BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL IN RELATION TO TOPIC 081 REZONING AND PRECINCTS (GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS):
PRECINCTS ONLY
Hearing dates: 3 March 2016 to 29 April 2016
BROOKFIELDS LAWYERS M J L Dickey Telephone No. 09 379 9350 Fax No. 09 379 3224 P O Box 240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND
31560772:631364 Page 2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is a hearing of submissions and further submissions on PAUP hearing Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081): Precincts only.
1.2 Topic 081 concerns the submission points on rezoning and precincts that relate to specific geographical areas.
1.3 The submissions on Topic 081 have been grouped and addressed according to the following geographical areas:
a) General (Topic 081a); b) Rodney (Topic 081b); c) North Shore (Topic 081c); d) West (Topic 081d); e) Central (Topic 081e); and f) South (Topic 081f).
1.4 This opening statement only relates to Topic 081 Precincts. Topic 081 Rezoning matters will be addressed in a separate opening statement.
1.5 The focus of these legal submissions is on highlighting the key issues arising in relation to precincts, and the Council’s approach to precincts. A summary for each precinct has been prepared and is attached at Attachments A to F of these submissions. The precinct summaries are grouped according to their geographical area and are in alphabetical order for ease of reference. The relevant summary will be addressed for each precinct by legal counsel responsible for that precinct.
1.6 Summaries for the Weiti and Wiri 2 precincts have not been prepared and these precincts will not be addressed in submissions at this time. A revised timetable for filing of submitter evidence (26 February 2016) and Council’s rebuttal evidence (11 March 2016) in relation to the Weiti precinct has been approved by the Panel. The Council has been allocated 30 minutes of hearing time on 21 April 2016 to present its case on this precinct to the Panel and will address the Panel on relevant issues at that time. Similarly the Panel has approved a revised evidence timetable for the Wiri 2 precinct. The Council has been allocated 20 minutes of hearing time on 7 April 2016 to present its case on this precinct to the Panel.
31560772:631364 Page 3
2. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE TOPIC 081 EVIDENCE
2.1 The Council’s evidence for Topic 081 Precincts has been submitted in relation to each precinct. Where a precinct is supported, the proposed precinct provisions and plans have been attached to the evidence.
2.2 As set out in the Council’s list of witnesses dated 1 March 2016, the Council will call precinct evidence by geographical area, with the full suite of witnesses for each precinct being called together (with the exception of the general precincts).
2.3 The Chair of the Puketapapa Local Board has requested to speak in relation to the Three Kings precinct. This is presently scheduled to occur after lunch on Monday 7 March. (For completeness, it is noted that the Chair of the Manurewa Local Board also wishes to address the Panel in relating to Manurewa zonings – this is presently scheduled for 9:30am on Monday 7 March).
3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
3.1 The legal framework applying to the PAUP under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) will be very familiar to the Panel. The PAUP must be prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the LGATPA and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), except the provisions of the RMA that are excluded from applying by, or correspond to, provisions of Part 4 of the LGATPA.1
3.2 In the notified version of the PAUP, depending on the location of the zone, zoning and precincts are either a regional plan or a district plan method. The statutory framework for assessing the merits of the special application of the zones and precincts is set out in sections 30 to 32, 63 to 68 and 72 to 76 of the RMA. These tests are discussed in the strategic planning overview evidence in chief (EIC) of John Duguid on Zoning for Topics 080 and 081,2 and are therefore not repeated here. John Duguid’s EIC on Zoning also sets out the key policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) that are relevant to zoning,3 relevant provisions within the Auckland Plan,4 and key sections of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS).5
1 Section 121 of LGATPA. 2 John Duguid, EIC on Zoning, at paragraphs 5.2 to 5.11. 3 At paragraph 5.12. 4 At paragraphs 5.13 to 5.23. 5 At paragraph 6.2.
31560772:631364 Page 4
3.3 The Panel has also released Interim Guidance on Best Practice Approaches to Re- Zoning and Precincts, dated 31 July 2015, which is relevant to precincts.
4. BACKGROUND TO TOPIC 081 – PRECINCTS
4.1 The overarching rationale and approach towards precincts in the PAUP is discussed in the evidence in chief of John Duguid on Precincts for Topic 080 and 081, and in the Council’s legal submissions for Topic 080.6 The use of precincts in the PAUP was developed as a method to achieve two key drafting principles, namely to minimise repetition and to achieve an appropriate balance between regional consistency and local variation. The use of precincts avoids the need to create a multitude of zones that repeat much of the same content, by providing a suite of provisions that build on the provisions of the underlying zone in geographically specific areas.7
4.2 The Council’s starting point in developing precincts was to recognise areas where more detailed site-specific analysis had been undertaken by the legacy Councils. Precincts were identified as a key tool in ensuring that the outcomes of recent plan changes and Environment Court decisions (where consistent with the RPS) were reflected in the PAUP.8
4.3 In developing the overarching approach to precincts, the Council has had regard to the Panel’s Interim Guidance on the “best practice” approaches for precincts.9 In addition to the Interim Guidance provided by the Panel, the Council also supports the following approaches to precincts set out in John Duguid’s EIC on Precincts:10
a) there should only be one precinct on any piece of land or CMA; b) precincts should generally not apply to only a portion of a site; and c) where a designation applies, precincts should generally only address matters not covered by the designation.
6 Legal submissions on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.5. 7 John Duguid, EIC on Precincts, at paragraph 5.1. 8 John Duguid, EIC on Precincts, at paragraph 5.3. 9 As set out at paragraph 6.1 of John Duguid’s EIC on Precincts. 10 At paragraph 6.4.
31560772:631364 Page 5
5. KEY MATTERS ARISING IN RELATION TO TOPIC 081 PRECINCTS
Framework Plans
5.1 The use of framework plans is a mechanism that is used in a number of proposed precincts. Questions about the use framework plans have been raised by the Panel, and the Panel sought advice from Dr Royden Somerville QC. In his advice to the Panel, Dr Somerville QC indicated some concerns with the framework plan mechanism.
5.2 On 14 October 2015, the Council filed an application for an Environment Court declaration under Part 12 of the RMA in relation to the provisions in the PAUP relating to framework plans. The application was heard on 12 February 2016. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council requested that the matter be adjourned to allow the Council case team the opportunity to undertake further amendments to its template framework plan provisions, to address issues around certainty which were raised at the hearing.
5.3 As set out in the Council’s memorandum to the Panel dated 22 February 2016, given that the Council’s framework plan provisions are being amended, the Council’s preference is to place the finalisation of the framework plan provisions on hold pending determination by the Environment Court on the Council’s application for declarations. 11 Accordingly, Council witnesses have not proposed any further amendments to framework plan provisions in their rebuttal evidence on precincts, even where specific amendments have been requested in submitter evidence.
Managing Submissions Requesting New Precincts
5.4 New precinct requests ranged from complete proposals to ones with no supporting information.12 In order to manage the variability of the supporting information for new precinct requests, a Gateway Test was carried out. Requests for new precincts were assessed against three criteria:13
a) whether the purpose of the precinct is clearly understood;
11 Auckland Council, Update on Environment Court declaration proceedings and approach to Framework Plan provisions, 22 February 2016, at paragraph 10. 12 A discussion of the Council’s approach to new precinct requests is set out in the Council’s legal submissions for Topic 080 (General) at paragraphs 6.8 to 6.10. 13 John Duguid, EIC on Precincts, at paragraph 18.1.
31560772:631364 Page 6
b) whether the precinct clearly identifies the property or properties it relates to (the precinct cannot apply to only a portion of a site and should follow property boundaries); and c) the content of the precinct has been provided (i.e. planning provisions and maps).
5.5 Of the 158 new precinct requests, 45 passed the initial Gateway Test, and 113 did not, mostly because submitters did not provide supporting content. By way of background, on 6 August 2015, the Council wrote to 208 submitters requesting additional information to enable a proper assessment of their submissions. As a result, a number of submitters provided supporting information, which has been considered by Council planners. Precincts that passed the Gateway Test have been considered by the Council’s expert witnesses in evidence for Topic 081.
5.6 However, as foreshadowed in the Council’s legal submissions for Topic 080, there was a possibility that submitters who did not respond to the Council’s request for further information of 6 August 2015 could provide further information in support of their precinct request in their evidence for 081, which was due by 10 February, which would leave the Council with very little time to respond prior to the Topic 081 hearing. The Council therefore indicated that it was unlikely that it would support new precincts where the submitters did not respond to the Council’s request for additional information.14
5.7 The Council refers to its memorandum to the Panel dated 23 February 2016, in which the Council identified six situations where submitters have chosen to provide further information about new precinct requests in their evidence for Topic 081.15 As explained in the Council’s memorandum, the Council is not currently in a position to provide evidence about these six precinct requests, and respectfully suggests that it may be more appropriate for those new precinct requests to be dealt with by private plan change once the Unitary Plan has become operative. However, should the Panel consider that there is merit in including any of those precincts in the PAUP during the Topic 081 hearing, the Council would do its best to provide the Panel with any relevant information requested by the Panel that may be of assistance to it.
14 Legal submissions on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) at paragraph 6.10. 15 Memorandum of Counsel for Auckland Council in relation to Submitters’ Precinct Evidence for Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas), 23 February 2016. The relevant precincts, as set out in the table at paragraph 2.6 of the Memorandum are: Long Bay 1, Onehunga 1, Redhills 1, Redhills 2, Redvale 1 and Redvale 2.
31560772:631364 Page 7
5.8 The Council acknowledges the Panel’s Interim Guidance dated 1 March 2016, ‘Approach to re-zoning and precincts in greenfield areas proposed to come inside the Rural Urban Boundary’. It is noted that the proposed Redhills 1 and Redhills 2 precincts for which the Council does not propose to provide evidence (as discussed above), would fall within the indicative list of greenfield areas referred to in paragraph 6 of the Panel’s Interim Guidance.
Council Resolution on Out of Scope Residential Zoning Changes
5.9 As foreshadowed in the memorandum filed with the Panel on 29 February regarding the Council's Resolution of 24 February 2016 on ‘out of scope’ residential zoning changes, an issue arises regarding the impact of that Resolution on precincts.
5.10 While the Council’s resolution primarily affects the Council’s evidence on Topic 081 rezoning, the Council’s resolution has a potential impact on a small number of precincts where the Council’s evidence supported a Residential Out of Scope change.16 The impact of the Council’s Resolution on affected precincts will be discussed as each precinct is reached.
6. EVIDENCE
6.1 As a general approach to the hearing, it is proposed that as each precinct is called, counsel will present a brief summary of the precinct including any remaining issues and then call the Council's witnesses. It is not proposed to have the witnesses make presentations to the Panel. Rather, it is proposed that all be called so as to answer any questions from the Panel or submitters (if cross examination has been permitted).
16 As discussed in the Council’s memorandum of 29 February 2016 at paragraph 11.
31560772:631364 Page 8
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 For the reasons discussed in these submissions and in light of the evidence before the Panel, the Council respectfully submits that the principles of zoning and precincts proposed in the evidence of the Council’s planning witnesses achieves the statutory criteria better than the alternatives proposed by submitters.
DATED at Auckland this 3rd day of March 2016
M J L Dickey / M C Allan / D K Hartley / H Ash / J Hassall E Woolley / J Burns / J Caldwell / M Gribbens / V Evitt Counsel for the Auckland Council
31560772:631364 Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
TOPIC 081a – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (GENERAL)
31560772:631364 Page 10
BUSINESS PARK PRECINCTS WHICH ARE PROPOSED FOR DELETION MT ALBERT 1 AND AKORANGA
1. There are two Business Park zoned precincts addressed in the Council's evidence. The notified precincts addressed in the Council's evidence have a single control which is a cap on office GFA. The precincts are Mt Albert 1 and Akoranga.
2. The two precincts are addressed as a group in the Evidence Report of Mr Jeremy Wyatt dated 26 January 2016. They are not located within any one of the geographic areas but have been dealt with together by the Council's witness because the underlying zone is Business Park and the precincts have a similar purpose.
3. The Council proposes to delete the precincts because the same purpose could be achieved through a land use control rather than having a "single rule" precinct. This approach uses a different method, which the Council considers to be more efficient and effective, to deliver the same outcome as the notified precincts do. The proposed land use control and consequential changes are set out in Mr Wyatt's evidence.
4. The location and purpose of each of these precincts is addressed briefly under a separate heading below. The remaining issues are identified in the final section.
Mt Albert 1
5. This notified precinct is located at 118-120 Mt Albert Rd, Mt Albert. Buildings on the site mostly comprise low to medium scale office buildings and associated carparking. There is also a large space of undeveloped land comprising trees and grass. The surrounding area has Mt Albert Grammar to the north-west and is otherwise largely suburban. Mt Albert Town Centre lies 1km to the north-west.
6. The precinct has objectives and policies that support one rule, the purpose of which is to cap the amount of office GFA to 5,000m2, which is approximately the current level of office space on-site.
Akoranga
7. This existing precinct is located on Warehouse Way in Northcote. Buildings on the site mostly comprise low to medium scale office buildings and associated carparking. Approximately a quarter of the business park area is undeveloped. Tuff Crater lies to the west of the site and the motorway to the east and south. AUT lies to the north and a retirement village to the north-west.
8. The precinct has objectives and policies that support one rule, the purpose of which is to cap the amount of office GFA to 25,000m2, which is approximately the current level of office space on-site.
Remaining Issues
9. The only party which has produced evidence in relation to these matters is The Warehouse Limited which is seeking to increase the office GFA cap for the Akoranga precinct from 25,000m2 to 70,000m2, or delete the cap entirely. Mr Wyatt on behalf of the Council considers that, in the absence of an adequate assessment of environmental effects, the office GFA cap of 25,000m2 better gives effect to the RPS and meets the statutory framework including the purpose of the RMA.
31560772:631364 Page 11
GREENFIELD URBAN PRECINCT EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Greenfield Urban Precinct as notified in the PAUP is a general precinct applied to greenfield locations with urban zonings located in Helensville and Belmont, Pukekohe. The Helensville Precinct covers 44 ha of land located on the South-Eastern edge of the town alongside Rautawhiri Road and Inland Road. The Belmont Precinct applies to 67 ha of land located on the Western edge of Pukekohe, in the vicinity of Belmont Road, Factory Road and Jutland Road. 2. The purpose of the Precinct is to enable comprehensive planning, subdivision and development, integrated with the provision of infrastructure and the management of stormwater. Any development within the Precinct locations is required to comply with an approved structure plan. The notified precincts are unusual and reflect an historic situation with the legacy district plans. 3. The underlying zoning of the Helensville Precinct is predominantly Single House, however, a portion of the Precinct is zoned as Large Lot. The underlying zoning of the Belmont Precinct is predominantly Mixed Housing Suburban with a small area on the Eastern boundary of the Belmont Precinct being Public Open Space – Informal Recreation. 4. The Council's evidence regarding the Greenfield Urban Precinct is contained in the evidence report of Rereata Hardman-Miller dated 26 January 2016. Ms Hardman- Miller supports the deletion of the Greenfield Urban Precinct. This is on the basis that this Precinct is no longer necessary to ensure that integrated development occurs with the Helensville and Belmont Precinct locations as both of these locations now form part of Special Housing Areas ("SHAs") under the Housings Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. 5. The land within the Belmont Precinct was announced as a part of the Belmont SHA in December 2013, with the Belmont structure plan approved in December 2014. A portion of the Helensville Precinct was approved as the Rautawhiri Road, Helensville SHA in May 2014, with a resource consent being granted for a 60-lot residential subdivision in October 2014. 6. In light of the integrated development of these locations that has occurred under the SHA process, Ms Hardman-Miller considers that the structure planning requirements of the Greenfield Urban Precinct are unnecessary. For this reason, Ms Hardman- Miller supports the deletion of the Greenfield Urban Precinct and the inclusion of the indicative roads and public open spaces overlay reflective of the Belmont structure plan in the PAUP GIS viewer.
Remaining issues 7. The deletion of the precinct is supported by the landowners in both Belmont and Helensville. 8. However, the Pukekohe South Residents Group ("PSRG") have filed evidence supporting the retention of the Greenfield Urban Precinct in the Plan and applying this Precinct to an area of predominately Future Urban zoned land located on the South- Eastern edge of Pukekohe adjacent to the Auckland Trotting Club.17 The PSRG propose to rezone the land to a collection of live zonings.
17 Primary evidence of Philip Heffernan on behalf of PSRG, 10 February 2016, paragraphs 5.7-5.8 and 12.4-12.8, attachments E and F.
31560772:631364 Page 12
9. The Council evidence on Rural South rezoning does not support the proposed rezoning of the area and so the Council does not support the application of the Precinct. Instead a proper structure plan and separate plan change process should be followed. 10. The Council considers that the application of the Greenfield Urban Precinct to this area of land is outside the scope of relief able to be claimed in PSRG's further submission, which proposed this Precinct as a refinement of the relief claimed in PSRG's primary submission.18 11. In addition, the evidence of PSRG does not address the fact that parts of the notified Precinct provisions are likely to be ultra vires the RMA since the notified provisions purport to assign a land use activity status to the preparation of a structure plan, which is contrary to current legal authority.19
18 Further submission 1965. PSRG's primary submission 3809 sought residential or business zoning for the land and did not proposed the application of the Greenfield Urban Precinct over this area. 19 Refer to the legal submissions and evidence of Council for Topic 004 and the declaration proceedings before the Environment Court about the vires of proposed framework plan provisions
31560772:631364 Page 13
INDUSTRY PRECINCTS WHICH FAILED MERITS ASSESSMENT
ALBANY 2, HENDERSON 1, MT WELLINGTON 4, PENROSE 1, ROSEDALE 1, ROSEDALE 3, WAIRAU VALLEY 2
1. The Council received submissions requesting six new precincts in the Light Industry zone. Submissions were also received seeking to delete a notified precinct in the Light Industry zone. The precincts generally seek or allow more office and retail activity than provided for in the Light Industry zone.
2. The relevant precincts are addressed as a group in the Evidence Report of Mr Jeremy Wyatt dated 29 January 2016. They are not located within any one of the geographic areas but have been dealt with together by the Council's witness because the underlying zone is Light Industry in all cases.
3. The Council considers that the six proposed new precincts and the notified precinct all fail the merits assessment and are not appropriate for inclusion within the PAUP, for the reasons set out in Mr Wyatt's evidence. In summary, the precincts are not the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Light Industry zone and do not give effect to the RPS, particularly B3.1 which includes the Council's "centres plus" strategy for managing commercial growth. The Council considers that the relevant precincts do not meet the purpose of the RMA or the other statutory criteria.
4. The one notified and six proposed precincts which are not supported by the Council are:
a. Albany 2 (notified precinct); b. Henderson 1 (new precinct); c. Mt Wellington 4 (new precinct); d. Penrose 1 (new precinct); e. Rosedale 1 (new precinct); f. Rosedale 3 (new precinct); and g. Wairau Valley 2 (new precinct).
5. The location and purpose of each of these precincts is addressed briefly under a separate heading below. The remaining issues are identified in the final section.
Albany 2
6. The notified precinct covers an area in Rosedale, on the eastern side of the Northern Motorway. The precinct is approximately 70ha of undulating land with a mixture of industrial activities, office (both accessory and standalone) and retail activities.
7. The purpose of the precinct is to allow standalone office activities up to 500m2 GFA as permitted activities.
Henderson 1
8. This proposed new precinct is located at 327, 329, 337 Lincoln Road and 183 Central Park Drive and covers approximately 7ha. The site has a range of industrial activities and trade suppliers including a metal recycling yard, a mechanical drilling company and hire premises. There is also a delicatessen with retail and associated warehousing. Action World (with a trapeze and other adventure equipment) is on the site. There is also a residential house and the remnants of a wine vineyard that is otherwise undeveloped.
31560772:631364 Page 14
9. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for a general business environment as provided for in the Working (Lincoln) Environment zone of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section). This includes additional commercial, community and residential activities.
Mt Wellington 4
10. This proposed new precinct is located at 10 Panorama Road, 16 Leonard Road, and 34 Leonard Road and comprises nearly 50h. The site is occupied by Sky and houses their national headquarters, with on-site uses including corporate offices, a 350 seat call centre, television broadcasting studios and facilities, warehousing, and staff/visitor car parking.
11. The purpose of the precinct is to recognise existing uses on the site and provide for greater flexibility, including future expansion. The submitter also seeks further flexibility for larger satellite dishes on the site.
Penrose 1
12. The precinct requests relate to land on Rockridge Ave in Penrose. Mt Smart lies to the south and the railway line to the north. Heavy Industry zoned land lies to the east and west. Activities in the precinct area are a mixture of warehousing and distribution, office and trade suppliers.
13. The purpose of the precinct requests is to recognise the existing mix of activities and to provide for an existing office building and possible future non-permanent accommodation.
Rosedale 1
14. This proposed new precinct is located at 52 Parkway Drive, Rosedale. The site is nearly 2h, accommodating the North Shore Policing Centre, but is otherwise undeveloped land. The land slopes down from Sunset Rd to Parkway Drive.
15. The purpose of the proposed new precinct is to emulate the existing Albany 2 precinct and provide for standalone offices as a permitted activity.
Rosedale 3
16. This proposed new precinct is located on the corner of Bush Rd and Paul Matthews Rd, Albany. The site is nearly 4h and is low-lying and fairly flat. Rosedale Park lies to the north and east, and three other properties to the north share the same Light Industry zone. The site currently contains a concrete recycling plant and road maintenance depot, as well as accessory offices, light manufacturing and repair workshops.
17. The purpose of the proposed new precinct is to enable additional office activities, commercial services and specific industrial activities.
Wairau Valley 2
18. This proposed new precinct applies to the Wairau Valley, Wairau. Precincts are sought by different submitters over the whole light industry area in the Wairau Valley and also more discrete areas within that area.
31560772:631364 Page 15
19. The proposed new precincts generally seek greater provision for office and retail activities than the underlying Light Industry zone.
Remaining Issues
20. The only party which has produced evidence opposing the Council's evidence was James Kirkpatrick who is continuing to seek a precinct in Penrose (Penrose 1) to provide for an existing office building and possible future non-permanent accommodation. The key matters at issue in the evidence are whether the proposed precinct will achieve the objectives of the Light Industry zone and give effect to the RPS. Submissions in relation to the other six precincts remain live and the extent to which the Council's position is disputed is not conclusively known at this stage. However, the Council's analysis of evidence filed indicates that: a. The precinct method is unlikely to be pursued for the Wairau 2 and Rosedale 3 precincts. b. The precinct method is not pursued in evidence filed, although submission points have not been withdrawn (Rosedale 1 and Albany 2) c. Evidence for the remaining precincts (Henderson 1, Mt Wellington 4 and part of the Penrose 1 precinct) does not appear to have been filed.
31560772:631364 Page 16
ATTACHMENT B
TOPIC 081b – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (RODNEY)
31560772:631364 Page 17
BRICK BAY PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Brick Bay precinct is a proposed precinct comprising approximately 4 ha of land at 55 and 57 Arabella Lane, Snells Beach. The site is bound by Arabella Lane to the south and residentially zoned properties to the east and west. The precinct is not included the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submissions of Brick Bay Trustee Limited (submissions 2197-2 and 2197-3).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for residential development of sites of 450m2 on part of the precinct area, the vesting of Public Open Space (Informal Recreation) to the Council, and the protection of view shafts and amenity.
3. The underlying zoning of the precinct, as notified, is a mixture of Single House and Rural Coastal. The surrounding area is characterised by the single house residential area of Snells Beach to the south (including a higher density area to the south east at Little Compton Mews), and rural land to the north. The precinct is subject to two overlays - Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua and an Indicative Stream.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Austin Fox dated 26 January 2016. Mr Fox does not support the proposed precinct on the basis that:
a. In Mr Fox’s rebuttal evidence for Topic 016 - RUB North/West in relation to Snells Beach, the residential component of the Brick Bay precinct area is proposed to be zoned Single House. The precinct proposes to vary the subdivision minimum site size control from 600m2 (under Single House zoning) to 450m2. Such a small change in density is not considered sufficient to require a precinct. b. The provision of additional Public Open Space is not required in the area. c. The development controls in the subdivision and Single House parts of the PAUP adequately protect view shafts and the amenity of the surrounding sites.
5. Mr Fox concludes that the Single House zone land use provisions adequately provide for the development of the proposed precinct site, and that a precinct is not required.
Remaining issues
6. The Council remains opposed to the inclusion of the Brick Bay Precinct in the PAUP.
7. Brick Bay Trustee Limited has not provided evidence to support its submissions or in response to the Council’s evidence.
31560772:631364 Page 18
COATESVILLE PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Coatesville precinct comprises land bounded by the Coatesville- Riverhead Highway and Sunnyside Road to the south. The precinct area includes primarily large rural lifestyle lots, with rural production and farming activities also prevalent. The land is largely flat, with a steep hillside to the north forming the backdrop to the precinct, and a large public open space area (Coatesville Recreation Reserve) and a primary school to the south.
2. The precinct is not included the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of RJ and AE Richardson Trust (submission 3758). There are no further submission points relating to the request for a new precinct. There is one further submission (437) relating to the rezoning request (discussed below).
3. The underlying zoning is largely Rural Production (to the west within the precinct) and Countryside Living (to the east within the precinct). The submitter also seeks the rezoning of the Rural Production zoned land to Countryside Living. A small portion of land to the south is zoned Neighbourhood Centre, comprising small business and retail shops, which functions as the retail centre of Coatesville.
4. The precinct area is subject to four overlays: the Natural Heritage: Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay, the Built Environment: Additional Subdivision Controls overlay; the Natural Resources: Significant Ecological Area overlay; and the Natural Resources: Natural Stream Management Area overlay.
5. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for the subdivision and development of the precinct area for residential purposes at a density of one dwelling per 4,000m2, with matters of discretion and assessment criteria from the Large Lot Residential zone being applied.
6. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Kimberley Morgan Edmonds dated 26 January 2016. Ms Edmonds does not support the proposed precinct on the basis that:
a. the new precinct would not recognise any unique built or environmental character, or any specific concentration of particular activities; b. the underlying Countryside Living zone, where applied, provides for sufficient rural living opportunities; c. for the part of the precinct to which the Rural Production zone applies: i. the Rural Production zone provisions provide for subdivision at a level which better reflects the productive capacity of the land and accords with the strategic direction in the Regional Policy Statement and Auckland Plan; ii. the land is characterised by prime soils, and development as proposed by the precinct would restrict the future viability of that land for rural production activities; and d. no evidence has been provided to confirm that the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the additional development proposed.
Remaining issues
7. The Council remains unsupportive of the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 19
DAIRY FLAT PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Diary Flat precinct is an existing precinct located adjacent to the North Shore airport and to the west of the Northern motorway. The precinct provides an opportunity for aircraft enthusiasts to live in close proximity to the North Shore Airport, offers permanent access for aircraft from individual properties to the Airport, and provides a buffer of aviation friendly activities around the North Shore Airport.
2. The underlying zoning of the land in the Dairy Flat precinct is Large Lot zone. There have been no requests to change the zoning. Three overlays apply to the land – Aircraft Approach Path, Aircraft Noise and Stormwater Management Area. The surrounding area of the Dairy Flat precinct is characterised by the North Shore Airport, the Northern Motorway and the Future Urban zoned area of Dairy Flat.
3. The Council’s position is outlined in the evidence statement of Joseph Jeffries dated 26 January 2016, and rebuttal statement dated 24 February 2016. The Council proposes a number of changes to the existing precinct in response to submissions. These amendments include responding to a range of requests from the North Shore Aero Club to ensure that activities within the precinct do not adversely affect the operation of the North Shore Airport. Amendments are also proposed in response to a submission from the Auckland Council in order to provide consistency with other parts of the plan.
4. Differences between the Dairy Flat precinct and the relevant overlays, zones and Auckland-wide rules relate to Activity Tables, Notification, Land Use controls, Development Controls, Subdivision Controls and Assessment criteria. The main differences are:
a. Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise (ASANs) are non-complying (except for one site per dwelling) b. The conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings is non-complying (rather than RD as per the LL zone) c. One dwelling per site as a controlled activity where that site has been subdivided in accordance with the precinct subdivision plan d. A number of activities related to aircraft operations are prohibited e. Domestic housing of aircraft to be a controlled activity f. ASANs to enter a no complains covenant in favour of the North Shore Airport and limits to the hours of operation of the aircraft taxiways.
5. There are no significant issues or out of scope changes associated with this precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 20
GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Gulf Harbour precinct is a 350 ha master planned development located at Hobbs Bay on the Whangaparoa Peninsula. It provides for separate areas of residential development encompassed by open space. The residential areas have a range of densities, from a higher density adjacent to the Gulf Harbour centre and Eastern Boat Harbour (Hobbs Wharf) to lower densities to the north and east of the centre. The precinct is separated into six sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A: Local Centre; b. Sub-precinct B: Mixed Use; c. Sub-precinct C: Mixed Housing Suburban/Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings; d. Sub-precinct D: Mixed Housing Suburban; e. Sub-precinct E: Large Lot/Single House; and f. Sub-precinct F: Public Open Space: Sport and Active Recreation.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to encourage comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment within and around a marine and golf course setting. The proposed precinct provisions encourage a framework plan to be approved prior to new development building or subdivisions in sub-precincts A, B, C and D.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua, Historic Heritage Extent of Place, Aquifer, Significant Ecological Area and Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Joseph Jeffries dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 25 February 2016. Mr Jeffries supports retention of the precinct, subject to proposed amendments set out at Part 11 of his evidence report and paragraphs 4.5, 5.6 and 7.3 of his rebuttal report.
Submitter Evidence
5. Submitter evidence was received from Peter Reaburn on behalf of Top Harbour Limited (Top Harbour). Mr Reaburn proposed amendments to the precinct description and policies 1, 4 and 16 of the precinct provisions. Mr Jeffries agrees with these proposed changes. Mr Reaburn has also proposed a revision of the boundary between sub-precincts B and C to align with The Anchorage. Mr Jeffries agrees with this proposed amendment of Precinct Plan 1, and an amended version of the Plan is contained within the amended precinct provisions in Attachment A of the rebuttal report of Mr Jeffries.
Remaining Issues
6. In his evidence report, Mr Jeffries proposed deletion of the comprehensive development areas (CDAs), in order to simplify the precinct and on the grounds that the CDAs had been made redundant by development to date.20 The effect of deletion of the CDAs would be that framework plans would apply to an entire sub-
20 Evidence report of Joseph Jeffries, at paragraph 11.46.
31560772:631364 Page 21
precinct. In his evidence, Mr Reaburn raised concerns about the deletion of the CDAs, on the basis that framework plans were never intended to apply to entire sub- precinct areas, and the purpose of CDAs was to define the geographic extent of framework plans.
7. In his rebuttal report, Mr Jeffries advised that having considered Mr Reaburn’s evidence, he agrees that re-introducing the CDAs would provide better geographic definition of the areas that framework plans are to apply to.21 However, Mr Jeffries has not proposed amendment of the framework plan provisions to retain the CDAs at this stage, pending determination on whether framework plans will be retained in the PAUP.
21 Rebuttal report of Joseph Jeffries at paragraph 6.2.
31560772:631364 Page 22
GULF HARBOUR MARINA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Gulf Harbour Marina Precinct is located at Hobbs Bay on the Southern end of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. It includes both land in the coastal marine area and land which are above mean high water springs. The Precinct was included in the notified PAUP.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for marina, ferry service, and marine-related services and facilities, including haul-out facilities, boat storage, trailer parking, and a range of specialist marine trade services. The Precinct also provides for a range of commercial and retail activities on some of the land and has a regular ferry service to Auckland CBD.
3. The underlying zoning of all the land in the precinct, both within and outside of the coastal marine area, is Marina zone.
4. Mr Scott in paragraph 1.7 of his evidence sets out in Table form the main differences between the Precinct (with the provisions he proposes) and the Marina zone provisions.
5. The notified PAUP proposed 2 sub-precincts within the Precinct. Mr Scott recommends the creation of a new sub-precinct (which he calls sub-precinct C) to recognise the particular qualities and features of the Hammerhead area, which was formerly part of sub-precinct B. This area also includes the ferry service. He also recommends a number of changes to the activity statuses and height development controls to appropriately reflect the intended outcomes for each sub-precinct.
6. Although there were 3 submitters on the Precinct, the only one which has provided evidence is Gulf Harbour Investments Ltd (GHL) which operates the marina development pursuant to rights it has under a Deed of Licence granted by the former Rodney District Council.
7. As Mr Scott, the Council’s planning witness, says in his evidence, discussions between him and Mr Hay (the planning witness for GHL) has resulted in a large measure of agreement about the appropriate provisions for the precinct. In particular, Mr Hay agrees with the identification of a new sub-precinct C, and the location and extent of the precinct and sub-precincts.
Outstanding Issues
8. Mr Scott in his rebuttal evidence has agreed to a number of amendments suggested by Mr Hay in his evidence in chief, and addresses what are the only two remaining points of difference between Council and GHL. In summary, these are:
a. A difference of opinion as to the wording of the precinct plan description (Scott rebuttal paras 4.1-4.3)
b. Mr Scott does not agree with Mr Hay’s proposal that office activity not accessory to a marine activity be enabled in sub-precinct C. There is already adequate provision for this in sub-precinct B which is intended to cater for a broader range of activities than sub-precinct C. (Scott rebuttal para 4.7). Mr Scott prefers to see sub-precinct C provide for marine related activity, food
31560772:631364 Page 23
and beverage activity and complementary retail activity (to support the ferry operation). In his view this is consistent with the underlying marina zone
9. Both the witnesses for GHL (Mr Hay and Mr Speedy) place some emphasis on what they consider are GHL’s rights under its licence agreement. This is reflected in the difference of opinion regarding the wording of the precinct description, with Mr Hay contending that Mr Scott’s proposed wording over-emphasises the open space nature of sub-precinct C (the Hammerhead) at the expense of potential commercial marine-related activities.
10. Mr Speedy sets out GHL’s expectation that Council will subdivide and lease the Hammerhead land to GHL.
11. In Council’s submission, whatever rights GHL may or may not have to the Hammerhead land is not relevant to the issue before the Panel, which is what are the appropriate provisions for the precinct, having regard to the purpose and principles of the Act, and the relevant objectives and policies in the plan.
Conclusion
12. In Council’s submission, the appropriate provisions for this Precinct are those attached to Mr Scott’s rebuttal evidence, and the Council requests that the Panel recommend that those provisions be adopted.
31560772:631364 Page 24
HATFIELDS PRECINCTS
PROPOSED PRECINCTS
1. The Hatfields Precincts are proposed new precincts located at Hatfields Beach which is the northern most contiguous urban limit to Greater Auckland, and is one of the gateways to rural Rodney in the north.
2. The precincts are not in the PAUP as notified and are proposed by submitters in the Hatfields Beach area: Seaforth Limited (Hatfields Beach 1); Objective Holdings Limited (Hatfields Beach 2); and Kauri Orewa Limited (Hatfields Beach 3).
3. The submissions request provisions for a significant amount of rural and urban subdivision outside the Rural Urban Boundary at Hatfields, in exchange for environmental benefits mainly related to enhancement planting. In addition, each submitter seeks to have specific activities allowed for their particular precinct.
4. The underlying zoning for Seaforth Limited and Objective Holdings is Rural Coastal and it is proposed to extend all of the Kauri Orewa land to Rural Coastal zoning.
5. The proposed precincts are subject to a number of overlays including Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL44), SEAs, and coastal inundation for part of the Kauri Orewa land.
6. The Council evidence on the Hatfields Beach precincts is contained in the planning evidence report and rebuttal evidence of Nathan Te Pairi, dated 28 January and 10 February 2016. He relies on the ecological evidence and rebuttal evidence of Shona Myers, dated 27 January and 26 February 2016 and the landscape evidence of Stephen Brown, dated 29 January and rebuttal 29 February 2016. The Council also refers to the evidence of Mr Te Pairi and Stephen Brown in relation to Topic 016 RUB North/West in relation to development in the Hatfields area.
7. The Council does not support the inclusion of any of the Hatfields Beach precincts in the PAUP particularly the degree of density of rural subdivision proposed in each of the three precincts. The basis for this is that rural subdivision is strategically managed within the PAUP in order to achieve consistency with a core strategic direction in the RPS – to prevent further sporadic and scattered subdivision in rural Auckland.
8. In addition, Hatfields Beach is a sensitive coastal area, that contains significant natural and landscape character values includes extensive areas of ONL44 and SEA.– which are acknowledged and protected by the RPS and zoning in the PAUP.
9. On the basis of the above issues, Mr Te Pairi, informed by the ecological evidence of Ms Myers, and the landscape evidence of Stephen Brown does not consider that the three Hatfields Beach precinct proposals meet the Merits Based Assessment for new precincts, outlined in the evidence of Mr John Duguid for the Council on Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts.
10. Therefore, all aspects of the 3 precincts sought by the submitters remain at issue.
31560772:631364 Page 25
HELENSVILLE 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Helensville 2 precinct is a proposed precinct comprising 8.105 ha of land at 215 Kaipara Coast Highway, north of Helensville. The precinct is not included the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Atlas Concrete Limited (submission 5612).
2. The underlying zone of the precinct is Rural Coastal. The submission also seeks to rezone the underlying land to Heavy Industry. The precinct area is subject to three overlays - a rail line designation along the eastern boundary; a SEA on the southern part of the site; and an indicative stream. The surrounding area is characterised by a rural and coastal character.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to:
a. translate a range of existing resource consents for quarrying activities into a precinct; b. extend the range of activities provided for on the site; c. extend the geographic extent of the provisions that apply to the precinct area under the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 so that the provisions extend into areas of the Kaipara River.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 26 January 2016. Mr Hookaway does not support the proposed precinct on the basis that:
a. The precinct seeks to apply land-based provisions to areas of water (the wharf and other marine structures that lie within the Kaipara River). This is not appropriate and, instead, management of environmental effects in this area should be through conditions similar to those in the resource consents under which operations are currently undertaken on the site. b. The resource consents granted to date provide a balance of allowing an operation for the importation of sand and its bulk procession and transport to urban areas of Auckland in a sensitive rural and coastal location. The submitter has not supplied sufficient information about the environmental and strategic effects of the proposed precinct, which would enable a full port operation to be established. c. The proposed precinct and rezoning (from General Rural to Heavy Industry) is a real step change in potential intensity and environmental effects and a marked departure from the current established operation.
5. In Table 2 at paragraph 9.6 of his evidence report, Mr Hookaway outlines the disparities between the existing activities and the proposed land uses in the precinct. Mr Hookaway concludes that the existing operation is well established through an existing resource consent regime (set out in his Table 1 at paragraph 9.4 of his evidence report), which provides sufficient certainty for the continued operation of the activities on site into the future. The expansion and activity statuses proposed are not appropriate in this location and the proposed precinct is generally inconsistent with the intent of the Regional Policy Statement and underlying Rural Coastal zone.
Remaining issues
6. The Council remains unsupportive of the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 26
HUAPAI 5
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Huapai 5 precinct relates to land at 45 Station Road, Huapai, which is occupied by the Nobilo winery. Constellation Brands (New Zealand) Limited (4808- 2) lodged a submission seeking a new precinct for winery-related activities.
2. The entire precinct site is now subject to an operative variation for the Huapai Triangle Special Housing Area (SHA), which rezones the land and puts in place a new precinct in the PAUP for housing. The variation decision is dated 10 November 2015 and the variation was made operative on 13 November 2015.
3. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence of Ryan Bradley. As as a result of the SHA, the submission seeking a new precinct (and any other submissions inconsistent with the variation decisions) must be treated as withdrawn pursuant to section 75 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA).
4. The Council has written to the affected submitters in accordance with section 75 of HASHAA.
31560772:631364 Page 27
HUAPAI NORTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Huapai North existing precinct is located at Kumeu-Huapai and comprises 120 ha, 92 ha of which is within the RUB. The purpose of the precinct is to manage the subdivision and development within Huapai North in a comprehensive, efficient, and integrated way.22 The precinct implements the Huapai North Structure Plan which brings together the Kumeu-Huapai-Waimauku Structure Plan 1998 and Kumeu- Huapai Centre Plan 2005.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016 which proposes to delete the Huapai North precinct and instead replace it with a number of overlays:
a. Indicative roads in line with the precinct plan (where not yet vested and built);
b. Indicative open space in line with the precinct plan (where not yet vested); and
c. Additional Subdivision Control for the Large Lot zone to reduce the minimum site size from 4,000m2 to 1,500m2 in line with the minimum site size for this area in the Huapai North precinct.
3. These overlays are shown at Attachment D to Mr Bradley’s Evidence Report. Mr Bradley outlines his reasons for this position at paragraph 1.4(a)-(e) of his evidence Report.
4. Mr Bradley’s rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence of Dr Mark Bellingham on behalf of Michael Coote (6512), Patricks Bay (603), C&R Properties (6522), and Awatea Brothers Ltd (FS670), which supports the position outlined in his evidence report, subject to some amendments shown in the revised map attached as Attachment A.
22 Evidence of R Bradley for the Council dated 25 January 2016.
31560772:631364 Page 28
KAKANUI POINT PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Kakanui Point precinct is an existing precinct located at Barr Road, Kaukapakapa on the Kaipara Harbour. The property (known as ‘Gibbs Farm’) comprises 353 ha of farmland which has been developed as a setting for a number of sculptures, some very large, as well as large scale earthmoving. There are six dwellings on the property. The land is zoned Rural Production and General Coastal Marine.
2. The Council’s position on the Kakanui Point precinct is detailed in the evidence report by Bain Cross dated 26 January 2016 and his rebuttal statement dated 25 February 2016.
3. The purpose of the Kakanui Point precinct is to provide for the ongoing use and development of the total farm property for the installation and display of large sculptures, modified or constructed land forms and waterbodies, extensive native and exotic plantings, and the housing of rare and exotic animals. The precinct has been developed to carry forward a scheduled activity in the legacy Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section), subject to amendments to ensure consistency with the format of the PAUP.
4. In addition to the scheduled activity, resource consent was granted in 2013 for nine additional dwellings on the property. The basis for this resource consent was the number of dwellings permitted in the Rodney Plan relative to the overall landholdings, and the specific circumstances of the Gibbs Farm, whose owners wish to enable stewardship of the property through future generations.
5. The only submitter on the precinct, the Gibbs Foundation, requested a number of changes including to the spatial extent of the precinct, Objectives and Policies, and the Rules including definitions and the underlying zoning. Mr Cross supports some, but not all, of the submitter’s requests. He supports, for instance, making provision for up to 15 dwellings within the precinct (beyond 15, dwellings would be a non- complying activity). He considers that it would be inappropriate to develop a special zone for the Gibbs Farm property because most of the activities carried out on the property are permitted in the underlying zones, and where they are not permitted activities are Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary.
6. The main differences between the precinct as proposed and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland-wide rules are:
a. Provision for a sculpture park as a permitted activity rather than discretionary in the RP zone; b. Artworks are not subject not the maximum height control that applies to buildings in the RP zone; c. Varied District controls for earthworks to enable any scale of earthworks to be carried out without resource consent, subject to normal environmental protections required under Auckland-wide (regional) controls; d. The precinct limits the number of dwellings to 15 within the total precinct, but does not limit the number per site. This is fewer than the number that could be built as a Permitted Activity in the RP zone; e. Yards do not apply at site boundaries that are internal to the precinct. Artworks are subject to front yards. Side yard, rear yard, and other yard controls apply only to properties adjoining the precinct; and f. The requirement to carry out full acoustic reporting of events is waived.
31560772:631364 Page 29
7. Mr Cross's rebuttal evidence supports some further amendments in response to the planning evidence lodged by Mr Cook. These further amendments include a consequential amendment to the definition of "artworks" in the PAUP. Mr Cross's rebuttal addresses the remaining areas of difference, which includes an issue as to the activity status of dwellings beyond the maximum of 15. Mr Cook considers the activity status beyond 15 should be discretionary, whereas Mr Cross, as noted, considers this should be non-complying. Having considered Mr Cook's evidence, he remains of the view that non-complying activity status is appropriate, to avoid the precinct as a whole being overdeveloped. Mr Cross also does not agree with the proposal that subdivision be regulated under the precinct as a controlled activity. He proposes that subdivision should continue to be managed under the underlying zone and subdivision rules.
31560772:631364 Page 30
KAWAU ISLAND PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Kawau Island precinct covers the majority of the land on Kawau Island, except the open space zoned land that is publicly owned. Kawau Island is located to the east of Sandspit and is approximately 2,000 ha in its entirety. The eastern coast is steep with high cliffs and generally uninhabited. The western coast has a predominantly rocky foreshore and a mix of steep and gentle slopes, with inlets/harbours at North Cove, Bon Accord Harbour, South Cove and Bostaquet Bay.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The Council received 96 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. The underlying zoning of land in the precinct is Rural and Coastal Settlement (sub-precinct A) and Rural Conservation (sub-precinct B). The precinct is subject to the Natural Heritage: Coastal Natural Character Area and Natural Heritage: Outstanding Natural Landscape overlays.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to recognise the unique environment and physical constraints of Kawau Island, being:
a. vegetation management on the island; b. that sites are primarily accessed by water; c. discouraging the proliferation of roads on the island; d. recognising the pattern of residential development on the island, that being low intensity settlements located on the western bays of the island; and e. discouraging inappropriate subdivision.
4. The precinct is informed by the principles of the non-statutory document known as the Kawau Island Vision, adopted on 30 July 2009.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anthony Traub dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence reports of Mr Traub (planning) and Jane Andrews (ecology) dated 24 February 2016. Mr Traub supports the retention of the precinct largely as notified, subject to minor amendments to correct errors; align terminology to be consistent with that used across the PAUP; align and clarify objectives, policies and rules with the PAUP more broadly; remove duplication of matters that are covered under the Auckland-wide or zone provisions; and address submitter requests.
6. The main differences between the proposed precinct and the relevant zone, Auckland-wide or Chapter G provisions are outlined in the table at paragraph 13.1 of Mr Traub’s evidence report. Those variations reflect the unique topography of the island, that is, it is accessed by the sea with very few roads on the island, and has steep cliffs and hills with low intensity residential development located on the western bays.
Remaining issues
7. Mr Traub’s rebuttal evidence responds to submitter evidence and continues to support the precinct as proposed in his primary evidence. The track changes appended to his rebuttal evidence correct typographical errors. Ms Andrews’ evidence similarly responds to submitter evidence and does not support the inclusion of an additional vegetation removal rule or the addition of new areas identified as SEA in the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 31
8. The PAUP was notified without an SEA overlay over Kawau Island. While there are significant areas of biodiversity on the island that may justify protection by an SEA, Mr Traub recommends no change until there has been adequate expert ecological assessment. He considers that the proposed vegetation management and removal provisions within the precinct provide a sufficient level of protection and flexibility for residents, similar to those within the operative regime.
31560772:631364 Page 32
KUMEU PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Kumeu precinct comprises approximately 12.2 ha of land located at the centre of Kumeu, bordered by SH 16 to the south, Kumeu river to the north and existing mixed business and industrial activities to the east, west and south.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified and the Council received nine submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. The underlying zoning of the land, as notified is Town Centre (sub-precincts A and B), Single House (sub-precinct C) and Large Lot (sub-precinct D). Submissions on the precinct seek to change the zoning of sub-precincts C (to Mixed Housing Urban) and D (to Green Infrastructure). The Council supports these changes. The precinct is subject to several infrastructure, built environment, additional zone height controls and natural resources overlays.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the establishment of a town centre for Kumeu-Huapai with a strong commercial core and associated residential and recreational areas. The proposed provisions provide for a mix of activities and require good urban design outcomes and an appropriate level of amenity, while recognising the opportunities and constraints of the floodway alongside the Kumeu River.
4. Private Plan Change 162 to the operative Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011, which was made operative in 2012, forms the basis for the precinct. The plan change provisions are retained in the proposed precinct and are tailored to the local circumstances. As such, they considered to be sufficiently different from the standard zone and Auckland-wide controls in the PAUP.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Emily Buckingham dated 26 January 2016. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant Auckland-wider, zone or overlay rules are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 1.5 of Ms Buckingham’s evidence. Ms Buckingham supports the retention of the precinct in the PAUP, but proposes a number of amendments as follows:
a. splitting the precinct activity table into sub-precinct specific tables and removing those activities where the activity status is the same as the underlying zone; b. adding matters of discretion and assessment criteria for activities on sites subject to framework plans (as per the Council’s general approach); c. adjustments to better give effect to Plan Change 162; d. removing the compulsory notification clause so that the normal statutory notification test can be applied; and e. amendments to correct minor or technical errors.
6. In response to submissions, Ms Buckingham generally considers the precinct as notified (or as amended as per the above) to be appropriate, but supports:
a. the removal of the 12.5m height limit from the precinct provisions, allowing for an 18m height limit in accordance with the additional zone height control overlay; b. amendments to the objectives and policies in relation to transport; c. clarification that the Auckland-wide rules apply in relation to network utility activities (as per the amendments above); and
31560772:631364 Page 33
d. amendments to the precinct boundary to include the New World supermarket development.
7. Ms Buckingham emphasises the importance of the Plan Change provisions and considers it appropriate for them to be retained by way of a PAUP precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 34
KUMEU SHOWGROUNDS PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Kumeu Showgrounds precinct comprises 17 ha of land at 27 Access Road, Kumeu, within close proximity to the Kumeu town centre. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is requested in the submission of the Kumeu Agricultural and Horticultural Society (Society) (2000-1).
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Mixed Rural. Three infrastructure overlays apply to the site as well as the floodplain and flood sensitive areas overlay. The site is generally flat land, predominantly in pasture with fencing, wind break and rural plantings, headwinds and a number of buildings and structures, including stock yards and equestrian cross country jumps. It holds various events throughout the year. The western side of the site adjoins rural land zoned Countryside Living and the northern side adjoins Council-owned land zoned Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation (the Kumeu & District Community Centre). To the north is an area of light industry and to the north-east is mixed use.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for activities enabled by the Kumeu District Agricultural and Horticultural Society Act 1991 (Act), which allows for a range of organised sport, recreation, events, dog and horse events, shows, exhibitions, horticultural activities and associated events.
4. The Council’s evidence in respect of the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal statement of Mr Bradley dated 24 February 2016. Mr Bradley supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP because of the land’s unique governing Act and because:
a. the activities sought to be permitted in the precinct are not provided for by the underlying zone and would have limitations imposed on them through the Auckland-wide provisions around temporary activities; b. it enables an existing land use and a range of activities provided for at the site under the operative plan, particularly as existing use rights or resource consents are not considered to suitably provide for the activities; c. it is consistent with the strategic direction of the PAUP, Regional Policy Statement and underlying zone; and d. it involves too many elements to appropriately use another method, such as a zone or overlay.
5. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant zone, overlay or Auckland-wide provisions are set out in the table included at paragraph 13.1 of Mr Bradley’s evidence.
Remaining matters
6. Mr Bradley’s rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence provided for the Society. He supports the addition of some, but not all, of the activities proposed in the Society’s evidence and some refinements to the assessment critters and land use controls, but not to the side yard or setback requirements.
31560772:631364 Page 35
MARTINS BAY PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Martins Bay precinct relates to the small coastal bach settlement of Martins Bay. The land covered by the precinct is towards the northern end of Martins Bay adjacent to the Scandrett Regional Park. The purpose of the precinct is to ensure the scale and intensity of the existing development is maintained.
2. The underlying zoning of land within the precinct is Rural Coastal in the PAUP as notified, but was proposed in Council's zoning evidence to be rezoned Rural and Coastal Settlement (RCS) as an out of scope change. The following overlays apply to the precinct:
a. Coastal Natural Character Areas; b. Outstanding Natural Landscape; and c. Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Austin Fox dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Fox expresses his support for the precinct in his evidence, subject to various amendments. The main amendment proposed responded to a submission and related to the geographical extent of the precinct. As notified, the precinct had no sub-precincts and did not encompass the land to the south owned by submitters SG Noyer & KA Anderson. The submitters sought that the precinct be extended over part of their site adjoining the precinct (zoned future urban in the operative plan), and for this amended precinct to provide for development of this land. Mr Fox supported these requests, although his rebuttal evidence revealed a difference in view as to the extent of development enabled (Mr Fox supported making provision for 6 dwellings within the new sub-precinct, whereas the submitters have proposed allowing for 12 dwellings).
