan through or in response to a submission. Britomart precinct
Page 75
Attachment C
Item 9
Heights should enable flexibility to achieve good design outcomes
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Retain the heights in the draft AUP until a decision on Plan Change 41 is released.
Item 9
Quay Park precinct Enable an additional 5-10m in height in the eastern part of the precinct through a restricted discretionary resource consent for a framework plan to achieve the integrated development of land. This additional height must not impact on the Dilworth or Museum Viewshafts. The framework plan would assess big picture issues such as the proposed street/block layout and the location of public open space/connections Work with landowners to investigate opportunities for additional height. Continue working with landowners on a development strategy for the area the outcome of which could be incorporated into the AUP through or in response to a submission. Port of Auckland Direction was sought at the workshop on 31 July 2013 on a) the retention of Policy 9 in the draft AUP and b) how the AUP should classify reclamation within the Port precinct. Five potential classification options were presented and were subsequently report to the Auckland Plan Committee.
Design
Universal Design The following interim directions were generally agreed: Sustainable Design A balanced approach is required Acknowledge the limitations of the Auckland Unitary Plan in addressing all aspects of universal design No Auckland Unitary Plan rules for commercial or publically accessible buildings that are covered by the Building Act Apply standards to a proportion of new houses. Example: 20 % of residential development which contains 10 or more dwellings to meet the following: Minimum doorway (810mm), stairway (900mm) and corridor widths (1050mm) Greater size of a single car parking space (3.5m width and maximum gradient of 1:20) Gradient and width of access from the street or car park to the entrance of a dwelling (1.2m width, maximum slope of 1:20 and cross fall of 1:50). Auckland Design Manual will incorporate more detailed (non-statutory) Universal Design Guidance Investigate issue of downstairs toilets within dwellings in the Auckland Design Manual.
Attachment C
The following interim directions were generally agreed: AbalancedapproachthatrecognisesthatsustainabledesignrequirementsarerelativelynewinanAucklandcontext.
ResidentialRequirementtoremainunchanged.Where5ormoredwellingsareproposed,alldwellingsshallmeet6starratingusingHomestar(oranequivalent alternative). OfficeandIndustrialReducetherequirementfrom5starratingtoa4starratingforofficeandcommercialbuildingsover5000m2(oranequivalentalternative). Lookatwhetherindustrialbuildingscouldhaveadifferentapproach.Bringmoreinformationoncapitalcostsandpaybacktothe2830AugustAPCmeeting). Strengthenpolicyandassessmentcriteriatoencouragesustainableoutcomes.
Continuetopursuewidercouncilinitiativestoreducebarrierstosustainabledesignandinvestigateincentivesthrougheducationprogrammes,grants,ratesand ordevelopmentcontributions. OngoingdiscussionsbetweenNZGBCandthePropertyCouncilwillbereportedtotheAPCattheendofAugust.
Further information required on rough percentages of feedback in support and opposition.
Social Infrastructure
Education There was no clear consensus in terms of whether schools and tertiary education facilities should retain an underlying zone with an education precinct (as in the draft AUP) or receive a special purpose zoning. To some extent this reflects the different approaches under the district plans of the former legacy
Page 76
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 councils. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August.
Physical Infrastructure
Parking The following interim directions were generally agreed: 1. RetainthedraftAucklandUnitaryPlanapproachtoresidentialparking
InvestigatethepossibilityofaminimumofonecarparkperdwellingintheMixedHousingAzoneandreportbackwiththeproposedchangestotheMixed Housingzoneprovisions RetainthedraftAucklandUnitaryPlanapproachtoretailparking Investigatethepossibilityofalternativeprovisionsforrural/outercentres.
Electricity transmission corridors
The following interim directions were generally agreed:
Retain the inner and rural corridor in order to prevent risks to people and property, protect the electricity transmission network and preserve line access for inspection and maintenance and to protect amenity values. Outer Corridor Remove the outer corridor in urban areas. Control over subdivision is not warranted given that activities in the outer corridor are unlikely to impede maintenance activities and compliance with the NZECP 34: 2001 is mandatory. Intensive farming buildings in the Rural Corridor Maintain the status quo. Not demonstrated to be a significant issue in the rural context. Intensive farming is not a sensitive activity under the National Policy Statement definition. Insert statement about undergrounding at beginning of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Aircraft noise The following interim direction was generally agreed: IntroduceprohibitedactivitystatusforactivitiessensitivetoaircraftnoisewithintheHighAircraftNoiseAreaforAucklandAirport,rezoneallresidentialproperties withintheAucklandAirportHighAircraftNoiseAreatoSingleHousezoneandprovideforalimitedrangeofcommercialactivitiesinthispartofthesinglehousezoneasa discretionaryactivity. Quarry Transport Routes The following interim directions were generally agreed: IntroduceaquarrytransportrouteintotheAucklandUnitaryPlan Noconsentrequiredfordwellingspermittedsubjecttoprovidingnoiseattenuationwithin40mfromroadboundary.
Further information required on how many dwellings in the proposed quarry transport route. Quarry Zones The following interim directions were generally agreed: Flat Top, Waiunui, Whangaripo, Hunua and Beachland Quarries Further research is required to decide if quarry zoning is appropriate.
Page 77
Attachment C
Inner and Rural Corridor
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Beachland Quarry
Item 9
Amend quarry buffer area so it includes land to the east Insufficient information for extension of quarry zone. Include as Quary zone. Extend quarry zone and quarry buffer area accordingly. Include additional land as Quarry Zone.
Bombay Brookby Matakana
Outstanding Natural Landscapes and the Quarry zone Decision in most cases to amend the extent of these overlays but not remove them completely With the exception of Whitford Quarry where the extent is not proposed to be amended.
Attachment C
Public Open Space and Recreation