4. However, as noted in the Council's primary submissions, Mr Fox's support for the precinct was predicated on an out of scope zoning change to RCS zone. In light of the Council's revised position on residential out of scope changes, which would result in the zoning reverting to Rural Coastal, Mr Fox is unable to support the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 36
MATAKANA 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Matakana 1 precinct is located in and around Matakana village, centred around Matakana, Leigh and Matakana Valley Roads. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified and incorporates the recent Plan Change 64 (Plan Change) to the operative Auckland Council District Plan Rodney Section 2011 (District Plan). The Plan Change became operative on 24 July 2014.
2. The precinct area is divided unto four sub-precincts, which have underlying zonings of Countryside Living (Sub-precinct A), Single House (Sub-precinct B), Light Industry (Sub-precinct C), and Local Centre - Matakana (Sub-precinct D). Some changes from the underlying zoning of the land as notified are supported by the Council.23 The precinct is subject to a number of infrastructure, historic heritage, built environment, Mana Whenua, natural heritage and natural resources overlays. The surrounding area is characterised by low-lying rural land and small settlements near the coast.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to ensure that the scale and design of development within Matakana is consistent with the existing, and preferred, character of Matakana village. It provides for activities that specifically relate to the unique characteristics of Matakana village, including small-scale retail activities, and provides for controlled growth in Matakana in accordance with the Matakana Village Sustainable Development Plan (which informed the Plan Change).
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Marilyn Ford dated 26 January 2016. Ms Ford supports the retention of the precinct in the PAUP, as the intended outcomes of the Plan Change could not otherwise be achieved, particularly through rezoning part or all of the precinct. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant zone, overlay or Auckland-wide provisions are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 13.1 of Ms Ford’s evidence. Ms Ford supports some amendments to the notified provisions as follows: a. amendments to the precinct structure to remove the precinct management area 1 in preference of the Auckland-wider rules for natural hazards and the non-statutory flooding layer; b. amendments to simplify the precinct provisions; and c. amendments to correct minor technical or editorial errors.
5. The Council received 26 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response to submissions, Ms Ford does not support various changes in activity status, the deletion of some land use controls, and the Council’s submission (5716-1462) regarding transport typologies. However, she does support some changes to the development controls and special information requirements as sought by the Council and the provision for a minimum site size within sub-precinct B.
23 See the Joint Evidence Report on Submissions by Ryan Edward Bradley and Kimberley Morgan Edmonds, Rodney - Rodney Rural, dated 26 January 2016.
31560772:631364 Page 37
MATAKANA 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Matakana 2 precinct comprises approximately 20 ha of land located on the corner of Leigh Road and Takatu Road, Matakana, 1.5 km to the east of Matakana village and 3 km west of Omaha. The surrounding area is characterised by horticulture and open pastoral activities.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified and three submission points request relief in relation to the precinct (James W Edwards 1233-3; Auckland Council 5716-1202; and NV Investments Limited 3334-2, the latter being incorrectly coded). The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct is Mixed Rural. The precinct is subject to the Natural Hazards Coastal Inundation and Historic Heritage (St Andrews Presbyterian Church (former)) overlays.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the establishment and ongoing operation of the Matakana Country Park. The precinct limits activities to those with a rural, community and/or tourist/visitor theme to recognise its use as a “country park”. The provisions enable subdivision in the precinct so that capital can be released to further develop the site, although subdivision must be undertaken in accordance with the Activity Areas shown on the precinct plan.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bradley supports the proposed precinct as the most appropriate means of providing for the unique range of activities undertaken within the park, which could not be achieved through other methods, such as the underlying zone or an overlay. The amendments to the provisions proposed in Mr Bradley’s evidence seek to:
a. correct minor technical or editorial errors; b. provide consistency in terms of the organisation and terminology of all precincts across the PAUP; and c. reflect the recent decisions of the Environment Court on Plan Change 148 (Matakana Museum Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZEnvC 118; [2015] NZEnvC 211), which was introduced to better enable the activities undertaken in the park, in particular, subdivision and unit titling on the site.
5. The precinct objectives and policies specifically enable tourist and visitor activities in the precinct, and the provisions vary the status of some activities in the underlying Mixed Rural zone, as set out in the table at paragraph 12.1 of Mr Bradley’s evidence report. Those variations reflect the purpose of the precinct and the outcomes of Plan Change 148 and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
6. Evidence has been filed by the submitter (Matakana Museum Limited) seeking to broaden the development potential of the land, by relaxing activity status or land use controls. Mr Bradley considers these changes go beyond the provisions approved in the recent consent order. Given the very recent timing of the consent order, the Council’s position is that the precinct provisions should replicate those of the order. For this reason the Council does not propose any further amendments to the precinct provisions in response to submitter evidence.
31560772:631364 Page 38
MATAKANA 3 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Matakana 3 precinct is located to the south-east of Matakana village at 48 Tongue Farm Road. The precinct area is partially bounded by the Matakana River to the west, and the surrounding area is characterised by low-lying rural land and small settlements. The Precinct is in the PAUP as notified. It originated as a scheduled activity in the operative Auckland Council District Plan Rodney Section 2011, which was amended by Plan Change 163 in 2012.
2. The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct area is Mixed Rural. There are general submission points seeking Rural Coastal zoning around the village (Whangateau HarbourCare Group Inc: 132-1, 2, 3). The Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Natural Hazards (Coastal Inundation) overlays apply to the precinct area, as well as the non-statutory flood prone (1% AEP) and flood plain (1% AEP) layers.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the activities carried out at Morris and James Pottery by providing for a range of activities associated with the pottery business.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Marilyn Ford dated 26 January 2016. Ms Ford supports the retention of the precinct in the PAUP, which provides more permissive rules than the underlying zoning to most appropriately enable the established activities to continue. The main differences between the proposed precinct provisions and the relevant zone, overlay and Auckland-wide provisions are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 12.1 of Ms Ford’s evidence. She does not consider reliance on existing use rights, instead of a precinct, to be sufficient, noting that the business owner has already been through a plan change process where the effects of the pottery business were considered appropriate. Ms Ford supports some amendments to the notified provisions because since notification, some matters are now provided for in the Auckland-wide rules, meaning duplication in the precinct provisions can be removed. She also supports amendments to correct minor technical or editorial errors.
5. The Council received 26 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response to submissions, Ms Ford support amendments to correct errors in terminology and the inclusion of the word “pottery” in the precinct introduction and objectives. She does not support new provisions relating to reverse sensitivity, as this would apply precinct provisions outside the precinct itself, nor does she support amendments to the land use controls or amendments to enable the use of clay extracted in the precinct for offsite manufacture.
6. In her rebuttal evidence, Ms Ford corrects her primary evidence and explains that the Council now supports the rezoning of the precinct area to Rural Coastal in order to recognise the coastal character of the landscape.24 Under the new zoning, mineral extraction has non-complying activity status, along with some other key differences, which are outlined in Attachment A to Ms Ford’s rebuttal evidence. She considers that the zoning change means the precinct is now more necessary and, as such, the precinct provisions are the most appropriate means of achieving the intended outcomes for the precinct area.
24 See the Joint Evidence Report on Submissions by Ryan Edward Bradley and Kimberley Morgan Edmonds, Rodney - Rodney Rural, dated 26 January 2016 and the Statement of Primary Evidence of Stephen Kenneth Brown, Landscape, dated 29 January 2016, at paragraphs 74-81.
31560772:631364 Page 39
MURIWAI PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Muriwai precinct is a proposed precinct comprising 85 ha of land adjacent to, and directly north of, the existing rural and coastal settlement of Muriwai. The land is bound to the east and north by Grass Track Road and to the west by Coast Road and the Muriwai golf course. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified and is proposed in the submission of Ngati Whatua o Kaipara (Ngati Whatua).
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Rural Production. Muriwai village to the south of the proposed precinct area is zoned Rural and Coastal. The submitter also seeks rezoning of the land to Special Purpose – Maori Purpose. The precinct area is subject to two overlays, an aquifer notation over the entire site and a Significant Ecological Area in the vicinity of Pukemokimoki and the in the southern area of the site adjacent to the existing settlement. The land is close to the coast, separated by around 200m of regional parkland and the golf course. The northern edge adjoins a stream and the western edge is farm and forest land.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to facilitate Maori social, economic and cultural development. The proposed precinct seeks to modify the rezoning requested for the land so that housing density is restricted (one dwelling per 300m2) given the un- serviced rural and coastal location of the land. Discussions with Ngati Whatua indicate that land use hubs would be appropriate in parts of the precinct area. Further information as to appropriate areas for development, including in relation to site configuration, servicing and transport/traffic, has not been provided upon Council’s request.
4. The Council’s evidence in relation to the precinct is contained in the evidence report of David William Hookaway dated 26 January 2016. Mr Hookaway is sympathetic to the proposal but ultimately does not support the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP because:
a. the submitter has provided insufficient information as to the environmental and planning matters that would arise out of a precinct in this location; b. the site has varying landscape character and development potential, requiring further investigation and the identification of and provision for different sub- precinct areas; and c. the submitter has not provided an expert assessment and conclusion on potential issues such as visual amenity, ecological, traffic, infrastructure, economic, social and cultural effects.
Remaining issues
5. A range of different approaches to meeting iwi needs have been considered, including extending the Muriwai Rural and Coastal zoning to the proposed precinct area, which would allow subdivision of up to one dwelling per 4,000m2. The submitter considers that these subdivision provisions would not meet the social and cultural objectives of Ngati Whatua. As such, while the Council is sympathetic to the issues raised in the submission, the precinct is not supported at this time.
31560772:631364 Page 40
OKURA PRECINCTS
PROPOSED PRECINCTS
1. A number of new precincts have been proposed in Okura by submitters. These include:
a. A proposal by Okura Holdings Limited (OHL) for a precinct east of the existing Okura Village. The precinct would encompass 150 hectares of land north of Vaughans Road, bounded by Long Bay Regional Park and Piripiri Point to the east, Okura Estuary to the north and a tributary of the Okura Estuary to the west. The proposed precinct provisions would enable residential development and have underlying zoning of Mixed Housing Suburban, Large Lot, Public Open Space – Conservation and Public Open Space - Recreation.
b. A proposal by Bin Chen et al (Okura Rural Land Owners Group) for a precinct on land that extends south of Okura Village and adjoins Okura estuary to the north and East Coast Road to the west. The precinct would provide for residential development on sites with a minimum area of 4000m2 and have an underlying zoning of Large Lot.
c. A proposal by The Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society and Okura Environmental Group for a new precinct applying to countryside living development on the southern side of the Okura catchment. The precinct would have an underlying zoning of Countryside Living and carry over the existing provisions that apply to this area in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section).
2. The precincts are in the vicinity of the Okura Estuary which forms part of the Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve. None of the proposed Okura precincts were included in the PAUP as notified.
3. The Council's evidence regarding these precincts is set out in the evidence report of Austin Fox dated 29 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence of Austin Fox dated 2 March 2016. Mr Fox's rebuttal evidence is also supported by rebuttal evidence from the following Council witnesses:
a. Martin Peake (transport) b. Martin Neale (freshwater ecology); and c. Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar (stormwater)
31560772:631364 Page 41
4. As discussed in Mr Fox's evidence report, the Council's evidence for Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016) is also directly relevant to both the OHL and the Okura Rural Land Owners Group requests for new precincts. This is because both proposals involve urban development and necessarily involve shifting the location of the notified RUB from its current position along the Vaughans Road and Okura River Road ridgeline.
Precincts proposed by OHL and Okura Rural Land Owners Group 5. The Council's position is that the RUB should remain in its notified location. As outlined during the Topic 016 hearing in submissions and evidence, the reasons for this include that based on the stormwater evidence of Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar and, the ecology evidence of Dr Carol Bergquist, Dr Megan Carbines and Shona Myers, submitters' proposals to urbanize the Okura catchment are likely to generate adverse effects on the indigenous biological diversity in the Long-Bay Okura Marine Reserve. This will not give effect to policy 11 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). The OHL proposal is also unlikely to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 and both proposals lack a defensible boundary.
6. Mr Fox does not support the OHL and Okura Rural Land Owners Group precincts (and rezoning) requests for the reasons outlined in his Topic 016 and 081 evidence. Apart from the issues addressed during the Topic 016 hearing, Mr Fox notes that these proposals would result in urbanization outside of the proposed location of RUB supported by the Council and therefore would not give effect to the PAUP's regional policy statement.
7. Proposed precinct provisions are included in the planning evidence of Burnette Macnicol on behalf of Okura Rural Land Owners Group and in the planning evidence of Karl Cook on behalf of OHL.
8. Even if the Panel were to agree that the land in question should be included within the RUB, the rebuttal evidence of Mr Peake demonstrates that while the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) provided by OHL may be sufficient for a high level RUB assessment, the information is insufficient to support a structure plan or the proposed live urban zoning and precinct provisions. In Mr Peake's view the ITA does not provide sufficient information on what transport effects mitigation is proposed, the estimated costs of such mitigation, when such mitigation is needed, or the staging of development that would trigger mitigation, and who would fund the proposed mitigation.
9. Similarly, the rebuttal evidence of Martin Neale raises concerns about OHL's proposed precinct from a freshwater ecology perspective. He notes that it is unclear why Mr Cook considers it appropriate for the OHL proposal to be exempt from the stream management framework of the PAUP. Mr Neale also does not consider that the basis upon which the AEE in support of the OHL proposal has been undertaken to be accurate and as a result, he considers the effects of the proposal to not be properly assessed or adequately mitigated.
Precinct proposed by the Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society and Okura Environmental Group
10. Precinct provisions for the Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society's and Okura Environmental Group's proposed new countryside living development precinct have
31560772:631364 Page 42
been prepared by Peter Reaburn and are attached to the evidence of Christina Bettany.
11. Mr Fox does not support the creation of a new countryside living precinct as proposed by these groups as he considers that existing provisions of the PAUP which would apply to countryside living development in this location will achieve appropriate environmental outcomes. These provisions include the PAUP Countryside Living zone provisions and additional subdivision controls that require a minimum site size of 2 hectares for Okura West and 4 hectares for Okura East, the Auckland-wide and overlay rules.
12. However, should the Panel be of the view that Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society's and Okura Environmental Group's proposed new countryside living development precinct should be included in the PAUP, Mr Fox has indicated his support for the substance and drafting of Reaburn's provisions in his rebuttal evidence.
Remaining issues
13. The remaining issues between the Council and submitters are therefore whether any new precincts in Okura should be included in the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 43
OMAHA FLATS PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Omaha Flats precinct comprises the southernmost portion of the existing Special 22 (Point Wells Omaha Flats) zone (Special zone) in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (District Plan), which broadly includes an area of land south of the Point Wells township. The zone was created through Plan Change 63 to the District Plan (Plan Change). The precinct is in the PAUP as notified.
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Mixed Rural. The area is subject to the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua and the Aquifer and Infrastructure Designation overlays, as well as the non-statutory Flood Hazards and Treaty Settlement Alerts information overlays. The precinct area historically comprised market gardens and horticulture and has varying site sizes, with many below 5 ha. The smaller sites are located to the north and west of the precinct area and are primarily accessed from Omaha Flats Road, and the larger lots are located to the south and east and are generally accessed from Jones Road and Takatu Road.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide specified subdivision controls for properties over 5 ha, enabling “one-off” subdivision of a smaller 4,000 to 5,000m2 site and an incentivised subdivision allowance on larger sites where wetlands are to be protected. The precinct carries over specific subdivision rules afforded to the Omaha Flats area through the Plan Change process. Following subdivision, restrictive covenants are placed on the parent site to ensure that no further subdivision can occur.
4. The Council’s evidence in respect of the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anthony Matthew Traub dated 26 January 2016. Mr Traub considers that the precinct should be deleted in its entirety because the purpose of allowing focused subdivision through the special zone in the District Plan was to prevent ad hoc subdivision in an area identified as having versatile and high quality soils. Mr Traub’s opinion is that:
a. only 26 sites remain within the precinct area that qualify for the proposed precinct subdivision rules, meaning only a small percentage of land owners whose sites are scattered through the precinct area would benefit; b. the precinct is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the PAUP Regional Policy Statement relating to rural subdivision; c. planning environments are subject to change, and in this case any further fragmentation of the precinct area would result in the loss of prime land hindering the potential rural productivity in the area; d. the precinct relates only to a single matter, subdivision, and if the Panel were so minded, the intended outcomes could be achieved by way of a subdivision rule rather than an entire precinct; and e. the underlying Mixed Rural zoning in the PAUP adequately reflects the intended uses within the area, protects the rural production capacity of the high quality soils and provides an appropriate minimum site size requirement.
5. The Council received four submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. Mr Traub addresses the submission points, noting that one seeks the removal of the precinct, albeit for different reasons that those outlined above.
31560772:631364 Page 44
OMAHA SOUTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Omaha South precinct is located at the south of Broadlands Drive, Omaha. It comprises five sub-precincts. Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and environmental issues. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified.
2. The underlying zoning of each sub-precinct area is: Sub-precinct A - predominantly Single House with one site Mixed Housing Suburban; Sub-precinct B and C - Single House; Sub-precinct D - Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban; and Sub- precinct E - Neighbourhood Centre. The Council does not support a submission seeking to rezone sub-precinct E to Single House zone (Sundee Investments Limited 6605-2). The precinct is subject to the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua and Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlays, as well as the treaty settlement alert and flood hazard non-statutory information overlays.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to manage residential and small-scale commercial development to ensure it is sustainable and complements the coastal character and landscape values of the area. It caps the total number of dwellings because of wastewater infrastructure and on-site stormwater soakage constraints and manages stormwater discharge effects from development to minimise adverse effects on the Omaha groundwater aquifer and the adjacent kahikatea forest/wetland. In particular, minimum site size and density controls apply across the five sub-precincts and development in close proximity to the fore dune area of Omaha Beach is limited. Additional controls apply in respect of the site of importance to Mana Whenua.
4. The precinct is intended to translate the Special Purpose - Special 16 (Omaha South) zone in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 into the PAUP. While the land has been subdivided in accordance with the Special 16 zone provisions, development has not occurred on all sites. As such, the precinct has been created to continue the key elements of development within the precinct area.
5. The Council’s evidence in respect of the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Debra Yan dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence of Ms Yan dated 24 February 2016.
6. Ms Yan generally supports the retention of the precinct in the PAUP. She supports various amendments to better replicate the legacy provisions in the PAUP, including amendments to the precinct description, activity table, and earthworks and heritage terminology, the inclusion of a number of precinct-specific controls, and the amendment of the precinct plan to reflect the legacy sub-precincts. However, Ms Yan does not consider the wholesale replication of the Special 16 zone to be necessary as a number of those provisions are already replicated in the PAUP. She also supports amendments to ensure consistency in the organisation and terminology of all precincts across the PAUP.
Remaining issues
7. In her rebuttal evidence, Ms Yan responds to submitter evidence by:
a. confirming that the Council is not opposed to Omaha Beach Community (Inc) continuing to apply the operative provisions through Rule 15.5 of its constitution, but that the planning framework for the area will be continued
31560772:631364 Page 45
through the PAUP provisions, which will provide the relevant development controls when the constitution expires; and b. supporting the retention of the heritage sites in the proposed precinct plan, instead of simply relying on the Sites of Value overlay, as the overlay is not identified in as many locations as proposed by the heritage sites and associated controls.
31560772:631364 Page 46
OREWA 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Orewa 1 precinct is in the PAUP as notified and is located at the north end of Orewa and comprises a planned and partially completed residential development of mainly single houses, terraced houses and apartments buildings, open space and communal facilities. It is bordered by residential development to the east and west, Orewa School to the south, and native bush to the north. The precinct is divided into six sub-precincts, with specific controls applying to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage their individual characteristics and environmental issues.
2. The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct area is a combination of Mixed Housing Urban, Single House, Public Open Space - Informal Recreation and Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation. Some zoning changes are proposed and supported by the Council,25 which would see the underlying zoning being only Mixed Housing Urban and Public Open Space - Informal Recreation. The following overlays apply to the precinct area: the Aquifer overlay, the Notable Trees overlay, the Significant Ecological Area overlay, the Natural Hazards - Coastal Inundation overlay, and the Indicative Stream overlay.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the implementation of the Kensington Park development in accordance with the Orewa Plan and design guidelines, to ensure that the precinct remains a high quality environment. The precinct provisions as notified are based on similar provisions in the operative Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011, and include a detailed building layout plan, landscaping plan and specific design guidelines.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Edward (David) Wren dated 26 January 2016. Mr Wren supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP. He considers that some amendments are required to reduce the number of sub-precincts, remove a layer related to building height, correct minor technical or editorial errors, and provide for more reliance on the underlying zoning. However, he considers the precinct to be necessary to appropriately provide for the aspects of the development that are not yet completed or consented (e.g. the apartment, retirement village and commercial development located in the north of the site). Applying a standard zone would undermine the master-planned nature of the development. The main differences between the proposed precinct provisions and the relevant zone, overlay or Auckland-wide rules are described in section 14 of Mr Wren’s evidence report.
5. The Council received 70 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response to submissions, Mr Wren: a. supports amendments to the precinct provisions that reference the underlying zones; b. supports the inclusion of a transport objective, but considers other amendments sought in respect of transport to be unnecessary; c. supports the removal of the master plan and landscape plan from the precinct, as the matters covered therein are generally achieved by the underlying zoning; d. supports the removal of the current development cap; e. proposes alternative building coverage and impervious surfaces controls based on the revised sub-precinct structure; and
25 See the Evidence Report on Submissions by Ewan David Paul, Rodney - Hibiscus Coast, dated 26 January 2016.
31560772:631364 Page 47
f. supports the retention of specific rules regarding the form of commercial development.
31560772:631364 Page 48
OREWA 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Orewa 2 precinct comprises approximately 240 ha of greenfields land bounded by the Orewa River estuary to the south, Nukumea Stream to the north, SH 1 to the west, and the established Orewa urban area to the east. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified and is divided into eight sub-precincts, with controls applying to each area to recognise and manage their individual characteristics and environmental issues. The precinct was developed in order to retain the existing special zone provisions in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011, which provide for development in accordance with the Orewa West structure plan.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the development of a new residential community on greenfields land, while protecting and enhancing the ecological and amenity values of the receiving environment. In particular, the precinct identifies and seeks to protect the ecological and amenity values of Orewa Estuary and Nukumea Stream, and a number of native vegetation areas and riparian vegetation and wetlands of ecological value. The precinct plan sets out a road and public open space network, and areas of vegetation that must be protected. Most infrastructure is yet to be constructed and will determine the staging and sequence of development. The precinct area contains a variety of topographical and other landscape features that will impact the form of future urban development, including complex contours with dominant ridgelines and rolling hills with natural gullies and watercourses.
3. The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct area is a combination of Single House, Public Open Space - Conservation and Neighbourhood Centre. There are no changes proposed to the underlying zoning. A number of infrastructure, Mana Whenua, natural resources and coastal overlays apply to the precinct area.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Edward (David) Wren dated 21 January 2016. Mr Wren supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP, particularly as the area is partially developed and the precinct will enable the remainder of the development to continue under the existing rules. The precinct also provides more flexibility as to the type and density of development in appropriate locations, which could not be achieved through standard PAUP zoning.
5. Mr Wren notes that the provisions within the precinct are generally more restrictive than the underlying zoning, because the range of densities, layout of roads and other components of development are prescribed in the precinct plan. At paragraph 14.1 of his evidence report, Mr Wren includes a table setting out the main differences between the precinct provisions and the relevant zone, overlay and Auckland-wide provisions. Mr Wren supports some changes to better align the precinct provisions with other parts of the PAUP, such as renaming “development areas” to “sub- precincts”, reducing the number of layers, removing duplication of rules covered by the underlying zoning, and correcting minor technical or editorial errors.
6. The Council received six submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response to submissions, Mr Wren: a. supports the inclusion of the existing density control in the subdivision controls for the precinct; and b. supports the inclusion of a new transport objective, but not further rules relating to transport typologies and design as minimum standards are already required through provisions elsewhere in the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 49
OREWA 3 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The proposed Orewa 3 precinct comprises 37.59 ha of land located to the west of Orewa on the northern corner of West Hoe Road and Sunny Heights Road. Features of the site include steep slopes, geotechnical instability and native biodiversity, which constrain development of the precinct area. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified.
2. The underlying zoning of land in the precinct area is Single House. The Aquifer, Indicative Stream, Significant Ecological Area (SEA) and Stormwater Management Area (Flow 1) overlays apply to the land. The surrounding area is characterised by a native bush area to the north, traditional residential development to the east, and some proposed residential development to the west.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for more intensive development than that provided for in the underlying zone in appropriate areas, while limiting development in other areas, to ensure that the overall intensity of the precinct area matches that of the underlying zone. Residential capacity is grouped into eight “clusters” (sub- precincts), with the balance of the area remaining in open space. This is based on the Restricted Activity approach taken in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (District Plan), which involved extensive investigation of the development of the site at that time.
4. The Council’s evidence in relation to the Orewa 3 precinct is contained in the evidence report of Edward (David) Wren dated 26 January 2016, and the rebuttal statement of Mr Wren dated 24 February 2016. Mr Wren supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP as an appropriate response to the constraints of the site. Providing for increased development over much more of the land through a standard zone would result in a lesser number of dwellings and therefore a less efficient use of the site. Paragraph 14.1 of Mr Wren’s evidence report outlines the main differences between the proposed precinct and the relevant zone, overlay and Auckland-wide provisions.
5. Mr Wren supports some changes to the precinct to remove the SEA rules as these are already addressed through the relevant SEA overlay rules, to rename “development areas” as “sub-precincts”, and to correct minor technical or editorial errors.
6. The Council received 26 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response to submissions, Mr Wren: a. does not support the inclusion of a new precinct plan, as the submitter has not provided evidence that an alternative plan better responds to the site constraints; b. supports the use of the Mixed Housing Urban rather than the Mixed Housing Suburban zone provisions to manage development within the identified building platforms, as the height restrictions in the former are more appropriate and the change will not increase the overall number of dwellings; c. does not support the request for 20m or 15m high buildings; d. supports the amendment of the precinct plan to include all of the land in the Restricted Activity in the District Plan; e. supports the removal of the requirement for framework plans; and f. supports the inclusion of a new transport objective but not additional rules where Auckland Transport standards are already referenced.
31560772:631364 Page 50
Remaining matters
7. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Wren responds to the geotechnical evidence provided by a submitter in relation to an alternative precinct plan with different building platforms. While Mr Wren accepts the alternative plan as practicable from a geotechnical perspective, he has concerns about the extent to which open space is diminished and considers that connectivity through the site by way of two specific roads as proposed in the notified precinct plan should be retained.
31560772:631364 Page 51
OREWA COUNTRYSIDE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Orewa Countryside precinct comprises 85 ha of land located to the west of Orewa, immediately west of SH 1 at the Grand Drive interchange. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The surrounding area is characterised by a SEA to the north, Rural Production zone to the west and south, and Single House zone to the east of the motorway.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for rural-residential activities in a cluster subdivision layout, while preserving space for farming and recreation, retaining significant vegetation and avoiding development on unstable land. The precinct is part of the Special 11 (Hall Farm) zone in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (District Plan), which comprised a 253 ha area prior to the construction of the northern motorway through the area.
3. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Countryside Living. There is a submission seeking to include the land within the Rural Urban Boundary, which is not supported by the Council. The Aquifer, Significant Ecological Area (SEA) and High Land Transport Route Noise overlays apply to the site.
4. The Council’s evidence in relation to the Orewa Countryside precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan (Dave) Paul dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal statement of Mr Paul dated 24 February 2016.
5. Mr Paul supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP. He notes that the original Special 11 zone land was split by the construction of the motorway, meaning that it will be harder to deliver the Special 11 zone concept with the remaining much smaller parcel of land. However, he considers the use of a precinct to be the most appropriate and efficient means of developing the site, allowing 86 sites to be created. Only 42 sites would be enabled through the underlying zone, unless the transferable rural site subdivision provisions were used, which would require the developer to acquire external sites. The main differences between the proposed precinct provisions and the relevant zone provisions are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 12.1 of Mr Paul’s evidence report.
6. The Council received 34 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct. In response, Mr Paul: a. supports the removal of the references to “farming” and “clustering” and other changes and corrections where wording is no longer necessary or can be amended for consistency and clarity of terminology; b. does not support increasing the number of permitted sites to 300, particularly given the underlying zoning of the site; however, does support increasing the number of lots allowed from 86 to 105 in accordance with the non-complying resource consent granted for the site in 2014; and c. does not support the removal of the references to “rural character” and other similar submissions, including those seeking amendments to or deletions of certain development controls.
7. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Paul responds to the evidence provided for Orewa Investments Limited. He supports several changes to correct errors in his primary evidence and to provide clarity of the wording of a clause. He does not support other changes sought.
31560772:631364 Page 52
PARAKAI 1 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Parakai 1 precinct comprises 40 ha of land at 249 Parkhurst Road, Parakai, which is currently operated as a dairy farm. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is requested in the submission of Paradise Kaipara Limited (submission 5616).
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Rural Production. The submitter seeks to divide the precinct area into sub-precincts A and B and change the zoning within those areas to Mixed Use and Single House, respectively. This is not supported by the Council.
3. Four overlays apply to the site - airport approach path, aquifer, indicative steam and coastal inundation, as well as the non-statutory flood hazard (flood prone) and 1% AEP and alluvial soils overlays. To the west, north and south of the site the surrounding area has a rural character, and to the east the site adjoins the Parakai settlement, which is zoned Single House but is currently undeveloped.
4. The purpose of the precinct is to establish an arts, community, spa and tourist complex, including workshops, exhibition and performance areas, community facilities, accessory retail, restaurant and café areas, residential short stay accommodation for tourists and artists and a separate residential precinct for long- term/permanent use.
5. The Council’s evidence in respect of the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 26 January 2016. Mr Hookway does not support the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP because:
a. Parakai is a rural and coastal village and the Council’s urban expansion strategy does not envisage growth of the area beyond that already provided (i.e. beyond the Rural Urban Boundary), particularly as there are other substantial areas of unutilised urban zoned land within the Parakai settlement; b. contrary to the PAUP Regional Policy Statement, the precinct proposes to locate an area of new development within an existing natural hazards area; c. potential effects on the local road network have not been accounted for, as well as flooding issues associated with roading infrastructure in the area, as identified by Auckland Transport; and d. wastewater and water servicing has been identified as an issue for growth in the area and further urbanisation reliant on the existing network is not supported by Watercare.
Remaining matters
6. For the above reasons, and given that no substantive evidence has been provided in support of the proposed precinct, the Council does not support the inclusion of the Parakai 1 precinct in the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 53
PUHOI PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Puhoi Precinct includes the historic village of Puhoi as well as some of the surrounding rural land. The Puhoi Precinct has its origins in a structure planning exercise that culminated in the creation of the Special Puhoi Historic Village zone in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 5 submission points seeking amendments to the precinct have been received.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to manage the impact of new development and subdivision on the historic landscape of Puhoi. It does so by: a. applying additional controls and assessment criteria to new building and additions or alterations to buildings; and b. applying larger minimum site sizes for subdivision than the underlying zoning.
4. The underlying zoning of the historic village is Neighbourhood Centre. The rural parts of the Precinct are mostly zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement, although the southern tip is zoned Rural Coastal.
5. The Precinct is subject to a number of overlays: Historic Heritage Places; Historic Heritage Extent of Place; Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua; Built Environment: Special Character General; and Pre - 1944 Building Demolition Control Overlay (although the Council’s Topic 079 evidence recommends removing this overlay). Much of the Puhoi Precinct is within a flood plain or a flood prone area. Parts of the precinct are also within a coastal inundation area.
6. The Council’s evidence is contained in the evidence reports of Rebecca Sanders (planning) and Rebecca Freeman (heritage) both dated 26 January 2016. Ms Sanders supports the precinct because the Historic heritage and Historic Character Overlays do not apply to all of the areas within the precinct, therefore, they cannot be used to manage the wider historic landscape of the Puhoi village.
7. The precinct includes one sub-precinct (named Sub-precinct A), which covers much of the historic village core of Puhoi along Puhoi Road between Krippner and Saleyards Roads. The proposed minimum site size for the sub-precinct is 4000m2. The wider precinct covers much of the land currently zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement and Rural Coastal. The proposed minimum site size is 4 hectares.
Remaining issues
8. The issues raised by submitters pertain to the extent of the wider Puhoi Precinct and to the minimum site size for subdivision within the wider precinct. Ms Sander’s report responds to these submission points as follows: a. recommends the inclusion of a new policy to link matters that Council is reserving control over for new construction, additions and alterations; b. supports restricted activity status for new construction and additions/alterations within the sub-precinct, rather than as a permitted or controlled activity; c. considers a larger minimum lots size for subdivision of 4000m2 to be appropriate; d. considers the extent of the precinct controls to manage the heritage values of the area is appropriate; and
31560772:631364 Page 54
e. supports a minor boundary adjustment to incorporate two small areas of public open space.
31560772:631364 Page 55
RED BEACH PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Red Beach precinct comprises 44 ha of land at Red Beach on the Hibiscus Coast, which is currently the site of the Peninsula Golf Course. The precinct area is accessed from the Hibiscus Coast Highway and Red Beach Road.
2. The precinct is based on Plan Change 159 to the operative Auckland Council District Plan Rodney Section 2011 and the subsequent consent order by the Environment Court in Bupa Retirement Villages v Auckland Council and PLDL Limited [2013] NZEnvC 134. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified and was developed by the Council and PLDL Limited (submission point 2371-2) on the basis of the Environment Court’s consent order.
3. The underlying zoning of the precinct area, as notified, is Future Urban. The Council supports submissions seeking to rezone the area to Mixed Housing Suburban. Three overlays apply to the area – the Aquifer, High Land Transport Noise Route, and Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlays. The surrounding area is characterised by single house development and retirement villages to the south east, and a number of health care facilities to the south.
4. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for a comprehensive and integrated residential development with a variety of housing options, including larger sites around the edge of the site. Development is to be in accordance with a precinct plan showing an indicative road network, areas of open space and sub-precincts providing for varying intensity of development. Sub-precinct A has a minimum lot size of 600m2, Sub-precinct B has a minimum lot size of 450m2, and Sub-precinct C has smaller lots as per the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. There is a development cap of 520 residential lots. Height controls in a Development Control Area limit building height to 5m to ensure a transition in height around the periphery of the precinct where it abuts Single House zoned areas.
5. The Council’s evidence in relation to the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan (Dave) Paul dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence statements of Mr Paul and Andrew Peter Murray dated 26 February 2016.
6. Mr Paul supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP because:
a. it allows for larger sites and additional height controls around the edge of the precinct area, which mitigate the effects of the development on adjacent residents, particularly as parts of the existing residential development are on higher ground; b. the site has characteristics and a history that warrant a specific approach, including a range of densities as shown on the proposed precinct plan; c. it reflects a recent plan change and Environment Court consent order, on which basis development has commenced on the site; and d. the PAUP residential zones (or a mix of them) do not deliver the same outcomes as the legacy provisions and the proposed precinct;
7. The main differences between the precinct provisions and the relevant PAUP zone provisions are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 12.9 of Mr Paul’s evidence report.
31560772:631364 Page 56
Remaining issues
8. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Paul responds to submitter evidence. Mr Paul supports the inclusion of the north west part of the PLDL Limited site in the Red Beach precinct, the rezoning of that area to Mixed Housing Urban and the addition of assessment criteria for stormwater. However, he does not support increasing the Development Cap to 570 lots, on the basis of a lack of transport evidence, as confirmed in Mr Murray’s rebuttal statement, or moving the Development Cap rules to the subdivision section.
31560772:631364 Page 57
RIVERHEAD 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Riverhead 1 comprises just over 14 ha of land located at Deacon and Forestry Roads, Kumeu. The area was formerly used as a timber treatment and processing facility. The land is located in proximity to rural activities and existing housing. It is surrounded by Rural Production zoned land and the Riverhead Forest is directly to the north and west of this land.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. One submission point has been received (Jonathan Polglase, submission number 3260) requesting that the precinct be deleted, that the service lot oat 49 Forestry Road be re-zoned from Rural Production to Light Industry zone, and that the site at 49 Forestry Road be included into the Light Industry zone once reticulated wastewater services are available to the site.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to enable development and land uses that are appropriate, given the historic use of the site, the limited infrastructure available on site, in terms of stormwater and wastewater, and its location amongst properties that are zoned for rural uses.
4. The precinct is subject to three overlays: a designation for the protection of approach and departure paths at the Whenuapai airbase, the Aquifer overlay (Kumeu Waitemata Aquifer) and the National Grid corridor. The underlying zone of the precinct is Light Industry.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 26 January 2016. Mr Hookway supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate the controls that applied to the same area of land in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan) into the PAUP.
6. The main differences between the precinct and the underlying zone are out in the table in the evidence report of Mr Hookway at paragraph 1.4.
Remaining issues
7. Mr Hookway’s evidence report responds to the issues raised by the submitter. Mr Hookway does not support the relief sought by the submitter. Mr Hookway considers the submitter has not provided sufficient evidence to support the rezoning request. Watercare have advised that they have no plans to service the land now or in the future. As a result, Mr Hookway supports retention of the precinct to manage ongoing use of the land and potential subdivision given its limitations.
31560772:631364 Page 58
RIVERHEAD 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Riverhead 2 precinct comprises 3252 ha of plantation forest, located to the north of the Kumeu and Riverhead Townships. The land that is subject to the precinct forms part of the Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Agreement between the Crown and Te Kawerau a Maki. The land is generally remote from areas of settlement with limited public roading through this area.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to protect the development potential of the land as at the time of settlement with the Crown, particularly in regards the ability to develop housing for Maori. The precinct provides for subdivision that achieves the protection of natural areas, the creation of additional public reserve land, and significant enhancement planting. The precinct also provides for outdoor recreation and motorsport activities as permitted activities.
3. The precinct is subject to some small areas of Significant Ecological Area overlays, due to bush, wetland areas and streams in the precinct. The underlying zone of the land is Rural Production.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 29 January 2016 and Mr Hookway’s rebuttal evidence report dated 25 February 2016. Mr Hookway supports retaining the precinct as notified. The main differences between the precinct provisions and those in the underlying zone are set out in the table included in Mr Hookway’s evidence report at paragraph 14.1. The precinct controls encourage the subdivision of the overall block into 100 hectare sites and provide for disbursed clusters of up to 10 dwellings per site (effectively one dwelling per 10 hectares).
5. Te Kawerau a Maki has requested amendments to the notified precinct provisions, including splitting the precinct into three sub-precincts and allowing for more intensive clustered sub-division to one hectare per dwelling. These proposed amendments are not supported by Mr Hookway at the current time because insufficient information assessing the environmental effects of the proposal has been provided. Mr Hookway also notes that the intent of the precinct provisions in allowing additional dwellings on the land is to specifically provide for the use and development of the land for Maori housing.
6. The Council has had several informal meetings with Te Kawerau a Maki during November and December 2015 to discuss the additional detail sought by Council to allow it to consider the possible effects of the amended precinct as sought by the submitter. Particular additional information sought included how low density development (at or about 1 hectare per site) at the scale and arrangement proposed could fit appropriately within the landscape, storm water and transport /traffic concerns and other servicing matters.
7. The submitter filed evidence in support of its submission. Mr Hookway’s rebuttal evidence report addresses the issues raised in the submitter’s evidence and considers that the submitter has not provided sufficient information to justify the scale and nature of development that it seeks.
8. The Council, however, wishes to be clear that it remains open to discussions with the submitter but considers the type and scale of development proposed by the submitter requires further investigation, and that it would be sensible to deal with the matter by way of a future plan change.
31560772:631364 Page 59
RIVERHEAD 3 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Riverhead 3 precinct comprises of 82 ha of land at Cobblers Lane, which is located at the northern end of the Riverhead township. The land is bordered to the south by the Wautaiti and Rangitopuni Streams. The land is heavily vegetated with regenerating native bush and pockets of pine trees. The land slopes steeply from the northern boundary of the precinct down to the south. An unnamed open watercourse runs through the western portion of the precinct feeding the Rangitopuni stream.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of three submission points, all from the landowners Anne Power, Farington Power and Roger Power (3578) have been received requesting relief in relation to the precinct. The submitter seeks retention of the precinct with amended subdivision controls to allow for a greater number of sites (from 50 to 62 in total; 26 as restricted discretionary activities and 36 as discretionary activities).
3. The purpose of the precinct is to allow for a holistic and integrated approach to future subdivision and development of the land, while protecting the high quality native vegetation and visual amenity of the land. The precinct identifies the development capacity of this specific block of land and directs where development should occur in response to the natural characteristics of the land.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Airspace Restriction Designations, the Electricity Transmission Corridor overlay, the Indicative Streams overlay, the Natural hazards Coastal Inundation overlays, the Natural Stream Management Area overlay and the Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) overlay. The underlying zone of the precinct is the Rural Production zone.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Kathleen Morrissey dated 26 January 2016. Ms Morrissey supports the precinct, but recommends that the underlying zone of the precinct be changed to the Rural Conservation zone. The precinct incorporates the provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan) into the PAUP. The main differences between the precinct provisions and the wider PAUP provision is set out in the table in the evidence report of Ms Morrissey at paragraph 13.1.
6. The Council proposes that the precinct provisions override the SEA overlay. Ms Morrissey addresses the arguments both for (paragraphs 13.12-13.13), and against (paragraph 13.11) the precinct previsions overriding the overlay in her evidence report. Ms Morrissey recognises the merits of the vegetation clearance controls in the SEA overlay, but concludes that in the current instance, it is appropriate to retain the precinct provisions relating to vegetation clearance as notified. In summary the reasons given in favour of the precinct provisions overriding the overlay include: a. the physical constraints of the land, which restrict the location of building platforms. This in turn means that many sites will require more vegetation clearance than that contemplated by the SEA overlay. b. the purpose of the precinct is to provide for development of the site in a specific way. Further, applications for resource consent to develop in the precinct will be restricted discretionary activities, allowing vegetation clearance to be assessed. c. the history of the Operative Plan provisions, which were developed through the Plan Change 55 process and subsequent Environment Court decisions.
31560772:631364 Page 60
d. no site specific ecological assessment of the precinct area has been undertaken since the PAUP was notified. e. the proposed additional vegetation clearance provisions were in the notified PAUP. No submitters have sought that these provisions be removed from the precinct.
7. The Council considers this to be a pragmatic way forward given the specific history and physical constraints of the site. However, the Council is not fundamentally opposed to the alternative approach of the SEA applying (and the relevant 650m2 control in the precinct being removed), should that be the approach favoured by the Panel.
Remaining issues
8. Ms Morrissey supports the submission point seeking retention of the precinct in full. Ms Morrissey does not support the submission points seeking to amend the subdivision controls to increate the total number of sites within the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 61
RIVERHEAD 4 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Riverhead 4 precinct comprises 533 ha of the Riverhead Forest, located in the hills north of Huapai and east of Helensville. The land that is subject to the precinct forms part of the Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Agreement between the Crown and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara. The surrounding area is characterised by plantation forest and rural landscape.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of three submissions requesting relief have been received in relation to the Riverhead 4 precinct. One submission from Norman Disney and Young Limited (6621-63) seeks clarification of the noise and vibration rules and assessment criteria within the PAUP. The Northern Region Equestrian Trust (5992-30) seeks to add tourist uses and facilities to the precinct provisions. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara (4558-63) seek amendments to the objectives and policies to achieve aspirations for Ngati Whatua o Kaipara.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to protect the development potential of the land as at the time of settlement with the Crown, particularly in regards the ability to develop housing for Maori. The precinct provides for subdivision that achieves the protection of natural areas, the creation of additional public reserve land, and significant enhancement planting. The precinct also provides for outdoor recreation and motorsport activities as permitted activities.
4. The precinct is subject to some small areas of Significant Ecological Area overlays, due to stream valleys in the precinct. The underlying zone of the land is Rural Production.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 29 January 2016. Mr Hookway supports retaining the precinct as notified, which was included in the PAUP to take account of the concerns of Ngati Whatua o Kaipara that the development opportunities provided for in the operative plan at the time of settlement remained in the PAUP. The precinct retained the relevant operative plan subdivision provisions and some limited additional land use provisions.
6. The main differences between the precinct provisions and those in the underlying zone are set out in the table included in Mr Hookway’s evidence report at paragraph 12.3.
Remaining issues
7. Mr Hookway responds to the submission points in his evidence report. The submission by Norman Disney and Young Ltd is a general submission dealt with in the Auckland wide provisions of the PAUP. Mr Hookway considers that the request by Northern Regional Equestrian Trust is partly dealt with by the precinct provisions already and the underlying zone provisions which provide for all other tourist uses and facilities through consenting procedures.
8. In relation to the submission from Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, informal discussions were held in mid-December 2015 with the submitter. Further detail about the relief sought was requested. To date, no further detail has been received by the Council. Accordingly, no amendments are proposed in response to this submission.
31560772:631364 Page 62
RIVERHEAD SOUTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Riverhead South precinct comprises land located at Riverhead, between Kaipara-Portage Road, the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and the Rangitopuni Stream.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of three submission points have been received on the precinct. All address transport related issues.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for future expansion, primarily for residential purposes, immediately to the south of Riverhead, and to create an extension to the existing Riverhead township rather than a new standalone area. The precinct’s objectives and policies relate to subdivision, development, urban form, amenity values, natural character, open space and street layout.
4. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay, a Significant Ecological Area overlay, the Stormwater Area Management overlay and the Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation overlay. The underlying zone of the precinct is Singe House zone.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Marilyn Ford dated 26 January 2016. Ms Ford supports the precinct, which incorporates Special Zone 30 – Riverhead South from the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan) into the PAUP. Special Zone 30 arose from appeals to the Proposed Rodney District Plan (2006), which sought re- zoning of land zoned future urban to medium intensity residential or equivalent, and was included in the Operative Plan by a consent order that was approved by the Environment Court on 9 November 2009 (L Floyd, G & S Harrod, S Jelas and Rodpak Limited vs Rodney District Council ENV-2006-AKL-001125).
6. As noted in Ms Ford’s evidence, most of the land within the boundaries of the Riverhead South precinct has either already been developed, is currently undergoing development, or is the subject of active applications to develop the land. These applications are currently before Council and apply to the portion of the precinct at the southern-eastern end that is the last part of the precinct to be developed. Retaining the precinct until the remainder of the land is developed will ensure the final development is coordinated with the existing development and provide for consistency in the provisions. Once the precinct has been fully developed, the precinct provisions may no longer be required.
7. The main difference between the precinct and the underlying zone is set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Ms Ford, at paragraph 1.4. Those variations reflect the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
Remaining issues
8. Ms Ford responds to the submissions lodged in her evidence report. Ms Ford notes that as part of the current and completed development within the precinct, connections to the existing road network from new roads within the precinct have already been made. Development of the remaining undeveloped portion of the precinct will not create any further connections outside the precinct. As a result, Ms Ford does not support including additional provisions in the precinct provisions to address transport requirements.
31560772:631364 Page 63
RODNEY LANDSCAPE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Rodney Landscape precinct applies to various inland towns and coastal areas on, and north of, the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. The towns and areas included within the precinct are Wellsford, Sandspit, Red Beach, Stanmore Bay, Coal Mine Bay, Hobbs Bay, Silverdale, Ti Point, Mahurangi and Leigh.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for lower intensity subdivision than that permitted in the underlying zones in order to protect significant landscape features including areas of ecological significance, native vegetation, notable ridge lines, natural gullies and water courses, physical constraints and areas of significant natural character.
3. Numerous overlays apply to the precinct areas. The key relevant overlays include the Significant Ecological Area overlay, the High Natural Character overlay and the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay. The underlying zones of the precinct areas are the Large Lot zone and the Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan (Dave) Paul dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence reports of Bridget Gilbert dated 24 February 2016 and Ewan (Dave) Paul and Shona Myers dated 25 February 2016. Mr Paul supports the precinct, which is sought to incorporate the provisions of the Low Intensity Residential Zone and the Landscape Protection Zone of the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 into the PAUP. Some of these provisions have been the subject of decisions from the Environment Court (New Zealand Sunday School and Lamb & Molloy Surveyors & Ors v Auckland Council [2012] NZEnvC 268).
5. The precinct is divided into ten sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Wellsford; b. Sub-precinct B: Ti Point; c. Sub-precinct C: Sandspit; d. Sub-precinct D: Red Beach; e. Sub-precinct E: Stanmore Bay; f. Sub-precinct F: Coal Mine Bay; g. Sub-precinct G: Hobbs Bay; h. Sub-precinct H: Silverdale; i. Sub-precinct I: Mahurangi; j. Sub-precinct J: Leigh.
6. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the underlying zones, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Paul, at paragraph 1.5.
Remaining issues
7. Following consideration of submitter’s evidence, Mr Paul recommends removal of sub-precinct A Wellsford from the precinct. Outstanding differences between the Council’s position and submitters are that the Council witnesses do not support the removal of the sub-precinct F Coal Mine Bay ,or sub-precinct H Silverdale, because the precinct is necessary to protect the landscape and ecological values of these
31560772:631364 Page 64
areas. However amendments are suggested to clarify the assessment criteria and correct the limits of the SEA.
31560772:631364 Page 65
SILVERDALE 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Silverdale 1 precinct comprises of 8.7 ha of land located off Peters Way, Silverdale. The land adjoins the established industrial area in Silverdale.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. Submissions have been received on the precinct, both in support of the precinct (Silverdale Estates Limited (now BAA Land Holdings Limited) 2556) and seeking deletion of part of the precinct (Auckland Memorial Park Ltd, 7022).
3. The purpose of the precinct is to impose additional controls with respect to water supply, wastewater, building height, landscaping and earthworks to ensure that the effects of future development of the precinct are appropriately mitigated.
4. The precinct is subject to the Heavy Industry Air Quality overlay. The underlying zoning of the precinct is Light Industry.
5. The Council has not filed any evidence regarding this precinct. The reason for this is that the precinct area was very recently subject to decisions from the Environment Court (Auckland Memorial Park Ltd v Auckland Council [2014] NZEnvC 9). The Silverdale 1 precinct was included in the PAUP as notified to incorporate the provisions proposed by Plan Change 131 to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011. However, the Environment Court found in Auckland Memorial Park Limited v Auckland Council that this plan change was not the most appropriate method, when tested against the relevant objectives and policies of the prevailing planning regime and sections 76(3), 32 and Part 2 of the RMA. The Court cancelled Plan Change 131. This decision was made on 22 January 2014 after the PAUP was notified. As a result of this decision, the Council has taken a neutral position in regards to this precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 66
SILVERDALE 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Silverdale 2 precinct comprises approximately 47 ha of land located between East Coast Road to the east and State Highway 1 to the west. The Snowplanet site is south of the precinct. The precinct area is highly visible from the motorway as the land slopes up significantly from the motorway to East Coast Road. The surrounding area is characterised by Countryside Living to the east, and Future Urban across the motorway to the west and to the south. To the north the land has an underlying zoning of General Business and Mixed House Urban, and is subject to the Silverdale 3 Precinct overlay, which aims to manage traffic and landscape effects.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 17 submission points have been received on the precinct. 11 of these submissions are from Snowplanet Limited (2826), general in support of the precinct. 5 submissions are from Auckland Council (5716) seeking amendments regarding transport matters. 21 further submissions supporting, or supporting in part, were received, and 20 opposing the precinct.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to facilitate the development of an entertainment cluster. Activities within the precinct are limited to entertainment and recreation activities, and ancillary activities. The precinct provisions aim to achieve a high quality of building design and to avoid or mitigate adverse visual effects of buildings through appropriate landscaping, particularly when viewed from the motorway. The provisions also aim to minimise adverse effects of activities on the surrounding road network.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Airport Approach Surface overlay, the Stormwater Management Area overlay, the Aquifer overlay, the Air Quality Transport Separation Corridor, and the High Land Transport Noise route overlay. The underlying zone of the precinct is General Business.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan (Dave) Paul dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Paul supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate a recent plan change in the PAUP (Plan Change 123 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011, which was approved by the Environment Court in Trustees of the Runwild Trust v Auckland Council [2015] NZEnvC 93).
6. The main difference between the precinct and the underlying General Business zone is set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Paul, at paragraph 1.6. Those variations reflect the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
Remaining issues
7. Mr Paul addresses the submissions points in his evidence report. Mr Paul proposes amendments to the precinct provisions to address the submission from Snowplanet seeking flexibility for retail of specialist sporting goods, to address errors in the precinct plan regarding indicative roading network and to reduce the Special Information Requirements. Mr Paul does not support any amendments to the objectives and policies, or to allow for Commercial Recreation activities or retail activities not otherwise provided for in the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 67
8. Mr Paul also suggests the inclusion of a rule about indicative roads, and other minor amendments to correct errors in response to the Auckland Council submission.
31560772:631364 Page 68
SILVERDALE 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Silverdale 3 precinct is a proposed precinct comprising of 41 ha of land between East Coast road and State Highway 1 at Silverdale. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of LM Painton Estate, Silverdale Driving Range Limited and Runwild Trust (submission 5801-3).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to manage the traffic effects of activities on the Hibiscus Coast Highway. It is also to achieve a high quality urban design outcome within a visually strong “vegetated framework”. All development within the precinct will require careful management to assist in creating a high quality gateway to the Hibiscus Coast.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Heavy Industry Air Quality overlay, a Stormwater Management Area overlay, the High Land Transport Noise route overlay, the Aquifer overlay and the Air Quality Transport Separation Corridor overlay. The underlying zonings of the land within the Silverdale 3 precinct are the General Business zone and the Mixed Housing Urban zone.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan (Dave) Paul dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Paul supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate Plan Change 123 to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 into the PAUP. It is proposed to divide the precinct into three sub-precincts. The purposes of each are as follows: a. Sub-precinct A: to enable a range of business activities; b. Sub-precinct B: to enable a range of residential opportunities; and c. Sub-precinct C: to enable residential opportunities within the business area that are secondary to business activity.
5. The main differences between the proposed precinct and the underlying zones is set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Paul, at paragraph 1.8. Those variations reflect the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
Remaining issues
6. Following consideration of submitter’s evidence on the precinct provisions, Mr Paul proposes amendments to the precinct provisions to address submitter’s concerns. There are two remaining points of difference regarding notification and the request to add discretionary activity assessment criteria, which are not supported by Mr Paul.
31560772:631364 Page 69
SILVERDALE 4 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Silverdale 4 Precinct is a proposed precinct for an existing operational cemetery at 2163 East Coast Road, Silverdale and adjacent land. The Precinct is not in the PAUP as notified. It is requested in the submissions of Auckland Memorial Park Ltd (AMPL) (7022), who is the owner of the cemetery.
2. The notified underlying zoning of the proposed precinct is part Future Urban (the existing cemetery) and part Light Industry (the adjacent land). The Council’s evidence for Topic 080 recommends that the sites be rezoned as Special Purpose – Cemetery Zone (SPCZ).
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to: a. permit a wider range of activities, including crematoria and mausoleums of any scale and accessory activities such as offices, chapels and service centres; and b. ease restrictions on building height and coverage.
4. The proposed precinct is subject to a subdivision control overlay (that will no longer be applicable if the site is zoned SPCZ), and the Heavy Industry Air Quality overlay. Neither overlay interfaces with the issues raised by the precinct request.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence of Sanjay Bangs dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bangs does not support the proposed precinct. He considers that the SPCZ will provide a more appropriate management regime.
6. However Mr Bangs recommends that some of AMPL’s requests be responded to by way of amendments to the SPCZ rules. The proposed amendments are contained in Attachment C to Mr Bangs’ evidence.
Remaining issues
7. Rezoning the sites to SPCZ will address some of the issues. The outstanding issues relate to whether a precinct is appropriate, the provision to be made for crematoria, mausoleums and accessory buildings, and to building height and coverage rules.
31560772:631364 Page 70
SILVERDALE NORTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Silverdale North precinct comprises of approximately 490ha of land to the north of the original town of Silverdale. The precinct is bounded by State Highway 1A to the west, Orewa Estuary to the north, Jelas Road to the east and Hibiscus Coast Highway to the south.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 43 submission points were received requesting relief in relation to the precinct.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to ensure that the development of Silverdale North is carried out in an integrated way, and that urban development is restricted ahead of necessary improvements being made to the primary roads network. The provisions ensure that development in advance of infrastructure does not create significant adverse effects on the primary road network and connections to that network.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including a Stormwater Management Area, the Key Retail Frontage overlay, the High Land Transport Noise route overlay, and the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay. The precinct has four different underlying zones: General Business, Single House, Town Centre and Neighbourhood Centre.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewan Paul dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Paul supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate the provisions of Special 19 (Silverdale North) zone of the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan) into the PAUP. These provisions were the result of a complex plan change (Plan Change 52), and were the subject of Environment Court consent orders in 2008 and 2009.
6. The precinct is divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: (General Business) - enables and encourages the establishment of land use activities that will attract knowledge and people based businesses and a more limited or different range of business activities than might expect to be found in an industrial zone. Industrial activities that could compromise the campus like appearance of sub-precinct A are discouraged. b. Sub-precinct B: (Single House) – provides for medium density residential with a limited percentage of higher density. c. Sub-precinct C: (Town Centre) – limits on larger scale retail and industry. d. Sub-precincts D1and D2 (Neighbourhood Centre) and D3 (Local Centre) – limits on large scale retail.
7. The main differences between the precinct provisions and the underlying zones are set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Paul, at paragraph 1.5. Those variations reflect the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
Remaining issues
8. Mr Paul proposes several amendments to the precinct provisions to address the submissions received on the precinct. He does not support proposals to:
31560772:631364 Page 71
a. remove requirements for a mix of residential densities in the precinct; b. remove the Weiti Landscape Area; c. replace the references to Single House with Mixed Housing Urban; d. add “taverns” as permitted activities, or to amend the activity status of various activities in sub-precinct A; e. “retirement villages” and “supported residential care” being restricted discretionary activities; f. reduce the size of sub-precinct D3 to 1 ha; or g. the removal of the land at Jack Hawkins lane from the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 72
TE ARAI NORTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Te Arai North precinct applies to 616 hectares of coastal land north of Te Arai Point, known generally as Mangawhai North Forest. The precinct is located on the north east coast of the Rodney Local Board area at the northern edge of the Auckland Region.
2. The underlying zoning of land in the Te Arai North Precinct is Rural Coastal zone.
3. The precinct forms part of the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Te Uri o Hau under the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act 2002. The land was purchased by Te Uri o Hau as part of the commercial redress component of their settlement. The land is within the rohe of Te Uri o Hau. The purpose of the Te Arai North precinct is to retain certain subdivision and land development opportunities from the operative Auckland District Plan (Rodney Section), which were proposed though Private Plan Change 166 (PPC 166) (and approved by an Environment Court consent order). This allows for the planning provisions at the time of the iwi settlement to be carried forward. The precinct provisions enable the creation of 46 sites in exchange for a large coastal public reserve. Development in reliance on the resolved PPC 166 provisions is currently underway.
4. The precinct is subject to Significant Ecological Areas, High Natural Character, Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscape overlays.
5. Panel-assisted Mediation with the Council and various parties took place on 10 December 2015 and 15 January 2016. The parties agreed to a set of precinct provisions for Te Arai North to reflect the PPC 166 provisions.
6. The Council's evidence is set out in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley (planning) dated 11 February 2016, the evidence of Dr Manu Bird (ecology) and Simon Cocker (landscape) both dated 11 February 2016, and the evidence of Andrew Beer (open space) dated 12 February 2016.
7. Mr Bradley's view is that it is most appropriate to manage the many different elements within Te Arai North using a precinct. Mr Bradley considers that the amended Te Arai North precinct provisions as agreed at mediation are appropriate and reflect the substance of the PPC 166 Environment Court consent order. Mr Beer highlights in his evidence that the Te Arai North precinct provisions have the potential to deliver considerable benefits to Auckland's public open space network. Mr Cocker and Dr Bird express the view in their evidence that the environmental outcomes for ecology and landscape as a result of subdivision can be appropriately managed though the proposed precinct provisions.
8. The are no remaining issues in respect of the Te Arai North precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 73
TE ARAI SOUTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Te Arai South precinct applies to 753 hectares of coastal land south of Te Arai Point, known generally as Mangawhai South Forest. The precinct is located on the north east coast of the Rodney Local Board area at the northern edge of the Auckland Region. 287 hectares of land within the precinct has been granted Crown mining permits.
2. The underlying zoning of land in the Te Arai South Precinct is Rural Coastal zone.
3. The precinct forms part of the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ngati Manuhiri. The land was purchased by Ngati Manuhiri as part of the commercial redress component of their settlement. The land is within the rohe of Ngati Manuhiri. The original purpose of the Te Arai South precinct was to retain certain subdivision and land development opportunities from the operative Auckland District Plan (Rodney Section), which were proposed though Private Plan Change 166 (PPC 166) (and approved by an Environment Court consent order).
4. The precinct is subject to Significant Ecological Areas, High Natural Character, Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscape overlays.
5. Panel-assisted Mediation with the Council and various parties took place on 10 December 2015 and 15 January 2016. The Te Arai South precinct provisions agreed by the parties at mediation enable a range of activities and subdivision for up to 58 new sites in exchange for the provision of a significant area of public reserve.
6. The Council's evidence is set out in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley (planning) dated 12 February 2016, the evidence of Dr Manu Bird (ecology) and Simon Cocker (landscape) both dated 11 February 2016, and the evidence of Andrew Beer (open space) dated 12 February 2016.
7. Mr Bradley's view is that it is most appropriate to manage the many different elements within Te Arai South using a precinct. Mr Bradley considers that the amended Te Arai South precinct provisions as agreed at mediation are appropriate and proposes a number of minor changes to the mediated provisions to enable consistency with PAUP terminology and definitions. Mr Bradley also states in his evidence that the more enabling precinct provisions for sand mining are appropriate given the existing Crown Mineral permits and sand mining relating to the site, and the quarry zone on adjacent land. The other activities proposed to be enabled by the precinct provisions will assist Ngati Manuhiri to provide for its social, economic and cultural well-being.
8. Mr Beer highlights in his evidence that the Te Arai South precinct provisions have the potential to deliver considerable benefits to Auckland's public open space network. Mr Cocker and Dr Bird provide in their evidence that the environmental outcomes for ecology and landscape as a result of subdivision can be appropriately managed though the precinct provisions.
9. A number of submitters appear to have lodged evidence in support of the proposed Te Arai South precinct provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 74
Remaining issues
10. While there was agreement in principle about the substance of the Te Arai South precinct provisions between the parties who attended mediation, a waiver was subsequently granted by the Panel in respect of a late further submission from the Mangawhai Pakiri Environmental Kaitiaki Protection Trust (dated 27 January 2016). It is understood that this further submitter wishes to be heard on the Te Arai South precinct provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 75
WAIKAURI BAY PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Waikauri Bay precinct is a proposed precinct located at 1116 Takatu Road, Waikauri Bay, on the Tawharanui Peninsula. The surrounding area is characterised by farmland, and rural lifestyle properties.
2. On the northern side of Takatu Road is Tawharanui Regional Park. The closest settlement is Omaha, to the north. From Takutu Road the site slopes down to the south, where the land flattens out around the bay. Dwellings occupy the foreshore, where the land is largely flat, with several dwellings sited on the hillside. The northern reaches of the site are characterised by pockets of grass, with the majority of the site comprising of mature vegetation. The site can be seen from certain points of Takutu Road, although it is largely concealed from view from the road due to the rolling hills forming the precinct’s backdrop. Waikauri Bay adjoins the Hauraki Gulf.
3. The precinct was not in the PAUP as notified and is proposed in the submission of Waikauri Bay Reserve Limited (submission 1527).
4. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to ensure the scale and intensity of the existing development is maintained while providing for reasonable replacement or alteration of existing dwellings. The precinct limits the number of dwellings to 25, which is the same number as that currently on site.
5. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: a Significant Ecological Area, Natural Hazards, High natural Character and Outstanding Natural Landscape. The underlying zone of the precinct is Rural Coastal. A part of the precinct is also located in the Coastal Transition zone.
6. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Kimberley Edmonds dated 26 January 2016. Ms Edmonds supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate the provisions of Scheduled Activity 193 (SA 193) in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan). SA 193 provides for the existing settlement at Waikauri Bay. The PAUP as notified does not recognise or provide for this settlement.
7. The submitter, Waikauri Bay Reserve Limited, is concerned that without a precinct their dwellings would be non-complying and it would be prohibitively difficult for them to make reasonable replacements or alterations, unless existing use rights are proved, which is a complex process. The submission seeks a precinct with provisions about additions and alterations, replacing existing dwellings, vehicle access arrangements, coastal structures, and on-site infrastructure such as wastewater treatment, water supply and electricity.
8. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the Rural Coastal zone, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Ms Edmonds, at paragraph 1.5.
31560772:631364 Page 76
WAIMANA POINT PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Waimana Point precinct comprises of just over 33 ha of land located at the eastern end of Algies Bay in the Mahurangi Peninsula. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 14 submission points from two submitters (Auckland council (5716) and the Isbey and Collier families (7307), who are the landowners of the site) have been received on the precinct.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the future residential development of the land at as density that is appropriate for the locality, given its natural features and landscape values. The precinct provides for consideration of landscape matters, including both the impacts of development of the prominent headland encompassed within the precinct, and the impact of development as viewed from the surrounding areas including Algies Bay, Scandrett Regional Park, the coast and public roads.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including an identified Site of Significance to Mana Whenua, Significant Ecological Area and Auckland-wide natural hazards. The underlying zone of the precinct is the Large Lot zone.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report, of Larissa Clarke dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Larissa Clarke dated 24 February 2016. Ms Clarke supports the proposed precinct, subject to amendments to remove duplication with the Auckland wide provisions and general corrections. An amendment is also proposed to remove the requirement for an indicative road, which is no longer required given changes in development proposals surrounding the precinct area.
5. The precinct incorporates originates from scheduled activity 329 in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011. Ms Clarke proposes that the precinct be divided into three sub-precincts which contain varying restrictions on density and subdivision site size as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: applies to the land on the western side of the precinct. The number of dwellings is limited to 15 and the minimum site size for subdivision is 8000m2; b. Sub-precinct B: applies to the land on the eastern side of the precinct. The number of dwellings is limited to 16 and the minimum site size for subdivision is 4000m2; c. Sub-precinct C: applies to the land at the north of the point where there is an existing dwelling. No further dwellings or subdivision are provided for in this sub-precinct.
6. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the Large Lot zone, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Ms Clarke, at paragraph 1.10. Those variations reflect the natural features and landscape matters relating to the precinct area.
Remaining issues
7. Following consideration of the evidence filed by Ms Joanne Young on behalf of the Isbey and Collier families, Ms Clarke recommends further amendment to the precinct provisions. The remaining points of difference between the Council and the submitter relate to the need for the land use control for density, the development
31560772:631364 Page 77
control for height, assessment criteria for the construction of indicative public access ways, landscaping and site layout, and the notification provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 78
WAIMAUKU PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Waimauku precinct comprises 75 ha of land to the northwest of the Waimauku settlement. The precinct itself is located over part of a large farm and applies to the higher ground in the eastern side of the farm. This land is locally known as Renall’s Hill, and is characterised by extensive open agricultural land use, with isolated stands of native vegetation and no buildings.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of three submissions were received requesting relief in relation to the precinct. One requested its deletion (Ian Humphrey 6545-1), and two were incorrectly coded to this precinct topic.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to retain Renall’s Hill as an attractive backdrop to the Waimauku Township. The precinct provisions require the avoidance of buildings that are easily seen from within the village, and the eastern entrance to the village, by controlling building seen over the ridge from the township. The precinct does this by creating two different building restriction areas: a. the Primary Building Restriction Area (PBRA), which covers the part of the precinct closer to the village and in the higher parts of Renalls Hill. In the PBRA, buildings are considered as restricted discretionary activities. b. the Secondary Building Restriction Area (SBRA), which covers the part of the precinct that is further away from the village. In the SBRA, buildings are considered as controlled activities.
4. The precinct is subject to two overlays: Indicative streams and Significant Ecological Areas. The underlying zone of the precinct is Rural Production.
5. The precinct carries forward Restricted Activity 340 from the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (Operative Plan), which was included in the Operative Plan as a result of assessment and community feedback on the Waimauku Structure Plan (2009). The structure plan recommended that Renall’s Hill be given some from of backdrop protection.
6. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence reports of Ryan Bradley (Planning) and Melean Absolum (Landscape), both dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bradley supports the objective of the precinct, but proposes deleting the precinct and replacing it with the Ridgeline Protection Overlay (RPO), which will achieve the same outcome as the precinct. This is illustrated in the table attached to Mr Bradley’s evidence in Attachment B, which compares the RPO provisions and the precinct provisions.
7. Mr Bradley relies on Ms Absolum’s landscape evidence to support his position. Ms Absolum classifies Renall’s Hill as modified ridgeline but agrees that it forms an attractive, open, rural backdrop to the village which is valued by the community and worthy of protection by some means within the PAUP. Ms Absolum considers that the RPO provisions are sufficient to enable the landform to be adequately protected.
31560772:631364 Page 79
WAIMAUKU 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Waimauku 2 precinct encompasses several individual lots of land that are located adjacent to Waikoukou Valley Road and Old N Road in Waimauku. The land within, and surrounding, the proposed precinct is predominantly flat to slightly rolling. The land surrounding the proposed precinct area is primarily used for rural production activities, with large rural lifestyle lots prevalent.
2. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Treasury Wine Estates (submission 6893). The purpose of the proposed precinct is to recognise and provide for the current operation, and further development, of the winery that operates from the site.
3. The precinct is subject to following overlays: Natural Resources (Significant Ecological Areas and Indicative Streams) and Historic Heritage.
4. The underlying zone of the proposed precinct is Rural Production.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Kimberley Edmonds dated 26 January 2016. Ms Edmonds does not support the proposed precinct for the following reasons:
a. the general rural objectives and policies in the PAUP, along with those in the Rural Production zone, contemplate a wide range of rural production and commercial activities taking place in the zone. b. the provisions of the Rural production zone adequately provide for the range of activities that take place on site. The following activities are permitted: farming (which specifically includes viticulture); produce sales (which would allow for wine to be sold on site); on-site primary produce manufacturing; home occupations and homestays. Post-harvest facilities, rural industries, restaurants and cafes are restricted discretionary activities, and visitor accommodation and rural tourist and visitor activities are discretionary activities.
31560772:631364 Page 80
WAIWERA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Waiwera precinct applies to the existing Waiwera Hotpools site at 21-37 Waiwera Road and the development site to the east at 53 Waiwera Road.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 81 submission points have been received requesting relief in relation to the Waiwera precinct. Submissions were received from the owners and occupiers of land within the precinct, local community groups and nearby residents, as well as other interested parties. Overall, the submissions fell into two broad categories, being those seeking to provide greater flexibility to provide for a wider range of activities and development within the precinct, and those seeking to limit activities and development in order to protect the amenity, character and tourist function of Waiwera.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to: a. provide for the continued operation of the Waiwera hotpool complex, supporting recreational and tourist activities as well as a range of complementary activities; b. ensure development responds to Waiwera’s sense of place, including its natural coastal and landscape values; c. ensure development maintains the amenity values of surrounding residential land.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Coastal Inundation and Flood Hazards overlay, the High Coastal Natural Character Area overlay, the Outstanding Natural Feature overlay, the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay and a Significant Ecological Area overlay. The site also contains two historic heritage places (ref 499 and 2147) and is subject to coastal inundation and flood hazards. The underlying zones of the precinct are Mixed Use, Mixed Housing Suburban and Neighbourhood Centre (amendments to these zones were proposed in the Business zone hearings and are proposed in the Council’s evidence for this hearing).
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence reports of Rachel Morgan (Planning), Matthew Riley (Urban Design) and Andrew Gratton (Transport) dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence reports dated 24 February 2016. Ms Morgan supports the proposed precinct, which seeks to include provisions in the PAUP that have a long history (refer to paragraph 7.4 of Ms Morgan’s evidence report). The precinct as notified is divided into two sub-precincts, and Ms Morgan proposes adding a third as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: the site of an existing hotel; b. Sub-precinct B: the land occupied by the hot pools; c. Sub-precinct C: the land at 37 Waiwera Place located at the southeastern extent of Waiwera adjacent to the coast. It was formerly used as a campground but is presently vacant.
Remaining issues
6. Ms Morgan’s evidence rebuttal report recommends further amendments to the precinct provisions to take into account evidence filed by submitters. Key issues remaining include: a. how the objectives and policies for the Precinct should address residential activities both within it and nearby;
31560772:631364 Page 81
b. the appropriate activity status for various commercial and recreational activities; c. the appropriate height and yard controls for the precinct, having regard to the purpose of the precinct and its character and setting; d. appropriate car parking requirements for any expansion of the activities at the hot pools complex.
31560772:631364 Page 82
WARKWORTH 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Warkworth 1 precinct comprises the site known as ‘the Stockyard Falls’ in Warkworth, which sits between Woodcocks Road and the Mahurangi River in Warkworth. The Summerset Retirement Village is directly west of the precinct. Future Urban zoned land sits to the north and east of the precinct site. There is an area of light industry to the southeast, around Morrison Drive and Glenmore Drive.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of 20 submission points have been received on this precinct.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for specific commercial development, mainly bulk retail, but also specific areas for childcare, education and health services, and an area for light industry.
4. There are no relevant overlays that apply directly to the Warkworth 1 precinct. Just north of the precinct there are Significant Ecological Areas along the Mahurangi River, and Designation 1471, which provides for a bridge to connect Mansel Drive to Falls Road (part of the Warkworth Western Collector route).
5. The underlying zone of the proposed precinct is General Business. However, the joint statement of evidence of David Hookway and Austin Fox (Warkworth and Snells Beach) supports a change in zone to Light Industry.
6. The precinct incorporates Scheduled Activity 210 (SA 210) and Restricted Activity 328 (RA 238) of the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 into the PAUP. The provisions of SA 210 and RA 238 provide for: a. A comprehensive bulk retail (shops above 400m2) development including two standalone food outlets; b. Specific sites identified for childcare, education and health and welfare land uses; c. Light Industrial activities up to 8,400m2 within a specific area; and d. A total Gross Leasable Area of 30,000m2 (retail GLA no more than 25,000m2).
7. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bradley supports the proposed change to the underlying zone and, in light of the recommended zoning change, considers the precinct is no longer necessary. The precinct provisions are very specific to a bulk retail outcome and therefore would be superfluous given the proposed Light Industry future of the land.
8. The Warkworth 1 precinct as notified is divided into five separate sub-precincts to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas as follows: a. Sub-precinct A: Bulk retail area. b. Sub-precinct B – Bulk retail area and care centres, education facilities, healthcare services, and vets. c. Sub-precinct C – Bulk retail area and care centres, education facilities, healthcare services, and vets. d. Sub-precinct D – Bulk retail area and light industry. e. Sub-precinct E – Bulk retail area.
31560772:631364 Page 83
9. The precinct varies the status of some activities from the notified underlying zone, General Business, as set out in Activity Table 1 in Appendix B of Mr Bradley’s evidence report. Those variations reflect the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
31560772:631364 Page 84
WARKWORTH 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Warkworth 2 precinct comprises the site known as ‘the Grange’ in Warkworth (formerly the site of the Grange Garden Centre). The site is located at 67 Auckland Road (SH1), which is near the southern entrance to the urban area of Warkworth. The site is mostly surrounded by residential land use and is adjacent to the McKinney Valley area, a new greenfield residential area. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified.
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for specific commercial and residential land uses that were agreed through an Environment Court consent order (ENV-2006-AKL-001112) and incorporated into the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 (operative plan) as Restricted Activity 330 (RA 330). RA 330 enabled specific commercial, and some residential, use of the site. Specifically, RA 330 provided for shops over 500m2 (bulk retail) for specific types of retail (car retailing, garden supplies, marine equipment, floor coverings, hardware etc), a service station, drive-through restaurants, up to 32 household units; and the construction of an access road.
3. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: Air Quality; Designation 1401; Indicative Stream. The underlying zone of the proposed precinct is Light Industry.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bradley proposes the removal of the precinct from the PAUP for the following reasons: a. A resource consent has been granted for the construction of commercial development (largely convenience retail centres) on the site, and construction of Stage 1 of that development is underway. This removes the need for the precinct and is inconsistent with the intention of the precinct to provide for predominately bulk retail development. b. A resource consent was granted in December 2015 to allow for residential development on the balance land that is not part of the commercial development mentioned above. Further, the contour and presence of a stream on this area of the site means it is not conducive to bulk retail.
5. In light of the two resource consents that have been granted for this site, Mr Bradley considers there is little value in maintaining a set of precinct provisions that envisage a particular type of development, which has a very low to nil likelihood of occurring.
Remaining issues
6. The Council continue to support to deletion of the proposed precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 85
WARKWORTH 3 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Warkworth 3 precinct comprises of the entire Warkworth town centre. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. A total of three submissions on the precinct were received.
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to protect the character of the older parts of the Warkworth town centre by requiring new development to be of a compatible scale. in effect, this means that any large scale new activities require a resource consent that assesses the development against criteria specifically developed for the Warkworth town centre.
3. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: Additional height controls; Various historic places (scheduled items); Building frontage; and Notable trees. The underlying zone of the proposed precinct is the Town Centre zone.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ryan Bradley dated 26 January 2016. Mr Bradley supports retaining the precinct, which incorporates Variation 125 (V125) to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section (Operative Plan) (which was made operative in 2010 by the Environment Court through a consent order). Mr Bradley considers the precinct offers the best method to control large scale buildings in the Warkworth Town Centre by assessing them against a list of specific criteria to protect the character of the older parts of the town. Mr Bradley proposes some amendments to the precinct provisions, in response to submissions, to ensure that the provisions more accurately reflect the V125 consent order.
5. The precinct is divided into three sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Core Area, which contains the core of the town centre’s retailing and related commercial activities, and lies in the older areas of the precinct near the Mahurangi River. b. Sub-precinct B: Fringe Area, which includes the balance of the existing retail area on the fringe of the Warkworth town centre where activities such as offices, visitor accommodation and smaller scale retail activities are considered appropriate. c. Sub-precinct C: Core Expansion, which provides opportunities for the establishment of larger format, high pedestrian generation stores, that have the potential to enhance the economic vitality of the adjoining core area in order to support the find-grained retail activities that contribute significantly to the character of the town centre.
6. Mr Bradley supports the addition of a fourth sub-precinct, Sub-precinct D, in response to the submission by the National Trading Company (2632-269). The proposed Sub-Precinct D is closely aligned with Sub-precinct B, the Fringe Area, and would carry over the provisions of Scheduled Activity 206 of the Operative Plan, which apply to the New World site.
7. The precinct does not vary the status of relevant activities from that in the underlying Town Centre zone, but it contains more specific assessment criteria than the underlying Town Centre zone for large scale activities and activities with large street frontages.
31560772:631364 Page 86
Remaining issues
8. There are essentially no outstanding issues in relation to the Warkworth 3 precinct between the Council and submitters. The evidence lodged by Progressive Enterprises and the National Trading Company supports the council position and neither submitter seeks any further amendments.
31560772:631364 Page 87
WEITI 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Weiti 2 precinct is a proposed precinct comprising 250 ha of land at 1695-1697 East Coast Road, Redvale. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Hugh Green Limited (HGL) (submission 5259-156).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for a 224-lot ‘clustered’ subdivision with an average density of one dwelling per 1.5 hectares, retaining large balance areas of over 25 hectares. The rationale for the clustered design was to accommodate the areas of geotechnical instability and steep topography.
3. The precinct is subject to three overlays: Infrastructure: Airport Approach Paths – North Shore Airfield; Natural Resources – indicative streams; and Manu Whenua sites and places of value (ID2400). The underlying zone of the proposed precinct is Countryside Living (CSL), which is the principal receiver zone for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision (TRSS) as reflected in the Additional Subdivision Control (ASC) which identifies the CSL zone areas that provide receiver site opportunities. The proposed Weiti 2 precinct is subject to the ASC.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in rebuttal the evidence report of Robert Scott dated 24 February 2016 (due to a miscoding of HGL’s submission, it was overlooked when Council was preparing primary evidence on the various Topic 081 precincts). The proposed precinct is sought to incorporate Scheduled Activity No.124 and Restricted Activity 308 ‘Weiti Station Concept Plan’ of the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 into the PAUP.
5. Mr Scott does not support the proposed precinct because: a. The underlying CSL zone enables a similar level of development to that proposed by HGL, which is 1 dwelling per 2 ha. b. Should the TRSS provisions be utilised, the density of development increases to 1 dwelling per ha. c. To enable the new precinct, the ASC would need to be removed from the land and this may have the adverse consequence of reducing the available land for receiver sites under the TRSS process. This in turn could undermine the effectiveness of the TRSS method in this area and adversely impact the PAUP’s rural strategy in this locality. d. The cluster-style subdivision sought by HGL in the new precinct has some support at RPS and rural zone policy level and could be established though an application for resource consent (as a non-complying activity). e. The proposed precinct enables a Village Centre and Green, the scale of which is unacceptably urban in this locality.
6. The Council remains unsupportive of the proposed precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 88
WHANGAPARAOA PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Whangaparaoa precinct was not included in the PAUP and has been proposed by the Council in response to a submission from the Peter Snell Youth Village. The Whangaparaoa precinct is located at 1212 Whangaparaoa Road, Coal Mine Bay. The precinct is comprised of approximately 7.5ha. The site is bounded by Coal Mine Bay to the north, Whangaparaoa Road to the south and an established residential development to the east.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the ongoing operation of the Peter Snell Youth Village camp facility and to provide for the expansion of these facilities while steering development into the areas on the site that have the least vegetation, lowest quality vegetation, and/or the most buildings.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including the High (Coastal) Natural Character Area, the Aquifer overlay and Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation.
4. The Council’s evidence relating to the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Mr Austin Fox dated 2 February 2016 and his rebuttal evidence dated 1 March 2016. Mr Fox supports the proposed new precinct, which seeks to incorporate the Auckland Council's decision on Plan Change 130 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) into the PAUP.
5. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into two sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A: which includes most of the existing development and anticipates further development; and b. Sub-precinct B: which contains the highest environmental values and therefore has the highest level of protection.
5. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the underlying Large Lot zone as set out in Table 1 of the primary evidence of Mr Fox. Those variations largely reflect the previous Plan Change 130 relating to the precinct area.
Remaining Issues
6. The only party to lodge evidence on the Whangaparaoa precinct was the Peter Snell Youth Village. However it is not clear that the evidence is in response to the Council's evidence because the Council's evidence is not mentioned. The submitter's evidence seeks a different set of precinct provisions. The most substantive differences are that the submitter seeks: provision for residential dwellings, a reduced building setback from Whangaparaoa Road, an increased site coverage, and an increased building height on some parts of the site. The Council considers that its proposed provisions are more appropriate to manage the environmental values of the area.
31560772:631364 Page 89
WOODHILL PRECINCT SUMMARY
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Woodhill precinct is a proposed new precinct comprising approximately 39 hectares. It is located on the western side of State Highway 16, Waimauku, south of Restall Road and north of the existing private road to the neighbouring property known as the Steele property. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Atlas Concrete Limited (submission 3702 and further submission 2736).
2. The submission requests a precinct for the subject site, along with other requests to amend activity and definition provisions to enable mineral extraction and recycling operations in a rural location.
3. The underlying zoning of land in the Woodhill precinct is Rural Production zone.
4. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to carry over the resource consent granted to the submitter on 13 December 2013 for the recycling of concrete slurry waste, and its mixing with local sand for use as a fertilizer for pasture /grass growth such as ready lawn. The activity under the resource consent is an associated industrial or trade activity and rural industry, and is an additional provision to the Rural Production zone.
5. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including Historic Heritage (sites and places of value to Mana Whenua), SEA overlay and an aquifer overlay.
6. The Council's evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 28 January 2016. Mr Hookway does not support the proposed precinct because while the precinct purports to amend the Rural Production zone, it unnecessarily relies on and seeks PAUP support for a recently granted resource consent. In Mr Hookway's view, the better approach is for the submitter to rely on the existing resource consent. The proposed precinct should not be determined by the existing resource consent, further to the Panel's Interim Guidance dated 31 July 2015. a. Remaining issues
7. Mr Haines provided evidence for Atlas Concrete Limited dated 10 February 2016 in respect of the new Woodhill precinct. Mr Haines considers that the proposed Woodhill precinct provisions will enable the functioning of the existing industrial activities carried out by Atlas Concrete Limited, while mitigating any potential adverse effects.
8. The Council considers that the site and resource consent are unremarkable and there is no reason to provide a precinct. The future development of the site could be achieved by applying for a further resource consent.
31560772:631364 Page 90
WOODHILL 1 PRECINCT SUMMARY
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed new Woodhill 1 precinct is located predominately on the western margin of the Kaipara South Peninsula and comprises approximately 12,000 hectares of land. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Ngati Whatua o Kaipara (submission 5818-10 and 5818-11).
2. The underlying zoning of land in the Woodhill 1 precinct is Rural Coastal zone.
3. The land concerned is the subject of a Treaty Settlement with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to carry over the development rights that the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney section) provides for on rural land to ensure the value of the land continues to be consistent with the value of the land at the time of settlement. These proposed precinct rules would provide for rural subdivision that is generally more enabling than the equivalent provisions in the PAUP.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including Historic Heritage (sites and places of value to Mana Whenua); Lake Management Areas (Lakes Okaihau and Kereta); Natural Hazard – Coastal Inundation; and an SEA overlay.
5. The submitter has divided the proposed Woodhill 1 precinct into two separate sub- precincts named Woodhill and Woodhill (Otakanui Topu). However, the details regarding the proposed new objectives and policies for the two sub-precincts have not been provided despite informal discussions in December 2015 with the submitter's representative, Mr Nicholas Roberts, and correspondence from the Council requesting further detail.
6. The Council's evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Hookway dated 28 January 2016. Mr Hookway does not support the proposed precinct because the submitter has not provided any detail as to the way the objectives and policies of the proposed precinct and sub-precinct should be amended and therefore what provisions should apply to the precinct and sub-precinct.
7. In these circumstances, the Council considers that the proposed new Woodhill 1 precinct, in its present form, is too uncertain to be proceeded with and does not meet the purpose of the RMA. However, the Council remains open to further discussion with the submitter as to what might be appropriate for this area of land once more specific proposals are developed.
31560772:631364 Page 91
ATTACHMENT C
TOPIC 081c – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (NORTH SHORE)
31560772:631364 Page 92
ALBANY 1 (GREVILLE ROAD) PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Albany 1 precinct is located at the intersection of Greville Road and Hugh Green Drive. The purpose of the precinct is to enable retail activities at a level that does not generate adverse effects for other centres, but which is more enabling than the Local Centre zone provisions.
2. The underlying Local Centre zoning provides for Supermarkets over 2,000m2 and Retail greater than 450m2 per tenancy as restricted discretionary activities. The proposed precinct provisions permit:
a. “Supermarket” up to 3,000m2; and
b. “Retail excluding supermarkets” up to 1,200m2.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 27 January 2016 which proposes that the precinct be deleted for the following reasons:
a. Since notification of the PAUP, a resource consent has been obtained for the undeveloped land at the site (dated 20 December 2013) which provides for even greater retail opportunities than the precinct rules currently enable (being a total of 6,189m2 of retail floor space under the consent); and
b. Upon advice that the developer intends to implement the consent, the Council officers determined that it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to continue to support the Albany 1 precinct.
4. The Council officers note in their evidence report (at paragraph 8.2) that while the deletion of the precinct is not sought by any submitter, it accords with the Panel’s interim guidance on best practice given there is a resource consent which provides for the development of the (presently) undeveloped land.
31560772:631364 Page 93
ALBANY 3 (KEWA ROAD) PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Albany 3 precinct is located north of Oteha Valley Road, comprising 13 ha of land at 29, 40A and 42 Kewa Road. The underlying zone is Single House. The land is mainly hilly and there is an area of regenerating native bush to the south of the site identified as a SEA.
2. The Council’s evidence for the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joe Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 27 January 2016 which supports the retention of the precinct. The precinct is based on the provisions of Plan Change 32 (PC32) (the relevant Environment Court decision was released on 3 May 2012) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative North Shore Section) which reviewed the Albany Structure Plan zones. Thus, the purpose of precinct is to provide for the concept development plan for 29, 40A and 42 Kewa Road which emerged from PC32.
3. The joint evidence report considers that the Albany 3 precinct achieves the purpose of the Act because it recognises specific provisions and development controls that were developed over an extensive period of time including through an Environment Court hearing in 2012 and which they consider should continue to apply to the Kewa Road area so as to ensure consistency of development26.
4. The officers do not consider that the precinct needs to be extended to include additional land, in particular, 38A Kewa Road as has been sought by the Wilberfoss Family Trust Limited.
5. The main difference between the precinct provisions and the PAUP provisions that apply to the area are outlined at page 7 of the joint evidence report. In summary:
a. The precinct provisions place greater restrictions on residential activities than the Single House zone by specifying a landscape protection are and densities specific to the site;
b. The development controls relating to height for buildings located on Ridgeline Sites and location of development are more restrictive under the precinct provisions;
c. Subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity with assessment criteria relating to layout, site size, natural features and landscaping that is more restrictive under the precinct provisions; and
d. The minimum lot sizes are more restrictive under the precinct provisions.
6. The Council officers support that part of the Council submission relating to the amendment of the precinct diagram to clearly show the boundary. The amended diagram is attached as Attachment C to the joint evidence report. As there are no provisions relating to transport typology or design in the precinct, this second limb of the Council’s submission is rendered nugatory.
7. The Albany 3 precinct gives effect to the recent PC32 decision and is, in the officers’ views, the most appropriate PAUP methods to ensure those outcomes can be achieved.
26 Para 1.12.
31560772:631364 Page 94
ALBANY 4 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Albany 4 precinct is located at 2 Jack Hinton Dr, Albany. It comprises a leased portion of the Council owned land containing the Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant and Oxidation Ponds. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for an existing helicopter facility as a permitted activity subject to specific land use controls (movements and noise).
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the Albany 4 precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 26 January 2016. The Council officers do not support the precinct proposed in the submission of Heletranz Ltd.
3. The underlying zone is Light Industry and the area is subject to a number of overlays which are outlined at page 12 of the joint evidence report.
4. The Council officers consider (page 16 of the joint evidence report) that the effects of a significant helicopter operation at the proposed location are of a character, scale, and intensity which are more appropriately assessed through a resource consent application. Heletranz Ltd has not provided sufficient information or evidence to justify that the proposed precinct is the most appropriate method.
5. Accordingly, the Council officers do not support the precinct on the basis that it does not align with the RPS and to support it would be inconsistent with the Panel’s interim guidance on best practice.
31560772:631364 Page 95
ALBANY 5 (FAIRVIEW) PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Albany 5 precinct is located at 56 Fairview Ave and 129/131 and 135 Oteha Valley Road. The property is subject to an appeal against a decision declining resource consent (for multi-unit residential and mixed use developments) that is currently before the Environment Court.
2. The purpose of the precinct, which was sought by North East Investments Limited, is to provide for additional building height beyond that provided by the underlying zones. The underlying zoning is mainly Mixed Housing Urban and in a small part, Mixed Housing Suburban.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 27 January 2016. The proposed precinct failed the merits assessment and is not supported by the Council.
4. The North East Investments Ltd submission sought the inclusion of three sub- precincts to provide for differing building heights and for there to be reduced or no yards. In particular, the submission sought the following heights:
a. Sub-precinct A, being the more elevated part of the site fronting Fairview Ave: 27m;
b. Sub-precinct B, being the Mixed Use area along Oteha Valley Road: 23m; and
c. Sub-precinct C, being the lowest area of the site, parts of which are sought to be rezoned THAB: 34m and 60m where the THAB zone would apply.
5. The notified underlying zone is MHS and MHU. These provide for a maximum building height of 8m and 11m respectively, and yard controls ranging from 1.3m to 2.5m. Thus, the proposed Albany 5 precinct doubles, at the least, the maximum building height limits from those proposed in the underlying zones.
6. In the joint evidence report, it was considered that the zone controls for building height and yards are set at levels that are appropriate for the zone, and a proposal to exceed the height limits can be pursued through a resource consent application which would involve assessment of any dominance, privacy and shading effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
7. Further, the rezoning evidence report of Terry Conner for Topic 081 in relation to the Albany area considers that the proposed rezoning from MHS and MHU to THAB sought by the submitter is not supported on the basis that it would be inappropriate to provide for more intensive development without a proper assessment of the effects.
8. The precinct therefore failed the merits assessment on the basis that:27
a. It does not align with the RPS;
b. The provisions would conflict with the intent of the underlying MHS and MHU zones; and
27 Joint planning report of T Conner, J Jeffries, and E Patience dated 26 January 2016 at page 17.
31560772:631364 Page 96
c. It is inconsistent with the Panel’s best practice interim guidance as the intended development could be achieved through a resource consent application.
31560772:631364 Page 97
ALBANY 6 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Albany 6 precinct is located at 14 Mills Lane at a site approximately 7.62 ha in area. The submission of the Prema Charitable Trust sought the precinct in order to:
a. Provide for “Tertiary education facilities” as a permitted activity;
b. Provide for a range of activities accessory to tertiary education, including dwellings, student accommodation, community facilities, retail, and pastoral farming as permitted activities; and
c. Provide for new buildings for a permitted activity, greater than 50m2 where located on an indicative building platform as a restricted discretionary activity.
2. The underlying zoning is Large Lot and the site is subject to SEA, Flooding constraints, and Stormwater Management Area – Flow 1 overlays.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding this precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 26 January 2016. The Council officers do not support the proposed precinct.
4. In particular, the Council officers refer to Mr Roberts’ evidence for the Council in relation to Topic 059-063 which amended the provisions for the Large Lot zone. As a result of those amendments, tertiary institutions are now provided for as a Discretionary activity in the Large Lot zone. A precinct is therefore unnecessary as the activity can be more appropriately managed through the resource consent process.28
5. Accordingly, the precinct is not supported on the basis that it does not align with the strategic direction of the PAUP and to support the precinct would be inconsistent with the Panel’s Interim Guidance on best practice.29
28 Evidence report of T Conner, J Jeffries, E Patience dated 26 January 2016, page 16. 29 Evidence report of T Conner, J Jeffries, E Patience dated 26 January 2016, page 17.
31560772:631364 Page 98
ALBANY CENTRE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Albany Centre precinct in the PAUP as notified comprises approximately 113 hectares of land. The precinct is surrounded by a bush escarpment to the north, North Harbour Stadium and Domain, Massey University and Bushlands residential neighbourhood to the west, and the Northern Motorway to the east.
2. The Council proposes the following four sub-precincts within the Albany Centre precinct: a. Sub-precinct A: Intensive residential; b. Sub-precinct B: Intensive business; c. Sub-precinct C: Car-orientated activities adjacent to the northern arterial road; and d. Sub-precinct D: intensive business park with restrictions on large-format retail.
3. The underlying zoning for the Albany Centre precinct is Metropolitan Centre zone, Public Open Space – Community zone and Business Park zone. Specific controls are proposed to apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas. Where an area is not identified as a sub-precinct, the underlying zone provisions apply.
4. The purpose of the Albany Centre precinct is to provide bespoke activity and development provisions that support the central core retail and open space areas. This includes matters relating to the physical elements of the new centre including road layout and road cross-sections diagrams, provision for supporting areas of Business Park and for large format retail and entertainment activities. The sub- precincts support the central open space and retail core area by allowing intensive residential development in and close to the centre, and different types and intensities of business activity further out from the core.
5. The Albany Centre precinct is subject to a number of overlays and controls including the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, High Land Transport Route Noise, Building Frontage Controls (Key Retail Frontage and General Commercial Frontage), and a designation for the Whenuapai Airfield Approach and Departure Path Protection. The Albany Centre precinct provisions do not override those overlays or the Auckland-wide provisions.
6. The key relief sought by the submissions includes: a. amendments to the description, objectives, policies and retail activity status; b. greater flexibility for compliance with the precinct plan, retail tenancy size and location, residential activity status and urban design policy and criteria; and c. transport land use integration and updated road cross-sections.
31560772:631364 Page 99
The Council's primary evidence
7. The Council's primary evidence is set out in the evidence report of Trevor Mackie dated 27 January 2016. Further to the analysis of submissions, Mr Mackie proposes only minor corrections and clarifications to the precinct provisions, the addition of matters for discretion and assessment criteria (including building adaptability and development staging) for restricted discretionary activities, and the deletion of cross-section diagrams for roads that have already been constructed. Mr Mackie also proposes to amend Policy 11 to include the ability to stage development and provide adaptable buildings for changing activities.
Matters raised in submitters' evidence
8. Evidence has been lodged on behalf of Scentre (New Zealand) Limited and Progressive Enterprises Limited in respect of the Albany Centre Precinct. Mr McGarr for Scentre (New Zealand) Limited seeks changes to proposed Objective 3 to in respect of reverse sensitivity effects to include reference to "Albany Integrated shopping centre". Mr McGarr also seeks the deletion of Civic Crescent from proposed Policy 6(a) as existing development has not been constructed to the road boundary and is therefore inconsistent with the policy, and that proposed Policy 11 provide strategic direction for the precinct as a whole, rather than a list of criteria to ensure quality urban design outcomes.
9. Mr Foster for Progressive Enterprises Limited disagrees that local roads shown in the precinct plan should be vested as public roads, but rather remain under the control of the landowner.
The Council's response
10. Mr Mackie and Ms Tracey Ogden-Cork (urban design) have prepared rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council responding to matters raised in submitters' evidence.
11. Ms Ogden-Cork agrees with Mr McGarr that the precinct description be clarified and proposes an amendments to the precinct description to refer to the main street area. Ms Ogden-Cork also proposes that retail units (up to 100m2) per tenancy should only be a permitted activity where it adjoins and fronts a public street, and otherwise should be a discretionary activity.
12. Mr Mackie agrees with the changes Ms Ogden-Cork proposes and these are set out in the track change version of the provisions attached to Mr Mackie's rebuttal evidence. For the reasons set out in Mr Mackie's evidence report and rebuttal evidence, Mr Mackie does not propose any amendments to Objective 3 or Policies 6(a) and 11 as sought by the submitters in evidence. Mr Mackie also considers that the local roads should be vested. The Council considers that its approach to the Albany Centre precinct provisions is appropriate, and that the provisions give effect to the RPS.
Remaining issues
13. The amendments proposed on behalf of the Council address a number of the matters raised in parties' evidence. The parties appear to largely support the Council's precinct provisions for the Albany Centre and the remaining issues relate to certain further amendments to the draft provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 100
BAYSWATER MARINA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Bayswater Marina Precinct consists of 4.5 hectares of land above mean high water springs, together with an adjoining part of the coastal marine area which is occupied by the marina berths and facilities. The precinct was included in the notified PAUP.
2. The landward component, which includes a substantial reclamation, is largely owned by Bayswater Marina Ltd (BML), with a small part owned by the Takapuna Boating Club and the balance by Auckland Council. BML also holds the necessary coastal permits for its marina development in the coastal marine area.
3. Under the operative North Shore District Plan, most of the landward component was zoned Special Purpose 7 (Bayswater Marina Land). This zoning resulted from Variation 65 to the North Shore District Plan, which was subject to a number of appeals and was eventually finalised in 2009 following an Environment Court decision (Bayswater Marina Holdings Ltd v North Shore City Council NZEnvC Auckland AO18/09, 5 March 2009) and a subsequent appeal to the High Court (Bayswater Marina Holdings Ltd v North Shore City Council (2009) 15 ELRNZ 258 (HC). The relevance and application of those Court decisions are discussed in more detail below.
4. Council’s proposal in the PAUP is for the underlying zoning of the landward component of the Bayswater Marina Precinct to be Marina Zone and Public Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone, and for that part of the precinct that is in the coastal marine area to be Marina Zone. This approach is consistent with the treatment of a number of other marinas in the PAUP.
5. As stated in the Precinct Description, the primary purpose of the precinct is to provide for marina, ferry terminal and marine–related activities, including associated parking and facilities and for public access, community uses and marine sports uses, open space and recreation.
6. However, provision is also made for residential and food and beverage activities as long as those activities are the subject of a resource consent process to assess their effects on the use and functioning of the precinct.
7. The Council's evidence is: a. Primary and rebuttal evidence from Peter Reaburn on planning matters b. Primary and rebuttal evidence from Melean Absolum on landscape and visual c. Primary and rebuttal evidence from Lisa Mein on urban design d. Primary evidence from Greg Akehurst on marine related activities
8. The proposed precinct provisions are attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Reaburn. Mr Reaburn proposes that the Precinct be divided between (now) 6 sub- precincts to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and environmental issues within each of them.
9. The statutory and planning considerations for the precinct include the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Coastal Chapters of the RPS and the Coastal Plan, in addition to the growth management and urban design considerations of the Regional Policy Statement and the normal statutory tests. These matters are
31560772:631364 Page 101
comprehensively set out in the evidence of Mr Reaburn and the other planning witnesses.
Key outstanding issues
10. Both the concept of the precinct and the proposed provisions (with some suggested amendments) are supported by BML, but opposed by a number of other submitters.
11. The main issue of concern to various resident and community groups is the provision to be made for residential activities in the precinct. Under the operative District Plan, residential activity was non-complying. Council (supported by BML) proposes that under the PAUP residential activities should be discretionary, provided the primary purpose of the precinct is not compromised and the location and design of any residential (and food and beverage) is approved through a Framework Plan. Such a Framework Plan application would be publicly notified, allowing the public to become involved in the more detailed design.
12. The objectives which are now proposed by Council for the Precinct (and supported by BML) are that the Precinct should be “a community and marina-orientated place developed in a comprehensive and integrated way with a focus on recreation, public open space and access to and along the CMA, public transport, boating, maritime activities and maritime facilities”, and that residential activities, cafés and licenced premises should be enabled provided that the focus in that objective is achieved.
13. The provisions include, as land use controls, the requirement that certain areas must be identified and set aside to provide for the primary uses. Once these uses are provided for, the opinion of the Council's witnesses is that the provision of residential activity can improve the amenity and vitality of the site. The evidence of Ms Absolum is that buildings and development within the key design parameters (including maximum height and building coverage) will not have significant adverse effects on landscape, visual or natural character values.
14. A key contention of the resident and community groups is that residential activity is inconsistent with the Marina Zone and with marina activities generally. The rebuttal evidence of Mr Reaburn responds to this proposition and outlines how numerous other marina developments around the Auckland Region, including Pine Harbour and Gulf Harbour, involve a combination of marine and residential activity. The two activities are not inconsistent or incompatible and in fact can be complementary and mutually beneficial.
15. In Council’s submission, the provisions Mr Reaburn proposes strike the right balance between the need to maintain and enhance public access, open space, amenity and recreational opportunities, while recognising that residential and associated activities may also be appropriate within the precinct, subject to appropriate land use controls and a framework plan that will provide certainty as to a co-ordinated and comprehensive development of the site.