Parks - Need for a new Public Open Space Community zone to recognise existing and future community facilities Parks Zoning of privately-owned land as Public Open Space Parks Buildings and structures on public open space The following interim directions were generally agreed: ProvideanadditionalPublicOpenSpacezonewheretheprimaryfunctionisaccommodatingcommunitybuildings/activities.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Statusquo,asperthedraftUnitaryPlanandalsowhereprivatelandownershaverequestedapublicopenspacezoning.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Retainstatusquodifferentactivitystatusreflectingopenspacefunction,differentpermittedbuildingthresholds,differentsitecoveragerestrictions Conservationzonemostrestrictive,SportandActiveRecreationzoningmostenabling. The following interim directions were generally agreed: StatusquopublicopenspacezoningwithAucklandWarMemorialMuseumprecinct.
Parks Zoning of Auckland Museum
Rural
Rural subdivision The following interim directions were generally agreed: Confirm strategy of no net increase in number of rural sites, to protect productive land and avoid fragmentation Investigate additional flexibility for rural subdivision by: Allowing some opportunities for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision to Countryside Living areas where enhancement planting takes place within defined locations Countryside Living zone minimum site sizes
Allowing more than one Transferable Rural Site Subdivision opportunity where vegetation is protected Adding a new boundary relocation rule to allow restructuring of site boundaries Providing for farm parks.
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Mixed Rural zone Consider opportunities for new Countryside Living areas at the mapping workshops Consider whether there are opportunities to reduce the minimum site sizes in some parts of the Countryside Living zone at the mapping workshops Investigate smaller sites around rural townships.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Introduce new Mixed Rural zones based on the Auckland Plan (relates to Rodney). Include investigation of Mixed Rural zones in Franklin area also Review in conjunction with review of activities within Rural Production zone.
Additional dwellings in rural zones
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Provide for a second dwelling on sites greater than 40Ha and a third dwelling on sites greater than 100Ha as a permitted activity Provide for a second or subsequent dwelling as a restricted discretionary activity on sites smaller than 40ha Do not provide for subdivision around the second or subsequent dwelling.
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area
Suggested key changes: all areas within WRHA included as sub-precincts/policy areas thus providing an holistic integrated management structure strengthened objectives and policies inclusion of coastal settlements as a rural zone and with a sub-precinct applied to enable retention of all legacy provisions refinement of structure plan provisions recent Plan Change decisions incorporated consequential changes include correction of mapping issues (overlaps) and refinement of boundaries.
Natural Environment
Air quality and the heavy industry zone The following interim directions were generally agreed: A hybrid approach examine each individual area of heavy industry and apply a combination of buffers extending into and out of the Heavy Industry zone, depending on the proximity of the Heavy Industry zone to zones containing sensitive activities. The buffer could be placed within and/or surrounding the heavy industry zone according to the existing situation. Stock access to freshwater and the Coastal Marine Area The following interim directions were generally agreed: Freshwater The draft Auckland Unitary Plan rule should be retained as is (the policy direction has been agreed upon during a collaborative process with the Rural Advisory Panel and select Non-Government Organisations). The definition for intensively grazed production land is updated to include how 18 Stock Units/Hectare is to be measured. Coastal Marine Area That the draft Auckland Unitary Plan rule be extended to: prohibit stock access in Significant Ecological Areas (Marine 2) 5 years from the time the plan is notified and from the rest of the Coastal Marine Area 7 or 10 years from notification prohibit stock access elsewhere in Coastal Marine Area (apart from droving/horse-riding = permitted activity) within 7-10 years of plan being notified.