Relevance of previous Environment Court decision
16. A number of submitters refer to the Environment Court’s rejection of the residential development provisions proposed by BML for inclusion in Variation 65. However, in Council's submission the decision is not determinative of the activity status of residential activities and can be distinguished based on the reasoning of the Court and the altered circumstances:
31560772:631364 Page 102
a. The Environment Court decision did conclude "that residential activities are generally not appropriate on the site" and also commented it had some reservations about the commercial activities provided for in the North Shore City Council's version of the plan change.30
b. However, the balance of the decision is constructed as a consideration between the intensive development proposed by BML (with 250 apartments and buildings up to 18m above mean sea level as a permitted activity) and the Council's decisions version of the plan change with no residential development and much smaller buildings. On a number of occasions throughout the decision, the Court states that it was assessing the two options against each other and determining which was the better planning outcome. In a straight choice between the intensive development of BMHL and the Council version, the Court preferred the Council version. c. The Court was not presented with a compromise proposal and so did not seriously consider a lesser level of residential development on the site. It also explicitly left open the opportunity that a future plan change could occur if the circumstances were sufficient to justify that approach. 31 d. The circumstances have now changed through the ongoing retention of the ferry service and the renewed focus on intensification within the urban areas outlined in the RPS; e. The site remains under developed and the objectives of the legacy plan have not been achieved; f. The proposed provisions provide for a much reduced amount of residential activity than was proposed before the Environment Court, very sensitivity designed and located will address the concerns outlined by the Court; g. The process in the PAUP to prepare and approve a framework plan before residential development becomes a discretionary activity would allow for that careful siting and design process and enable appropriate development across Sub-precinct B.
17. Although the Panel’s best practice guidelines for Precincts states that recent plan change decisions should be considered, in Council's submission the circumstances are sufficiently different to justify a departure from the Environment Court's conclusions.
Outstanding issues between BML and Council
18. The main point of difference between Council and BML relates to whether, as a land use requirement, minimum areas should be set aside for marine retail and storage of boats.
19. As Mr Akehurst says, Bayswater Marina is the only large boat marina on the North Shore and the Precinct includes a public boat ramp serving North Shore residents. It is important that, as a result of introducing residential activities and food and beverage premises, residents do not lose the opportunity for access to marine related services in conjunction with both the boat ramp and the marina.
20. Mr Akehurst’s view, based on his objective assessment of the marine industry, is that the planning provisions should ensure that 100 sqm is kept available for marine related retail, together with hard stand accommodation for 120 boats of 9m or less. However, provided there is an ability to carry out minor repairs on boats at the
30 Paras [207] and [208]. 31 Para [218]
31560772:631364 Page 103
storage facility, Mr Akehurst does not believe there is a need to provide for permanent marine servicing there.
21. The amended version of the provisions attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Reaburn shows that the requirement for a marine retail area has been expanded to include marine industry, with the support of Mr Akehurst. This provides greater flexibility in the use of the reserved area, while ensuring that marine related commercial activities are provided for. This approach was one of the options suggested in the evidence of Mr Shearer32.
22. In the context of the extensive level of residential development sought by BML, setting aside these areas for marine-related activities is not unreasonable, and will help ensure the focus remains on the primary objective of the Precinct. In Council’s submission, provision should be made as recommended by Mr Akehurst.
Conclusion
23. Council accordingly submits that the Panel should recommend that the Bayswater Marina Precinct should be included in the PAUP with the provisions proposed by Mr Reaburn and which are attached to his rebuttal evidence.
32 Primary evidence of Craig Shearer, paragraphs 6.36, 6.37.
31560772:631364 Page 104
BROWNS BAY PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Browns Bay precinct is located at Browns Bay between Beach Front Lane and Clyde Road, the underlying zoning of which is Town Centre. The purpose of the precinct is to limit the scale of buildings fronting Beach Front Lane to avoid shading, dominance and visual effects on the Browns Bay coastline and beach reserve. The precinct therefore comprises an additional Height in Relation to Boundary control (HIRB).
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries, and Ewen Patience dated 17 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Joseph Jeffries dated 24 February 2016. The evidence does not support the retention of the precinct. Accordingly, the submission points of The Strand Trust which sought to have the Beachfront Reserve defined on the precinct maps and Auckland Council which sought two amendments to the introductory text, are rendered nugatory.
3. The Council planners consider that there is “no demonstrable need to retain” the Browns Bay precinct and it is therefore proposed for deletion33 on the basis that:34
a. The precinct only covers a single development control;
b. The precinct is purportedly to avoid shading, dominance and visual effects on the Browns Bay coastline and beach reserve, however, shading and dominance are already controlled by the AHZC overlay and the underlying Town Centre zone HIRB; and
c. Beach Front Lane itself provides a buffer between the buildings in the precinct and the beach reserve.
4. The underlying Town Centre HIRB is less restrictive than the precinct HIRB where the precinct adjoins the road, but more restrictive where it directly adjoins the beach reserve. The evidence of Jonathan Ryan for The Strand Trust, however, notes that where the Browns Bay Town Centre zone adjoins the Public Open Space zone at 55 Clyde Road, the Town Centre HIRB (8.5m plus 45 degree angle) is more restrictive than the precinct HIRB (9.0m plus 45 degree angle). The Town Centre HIRB control for this site is also more restrictive than the Operative Plan control of 10m plus 45 degree angle. Mr Ryan’s evidence seeks that the HIRB control applied to the southern boundary of 55 Clyde Street be no more restrictive that the operative plan HIRB control35.
5. Mr Jeffries considers this in his rebuttal evidence report, ultimately stating that in his view, “the difference of only 0.5m between the two controls is minor” and that an application for a restricted discretionary consent can be made for any breaches of the Town Centre HIRB. Mr Jeffries therefore does not resile from his original position and continues to support the deletion of the Browns Bay precinct.
6. We note, for completion that although the proposed deletion is an out of scope change, but it is submitted that the deletion accords with the Panel’s best practice
33 Joint evidence report of T Conner, J Jeffries, E Patience dated 26 January 2016, para 10.2(d). 34 Ibid at para 8.3. 35 Rebuttal statement of J Jeffries dated 24 February 2014 at paras 3.2 and 3.3.
31560772:631364 Page 105
interim guidance, in particular direction 2.4, where in this case, the purpose of the precinct can be achieved through the use of the underlying zone (e.g. Town Centre HIRB) and the Auckland-wide provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 106
CHELSEA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Chelsea precinct carries forward operative provisions contained in the Auckland Council District Plan, North Shore section (Operative Plan), which were put in place following the resolution of appeals to decisions on the North Shore City Council’s 1994 district plan, and also private plan change 16.36 The precinct covers both the public ‘Chelsea Estate Heritage Park’ land and water areas, and private land occupied by the New Zealand Sugar Company (NZSC).
2. The purpose of the Chelsea precinct is to provide for existing operations of the Chelsea Sugar Refinery as well as a ‘future use’ scenario in the event that refinery operations cease at the site, while safeguarding significant historic heritage values now and for the future.
3. The Chelsea precinct has three sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A: Public Open Space (Conservation); b. Sub-precinct B: Public Open Space (Conservation); and c. Sub-precinct C: Light Industry and Public Open Space (Conservation). Sub- precinct C contains both ‘current use’ and ‘future use’ provisions, with the key historic heritage controls remaining in place across those two scenarios.
4. The Chelsea precinct is subject to a number of overlays,37 including High Natural Character Area (sub-precincts B and C), Historic Heritage Place, Significant Ecological Area and Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation (sub-precinct B).
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewen Henry Laurence Patience and Emily Ip dated 28 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report of Mr Patience dated 26 February 2016. Mr Patience and Ms Ip support retention of the precinct on the basis that the unique circumstances of the site, its history and its possible future uses warrant a discrete departure from the Auckland-wide rules and in specific ways from the historic heritage overlay.38
6. A number of proposed amendments to the precinct provisions are proposed, the most significant of which is the removal of framework provisions. The proposed amended provisions are set out in Attachment B to the evidence report of Mr Patience and Ms Ip.39
Submitter Evidence
7. The following submitter evidence was received in relation to the Chelsea precinct:
a. Catherine Mary Clarke (Planning) for NZSC; b. John Ellis (CFO of NZSC) for NZSC; c. Rodney Edward Clough (Heritage) for NZSC; and d. Rachel Virginia De Lambert (Planning) for NZSC.
36 Evidence report of Ewen Patience and Emily Ip dated 28 January 2016. 37 As shown in Figure 2 at paragraph 7.5 of the evidence report of Ewen Patience and Emily Ip dated 28 January 2016. 38 Evidence report of Ewen Patience at paragraph 1.5. 39 The proposed amendments are also discussed at paragraphs 14.1 to 14.2 of Mr Patience and Ms Ip’s evidence report dated 28 January 2016.
31560772:631364 Page 107
8. NZSC is supportive of the majority of amendments proposed by Mr Patience and Ms Ip, and agree with their lack of support to submitters Anthony Paul Holman (submitter 5358) and Michael Barrie Elliot’s (submitter 2242) to rezone the land known as the ‘Horse Paddock’ from Light Industry to Public Open Space (Conservation).40
9. In her evidence on behalf of NZSC, Ms Clarke proposes a number of further amendments to the precinct provisions, including amendments to Activity Table – Chelsea sub-precinct C for land use, subdivision and development following cessation of sugar refining activities, re-insertion of the notification provisions and grammatical changes to Policy 30 of the precinct provisions. Ms Clarke has also proposed minor wording changes.
Remaining Issues
10. In his rebuttal report dated 26 February 2016, Mr Patience has explained that he does not agree with Ms Clarke’s proposed amendments to the Activity Table for sub-precinct C, the reinsertion of the notification provisions or the grammatical changes to Policy 30. He has therefore not proposed further amendments to the precinct provisions at this stage. However, Mr Patience intends to meet with NZSC prior to the hearing to discuss matters further, to explore whether agreement can be reached on those remaining areas of difference.
40 As discussed at paragraph 9.4 of the evidence report of Mr Patience and Ms Ip, paragraph 5.1 of the evidence of Ms De Lambert and paragraph 1.5 of the evidence of Ms Clarke.
31560772:631364 Page 108
DEVONPORT NAVAL BASE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Devonport Naval Base precinct covers most of the land held by the Crown for the HMNZ Naval Base (south yard) in Devonport. It incorporates the HMNZS Philomel area and part of the Calliope Road frontage containing the hospital and wardroom. The precinct immediately adjoins HMNZ Dockyard precinct to the west. The residential area surrounding the precinct is zoned Single House subject to an Historic Character overlay. The area is characterised by predominantly one to two storey villas and bungalows, many dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Although the character of the naval base is very different from the surrounding residential character, the site has had an association with naval and military activity since 1841.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ross Moffatt dated 9 February 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Ross Moffatt dated 2 March 2016. The evidence supports the retention of the precinct subject to those amendments outlined in the evidence report and shown in the attached tracked changes.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for non-defence use of the base's facilities and indicates the desired environmental standards for these activities. This land is subject to a designation for defence purposes and the underlying PAUP zone is MU zone. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays as outlined in Mr Moffatt’s evidence report at paragraph 7.6. A comparison of the precinct provisions and PAUP provisions is contained in Table 1 of Mr Moffatt’s evidence.
4. The precinct is split into two sub-precincts. Sub-precinct A (approximately 2.6 ha) applies to the northern area adjoining Calliope Road, which is used for predominantly health and administration land uses and sub-precinct B (approximately 4.9 ha) applies to the lower coastal area of the south yard, known as HMNZS Philomel.
5. In essence, Mr Moffatt considers the precinct is the most appropriate way to manage the uses and activities at the Devonport Naval Base that are not defence related and covered by the designation for defence purposes. Mr Moffatt also considers the underlying Mixed Use zone to be the most appropriate zone as it recognises the very mixed nature of activities that have traditionally occurred, and will continue or increasingly occur, at the base in the future. These include accommodation, medical facilities, administrative offices and recreational facilities.
31560772:631364 Page 109
DEVONPORT PENINSULA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Devonport Peninsula precinct covers 27.9 ha and comprises six sub-precincts. The land is entirely in the ownership of Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Ltd.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to encourage and provide for the comprehensive residential development of the sub-precincts in a quality and integrated manner through the provision of framework plans, while enabling greater building height within appropriate parts of the sites up to 16m. The sub-precincts recognise the opportunities and special characteristics of each site and surrounds.
3. The Council’s evidence in relation to the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ross Moffatt dated 29 January 2016 and the rebuttal report of Ross Moffatt dated 2 March 20116 which support the precinct. Stephen Brown has also produced landscape evidence on behalf of the Council (dated 29 January 2016) in relation to the precinct. Ngati Whatua supports the precinct and its provisions generally.
4. The precinct is also subject to a number of overlays which are listed at paragraph 7.9 of Mr Moffat’s evidence report. Mr Moffatt considers that the MHS zone is the most appropriate zone for the precinct generally, as it recognises the potential for comprehensive redevelopment of these large sites by enabling development with no density controls. Mr Moffatt also considers it the most appropriate zone should a framework plan approach not be pursued in the development of the sites, therefore not enabling additional height to be achieved.
5. Mr Moffatt’s evidence (paragraphs 1.11-1.14) outlines the amendments he proposes to the notified precinct provisions, including, the use of framework plans, increase in three height areas, amendments to the precinct plans to reflect the extent of the height areas in the precinct, and amendments to the provisions to give effect to the submission points of Ngati Whatua (paragraph 1.13).
6. Mr Moffatt’s rebuttal report primarily considers the evidence of submitters in relation to dwelling yield analysis. Mr Moffatt reiterates his view that the precinct can enable dwelling numbers far greater than that which is enabled under the MHS zone.
7. Mr Brown’s evidence considers the scale and design of development that would be appropriate for each sub-precinct in relation to the various landscape contexts for each area.
31560772:631364 Page 110
GREENHITHE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Greenhithe precinct has been applied to a portion of the former North Shore City Greenhithe Structure Plan area (those areas zoned Area A: Mixed Environmental and Area B: Large Lot Residential) and the Rural 2, 3 and 3A zones, all of which lies to the north-east and south-east of Greenhithe Village.
2. Three submissions request the extension of the precinct over Greenhithe Village itself (currently this area has an operative zoning of Residential 1), and one requests its removal from an area of open space zoned land.
3. The purpose of the precinct as stated in the precinct description is to manage subdivision and thus subsequent development in a sensitive catchment and to ensure that new development responds to the natural environmental constraints, which include steep topography, natural hazards, significant vegetation, visible escarpments and close proximity to the coast.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Terry Conner dated 29 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 1 March 2016, together with rebuttal evidence from Melean Absolum (landscape) and Robert Hillier (geotech). Ms Conner supports the precinct, subject to amendments, but proposes Single House zoning, with an additional subdivision control be applied to Greenhithe Village.
5. The underlying zone of the Greenhithe precinct is the Large Lot residential zone, which has a minimum lot size for subdivision of 4000m2. The precinct applies a 2 ha minimum lot size for subdivision to sub-precinct A and a range of minimum lot sizes from 500m2 to 1 ha to sub-precinct B (depending on slope, SEA coverage and wastewater). This largely reflects the legacy District Plan, however there are three key differences identified by Ms Conner:
a. The Area A: Mixed Environmental and Area B: Large Lot Residential zones in the North Shore City legacy District Plan have been combined into one sub- precinct (sub-precinct B); b. An area bounded by the Upper Harbour Motorway, Albany Highway, Upper Harbour Drive and Blacks Road has been wrongly notated as sub-precinct A, when in fact it should be in sub-precinct B; c. An area north of Schnapper Rock Road has been wrongly notated as sub- precinct A, when in fact it should be in sub-precinct B.
6. Ms Conner proposes a number of changes to the Greenhithe precinct in both her statements of evidence, including some minor/clarifying amendments to the text thatwe do not restate here. The main changes proposed are:
a. To amend the Greenhithe sub-precinct boundaries to: i. Include the areas north of Schnapper Rock Road in sub-precinct B; ii. Retain sub-precinct A over the two escarpments – between Kyle Road and Schnapper Rock Road and south of Upper Harbour Drive; iii. Include the area bounded by the Upper Harbour Motorway, Albany Highway, Upper Harbour Drive and Blacks Road in sub-precinct B; and iv. Remove the precinct from public open space zoned land south of Upper Harbour Drive.
31560772:631364 Page 111
b. To apply an additional subdivision control to the “Greenhithe Village” with a minimum lot size of 1000m2 and an underlying rezoning to Single House. c. To amend the sub-precinct B subdivision controls to reflect a modified threshold for on-site servicing. d. To introduce development controls based on the Greenhithe Structure Plan including precinct yard controls and a height in relation to boundary control.
7. The evidence received from submitter witnesses reveals a number of outstanding areas of difference. We refer you to the discussion in Ms Conner's evidence, but highlight several key issues below (this is not exhaustive):
a. Sub-precinct boundaries – One issue raised by Kotewell essentially relates to the matter of the sub-precinct boundary and where it should be drawn (i.e. whether a revised sub-precinct B should be applied to a portion of the sub- precinct A area). A similar zoning issue raised by 3rd Fairways and Y Zhang relates to whether the precinct should be decoupled from the Large Lot zone, to enable Single House scaled sites. Ms Conner considers the boundaries proposed are appropriate and accord with IHP guidance. She addresses the appropriate zoning in some detail, concluding (rebuttal, para 8.9) that as "landscape values are important in the Greenhithe Precinct area, the Large Lot zone is more suitable as an underlying zoning".
b. Wastewater – Some submitters propose amendments to wastewater infrastructure provisions (e.g. the Edgintons seeks to alter the range of site sizes in sub-precinct B where a connection to a reticulated wastewater system will be required from 500m2 - 2500m2 to 500m2 - 1500m2). In Ms Conner's opinion, relying on the evidence of Alexander (Sandy) Ormiston for the threshold site size, the wastewater preconditions in the precinct control (sub-precinct B) requirements should be retained, as should the site size limitation. She notes that sites which are capable of on-site servicing also need to be large enough to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects of the structures, fields and pipelines on the landscape values and other significant environmental values of the site.
c. Sub-precinct A site size – A further issue raised is whether the planning controls and rules are sufficient to protect the values of the precinct without resorting to a minimum 2 ha site size (e.g. as raised by Kotewell). Ms Conner's view is that the integrated controls of a precinct are the best way to ensure values such as locally important natural landscape character and habitats are protected against incremental loss, and that the resource consent process is the most appropriate way to manage exceptions to the subdivision size in sub-precinct A with the highest values of landscape to protect.
31560772:631364 Page 112
HMNZ DOCKYARD PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The HMNZ Dockyard precinct applies to the Navy dockyard land on the western half of the reclamation along the base of the cliff at Calliope Road, Devonport. The dockyard is occupied by wharf buildings, a drydock, a syncrolift, and industrial buildings. The primary use of the dockyard is for the maintenance of vessels. The residential area surrounding the precinct is zoned Single House and is subject to the Historic Character overlay. The area is characterised by predominantly one to two storey villas and bungalows, many dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The site subject to the precinct has had an association with naval and military activity since 1841.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ross Moffatt dated 9 February 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Ross Moffatt dated 3 March 2016. The evidence supports the retention of the precinct subject to those amendments outlined in the evidence report and shown in the attached tracked changes.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to enable the use of the dockyard for non-defence purposes to provide for the efficient use of existing resources and continued employment of a significant workforce. The underlying zoning is Light Industry. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays as outlined in Mr Moffatt’s evidence report at paragraph 7.4. A comparison of the precinct provisions and PAUP provisions is contained in Table 1 of Mr Moffatt’s evidence.
4. In essence, Mr Moffatt considers the precinct is the most appropriate way to manage the uses and activities at the HMNZ Dockyard that are not defence related and covered by the designation for defence purposes. Mr Moffatt also considers the underlying Light Industry zone to be the most appropriate zone for the precinct generally as it recognises the predominantly marine engineering, operational and logistical nature of activities that have traditionally occurred, and will continue or increasingly occur, at the dockyard facilities in the future.
31560772:631364 Page 113
LONG BAY PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Long Bay precinct is located in the Vaughans Stream catchment at Long Bay and comprises approximately 360 hectares of land. The precinct is bordered by Glenvar Road to the south, Vaughans Road to the north, and the Long Bay Regional Park to the East.
2. The northern boundary of the Long Bay precinct is the existing Metropolitan Urban Limit in the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the proposed Rural Urban Boundary in the notified PAUP.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to develop a new community on greenfield land in accordance with a land use strategy that uses an integrated, sustainable low impact approach that protects and enhances the high ecological and amenity value of its receiving environment. The precinct enables the establishment of between 2,500 to 3,000 dwellings.
4. The Long Bay precinct provisions are derived from Plan Change 66 (Long Bay Structure Plan) to the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) (operative plan). The provisions that pertain to this area in the operative plan result from an extensive Environment Court hearing and mediation process.
5. Development is currently being undertaken in the precinct and Long Bay Communities (part of Todd Property Group Ltd) is a major landowner in the precinct. In very broad terms the Precinct provides for the urbanization of the lower catchment, with the upper part identified for rural-residential development. The precinct includes extensive controls on earthworks, landscapes, heritage resources and streams.
6. The Council's evidence regarding the Long Bay precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Mead dated 27 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence of David Mead dated 26 February 2016. Mr Mead was involved in the drafting of theoperative plan provisions that apply to this area and in the Environment Court process by which they were settled. He is therefore well placed to provide planning advice in relation to the precinct provisions.
7. The precinct provisions supported by Mr Mead in his evidence largely reflect the operative plan provisions.
8. The changes proposed by Mr Mead:
i. Simplify the precinct provisions where the underlying zone and Auckland- wide rules have a similar effect to the provisions in the operative plan; ii. Amend the notified precinct provisions where subdivision and development has already commenced and the notified precinct provisions may be no longer relevant; iii. Include provisions that better reflect the operative plan provisions and provide more appropriate resource management outcomes than provided for by the notified precinct provisions; and iv. Reorder the precinct's structure to betterreflect the structure of the PAUP and simplify the management layers used in the operative plan provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 114
9. Mr Mead's proposed provisions which represent the Council's position on the precinct result in the following 12 sub-precincts and corresponding underlying zones:
Long Bay sub-precinct Description Underlying PAUP zone A Large lot residential Large Lot B Rural residential Large Lot C Piripiri Point protection Large Lot area D Suburban neighborhood- Single House east of Ashley Avenue (Stream Protection Area A) E Suburban neighbourhood Single House – north of Vaughans (Stream Protection A and B Area) F Suburban neighbourhood Single House – south of Vaughans Stream G Mixed neighbourhood – Mixed Housing Suburban north of Vaughans Stream H Urban neighbourhood Mixed housing Urban I Urban village Terrace Housing and Apartment Building J Village centre Local Centre K Village centre – Vaughans Local Centre Stream interface L Two House Site Public Open Space Conservation
10. The main differences between the Long Bay precinct provisions and the standard PAUP provisions are set out at Table 1 at paragraph 1.6 of Mr Mead's evidence report. These relate to stormwater management, landscapes/landforms, earthworks, buffers/setbacks and residential zones densities and impervious areas. Among the variances from the PAUP Auckland-wide and zone rules are the requirement for specific on-site stormwater management controls, retention of landforms and enhancement of bush areas in the upper valley, urban type development in the lower valley, but with controls around interfaces with coastal areas. There arealso limits on areas exposed by earthworks at any one time and enhanced site control measures.
11. In addition, there are visibility controls, setbacks and landscape controls that apply around the edges of the Long Bay Regional Park. The precinct provisions provide for a mix of residential densities and include requirements for larger sections and reduced imperviousness in areas that drain to protected streams.
12. There are a number of PAUP overlays that apply in the Long Bay Precinct including the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlay. Notably the vegetation management controls in the Long Bay Precinct are stricter than and override the SEA vegetation
31560772:631364 Page 115
clearance rules. Precinct controls on development in an area of High Natural Coastal Character are also more strict.
Submitters' evidence
13. A significant number of submissions were received on the notified PAUP provisions. The relief sought is submissions is varied. It includes requests for the provisions to reinstate the operative plan provisions (for example Long-Okura Great Park Society) as well as requests for the precinct provisions to be more enabling of development and reflect the PAUP provisions that would apply in other areas (for example Long Bay Communities).
14. Evidence has been received from a number of these submitters including Long- Okura Great Park Society, Long Bay Communities and, Fui Me Yah and Joe Zhao and a range of changes are proposed to the Precinct provisions.
The Council's response
15. After the lodging of the Mr Mead's evidence report on 27 January 2016, Council officers and Mr Mead met with Long Bay Communities and Long Bay-Okura Great Parks Society with a view to reaching as much agreement as possible about the Long Bay Precinct provisions.
16. Mr Mead's rebuttal evidence specifically addresses the evidence of Mr Donnelly on behalf of Long Bay Communities, Ms McLaughlin on behalf of Long-Okura Great Park Society, and Ms Bell on behalf of Fui Me Yah and Joe Zhao.
17. Mr Mead's rebuttal evidence proposes a suite of further changes to those in his evidence report. He considers they are appropriate to address submitter concerns and retain the core features of the operative plan provisions, while enabling some more development and reducing overlaps with PAUP zone and Auckland-wide rules.
18. Mr Mead's further suite of changes are summarized in paragraphs 1.2 a) to n) of his rebuttal evidence. These include (but are not limited to) the introduction of some new sub-precincts, the arrangement of existing sub-precinct boundaries, some changes tothe underlying zoning of certain areas, removal of provisions relating to the preparation and modification of framework plans (given that such plans have already been consented) and amendments tosome earthworks thresholds.
Remaining issues
19. It is hoped that the amendments proposed by Mr Mead on behalf of the Council address the majority of submitters concerns. Zoning of land in the upper valley remains as an outstanding issue.
31560772:631364 Page 116
MILFORD 1 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Milford 1 precinct is a proposed precinct comprising of the land located at 7-11 & 15 Wairau Road and 8-12 Thornton Road, Milford. These sites are used by Atlas Concrete for a batching plant and to carry out related activities, including maintenance of plant and vehicles. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of Atlas Concrete (submission 5599).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for concrete batching plant activities, and accessory office activities, as permitted activities in the precinct. The precinct as proposed would also allow for additional building height.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including flooding constraints, a designation for Wairau road widening, and the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay. The underlying zone of the precinct is Mixed Use.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Terry Conner, Joseph Jeffries and Ewen Patience dated 26 January 2016.
5. The evidence report writers do not support the proposed precinct. The report writers consider that the proposed precinct: a. would enable a very broad, and inappropriate, scale of activity and future charge to occur within the site; b. does not align with the strategic direction of the PAUP, and the relevant provisions of the Regional Policy Statement (in particular 3.1 Objective 2 and Policy 3, and Regional and District Objectives and Policies Section 3.1, Policy 10 and Section 3.7 (Mixed Use zone) Objectives 1, 3 and 4); c. conflicts with the intention of the Mixed Use Zone; d. is not consistent with the Panel’s Interim Guidance on precincts, in particular clause 2.5, because the activities could be achieved by resource consent. For example, the underlying zone of the site permits offices of up to 500m2 per site, and offices greater than that size are discretionary activities.
31560772:631364 Page 117
MILFORD 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Milford 2 precinct is proposed to apply to the Milford Shopping Centre, Milford. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified. The precinct is requested in the Council’s submission (5716-3298) to implement the decisions of the Environment Court in relation to Private Plan Change 34 (Plan Change) to the operative Auckland Council District Plan North Shore Section 2002 (District Plan), which approved the Milford Intensive Residential Overlay.41 The Court’s decision was not available at the time of notification of the PAUP.
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct area is Town Centre. A number of overlays apply to the precinct area, including key frontage and general frontage controls, high land transport noise route, notable trees, additional zone height and coastal inundation. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of commercial and residential development.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide specific objectives, policies, a building height development control (applying to nine specifically identified building platforms) and a specific building height development control modification, and specific matters of discretion and assessment criteria for the precinct area. The provisions combine to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and environmental issues within the Milford area.
4. The Council’s evidence in respect of the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Mr Vijay Lala dated 26 January 2016. Mr Lala supports the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP because:
a. the precinct contains specific objectives and policies that apply specifically to Milford but that are complemented by the underlying Town Centre objectives and policies. It would be inefficient to bring all of these underlying provisions into a specific zone; b. the nine building platforms have individually tailored maximum permitted building height controls and assessment criteria, which address the immediate and local context of each platform but which also complement the development controls and assessment criteria of the underlying zone, against resulting in efficiency instead of repeating those provisions in a separate zone; c. the precinct is the most appropriate way to implement the Plan Change, avoiding the need to create a multitude of zones and providing an appropriate balance between regional consistency and local variation with provisions that build on the provisions of the underlying zone; and d. the outcomes sought cannot be achieved through resource consents currently applied for, which have non-complying status and present a difficult consenting path, with the precinct including a comprehensive and integrated set of planning provisions that clearly set out the planning directions and outcomes to be achieved.
41 Milford Centre Limited v Auckland Council et al [2014] NZEnvC 23 and Milford Centre Limited v Auckland Council et al [2014] NZEnvC 103.
31560772:631364 Page 118
Remaining matters
5. The Council received 34 submissions and 77 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct area. The issues raised in submissions are generally consistent with the matters raised during the Plan Change process. Mr Lala considers that the issues were debated in detail through the Plan Change process and are addressed in the first Environment Court decision. As such, submissions raise no new matters that warrant amendments to the proposed provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 119
SMALES 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Smales 1 precinct comprises of the Smales Farm Business Park, which is located on the corner of Taharato and Northcote Roads, adjacent to State Highway 1 and the Northern Busway, in Takapuna.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for development of a high amenity Business Park location, allowing intensive office and light commercial activity with a range of accessory activities, in a landscaped setting. The Business Park is located outside of the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre, but is part of a mixed use and business park corridor between the metropolitan centre and the Wairau Valley light industry area. The additional provisions of the precinct are designed to manage effects on the viability of nearby centres and on adjacent zones and the traffic environment.
3. The underlying zone of the precinct is Business Park. The precinct is subject to three overlays: the High Land Transport Noise route overlay, a Designation for the Whenuapai Airfield Approach and Departure Path Protection and Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Trevor Mackie dated 26 January 2016. Mr Mackie supports the precinct. The development controls in the precinct: a. allow intensive business activity; b. establish an upper limit on gross floor area and accessory activities; c. manage parking and traffic generation at various thresholds; and d. manage building height for the accommodation of the larger buildings on this site, which is surrounded by roads.
5. Mr Mackie proposes amendments to the precinct provisions to: a. increase the gross floor cap; b. express the height limit as a Reduced Level (RL) above mean sea level to allow future buildings on the site to be of a similar scale and height to the current built form on site; and c. amend the objective and policies for accessory activities to provide for the needs of employees and visitors to the site.
6. The main differences between the precinct and the Business Park zone are set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Mackie, at paragraph 1.5.
Remaining issues
7. Informal discussions between the Council and the landowner submitter’s representatives took place on 20 October 2015. The Landowner submitter is Northcote Road 1 Holdings Limited (3373). The outcome of the meeting was agreement on proposed amendments to the precinct provisions to satisfy many of the submitter’s submission points, particularly for clarification of framework plans, activity status and rules applying in the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 120
SMALES 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Smales 2 precinct applies to a 4.8 ha block of land on the southern side of Northcote Road and fronting Lake Pupuke in Takapuna. It is currently a quarry site and is also bounded by Taharoto Road, and Rangitira Avenue.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for redevelopment of the quarry site into a high amenity mixed business and residential precinct. The precinct envisages medical-related business, other office activities and residential development at a range of intensities. The provisions of the Smales 2 precinct are designed to manage effects on adjacent residential zoned land (development controls and development design assessment) and the transport network (through a cap on gross floor area).
3. The underlying zones of the precinct are Mixed Use and Mixed Housing Suburban. The precinct is subject to three overlays: Outstanding Natural Feature, Designation for Whenuapai Airfield Approach and Departure Path Protection and Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation. Amendments to the extent of these overlays on the precinct were recommended in Topic 019.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Trevor Mackie dated 26 January 2016. Mr Mackie supports the proposed precinct, which is divided into two sub-precincts: a. Sub-precinct A: 2.7 ha of land dominated by excavations associated with the quarry. This land is considered suitable for a mixture of uses including commercial, and a range of residential developments such as apartments and retirement accommodation. b. Sub-precinct B: 2.1 ha of land comprising more elevated undeveloped land that extends to the edge of Lake Pupuke. This land is considered suitable for intensive residential use developed to achieve high standards of on-site amenity, and an appropriate response to the location of the land next to the lake and elevation above Northcote Road to the north.
5. The specific controls that apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas, as summarised in the table in Mr Mackie’s evidence report, at paragraph 1.6. This table also summarises the variations from the underlying zone.
6. As a result, Mr Mackie proposes some amendments the precinct provisions, including to clarify framework plans and the activity status and rules applying in the sub-precincts.
Remaining issues
7. Informal discussions between the Council and the landowner submitter (W Smale Limited 3249) took place on 20 October 2015. My Mackie understood the submitter to have a different view of the application of the height in relation to boundary control, to the proposed larger building in Sub-precinct A. The evidence filed by Mr Vaughan Smith on behalf of the submitter does not disagree with Mr Mackie’s proposed clarification to this control. Mr Smith proposes that this control should apply at 3.0m above the ground, consistent with the Mixed Housing Urban zone proposed for the adjacent property (rather than 2.5m which would apply adjacent to a Mixed Housing Suburban zone). Mr Mackie has further considered this proposal and would support that change, contingent on the zoning of the adjacent land at 8-12 Rangitira Avenue
31560772:631364 Page 121
changing to Mixed Housing Urban (as sought by the submitter Tanagra Holdings Ltd and supported by the rezoning evidence of Council).
31560772:631364 Page 122
TAKAPUNA 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Takapuna 1 precinct comprises the central area of Takapuna, including areas from the beachfront in the east, back to Auburn Street in the west, and from the intersection of Hurstmere Road and Eamoch Avenue in the north to Byron Ave in the south. The surrounding area is characterised by intensifying residential and mixed use activities and a coastal reserve.
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to create a quality built environment that complements the coastal character and supports the revitalisation of the beachfront environment. The precinct also provides for a metropolitan centre, with a mix of scale and intensity of activities. The precinct provisions include a range of building height limits, graduated in relation to the coastal location and streetscape, with setbacks and incentives for the development of through-site lanes to improve the pedestrian permeability and access to the coast.
3. The underlying zone of the precinct is Metropolitan Centre. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the High Land Transport Noise Route overlay, the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay, the Building Frontage Controls (Key Retail Frontage and General Commercial Frontage) overlay, the Natural Hazard (Coastal Inundation) overlay, a Significant Ecological Area, Scheduled Notable Trees and a designation for the Whenuapai Airfield Approach and Departure Path.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence reports of Trevor Mackie (planning) and Aaron Sills (shading modelling) dated 26 January 2016, and Mr Mackie’s rebuttal evidence report dated 23 February 2016. Mr Mackie supports the precinct. The precinct as notified is divided into five sub-precincts. Mr Mackie proposes that be amended to four sub-precincts. Each sub-precinct has differing height limits, frontage height and setbacks, building coverage and through- site lane requirements.
5. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the Metropolitan Centre zone, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Mackie, at paragraph 1.4.
Remaining issues
6. The main outstanding differences between the Council’s position on this precinct and submitters are as follows: a. The height limit for the part of the Shore City Mall site fronting Lake Road. The sub-precinct rules have a 36.5m height limit. The submitter seeks 72.5m. b. Within Sub-precinct A, between Hurstmere Road and the Takapuna beachfront, submitters seek additional height at the street frontage of sites with a through-site lane and for corner sites. They also seek an additional through-site lane height bonus for a site fronting Channel View Road. The Council does not support those changes.
7. These differences are relevant to the precinct plan and the scale of built form proposed for the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre.
31560772:631364 Page 123
TAKAPUNA 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Takapuna 2 precinct comprises approximately 12.4 ha of land bounded by Auburn Street, Huron Street, the upper reaches of Shoal Bay, Lake Pupuke Drive and Killarney Street. Anzac Street forms the central spine to the precinct. Auburn Reserve is an enclosed open space just south of Anzac Street, a major part of which is occupied by the Takapuna Croquet Club, as well as various community facilities. Takapuna School is immediately north east of the precinct, and due east is the Takapuna metropolitan centre. The Barrys Point Road light industrial area is at the western end of the precinct, and a large supermarket (zoned Mixed Use) is at the top of this road, on the eastern side.
2. The precinct is in the PAUP as notified. The Council received 49 submission points requesting relief in relation to the precinct, the majority of the submission points are from the Takapuna Croquet Club (6188), who seeks recognition of the croquet lawns at Auburn Reserve. Four submissions seek the retention of all, or part, of the precinct; one seeks its deletion; others seek to amend the height rule, the minimum site size and the plant and equipment assessment criteria.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to: a. promote high quality residential and mixed use development at the western edge of the Takapuna metropolitan centre; b. incentivise the provision of a laneway connecting Auburn Reserve to Killarney Park; and c. provide a wider front yard along Anzac Street to assist its function as the prime west-side gateway to Takapuna Metropolitan Centre, and mitigate the effects of both increasing traffic volumes and increase height and residential intensity in the precinct.
4. The underlying zone of the precinct is Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB). The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the High Land transport Route Noise (Anzac Street) overlay, the Notable Tree overlay, the Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay, the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay and the Airport Approach Path (Whenuapai) overlay.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ewen Patience dated 26 January 2016. Mr Patience supports the precinct, which is sought to incorporate the outcome of the Plan Change 37 appeals (which were made operative by a consent order dated 9 October 2013) into the PAUP. The precinct is divided into four sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: at the western end of the precinct, enables 4 storeys. b. Sub-precinct B: enables 4 storeys with bonus height up to 6 storeys where a through-site laneway is achieved from Auburn Reserve to Killarney Park. c. Sub-precinct C: Anzac Street: enables 6 storeys with bonus height up to 8 storeys where certain prerequisites are met. d. Sub-precinct D: Auburn Street: where 8 storeys are provided for, with no site frontage (width) control, recognising the immediate proximity to the metropolitan centre.
6. The proposed precinct varies the status of some activities in the THAB zone, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Patience, at paragraph 13.2.
31560772:631364 Page 124
Remaining issues
7. Mr Patience’s evidence report responds to submissions on the precinct. The submissions seeking the retention of all, or part, of the precinct are supported. Discussions with Auckland Transport have resolved their concerns.
8. The reduction in height and introduction of a minimum site size are not supported. The amendments sought to the assessment criteria relating to plant and equipment by Norman and Disney Young (6621-66) are not supported due to a lack of detail from the submitter about this amendment.
9. A small number of the Croquet Club’s submission points are supported in part, however, Mr Patience considers the majority of the amendments sought are not required as the provisions adequately address the concerns raised, particularly regarding shading. Mr Patience does propose some amendments to the provisions in response to the Croquet Club’s concerns, including a new objective 9.
31560772:631364 Page 125
ATTACHMENT D
TOPIC 081d – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (WEST)
31560772:631364 Page 126
AVONDALE 1 & 2 PRECINCTS
EXISTING PRECINCTS
1. The Avondale 1 & 2 Precincts together cover approximately 6.7ha of land around the northern and western periphery of the Avondale Racecourse.
2. Avondale 1 Precinct (being notified Chapters F7.1 and K7.1) applies to part of 2-48 Ash Street, Avondale. The Precinct has 2 Sub-precincts: Sub-precinct A is zoned Mixed Use zoning and Sub-precinct B is proposed to be zoned Terraced Housing and Apartment Building.
3. The Avondale 2 Precinct (being notified Chapters F7.2 and K7.2) is located between Great North Road, Racecourse Parade and the Avondale Racecourse. The Precinct has 3 Sub-precincts, each with an underlying Town Centre zoning.
4. The primary purpose of both Avondale 1 & 2 Precincts is, in summary, to enable a transition from existing uses to more intensive urban forms in a manner that: a. fully integrates with the surrounding environment, including the transport system; and b. complements the nearby Avondale Town Centre.
5. The provisions of each Precinct and Sub-precinct generally achieve that overarching purpose by: a. providing for existing activities (particularly racecourse activities and markets in Avondale 1 Precinct); b. providing for the preparation of framework plans and Integrated Traffic Assessments; c. requiring the provision of infrastructure including vehicle access points and public-access roads; and d. modifying the underlying zone provisions (to be more permissive or more restrictive) for each of the Sub-precincts to reflect the areas' relative suitability for residential, commercial and office activities.
6. The Council's evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the primary evidence of Ms Megan Walker (historic heritage), Mr Nicholas Pollard (planning) and Mr Martin Peake (transport), dated 26 January 2016, and in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Pollard and Mr Peake, dated 25 February 2016.
Key outstanding issues for Avondale 1 Precinct
7. The key outstanding issues for Avondale 1 Precinct relate to issues raised in the evidence of Philip Brown on behalf of the Avondale Jockey Club (AJC), which seeks: a. more permissive provision for retail activities; b. removal of land from the Precinct; and c. deletion of the indicative road from the Precinct Plan.
8. In relation to retail activities, Mr Pollard considers that the difference between the parties is effectively whether retail up to 200m2 should be restricted discretionary as provided for by the underlying zone (and proposed by the AJC) or discretionary (per the Precinct and the Council. Mr Pollard supports a discretionary status to avoid detracting from the Avondale Town Centre and to better reflect the objectives and policies of the RPS and Mixed Use zone.
9. Mr Pollard and Mr Peake both do not support the removal of land from the Precinct, as this could lead to development of that land that does not properly integrate with the
31560772:631364 Page 127
remainder of the Precinct, the neighbouring Precinct, and the surrounding environment, and would compromise transport connections through and between these areas.
10. Neither Mr Pollard nor Mr Peake support deletion of the indicative road from the Precinct Plan. On this issue Mr Brown for the AJC suggests that the road would be more appropriately provided for by a public authority under a designation. Further to the assessments of Messrs Pollard and Peake, we note on this point the decision of the Environment Court in Foreworld Developments Ltd v Napier City Council that:42
It is bad resource management practice and contrary to the purpose of the Resource Management Act … to zone land for an activity when the infrastructure for that activity to occur without adverse effects on the environment does not exist, and there is no commitment to provide it.
11. There is not currently any commitment by the Council or Auckland Transport to fund roading to enable development of these areas. On this point we note the further comments of the Court in Foreworld Developments confirming that these kinds of spending priority decisions are not decisions that the Court had the power to investigate or rule upon.43
12. The primary evidence of Ms Walker contains an assessment of the historic heritage of Avondale 1 Precinct, and identifies the stables along Ash Street are a significant historic heritage place (under the historical, social and aesthetic criteria). Ms Walker identifies two buildings of particular significance, marked on her Attachment B. These buildings are not currently scheduled for heritage protection under the Unitary Plan. To give effect to the RPS, Ms Walker and Mr Pollard propose that the demolition or relocation of those buildings be managed as a restricted discretionary activity. Mr Brown on behalf of the AJC reserved his position on the proposed amendments, and so it is not currently clear whether or not the Council's proposed provisions are an outstanding issue.
Issues for Avondale 2 Precinct and possible further amendments
13. A number of issues were raised in submissions relating to Avondale 2 Precinct, which are assessed in the primary evidence of Mr Pollard and Mr Peake. No evidence was received from submitters in relation to the Avondale 2 Precinct, and as such the extent of the outstanding issues for this Precinct is unclear.
14. We note that the Avondale Precincts includes provisions for framework plans, and so may be subject to further amendments as described in the memorandum of Melinda Dickey and Diana Hartley on behalf of Auckland Council to the Independent Hearings Panel, dated 22 February 2016.
42 Foreworld Developments Ltd v Napier City Council EnvC Wellington W008/2005, 2 February 2005, at [[15]. 43 At [19].
31560772:631364 Page 128
BABICH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Precinct covers approximately 88.5ha of land 2.5km west of the Henderson Metropolitan Centre. The area was brought within the Metropolitan Urban Limit in 2006. As part of that process, the relevant councils and landowners completed the Babich Urban Concept Plan (BUCP), which became operative on 23 July 2007.
2. The Precinct provisions (being notified Chapters F7.3 and K7.3) carry over into the PAUP the provisions of the BUCP from the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Waitakere Section 2003.44
3. The purpose of the Precinct is to: a. provide for the existing activities of the Babich Vineyard and the Auckland Outdoor Naturist Club; b. provide for the integrated urban development of the precinct; and c. recognise and enhance the ecological and amenity values of the area.
4. The Council's evidence for this precinct is contained in the evidence report of Mr Douglas Sadlier, dated 26 January 2016 (planning).
5. Philip Brown has filed a statement on behalf of Babich Wines Limited in support of the precinct provisions as proposed in Mr Sadlier's evidence report.
6. No other evidence was received in relation to this Precinct.
7. We note that the Babich Precinct includes provision for a framework plan, and so may be subject to further amendments as described in the memorandum of Melinda Dickey and Diana Hartley on behalf of Auckland Council to the Independent Hearings Panel, dated 22 February 2016.
44 Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Waitakere Section 2003, Special Area Rule 29.
31560772:631364 Page 129
BIRDWOOD PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Birdwood Precinct covers approximately 160ha of land outside the RUB. It is bordered by urban land and the RUB to the east, the Swanson North precinct to the south and west, and rural land to the north.
2. The Precinct provisions (being notified Chapters F7.4 and K7.4) carry over into the PAUP the provisions of the Birdwood Structure Plan (BSP) from the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Waitakere Section 2003, which were settled by a consent order of the Environment Court in 2004. The BSP was determined following a highly contested, catchment-wide and site-by-site assessment of the maximum subdivision capacity of the Birdwood area. The BSP produced site-specific subdivision allocations (as restricted discretionary), while subdivision beyond those allocations was prohibited. The allocations provided are generally greater than that available under the Countryside Living zone.
3. The Council's evidence for this precinct is contained in the primary and rebuttal evidence of each of Raj Maharjan (planning), Bridget Gilbert (landscape), Shelly Wharton (stormwater), and Robert Hillier (geotechnical). The Council's experts have assessed the area's subdivision capacity constraints and sensitivities, and found that these remain significant and in essence that a conservative and careful approach to additional capacity is warranted, particularly in relation to landscape effects where additional development could well tip the balance from the existing peri-urban character to an urban character, thereby compromising landscape and visual amenity values and the perception of the area as a ‘greenbelt. Relying on those expert opinions, Mr Maharjan accepts that in some, but likely rare, instances further subdivision could be accommodated and proposes amending the activity status for additional subdivision from prohibited to non-complying.
4. Mr Maharjan also proposes a range of minor out of scope amendments for clarity, to remove duplication with other parts of the PAUP, and to delete exhausted subdivision allocations.
5. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Maharjan also proposes an amendment to provide for a 3 lot subdivision of 135 Chamberlain Road, which was agreed with the landowner in consultation prior to notification of the PAUP, but which was inadvertently omitted from the notified precinct plan.
Outstanding issues
6. Evidence received from Ron Law on behalf of several landowners seeks amendments to provide for additional site-specific subdivision entitlements (approximately 32 lots additional to the 98 already existing or provided for by the BSP), and for subdivision beyond that within a certain lot size range to be a discretionary activity, subject to controls. The submitters have provided little or no technical assessment to demonstrate the appropriateness of providing this additional capacity.
7. Despite this, Ms Gilbert, Ms Wharton and Mr Hillier have considered the potential effects of the additional capacity sought by Mr Law and each concluded, in relation to their respective areas of expertise that the Council's proposed approach to the Precinct is appropriate for the reasons outlined in paragraph 3 above.
31560772:631364 Page 130
8. Relying on the expert opinions of Ms Gilbert, Ms Wharton and Mr Hillier, Mr Maharjan does not support the requests for additional subdivision allocations. However, Mr Maharjan notes that his proposed amendment to the activity status for non-allocated subdivision (from prohibited to non-complying), would provide some relief in that landowners will have an opportunity to make a case for subdivision on a case-by- case basis, with careful regard to the constraints present in the Birdwood area.
31560772:631364 Page 131
HENDERSON 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT - WITHDRAWN
Overview
1. There are no outstanding issues as between the Council and other submitters in relation to Henderson 2 Precinct. All submitters agree that the Precinct is not necessary.
2. The Henderson 2 Precinct was proposed by the Portage and Waitakere Licencing Trusts & West Auckland Trust Services Limited (the Trusts) to apply at 159 Lincoln Road.
3. The purpose of the precinct was to recognise the existing operation of the Quality Hotel Lincoln Green (a hotel and conference facility) and provide for the expansion of these land use activities as permitted rather than non-complying activities.
4. The Council's evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Mr Douglas Sadlier dated 26 January 2016 (planning). Mr Sadlier proposed that rezoning 159 Lincoln Road from General Business to Mixed Use in lieu of a precinct could satisfy the relief sought by the Trusts.
5. A statement was received from Michael Campbell on behalf of the Trusts, dated 10 February 2016, in support of Mr Sadlier's position.
31560772:631364 Page 132
HENDERSON 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Henderson 3 Precinct is a proposed precinct over the Corban Estate at 2 Mt Lebanon Lane, Henderson. The precinct is proposed by the Corban Winery Estate Heritage Preservation and Development Trust (Corban Trust) (6902 and FS 1279) and the Waitakere Arts and Cultural Development Trust (WACDT) (2545 and FS 3046) (together, the Trusts).
2. The Corban Estate is owned by Auckland Council, and leased and managed by the WACDT. The Corban Trust is a key stakeholder in relation to the Corban Estate.
3. The proposed precinct is located within the Henderson Metropolitan Centre and comprises 6.6 hectares of land. The underlying zoning is proposed to be Metropolitan Centre. There are a number of Infrastructure, Historic Heritage and Natural Resource overlays that apply to the precinct.
4. The purpose of the Trusts' proposed precinct is to recognise and provide for the heritage values of the Corban Estate while allowing for a balance of activities that will make maximum use of the resource.
5. The Council's evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the primary and rebuttal evidence of Mr Douglas Sadlier dated 26 January 2016 and 25 February 2016 (planning) and the primary and rebuttal evidence of Ms Cara Francesco dated 26 January and 25 February 2016 (historic heritage).
6. The parties are in agreement that the Corban Estate has significant historic heritage values, which are to be protected and enhanced, and that the area within the proposed precinct can be developed in a manner that is consistent with those heritage values.
Outstanding issues
7. The evidence on behalf of the Trusts contends that the precinct is required to protect and enhance the heritage values of the Corban Estate, provide for existing activities, to limit residential activities, and to manage reverse sensitivity effects on existing activities.
8. Mr Sadlier and Ms Francesco consider that the Henderson 3 Precinct is not necessary as the underlying Metropolitan Centre zone, the Auckland-wide provisions and Historic Heritage overlay provisions provide for the sustainable management of the Corban Estate.
9. In particular, Ms Francesco considers that the Historic Heritage overlay appropriately recognises and protects the heritage values of the Estate. Mr Sadlier considers that the proposed precinct duplicates the enabling provisions of the underlying zone, and that the scale and effect of development can be appropriately managed through application of the zone and overlay provisions in the resource consenting process.
31560772:631364 Page 133
HOBSONVILLE CORRIDOR PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Hobsonville Corridor precinct was notified for inclusion in the PAUP and comprises the area located between Hobsonville Road and Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18), and extends from 84 Hobsonville Road eastward to Memorial Park Lane at the Hobsonville Domain. The precinct comprises approximately 80 hectares of land.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for a comprehensive and integrated approach to land use and transport infrastructure within the Hobsonville Corridor. It seeks to provide for high quality commercial, mixed use and industrial development to occur, at an appropriate scale for the Hobsonville community, while maintaining amenity.
3. The precinct achieves this by providing more specific rules for each of the three sub- precincts than the applicable underlying zoning, to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas. For example, the aim of sub-precinct A is to achieve a higher standard of architectural, urban design and landscape than the underlying Light Industry zone. This is in order to control the effects of non-residential development in the context of proximity to Hobsonville Primary School and residential development on the opposite side of Hobsonville Road.