Page 79
Attachment C
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Comprehensive Precinct
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Trees and utilities Concerns were raised about the Corridor Access Request process. Officers were requested to report back on this matter as part of a presentation on Significant Ecological Areas and other vegetation controls. A consensus was not reached at the workshop on the approach that should be taken to GMOs in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The following interim directions were generally agreed: Dead vegetation Permit removal of all dead wood within SEAs. Trimming and pruning Permit clearance of vegetation in SEAs to 3m from a dwelling with no restriction on area and permit trimming within 10m (as per notable trees i.e. 10% within a year, sound arboricultural practice, etc). Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings in relation to whether this should apply to all buildings (as opposed to dwellings). Exotic trees and vegetation Allow removal of all non-native plant species within 10m of a building/dwelling and all plants on the Regional Pest Management Species register.
Item 9 Attachment C
Genetically modified organisms Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs)
Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August in relation to whether this should apply to all buildings (as opposed to dwellings). Mangroves Two key options were discussed: Option A - Operative Regional Coastal Plan Approach Discard date-based permitted activity (i.e. require a resource consent to be obtained except as specified below): Retain permitted activities for: maintenance of assets (e.g. boat ramps) and infrastructure seedlings removal Enable removal of mangroves from wading bird habitats as a controlled activity Promote omnibus consents coordinated at a local board level for other removal Clarify and strengthen policies supporting clearing with amenity, cultural, coastal access and other community benefits Consent applications for local board supported proposals processed free of charge.
Option B - Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Approach Retain date-based permitted activity and: Enable the removal of mangroves in areas that were free of mangroves in 1996 from: the General Coastal Marine zone; and Significant Ecological Areas that are wading bird habitats; and Significant Ecological Areas where the values are not from mangroves. Undertake a prioritised investigation through Marine Spatial Planning and mapping exercise to identify further areas where mangrove removal has a low environmental risk and can be permitted.
Page 80
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 A consensus was not reached at the workshop. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August. Stormwater Flood Prone Areas The following interim directions were generally agreed: Activity Buildingcontainingvulnerable activities Othercommercialandindustrial buildings ActivitiesUnabletocomplywith PermittedActivity Control Floorlevels500mmabovefloodpronelevel Floorlevelslessthan1.5mabovegroundlevel Floorlevels300mmabovefloodpronelevel Floorlevelslessthan1.5mabovegroundlevel Assessmentandmanagementofriskthroughafloodhazardassessmentandmitigationplan Provideforaccessandegress,appropriatebuildingmaterials,openunderfloor,setfloor levels,managementofresidualrisk Activity Status P P D ProvideanonstatutoryFloodProneArealayer ControlfloorlevelsintheFloodProneAreas ApplythemoststringentfloorlevelrequirementwhereFloodProneoverlapswithFloodPlainorFloodSensitiveArea EnsureFloodProneAreariskistakenintoaccountduringassessmentsunderrulesapplyingintheFloodPlain.
Stormwater Mixed Housing Zone
The following interim directions were generally agreed: AmendpropertiesidentifiedasnotsuitableforMixedHousezonetoSingleHousezone.
Principles for Volcanic Viewshafts and Blanket Height Sensitive Areas (BHSA)
The following interim directions were generally agreed: The volcanic viewshaft heights should clearly override zone heights The Terrace House and Apartment Building zone should not be applied within BHSAs.