4. The Hobsonville Corridor precinct provisions were sourced from the operative Plan Change 14 to the legacy Waitakere District Plan, and reflect the operative Special Area Rule 25 provisions, from the Environment Court consent order dated 11 November 2013.
5. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: Infrastructure; Built Environment; Natural Resource; and Non-statutory – floodplain.
6. The Council evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report and rebuttal evidence of Joanna Hart, dated 27 January 2016, and 1 March 2016 respectively. Ms Hart supports the inclusion of the Hobsonville Corridor precinct in the PAUP. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Light Industry zone b. Sub-precinct B: Mixed Use zone c. Sub-precinct C: Local Centre zone
Remaining Issues
7. Ms Hart has made a range of amendments to the provisions as sought by submitters to reflect the underlying zoning in the PAUP, however in her rebuttal evidence Ms Hart notes key remaining issues. These relate to the retention of sub-precincts A and C, as well as retention of urban design provisions in all precincts which were agreed to deliver appropriate active pedestrian oriented frontages. The submitters also seek to relax the activity status and assessment criteria, however the Council's proposed precinct provisions deliver on the vision for the Hobsonville Local Centre and related mixed use and light industrial development.
31560772:631364 Page 134
HOBSONVILLE POINT PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Hobsonville Point precinct was notified for inclusion in the PAUP and comprises the area covered by the former Hobsonville airbase of approximately 167 hectares.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for comprehensive and integrated redevelopment of the area, making efficient use of the land and existing and new infrastructure and increasing the supply of housing in the Hobsonville area.
3. The precinct achieves this by providing for medium to high density residential development through a set of provisions that are generally more permissive of development than the underlying zoning of Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartments. The provisions allow for more flexibility for aspects of development including yards, building coverage, outlook space and building separation.
4. The precinct as notified reflects the activities that have already been provided for through the operative Special Area Rules 21 to 24 provisions in the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) and Plan Change 13, with consent orders issued in June 2009.
5. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: Natural Resource; Additional Height Control; Historic Heritage; and Infrastructure.
6. The Council evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report and rebuttal evidence of Joanna Hart, dated 29 January 2016, and 1 March 2016 respectively. Ms Hart supports the inclusion of the Hobsonville Point precinct in the PAUP. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Hobsonville Point Village b. Sub-precinct B: Buckley c. Sub-precinct C: Sunderland d. Sub-precinct D: Hobsonville Point Marine e. Sub-precinct E: Catalina
7. Ms Hart does not support the addition of a new sub-precinct for 'the Landing' and also relies on the evidence of Steven Wrenn and Alistair Lovell on behalf of Auckland Transport regarding this proposed sub-precinct.
8. Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas.
9. In her evidence Ms Hart discusses amendments requested by the Hobsonville Land Company Limited. Ms Hart supports the majority of these amendments and they are reflected in the revised precinct provisions, including maps, discussed attached to her evidence report and rebuttal evidence.
Remaining Issues
10. The amendments that Ms Hart does not support include: changes proposed that are out of scope; amendments suggested to precinct plan 3 to replace 'public open space' with 'reserve'; and the addition of a new sub-precinct for 'the Landing', which is currently zoned Future Urban, and sits outside the notified Hobsonville Point precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 135
NEW LYNN PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The New Lynn precinct relates to a new Metropolitan Centre in West Auckland. New Lynn is located at the interface of Great North Road, Rata Road, Titirangi Road and Clarke Street. It encompasses a railway line and key public transport interchange. The underlying zoning of land in the New Lynn precinct is Metropolitan Centre, Mixed Use, THAB and Public Open Space.
2. The primary purpose of the precinct is to allow the intensification of the New Lynn Metropolitan Centre, with increased intensity of development associated with retail, offices, services, employment and residential activities. The sub-precincts provide specific provisions to manage development associated with Lynn Mall, along with the redevelopment of the 'Claypits' cleanfill site and the former Brickworks.
3. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence of Mark Tollemache dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016. Mr Tollemache supports the New Lynn precinct which is based on the provisions of Plan Change 17 (PC17) to the Auckland Council District Plan – Waitakere Section. The precinct provisions have been refined to reflect the PAUP provisions and to reflect changes to the former Brickworks site which is now available for residential and commercial development rather than protected by reverse sensitivity provisions.
4. New Lynn precinct has been divided into 4 sub-precincts as follows noting that sub- precinct D is new and is in response to submissions:
a. Sub-precinct A: Intensive residential (Claypits and southern part of Brickworks); b. Sub-precinct B: Retail development (northern part of Brickworks); c. Sub-precinct C: Retail development (Lynn Mall); and d. Sub-precinct D: Terrace Housing and Apartment development along with retail, commercial and food and beverage (Southern part of Brickworks).
5. Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the issues within these areas. Most of the matters raised by submitters have been resolved and are reflected in the revised provisions.
6. The PAUP includes other layers and overlays applying to the New Lynn precinct, including the Additional Height Control 20.5m, High Land Transport Noise, Building Frontage – Key Retail Frontage, Building Frontage – General Commercial Frontage, and Air Quality Transport Corridor.
Remaining issues
7. Issues remain over the vesting and width of certain roads and the width of lanes on Precinct Plan 1 - amendments sought in the evidence of Avanda Limited. Mr Tollemache has reduced the width of certain roads but supports the vesting and lane width position. Other remaining points of difference are relatively minor.
31560772:631364 Page 136
PENIHANA NORTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Penihana North Precinct covers approximately 22.5ha of land in Swanson, West Auckland. The Precinct's northern boundary follows the Swanson Train Station and railway line, and its southern edge follows the boundary between the RUB and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (heritage area).
2. The Precinct provisions (being notified Chapters F7.7 and K7.7) carry over into the PAUP the relevant provisions of the Penihana North Urban Concept Plan from the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Waitakere Section 2003, which was resolved by consent orders of the Environment Court in 2013.45
3. The purpose of the Precinct is to provide for the integrated development of greenfield land in a manner that transitions from an urban character in the north adjacent to the Train Station to the sensitive rural landscapes of the heritage area in the south. There are three underlying zones, each covered by a separate sub-precinct. Sub- precinct A is adjacent to the heritage area, and is zoned Large Lot residential. Sub- precinct B has an underlying Single House zoning. Sub-precinct C, in the north, has un underlying zoning of Mixed Housing Urban.
4. The Council's evidence for this precinct is contained in the primary evidence of Mr Raj Maharjan dated 26 January 2016 (planning).
Outstanding issues
5. Auckland Council made four submissions seeking an additional objective and policy, as well as amendments to the precinct plan, all relating to the transport network. Thirty-four further submissions were received, of which 17 were in support and 17 were opposed.
6. The Council's proposed amendments are assessed in the evidence of Mr Maharjan, which he supports subject to minor qualifications.
7. The Council has not received any evidence from the further submitters who were opposed to the Council's amendments, but assumes that this matter remains outstanding.
45 Described in the evidence report of Raj Maharjan on behalf of Auckland Council, dated 26 January 2016, at [8.5].
31560772:631364 Page 137
SAINT LUKES PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Saint Lukes precinct is located at 80 Saint Lukes Road, Morningside, and is bounded by Saint Lukes Road to the south, Cornwallis Street to the east and Morningside Drive to the west.
2. The underlying zoning of land in the Saint Lukes precinct is Town Centre zone.
3. The purpose of the Saint Lukes precinct is to enable the future expansion and redevelopment of the Saint Lukes Town Centre. The principal focus of the precinct is to allow flexibility for the configuration of the Town Centre's expansion and to enable a range of permitted activities, while including a set of provisions to appropriately manage potential external effects. Various interface controls and height limits manage the effects of the Saint Lukes precinct on nearby and adjoining sites.
4. The Saint Lukes precinct is subject to a number of overlays including Infrastructure: High Land Transport Route Noise, Built Environment: Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, Natural Resource: Western Springs Volcanic Aquifer.
5. The Saint Lukes precinct was the subject of a recent private plan change by Westfield (New Zealand Limited) and Environment Court proceedings. The Environment Court issued a consent order resolving these appeals in 2011.46 The outcome of those proceedings has largely informed the precinct provisions in the notified PAUP.
6. Mr Machado and Ms Wythes briefly refer to Saint Lukes in their sub-regional overview evidence on behalf of the Council.47 However, the Council is not calling any evidence in respect of the Saint Lukes precinct for Topic 081e Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas). The Council’s current position is that the Saint Lukes precinct provisions as notified are appropriate, are comprehensive and bespoke for the redevelopment of the existing shopping mall into a high amenity Town Centre with main streets and mixed-use development including residential apartments, and that the notified provisions give effect to the RPS.
7. The Council also notes that the notified Saint Lukes precinct provisions do not reflect the most recent version of the Council's precinct template. The Council would be able to provide amended precinct provisions that reflect the latest template version, if requested by the Panel.
46 The St Lukes Community Association Incorporated v Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council) and Westfield (NZ) Limited (ENV-2011-AKL-000004), Consent Order dated 22 December 2011. 47 Evidence in chief of Joao Machado and Pauline Wythes, Topic 081e Auckland Central Rezoning and Precincts dated 26 January 2016, see [9.27] and [10.7].
31560772:631364 Page 138
SWANSON NORTH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. The Swanson North Precinct provisions (being notified Chapters F7.8 and K7.8) carry over into the PAUP the relevant provisions of the Swanson Structure Plan (SSP) from the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Waitakere Section 2003, which were the subject of extensive consultation, assessment and litigation in the period 2002-2013.
2. The provisions aim to provide for the full extent of the precinct's subdivision capacity, while protecting and enhancing the ecological and rural landscape functions of the area. These functions include the provision of a rural buffer between urban areas to the south and east, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area in the southwest, and productive rural areas in the north.
3. The Council's evidence for this precinct is contained in the primary evidence of Mr James Harris dated 26 January 2016 (planning), the primary evidence of Bridget Gilbert dated 26 January 2016 (landscape), the primary evidence of Robert Hillier dated 26 January 2016 (geotechnical) and the rebuttal evidence of Mr Raj Maharjan, dated 29 February 2016 (planning). As Mr Harris is no longer with the Council, Mr Maharjan has adopted his evidence and will appear for the Council at the hearings on this Precinct.
4. Two submissions (7019-2 and 2702-1) were received seeking that the underlying zoning be changed to a residential zone. These submissions are addressed separately in the evidence of Ms Alison Pye for this Topic.
Issues resolved
5. One submission seeks an amendment to the Precinct Plan to provide for a two lot subdivision at 16 Crows Road (2547-1). Mr Maharjan and Ms Gilbert on behalf of the Council and Mr Peter Reaburn on behalf of the submitter agree that this amendment is appropriate, subject to the addition of site-specific controls and assessment criteria, to ensure planting for ecological enhancement and to integrate with an reinforce a defensible buffer between urban and rural areas.
Outstanding issues
6. One submission disagrees seeks that the PAUP reflect an earlier version of the SSP that was rejected by the Environment Court (2266-1). The submitter does not seek any more-specific amendment. Mr Maharjan does not support this submission because he considers that the subdivision provisions determined by the Court remain appropriate.
7. No evidence was received from this submitter, and it is unclear whether this submission is being pursued.
31560772:631364 Page 139
WESTGATE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Westgate precinct was notified for inclusion in the PAUP and is located approximately 18km west of Auckland's City Centre and is predominantly comprised of the greenfield land adjacent to the north-western motorway. It includes the existing Westgate Shopping Centre.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to develop a new Metropolitan Centre, integrated with the Westgate Shopping Centre, to provide for commercial and residential development sufficient to attract and accommodate growth in the area. It includes community facilities (civic space and library) and infrastructure which is integrated with development to achieve a vital Metropolitan Centre.
3. The precinct achieves this by providing for targeted development at a greater level than is permitted by the underlying zoning. This is through the rules in each of the sub-precincts (including Framework Plans for five out of seven) which reflect the individual characteristics of each area and their environmental issues, as well as supporting the overall strategy for the development of the Metropolitan Centre as a whole.
4. The precinct as notified includes the provisions in Plan Change 15 to the Waitakere District Plan. It also reflects the strategy for growth in the area contained in Plan Change 16, which was made operative in April 2014.
5. The precinct is subject to the following overlays: National Grid Corridor; Designations; Aircraft Noise; Highland Transport Route Noise; General Commercial Frontage; Key Retail Frontage; Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation; Indicative Open Space; Indicative Streams; Additional Height; and Aquifer.
6. The Council evidence regarding the Westgate precinct is contained in the evidence report and rebuttal evidence of Eryn Shields, dated 26 January 2016, and 1 March 2016. Mr Shields supports the inclusion of the Westgate precinct in the PAUP. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Metropolitan Centre b. Sub-precinct B: General Business c. Sub-precinct C: Mixed Use d. Sub-precinct D: Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings e. Sub-precinct E: Metropolitan Centre f. Sub-precinct F: Light Industry g. Sub-precinct G: Public Open Space.
Remaining Issues
7. Mr Shields has made revisions to the precinct provisions to incorporate the PAUP underlying zoning where appropriate and consistent with the intent of the precinct and the objectives and policies.
8. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Shields identified key remaining issues. Specifically, whether the precinct should be retained, whether provisions should either be significantly refined or deleted, and whether the retail thresholds contained in the activity table should be retained. It is particularly important to the Council that the retail thresholds are retained, as these are translated into retail floorspace controls for different sub-precincts to ensure that development occurs in a way that delivers the economic vitality of the whole precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 140
These thresholds particularly acknowledge that this is an establishing Metropolitan Centre that requires planning provisions to support the different functions of each part of the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 141
WESTPARK MARINA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
Overview
1. Westpark Marina Precinct is located at Clearwater Cove Hobsonville. It includes both land in the coastal marine area and land which is above mean high water springs. The Precinct was included in the notified PAUP.
2. The stated purpose of the precinct is to provide for a range of marine-related commercial retail and residential activities, as well as marina activities. It also provides for a ferry terminal which has daily commuter services to the Auckland CBD.
3. The landward component of the existing marina was established as a special zone (Marine Special Area) under the Operative former Waitakere District Plan. The operative provisions are broad and enabled the establishment of a range of residential, accommodation, commercial and industrial activities on the land adjoining the marina berths and the coastal marine area.
4. The Precinct as notified in the PAUP has 6 sub-precincts which are essentially carried over from the operative plan. The precinct description says that :
a. “Sub-precincts A, B and C provide for a broad range of activities and impose specific height controls b. Sub-precinct D specifically provides access to the boat-ramp, trailer parking and park-and-ride facility associated with the ferry terminal c. Sub-precincts E and F provide for marina and marine-related uses.”
5. Apart from a generic submission from Valerie Cole relating to the use of the terms “where appropriate” and “where possible “in one of the policies (which has been addressed in other hearings) the only submissions received on the precinct (which are in identical terms) were from Hobsonville Marina Ltd (HML) and Bayswater Marina Ltd (BML).
Outstanding issues
6. Upon considering the precinct provisions and the submissions of HML and BML, Council officers, and the consultant planner retained to advise on this precinct, formed the view that the precinct provisions as notified were not well-drafted. They enable, as permitted activities, residential ,commercial and industrial activities in all three land-based sub-precincts (A, B and C), and they do not distinguish between the two coastal sub-precincts (E and F), even though sub-precinct E contains the existing marina berths and sub-precinct F is for future expansion (subject to resource consent).
7. In particular, there are concerns that this could lead to reverse sensitivity and other resource management conflicts within and between the sub-precincts, and that some amendments to the activity table might be needed to control potentially incompatible activities (residential, industrial, commercial and marine-related) in the Precinct as a whole.
8. Council officers also had concerns as to whether this liberal provision for residential, commercial and industrial activities in all three land-based sub-precincts without distinction was consistent with the objectives and policies of the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 142
9. The provisions are very different from, and a great deal more permissive than, the underlying Marina zone. They have also only carried through the rules that were in the Human Environments section of the former Waitakere District plan, but not those in other layers of that plan (such as the City-wide and Natural Environment rules) which ameliorated the very permissive nature of the Human Environment rules.
10. However, as the only submitters, HML and BML are in support of the activity tables, and no submitter opposed them or sought any amendments to them, any changes to overcome these perceived deficiencies would be out of scope.
11. HML and BML made it clear in discussions with Council that they opposed any such out-of-scope changes, and considered it would be unreasonable for Council to propose them at this late stage of proceedings.
12. Accordingly, Council is calling no evidence on the provisions of this Precinct. The only evidence before the Panel is that of Messrs Shearer and (jointly) Goodwin and Jeffcock on behalf of HML.
13. HML seeks changes to the developments controls as they apply to the land-based sub-precincts (A, B and C ) to:
a. Increase the height limits to those set out in Mr Shearer’s evidence b. Reduce the landscape area required c. Increase the building coverage
14. As notified, the PAUP provided for height controls in those 3 sub-precincts which varied from 8-12m, a landscape control of 10%, 35% and 15% in each of sub- precincts A, B and C respectively, and a building coverage of 35% (which matches the underlying marina zone ) in sub-precinct B..
15. As set out in Mr Shearer’s evidence, HML now seeks height controls which vary between 8 and 15 m, a landscape control of 10% for all 3 sub-precincts , and an increase in building coverage in sub-precinct B to 60%.
16. These reductions are less than HML sought in its original submission. That submission sought a blanket height limit of 18 m for all 3 sub-precincts, a reduction of the landscape control to 7.5%, together with the increase in building coverage to 60% in sub-precinct B.
17. Council continues to support the development controls as notified. As previously stated, Council already has concerns at the extent to which the provisions allow potentially incompatible land uses within the sub-precincts, and considers the further liberalisation sought by HML will only exacerbate the situation.
Conclusion
18. Council has nothing further to add in respect of this Precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 143
WHENUAPAI 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Whenuapai 3 precinct is a proposed precinct comprising the Whenuapai Airbase, and land in the proximity of the Whenuapai Airbase. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) (submission 838-71).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to protect the airbase from reverse sensitivity effects. It does this by encouraging the use of no-complaint covenants where new activities sensitive to aircraft noise (ASAN), and subdivision to create a new site for an ASAN, are proposed within the precinct.
3. The precinct is subject to the Aircraft Noise overlay.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Sukhdeep Kaur Singh dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report of Nigel Lloyd dated 25 February 2016. Ms Singh does not support the proposed precinct. Ms Singh considers that the proposed precinct is:
d. contradictory to the strategic approach taken in the PAUP to managing the location of activities sensitive to aircraft noise, which are mapped as areas within the Aircraft Noise overlay; e. not supported by a noise assessment report or any other supporting documentation; f. not necessary, as the areas within the Aircraft Noise overlay in the proposed precinct will be subject to the more restrictive rules within the overlay; and g. inconsistent with the approach to management of aircraft noise in the PAUP.
5. The proposed precinct would provide for proposed new ASANs, and subdivision to create a new site for an ASAN, that are subject to a restrictive no-complaints covenant in favour of the Minister of Defence, to be a permitted activity in the zone. Proposed new ASANs, and subdivision to create a site for an ASAN, without a restrictive no-complaints covenant, would be discretionary activities.
Remaining issues
6. NZDF have filed evidence supporting their request for a precinct in this location. The Council remains unsupportive of the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 144
ATTACHMENT E
TOPIC 081e – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (CENTRAL)
31560772:631364 Page 145
ALEXANDRA PARK PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Alexandra Park precinct relates to land on the corner of Manukau Rd and Green Lane West. It adjoins Cornwall Park to the north and the ASB Showgrounds to the east. Green Lane Hospital is located across the road on the southern side of Green Lane West.
2. The notified precinct sought to provide for harness horse racing whilst enabling a transition to an integrated mixed use development over the medium to long term.
3. As notified, the Alexandra Park precinct is comprised of two sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A: approximately 16ha and has the underlying zone of Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility. b. Sub-precinct B: is split into two areas; one is approximately 2ha and fronts Green Lane West it has an underlying zone of Mixed Use, the other area fronts Manukau Road and Campbell Crescent and is approximately half a hectare and has an underlying zone of Local Centre.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including the High Transport Route Noise, Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, Historic Heritage place and extent of place, and pre-1944 Building Demolition Control Overlay.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Rebecca Nancy Anka Sanders dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016. Ms Sanders does not support the notified precinct and proposes deletion of the notified precinct and applying a MRF precinct to the MRF zone (within the area shown as Sub-Precinct A in the notified provisions), broadly consistent with other MRF zone precincts. Ms Sanders considers the provisions of the underlying Mixed Use and Local Centre zones along the boundary of the precinct will achieve integrated development throughout the rest of Alexandra Park. Further she considers the application of the Additional Zone Height Control (AZHC) to the areas proposed to be zoned Mixed Use will further enable efficient use of land.
6. A number of changes are proposed to the precinct provisions in the evidence of Ms Sanders. This includes removing the sub-precinct B area from the precinct. Ms Sanders supports increasing the height limit of the AZHC along the land zoned Mixed Use between the Alexandra Park precinct and Green Lane West from 21m to 35m as sought by the Auckland Trotting Club in its evidence.
Remaining issues
7. In light of Ms Sanders’ rebuttal evidence, the only remaining issue appears to be whether additional accessory activities should be permitted activities in the precinct. Ms Sanders considers this is inconsistent with the Panel’s Interim Guidance for Topic 076.
31560772:631364 Page 146
CARLAW PARK PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Carlaw Park precinct is located between the eastern edge of the City Centre and Parnell and is the site of the former Carlaw Park league grounds. It is bounded by the North Island Main Trunk Line to the east, the Auckland Domain to the south and Stanley Street to the west. The site has an underlying zone of Mixed Use and there are no submissions seeking to change the zoning.
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for the redevelopment of the site for mixed use activities. The precinct has been partially developed with offices, cafes, a hotel and small scale retail premises. The notified precinct imposed GFA restrictions on certain activities and applied more restrictive activity statuses on certain activities including education facilities, drive-through facilities, community facilities and community facilities.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the City Centre Fringe Office (now zone control); Parking – City Centre Fringe, Vehicle Access Restriction - Motorway Interchange Control, High Land Transport Route Noise, Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control and Natural Hazard Coastal Inundation and Additional Zone Height Control.
4. In Topics 079 and 081 the Council supports an Additional Zone Height Control over part of the land within the notified precinct. Additional height is recommended for the part of the site north of a line running up from Nicholls Lane.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Matthew Jared Spiro dated 26 January 2016 and joint rebuttal evidence report of Mr Spiro and Hamish William Scott dated 25 February 2016. Mr Spiro proposes the deletion of the precinct on the grounds that the: a. Development is either recently completed or substantially completed pursuant to recent resource consents; b. Office GFA is no longer subject to any restrictions in the location of the precinct (‘City centre fringe’); c. There is no rationale provided in the precinct description or objectives and policies for the activity statuses that are higher than the underlying Mixed Use zone, nor are these warranted for any transport-related reasons; d. The pedestrian linkages provided for in the precinct plan are either established or cannot be established due to the consented and constructed development; and e. Views provided for in the precinct provisions have either already been addressed via the consented and constructed development or would be preserved through the notified Mixed Use zone heights (including as amended by the proposed AZHC north of Nicholls Lane), while development outside the precinct is not subject to these criteria, but is instead addressed by the underlying additional zone height controls.
Outstanding issues
6. The relevant submitters agree with the deletion of the precinct but seek that the Additional Zone Height Control apply to the whole site including that part of the site south of Nicholls Lane in order to facilitate additional development.
7. Mr Spiro and Mr Scott do not support the additional height in that part of precinct due the potential to compromise the views to the Domain. They consider that any
31560772:631364 Page 147
additional height should be properly and fully assessed via a resource consent process rather the plan indicating such additional height through the AZHC.
31560772:631364 Page 148
CENTRAL PARK PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Central Park Precinct, as notified in the PAUP, is located at 666 Great South Road, Ellerslie and comprises a triangular shaped block of office development between Great South Road and State Highway 1, where they connect via the Ellerslie- Panmure Interchange and covers a 6.25 ha area of land. 2. The purpose of the Precinct is to provide an office park facility and a range of supporting activities with a high emphasis on quality urban design principles. The employment and office activities of the Precinct are intended to complement and not compete with the nearby Ellerslie town centre. 3. The underlying zoning of the land is Business Park. A number of overlays also apply to the Central Park Precinct area, including the High Land Transport Route Noise overlay, Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlays, Vehicle Access Restriction – Motorway Interchange Control and the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft. The site is owned by Goodman Property Trust. 4. The Council's evidence regarding the Central Park Precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anna Papaconstantinou dated 26 January 2016. Ms Papaconstantinou supports the retention of the Precinct as the development of the site as an office park is not complete. The Precinct provisions will assist to enable the completion of the office park while appropriately managing the site specific effects. As described in Ms Papaconstantinou's evidence, the Council supports a number of changes to the Central Park Precinct text including:
a. Providing a controlled activity status for new buildings and clarifying that the activity status for external additions and alterations to buildings not provided for is permitted; b. Establish that retail activities that exceed 150m2 GFA are a non-complying activity in the Precinct; c. Providing a restricted discretionary activity status for development control infringements; and d. Deleting or amending redundant and/or out of date Precinct provisions.
5. The Goodman Property Trust, as owner and developer of the site, has filed evidence supporting the changes proposed in Ms Papaconstantinou's evidence subject to a further minor amendment.48
Remaining issues 6. DNZ Property Fund Limited made a submission seeking to amend the boundary of the Central Park Precinct to include its properties at 650-656 Great South Road.49 Ms Papaconstantinou does not support this change as the Precinct is targeted towards the development and intensification of the existing site and no information has been provided by the submitter to justify this change.50
48 Primary evidence of Gerard Thompson on behalf of Goodman Property Trust, dated 10 February 2016. The minor amendment proposed by Mr Thompson is to amend the reference to Figure 5 in 3.16 Car Parking to Figure 1. 49 Submission 3863-50. 50 At paragraphs 12.3-12.7.
31560772:631364 Page 149
7. Evidence filed by Stride Property Limited (successor to DNZ) agrees with the Council's proposed rezoning of these Properties from Light Industry to Mixed Use.51 This zoning change appears to satisfy the submitter's concerns regarding the zoning of these properties, however, Stride Property Limited's evidence is ambiguous if the submitter is still seeking an extension of the Precinct over these properties.
51 Primary evidence of Mark Arbuthnot on behalf of Stride Property Limited, dated 10 February 2016, at section 4.
31560772:631364 Page 150
ELLERSLIE 1 AND 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCTS
1. Ellerslie 1 and 2 precincts are located on the edge of the Ellerslie Racecourse on land that is either used only occasionally, or is not essential to the Auckland Racing Club’s (Club) continuing activities. Private plan changes to the Auckland Council District Plan – Isthmus Section (District Plan) by the Club rezoned the land and applied site specific concept plans. The Ellerslie 1 and 2 precincts and their underlying zonings are similar to the operative plan provisions that were settled by the Environment Court (in 2010 and 2007 respectively) and were included in the PAUP as notified.
Ellerslie 1
2. Ellerslie 1 precinct adjoins and is opposite to a residential area. The existing 5.9 hectare Ellerslie 1 Precinct is located at 80-100 Ascot Avenue, Greenlane, but fronts onto Morrin Street, Ellerslie. It has the underlying zonings of Terrace Housing and Apartment Building and a small amount of Mixed Housing Suburban.
3. The Ellerslie Stables Precinct Limited (TESP) (further submitter 367) holds a lease over the land with the ownership retained by the Club (submitter 3026).
4. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for comprehensively planned urban residential living, capitalising on the specific park-like setting of Ellerslie Racecourse.
5. The precinct is subject to overlays for volcanic viewshafts, motorway and strategic arterial routes (150m buffer) and natural resource (aquifer).
6. The notified Ellerslie 1 Precinct has been divided into 5 sub-precincts in an east-west spread (named as A-E). Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and environmental issues within these areas. The proposed provisions supported by Ms Richmond have removed sub- precinct D and incorporated the land into sub-precinct B.
Ellerslie 2
7. The 2.9 hectare existing precinct is located at 80-100 Ascot Avenue and 130 Ascot Avenue, Greenlane.
8. The purpose of the Ellerslie 2 precinct is to provide for a limited range of mixed uses that complement the commercial activities to the north whilst not compromising the economic vitality of Ellerslie town centre to the south.
9. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including high land transport route noise, outstanding natural features, volcanic viewshafts, natural heritage (notable trees), Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation – Motorway and natural resource (aquifer).
10. Ellerslie 2 Precinct has been divided into three sub-precincts (named A-C). Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and environmental issues within these areas.
31560772:631364 Page 151
Council evidence
11. The Council's evidence regarding the Ellerslie 1 and 2 precincts is contained in the following evidence:
a. Evidence of Tania Evelyn Richmond dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 25 February 2016;
b. Evidence of Jon Robert Styles dated 25 February 2016 relating to the proposed noise rule in the Ellerslie 1 precinct.
c. Rebuttal evidence of Gavin Craig Lister dated 25 February 2016 relates to outstanding urban design and landscape matters relating to the Ellerslie 2 precinct.
Remaining issues
12. Ms Richmond proposes a number of changes in her evidence to respond to matters raised in the evidence of the Club and TESP, and changes to improve the clarity of the drafting for the precincts. As outlined in her rebuttal evidence, Ms Richmond considers the following issues are outstanding in relating to the two precincts:
a. Ellerslie 1 precinct:
i. Whether Policies 3 and 9 of the underlying Terrace and Apartment Building (THAB) zone should apply to this precinct. Ms Richmond considers the policies are appropriate and should be retained. ii. TESP's requested removal of the building line restrictions. Ms Richmond considers the rule should continue to apply. iii. Amendments to provisions to enable the use of the land for a retirement village. These changes are not supported by Ms Richmond. iv. TESP's requested inclusion of the retirement village open space rule within the precinct. Ms Richmond considers this duplicates the THAB zone rule.
b. Ellerslie 2 precinct:
i. Building height greater than 18m in sub-precinct A being a listed restricted discretionary activity and building height greater than 27m but less than 35m in sub-precinct B being a listed restricted discretionary activity. The rebuttal evidence of Ms Richmond and Mr Lister support an increase in the permitted height in sub-precinct B from 21m to 27m. ii. The Club's requested deletion of the ONF Overlay from applying to this precinct. Ms Richmond does not agree and considers there is no reason to override the ONF overlay. iii. An application for works to trees listed in Schedule 1 Protected trees being a development control modification rather than a listed restricted discretionary activity. iv. Retaining the activity of carparking as a permitted activity to provide on-going certainty of use until the land is developed. v. Whether transport related references are retained in objectives, policies and assessment criteria as proposed by Ms Richmond.
31560772:631364 Page 152
vi. Restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to centre vitality. Ms Richmond considers it appropriate to use this criteria from the Mixed Use zone.
13. Discussions are continuing between the parties to discuss the outstanding matters and these may be narrowed further before the Panel hears from the Club (on 31 March) and TESP (on 14 April).
31560772:631364 Page 153
GREY LYNN, ORAKEI 3, PARNELL 2, MOUNT ROSKILL 1, MOUNT ROSKILL 2, NEW WINDSOR
PROPOSED NEW PRECINCTS WHICH FAILED MERITS ASSESSMENT
1. The Council received submissions and further submissions requesting a number of new precincts. All of the proposed precincts have been assessed by the Council against the 'Gateway Test' followed by the 'Merit Assessment of a Precinct Approach' set out in the evidence of John Duguid.52 These criteria are also addressed earlier in these legal submissions.
2. The Council considers that six new proposed precincts fail the merit assessment to be included as precincts in the PAUP. These six new proposed precincts are:
a. Grey Lynn; b. Orakei 3; c. Parnell 2; d. Mount Roskill 1; e. Mount Roskill 2; and f. New Windsor.
3. The proposed precincts for Grey Lynn, Orakei 3 and Parnell 2 are grouped together in the Council's Evidence Report, given the similar requests regarding increased maximum heights and gross floor area. This summary will also address these precincts collectively (as Group A).
4. The Council considers that these new proposed precincts do not align with the strategic direction of the PAUP. In terms of an assessment against section 32AA of the Act, the proposed new precincts are not necessary or appropriate to provide for the sustainable management of the land within the new proposed precinct area, and the proposed new precincts do not meet the purpose of the Act. The Council position is that the matters raised by submitters for the proposed new precinct areas are more appropriately addressed through a resource management process.
5. The proposed new precincts of Mount Roskill 1, Mount Roskill 2 and New Windsor were separately assessed in the Council Evidence Report on their merits. These proposed new precincts are similarly addressed separately in these submissions.
GROUP A GREY LYNN
6. This new proposed precinct for Grey Lynn is sought by AW Macdonald Limited et al (5687-3) and Advance Properties Group Limited (APGL). The proposed new precinct is located on a number of sites bounded by Richmond Road to the north, west and east, and Sackville Street to the south in West Lynn.
7. The underlying zone for the proposed new precinct is Mixed Use zone and the buildings within the proposed new precinct comprise of residential, retail, office and light industrial. No overlays apply to the proposed new precinct.
52 The criteria for the 'Gateway Test' and the 'Merit Assessment of a Precinct Approach' are outlined in John Duguid's evidence regarding Precincts for Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).
31560772:631364 Page 154
ORAKEI 3
8. This proposed new precinct sought by Masfen Holdings Limited (5968-20) is located at 215 Kepa Road and is a local shopping centre on the southern side of Kepa Road. The underlying zoning for the proposed new precinct is Local Centre zone. The proposed new precinct is subject to the High Land Transport Route-Noise, Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua and Significant Ecological Area overlays in the PAUP as notified.
PARNELL 2
9. This proposed new precinct sought by Masfen Holdings Limited (5968-20) is located at 69 and 79 St George's Bay Road and includes an area of accessory car parking and two large-scale warehouse/commercial buildings. The underlying zoning is Mixed Use zone. The proposed new precinct is subject to the Auckland Museum View Shaft, City Centre Fringe Office, City Centre Fringe Area, Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area overlays (in the PAUP as notified).
10. The submitters for these proposed new precincts in Group A seek that a range of heights apply across the precinct areas, and maximum height controls or GFA thresholds that are greater or more permissive than those provided by the underlying zone.
Group A – the Council's primary evidence
11. The Council's Evidence Report for the proposed new precincts which failed a merit assessment was prepared by Ms Barbara-Ann Overwater and Mr Lindsay Wilson. The merits assessment for the Group A proposed new precincts is set out in Attachment C to Ms Overwater's and Mr Wilson's Evidence Report.
12. The Council witnesses consider that the Group A new precincts and their objective of enabling a range of increased heights, do not provide the Council with sufficient scope to address any potential adverse visual and amenity effects. They consider that the increased heights of up to 32.5 metres (as sought for Orakei 3 and Parnell 2) are not appropriate in the context of their location and the underlying zone, and potentially undermine the centres hierarchy in the RPS.
13. In terms of increased heights proposed for Grey Lynn and Parnell 2, Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson consider that any additional height is best and most appropriately addressed through the Additional Zone Height Control mechanism (AZHC), rather than through new precinct provisions.
14. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson do not consider that new precinct provisions seeking to enable increased GFA for retail and office activities align with the overarching Mixed Use and Local Centre zone provisions in the PAUP. In addition, the application of the precinct tool to enable increased GFA for retail and office activities is not the most appropriate method to achieve this specified. It is more appropriate that any adverse effects, including cumulative effects, are comprehensively assessed through a resource consent application.
Group A – matters raised in submitters' evidence
GREY LYNN
15. Mr White on behalf of APGL accepts the Council proposal not to apply a precinct to this site. Mr White and Ms Skidmore (for APGL) agree with the Council's rationale to
31560772:631364 Page 155
apply an AZHC of 21 metres over part of the Mixed Use zoned land, they seek a further AZHC of 27 metres. Mr Brown provides traffic evidence on behalf of APGL, and concludes that the additional height limit (and resulting floor area) now sought by the submitter would create a low traffic generation rate.
ORAKEI 3
16. Mr Campbell for Masfen Holdings Limited now proposes a new precinct with a range of height provisions, varying in respect of the particular boundary of the precinct. The submitter may no longer be seeking increased GFA thresholds, as it is not addressed in the submitter's evidence. Mr Campbell considers that given the nature of this site and its location, an increased height is warranted and a precinct approach has the most merit.
17. Mr Munro for Masfen Holdings Limited considers that the nature and size of the site will effectively hide the effects of taller buildings behind smaller buildings located at the site's perimeter and therefore internalize the additional heights sought by the submitter. Mr Munro does not agree that the building height of 32.5 metres will undermine the centres hierarchy in the RPS, and that appropriate separation distance and height in relation to boundary controls will sufficiently ensure any inappropriate adverse effects do not occur.
PARNELL 2
18. Mr Campbell for Masfen Holdings Limited supports the urban design evidence of Mr Munro which proposes a maximum height of RL 55 metres, a height in relation to boundary control and buildings above RL 49.5 metres being subject to a separation and building width control. It appears that the permitted activity status for retail activities of any GFA per site is no longer being pursued.
Group A – the Council's response
19. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson have provided a joint rebuttal statement on behalf of the Council addressing planning matters raised in the evidence on behalf of the Group A submitters. Mr Jason Evans has provided urban design rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council in respect of the proposed new Orakei 3 and Parnell 2 precincts in response to the matters raised by Mr Munro for Masfen Holdings Limited.
20. The Council witnesses continue to support their conclusions in the Council's primary evidence. The Council witnesses remain of the view that the use of the precinct tool is not appropriate for the proposed new Grey Lynn precinct, and do not support the submitter's proposed application for a further 27 metre AZHC for the site.
21. The Council witnesses also consider that a precinct is not the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the greater building height outcomes for the new proposed precincts for Orakei 3 and Parnell 2. Mr Evans for the Council considers that Mr Munro does not include any analysis in his evidence of the likely visual effects of increased building heights such as shade and dominance beyond that anticipated by the underlying zoning. The outcomes sought by the submitters are better achieved through a resource consent process.
Group A – remaining issues
22. Whether or not a precinct is the most appropriate planning mechanism for these Group A sites remains an outstanding issue between the Council and submitters. The submitters continue to seek a range of increased building heights within the
31560772:631364 Page 156
proposed precinct areas (and related building and height in relation to boundary controls) for the new Orakei 3 and Parnell 2 proposed precincts, or now seek a 27 metre AZHC in terms of the Grey Lynn site.
MT ROSKILL 1
23. This proposed new precinct sought by Friars Minor of New Zealand Trust Board (4899-2) is a 2.69 hectare site located at 50 Hillsborough Road, and includes the Franciscan Friary (identified as a Category B place in the Council's Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Places). The proposed new precinct abuts the Monte Cecilia precinct. The underlying zone is Special Purpose – School. The Natural Heritage, Historic Heritage and Natural Resource overlays apply to the proposed new precinct.
24. The submitter is seeking to override the Historic Heritage Place overlay controls in order to enable controlled activity status for alterations and additions to the Friary building, for new buildings or structures, and propose new matters of control and assessment criteria.
The Council's primary evidence
25. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson have carried out a merits assessment of this proposed new precinct and this is set out in Attachment C of their Evidence Report. Importantly, and further to the Topic 031 hearing (Historic Heritage), the Council now proposes a degree of development flexibility regarding modifications, maintenance and repair and new buildings relating to Category B buildings within the Historic Heritage overlay rules. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson consider that these proposed revisions to the historic heritage provisions should mitigate the submitter's concerns.
26. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson do not consider that this proposed new precinct provides for any site specific issues not already addressed by the Historic Heritage overlay as it relates to Category B buildings, and therefore a precinct is not appropriate for this site.
27. The Council witnesses do not support a proposed new precinct for this site because the new Mount Roskill precinct:
a. does not align with the strategic directions of the PAUP; b. overrides overlay rules; c. does not comply with the Panel's Interim Guidance as the intended development proposed by the new precinct provisions can be achieved by resource consent.53
The submitter's response
28. The submitter no longer seeks a new precinct for the site. Ms Covington for Friars Minor of New Zealand supports the Council's proposed revisions to the Historic Heritage overlay rules, and the restricted discretionary activity status for new development within the Friary's scheduled extent of place.
Remaining issues
29. There are no remaining issues in respect of this proposed new precinct.
53 Best practice approaches to re-zoning, precincts and changes to the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) dated 31/05/2015.
31560772:631364 Page 157
MOUNT ROSKILL 2
30. This proposed new precinct sought by Akarana Golf Club Inc. (6261) is a 35 hectare site containing a golf course and is located at 1388 Dominion Road. The underlying zone is Public Open Space – Informal Recreation, and there is also an area zoned Mixed Housing Urban in the south west corner of the proposed precinct site. The proposed new precinct is subject to the Vehicle Access Restriction (Motorway Interchange Control), High Land transport Route Noise, Electricity Transmission Corridor, Air Quality Transport Corridor and Aquifer overlays.
Matter raised in submitter's evidence
31. The submitter appears to seek a reverse sensitivity rule using the precinct mechanism to require new development located within 30 metres of the boundary of the new precinct to be a discretionary activity and to enable site-specific controls to be applied. The purpose of this proposed rule appears to be the mitigation of any potential safety issues arising from the golf course.
32. Mr Baikie for Akarana Golf Club Inc. has also submitted evidence on Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) requesting that the site be rezoned from Public Open Space to a Special Purpose Zone: Major Recreational Facility.
The Council's response
33. The PAUP does not protect golf courses from reverse sensitivity effects arising from the use of their facilities. The Council considers that it is inappropriate to require surrounding sites to mitigate safety issues associated with the golf course and inconsistent to apply a precinct mechanism to this single facility.
34. In terms of the submitter's rezoning request, the Council prepared an Evidence Report dated 3 December 2015 and rebuttal evidence dated 26 January 2016. The Council position is that the Public Open Space: Sport and Active Recreation zone is the most appropriate zoning as it reflects existing and future uses of the land as a multi-purpose facility.
Remaining issues
35. Whether or not a precinct should apply to the site, and the associated reverse sensitivity control on surrounding sites remain an issue between the Council and the submitter.
NEW WINDSOR
36. This proposed new precinct sought by Odyssey House (6500-2) is on a property located at 56 Bollard Avenue. The existing property includes Odyssey House which provides addiction treatment services. The underlying zone in the PAUP as notified is Special Purpose – School zone and the site is subject to the Natural Heritage and Natural Resource overlays.
37. The Odyssey House submission seeks a new precinct to enable the continued operation and development of the treatment facilities at the site.
31560772:631364 Page 158
The Council's primary evidence
38. The Council proposes to rezone this site from the notified Special Purpose - School zone to a Mixed Housing Urban zone, further to the Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts – Special Purpose School evidence of Mr Young on behalf the Council. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson have conducted a merits assessment in light of this proposed rezoning and do not support this proposed new precinct.
39. Ms Overwater and Mr Wilson consider that the submitters proposed precinct provisions would not adequately provide for a comprehensive consideration of potential effects associated with the wider range of permitted activities promoted within the precinct over the proposed underlying Mixed Housing Urban zone.
40. The Council's witnesses also consider that the proposed precinct provisions would conflict with the intent of the proposed underlying Mixed Housing Urban zone by enabling a broader range of activities not anticipated within that zone. Existing use rights could be relied on by the Odyssey House to continue its current operations. While this may be the case, it is not determinative that a precinct is appropriate for this facility.
Matters raised in submitter's evidence
41. Mr Gerard Thompson has provided evidence for Odyssey House and now seeks (beyond the relief set out in its submission) revised precinct provisions to only address Odyssey House's core services and to accord with the proposed Mixed Housing Urban underlying zoning. The revisions relate to a permitted activity status for a hospital, restricted activity status for new buildings, and matters of discretion and assessment criteria to assess new buildings and activities (namely building scale, bulk and location; parking, loading and access; and traffic generation).
42. Mr Thompson for Odyssey House incorrectly suggests that there were no submitters in opposition to the notified provisions of the Special Purpose - School zone as it applied to the site.
43. Mr Thompson's view is that the existing addiction and treatment facility is a 'Hospital' within the PAUP definition which attracts a non-complying activity status in the proposed Mixed Housing Urban zone. Mr Thompson considers that this activity status "…carries with it an elevated level of risk associated with public notification and uncertainty with respect to the ultimate success of any resource consent application."
The Council's response
44. Odyssey House itself sought to rezone the site from Special Purpose – School zone to an underlying residential zone (THAB). The Council witnesses remain of the view that a precinct is not the appropriate planning mechanism for this site, as set out in their primary evidence.
45. Odyssey House has the ability to rely on existing use rights to continue using its facilities, and it is more appropriate to assess any future development through the resource consent process. Such a process will enable the assessment of any non- residential activities, such as those undertaken at Odyssey House, are within the scale and intensity of development anticipated within the underlying zone and the overall amenity.
31560772:631364 Page 159
Remaining issues
46. Whether or not a new precinct should apply to the site, and the associated precinct provisions remain an issue between the Council and the submitter.
31560772:631364 Page 160
NEWMARKET 1 PRECINCT
PROPOSED DELETION OF PRECINCT
1. The Newmarket 1 precinct was included in the PAUP as notified. The precinct contains the prime retailing and commercial area of Newmarket. The existing precinct is centred on Broadway, extending north almost to the Davies Crescent/ Broadway intersection, west to, Kingdon Street, York Street and Gillies Avenue and to the Main Northern Trunk Line to the east. The Southern Motorway and Newmarket Viaduct are adjacent to the precinct’s southern boundary. The underlying zoning of land in the Newmarket 1 precinct is predominantly Metropolitan Centre zone.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to facilitate Newmarket's further development as a Metropolitan Centre zone with controls to ensure new development makes a positive contribution to the streetscape, and the amenity and character of the area in general.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including infrastructure, natural heritage (volcanic viewshafts and height sensitive areas), built environment, additional zone height control, historic heritage and natural resource (aquifer).
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Barbara-Ann Dominique Overwater dated 26 January 2016. Ms Overwater proposes to delete the Newmarket 1 precinct for the following reasons:
a. The same outcome can be achieved through other methods in the PAUP, such as the Auckland-wide, General Business zone and Metropolitan Centre zone provisions. These wider provisions can manage this area effectively without needing the additional layer of precinct provisions;
b. Deleting the precinct is consistent with the Panel’s Interim Guidance; and
c. The Council’s own criteria for the application of a precinct as set out in the Council’s revised position for the City Centre section (Topic 050) have not been met.
Remaining issues
5. The Council is not aware whether any submitter continues to support the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP. No submitter evidence has been received opposing the Council’s evidence which set out the above position.
6. The Panel received evidence from the following submitters and all four support the Councils proposed deletion of the precinct:
a. Scentre NZ Ltd (Westfield) (submitter 2968); b. Tram Lease Ltd, Viaduct Harbour Holdings Ltd & Viaduct Harbour Management Ltd (submitter 5566); c. The Strand Trust (submitter 4307); and d. Masfen Holdings Ltd (submitter 5968).
31560772:631364 Page 161
NEWMARKET 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Newmarket 2 precinct was developed and included in the PAUP as notified to create a policy and regulatory framework primarily in response to the University of Auckland (UoA) acquiring the former Lion Breweries site in 2013 to facilitate the strategic growth of the university and establish a Newmarket tertiary campus (submitter 5662). Since 2013, the UoA has developed several tertiary education buildings and activities within the western part of the precinct. A large amount of vacant land remains in the eastern part of the precinct.
2. The precinct emphasis is on enabling development which accommodates a range of activities to cater for the tertiary education requirements of the UoA. The precinct provisions seek to manage change more appropriately in this location to ensure the intensification of the land integrates with and is complimentary to the wider environment, including the adjacent Newmarket Metropolitan Centre and the transport network.
3. The underlying zone in the precinct is Mixed Use. The Newmarket 2 precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including infrastructure (General Vehicle Access Restriction, City Centre Fringe Parking area, High Land Transport Route Noise), Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas, Built Environment (Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, City Fringe Office, Special Character) and Additional Zone Height Controls.
4. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Barbara-Ann Dominique Overwater dated 27 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 26 February 2016. Outstanding urban design matters are addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Jason Evans dated 26 February 2016 and outstanding traffic / transportation matters in the rebuttal evidence of Martin John Peake dated 24 February 2016.
5. Ms Overwater proposes amendments to the notified precinct provisions in light of the Council’s revised approach to enabling and managing tertiary education facilities in the PAUP in Topic 055 Social Infrastructure (Special Purpose Tertiary Education Zone). Further changes are proposed in response to the matters raised in the UoA evidence.
6. In her rebuttal evidence Ms Overwater has proposed an out of scope amendment to amend the precinct boundary to exclude a small number of sites in non UoA ownership because these properties do not appropriately fall within the purpose of the precinct.
Remaining issues
7. As outlined in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Overwater, the remaining issues in relation to the proposed Newmarket 2 provisions can be summarised as:
a. Certain amendments sought by UoA to the precinct description, policies and objectives.
b. Status of certain activities in the precinct.
c. Retention of the Council's proposed activity requiring a discretionary consent for a new vehicle crossing or changes to an existing crossing or new road, and the
31560772:631364 Page 162
proposed land use control requiring an integrated transport assessment (ITA) to be prepared. These provisions are addressed in the evidence of Mr Peake and are proposed given the precinct is bounded by Khyber Pass Road and Park Road (Regional and District Arterials respectively). d. Whether site frontage and verandah controls are appropriate as proposed in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Overwater and Mr Evans. e. Proposed development controls to address building height and building setback at upper floors including relevant matters of discretion and assessment criteria.
31560772:631364 Page 163
OKAHU MARINE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Okahu Marine Precinct is located at Okahu Bay, Tamaki Drive and covers an area of approximately 4.5ha, including both the Coastal Marine Area ("CMA") and the adjoining land at Orakei Marina, the Okahu landing and Watene Reserve. The Precinct was contained in the notified PAUP and the Council and submitter support its retention. 2. The Precinct has three Sub-Precincts with the following underlying zonings: a. Sub-Precinct A which applies to the Orakei Marina (including the Coastal Marine Area and a canitlivered deck) and which has an underlying Marina zone; b. Sub-Precinct B which applies to the hardstand area adjacent to the Orakei Marina utilised for a mix of recreation and marine-related activities and which has an underlying Public Open Space-Sport and Active Recreation zoning; and c. Sub-Precinct C which applies over the Watene Reserve and which has a Public Open Space – Informal Recreation zoning. 3. The purpose of the Precinct is to provide for marina, marine-related and recreational activities in an integrated manner across land and sea. Many of the marinas within the Plan contain a combination of Marina Zone and a precinct to reflect local circumstances. 4. A number of overlays apply to the Precinct, including the High Transport Route Noise overlay, the Rangitoto Island and Auckland Museum Viewshafts, and the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua overlay. 5. The Council's evidence regarding the Precinct is contained in the evidence report of Matthew Spiro dated 26 January 2016 and Mr Spiro's rebuttal evidence dated 25 February 2016. Mr Spiro supports the retention of the Precinct subject to changes including the following amendments: a. Amending the description of Precinct to clarify that no additional parking is required within the precinct to ensure that land comprised in the precinct is prioritised for marine-related and recreational activities ; b. Rezoning part of the CMA incorrectly zoned as Public Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation to General Coastal Marine; c. Various amendments to avoid duplication or inconsistency with the Regional Coastal Plan; and d. Clarifying that the objectives of the Marina zone and the General Coastal Marine zone apply to the CMA in the Precinct in addition to the precinct specific objectives.54
Remaining issues 6. The Orakei Marina Management Trust ("OMMT") generally supports the amendments made to the Precinct provisions in Mr Spiro's primary evidence but seeks additional amendments to the Sub-Precinct A and B descriptions and amendments to the
54 Attachment A to Mr Spiro's rebuttal evidence sets out the track changes supported to the precinct text.
31560772:631364 Page 164
Precinct parking land use controls to ensure that all activities within the Okahu Marine Precinct comply with the Auckland-Wide Transport Rules.55 The changes to the parking controls are the most significant. 7. Mr Spiro does not support OMMT's proposed amendments to the Sub-Precinct A and B descriptions as in his opinion these are unnecessary and do not add any value to the notified text.56 Mr Spiro also does not support the application of the Auckland Wide Transport Rules to the Precinct in respect of parking, as these rules are specifically excluded from the Precinct to avoid requiring additional parking for marine related and recreational activities and to provide land use flexibility.57
55 Primary evidence of Maxwell Dunn on behalf of OMMT, dated 11 February 2016, at paragraphs 21-26 and 34- 41. 56 See Mr Spiro's rebuttal evidence, at paragraphs 4.7-4.8. 57 See Mr Spiro's rebuttal evidence, at paragraphs 4.14-4.17.
31560772:631364 Page 165
ORAKEI 1 AND 2 PRECINCTS
PROPOSED PRECINCTS
1. The over-arching purpose of both the Orākei 1 and Orākei 2 precincts is to enable a suite of provisions that re-establish Ngāti Whātua Orākei on their Whenua Tupuna (ancestral land) within an integrated and sustainable community that reflects Ngāti Whātua Orākei Mātauranga, and which enables Ngāti Whātua Orākei to be meaningfully involved in the management and decision making processes relating to their ancestral land.
2. The Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) included Concept Plan B12-05, which covers the Orākei 2 precinct area in full, and part of the Orākei 1 precinct area. Despite being combined into one concept plan under the operative district plan, the provisions are clearly delineated around what has become two separate proposed precincts under the PAUP.
3. Through the Orākei 1 precinct, development is enabled on the land that sits generally above and behind the public open spaces of Orākei Domain, and Whenua Rangatira (Bastion Point and Michael Joseph Savage Memorial Park). Development is enabled through the precinct provisions, which acknowledge the comprehensive land ownership of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. A Significant Ecological Area overlay applies to land within part of the Orakei 1 precinct.
4. Through the Orākei 2 precinct, the protection of areas of open space and cultural well-being are elevated. The precinct includes Orākei Domain and Whenua Rangatira, and submissions request the addition of Okahu Bay Beach and the urupā adjacent to Tamaki Drive. Limited development, appropriate within the cultural and public open space context of the land, is provided for.
5. The Orakei 2 precinct applies a two-layer with a single level of over-arching objectives and policies, while the rules and associated assessment criteria differentiated across six sub-precincts (named A to F). The Whenua Rangatira reserve management plan applies a different management approach to each of the six distinct sub-precincts.
6. The Orakei 2 precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the High Land Transport Noise, natural heritage (volcanic viewshafts), a number of historic heritage sites and places, Significant Ecological Areas and natural hazards (coastal inundation).
7. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Ross Edward Cooper dated 26 January 2016. Mr Cooper supports the proposed precincts and has proposed a number of changes to the precinct provisions.
Remaining issues
8. There are no remaining issues in relation to the precinct provisions. There are outstanding issues in relation to the underlying zoning and requested changes which have been addressed in the evidence of Anna Papaconstantinou for the Council (rezoning).
31560772:631364 Page 166
ORAKEI POINT PRECINCT
CHANGES SOUGHT TO PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The notified Orakei Point precinct enables a Transit Orientated Development (TOD) that is the result of a comprehensive plan change (Plan Modification 260 – PM260) and Environment Court appeal process that concluded in 2013. However, the developer behind the project (Orakei Bay Village Limited - OBVL) advised the Council (in October 2015) that due to disagreements between the key stakeholders (particularly OBVL and Auckland Council / Auckland Transport and Kiwirail) the precinct as notified is no longer a viable development for them.
2. OBVL seeks a suite of amendments to the notified precinct which draws on the outcomes of the plan change and Environment Court process but which the Council considers is a significant departure from the outcomes of that process. The amendments sought to the notified provisions were provided by OBVL to the Panel on 18 December 2015.
3. The Council wishes to support some level of redevelopment within the Orakei Point precinct however for the reasons outlined in evidence on behalf of the Council, it is unable to support the changes requested by OBVL. As indicated in the rebuttal evidence of Council’s planning witness, Mr Matthew Spiro,, in light of the outstanding issues he raises, it seems the most appropriate option is to retain the notified precinct and for the changes sought by OBVL to be the subject of a future plan change process.
Legal issues - scope
4. The OBVL submission on the PAUP only sought minor changes of a tidying nature to the provisions. In our view none of the submissions on the Orakei Point precinct provide scope for the more significant changes being sought to the PAUP.
5. There were only 8 submissions that related to the Orakei Point precinct. Of these, the following are considered relevant:
a. Camilla Urdahl sought amendments to Part 4.1 (Building Height Orakei) for higher intensification. While the submission of Camilla Urdahl seeks higher intensification within Orakei Point this does not, in our view, provide jurisdiction for many of the changes that have been requested by OBVL.
b. OBVL sought amendments to align the PAUP with the Environment Court decision on PM260. OBVL supported the precinct, with largely minor amendments.
c. Coralie van Kamp raised a number of issues within the wider Orakei area. The summary of submissions noted her submission sought "clarify the status of Orakei Point development with the PAUP" and "publicly notify the Orakei Point development for submissions". In terms of the decision sought in the submission, Ms van Camp sought that the PAUP be declined.
d. Ngati Whatua Whai Rawa Limited sought to delete the provisions that required public open space and other public spaces to be vested with Council.
e. Kiwirail submitted in favour of the notified noise and vibration provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 167
6. The key changes proposed to the notified provisions can be summarised as follows:
a. Deletion of the precinct plans and replacement with a single precinct plan. This includes removal of sub-precincts within the Orakei Point precinct.
b. Amendments to the precinct boundaries to include the Public Open Space to the north of the precinct and the deleted Public open Space to the south of the precinct. There is a proposed new southern coastal yard in place of the notified Public Open Space.
c. There is no longer any development proposed over the railway. Aside from the additional site area created, including for public spaces, a key benefit of this element of the project would have been the rail noise mitigation such development provided. There are no changes proposed to the notified noise controls.
d. Use of the framework plan process to enable additional development (up to the levels provided for via the development controls) and a new activity table to provide for framework plans.
e. Amendments to the precinct description and objectives and policies to reflect the development now proposed.
f. Deletion of the Activity table in favour of the activities and associated controls provided for in the Business - Mixed Use zone and Auckland-wide provisions.
g. Deletion of the land use controls.
h. Deletion of some development controls, notably the removal of building platforms, the removal of the site intensity (GFA) allocation previously provided through the sub-precincts, the landscaping requirement for the Orakei Road frontage and the staging provisions. Other precinct-specific development controls are proposed to be retained either as notified or with amendments (e.g. height, noise, tree protection).
7. Issues of procedural fairness arise when making changes which arguably depart from the objective of the Transit Orientated Development at Orakei Point. This is because the notified PAUP provisions reflect the recent decision of the Environment Court and because only limited changes were sought to those replicated provisions in the PAUP in submissions.
8. We are of the view that a number of the requested changes go beyond what is reasonably and fairly raised in the original submissions on the PAUP. This is because we consider the submissions largely support the Orakei Point precinct and the relief sought can be described as minor changes of a tidying nature or "fine tuning".
9. In addition, the changes represent a substantial departure from the recent Environment Court decision. In that regard, Mr Spiro is of the opinion that the overall balance of development provided for in the notified precinct would not be achieved.
31560772:631364 Page 168
10. That being said, from the time the Council was approached by OBVL it has sought to provide helpful comments on the proposed changes. This will be seen from the approach taken in the evidence in chief on behalf of Auckland Council and rebuttal evidence where those changes that are supported have been described.
Council evidence
11. The Council's evidence in relation to the Orakei Point precinct has been prepared by:
a. Matthew Jared Spiro – planning evidence in chief dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016;
b. Yvonne Beth Weeber – urban design evidence in chief dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016;
c. Karl Hancock – traffic and transportation evidence in chief dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016;
d. Alastair James Cribbens – Auckland Transport evidence in chief dated 26 January 2016.
12. The key changes not supported from the Council's perspective can be summarised as:
a. The single precinct plan proposed to replace the precinct plans and the loss of certainty, particularly from an urban design perspective.
b. The proposed amendments to include the northern Public Open Space zone and the mechanism to create open space within the precinct, particularly compared to the notified provisions which had clear staging of public infrastructure requirements. Further, the Council does not support the southern coastal yard as currently proposed, the 10m width or the absence of a landscaping requirement.
c. Whether the amended precinct description and proposed objectives and policies accurately reflect the proposed amendments to the precinct or the outcomes sought to be achieved by PM260. Mr Spiro does not consider the amendments are appropriate.
d. Concerns regarding the proposed changes removing the identified building platforms, removal of the allocation of site intensity and the reliance on the framework plan process. This raises a number of urban design issues in relation to the extent and location of the additional height and massing of the future buildings and the provision of public spaces.
e. Changes to the staging provisions (retaining traffic staging with substantial amendments, and deletion of the public infrastructure staging provisions). Concerns include the proposed triggers for infrastructure which use car parking spaces (rather than GFA controls) and the loss of certainty around when the upgrades may occur, and whether the traffic analysis for PM260 needs to be updated.
f. Changes which are proposed to the road frontages; deletion of frontage height controls and new provisions to create active frontages and the Orakei Road
31560772:631364 Page 169
Building Control. This raises a number of urban design issues in terms of the ability to appropriately manage the interface issues in the future.
13. The Council evidence identifies where the experts consider further analysis and information is required in relation to the proposed changes to the precinct provisions. In the absence of that information and the loss of balance in the overall package of development Mr Spiro cannot support the OBVL amendments and considers the notified precinct provisions should be retained.
31560772:631364 Page 170
PARNELL 1 PRECINCT (PARNELL CATHEDRAL)
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Parnell 1 precinct is not in the PAUP as notified and is requested in the submission of the General Trust Board of the Diocese of Auckland (the Board) (submission 4422-10/11).
2. The purpose of the requested precinct is to provide for five specified commercial (office, commercial services, restaurants, healthcare and education facilities) and community activities as permitted activities within the precinct. In particular, the Board is seeking that four activities are permitted when undertaken within the existing heritage buildings on the sites comprised within the proposed precinct, and that ‘Community facilities’ are a permitted activity across the entire proposed precinct.
3. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Matthew Jared Spiro dated 26 January 2016. Mr Spiro does not support the requested precinct because:
a. The precinct would effectively only address a single issue (activity status for a limited number of commercial activities);
b. The proposed activities are not necessarily appropriate in the surrounding residential context and it may be necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the effects of those activities on the surrounding environment so a resource consent process is appropriate;
c. Council’s position has been amended (via Topic 031 - Heritage) such that use of a scheduled historic heritage place for an activity that is not otherwise provided in the underlying zone or precinct is now to be assessed as a discretionary activity. Therefore the regulatory burden for the submitter is reduced for those activities sought to be included as permitted activities that were previously non-complying by default; and
d. There is sufficient policy support in the PAUP for the re-use of heritage buildings in zones where those activities are otherwise considered generally inappropriate.
Remaining issues
4. Following a meeting between council staff and the Board’s agents, and the basis that no specific evidence has been filed in relation to the requested precinct, it is understood the Board is no longer seeking the requested Parnell 1 precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 171
SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Saint Heliers precinct in the PAUP as notified is located across four blocks bounded by Tamaki Drive to the north, Lombard Street to the east, Polygon Road to the south and Goldie Street to the west. Saint Heliers Bay Road runs perpendicular through the precinct, and a small group of three sites located on the south-western corner of Saint Heliers Bay and Polygon Roads is included within the precinct boundary.
2. The underlying zoning for the Saint Heliers precinct in the PAUP as notified is a combination of Local Centre zone and Mixed Housing Urban zone.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to identify and enhance the key characteristics of Saint Heliers village and to encourage high quality development that reinforces the precinct's unique qualities.
4. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays including the High Land Transport Noise route, Historic Heritage (as it relates to the Saint Heliers Bay library), the Coastal Inundation, the Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas and the Pre- 1944 Building Demolition Control overlays.
5. The submission of Auckland Council (5716-1160) seeks to amend the boundary of the Saint Heliers precinct to exclude all sites zoned Mixed Housing Urban on Goldie and Lombard Streets. A number of submitters seek that the precinct provisions better manage the 'sense of place' / 'seaside village' character of Saint Heliers Village, as well as limits to height (or no limit at all and reliance instead on height proposed by the underlying Local Centre zone).
The Council's primary evidence
6. The Council's primary evidence is set out in the evidence report of Ross Cooper (planning) and evidence in chief of Matthew Riley (urban design) dated 26 January 2016. The Saint Heliers precinct in the notified version of the PAUP was largely developed from the Saint Heliers Village Centre Plan proposed through Plan Changes 145 and 145a to the Auckland Council District Plan Isthmus Section 1999, and subject to an Environment Court decision.58
7. Mr Cooper proposes that the precinct boundary be amended to exclude not only those sites zoned Mixed Housing Urban on Goldie and Lombard Streets, but also the sites on the western side of Maheke Street, meaning that the precinct is subject only to the Local Centre zone.
8. Mr Cooper proposes a number of amendments to the precinct provisions and the Character Statement to clearly articulate the precinct's characteristics, as well as amendments to the activity table, development controls, notification requirements and assessment criteria. The table in paragraph 14.1 of Mr Cooper's evidence report sets out the differences between the proposed Saint Heliers precinct provisions and the underlying zone provisions in the PAUP.
9. Mr Cooper and Mr Riley consider that the overall maximum building height of 12.5 metres, combined with a frontage height control is appropriate for the Saint Heliers precinct, and consistent with the precinct's existing building form.
58 Kennedy v Auckland City Council A110/2008 (Interim Decision) and A016/09 (Final Decision).
31560772:631364 Page 172
Matters raised in submitters' evidence
10. Evidence has been lodged on behalf of Save our Saint Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association (SoS) and Ancona Properties Limited in respect of the Saint Heliers precinct. The landscape evidence of Ms Peake for and the statement by Ms King for SoS largely oppose the Council's proposed provisions on the basis that they do not adequately provide for Saint Heliers' Special Character. Some of the key changes suggested by the SoS witnesses include the reduction of the maximum height to 9 metres, and the application of the Special Character Business Overlay to the precinct area as a means of providing a layer of protection of existing buildings.
11. SoS filed what appears to be rebuttal planning and heritage evidence of Ms Hotop and Mr Burgess, as well as a short statement from Ms Desley Simpson, after the Council had filed its rebuttal evidence. SoS consider that the precinct provisions the Council proposes will result in adverse effects, and propose that certain notified provisions should be retained as well as other amendments.
12. The evidence on behalf of Ancona Properties Limited largely supports the Council's evidence. Mr Smith for Ancona Properties Limited also proposes an amended objective, a new objective and supporting policy, the deletion of the activity table and a restricted activity status for development control infringements.
The Council's response
13. The Council witnesses propose further amendments to the Saint Heliers precinct provisions in their rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016 in response to the matters raised in parties' evidence that had been filed by that date. These include amendments to the objective and policies, the addition of a new policy addressing new development within the precinct, a change in activity status from discretionary to restricted discretionary activity status for development control infringements and an increase to the building setback for buildings above 8.5 metres, from 2.5 metres to 4 metres. Minor amendments are also proposed to the Character Statement.
Remaining issues
14. The amendments proposed on behalf of the Council address a number of the matters raised in parties' primary evidence. The matters that remain outstanding largely relate to whether a Special Character overlay should be applied to the Saint Heliers precinct, and whether there should be any reduction to, or deletion of the notified maximum building height of 12.5 metres, and other amendments now sought by SoS in its rebuttal evidence.
31560772:631364 Page 173
SYLVIA PARK PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Sylvia Park precinct in the PAUP as notified comprises approximately 21 hectares of land and is located at 286 Mount Wellington Highway. The Sylvia Park precinct to be divided into three sub-precincts. Specific controls are proposed to apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas.
2. The underlying zoning for the Sylvia Park precinct is Metropolitan Centre zone.
3. The purpose of the Sylvia Park precinct is to guide future development towards supporting a greater range of activities for it to become a Metropolitan Centre.
4. The Sylvia Park precinct has been through a number of plan changes, the most recent being Plan Change 235 (operative January 2011) to the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section Operative 1999 (Plan Change 235). The purpose of Plan Change 235 was to increase the overall base and maximum heights and GFA within the existing Sylvia Park Concept Plan. The Sylvia Park Concept Plan in the District Plan has informed the Sylvia Park precinct provisions.
5. The Sylvia Park precinct is subject the High Land Transport Route Noise, Arterial Road, Airspace Restriction Designations, and Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlays and controls.
6. The key relief sought by the submissions relates to the following themes:
a. Retention of the extent of the Sylvia Park precinct and its provisions; b. Removal of minimum and maximum carparking requirements; c. Increases to heights in all areas; and d. Amendments for clarity and to precinct plans, and the addition of an objective and policy.
The Council's primary evidence
7. The Council's primary evidence is set out in the evidence report of Marie Stainwright dated 26 January 2016. Further to the analysis of submissions, Ms Stainwright considers that the Sylvia Park precinct is appropriate for the ongoing use of and development opportunities for Sylvia Park. Ms Stainwright proposes certain amendments for consistency and clarity, increased maximum heights within the sub- precincts, the deletion of precinct specific carparking controls, amendments to the policies and an amendment to the precinct boundary to align with land ownership.
Matters raised in submitter's evidence
8. Mr Thompson has provided evidence on behalf of Kiwi Property Group Limited. Mr Thompson generally supports the proposed provisions, but also seeks a increased maximum height for sub-precinct B from 27 metres (as proposed by Ms Stainwright) to 72.5 metres, development control exemptions from the underlying Metropolitan zone provisions regarding Maximum Tower Dimension and Tower Separation rule and the Yards rule. Mr Thompson also seeks an amendment to the proposed landscaping control to exclude land designated for railway purposes.
31560772:631364 Page 174
The Council's response
8. Ms Stainwright has prepared rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council dated 24 February 2016 responding to matters raised in Mr Thompson's evidence. Ms Stainwright supports the additional development control exemption in relation to the Maximum Tower Dimension and Tower Separation rule 4.5 from the underlying zone. Ms Stainwright also clarifies that the precinct area does not include the adjacent railway land.
9. Ms Stainwright also considers that rule 4.18 of the Metropolitan Centre zone (relating to maximum impervious area in the riparian yard) may be potentially relevant to the Sylvia Park Precinct, given the presence of a watercourse. Ms Stainwright proposes to delete this rule from the list of exemptions in Section 4 of the provisions, such that it can be properly considered if that watercourse requires a riparian yard.
Remaining issues
10. For the reasons set out in her rebuttal evidence, Ms Stainwright does not support the following matters raised in Mr Thompson's evidence: a. the increase in height to 72.5 metres (from the proposed 27 metres) for sub- precinct B; b. the development control exemption relating to Yards rule 4.15 of the Metropolitan Centre zone; and c. the addition of "except that part of the site which is designated for railway purposes" to the landscaping control.
31560772:631364 Page 175
TAMAKI PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The notified Tamaki precinct encapsulates Glen Innes and Panmure and the general business areas that interpose these town centres, as well as some business land extending southwards along the Mount Wellington Highway. The precinct includes the residential suburbs of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure and extends approximately 5 km north to south between St Heliers Bay Road to Panmure Basin, and 3 km west to east from College Road to the Tamaki River. The precinct, as notified, covers a large area of approximately 832 ha. Because of this there are 11 underlying zones and a large number of overlays within the Tamaki precinct, reflecting the varied urban settings to which it is applied. The notified precinct provisions respond only to several underlying zones, however, both of which are residential.
2. The purpose of the Tamaki precinct is to provide for residential growth. Consequently the precinct includes a number of mechanisms to promote growth and residential intensification in the Tamaki area. This implements the Auckland Plan Development Strategy Map D.2 which includes a goal of growth and revitalisation of Tamaki. It is also important to note the existence of the Tamaki Redevelopment Company (TRC), formed in partnership with the Crown as a non-regulatory method to foster redevelopment and growth in Tamaki. The TRC is to be transferred the substantial landholdings of HNZ in Tamaki.
3. The Council’s position on the Tamaki precinct is set out in the evidence report of Rebecca Greaves dated 26 January 2016, the rebuttal report of Ms Greaves dated 25 February 2016, and the evidence report of Christine Perrins on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 26 January 2016.
4. The main differences between the notified precinct and the revised precinct arise from greater focus on place-based objectives and policies identifying Tamaki as particularly appropriate for growth, and removal of provisions that do not align with that purpose. The streamlined precinct provisions promote residential intensification and enable additional yield in the MHS zone on approval of six or more dwellings. Specifically, the precinct proposes to allow building height to 11 m plus 1 metre for roof form (as opposed to 8 metres plus 1 metre under the MHS zone provisions), and building coverage is proposed to be 45% of the net site area (as opposed to 40% under the MHS zone provisions).
5. The Council proposes a number of amendments to the notified precinct provisions including reducing the overall size of the precinct and changes to the precinct description, objectives, policies and methods. The main changes and issues related to the precinct are listed below.
Sub precinct A
6. Sub precinct A relates to approximately 16 hectares of land within the Tamaki precinct that straddles the disused Tamaki rail station. The notified precinct included a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) focussed around reopening the rail station and providing for higher development yields through use of the framework plan over land to the west and east of the rail station.
7. The Council proposes deleting sub-precinct A and the associated TOD. Ms Perrins, on behalf of Auckland Transport, explains in her evidence that there is currently insufficient planning, funding or information about the impact of reopening the
31560772:631364 Page 176
Tamaki rail station on the rapid and frequent services network to commit to re- opening of the station at this time. Ms Greaves explains in her rebuttal statement that the western portion of the sub-precinct is affected by a notice of requirement for a regional road whose severance effects are unlikely to sustain the fine grained redevelopment envisaged by the sub-precinct. While the eastern portion of the sub- precinct is appropriately situated for comprehensive redevelopment, the zoning of the land is the appropriate planning response.
Framework plans
8. The Council proposes deleting framework plans from the Tamaki precinct as they are not considered appropriate given the vast size of the precinct and the fragmented landownership.
31560772:631364 Page 177
THREE KINGS PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Three Kings precinct is a proposed precinct (not in the PAUP as notified) relating to the former Three Kings quarry. The precinct land is presently zoned in the notified PAUP as Special Purpose: Quarry together with some Public Open Space zoned land.
2. The Council's evidence on the precinct and zoning of land within it is contained in the planning evidence report of Stephen van Kampen dated 26 January 2016 and his rebuttal report dated 24 February 2016. In addition, the Council has filed evidence in chief and rebuttal evidence from Leo Jew (landscape) and Morgan Reeve (urban design).
3. The Three Kings precinct and the zoning of land within it attracted a large number of submissions. Mr van Kampen summarises the submissions received in his evidence report.
4. There were eight individual requests for a new precinct to be included at Three Kings, and eight submissions were received requesting rezoning of land contained within the proposed precinct. Mr van Kampen supports a discrete precinct covering the former quarry and previously quarried areas now used as open spaces to the south and west of the quarry. These areas align with the area subject to Private Plan Change 372 to the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council District Plan (PPC372), where – Mr van Kampen notes – a comprehensive assessment and alternatives analysis of the appropriate uses for these areas has been undertaken. The Council's decision confirming PPC372 has been appealed to the Environment Court (presently proceeding to mediation, with a hearing set for 13-24 June 2016).
5. A precinct is supported for this area because it will enable a comprehensively planned and connected development within the quarry site and the reconfiguration of poorly located, accessed and orientated adjoining open spaces. The precinct will ensure site-specific design and development controls are imposed, given the unique nature and location of the site.
6. It is proposed that a plan be included in the precinct provisions to show the extent of open spaces, maximum heights (to enable a level to be determined given the current filling of the quarry), access points, and viewpoints of value to the local urban environment. The precinct plan also includes additional matters such as stormwater management areas, locations of key public spaces and other site-specific provisions to ensure comprehensive redevelopment of residential business and open space land within the precinct. In terms of building height, the proposed provisions identify RL levels as a deemed ground level. Height limits are then specified based on those RL levels (see Precinct Plan 1: Building Height).
7. There is one consequential amendment required being the insertion of the new “Three Kings Residential Design Guide” in Part 6 – Non-statutory Documents of the PAUP.
8. Mr van Kampen supports the rezoning of the area included within the proposed precinct to a combination of THAB, POS and Town Centre zones as shown in Attachment D to his evidence report. The proposed rezoning reflects as closely as
31560772:631364 Page 178
possible the nature of land uses and the type and extent of activities enabled by the PPC372 decision.
Issues
9. A range of issues are raised in the evidence of South Epsom Planning Group Inc (SEPG) and Three Kings United Group Inc (TKUG). Key issues raised include the following (this is not exhaustive):
a. Outstanding Natural Feature – SEPG and TKUG raise concerns regarding the location, scale and size of development that will be enabled by the precinct and its proximity and impact on the adjacent ONF #222 identified in the PAUP as the Three Kings volcano. Mr Jew’s landscape evidence provides an analysis of the potential landscape effects on the ONF with the conclusion that any built development in the quarry, given development controls required, will be subservient to the scale and height of the volcano. Mr van Kampen has not identified any evidence to suggest that the development would impact upon the ancestral relationships of Mana Whenua with, and their perspectives on, the landscapes and natural features, and Iwi raised no concerns through the PPC372 process. He also notes that local views into and from the precinct will be enhanced through the inclusion of protected sightlines on the precinct plan, in order to recognise the significance of the nearby ONF.
b. Precinct Extent and Zoning – A range of matters are addressed in the evidence filed by SEPG and TKUG in this regard. For instance, it is proposed that the boundary of the precinct is too narrow, and should either include other adjoining land, or reflect the areas included in the Three Kings Plan. There is also the suggestion that the proposed precinct and zoning is premature, or should reflect the notified PAUP provisions and be retained as Special Purpose: Quarry zone (with no precinct overlay) in the PAUP, due to current Environment Court appeals against the decision on PPC372. Mr van Kampen responds to these matters in detail in rebuttal. He notes that the Three Kings Plan covers an area of 112 hectares and is far too large to include in a comprehensive set of controls, given the variation in land uses and ownership. He also notes that he has considered the submissions on their merits, and does not support deferring the zoning or precinct due to the appeals.
c. Section 32 Analysis – Evidence from SEPG and TKUG suggests that there has been insufficient section 32 analysis in relation to the zones of the PAUP. Mr van Kampen relies on the full section 32 analysis and consideration of alternatives undertaken through the PPC372 process. He considers the merit assessment and analysis undertaken to ascertain the correct application of the zones translated from the Operative District Plan to the PAUP is appropriate.
d. Fill Level – The final fill level is a key issue for certain submitters. Mr van Kampen notes that Winstone Aggregates is giving effect to the consent enabling controlled filling of the quarry. The consent provides for filling associated with rehabilitation of the quarry. The conditions of consent include a maximum fill level and require a Final Contour Plan. A precinct specific definition of ground level is included, and identified on a map within the precinct to identify an RL within the precinct to provide for the measurement of maximum height and Height Sensitive Area overlays.
31560772:631364 Page 179
10. Mr Jew and Mr Reeve address a number of landscape and urban design matters arising from the evidence of SEPG, TKUG and Fletcher Development Limited, including matters relating to: the scale and dominance of the proposed built form within the 'Bush Precinct' (this is terminology used in the master plan – not in the precinct); design quality, density and built form generally; the appropriateness of built form adjacent to Western Park; the location and dimensions of the proposed playing fields; the impact of the existing haul road and the raising of the quarry floor; and assessment of the precinct proposed by SEPG. We do not restate the evidence of the witnesses here, but note their ultimate conclusions that the proposed precinct:
a. will generally provide an appropriate level of protection to the landscape values within the site, and will contribute to a connected neighbourhood; and
b. will provide for an appropriate form of development which meets best practice urban design principles, and will provide enough control for Council to allow for a well-designed development.
11. Having considered the evidence of Fletcher, Mr van Kampen has proposed some further amendments to the text of the precinct provisions, which are reflected in Attachment A to his rebuttal evidence. These provide for minor flexibility in the location of the proposed Whare Manaaki (educational and cultural facilities) and exemptions on site coverage landscaping and impermeable surface rules for the cascading apartments (a control included in the decision on PPC372 and left out of the precinct controls in error).
12. Finally, it is noted that the Puketāpapa Local Board wishes to address the Panel on the proposed precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 180
ATTACHMENT F
TOPIC 081f – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (SOUTH)
31560772:631364 Page 181
BEACHLANDS 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
9. The existing Beachlands 1 precinct is an extension of the Beachlands village which is a rural and coastal settlement located east of the existing Manukau City urban area adjoining the Tamaki Strait coastline. The precinct covers approximately 122 ha of land south of the existing Beachlands village, and is bounded by Jack Lachlan Drive to the south, Beachlands Road and Karaka Road to the north, and Whitford-Maraetai Road to the east. The underlying zoning is Single House.
10. The Council’s evidence on the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Michael Luong dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report of Michael Luong dated 24 February 2016. Mr Luong supports retaining the precinct, subject to some amendments, for the reasons that follow in these submissions.
11. The precinct is based on the provisions of the Operative District Plan (Manukau Section) which resulted from PC30 (operative on 13 November 2014). A precinct was developed in order to vary a number of the underlying zone provisions to give effect to the legacy plan change. Mr Luong considers that the outcomes anticipated by PC30 and the precinct align with the objectives and policies of the underlying Single House zone.59
12. The purpose of the precinct is to encourage and provide for a low-density residential development to the south of the existing Beachlands village and to the east of the Pine Harbour marina development, while also providing for areas of open space as specified in the provisions attached to Mr Luong’s evidence60.
13. In Mr Luong’s view, the Beachlands 1 precinct provides appropriate controls to ensure that development provides for a low density residential character which addresses its local, rural coastal settlement context.
14. Mr Luong notes that the precinct provisions have adopted the general spatial and zoning layout of PC30, together with a number of existing development controls but relied on the provisions of the underlying residential zone for much of the residential activity61. The main differences between the precinct and the PAUP provisions are outlined in Mr Luong’s evidence at Table 162.
15. The map amendments sought by the Council in its submission are generally required to capture the purpose of PC30 which was not included when the PAUP was notified. The precinct planning maps are further amended by Mr Luong in his rebuttal statement to remedy some minor errors in his primary evidence63. The revised plans are attached to Mr Luongs rebuttal report as Attachment A.
16. Mr Luong supports the retention of the precinct for the following reasons:64
a. Beachlands 1 precinct implements the PC30 provisions which are specifically tailored to the locality and its specific environmental qualities, attributes and constraints;
59 Evidence Report of M Luong dated 26 January 2016 at para 12.3. 60 Evidence Report of M Luong dated 26 January 2016 at para 7.4. 61 Evidence Report of M Luong dated 26 January 2016 at para 12.5. 62 Evidence Report of M Luong dated 26 January 2016 at page 14. 63 Rebuttal Report of M Luong dated 24 February 2016 at para 4. 64 Evidence Report of M Luong dated 26 January 2016 at para 12.8.
31560772:631364 Page 182
b. The range of development enabled by PC30 has a set of rules and outcomes that are specific to this location; and c. Some development has commenced in accordance with the PC30 rule framework with large areas within the precinct yet to be developed. Therefore, the retention of the existing rule framework will ensure that development will meet the original expectations and outcomes of PC30 and adjoining land.
31560772:631364 Page 183
BEACHLANDS 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Beachlands 2 precinct is an existing precinct over approximately 5.1 hectares of land at 129 Beachlands Rd, which is situated on the corner of Beachlands and Whitford-Maraetai Roads. The precinct is an extension of the Beachlands village, which is a rural and coastal settlement located east of the existing Manukau City urban area adjoining the Tamaki Strait coastline. The precinct adjoins the Beachlands 1 precinct.
2. The land is zoned Rural Production in the PAUP as notified, however the Council's filed zoning evidence supported a change in zone from Rural Production to Local Centre. A road widening designation for Beachlands Road (ID 1806) applies to the site.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the development of an integrated business centre that provides a wide range of retail and commercial activities to service the needs of the growing Beachlands community while ensuring the design and layout does not compromise the character of the area as a rural and coastal settlement.
4. The precinct contains three sub-precincts. Precinct plan 1 identifies car and pedestrian transport links that connect with neighbouring sites and existing road networks. Precinct plan 2 identifies the different height areas that apply to the sub- precincts and landscape buffer areas to protect the amenity and character of the area and neighbouring sites. Figures 1 - 12 set out the indicative landscape design and street typology.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016. Mr Webb supports the precinct, which seeks to incorporate the provisions of Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village business centre zone) to the legacy Manukau City Council District Plan (Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Section). PC30A involved a fine-grained analysis of the effects of development within this specific site. An appeal against Plan Change 30A was dismissed by the Environment Court in 2013 (Pohutukawa Coast Community Association v Auckland Council [2013] NZEnvC 104). Plan Change 30A was made fully operative in November 2014.
6. Mr Webb also notes that development has commenced and has largely been developed in accordance with the existing Operative Plan rule framework, and that the retention of the existing rule framework will ensure that development will meet the original expectations and outcomes of PC30A and adjoining land.
7. Progressive Enterprises Limited has lodged planning evidence by Mike Foster, which confirms that the precinct provisions, as proposed to be amended by Mr Webb's evidence, are appropriate. There are no areas of disagreement.
8. One error has been identified in the precinct description (which suggested that precinct plan 1 depicts the three sub-precincts – the planning maps do this), which has been corrected in a brief supplementary statement dated 1 March 2016 prepared by Mr Webb.
31560772:631364 Page 184
BOMBAY 1 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Bombay 1 precinct is a proposed new precinct to provide for the establishment and operation of motorway service areas in proximity to the Bombay motorway junction. The precinct seeks to restrict activities to those needed to meet the demands of motorists for convenient services, while ensuring safe and efficient movement of traffic in proximity to State Highway 1, adequate on-site infrastructure and the amenity effects on adjacent properties are minimised. The Bombay 1 precinct has been developed to reflect the outcomes sought in the Plan Change 36 to the Operative Plan.
2. The Council’s position on the Bombay 1 precinct is set out in the evidence statement of Todd Webb dated 29 January 2016, and rebuttal statement dated 24 February 2016. The Council supports the Bombay 1 precinct but proposes amendments to ensure the removal of duplication within the PAUP and consistency in the organisation and terminology of all precincts.
3. Changes proposed by the Council include the deletion of sub-precinct C and the associated rural production activities provided for within sub-precinct C, as a result of a request by David Haines on behalf of Takanini Properties Ltd (TPL) in their evidence statement dated 15 February 2016.
4. The Council does not support the request of TPL to allow supermarkets and retail to 450m2 per tenancy as a permitted activity. The Council considers that it has not been shown that these activities would not give rise to adverse cumulative effects such as on the function, role and amenity of neighbouring centres (beyond that associated with trade competition) and on traffic effects.
5. The main differences between the proposed precinct, the Operative Plan provisions and the relevant PAUP overlays, zone or Auckland-wide controls and Chapter G provisions are:
a. exemptions from a number of the objectives and policies of the underlying zone where these are inconsistent with the precinct’s purpose;
b. the construction of buildings provided for as a restricted discretionary activity; and
c. controlled activities including service stations provided for as a permitted activity.
31560772:631364 Page 185
BOMBAY 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed new precinct is located at 59 Chamberlain Road, Bombay and comprises about 18.5 ha of rural land near the Bombay Village. The purpose of the Bombay 2 precinct as requested in the submission of the Footbridge Family Trust is to provide for the continued operation of the equine facilities, function centre, and accommodation on the site at 59 Chamberlain Road. The existing facilities on the site include the Footbridge Lodge function centre, five chalets for accommodating associated guests, and the Lily Ford Centre, which is an equine testing, research and training facility.
2. The underlying zoning of land in the Bombay 2 precinct is RP. There were no submissions to change the zoning of the site. Three overlays apply to the Bombay 2 precinct: Significant Ecological Area (in the north east corner), Aquifier and Natural Stream Management Area (northern boundary of site).
3. The Council’s position is set out in the evidence report on submissions by Patrick Clearwater dated 26 January 2016. The Council does not support the Bombay 2 precinct because the activities sought to be provided for in the precinct are already enabled under existing resource consents, or are provided for in the underlying RP zone. Specifically, workers’ accommodation, accommodation, education facilities, and equestrian centres are discretionary or restricted discretionary activities in the RP zone. The Conference Centre provided for in the precinct is a non-complying activity in the RP zone however this has already been enabled through the two granted consents that enable the operation of all the activities on the site.
31560772:631364 Page 186
BOTANY JUNCTION
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Precinct is bounded by Ormiston Road, Te Irirangi Drive and Michael Jones Drive and comprises an existing Local Centre with a mix of shops. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential, retail, light industry and open space zones. To the east, the developing Flat Bush Town Centre will provide commercial, retail and civic functions to support the surrounding residential areas. To the north, is the developed Botany Town Centre zoned as a Metropolitan Centre. The underlying zoning of land in the Botany Junction Precinct is Local Centre zone. There are a number of overlays (listed in paragraph 5.1 of the evidence in chief of A Jennings).
2. The purpose of the proposed Precinct is to vary the provisions of the Local Centre zone to provide a maximum GFA, a maximum number of car parking spaces (a lower number than provided for in the Auckland-wide parking provisions) and to allow for an appropriate amount of growth within the Botany Junction Precinct.
3. One submission point has been received by Broadway Property Group (2405-1) seeking to add a new precinct called Botany Junction Precinct at the Botany Junction Local Centre. The Precinct seeks to vary the parking standards, GFA and provide for activities such as retail, office, commercial service, care centres, healthcare facilities and warehousing and storage. One further submitter, AMP Capital Property Limited (FS 831) opposes the proposed Precinct on the basis that it would undermine the centres-based hierarchy and compact urban form.
4. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anna Jennings dated 26 January 2016. Ms Jennings does not support the proposed precinct as it does not result in a significant or meaningful variation from the Local Centre zone or Auckland-wide parking provisions. The underlying Local Centre zone sufficiently provides for the mix of activities already provided for on the proposed Precinct site.
5. There are no other significant issues.
31560772:631364 Page 187
CLEVEDON 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Clevedon precinct comprises 650ha of land situated between the banks of the Wairoa River and the Taitaia Stream. The precinct incorporates the provisions of Plan Change 32 of the Manukau Section of the operative plan (PC32) which was made operative in April 2015. The notified PAUP reflects PC32 but further amendments are required in order to align the provisions with the more recently settled consent orders.
2. The notified precinct is made up of five sub-precincts and a Stormwater Management Policy Area (SMPA). It provides for:
a. Specific densities for sub-precincts within the Countryside Living and Single House zones and cluster housing within the Countryside Living zone;
b. More restrictive rules for land modification within the 1% AEP floodplain; and
c. Development being dependent on the provision of a public wastewater system.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Ardmore Airport – Height Restriction, Electricity Transmission Corridor, Indicative Stream, Clevedon East Aquifer, High Use Stream Management Area, Historic Heritage Extent of Place and the Natural Hazard Coastal Inundation overlay.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Vrinda Moghe dated 26 January 2016 and her rebuttal evidence report dated 29 February 2016. The sub-precincts are proposed to be renamed as sub-precincts A through D as an out of scope change for consistency with the PAUP and are as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A (notified 1A and 4) creates a compact residential area within 10 minutes walking distance of the Village Centre;
b. Sub-precinct B (notified 1B) applies to the edge of the existing village and provides for transition to the rural surrounds;
c. Sub-precinct C (notified 3) provides for small rural holdings that can enable lifestyle farming and other rural activities; and
d. Sub-precinct D (notified 2) applies on and to the west of the main street and reinforces the area as a local service centre.
5. To avoid duplication of provisions and for consistency within the PAUP, the following out of scope changes are proposed:
a. The deletion of notified sub-precinct 4 which provides for comprehensive development of community facilities through a framework plan requirement.
b. The deletion of the SMPA as it duplicates the 1% AEP year floodplain which is mapped in the PAUP as a non-statutory layer. Instead, land modification that leads to an increase in flood levels upstream or downstream that affects buildings in storm events up to and including the 1% AEP is proposed to be a
31560772:631364 Page 188
non-complying activity. Other land modifications to the 1% AEP are proposed to be discretionary activities (refer Rules 6.5.1 Activity Table and 6.5.5.1.4).
c. To align with PC32, the introduction of indicative trail rules (refer Rule 6.5.5.3A) and amendments to the wastewater rule to enable development on lots existing at 19 October 2012 as a discretionary activity rather than non- complying (refer Rule 6.5.4.5).
6. The following amendments are proposed in response to submissions:
a. Deleting the framework plan requirement (refer Rule 6.5.3.3).
b. Providing for farming after reticulated wastewater is made available within the precinct as a permitted activity in sub-precinct C, discretionary activity in sub- precincts A and B and non-complying activity in sub-precinct D (refer Rule 6.5.1 Activity Table). Currently it is not provided for.
c. Amending the average lot size within sub-precinct B from 1400 to 1000sqm (refer Rule 6.5.5.1.1).
d. Adding an objective and a policy and deleting certain parts the roading network rules (refer Rule 6.5.5.3) relating to the provision of a transport network as part of the development of the village as sought by Auckland Council.
e. To reflect the PC32 consent orders:
i. Extending sub-precinct C to include an additional area along the south- western boundary of the precinct with amended densities, an associated Development Restriction Area and planting requirements (refer Rules 6.5.5.1 and 6.5.5.1.4.7, 8 and 9);
ii. Amending prohibited activity status for new subdivision from 31 July 2017 to 1 October 2016 (refer Rule 6.5.1 Activity Table);
iii. Adding provisions that relate to access points, planting and re-vegetation (refer Rule 6.5.5.3B) and timing of planting within the Village Gateway Corridor (refer Rule 6.5.5.1.4A);
iv. Adding a GFA limit on new retail (refer Rule 6.5.1 Activity Table);
v. Adding new roading cross sections to accommodate a new roading typology; and
vi. Extending the ‘Area of Increased Subdivision Opportunity’ (Precinct Plan 1) to parts of sub-precinct C.
Remaining issues
7. Amendments sought in submitter evidence which are not accepted are the reintroduction of particular objectives, policies and rules, sub-precinct 4, further requirements for the indicative trails loop, a bespoke requirement for riparian planting on the Wairoa River floodplain and reinstatement of the framework plan provisions. The Council’s position is that the revised precinct provisions adequately reflect the PC32 outcomes, while avoiding duplication of other provisions within the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 189
8. A number of submitters seek amendments to the precinct boundary (to the east or Wairoa Village or west of the Taitaia Stream). The Council’s position is that the legacy plan and the precinct have been developed so as to enable the village to grow to a sufficient scale to allow for an economical reticulated public wastewater system to be installed and not for enabling additional countryside living around the village. The inclusion of land parcels that are outside of the precinct carries the risk of undermining the logic of the precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 190
CLEVEDON 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Clevedon 3 precinct relates to land at 415 and 540 North Road, Clevedon and comprises approximately 240 hectares of Rural Coastal and Mixed Rural zoned land adjacent to the Wairoa River. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified. Its inclusion in the PAUP is proposed by submitters A & K Smith/S & M McKenzie.
2. The site is approximately 5km to the northeast of the existing Clevedon village. It is located outside the RUB and is not an existing rural and coastal town or village. The land is subject to a range of environmental and heritage constraints which are recognised through a number of restrictive overlays, including Significant Ecological Areas Overlay, Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua Overlay and the Natural Hazard Flood Inundation Overlay. The adjoining marine area is subject to Significant (Marine) Ecological Area overlays.
3. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for a canal-based maritime village of 350 dwellings together with 300 berths, surrounding public open space, green infrastructure, a small village hub, a lock and weir and a network of walking and cycle trails. Within the overarching Clevedon 3 precinct, there will be 4 sub-precincts and associated rezoning within each (to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone, Neighbourhood Centre zone, Public Open Space - Informal Recreation, General Coastal Marine, and Mixed Rural zone).
4. Of particular note, in terms of background, is the fact that a very similar, although less intense canal housing proposal (267 dwellings) was promoted as a plan change by the Manukau City Council, Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Operative Manukau District Plan for a 'Wairoa River Maritime Village' (PC13). The Environment Court rejected PC13 on appeal in 2010 on the grounds that it would have significant adverse effects on Maori, natural character, the coastal environment, would not advance the Auckland Regional Policy Statements provisions on urban containment, and would not achieve integrated management of resources (Clevedon Cares v Manukau City Council [2010] NZEnvC 211).
5. A significant amount of expert evidence was lodged by the submitters on various dates in February, supplementing various documents (mostly draft and/or incomplete) supplied on 23 October and 19 December 2015, and on 15 January 2016. Given the Council's limited resources and the substantial amount of new information received, the Council has regrettably been unable to undertake a full assessment of the information that has been provided. Rather, it has sought to focus on the key areas of concern, which have been identified, as part of a high level review of the material, as follows:
a. Planning concerns arising from the strategic direction of the PAUP RPS, and the provisions of the Rural Coastal zone; b. Māori cultural effects; c. Landscape effects; and d. Water quality effects (including antifouling contaminants).
6. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the following evidence:
a. The evidence report of Jacky Bartley (planning) dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 26 February 2016;
31560772:631364 Page 191
b. The evidence in chief of Melean Absolum (landscape) dated 26 January 2016; c. The evidence in chief of Lara Taylor (Māori cultural heritage) dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016; d. The rebuttal evidence of Marcus Cameron dated 24 February 2016 on antifouling contaminants; and e. The rebuttal evidence of Ian Mayhew dated 25 February 2016 on water quality.
7. Ms Bartley has undertaken a merit assessment of the proposed precinct, drawing on the input of the other witnesses referred to above, with the conclusion that the proposed precinct does not pass a merit assessment to warrant inclusion in the PAUP. This is for a range of reasons, including:
a. The precinct does not give effect to the strategic direction of the PAUP RPS, and does not give effect to the Council’s position on the RUB. b. Insufficient information has been provided by the submitters for Council to be satisfied that the potential effects of the following matters can be adequately addressed:
i. the potential effects of a new canal housing development on the Wairoa River; ii. the potential effects of the discharge of degraded water from the waterways to the Wairoa River; iii. the potential effects on water quality and the ecosystems of the Wairoa River and Estuary; iv. Mana Whenua values; and v. Landscapes and natural character.
c. The precinct will result in a significant departure from the existing Rural Coastal zone objectives, policies and rules (which do not provide for urban development). d. The Environment Court declined a similar proposal for 267 dwellings in this location in 2010, and the precinct does not demonstrate significant new information or changed circumstances. e. The proposal will not achieve the purpose of the RMA in terms of sections 5, 6(a), 6(e), 7(a), 7(aa) and section 8. Concerns are also recorded in terms of sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and as to whether the proposal gives effect to a number of important NZCPS objectives and policies.
8. As indicated above, significant concerns about the likely extent of adverse cultural and landscape effects remain. Concerns have also been identified in Council's rebuttal in relation to water quality. We address each briefly below:
a. Ms Taylor refers to the strong opposition of Ngā Tai ki Tamaki, as expressed in the 2010 Environment Court proceedings and the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for PC13, and its recent CIA commissioned by the submitters for the purposes of the PAUP submission. Ngāi Tai’s interests in the Wairoa River and the wider rohe are identified in a Deed of Settlement with the Crown concluded in November 2015. Ms Taylor discusses the cultural issues in some detail in her EIC and rebuttal evidence, however in short she concludes (para 6.2, rebuttal) that the proposal remains inadequate in terms of recognising and providing for Māori cultural heritage, which is critical in this case because the proposed development affects the Wairoa River and its surrounding areas, with which Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have an
31560772:631364 Page 192
exceptionally strong relationship. In her EIC, she expresses the view that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on Māori cultural heritage, and the development would in her view constrain and adversely affect the relationship between Ngāi Tai and the Wairoa River and wider ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and taonga and prevent Māori from practicing kaitiakitanga.
b. While acknowledging the environmental enhancement initiatives proposed, Ms Absolum concludes (para 8.6) that they do not sufficiently avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse impacts on the landscape character, natural character or amenity values of the lower Wairoa Valley which would result from the enabled development.
c. Mr Cameron raises a concern in relation to the potential antifouling impact of the proposal, which is proposed to involve around 300 boats (based on the number of berths proposed). He is concerned (para 5.4) that until such time that a risk assessment has been carried out, or provisions developed requiring an alternative antifouling approach, then the potential adverse effects of the discharge of water from the proposed precinct to the Wairoa River and wider estuary have not been sufficiently assessed. Mr Mayhew expresses similar water quality concerns. He concludes (para 5.2) that the potential adverse effects of the discharge of (degraded) water from the waterways to the Wairoa River and Estuary have not been sufficiently assessed at this stage.
9. The Council does not support the proposed precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 193
DRURY SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Drury South Industrial precinct is a proposed precinct comprising 361 ha of land bounded by State Highway 1 in the west, the Drury Quarry and Hunua foothills in the east, Fitzgerald Road in the north and Ararimu Road in the South. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submissions of Auckland Council (submission 5716-3294), and Stevenson Group Limited (Stevenson) (submission 2682-231).
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to provide for land extensive industrial activity as well as to provide for areas of stormwater management, existing and proposed network utility infrastructure, public open space and proposed roads, while recognising the ecological, cultural, landscape and other environmental constraints of the locality.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including the Quarry Buffer Area overlay, the Quarry Transport Route overlay, the High Land Transport Noise route overlay, the Electricity Transmission Corridor overlay and a Significant Ecological Area overlay.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Donald Craig Cairncross dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Cairncross supports the proposed precinct, which is sought to incorporate the Drury South Plan Change decisions (which were made operative by the Council on 31 October 2014) into the PAUP. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into five sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Light Industry; b. Sub-precinct B: Motorway Edge (Light Industry); c. Sub-precinct C: Commercial Services (Light Industry); d. Sub-precinct D: Public Open Space/Stormwater Management; and e. Sub-precinct E: Heavy Industry.
5. As set out in the evidence report of Mr Cairncross, the proposed precinct to a large part reflects the previous plan changes and judicial process relating to the precinct area.
Submitter Evidence
6. The following submitter evidence was received in relation to the Drury South precinct:
a. Stephen Hughes (CEO of Stevenson) for Stevenson; b. Andrew Peter Murray (Traffic and Transport) for Stevenson; c. Gregory John Osborne (Planning) for Stevenson; and d. Sylvia Jean Allan (Planning) for Transpower New Zealand Limited (Transpower).
7. In his evidence for Stevenson, Mr Osborne proposed a number of amendments to the precinct provisions, the majority of which are supported by Mr Cairncross in his rebuttal report (at paragraphs 5.7, 6.12(a) and 6.12(c)). However, for the reasons set out at paragraph 6.5 of his rebuttal report, Mr Cairncross does not support Mr
31560772:631364 Page 194
Osborne’s proposed wording changes to the assessment criteria, to replace the use of “should” with “the extent to which” and “whether”.
8. In relation to the transportation network, Mr Osborne proposed introducing additional flexibility in the assessment criteria and amendments to the road layouts in Precinct Plan 1 and 2. As set out in paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 of the rebuttal evidence of Mr Cairncross, the proposed amendments are not opposed by Auckland Transport or the New Zealand Transport Agency, and therefore Mr Cairncross supports those changes.
9. At paragraph 5.30 of her evidence on behalf of Transpower, Ms Allan proposes that the precinct provisions specifically include the operative district plan rules relating to management of development around the National Grid. As set out in paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of his rebuttal report, Mr Cairncross does not support those proposed amendments. In his rebuttal evidence on behalf of Stevenson, Mr Osborne also stated that he does not support Ms Allan’s proposal.65
10. The amended precinct provisions and precinct plans are set out at Attachments A and B of the rebuttal report of Mr Cairncross.
Remaining issues
11. Informal discussions between the Council and Stevenson took place between November 2015 and January 2016 in order to understand differences in submission points. As a result, Mr Cairncross agrees with a number of changes to the precinct provisions proposed by Stevenson in its submission and evidence. The remaining points of difference are relatively minor. The changes proposed by Ms Allan for Transpower are not supported.
65 Statement of Rebuttal Evidence of Gregory John Osborne for Stevenson Group Limited, dated 24 February 2016, at paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4.