Work on a more fine grained analysis of height within BHSA areas was requested for the following centres: Panmure, Devonport, Mangere Bridge, Stonefields/Mt Wellington, Mt Eden, Market Road. Officers are required to come back to a future workshop with further advice.
Coastal
Coastal Degraded areas The following interim directions were generally agreed: That the UP meets the NZCPS requirements by: mappingdegradedareas Coastal Protection Yard includingobjectivesandpoliciesforimproving,andwherepossiblerestoringwater qualityintheseareas.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Adopt a hybrid approach: Urban retain key elements from detailed legacy district plans bring back examples of fine-grained approach to 28-30 August APC meeting
Page 81
Attachment C
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Rural possibly reduce to be confirmed at 28-30 APC meeting Public Open Space as below (exception for Kawau Island):
Item 9
Yard
All Rural zones (except Countryside Living)
Countryside Living
Public Open Space Conservation
Public Open Space Informal Recreation
Coastal protection yard Coastal Trees Overlay
50m
40m
25m
20m
New Auckland-wide rule for land stability/erosion control and protection of coastal ecology: StandardtreeandvegetationremovalcontrolfromMHWSof20minurbanzonesand50minruralzones,inwhich: Alteration or removal of more than 25m of contiguous vegetation requires consent as RD activity. Alteration or removal of native trees over 3m in height requires consent as RD activity. Also need a control that deals with removing trees that are beyond 20m/50m of MHWS at the top of cliffs Permit pruning up to 10% of canopy per annum At 28-30 August APC meeting provide information on percentage reduction in protection that would result relative to draft Unitary Plan approach.
Attachment C
Coastal Inundation
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Brownfield Areas Minimum finished floor levels (FFL) 500mm above depth of flow for new dwellings and habitable rooms (additions) in 1 in 100 year storm event + 1m Sea Level Rise areas as a permitted activity standard If height restrictions are infringed due to raising FFL, activity status will be Restricted Discretionary. Greenfield Areas Avoid development in areas identified as being subject to coastal inundation in a 1 in 100 year event + 2m Sea Level Rise. Officers to provide more technical information in advance of 28-30 APC meetings.
House Boats
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Provide for seven houseboats (owner-occupied only) in the Rangihoua Creek and for two (plus possibly another two) at Putiki Bay as a controlled activity. Allow a five-year grace period and apply a sinking lid policy (i.e. no replacement). Five-year grace period from UP notification for other houseboat owners across Auckland to apply for consent as a discretionary activity.
Marinas
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Rely on operative plan and Environment Court settled provisions in the first instance Allow minor modifications to align with simpler Unitary Plan approach Formal submissions and hearing process provides opportunities to discuss more substantial changes Officers to circulate concept plans as soon as possible to enable further discussion on 28-30 August.
Treaty of Waitangi
Treaty of Waitangi Maori Land Upto10dwellingsPermitted
Page 82
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Maraecomplex(upto700m2GFA)Permitted Dwellingormaraecomplexrequires1haminimumnetsitesize Increasedrangeofpermittedactivities RuralCommercialServices(RestrictedDiscretionary)andRuralIndustry(Discretionary) IntegratedMaoriLandDevelopmentPlanDiscretionary.
Development of Maori land with natural heritage values Some support for options one and two but decisions to be made at 28-30 APC meetings. Option 1 (draft Unitary Plan) NoexceptiontorulesinoverlaysfordevelopmentonMaoriland
SignificantEcologicalAreas OutstandingNaturalLandscape HighNaturalCharacter.
Planning for Treaty Settlement Land RetainexistingRPSpolicyandaddprocess: HowiwiandCouncilwillinteractassettlementprogresses WorkwithManaWhenuatodevelopsitespecificprovisions AddindicationthatCouncilwillassessplanchangeswithintwoyearsofUnitaryPlanbecomingoperative
Enabling Provision for Treaty Settlement Land IncludepoliciesrelatingtoRUB;character;infrastructure,overlays IncludesamerulesasforMaoriland Aucklandwiderule:Treatysettlementland Officersdomoreworkonoption3afternotificationandbeforesubmissionperiodfinishes
Maori Cultural Heritage

Non-statutory layer including 3310 archaeological sites of Maori origin Accurately located 100m buffer
Page 83
Attachment C
Option 2 ActivitieswhichwouldbepermittedonMaorilandarecontrolledwithinnaturalheritageoverlays:
Item 9
Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 If activity requires resource consent: CulturalImpactAssessmentistriggeredifMaorivaluesareaffected EffectsonknownsitesofarchaeologyofMaorioriginincludedinassessmentcriteriaforthatactivity Doesnotpickuppermittedactivities
Item 9
Historic Heritage and Historic Character

Historic heritage The following interim directions were generally agreed: Officers to carry out minor changes including mapping changes, clarification of rules and definitions Retain sites, criteria and methodology from draft AUP Include 66 additional items onto heritage schedule: 59 identified through heritage surveys 7 identified through feedback process.
Attachment C
Special character (previously historic character)
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Add 11 new Special Character areas to the AUP as a result of pilot surveys: Balmoral (2) Otahuhu (1) Onehunga (6) Puketapapa (2)
Require a resource consent for demolition, alterations and additions and new buildings within the new Historic Character areas (as with existing Special Character areas in draft AUP) Pre-1944 Demolition Control Apply the Single Housing or Mixed Housing zone based on existing subdivision pattern.
The following options were discussed at the workshop: Option 1 Remove the overlay and associated rule. Option 2 Keep the overlay but reduce the mapped area based on work undertaken since the draft AUP was released. Commit to completing area surveys within the overlay area in the next 3 years. Option 2A As above but also remove Housing New Zealand Corporation land, Treaty settlement commercial redress areas e.g. Ngati Whatua on North Shore, areas identified by local boards as being more suitable for intensification. Option 3 Retain the overlay but reduce as in Option 2 (or 2A) and re-draft the demolition control to only require assessment for historic heritage (not historic character). A clear consensus was not reached, however there was general support for aspects of options 2 and 2A and little or no support for options 1 and 3. There was also support for the AUP enabling public notification of demolition applications within the pre-1944 overlay once buildings are assessed as being of value in terms of historic heritage or historic character. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August.
Page 84
Page 85
Attachment D
Item 9
Attachment D
Item 9
Page 86
Page 87
Attachment D
Item 9
Attachment D
Item 9
Page 88
Page 89
Attachment D
Item 9
Attachment D
Item 9
Page 90
Page 91
Attachment D
Item 9
Attachment D
Item 9
Page 92
Page 93
Attachment D
Item 9
Attachment D
Item 9
Page 94
Page 95
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 96
Page 97
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 98
Page 99
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 100
Page 101
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 102
Page 103
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 104
Page 105
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 106
Page 107
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 108
Page 109
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 110
Page 111
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 112
Page 113
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 114
Page 115
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 116
Page 117
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 118
Page 119
Attachment F
Item 9
Attachment F
Item 9
Page 120