31560772:631364 Page 195
FLAT BUSH PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Flat Bush precinct comprises 1730ha of greenfields land bounded by Browns Lane, Te Irirangi Drive, Redoubt Road and Ormiston Road. It incorporates the provisions of Plan Change 20 of the Manukau Section of the operative plan (PC20), made operative in January 2015. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for:
a. A combination of restrictive and permissive density controls, reflecting the environmental constraints of the land and the Moderate Aircraft Noise Area (MANA);
b. A green finger network and provisions relating to stormwater management and public open space vesting; and
c. Grid pattern roading.
2. The precinct as notified is subject to a number of overlays, including Arterial Road, Airspace Restriction Designations, Aircraft Noise, National Grid Corridor, Historic Heritage Extent of Place, Additional Subdivision Controls (Whitford Countryside Living) which is now proposed for deletion, Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation, Ridgeline Protection, Additional Zone Height Controls (Flat Bush Town Centre), Notable Trees, Indicative Streams, Significant Ecological Areas and the Rural Urban Boundary.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Vrinda Moghe and Jacqueline Bartley dated 26 January 2016 (EiC) and their rebuttal evidence report dated 29 February 2016 (Rebuttal). The notified precinct is made up of two sub-precincts and nine areas and its structure is outlined in Table 1 of the EiC. It is proposed that the precinct be restructured, as an out of scope change, to simplify the layers of provisions. The precinct is proposed to be split into three precincts and four sub-precincts as follows:
a. Flat Bush 1 (Urban) (notified sub-precinct A) including:
i. A new Sub-precinct A – Indicative Open Space Area (notified Area 6);
b. Flat Bush 2 (Countryside Living) (notified sub-precinct B) including:
i. Sub-precinct A – Stormwater Management and Conservation Area (notified Area 9);
ii. Sub-precinct B – McQuoids Road (part of notified Area 7 but proposed in order to address PC20 consent orders);
iii. Sub-precinct C – Willowbank (proposed in order to reflect the Operative Plan); and
c. Flat Bush 3 (Special Housing Area) (notified Future Urban Zone land).
4. Other proposed out of scope changes are generally associated with the deletion of provisions that duplicate those in the underlying zone and amendments for consistency within the PAUP. Some new development controls are proposed within Flat Bush 1 sub-precinct A – Indicative Public Open Space) to manage development on land at the time of subdivision in the event land is developed prior to being vested
31560772:631364 Page 196
with Council for stormwater management or public open space purposes (refer Rules 6.6.1.4.1, 3 and 4).
5. Amendments to the Flat Bush precinct as sought by submissions are:
a. Amendments to the objectives and policies as they relate to the MANA for correction and clarity.
b. The incorporation of the density control provisions confirmed in the consent order settling the appeal of Todd Properties Limited to PC20 dated 6 March 2014, that prescribed 520sqm and 1000sqm maximum densities to reflect the flat and steep topography of the land. The lower maximum density is achieved through a restriction on Single House zoned land and the higher maximum density is achieved through a restriction in sub-precinct B – McQuoids Road (refer Rules 6.6.2.3.1 and 6.6.2.5.1).
c. The removal of the Whitford Countryside Living Overlay which provided for general subdivision density in the Countryside Living zone and is no longer required because Flat Bush 2 provides specific density for development within the precinct.
d. Amended transport provisions, including the specific roading typologies which have been reviewed and supported by Auckland Transport.
e. The introduction of sub-precinct C - Willowbank area as it seeks to achieve a graduated interface between the Countryside Living zone to the east and the traditional suburban densities to the west.
f. Simplifying the yard and HIRB requirements in Flat Bush 1 which assist in lots being developed between the roading grid pattern as confirmed by PC20 (6.6.1.4.2 and 6.6.1.4.3).
g. Zoning corrections addressed in Rebuttal at 21 and 39 Flat Bush School Road and Flat Bush Town Centre.
6. It is noted that the decision on Plan Variation 8 (PV8) was released on 12 February 2016 and concerned an application to the Council under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. The land concerned is outside of the proposed Flat Bush 1 and 2 precincts but was included as a Future Urban Zone area in the notified precinct. The decision approved PV8 (subject to modifications) as a distinct sub- precinct forming part of the Flat Bush precinct and two “qualifying developments” at Murphys Road, Flat Bush. As a result of the restructuring of the precinct into three precincts, the decision version of PV8 will need to be integrated into the PAUP.
31560772:631364 Page 197
FRANKLIN PRECINCT
PROPOSED DELETION OF PRECINCT AND PROPOSED NEW PRECINCTS
1. The Franklin precinct as notified in the PAUP applies to a number of rural and coastal settlements and serviced villages in Franklin. It includes nine sub-precincts that apply to particular settlements. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for growth managed by framework plans, precinct plans or other rules, while responding to distinctive landscape and built character features.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the planning evidence report of Patrick Clearwater and Todd Webb (the Planning EiC) and landscape evidence report of Stephen Brown both dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report of Stephen Brown dated 29 February 2016 insofar as it concerns the proposed new Matingarahi precinct. Mr Clearwater and Mr Webb do not support the retention of the Franklin precinct as a whole. They propose a restructuring so that certain sub- precincts become their own precincts as well as the introduction of two new precincts and the deletion of some sub-precincts. This restructuring is an out of scope change but is considered necessary to avoid multiple layers within one precinct and including disparate geographical areas within the same precinct.
Proposed new precincts
3. The new precincts that reflect the notified sub-precincts are as follows:
a. Big Bay precinct which includes specified building areas, accessways and amenity planting areas that respond to its coastal location and reflect the Big Bay Village Overlay Plan. The Big Bay Village Overlay Plan was included in Plan Change 14 to the Franklin Section of the legacy plan (PC14) which became part operative on 29 May 2014.
b. Grahams Beach precinct which includes a detailed precinct plan setting out roads, pedestrian accessways and amenity planning areas responding to the coastal location.
c. Karaka South precinct which includes a proposed road, access to the existing school and amenity planting that was included in PC14 which established this area as a growth node.
d. Matingarahi precinct which includes a detailed precinct plan setting out specified building areas, accessways, amenity planting areas and height restrictions responding to the coastal location in accordance with the consent order that was settled in 2011 as part of PC14. Amendments are proposed, some in response to submissions, to the policies and assessment criteria which are essentially corrections or for clarification. A consequential amendment to the Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) overlay that applies to part of this precinct is included in the EiC of Mr Brown and refined further in his Rebuttal. The change acknowledges that PC14 has enabled development of this area to the extent that it will not qualify as an ONL. This addresses the submission66 and evidence received on behalf of MLW Adams Family Trust.
e. Te Toro precinct which includes framework plan and yard requirements. The deletion of the yard requirement for a number of the proposed precincts
66 4792-102 coded to Topic 019.
31560772:631364 Page 198
is discussed further below. The framework plan requirement is proposed to be retained but amended so as to only apply to the undeveloped lots which are approximately 70ha in total and are each owned by two different landowners. It is proposed that each landholding be subject to a separate sub-precinct so that a comprehensive road and reserve pattern can be established for each before subdivision (refer Attachment D to the Planning EiC). The precinct area is proposed to be adjusted so as to only apply to those lots.
4. The new Patumahoe precinct is proposed where, in response to a submission from TK and BW McMiken Limited (3918-3), a number of the provisions of the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan introduced by Plan Change 37 to the legacy plan (PC37) are to be incorporated. The Patumahoe sub-precinct G as notified is adjacent to this area and is no longer considered to be necessary as a large portion has been subdivided and developed. That is except for Area B which identifies the location of the stormwater ponds and indicative road layout. Area B is proposed to be incorporated as sub- precinct A of the new Patumahoe precinct for this purpose. The new precinct is considered necessary because the provisions:
a. Are tailored to local circumstances and provide for a more restrictive minimum site size, open space, particular building design requirements, yards, retaining walls, vehicle access and stormwater controls that affect the staging of development;
b. Reflect the provisions that have been through two relatively recent plan change processes (the other being PC14); and
c. Are substantially different from what is provided for by any of the PAUP zonings and Auckland-wide provisions.
5. Wattle Bay precinct is proposed to be introduced as an out of scope change as it reflects the Wattle Bay Village Overlay Plan which was created by consent order dated 27 June 2012 as part of PC14. It had been inadvertently excluded from the notified PAUP. The proposed precinct includes subdivision controls requiring no- build and viewshaft areas, providing and then protecting amenity planting areas and a limit on the maximum number of lots. The owners of the affected land were notified by letter on 23 December 2015 of the Council’s intention to provide evidence that the Wattle Bay precinct be included in the PAUP and a response has not been received.
Proposed deletion of precincts
6. The remaining sub-precincts that were included in the notified Franklin precinct are proposed to be deleted. These are:
a. Kauritutahi (sub-precinct D) which includes minimum subdivision lot sizes which are now proposed to be provided for within Rule H5.2.3.1 Subdivision controls for Residential zones (as a consequential and out of scope change).
b. Matakawau Point (sub-precinct F) which includes a framework plan requirement which is not considered to be necessary because the area has already been partly subdivided and the framework plan requirement for the remainder would add little given that this is a single parcel of land and road access has already been established.
c. Patumahoe (sub-precinct G) as explained at paragraph 4 above.
31560772:631364 Page 199
d. Waiua Pa (sub-precinct I) in which the particular subdivision controls included in that sub-precinct are not required because the subdivision is nearing completion and the roads have been constructed. The other controls are yard requirements which not necessary either as explained at paragraph 7 below.
Proposed deletion of the yard controls
7. As notified these sub-precincts that are now proposed for deletion and the Te Toro sub-precinct include particular yard controls that are not considered to be necessary because they address:
a. Arterial road frontages - there are are no arterial roads fronting the precincts;
b. Properties adjoining a Rural zone - reverse sensitivity matters are dealt with through the Rural zones rules; and
c. Riparian, lake or coastal frontages - there is no technical or site-specific justification for such yards in the section 32 report accompanying PC14 and many of the sites have esplanade reserves or road reserves which achieve a separation between the coast and development areas.
Out of scope changes
8. It is noted that, aside from the restructuring of the Franklin precinct and its associated amendments, out of scope changes include:
a. Amendments to the objectives and policies that are intended to clarify the intent of the provisions and for consistency with the PAUP;
b. The deletion of the Waiau Pa sub-precinct provisions;
c. Amendments to Te Toro to address the part deletion of the framework plan requirement;
d. Various deletions that reflect the fact that subdivision and development have already taken place or where there is duplication of other PAUP provisions so that certain provisions are no longer required (including yards); and
e. Various changes to reflect provisions that are included in PC14 or PC37 where appropriate (including the introduction of the Wattle Bay precinct).
31560772:631364 Page 200
GLENBROOK 1
PROPOSED PRECINCT (NOT SUPPORTED)
1. Glenbrook 1 is a proposed precinct over the Glenbrook Steel Mill. The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission of NZ Steel (868- 70) The proposed precinct is based on Part 32 (Iron and Steel Production zone) of the Operative Plan.
2. The purpose of the proposed precinct is to support and enable the continued operation and sustainable management of the Glenbrook steel mill site, and associated facilities and activities, in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment, or on the amenities of the surrounding area.67
3. The proposed precinct consists of two sub-precincts:68
a. Area A - consists of the area currently used for iron and steel production as well as a range of associated activities, and has an underlying zoning of Heavy Industry.
b. Area B - includes the land to the north of Brookside Road and to the east of Mission Bush Road, and has underlying zoning of Rural Production, Rural Coastal and Mixed Rural.
4. The precinct provisions propose a number of differences to the relevant overlays, zoning rules and Auckland-wide rules in relation to worker accommodation, landfills/cleanfills/managed fills, farming, mitigation planting, any activity not specifically provided for, and development controls relating to noise, location of buildings and landscaping, parking and traffic, and coastal protection yards.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016. Mr Webb does not consider that the proposed precinct meets the relevant criteria set out in the Panel’s Interim Guidance ‘Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts’, and therefore does not support the proposed precinct. In particular, Mr Webb considers that the majority of the activities proposed to be included in the precinct are either provided for in the underlying Heavy Industry zone, or are protected by existing use rights, or are able to be established by way of resource consent.69
Remaining Issues
6. In their evidence on behalf of NZ Steel two remaining matters are identified as remaining points of difference between NZ Steel and the Council:
a. Ms Rickard and Mr Lindenberg consider that there is a lack of certainty in the Heavy Industry zoning rules as to what activities accessory to an ‘industrial activity’ are provided for. They consider that the proposed precinct provisions
67 Primary statement of Andrea Rickard and Matt Lindenberg on behalf of New Zealand Steel Limited, 10 February 2016, at paragraph 19. 68 The precinct plan and proposed precinct provisions are set out at Attachment A of the joint statement of Ms Rickard and Mr Lindenberg. 69 Evidence report of Todd William Webb on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 January 2016 at paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6.
31560772:631364 Page 201
provide certainty by specifying which activities are provided for within the precinct.70
b. In his evidence on behalf of NZ Steel, Mr Hegley points out that the current noise controls contained in the Operative Plan for the Iron and Steel Production zone are less restrictive than the noise controls in the PAUP’s Heavy Industry zone. This would result in non-compliance with the relevant controls, and Mr Hegley considers that compliance with the noise controls set out in the Heavy Industry zone would not be practical.71 Mr Hegley states that over 30 years of operation, there have only been three noise related complaints, all of which were resolved. 72 He considers that precinct provisions incorporating the Operative Plan rules on noise control subject to modification is appropriate.73
7. Having considered the submitter evidence, Mr Webb maintains his view as set out in his evidence report, that the remaining issues that NZ Steel want managed through the creation of a precinct would be more appropriately addressed by resource consent.
70 Primary statement of Ms Rickard and Mr Lindenberg at paragrapjs 26 to 31. 71 Statement of evidence by Nevil Ian Hegley on behalf of NZ Steel dated 10 February 2016 at paragraph 6.1. 72 at paragraph 2.3. 73 at paragraph 5.1.
31560772:631364 Page 202
GLENBROOK VINTAGE RAILWAY
PROPOSED PRECINCT (NOT SUPPORTED)
1. The Glenbrook Vintage Railway precinct is a proposed precinct located on the 7.4 km railway between the Glenbrook railway station at Glenbrook and the Victoria Avenue railway station at Waiuku, and includes a further extension to a terminus at Tamakae Reserve.74 The precinct is not in the PAUP as notified, and is proposed in the submission by the Glenbrook Vintage Railway (4860-2) and through further information provided to the Council by the Glenbrook Vintage Railway Charitable Trust Board on 26 August 2015.75
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for all the activities currently carried out within the existing rail corridor, and associated buildings. This is an extensive list of activities, and includes operating the railway, maintaining the rolling stock in heavy engineering workshops, and serving the public.
3. The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct is Rural Production, Public Open Space – Informal Recreation and Mixed Housing Urban, and the part of the proposed precinct in the CMA is Coastal Transition and General Coastal Marine. There is one sub-precinct within the precinct, sub-precinct A, which provides for specific land use controls for the area adjacent to King Street and Tamakae Reserve.
4. There are a number of overlays which apply to the land in the proposed precinct, including New Zealand Railways Corporation 6306 for the Mission Bush Branch Railway Line, Historic Heritage Extent of Place, Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation, Significant Ecological Area, Aquifer and High Use Stream Management Area. The submitter has also requested that land adjacent to the proposed precinct be made subject to the High Land Transport Route Noise and Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation overlay.
5. The Council’s evidence regarding the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence report of Patrick Francis Clearwater dated 26 January 2016. Mr Clearwater does not support the proposed precinct for the following reasons:76
a. There are already resource consents and existing use rights that provide for the existing and future activities of the Glenbrook Vintage Railway;
b. The wide range of non-railway business activities provided for in the proposed precinct provisions as permitted activities with an absence of associated controls would be more effectively and efficiently dealt with via resource consent application;
c. The underlying Rural Production and Public Open Space – Informal Recreation provide for the railway and associated activities; and
d. A number of the controls proposed in the precinct, including those relating to discharges from vehicles and speeds of vehicles are not matters that can be controlled by district plan provisions, and the remaining proposed controls,
74 The boundaries of the proposed precinct are set out in the map at Attachment B of the evidence report of Patrick Francis Clearwater on behalf of the Auckland Council, dated 26 January 2016. 75 The proposed precinct provisions are attached to the evidence report of Mr Clearwater at Attachment C. 76 As discussed at paragraph 9.2 of the evidence report of Mr Clearwater and the merit assessment of the proposed precinct at Attachment D of his evidence report.
31560772:631364 Page 203
such as the hours of operation controls, are not sufficient to justify creation of a precinct.
6. No submitter evidence has been received in regarding this precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 204
KARAKA 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Karaka 1 precinct is an existing precinct comprising approximately 18 ha of land adjacent to the Southern Motorway and the Papakura Interchange. The precinct has provided for the continued use and development of the New Zealand Bloodstock Karaka Sales Centre (NZBKSC) since 1999.
2. Activities related to the NZBKSC include bloodstock sales and purchase and related temporary activities. The precinct aims to ensure that the associated adverse effects of these activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
3. The underlying zone of the Karaka 1 precinct is Light Industrial, and there were no requests to change this zoning. The surrounding area is characterised by residential development, and the Hingaia Special Housing Area which is located adjacent to the precinct. The following overlays apply to the Karaka 1 precinct:
a. Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation; b. Designations – Airspace Restriction Designations; c. High Land Transport Route Noise; d. Historic Heritage Place – ID: 711, Vela House; e. Indicative Stream; and f. Stormwater Management Area.
4. The Council’s position in relation to the Karaka 1 precinct is set out in the evidence report of Cindy Yin dated 26 January 2016, and rebuttal statement dated 24 February 2016. The Council proposes to maintain the precinct with some amendments in response to submissions, as well as minor our-of-scope amendments to ensure consistency across the PAUP and to reduce confusion in the application of the Karaka 1 precinct.
5. The main differences between the Karaka 1 precinct as proposed and the relevant overlays, zone, and Auckland-wide rules are:
a. objectives and policies specifically providing for the bloodstock industry; b. less restrictive provisions relating to visitor accommodation; c. more restrictive provisions relating to amenity issues in the precinct because of the existing landscape of the site providing a high level of amenity value for the precinct and surrounding area; and d. provision for certain unique temporary activities on the precinct site.
6. The Council proposes a change to the activity status for visitor accommodation from a controlled activity to a restricted discretionary activity. The Council considers that this will allow the application of a more comprehensive set of assessment criteria, including the design and appearance of buildings, transportation effects and landscaping treatment.
7. In response to a submission from the NZBKSC, the Council proposes to remove Rule 3.3 relating to additions and alterations to buildings. The Council also proposes deleting a rule controlling building height within the precinct to no more than 15 metres, which is in conflict (for no arguable reason) with the LI zoning provisions that allow buildings up to 20 metres high.
8. The Council proposed an out of scope amendment to change the precinct name to “Hingaia Bloodstock precinct” in the evidence in chief of Ms Yin, however upon
31560772:631364 Page 205
request from the landowner the Council now supports reinstating the precinct name “Karaka 1” which is associated with the Centre’s brand and important for recognition by both international and domestic customers.
31560772:631364 Page 206
KARAKA 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Karaka 2 precinct is a proposed new precinct that provides for the development of a small village, 54ha in size, in Karaka. The precinct is located at the junction of Blackbridge Road and Linwood Road. The village is intended to support the wider rural community with local retail, service and community activities. The Karaka 2 precinct gives effect to Council and Environment Court decisions in respect of Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Franklin Section 2000 (PC14). PC14 became operative on 21 October 2013, including the provisions in respect of the Karaka Village.
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct is Local Centre, Mixed Housing and SHZ. The surrounding area is predominantly rural in character, with the exception of a small ‘village node’ at the junction of Blackbridge and Linwood Roads, which includes St Margaret’s Church, Karaka Recreation Area, as well as some retail activity. The western edge of the precinct is located approximately 500 metres from the Whangamarie Creek which flows out to the Pahurehure Inlet.
3. The Council’s position on the Karaka 2 precinct is set out in the evidence report on submissions by Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016, and the rebuttal statements of Todd Webb, Christopher Allen (Watercare), and Timothy Segedin (Transport).
4. The Council supports the retention of the Karaka 2 precinct in order to ensure the outcomes of recent decisions on PC14. The Council proposes some changes both in response to submissions and in order to uphold PC14 decisions. Specifically, the Council proposes 343 Linwood Road be partially rezoned from SHZ to MHS in those areas located in close proximity to the Karaka 2 precinct’s town centre. The Council’s rezoning evidence considers, however, that a strip of single houses is required to remain along the southern boundary to create an appropriate transition to the neighbouring rural land.
5. As proposed, the main differences between the precinct provisions and the relevant underlying zone controls are:
a. Subdivision requires consent as a discretionary activity. Subdivision that does not comply with the precinct’s subdivision controls is a non-complying activity; b. Density and minimum site size standards within the precinct of 300m2 in the MHS zone, 800m2 in the SHZ and 2500m2 for an unserviced site; and c. A maximum height of 8 metres in all zones within the precinct.
6. Other than editorial changes, the Council proposes an out of scope change to delete the general tree protection provisions and establish a tree schedule to protect a Norfolk Pine that was identified as significant through PC14. The Pine has not been assessed against the notable tree criteria and therefore has been listed for protection within Appendix 3.4.
7. The main issue associated with this precinct is the request from Karaka North Village Ltd (5925; FS 877) and Karaka Village (1995) Limited (4003) to extend the precinct area, and associated rezoning of the land. The Council considers that granting this proposal does not meet the objectives of the RPS and Part 2 of the RMA. In coming to this view the Council has sought the expert transportation advice of Mr Segedin
31560772:631364 Page 207
and Mr Allen on behalf of Watercare to understand the potential effects of this proposal on transport networks and infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure.
8. The Council considers that the evidence provided by the submitters is insufficient in its consideration of effects arising from rezoning of productive rural land for residential development; has failed to adequately address the cumulative transport effects arising from the precinct extensions within the Hingaia-Linwood corridor; has failed to adequately address adverse effects on water quality within a sensitive receiving environment; and fails to address the impact of the precinct extension on Mana Whenua values, particularly in relation to the discharge of wastewater in proximity to the Whangamaire Stream.
9. The Council notes that Stage 4 of the RUB process, which will form part of the Council’s word programme for 2016/2017 will allow for more detailed analysis of the effects of extending the precinct area which ensuring a strategic approach is taken to the consideration of growth across the wider Karaka area. This process would also allow for appropriate consultation with the community and Mana Whenua groups.
31560772:631364 Page 208
KELLY’S COVE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Kelly’s Cove precinct comprises 70 ha of land located between the existing urbanised area of Beachlands to the west, Beachlands Road to the south, the Whitford-Maraetai Road and the Te Puru Reserve to the west and the Hauraki Gulf to the north. The precinct is proposed to be deleted from the PAUP and, as submissions on this precinct seek its amendment rather than its deletion, it is an out of scope change.
2. The purpose of the notified precinct is to provide for residential expansion which is sensitive to the character and amenity values of the existing Beachlands settlement, the coastal environment and reserve areas in locality. To achieve this, the underlying Single House Zone is modified through density controls resulting in a maximum cap of 420 household units and a minimum 700m2 net site control for new lots. The precinct also includes land zoned Public Open Space – Informal Recreation and Public Open Space Conservation at its northern extent (the existing Leigh Auton Reserve). The precinct is based on the provisions of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) which resulted from PC17 which was made operative on 14 August 2009.
3. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, including Outstanding Natural Landscape and Significant Ecological Area at the northern tip of the reserve, Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua, Indicative Streams within the existing public open space and Coastal Inundation on northern tip of the precinct within Leigh Auton Reserve and north eastern extent of the residential portion of precinct.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Michael Luong dated 26 January 2016. Mr Luong supports the deletion of the precinct because:
a. The precinct is already largely developed with existing residential development having taken place in accordance with the precinct plan which reflects the Kelly’s Cove structure plan within the legacy plan;
b. Apart from particular subdivision controls, the precinct provisions are generally in line with the PAUP provisions for the Single House zone;
c. All public open space and stormwater management areas to be vested to Council have already been taken and/or will be vested via conditions of consent for the remaining two stages; and
d. There is no need for reference back to the precinct specific objectives and policies for future development, because the precinct provisions are concerned with subdivision design and development patterns. Those matters have already been provided for.
5. A list of the main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones and Auckland-wide rules are set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Luong, at paragraph 1.8. As a result of the deletion of this precinct, the amendments sought in submissions are not supported.
6. No submitter evidence has been received with respect to this precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 209
KINGSEAT PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
8. The Kingseat precinct was notified in the PAUP and comprises:
a. the former Kingseat psychiatric hospital; b. existing housing and commercial activity adjacent to McRobbie and Kingseat Roads; and c. approximately 250ha of additional land provided by the former Franklin District Council legacy Plan Change 28 (PC28).
9. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the development of Kingseat as a compact rural village. In order to deliver this, the precinct as notified requires that subdivision and development align with design criteria consistent with a compact, walkable village with a unique character. This implements the vision for Kingseat as a rural and coastal village in PC28.
10. The precinct is subject to three overlays – Additional Subdivision Control; Historic Heritage; and Natural Resources.
11. The Council evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Barry Mosley dated 27 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Tracey Ogden-Cork also produced evidence and rebuttal evidence in relation to urban design in the Kingseat precinct. Both Mr Mosley and Ms Ogden-Cork support the inclusion of the precinct in the PAUP. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Kingseat Hospital Buildings b. Sub-precinct B: Single House c. Sub-precinct C: Medium Density Residential d. Sub-precinct D: Kingseat Village Centre e. Sub-precinct E: Kingseat Light Industry f. Sub-precinct F: Rural Transition g. Sub-precinct G: Coastal Transition
Remaining Issues
12. A number of changes were made to the notified precinct, to give effect to the consent order on PC28 issued by the Environment Court in April 2015, and which were requested by submitters. Additional changes were made to recognise the underlying PAUP zoning and changes to provisions made in other PAUP topics. Changes were made to the Kingseat Hospital Buildings sub-precinct only where they were consistent with the PC28 consent order.
13. The key remaining issues relate to the expansion of the precinct proposed by Frank and Juliet Reynolds, Karaka Estate Limited and Kingseat Farms Limited, which the Council considers would be contrary to Part 2 of the RMA as outlined in detail in the Council's evidence on Topic 017 relating to the expansion of the RUB at Kingseat. There are also a number of revisions to land use controls requested by submitters which have not been accepted by the Council as outlined by Mr Mosley and Ms Ogden-Cork, on the basis that the precinct provisions should achieve the outcomes of PC28.
31560772:631364 Page 210
MANGERE 1 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Mangere 1 precinct is an existing precinct relating to the SPCA Auckland Animal Village at 50 Westney Road, Mangere. The precinct is located to the east of George Bolt Drive and South of Massey Road Mangere.
2. The underlying zoning of the precinct is MHS. We note that this does not correspond to the notified Mangere 1 precinct objectives and policies which incorrectly state LI as the underlying zoning. This has been amended so as to correctly match the PAUP zoning maps in the track changed provisions attached to the evidence statement of submissions by Roger Eccles relating to the Mangere 1 precinct, dated 26 January 2016.
3. The following overlays apply to the Mangere 1 precinct:
a. Infrastructure Designation – IC 1102 Protection of Aeronautical Function b. Infrastructure Designation TD 65000 Refinery to the Airport Petrol c. Natural Resource: Aquifier – Manukau Kaawa Aquifier d. Natural Resource: Aquifier – Manukau Southeast Kaawa.
4. The Council’s position on the Mangere 1 precinct is set out in the planning evidence of Roger Eccles. The Council proposes to maintain the precinct provisions so as to make provision for the operation and future development of the SPCA’s activities. The Council proposes to make a number of minor amendments to the provisions as a result of requests from the SPCA. These include amending the precinct description to more accurately capture the activities that are provided for in the precinct and to extend the list of activities that can take place in sub-precincts.
5. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones and Auckland-wide rules is the provision for sub-precinct A that provides for restaurants, cafes and education facilities at the SPCA centre, and allowance for a maximum noise level of 75db L aeq rom Monday to Saturday 8pm to 7am where there is otherwise no maximum provided for.
6. Supplementary evidence of Mr Eccles, dated 24 February 2016, makes a minor correction to the precinct Description that was requested by the SPCA, agreed to by the Council, but through error omitted from the tracked-change precinct provisions.
31560772:631364 Page 211
MANGERE 2 PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Mangere 2 precinct comprises the properties in Teo and Tioro lanes, Mangere. The block is located on the corner of Bader Drive and the South Western Motorway and includes 10 sites, all of which are used for residential land use.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to protect one of the first examples of cluster housing in New Zealand in Teo and Tioro Lanes, Mangere. This state housing was built in 1978 and is significant because it represents a change in the Government’s housing policies relating to architectural and subdivision design. The precinct was developed to manage the demolition of buildings and new development to ensure that the established built character of Teo and Tioro lanes is protected.
3. The underlying zoning of land in the precinct is SH. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays,: Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation; Aquifer: Manukau Kaawa Aquifer; Airspace Restriction Designation: ID 1102; and High Land Transport Route Noise.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Danni Briggs dated 26 January 2016. Ms Briggs supports the precinct while noting that in her opinion there are no zones or overlays that would enable the same level of protection for the area.
5. The precinct varies certain rules in the SH zone as they relate to demolition and external alterations/additions, as set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Ms Briggs, at paragraph 10.1.
Remaining issues
6. There were no submissions filed in respect of this precinct. No amendments are proposed to the precinct. We record however that HNZ seeks to amend the underlying zoning of land in the precinct to THAB.
31560772:631364 Page 212
MANGERE BRIDGE PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Mangere Bridge precinct is located south of the Mangere Inlet and immediately north of Mangere Mountain. It comprises an area of residential housing between Mangere Bridge Local Centre and Ambury Park. There are three submissions in relation to this precinct including a submission seeking to delete the precinct.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to is to retain the amenity of the residential area and protect the traditional suburban development of the area, with its single large houses on relatively large sites arranged around the distinctive street patterns of the area.
3. The underlying zoning of the land in the precinct is SH. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays: The following overlays apply to the Mangere Bridge precinct: Infrastructure: Designations; Natural heritage: Volcanic View Shaft and Height Control Areas Overlay; Historic heritage: Pre 1944 Demolition Control Overlay; Historic Heritage Extent of Place; Historic Heritage Place, Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua; Natural Resource: Aquifers, Natural Hazards - Coastal Inundation; and Built Environment: Local Public Views.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Roger Eccles dated 26 January 2016. Mr Eccles does not support the precinct, as he considers that the SH zone has very similar development and land use controls to the Mangere Bridge Precinct and is considered a more appropriate means of achieving the desired objectives of the precinct. For that reason, he considers that the Mangere Bridge Precinct is no longer necessary.
5. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant SH zone provisions are set out at Table 1 in the evidence report of Mr Eccles, at paragraph 9.1.
6. No submitter evidence has been filed in respect of this precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 213
MANGERE GATEWAY PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
13. The Mangere Gateway precinct is comprised of land generally north of the Auckland International Airport and west of George Bolt Memorial Drive and Kirkbride Road.
14. The precinct seeks to recognise the significant cultural heritage and landscape values of the area, along with need for development to occur in an integrated manner including the provision of appropriate infrastructure.
15. The precinct addresses the resource management issues previously managed by operative Plan Change 14 to the Manukau City District Plan the “Mangere Gateway Heritage Area” (Chapter 17.13) (PC14). It is noted that there was a related change to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Change 13, which shifted the Metropolitan Urban Limits. Both PC14 and Change 13 were made operative in May 2013.
16. The precinct includes land within the Light Industry and Future Urban zones and is bordered by the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve, zoned public open space. To the north-east of the precinct is the Makarau Marae and papakaianga, which are within the Maori Purpose zone.
17. The Council's evidence for this precinct is contained in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016 and his rebuttal evidence dated 24 February 2016. Mr Webb supports the precinct provisions, subject to amendments, for the following reasons: a. They give effect to the intent and requirements of a recently operative Plan Change, which has been subject to a section 32 analysis and decision under the RMA; b. They work in an integrated way with the other provisions of the PAUP including Auckland-wide provisions, overlays and zone provisions, while reflecting the particular circumstances of the precinct as required; and c. They encourage a comprehensive approach to be taken to the development of the precinct while being consistent with Council's position on framework plans.
18. Mr Webb's proposed amendments to the precinct provisions are attached to his rebuttal evidence. Significant changes include: a. The removal of the framework plan approach; b. The separation of sub-precinct D into two sub-precincts (D and E), to create a separate sub-precinct for the land at 545 Oruarangi Road, which is a Special Housing Area and subject to a proposed variation under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (but which is not yet operative); c. Changes to ensure the precinct more appropriately reflects the existing operative PC14 provisions and a relatively recent decision and consent orders from the Environment Court; d. Amendments to the treatment of the land owned by the Sewu Family Trust, discussed further below. (The Independent Hearings Panel granted leave for a late submission from the Trust on the provisions of the Mangere Gateway Precinct).
19. Watercare has also identified that a number of activities provided for as non- complying in PC14 have not been carried through to the PAUP in respect of sub- precinct A. These provisions were intended to prevent sensitive land uses from
31560772:631364 Page 214
locating in proximity to the Mangere wastewater treatment plant. Mr Webb supports their inclusion in the precinct provisions.
20. Positive informal discussions have taken place with Bianconi Investments, Makarau Marae, and the Sewu Family Trust.
21. Following the exchange of evidence, it appears that in general terms the submitters support the changes made to the notified version of the Mangere Gateway precinct, including the removal of the framework plan approach. To address issues raised in submitters' evidence (and to address the Sewu Family Trust's concerns in particular), Mr Webb has proposed changes to the extent of indicative open space and the layout of indicative roads within sub-precinct C, along with some minor changes to the precinct provisions. These changes have resulted in amendments to both the precinct plan and the precinct text (see Attachments 1 and 2 to Mr Webb's rebuttal evidence).
22. Finally, we note that there is a request from Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority to incorporate into the precinct half of 13 Waipouri Rd, which is adjacent to the buffer area. Mr Webb does not support the deletion of the buffer area, nor does he support the inclusion of 13 Waipouri Rd in the precinct while zoned Maori Purpose. He does support changes to the precinct plan to clarify that the maximum extent of the POS buffer between the Light Industry zone and the Maori Purpose zone is 18 metres.
31560772:631364 Page 215
MANGERE PUHINUI PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
6. The existing Mangere Puhinui precinct, as notified, applied to areas of Mangere and Puhinui inside and outside the notified RUB. The Council supports the retention of the Mangere Puhinui precinct, however, proposes that two precincts apply in the Puhinui area, which can broadly be described as follows:
a. The existing Mangere Puhinui precinct which is to apply to areas located outside the RUB as shown on the precinct plan attached to the evidence report of David Wong for the Council dated 26 January 2016; and
b. The proposed Puhinui precinct which is to apply to areas located inside the RUB and parts of the Pukaki Peninsula and Crater Hill that are outside the RUB and zoned Rural Production. The Puhinui precinct is addressed further below in these submissions.
7. The Council’s evidence in relation to the Mangere Puhinui precinct is contained in the evidence report of David Wong dated 26 January 2016. The Council’s evidence in relation to the Puhinui precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of David Wong and Nicholas Lau dated 28 January 2016. Mr Wong’s evidence on the Mangere Puhinui precinct attaches a revised precinct plan at Attachment B which captures the changes proposed to the extent of the Mangere Puhinui precinct.
8. As Mr Wong notes, the area is characterised by its rural character, food growing activities, and important geological features, including Pukaki Lagoon, Crater Hill, Mangere Lagoon Explosion Crater, Puketutu Island, and the remnants of Maungataketake. The underlying zoning is a mixture of Rural Production, Public Open Space – Informal Recreation, Coastal Transition, and Special Purpose – Cemetery.
9. The purpose of the precinct is:
a. To recognise the relationship and values that tangata whenua have with the area;
b. To maintain an open rural character and areas for food growing;
c. To protect wahi tapu from being destroyed during site development; and
d. To protect the significant geological features, that remain in the area, from damage or further development.
10. The Mangere Puhinui precinct provisions provide for a range of activities within the underlying Rural Production zone as discretionary activities, including intensive farming, forestry within 500m of Puhinui Road or MHWS, animal breeding or boarding without dogs, rural industries, and buildings greater than 300m2 GFA. Animal breeding or boarding with dogs is a non-complying activity77. The matters for discretion and assessment include consideration of the adverse effects of development on the natural environment, cultural heritage values of significance to tangata whenua, and the rural character and landscape amenity values 78 . A comparison of the precinct provisions against the PAUP provisions is outlined in Mr Wong’s evidence at Table 1.
77 Evidence report of D Wong dated 26 January 2016, para 9.6. 78 Evidence report of D Wong dated 26 January 2016, para 9.7.
31560772:631364 Page 216
11. The primary amendments proposed to the Mangere Puhinui precinct relate to its spatial extent; no substantive changes to the precinct provisions are proposed. There are, however, some minor editorial and grammatical amendments proposed. Mr Wong deals with the spatial extent of the precinct at paragraph 12.2.(a)-(c) of his evidence which can be summarised as follows:
a. The Council’s proposal to extend the RUB in certain areas means that it is no longer appropriate for the Mangere Puhinui precinct to apply to the land at those sites:
i. In relation to the land at 260 Ihumatao Road and 619 Oruarangi Road, it is proposed that the Mangere Gateway precinct apply; and
ii. A new Puhinui precinct is proposed so as to manage the effects of development on the cultural landscape values of the entire Puhinui peninsula for parts of the area within the RUB, and other parts which sit outside the RUB i.e. Pukaki peninsula and the Crater Hill area, which have an underlying Rural Production zoning. This will ensure that an integrated and consistent approach is taken to managing the effects of development on cultural landscape values across the Puhinui peninsula.
b. The retention of the Mangere Puhinui precinct over the remaining areas of land identified on the precinct plan is appropriate for managing the on-going use and development of the underlying Rural Production zone, located outside the RUB.
12. The Council’s position on the spatial extent of the RUB, and therefore the precinct, has informed the Council’s response to the submitters on the Mangere Puhinui precinct79.
13. We note that AIAL’s submission point relating to 260 Ihumatao Road was allocated to Topic 080 Special Purpose – Airport zone and addressed in the evidence of Ms Singh for the Council in that topic. The submission points of Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority which seek that the Mangere Puhinui precinct be managed in accordance with the Wallace decision have been addressed in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016 in relation to the Mangere Gateway precinct.
79 See sections 13, 14, and 15 of the evidence report of D Wong dated 26 January 2016.
31560772:631364 Page 217
MANUKAU PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Manukau precinct applies to the Manukau Metropolitan Centre area and comprises 55ha of land. The underlying zone for the area is Metropolitan Centre zone and the purpose of the precinct is to provide for the protection of sunlight to the Manukau Square during periods of high public usage so that the amenity values of the Metropolitan Centre are maintained. The Manukau precinct has been rolled over from the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) and was introduced as there are no provisions in the PAUP that control sunlight admission to open spaces within the Metropolitan Centre zone. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays (outlined in paragraph 6.7 of the joint statement of evidence of Ms Moghe and Mr Zhang).
2. One primary submission point has been received from the Department of Corrections (6230-38) seeking to exclude properties at 30 Manukau Station Road and 9 Barrowcliffe Place from the precinct on the basis that the precinct boundaries are far broader than what would be expected given the intent of the rule. Two further submissions were received in support of the above submission point. The Minister for Courts' (3266) submission related to the property at 30 Manukau Station Road and the Minister of Police (3265) submitted relating to the property at 9 Barrowcliffe Place, both in support of the submission to reduce the extent of the precinct.
3. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of Vrinda Moghe and Jimmy Zhang dated 26 January 2016 and Urban Design evidence of Jason Evans dated 26 January 2016. The planners support reducing the extent of the precinct as sought in the submission. The precinct is also supported on the basis that the provisions of the Legacy Plan sought to protect the sunlight admission by controlling the building heights in close proximity to the Manukau Square. There are no other provisions within the Metropolitan Centre zone that control access to sunlight to open spaces and not other overlays or rules in the PAUP that provide similar outcomes.
4. There are no other significant issues.
31560772:631364 Page 218
MANUKAU 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Manukau 3 precinct would cover the consented golf course and surplus land, located on the western side of the Alfriston-Ardmore Road located within the Mixed Rural zone. The precinct would cover an area of approximately 60 ha of land that is identified as LUC 2 (prime land). The proposed precinct is located approximately 1.65 km east of the RUB in Takanini and approximately 3.0 km north to the nearest area zoned Country Side Living zone.
2. In August 2013, the Council granted a resource consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) to the Manukau Golf Club Incorporated (5462- 8,10,11) to establish a new golf course, clubhouse, driving range, maintenance facilities and associated earthworks at 237 Alfriston-Ardmore Road. The Manukau Golf Club Incorporated proposes two sub-precincts to be developed. Sub-precinct A would provide for the golf course, clubrooms and accessory activities. Sub-precinct B would cover land not needed for the golf course (approximately 4ha) and provide for a supporting residential development
3. The submission of the Manukau Golf Club Incorporated states the purpose of the precinct is to acknowledge the consented golf course activity and provide for the appropriate subdivision and development of the golf course landholding to support the future operation of the Club and golf course and secure the social and economic wellbeing of the club.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016. Mr Webb does not support the proposed precinct on the following grounds:
a. The Mixed Rural zone provides for golf courses, clubrooms and a number of associated activities proposed in the sub-precinct A as a RDA and resource consent has been granted for the golf course and associated activities to occur on the subject site. Any expansion of the activity is subject to resource consents and there is no need for the provision of these activities through the establishment of a precinct; and
b. Proposed sub-precinct B does not accord with the underlying Mixed Rural zone and is contrary to a number of RPS Rural objectives and policies which seek to prevent inappropriate rural subdivision, the minimisation of reverse sensitivity effects, and the maintenance of rural character.
5. There are no remaining issues.
31560772:631364 Page 219
MILL ROAD PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Mill Road precinct is located at 49, 57 and 71 Mill Road, Manurewa and comprises an area of approximately 50,000m2 adjacent to the RUB. The purpose of the Precinct is to provide for residential development at 49, 57 and 71 Mill Road while establishing a defensible urban boundary along Mill Road in the form of a vegetation buffer. The precinct limits the number of residential sites to 45.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anna Jennings dated 26 January 2016. Ms Jennings supports the retention of the precinct subject to some amendments to the provisions. The following overlays apply to the Mill Road precinct:
a. Ridgeline Protection;
b. Primary Arterial Routes 70m Buffer; and
c. Ardmore Airport Height Restrictions.
3. The Precinct is based on the provisions of Plan Change 38 (PC38) to the Auckland Council District Plan - Operative Manukau Section 2002, which was made operative on 21 June 2013. PC38 provided for an extension of the Metropolitan Urban Limit to include the properties at 49, 57 and 71 Mill Road and to rezone those sites from Rural 3 to Main Residential zone.
4. The northern section of the Precinct is almost completely developed and subdivision consent has been granted for the central section. The remaining large land parcel in the southern end of the Precinct was announced as a SHA by the Council on 23 November 2015 under the HASHA legislation80.
5. The main differences between the precinct provisions and the PAUP provisions are set out in paragraph 1.6 of Ms Jennings’ evidence. The precinct is more restrictive than the PAUP in the sense that it limits residential development to 45 sites and requires a landscaped vegetation buffer along the Mill Road road reserve boundary.
6. Ms Jennings considers that the application of a precinct is appropriate in this instance because the provisions are tailored to ensure that development is sensitive to the topography and ridgeline location. The vegetated buffer provides a landscaped transition between the urban and rural areas81. Ms Jennings further notes that the SH zone is the most appropriate zone to underlie the precinct as it prevents further inappropriate subdivision from taking place82. This out of scope proposed rezoning is affected by the recent Council resolution. This is discussed further below. However, it is important to understand the reasoning for seeking a low density residential zone to underlie the precinct. As outlined in Ms Jennings’ evidence, the sites subject to the Mill Road precinct are “in a relatively isolated locality, adjacent to the RUB and away from a main centre”, access to the sites is gained through existing cul-de-sacs and public transport services are limited. Further subdivision is not supported in this location83.
7. The specific provisions relating to the Ridgeline Protection overlay were debated at the Topic 020 hearing. Ms Jennings’ evidence outlines those provisions of particular
80 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 7.8. 81 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 11.1. 82 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 11.2. 83 Ibid.
31560772:631364 Page 220
relevance to the Mill Road precinct84. In Ms Jennings’ view, the Ridgeline Protection overlay provides appropriate controls for the protection of the ridgeline within the Mill Road precinct. The proposed amendments to the precinct provisions remove all duplication with the Ridgeline Protection overlay85.
8. Ms Jennings notes that the notified PAUP maps “erroneously depicted the underlying zoning as being…MHS” which she seeks to rectify in her evidence report86. This amendment from the notified MHS zoning to SH zone is an out of scope change87. Ms Jennings’ states in her evidence report that the SH zone is “[t]he most appropriate underlying zone for the Precinct…in order to prevent further subdivision occurring”88.
9. In light of the recent Council resolution, the proposed rezoning to SH cannot proceed and the underlying zoning of the precinct reverts to the (erroneously) notified MHS zone. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the application of the precinct is all the more important, given that the scope for development under the MHS zone is far greater than development under the SH zone.
10. The precinct provisions will be updated to accurately reference the underlying MHS zone. Ms Jennings remains of the view that reliance on the SH zone within the precinct provisions is the most efficient option, rather than reproducing and duplicating myriad objectives, policies, and rules. It is submitted that the application of the SH zone provisions in the precinct, subject to those amendments proposed in Ms Jennings’ evidence, is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act.
84 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 8.2-8.4. 85 Ibid. 86 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 1.4. 87 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 10.2. 88 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 1.4.
31560772:631364 Page 221
PAPAKURA PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Papakura precinct is a 2.7 ha block bounded by Great South Road, Averill Street, Railway Street West and Wood Street containing retail and commercial businesses89. The purpose of the precinct is to ensure that a key pedestrian linkage between the Papakura railway station, a key part of the southern RFN, and the Papakura Metropolitan Centre is retained.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Joy La Nauze dated 2 February 2006. Ms La Nauze supports the retention of the precinct as it ensures access to public transport is facilitated as the Papakura Metropolitan Centre grows 90 . The pedestrian linkage and frontage controls will facilitate access to public transport as the Metropolitan Centre grows91.
3. The underlying zoning is Metropolitan Centre, which Ms La Nauze notes is appropriate because the land is in close proximity to Papakura Train Station, Great South Road, and Papakura retail and commercial area92.
4. A number of overlays apply to the precinct and are outlined at paragraph 7.7 of Ms La Nauze’s evidence. The main differences between the precinct provisions and PAUP provisions are outlined at Table 1 of Ms La Nauze’s evidence93. In essence, the precinct provisions are more restrictive because they require a pedestrian linkage to be considered within the block of land at time of subdivision or development.94
5. The Council is the only submitter to the precinct, seeking content modifications relating to transport networks. Only minor editorial changes are proposed to the Papakura precinct as notified.
89 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, para 1.3. 90 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, para 1.5. 91 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, para 1.4. 92 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, para 11.2. 93 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, page 3. 94 Evidence report of J La Nauze dated 2 February 2016, para 12.1(a).
31560772:631364 Page 222
PAPATOETOE PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Papatoetoe precinct is a proposed new precinct that seeks to enable the integrated development of a community centre and special housing linked to the Hindu Temple located at 10 Wentworth Avenue, Papatoetoe.
2. The underlying zone of the area under the Manukau City District Plan is Main Residential. In the notified PAUP the land is zoned SHZ and MHS. The following overlays apply to the Papatoetoe precinct:
a. Infrastructure: designation 1102 airspace AIAL; b. Infrastructure: air craft noise ANNA; c. Historic Heritage: place and extent of place – 1479 Tawera House; d. Historic Heritage: notable trees – place and extent of place – 1480 House; e. Natural Heritage: notable trees – 1499 2 x Phoenix palms and 1 x Norfolk; and f. Non-statutory: flood plain.
3. The Council’s position is set out in the planning evidence of Danni Briggs, dated 26 January 2016. The Council does not support the Papatoetoe precinct because the use of a precinct is not a tool identified in the RPS for implementing social infrastructure of the scale and nature requested. Further, the precinct seeks a scale of built form that is not otherwise envisaged for the area and potentially conflicts with historic heritage overlays.
4. The Council considers that the land uses the submitter seeks through the proposed precinct would be more appropriately addressed by way of resource consent applications. The resource consent process would appropriately address competing issues such as the identified flood plain, heritage and any infrastructure constraints.
5. Some of the land within the Papatoetoe precinct is sought to be rezoned, as proposed in the evidence of Roger Eccles and Sisira Jayasinghe for Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts. Rezonings proposed to MHU at the western end of the proposed Papatoetoe precinct is an out of scope proposal, and the change from SHZ to MHS at the eastern end, is an in scope proposal (and subject to the decision relating to Residential provisions from the Council’s governing body on 24 February 2016).
6. The Council’s position on the proposed Papatoetoe precinct is not reliant on these out of scope rezonings, however, and the Council continues to not support the proposed precinct for the reasons set out above, and in the evidence report of Ms Briggs.
31560772:631364 Page 223
PARAREKAU AND KOPUAHINGHINGA ISLANDS PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands (the Islands) are located in the Manukau Harbour, north of the Hingaia Peninsula. Pararekau Island is accessed by a privately owned single lane causeway from Kopuahingahinga Island, which is accessed from a privately owned single lane causeway from the mainland. The precinct is proposed to apply to the Islands in their entirety.
2. The Council’s evidence in relation to the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Joy LaNauze dated 3 February 2016. Ms LaNauze supports the retention of the precinct subject to some minor amendments. Ms LaNauze does not support the amendments proposed in the submissions of Karaka Harbour Estates Limited (KHEL) and Lee Island Investments (New Zealand) Limited (Lee Island).
3. The purpose of the precinct, which implements the provisions of Private Plan Change 8 (Pararekau Island Countryside Living Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Papakura Section 1999 (PPC8) (operative in December 2012), is to provide for the subdivision and development of Pararekau Island for Countryside Living and to retain and enhance the ecology and character that contributes to the amenity of the area and to protect and enhance Kopuahingahinga Island.
4. Ms LaNauze’s evidence states that the scale of development enabled in PPC8 recognises the landscape characteristics of the coastal environment, existing open space, visual amenity values and cultural and archaeological values of Pararekau Island. Kopuahingahinga Island has coastal, ecological, visual amenity, cultural and archaeological and landscape values which needs to be protected and enhanced.
5. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays, identified at paragraph 7.13 of Ms LaNauze’s evidence and the underlying zoning is Countryside Living. A comparison of the precinct provisions against the PAUP provisions is outlined in Ms LaNauze’s evidence at Table 1. Ms LaNauze identifies that the notified provisions omitted some of the PPC8 provisions. The tracked changes at Attachment B to Ms LaNauze’s evidence therefore reinstate those as well as correcting minor typographical and grammatical amendments.
6. The two primary issues for this precinct, the location of the RUB and the extent of urban residential zoning sought by submitters, are addressed in Ms LaNauze’s evidence report where she notes that if the Islands were included within the RUB and subsequent urban development allowed, it would result to adverse effects on natural character, landscape and visual amenity values. The appropriate level of development is as enabled in PPC8 and implemented in the proposed precinct provisions.
7. PPC8 was the subject of a decision of the Environment Court in relation to a draft consent order (Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited v Auckland Council 2012 NZEnvC 171) and the precinct provisions supported by Ms LaNauze are consistent with the Panel's Interim Guidance about best practice approaches for precincts, in that they should take into account the issues debated in recent plan changes. In the case of the PPC8 appeals, the parties reached agreement about the level of development that the sensitive receiving environment could absorb and plan provisions were proposed to ensure that appropriate environmental outcomes would be achieved.