ATTACHMENT 9 PORT PRECINCT OPTIONS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE AUCKLAND PLAN COMMITTEE Option 1: Option 5: Status quo planning provisions (operative coastal plan and draft Unitary Plan approach) Status quo planning provisions (operative coastal plan and draft Unitary Plan approach) plus additional engagement and possible future change through a submission or plan change to the Unitary Plan
Boundary of port precinct
Non-Complying Zone Discretionary Zone
Option 2:
Facilitative/Directive option
Illustrated under expand and release Captain Cook option
Page 121
Attachment I
Item 9
Item 9
Option 3:
POAL alternative option

Attachment I
Option 4:
Alternative approach
Page 122

Bayswater Marina Precinct Plan
Legacy Plan Bayswater Marina

Accommodation, commercial activities Residential accommodation, commercial services and healthcare facilities - Noncomplying activities across the entire site
Feedback sought
Dwellings, care facilities, retirement villages, visitor accommodation, camping grounds, commercial services and healthcare facilities - Permitted activities in Areas A, B and D. Community facilities,
Proposed precinct plan

Residential accommodation other than workers accommodation, commercial services and healthcare facilities - Non-complying activities across the entire precinct
Community, marine related activities

Open recreational space and reserves,
Organised and informal recreation - Permitted activities

Page 123
Attachment J
Item 9
Legacy Plan
Item 9
Feedback sought
organised and informal recreation - Permitted activities in Area F. Parks, playgrounds and walkways Permitted activities across the entire site. Boat storage, launching and maintenance Permitted activities across most of the site Controlled activity

in sub-precinct F. Parks, playgrounds and walkways - Permitted activities across the entire precinct. Boat storage, launching and maintenance - Permitted activities across most of the precinct
boat storage, launching and maintenance Permitted activities across the entire site
Attachment J
Construction or alteration of buildings and structures Food and beverage
Discretionary activity
Controlled activity
Restaurants and cafes - Discretionary activities Heliports - Noncomplying activity 10m above mean sea level (6m above ground level) The Bayswater structure plan and lease agreement between Bayswater Marina and the Department of Conservation identified a 15m building setback line/coastal access strip which could be provided for as an esplanade reserve upon subdivision No sub-precincts
Food and beverage, licensed premises Permitted activities Heliports - Controlled activity in subprecinct B 12m in sub-precinct B Area A shows a 15m esplanade strip upon subdivision for vehicle access and parking and also allows for residential in this strip as permitted activities.
Helicopter landing areas Height
Esplanade strip/reserve
Food and beverage and licensed premises - Discretionary activities in sub-precincts B and F, and non-complying in other sub-precincts Helicopter landing areas Discretionary activity as per the underlying marina zone 12m in sub-precinct B, and 10m above mean sea level (6m above ground level) for the rest of the precinct Sub-precinct A is identified as a future esplanade reserve or strip that could be taken upon future subdivision
Sub-precincts
The marina zoning over the site applies to both land and CMA. The feedback received seeks to create 7 distinct subprecincts within the marina zoned site
Creates 7 sub-precincts as per feedback
Page 124

Gulf Harbour Marina Precinct Plan
Legacy Plan Gulf Harbour

Accommodation, marine related uses, food and beverage, healthcare services Workers and visitor accommodation, marine retail, construction of vessels, boat launching facilities, food and beverage, healthcare services Controlled activities
Feedback sought
Marine retail, marine industry, boat launching facilities, food and beverage, offices ancillary to marine uses, clubrooms for marine related clubs and healthcare services Permitted activities

Marine retail, boat storage, launching and maintenance, offices accessory to a marine use, clubrooms for marinerelated clubs and healthcare services - Permitted activities across the entire precinct Construction of vessels and boating equipment, food and beverage and the construction of new buildings and structures - Controlled activities across the entire precinct Non-marine retail, offices not accessory to a marine use and care centres - Discretionary activities in sub-precinct B and non-complying across the rest of the precinct. Healthcare facilities Controlled activity in subprecinct B
Non-marine retail and offices, care centres
Non-marine retail, offices not ancillary to marine use and care centres - Noncomplying activities
Non-marine retail, offices not ancillary to marine uses, healthcare services and care centres Permitted activities and located within a specific area of the precinct
Page 125
Attachment J
Item 9
Legacy Plan
Item 9
Feedback sought
Controlled activity

Controlled activity
Construction of buildings and structures
Helicopter landing areas Height
The erection, addition to or alteration of buildings and accessory buildings for permitted and controlled activities - Controlled activity The erection, addition to or alteration of all other buildings Discretionary activity Heliports Discretionary activity 12m
18m
Helicopter landing areas Discretionary activity as per the underlying marina zone 12m across the entire precinct
Attachment J
Page 126
Westpark Marina Precinct Plan
Legacy Plan Westpark

Accommodation, marine related uses, retail Marina activities, residential, nonresidential activities, retail and maritime passenger transport facilities - Permitted activities in Areas A and C
Feedback sought
Marina activities, residential, nonresidential activities, retail - Permitted activities in subprecincts A, B, and C. Maritime passenger transport facilities and operations Permitted activities in sub-precincts E and F

Marine and port activities and structures, residential, commercial and retail Permitted activities in subprecincts A, B and C. Maritime passenger transport facilities and operations Permitted activities in subprecincts E and F
Page 127
Attachment J
Item 9
Legacy Plan
Item 9
Feedback sought
Controlled activity across the entire precinct

Controlled activity across the entire precinct
Construction or alteration of buildings and structures
Building coverage
Height
The construction or alteration of buildings for any marina activity is a permitted activity in Area A and is a controlled activity for any other land use activity for the other areas Area A 60% Area B 35% Area C 60% Area D 35% Area A 12m Area B 8m Area C 10m Area D 8m Area A 10% Area B 35% Area C 15% Area D 35%
Attachment J
Landscape treatment Esplanade reserve/strip
Area A 75% Area B 75% Area C 75% Area D 25% Area A 16m Area B 12m Area C 14m Area D 9m (not the same area as in legacy plan) No landscaping treatment proposed in the feedback. Provision of a 15m esplanade strip upon subdivision to allow for vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation and parking within the esplanade strip. Includes six subprecincts, of which sub-precincts A, B and C mirror Areas A, B and C in the legacy concept plan Area D is now located to the south of Areas A and C and applies to the area identified for public access to the boat ramp in the legacy concept plan. The focus of this sub-precinct is on activities associated with the public boat ramp, boat and trailer parking and park and ride facility.
Sub-precinct A 60% Sub-precinct B 35% Sub-precinct C 60% Sub-precinct D 25% Sub-precinct A 12m Sub-precinct B 8m Sub-precinct C 10m Sub-precinct D 9m (new subprecinct D as per feedback) Sub-precinct A 10% Sub-precinct B 35% Sub-precinct C 15% Does not include the request for a 15m esplanade strip upon subdivision
Sub-precincts
Included four subareas/sub-precincts
Includes six sub-precincts
Sub-precinct D
Area D which is adjacent to Area B in the legacy plan provided for residential as a permitted activity
Area D is as per feedback
Page 128
Page 129
Attachment K
Item 9
Attachment 11 - Residential zones in seven local board areas (to be delivered on 26 August 2013)

Auckland Plan Committee 28-30 Aug Agenda

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Auckland Plan Committee 28-30 Aug Agenda

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Plan Committee will be held on:

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Auckland Plan Committee OPEN AGENDA

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 City Centre

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Auckland Unitary Plan Approach

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 Affordable Housing

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

The incorporation of concept plans for retirement villages

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 61.

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 66.

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013 99.

Auckland Unitary Plan

110. Land Use - a wide range of activities are permitted:

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Land Use Controls

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Plan Committee 28 August 2013

Auckland Unitary Plan