31560772:631364 Page 224
RUB
8. As notified, the RUB includes all the mainland extent of the Hingaia Peninsula, but excludes the Islands. KHEL sought in its submission that the RUB be extended to include the Islands. The location of the RUB in relation to the Islands was comprehensively addressed at the Topic 017 hearing. The joint statement of Vrinda Moghe, Danni Briggs, and Ms LaNauze dated 15 October 2015 (Urban Edge – Flatbush, Howick, East Tamaki, Point View Drive, Mangere, Favona, Otahuhu, and Hingaia) and Ms LaNauze’s rebuttal statement (which is specific to the Islands) dated 23 December 2015 support the continued exclusion of the Islands from the RUB. Additional evidence statements on traffic, landscape, ecology, and coastal engineering matters were also produced for the Council in relation to the Topic 017 hearing to support this position.
9. Ms LaNauze reiterates, in her precinct evidence report, her reasons for concluding that excluding the Islands from the RUB is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the RPS at paragraph 13.3.
Zoning
10. Ms LaNauze notes at paragraph 7.12 of her precinct evidence report that she does not support any rezoning in the Islands from Countryside Living to an urban residential zone on the basis that the islands “have a unique coastal and non-urban character” which should be retained.
11. Both KHEL and Lee Island seek urban residential zoning for Pararekau Island. Ms LaNauze considers that what is sought by those submitters would enable intensive residential development beyond that which is envisaged by PPC8. The rezoning requests in relation to Pararekau Island are addressed in the joint rezoning evidence report of Craig Cairncross, Patrick Clearwater, Joy LaNauze, Michael Luong, and Cindy Yin dated 26 January 2016 in relation to the Rural South area. That evidence does not support the rezoning requests.
12. One submitter sought the rezoning of Kopuahingahinga Island. This rezoning request was allocated to Topic 080 and addressed in the joint evidence report of Carol Stewart, Tony Reidy, Lucy Deverall, Juliana Cox, dated 3 December 2015, in relation to Public Open Space zones. That evidence proposes to rezone Kopuahingahinga Island to Public Open Space - Conservation, save for the accessway which crosses it. Ms LaNauze supports this position.
31560772:631364 Page 225
PINE HARBOUR PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Pine Harbour precinct is an existing precinct located in Beachlands on the south- eastern coast of Auckland.
2. It provides for land-based marine activities, including marine industry and boat storage, associated with an existing marina development. A number of complementary activities such as food and beverage activity and office space are also present within the precinct. Further inland the precinct provides for residential activity ranging in density from apartments and terrace houses to more traditional forms of low-intensity residential development. The precinct also provides for areas of open space and the management of a major watercourse that flows through the precinct to the sea. The overall purpose of the precinct is to encourage high quality, mixed use development in the area in a manner that integrates positively with the wider Beachlands settlement.
3. The land within the precinct is zoned Civic Spaces, Marina, Mixed Housing Suburban, and Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays (Natural Resource: Indicative Streams; Significant Ecological Area SEA – M2 (43a) Marine 1; Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation 1m and 2m sea level rise; Additional Subdivision Control – Beachlands 700m2 (part only).
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Robert Scott dated 26 January 2016 and his rebuttal evidence report dated 26 February 2016, together with urban design evidence in chief dated 26 January 2016 from Jason Evans, and rebuttal evidence from Brian Waddell dated 26 February 2016 relating to transportation matters. Mr Scott supports the proposed precinct, which seeks to incorporate the provisions of Plan Change 34 (Pine Harbour) to the Operative Manukau District Plan (PC34) into the PAUP. PC34 became operative in December 2012.
5. The Pine Harbour Precinct in the PAUP essentially follows the Pine Harbour Marina Special zone in the Operative Plan (Manukau Section) in terms of its spatial distribution, activities enabled and intensity of development. The precinct is divided into seven sub-precincts encompassing land based marine industry, residential and commercial activity, and open space purposes. The provisions of the Pine Harbour precinct provide for a unique site-specific blend of development which transitions from the coastal marina area to adjoining medium density development in the wider Pine Harbour area. Mr Scott notes (EIC, para 11.2) that much of this development has been implemented, especially at the coastal interface with the marina, open space and retail/café/office activities already formed. A significant number of residential dwellings have also been consented and constructed. There are however still reasonably significant parts of the residential development, which have not yet been consented.
Remaining issues
6. Most issues as between the Council and the sole submitter, Pine Harbour Holdings Limited (PHHL), have been resolved through informal discussions. Notably, an issue as to the height of boat stacks, a matter on which Mr Evans has given urban design evidence for the Council, has been resolved.
31560772:631364 Page 226
7. Several key remaining points of difference relate to transportation matters:
a. PHHL seeks the amendment of the precinct description to specifically refer to the timeliness of Auckland Transport forming a specified preferred road access to the precinct via Sunkist Bay Road. Mr Waddell addresses this requested amendment in some detail in his rebuttal, noting that AT have no plans for or funding allocated to designating and developing this road – which was made clear when resolving the appeals relating to PC34. The amendment is therefore not supported.
b. PHHL also seeks that the road connection land use control (clause 2.3) be deleted on the basis that it has already been satisfied. That provision requires the developer to nominate the route of a road connecting the ferry terminal area with Karaka Road, the route of bus access to the ferry terminal area, and the route of heavy vehicle access "at or before the time of lodging a consent application that incorporates any new road". Mr Waddell expresses a concern that the rule has not been effectively met or well implemented to date, and proposes that it be retained with amendments so that it continues to be updated to apply to any new consent that incorporates new roads in the precinct. This proposed amendment is out of scope.
c. PHHL requests modifications to assessment criterion 4.2(1)(a) Road Network. The criterion in question requires assessment of whether a road connection between the Pine Harbour precinct and Karaka Road should be provided along the alignment identified as 'Provisional alternative road' in precinct plan 1 (over land controlled by PHHL) until such time as all or part of the Sunkist Bay Road Extension is constructed. Mr Waddell considers that the amendments proposed by PHHL would weaken the assessment criterion to the point where a road connection from Pine Harbour to Karaka Road may never be constructed but rather simply may not be foreclosed. It is noted for completeness that the provisional connection referred to in the criterion has not yet been provided by the developer. The notified criterion wording should therefore be retained.
8. Mr Scott addresses some further areas of difference in his planning rebuttal:
a. PHHL's suggestion that a number of activities should be re-classified as controlled activities on the basis that the operative provisions have such status. Mr Scott does not support controlled activity status for a range of reasons (e.g. the concern that it does not allow adequate levels of discretion, and the fact that the residential zone provisions as amended by Council evidence do not provide for any controlled activities).
b. Whether there should be provision for residential activity within buildings (except ground floor) in sub-precinct F. Mr Scott considers there should be no residential activity in this sub-precinct, given its focus on commercial and office activity and the extent to which residential activity is provided for elsewhere in the precinct.
c. There is also disagreement over whether the Auckland-wide controls should apply to the precinct – Mr Scott considers they should apply.
9. The precinct is supported by the Council subject to the amended set of provisions attached as Attachment A to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Scott.
31560772:631364 Page 227
PUHINUI PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Precinct applies to approximately 809 ha of land being parts of the Puhinui peninsula within the RUB, and other parts which sit outside the RUB i.e. the Pukaki peninsula and the Crater Hill area, which have an underlying Rural Production zoning.
2. The Puhinui area has significant cultural heritage and landscape values. Pukaki Crater and Crater Hill are identified as Outstanding Natural Features in the PAUP, and the Pukaki Crater and Puhinui Steam are identified as SEAs in the PAUP, in recognition of their high habitat values95.
3. The Council’s evidence in relation to this precinct is contained in the joint evidence report of David Wong and Nicholas Lau dated 28 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of David Wong dated 26 February 2016 which supports the precinct. Specialist evidence reports have also been filed on behalf of the Council from Chloe Trenouth (cultural landscapes), Terry Church (traffic), and Nicholas Vigar (stormwater). The proposed provisions are attached as Attachment A to Mr Wong’s rebuttal evidence report; that attachment incorporates the traffic provisions proposed in the supplementary joint statement of traffic experts dated 26 February 2016.
4. The precinct comprises eight sub-precincts (A – H) and specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics of these areas96. The underlying zoning of land in the Puhinui precinct is Light Industry (sub- precincts A-D, and F), Light Industry with a commercial focus (sub-precinct E), Large Lot (sub-precinct G), and Rural Production (sub-precinct H)97.
5. For clarity, as Mr Wong’s evidence also addresses the rezoning of the Puhinui area, these precinct submissions also touch on the Council’s proposed rezoning of the Puhinui area from Future Urban to Light Industry.
6. The Puhinui precinct is subject to a substantial number of overlays. These are set out at paragraph 7.17 of the joint evidence report.
7. The precinct provisions are the result of the structure planning that the Council has undertaken for the Puhinui area. As part of that structuring planning work, the Council has been working in partnership with Te Akitai to identify the cultural landscape values of importance to them, and translating these values into provisions for the Puhinui precinct98.
8. In essence, the Precinct seeks to enable a transition from rural to predominately light industrial activities and some large lot residential 99 , while providing for greater recognition and protection of the Maori cultural landscape at Puhinui100. The precinct provisions control urban development within the precinct so as to ensure:101
a. An integrated approach is taken to managing the adverse effects on the Maori cultural landscape values. The cultural landscape applies to the entire precinct, in areas within and outside of the RUB; and
95 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 7.2. 96 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 7.15. 97 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 7.16. 98 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, paras 7.10-7.11. 99 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 1.4. 100 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 1.7. 101 Joint evidence report of D Wong and N Lau dated 28 January 2016, para 7.8.
31560772:631364 Page 228
b. That development and subdivision is co-ordinated with the provision of transport infrastructure improvements, and does not adversely affect the performance of the road network across a range of criteria including reliability, safety, and intersection performance.
9. The precinct provisions have been prepared in consultation with a number of the submitters and their representatives102 and represent, largely, an agreed position to the extent identified in the evidence for the Council and submitters. To this end we note that the Council is continuing to meet with the submitters in order to further refine the precinct provisions.
10. A comparison between the precinct provisions and the PAUP provisions is outlined at Table 1 of the joint evidence report, and canvassed in greater detail in section 13 of the joint evidence report.
Cultural matters
11. Ms Trenouth’s evidence report dated 26 January 2016 outlines the Maori cultural landscape, the workshops undertaken with representatives of Te Akitai to identify and map the important Maori cultural landscape values, and the options and reasons for determining the proposed precinct provisions.
12. Overall, Ms Trenouth considers that the proposed rules are the most appropriate to achieve the objectives because they provide certainty by way of a permitted pathway that would implement the policy framework, and also provide opportunities to deliver outcomes through alternative approaches by way of a restricted discretionary consent generally. The consent process would provide a direct opportunity for Te Akitai to prepare a cultural impact assessment if they considered that the proposal may have adverse effects on the Maori cultural landscape values.
13. Ms Trenouth’s supplementary statement dated 5 February 2016 provides additional survey data in relation to the protection of the viewshaft from Pukaki Marae to Matukutureia. Ms Trenouth concludes that analysis of that survey data against the ground contours, along with the narrow extent of the viewshaft, illustrates that the viewshaft would not have significant effects on the future development of the land that is affected103.
14. Ms Trenouth’s rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016 largely relates to minor amendments sought by submitters to correct inconsistencies in the provisions and provide further clarity relating to cultural impact assessments, precinct plans, and stormwater. Those amendments are captured in the revised tracked provisions attached to Mr Wong’s rebuttal evidence report at Attachment A. Ms Trenouth notes that on the whole, the evidence of submitters is supportive of the importance of the Maori cultural landscape and the provisions proposed to support the identification, recognition, protection, and enhancement of the cultural landscape104.
Traffic matters
15. The evidence of Terry Church dated 28 January 2016 considers the traffic modelling and subsequent assessment undertaken by Flow Transport Specialists in relation to the possible effects on the transport network and likely transport investment needed to accommodate growth in the Puhinui peninsula. Mr Church notes that it is feasible
102 IHP-facilitated expert caucusing occurred on 30 October and 5 November 2015; an IHP-facilitated mediation occurred on 8 December 2015, and a non-facilitated mediation occurred on 15 January 2016. 103 Supplementary statement of C Trenouth dated 5 February 2016, para 7.2. 104 Rebuttal evidence report of C Trenouth dated 24 February 2016, para 1.2.
31560772:631364 Page 229
to allow development on the south side of Puhinui Road up to 30 ha, but any further development is likely to need substantial infrastructure investment.
16. The supplementary joint statement of traffic witnesses on behalf of the Council, the Southern Gateway Consortium, AIAL, and the New Zealand Transport Agency dated 26 February 2016 attached agreed traffic provisions. The key changes are summarised in Mr Wong’s rebuttal evidence report at paragraph 10.13 and 10.14. It is worth noting that two points, relating to construction traffic and the application of a vehicles per hour measure for later development are not agreed.
Stormwater matters
17. The stormwater evidence of Nicholas Vigar states that the Puhinui precinct drains to an “ecologically and culturally sensitive marine receiving environment”. Notwithstanding this, the “relatively substantial pre-existing contaminant load to the Pukaki-Waokauri and Puhinui Creeks”, means that the contaminant load from the precinct area, subject to contaminant management best-practice, is likely to be minimal105.
18. Mr Vigar supports the urbanisation and predominately industrial land-uses proposed on the basis that urbanisation and industrial use can be supported and the risks of contaminants managed through the use of an approved stormwater quality device (i.e. treatment), SMAF 1 mitigation of flows for all areas that naturally drain to freshwater systems (streams and wetlands), and requirements to consider pervious reserves at subdivision.
Rezoning matters – rationale for introducing “live zones” in the Puhinui precinct
19. As a general rule, the Council approach for land proposed to be within the RUB is zoned Future Urban. This is based on the premise that further structure planning is, in most cases, required to determine how the land can be urbanised prior to a future plan change to implement a “live” zone.
20. The detail of the structure planning that has occurred in relation to the Puhinui precinct is canvassed in the joint evidence report of Messrs Wong and Lau and the evidence of Ms Trenouth. As a result of the structure planning that has already occurred, the Puhinui precinct becomes an exception to the general approach outlined above. Importantly:
a. The structure planning was undertaken prior to proposing the relocation of the RUB because of the significant archaeological, cultural heritage, and environmental values and development constraints associated with the area which poses a fundamental question ie whether the land is suitable for urbanisation; and
b. The structure planning work has confirmed that parts of the Puhinui area can be urbanised, subject to robust and more restrictive planning provisions to recognise and protect significant archaeological, cultural heritage, and environmental values and to respond to development constraints associated with the operation of the Auckland International Airport and the capacity of the strategic transport network.
21. The precinct provisions therefore address the timing, location, and manner of development that may occur within the “live” zones of the Puhinui precinct.
105 Evidence report of N Vigar dated 28 January 2016, para 7.1.
31560772:631364 Page 230
22. To this end, it is submitted that the benefits of “live” zoning certain areas of the Puhinui precinct include:
a. Certainty because it gives a clear direction as to where additional business land can be made available in the precinct;
b. Efficiency because it enables the resolution of issues raised in PPC35 and applies the outcomes of the structure planning work already undertaken to inform the location of the RUB without the need for a separate hearing process;
c. Sound resource management practice and integrated planning as it addresses the future land uses of the Puhinui area together with matters relating to the timing and location of infrastructure upgrades, especially improvements to the strategic transportation network in a comprehensive and integrated manner.
23. The application of a live zone to the Puhinui precinct over the Future Urban zone also avoids:
a. A separate hearing process to address PPC35;
b. Uncertainty regarding future development with possible, ad hoc development proposals being made in the interim;
c. Uncoordinated and possible multiple future private plan changes for live zoning specific to different landholdings; and
d. Any further delay in relation to commitments to address the strategic transportation network.
24. We note the Panel’s Interim Guidance dated 1 March 2016 on “Approach to rezoning and precincts in greenfields areas proposed to come inside the Rural Urban Boundary” which indicates that, at present, the Panel does not consider it will be able to properly provide detailed recommendations to the Council in relation to the Puhinui precinct (and its associated proposed rezoning).
25. We do not wish to demur from that interim guidance and the Council accepts that, largely, these matters do require a case-by-case analysis and in ordinary circumstances may be the subject of a separate Council hearing with the added possibility of appeals to the Environment Court. While we accept that the structure planning work for Puhinui that has occurred will be “relevant and valuable in any subsequent planning process”, the prospect of a separate plan change process gives rise to concerns relating to delay and inefficiency.
26. It is submitted that in the context of the Puhinui area, the Council’s proposed position on the precinct, the rezoning, and the location of the RUB is the most appropriate way to give effect to the RPS and meet the purpose of the Act. This integrated package of work addresses the future development of the entire Puhinui area based on the structure planning that has occurred and has resulted in a suite of provisions, largely agreed between the Council, Southern Gateway Consortium, AIAL, the Transport Agency, and Te Akitai. The parties are committed to continuing to work together to further refine the provisions and work out those areas of disagreement. At the time of writing these submissions, counsel had seen a draft memorandum of counsel of the parties in relation to these matters. We agree with the contents of that memorandum.
31560772:631364 Page 231
PUKEKOHE HILL
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Pukekohe Hill Precinct covers approximately 196 ha of land and is located at the Southern urban edge of Pukekohe.106 The precinct is based on the North Pukekohe Hill Structure Plan as described at Chapter 54.8 of the Franklin section of the Operative Plan.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to enable subdivision and development which complements and integrates with the rural landscape character, minimises stormwater runoff, flooding, soil erosion and siltation and protects the heritage and amenity values of the summit and the northern slopes of Pukekohe Hill from inappropriate development. The precinct is subject to the Aquifer overlay.
3. The precinct includes five sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A – Single House zone (with additional activity development and a requirement that the average site size is 1000m2 and no less than 800m2);
b. Sub-precinct B – Large Lot zone;
c. Sub-precinct C – Countryside Living zone;
d. Sub-precinct D – Countryside Living zone (with additional activity controls); and
e. Sub-precinct E – Rural Production zone.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Donald Craig Cairncross and the evidence report of Robert James Pryor (landscape), both dated 26 January 2016, together with the rebuttal report of Mr Pryor and the joint rebuttal report of Ian David Mayhew and Jon Rix (stormwater), both dated 24 February 2016. Mr Cairncross has addressed requests in submitter evidence to rezone sub-precinct B to Single House in his joint rebuttal evidence on rezoning.107 Mr Cairncross supports the proposed precinct, and proposes a number of amendments to the notified precinct provisions, as set out Attachment B of his evidence report.
Remaining Issues
5. The key remaining issue for this precinct relates to the underlying zoning of sub- precinct B, with a number of submitters seeking that sub-precinct B be rezoned from Large Lot zone to Single House zone (with similar development controls that the Council has proposed for the Single House zone in sub-precinct A). In particular, Bridget Gilbert on behalf of Karl Schweder considers that the landscape and visual effects of such intensification would be negligible, and David Serjeant on behalf of Karl Schweder considers that the Large Lot zone is unnecessary to meet the objectives of the precinct.
106 Evidence report of Donald Craig Cairncross on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 February 2016, Map 1, paragraph 7.1. 107 Joint evidence report in rebuttal of Donald Craig Cairncross, Patrick Francis Clearwater, Joy Martha Lanauze, Michael Luong and Hui Cindy Lin on Rezoning (Rural South).
31560772:631364 Page 232
6. The Council’s witnesses continue to support retention of the precinct and consider that the proposed rezoning of sub-precinct B would be inappropriate due to the adverse effects to the landscape and stormwater management. In his rebuttal report, Mr Pryor disagrees with Ms Gilbert’s conclusion that the landscape and visual amenity effects of intensification would be negligible, and considers that increased density would have a significant visual impact and that the Large Lot zone serves an important purpose to create a graduated intensity of suburban development by creating a buffer zone between the Single House zone and the Countryside Living zone.108
7. In their joint rebuttal report on behalf of Auckland Council, Mr Mayhew and Mr Rix consider that in the context of stormwater management, the precinct and current zoning within the precinct should be retained for the following reasons:
a. The current maximum impervious area (MIA) for the Large Lot zone is 35%. This is already an increase from the 10% MIA applied in the North Pukekohe Hill Structure Plan. If sub-precinct B were rezoned to Single House zone, the MIA would increase to 60%, which Mr Mayhew and Mr Rix consider would have the potential to significantly contribute to and exacerbate known downstream flooding issues in Pukekohe South;109 and
b. In view of the known risks of downstream flooding in the area, a comprehensive stormwater flood management regime which considers the subject area in its entirety is required, whereas the submitters’ proposed rezoning would result in disparate, decentralised stormwater systems located on land under fragmented ownership, which would create difficulties in achieving effective stormwater management, and would be contrary to the integrated approach to land and water management proposed in the PAUP.110
108 Rebuttal report of Mr Pryor, at paragraphs 4.3 to 4.16. 109 Joint rebuttal report of Mr Mayhew and Mr Rix at paragraphs 5.2 to 5.10. 110 At paragraphs 5.12 and 6.2-6.3.
31560772:631364 Page 233
RAMARAMA 1 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Ramarama 1 precinct is a proposed precinct to facilitate a cluster form of residential development across multiple sites within a combined area of approximately 100ha. The proposed precinct is situated on the western side of the southern motorway, in proximity to the Ramarama off-ramp. The western boundary of the precinct is defined by Great South Road, while the northern boundary of the precinct abuts the RUB and land zoned Future Urban. The precinct is proposed by Templemore Land Company Ltd (TLC).
2. The land within the proposed precinct is zoned Mixed Rural. However, the precinct is accompanied by a request to rezone the land contained within the precinct to Countryside Living zone. TLC liaised with other submitters with a view to presenting a joint case to create an enlarged precinct which would encompass 228ha (approx) on the western side of State Highway 1 and include all of the Mixed Rural zoned land north of Ararimu Road, covering an additional area of approximately 128ha.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to establish subdivision controls to facilitate a clustered form of residential development with a maximum density of one dwelling per 8000m2, while allowing minimum site size of 1500m2 and maximum of 6000m2. The intention would be to cluster the residential development in such a way as to allow the continued use of the remaining productive land for rural purposes.
4. The Council received a total of 3 submission points from TLC (5528) in relation to a request to establish a new precinct over a number of sites. 16 further submissions were received, all which sought that the proposed precinct be accepted and extended to incorporate a wider area.
5. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Todd Webb dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 1 March 2016, together with evidence from Melean Absolum (landscape), Dr Fiona Curran- Cournane (land and soil science), Shona Myers (ecology) and Robert Hillier (geotech). Mr Webb does not support the proposed precinct on the grounds that the associated subdivision controls are contrary to the objectives and policies of the PAUP Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the precinct represents a challenge to the underlying Mixed Rural zone.
6. Mr Todd's rebuttal evidence addresses matters arising from the evidence filed by TLC. He remains of the view that the proposal does not give effect to Part 2 of the RMA and is contrary to the proposed RPS. In addition, Ms Absolum has provided evidence on the landscape character and amenity implications of the proposed precinct dated 26 January 2016, in which she concludes the following;
a. The productive nature of much of the subject land and its very high public visibility mean that, from a landscape perspective it is important to retain the rural character. This is best achieved through retention of the Mixed Rural zone;
b. A zone change should not be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis but rather assessed as part of a wider analysis of future urban development in the area; and
c. The submission seeking to rezone the land to Countryside Living zone or to create a new precinct should be declined.
31560772:631364 Page 234
7. The Council engaged Ms Myers (ecology) and Dr Curran-Cournane (land and soil science) to provide rebuttal evidence regarding the request by TLC to establish a precinct. The reports are dated 1 March 2016. Ms Myers does not consider that the ecological outcomes of the proposed precinct plan will be as positive as suggested by the submitter for the following reasons:
a. There are a number of streams on the land that are in the headwaters of the Hingaia Stream. Requiring riparian protection and fencing of these steams will improve water quality and freshwater habitat. However, riparian planting and protection of 10m is less than the provisions proposed in the PAUP for similar areas;
b. The proposed precinct provisions only require protection of permanent streams. This is inconsistent with the PAUP which requires protection of permanent and intermittent streams; and
c. The forest remnants have been fenced and are in good condition. These are valuable fragments of forest and ongoing management and protection of these is required.
8. Dr Curran-Cournane concludes that the uncontrolled expansion of lifestyle blocks onto elite and prime land is more detrimental than the land use pressures associated with urban development because of the increasing ad-hoc fragmentation of rural land and lack of defensive line between viable rural production and rural lifestyle living activities. She also comments that the reverse sensitivity issues associated with subdividing the land for countryside living would have a crippling effect on the farming activities in the remaining patches of farmland, and that these reverse sensitivity issues would be further exacerbated without a buffer separating the two conflicting land use activities.
9. The Council does not support the proposed precinct.
31560772:631364 Page 235
ROSELLA ROAD PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The purpose of the precinct is to protect the unique and established historic character of buildings along Rosella Road by applying built development controls to achieve this outcome which is not provided for in the underlying Single House zone. A single submission was received from Bruce Ringer (5176) supporting the retention of the Rosella Road precinct in the PAUP but seeking that the 'Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control' overlay should also be applied to the precinct. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays (outlined in paragraph 7.4 of the evidence in chief of N Lau).
2. The surrounding area west of Hospital Road is characterised by a mix of residential light industry and open space, while the area east of Hospital Road contains Kings College, the Royal Auckland Golf Course and Middlemore Hospital.
3. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Nicholas Lau dated 26 January 2016. Mr Lau supports the precinct tool as providing for detailed place based provisions which can vary outcomes sought by the underlying zone. The Single House zone is considered to be the most appropriate underlying zone by requiring development to be of a height, bulk and form that maintains and complements areas with identified historic character.
4. The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland wide-rules are set out in Table 1 at paragraph 1.6 of the evidence in chief. The proposed development controls seek to control demolition works and any external additions or alteration to existing buildings on site and are consistent with existing District Plan controls which apply to Rosella Road. The proposed controls also seek to control building height and yard setbacks in accordance with existing District Plan controls that apply in the Residential Heritage zone.
5. The proposed subdivision controls provide for a degree of infill development within the precinct which would not unduly compromise the effective utilisation of built development provisions to maintain the historic character and exhibit a degree of consistency with the density of subdivision development.
6. There are no remaining or significant issues. Mr Lau proposes a number of amendments to the precinct to correct minor technical or editorial errors.
31560772:631364 Page 236
RUNCIMAN PRECINCT
EXISTING
1. The Runciman precinct was notified for inclusion in the PAUP and comprises the entire Runciman area, located east of Pukekohe.
2. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for rural countryside living and development in Runciman, in such a way that maintains an open space form and realises significant environmental benefits.
3. The precinct achieves this through utilising clustering to protect landscape values, and requiring the protection, enhancement and restoration of ecological values and natural features. Countryside Living is proposed as the underlying zoning.
4. The Council evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Barry Mosley, dated 26 January 2016. He supports the inclusion of the Runciman precinct in the PAUP because it is consistent with the former Franklin District Council legacy Plan Change 14, and consent orders dated 12 May 2011 and 8 October 2013, which envisioned Runciman as a dedicated countryside living area.
5. The precinct is subject to the outstanding natural landscape overlay.
6. Specific controls apply to each sub-precinct to recognise and manage the individual characteristics and the environmental issues within these areas. Mr Mosley relies on the landscape evidence of Melean Absolum and the ecological evidence of Shona Myers to support the Runciman precinct provisions.
7. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into sub-precincts as follows:
a. Sub-precinct A: Open b. Sub-precinct B: Treed
Remaining Issues
8. A number of amendments were made to the notified precinct in response to the submissions received, and Mr Mosely outlines his reasons for supporting or opposing changes sought in submissions in his evidence. Mr Mosley has recommended a new transferable rural site subdivision provision for Sub-Precinct A.
9. There were also some changes sought in the submissions that Mr Mosley did not consider appropriate and objectives and policies and these matters remain at issue. These include submissions in relation to objectives and policies and a relaxing of development controls and environmental requirements, specifically: subdivision activity status; specific environmental requirements; transport; minimum lot size; maximum density; cluster requirements; setbacks; sub-precinct boundary amendments; planning map amendments; precinct plans; transferrable rural lots; and general matters.
31560772:631364 Page 237
TAKANINI PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Takanini precinct is located to the east of the railway line in Takanini and comprises some 320 ha of land. The precinct is divided into five sub-precincts (A to E) with specific controls applying to each in order to recognize and manage the individual characteristics and issues within each sub-precinct. The purpose of the precinct is to encourage the subdivision and development of the land in a comprehensive manner to achieve a quality built and well-connected environment.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding this precinct is contained in the evidence report of Joy LaNauze dated 2 February 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Joy LaNauze dated 29 February 2016. Ms LaNauze supports the retention of the precinct subject to the amendments outlined in her evidence.
3. The growth areas identified in the Takanini Structure Plan 2000 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section) for development pre-2020 formed the notified Takanini precinct (with the exception of one discrete area that was already developed)111. The majority of the Takanini precinct area has also been identified as part of the Takanini Strategic SHA112. Sub-precinct B, D (except for that part between Airfield Road and Bruce Pulman Park), and E are included in the SHA. Ms LaNauze’s evidence discusses the status of these areas under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
4. Given the extensive structure planning that has already been undertaken for the area subject to the precinct, it is proposed that the notified framework plan provisions be deleted from the precinct provisions.
5. Ms LaNauze also proposes in her evidence report to reduce the extent of the precinct, removing it from areas where the land is fully developed and removing it from two specific areas of land owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland and by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)113.
6. A number of rezoning requests were made in relation to the Takanini precinct, which are addressed in the joint planners' rezoning evidence report of A Jennings, D Briggs, and J LaNauze for Urban South dated 27 January 2016. Ms LaNauze sets out briefly those changes of zones that are supported and not supported in her precinct evidence report.
7. Each sub-precinct is subject to a number of overlays. These are listed at paragraph 8.17 of Ms LaNauze’s precinct evidence report. Overall, the precinct is generally less enabling in order to take account of site-specific activity controls and restrictions which reflect operative provisions guiding the development of the Takanini precinct area. Ms LaNauze provides a comparison between the precinct provisions (in relation to each sub-precinct) and the PAUP provisions at Table 1114 together with a more detailed analysis in her evidence report115.
8. The primary issues arising in this precinct relate to sub-precincts C and D.
111 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 8.6. 112 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 1.5. 113 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 1.7. 114 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, page 4. 115 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, paras 12.23 – 12.42.
31560772:631364 Page 238
Sub-precinct C
9. The proposed precinct plan identifies two retail areas for which special provision is made in the Activity table in relation to sub-precinct C. Ms LaNauze notes that the southern area of the precinct has already been developed in accordance with a resource consent granted in 2013 which enables large format retail together with other retail and restaurants.116
10. Paragraphs 12.15 to 12.20 of Ms LaNauze’s evidence report outline her responses to the various submissions in relation to this sub-precinct, including the submissions of TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited (TONEA Properties), Southgate Centre and Retail Holdings Ltd, and Addison Developments Limited.
11. Evidence was lodged on behalf of TONEA Properties by Messrs Smith and Rae. Ms LaNauze notes in her rebuttal evidence report that her evidence report proposed the operative height of 12m be retained, however this was omitted from the precinct rules attached to the evidence report. Upon consideration of the evidence for TONEA Properties, Ms LaNauze agrees with the proposed amendment to the Mixed Urban zone height in sub-precinct C to 18m.117 No amendment to the precinct provisions is required in order to effect this change because Rule 4.2 states that the “development controls in the relevant underlying zones apply in the Takanini precinct and sub- precincts unless otherwise specified”.118
12. Ms LaNauze also agrees with the proposal by Mr Smith for TONEA Properties to provide for cinemas as a permitted activity in sub-precinct C to better reflect Rule 16.5.3.1 of the Papakura District Plan119. This amendment is reflected in the revised provisions attached to her rebuttal evidence report.
Sub-precinct D
13. Ms LaNauze notes that two areas of the sub-precinct have already been fully developed and the precinct therefore need not apply and the proposed reduction to the extent of the sub-precinct which is also outlined on the relevant precinct plans.
14. Notwithstanding the fact that a number of subdivision consents have been granted for areas of sub-precinct D in relation to the operative structure plans that apply to the subject sites, Ms LaNauze is of the view that when viewed holistically, sub- precinct D is not sufficiently developed to justify removing precinct controls from it.120
15. Site specific submissions are addressed at paragraphs 12.26 – 12.38 of the evidence report, but in particular we note:
a. Ms LaNauze’s evidence report supported the removal of 137 Airfield Road from Takanini sub-precinct D as requested by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) and its rezoning to Special Purpose School zone. It subsequently came to light that Mr Young’s rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council for Topic 080 in relation to Special Purpose: School Zones dated 26 January 2016 does not support the rezoning of the site at 137 Airfield Road to Special Purpose: School zone because resource consent has not yet been granted for a school on the site. Ms LaNauze’s rebuttal report records this error. Ms LaNauze considers that 137 Airfield Road land can remain excluded
116 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 12.14. 117 Rebuttal evidence report of J LaNauze dated 29 February 2016, paras 1.3 and 8.2. 118 Rebuttal evidence report of J LaNauze dated 29 February 2016, para 8.2. 119 Rebuttal evidence report of J LaNauze dated 29 February 2016, paras 1.3 and 8.2. 120 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 12.23.
31560772:631364 Page 239
from sub-precinct D, although the land should remain zoned MHS rather than Special Purpose: School zone.121
b. Ms LaNauze’s evidence report notes the NZDF’s submission which seeks the amendment of the provisions relating to sub-precinct D to reflect the legacy plan provisions particularly in relation to managing the effects of reverse sensitivity on the Papakura Military Camp122. Ms LaNauze’s evidence report identifies that part of the operative provisions were omitted from the notified precinct and were therefore proposed for inclusion.
16. In her rebuttal report, in response the evidence of Ms Baverstock for the NZDF, Ms LaNauze agrees to further amendments relating to sub-precinct D to better reflect the objectives and policies from Section 5B.2.2.7.1.2 and the rules contained in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan. These are captured in the revised provisions attached to Ms LaNauze’s rebuttal evidence report.
121 Rebuttal evidence report of J LaNauze dated 29 February 2016, para 3.4. 122 Evidence Report of J LaNauze dated 2 February 2016, para 12.28.
31560772:631364 Page 240
WAIOURU / PUKEWAIRIKI PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing Waiouru precinct is located in East Tamaki and forms part of the Highbrook Business Park. The precinct comprises approximately 200 ha of land at the western end of the Waiouru Peninsula and has an extensive coastline, bounded by the Tamaki Estuary, Pakuranga, and the Otara Creeks. The land has two distinct terraces that were used historically for farming and before that, Maori occupation. There is extensive evidence of pre-European occupation around Mean High Water Spring tides, where the land is zoned Public Open Space.123
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Anna Jennings dated 26 January 2016 and the rebuttal evidence report of Anna Jennings dated 25 February 2016. Ms Jennings supports the retention of the precinct, subject to some amendments.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for more flexibility than the provisions of the Light Industry zone, which is primarily achieved through varying the number of office activities enabled within the precinct. The precinct also protects views to the Waiouru Tuff Mound and applies the Business Park zone development controls in sub- precinct C, so as to ensure a high standard of amenity.124
4. The precinct is proposed to be renamed to the “Pukewairiki precinct” as a change consequential to the Topic 019 Natural Features, Landscape and Character hearing where the Waiouru Tuff Mound (an identified ONF) was proposed to be renamed the Pukewairiki Tuff Mound125.
5. Approximately half of the precinct is already developed. In Ms Jenning’s view, the retention of the precinct will ensure that the remainder of the area is developed to the same standard as existing development and any development is sensitive to the adjacent Waiouru Tuff Mound and the precinct’s coastal location.126
6. As outlined in Ms Jenning’s evidence, the precinct is divided into three sub-precincts:
a. Sub-precinct A is the largest sub-precinct. Approximately half of sub-precinct A has been developed with large distribution and warehousing buildings with some associated retail127;
b. Sub-precinct B is the smallest sub-precinct. Only approximately 20 per cent has been developed. It provides for light industrial activities but has a greater area of office space and a technology focus128; and
c. Sub-precinct C which runs along Highbrook Drive and approximately less than half is developed129.
7. The Industrial zone provisions were revised through the Topic 051-054 hearing process and now align more closely with the precinct provisions. Therefore, Ms Jennings proposes in her evidence report to reduce the extent of sub-precinct A to
123 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 7.6. 124 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 1.4. 125 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 1.3. 126 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 1.5. 127 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 7.3. 128 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 7.4. 129 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 7.5.
31560772:631364 Page 241
apply only to sites that abut the Waiouru Tuff Mound. It is sufficient in the other areas to rely on the underlying zoning and the revised zone provisions130.
8. The main differences between the proposed precinct provisions and the PAUP provisions are contained in Table 1 of Ms Jennings’ evidence131.
9. The evidence of Gerard Thompson for Goodman Property Trust seeks additional height in sub-precinct C. Ms Jennings did not support this request in her Primary Evidence and stated that the landscape report by Bridget Gilbert in support of the additional height was too reliant on the resource consent application for another development132. Mr Thompson also disagrees with Ms Jennings’ evidence that the increased intensity allowed for by the height increase to 45m and potential impact on the roading network will not be duly considered133.
10. In relation to the landscape matters raised, the Council has engaged Ben Frost of Beca, a landscape architect, to provide further comment on this matter. However, Mr Frost unfortunately suffered a recent bereavement and has been unable to prepare expert evidence in time for filing on 24 February 2016. This statement will be made available prior to the presentation of Goodman Property Trust on 21 March 2016 to the Panel. The closing statement for the Council will also more fulsomely address this issue.
11. Having considered the evidence of Mr Thompson, Ms Jennings does not support a new provision within the Precinct that allows for a reduction of the 20% landscaping requirement as set out in the proposed provisions of the Business Park zone for sub- precinct C134 and does not consider further amendments to the precinct provisions are necessary.
12. Ms Jennings’ Primary Evidence proposed a number of out of scope changes, which included inter alia:
a. Restructuring of the precinct assessment criteria so as to remove duplication with the Light Industry zone and Business Park zone provisions;
b. Addition of new assessment criteria to address gaps in the precinct where development control infringements had no relevant assessment criteria; and
c. Improve provisions around the protection of views to the Waiouru Tuff Mound.
13. Mr Thompson’s evidence for Goodman Property Trust raises three issues in relation to the out of scope changes to which Ms Jennings responds as follows:
a. Deletion of the proposed addition to the activity table for sub-precinct A whereby new buildings and alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for are a Restricted Discretionary Activity is appropriate as it duplicates the provisions in clause 2.21;
b. The changes to Activity Table 2 in sub-precinct B in relation to the activity status of office development was to ensure consistency with the Light Industry provisions as proposed following the Topic 051-054 hearing. However, Ms Jennings agrees that the 100m2 GFA restriction for offices can be deleted given the sub-precinct specifically intends to provide for a higher level of office space; and
130 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, para 12.4. 131 Evidence Report of A Jennings dated 26 January 2016, page 11. 132 Rebuttal Report of A Jennings dated 25 February 2016, para 4.1. 133 Rebuttal Report of A Jennings dated 25 February 2016, para 4.2. 134 Rebuttal Report of A Jennings dated 25 February 2016, para 4.9.
31560772:631364 Page 242
c. Mr Thompson’s proposed amendments to the wording of a development control in sub-precinct C are supported as they improve the readability of the provision.
14. It is submitted that the precinct and its provisions (as amended and attached to Ms Jennings’ Rebuttal Report as Attachment A) is the most appropriate method to achieve the objectives of the Act for the reasons outlined in Ms Jennings’ evidence report and rebuttal evidence report.
31560772:631364 Page 243
WAIUKU PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing precinct is located to the east of Waiuku and is strategically situated adjacent to two important roads namely the main road that leads to the Steel Mill at Glenbrook and to State Highway 1, called Glenbrook Waiuku Road, and the main road that leads to Pukekohe, called Waiuku Road. The location on these strategic roads means that heavy vehicles will not be required to pass through the town in order to get to State Highway 1 and Pukekohe. Part of the area is farmed but non- farming business activity also takes place. A prominent ridgeline runs west-east from the southern edge to the centre of the business area.
2. The underlying zoning of land is Light Industry and to a much lesser extent Rural Production zone in two separate small parcels of land. The precinct is comprised of four sub parts, identified as sub-precincts A-D. Sub-precincts A-C have an underlying zone of Light Industry and sub-precinct D has an underlying zone of Rural Production. The precinct is subject to a number of overlays (identified in the evidence of Mr Luong at paragraph 7.10).
3. The purpose of the precinct is to form a business park in Waiuku by providing for a number of manufacturing, processing, assembling, storage and distribution wholesale and service activities, while acknowledging its sense of place within a rural district setting of Waiuku. The precinct is based on the Legacy Plan (Franklin Section) which resulted from Plan Change 23. Three appeals were lodged in respect of PC 23, however, one appeal has been withdrawn and the two remaining appeals have been resolved by an Environment Court consent order. On 15 March 2011 Auckland Council resolved to make PC 23 operative. A precinct was developed rather than relying on an existing zone or other PAUP methods. The provisions within the precinct differ from the underlying zones and are specific to the location and type of development enabled within the precinct
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Michael Luong dated 26 January 2016 and rebuttal evidence report dated 24 February 2016. Mr Luong supports the precinct and proposes it be retained for the following reasons:
a. The Waiuku precinct was established through a bespoke plan change which was specifically tailored to the locality and its specific environmental qualities, attributes and constraints;
b. The range of development enabled by the original PC23 has a set of rules and outcomes that are specific to the location;
c. There has been no uptake of land within the area for new developments in accordance with the existing Legacy Plan framework; and
d. The zoning and rule framework underlying the precinct may deliver unexpected environmental outcomes if the precinct were to be removed.
6. Mr Luong proposes a number of amendments to the precinct to correct minor and technical or editorial errors to better reflect the legacy concept plan and to provide clarity and strengthening policies where considered appropriate. These changes include:
31560772:631364 Page 244
a. Restructuring of the precinct assessment criteria so as to be consistent with the outcomes of PC23; and
b. Addition of new assessment criteria to address gaps in the precinct where development control infringements had no relevant assessment criteria.
7. Counties Power Limited (4500-54) sought to amend the Waiuku precinct to include information which was part of the legacy provisions and to mange potential conflict between the Business Park and existing and planned infrastructure. Mr Luong reviewed the evidence of Christine Coste on behalf of Counties Power Limited and responded by way of rebuttal evidence. He considers his position as identified in his primary statement of evidence to be the most appropriate way to meet the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and to achieve the objectives an policies of the PAUP.
8. Mr Luong provided the following reasons in response to the Counties Power Limited submission:
a. The precinct should not repeat provisions already provided for in the underlying zone, overlays or Auckland-wide rules where they are the same. This is an unnecessary duplication and increases the risk of inconsistencies and unintended consequences;
b. The set of provisions provided by Ms Coste to address the designated Waiuku substation site and corresponding future and existing transmission lines to service this infrastructure has already been provided for in designation reference 3004, with its own suite of corresponding provisions and through the provisions under the infrastructure section in the PAUP;
c. The indicative routes for the transmission lines also extend beyond the confines of the structure plan and the precinct boundaries; and
d. The use of designations as a planning technique is also available under the RMA, which Counties Power Limited as a Requiring Authority may elect to use the consent process, plan change, or corridor provision to facilitate and/or protect their networks.
9. There are no other remaining issues.
31560772:631364 Page 245
WHITFORD PRECINCT
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The Whitford precinct is an existing precinct comprising approximately 3735 ha of rural land between Whitford Village and Beachlands. The land within the precinct is proposed to be zoned Countryside Living and is subject to a large number of overlays (listed at para 7.5 of Mr Reaburn's evidence in chief).
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Peter Reaburn dated 28 January 2016 and his rebuttal evidence report dated 25 February 2016, together with ecology evidence from Shona Myers dated 26 January 2016 and landscape evidence from Stephen Brown dated 29 January 2016 (the latter filed under Topic 081a). Mr Reaburn supports the precinct, which seeks to incorporate the provisions of Plan Change 8 (Whitford Rural Area) to the legacy Manukau City Council District Plan (Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Section). Appeals against Plan Change 8 were resolved by Environment Court consent orders following intensive mediation. Plan Change 8 was made fully operative in June 2012.
3. The precinct provisions provide for countryside living development, subject to a management regime that seeks to maintain and enhance landscape character, rural amenity values and environmental quality of the area. The precinct modifies the generic Countryside Living zone provisions to give effect to a distinctive character of the Whitford Rural area, and was developed following detailed landscape analysis and constraints modelling.
4. The Council proposes that the precinct be divided into two sub-precincts - Whitford sub-precinct A and Whitford sub-precinct B (with distinct density provisions) - and six mapped indicative constraints areas.
5. The bonus lot provisions are of particular note. They provide an incentive for improvements to the natural and physical environment through provisions for additional subdivision for significant enhancement planting. In this regard, it is noted that it is not the intention of this precinct that it be a recipient of transferred rural subdivision sites. Instead, the bonus lots mechanism just described is a form of internal (to the precinct) transfer of development rights.
Issues
6. The main issues arising are:
a. Carrying capacity - Whether or not the precinct should refer to the 925 dwelling carrying capacity, which formed a key component of Plan Change 8. A number of submitters opposed the provision. In his evidence in chief, Mr Reaburn agreed that the 925 cap, as a rule, is not a necessary component of these provisions and the fundamental expectations of the precinct can remain without the cap. However he considers that the 925 figure should be retained in the Introduction as an indication of what development capacity is calculated as coming out of application of the standard provisions.
b. Whitford landfill – Waste Disposal Services seeks that the precinct incorporates provisions similar to those contained in PC8 to address the reverse sensitivity concerns. Mr Reaburn agrees and has proposed amendments to acknowledge the presence of the Whitford landfill within sub-precinct A and the need to minimise the potential for reverse sensitivity effects on the landfill
31560772:631364 Page 246
activities. Mr Reaburn deals briefly with the (out of scope) proposal by WDS for a Special Purpose Landfill zone. Such a zone is being proposed for Redvale landfill. He notes that, unlike the Redvale landfill, the Whitford landfill benefits from a designation. He also notes that in the case of Whitford there are matters of detail to work through, including how the landfill zone would relate to the quarry zone, and what the extent of a new zone would be. A Special Purpose Landfill zone is therefore not supported at this time.
c. Formosa – Evidence has been filed by 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited (successor to Baoland Holdings Limited and Hui Feng Holdings Ltd) seeking, in essence, a new Beachlands 3 precinct on the Formosa land, which is part of the Whitford precinct. The proposal is for 1700 residential units and a 160 bed hotel. As Mr Reaburn notes, the proposals are a replacement of the Whitford precinct over the relevant land, and are not strictly relevant to the Whitford precinct itself (as a countryside living precinct). Michael Luong has addressed the submission from Baoland in the context of his evidence on Beachlands 1 precinct, while Mr Reaburn addresses the more recent 110 Formosa evidence in his evidence on the Whitford precinct. Both planning witnesses are agreed that the proposal is not appropriate. Both note that settlement of appeals concerning Plan Change 30 stressed a firm urban / rural boundary at Jack Lachlan Drive - this was a key aspect of the settlement of those appeals. Mr Reaburn also refers to landscape assessment work undertaken which indicated that the area south of Jack Lachlan drive should remain a rural area. The 110 Formosa proposals are seen as a significant challenge to the aims of the precinct (and PC8 before it) and are not supported.
7. Some more minor matters of detailed wording arise, which are addressed in Mr Reaburn's evidence.
31560772:631364 Page 247
WHITFORD 2 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The new precinct sought would be located near Whitford village, to the immediate east of the Rural Urban Boundary, and to the north of the notified Whitford precinct. The underlying zoning of land in the Whitford 2 precinct is Countryside Living zone and the proposed precinct is subject to a number of overlays (listed at paragraph 7.3 of Mr Cross's evidence in chief).
2. The purpose of the precinct is sought to enable closer settlement of the Countryside Living zone according to a series of rules that would promote clustering of dwellings, avoidance of the least stable areas and enhancement of indigenous vegetation. The submissions seek to introduce provisions drawn from Plan Change 8 (Whitford Rural Area) to the legacy Manukau City District Plan (Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Sections) that allow more intensive subdivision in the Whitford area. The area described in the submissions lies outside the area covered by the existing Whitford precinct.
3. The Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) zones the land Rural 2 and 4. These two zones have similar subdivision rules designed to prevent the re- subdivision of the large balance areas that remain after subdivision.
4. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Bain Cross dated 26 January 2016. Mr Cross considers that the PAUP subdivision provisions should remain unaltered and does not support the proposed precinct for the following reasons:
a. If it is found to be appropriate to amend the subdivision rules that relate to the land, then it is more appropriate to amend the PAUP subdivision rules than to propose a new precinct;
b. A detailed precinct assessment is requires to understand the implications of revising the subdivision rules. This is especially important given that the land was included in the study area for Plan Change 8 but was expressly excluded in the Legacy Plan zones under PC 8 and the PAUP Whitford precinct; and
c. The provisions provided by the submitters are not sufficiently detailed to use as a draft for a precinct.
5. The main issues arising are:
a. Whether more intensive subdivision is appropriate within the precinct area;
b. Whether the PAUP gives effect to Plan Change 8 of the legacy Manukau City Plan; and
c. Whether there are more appropriate mechanisms available under the PAUP to vary the normal (2ha) minimum site area standard for subdivisions in the Countryside Living zone.
31560772:631364 Page 248
WHITFORD 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The proposed Whitford 3 precinct would be located north of Whitford towards the northern end of Potts Road. The surrounding area is characterised by settled farming and "rural lifestyle" properties. The proposed precinct has been divided into two separate sub-precincts. Sub-precinct A would apply to the garden itself (approximately 4ha) and the principal activities provided for are public access to the Ayrlies Garden and related activities such as concerts and a cafe. Sub-precinct B would be larger and provide for rural lifestyle subdivision. The underlying zoning of land in the Whitford 3 precinct is Countryside Living zone. The land is subject to a number of overlays (listed in paragraph 7.8 in Mr Cross' evidence).
2. The Manukau City Council carried out Plan Change 8 which introduced a suite of provisions for rural Whitford. The provisions identified which parts of the general Whitford rural area were suitable for more intensive rural lifestyle subdivision. The areas that were considered suitable for more intensive subdivision have been identified in the PAUP as the Whitford precinct. The subject area for the Whiford 3 proposed precinct was not included in Plan Change 8.
3. The submission received seeks to introduce provisions that would specifically provide for a range of rural visitor activities within the 4ha Ayrlies Garden and more intensive Countryside Living zone subdivision on the balance of the land the submitters own.
4. The Council’s evidence on the proposed precinct is contained in the evidence of Bain Cross dated 26 January 2016. Mr Cross does not support the precinct for the following reasons:
a. In relation to sub-precinct A, the proposed Countryside Living zone provides for "rural tourist and visitor activities" as a discretionary activity. The Ayrlies Garden, including any café or restaurant would be able to be applied for as a discretionary activity without the need for a precinct;
b. In relation to sub-precinct B, if there is a case for changing the subdivision rules that relate to the land identified then this can be achieved by changes the subdivision rules rather than adding a precinct; and
c. The purpose of sub-precinct B is to enable closer settlement of the Countryside Living zone and the provisions that would enable subdivision and development would create a pocket of higher density countryside living. The effects of this are unknown as the submission does not include an analysis or evidence of the anticipated effects.
5. There are no other significant issues.
31560772:631364 Page 249
WHITFORD VILLAGE
EXISTING PRECINCT
1. The existing precinct is located at Whitford Village and comprises three principal zones for the land within the village, and three sub-precinct areas: Sub-precinct Area A is the commercial and community centre, Sub-precinct Area B is the existing developed residential area, and Sub-precinct C is an undeveloped greenfields expansion area fronting Saleyard Road. Whitford Village is surrounded by Countryside Living zone with the Whitford rural precinct to the east. The precinct is subject to a large number of overlays (outlined in the evidence of Bain Cross at paragraph 7.7).
2. The underlying zoning of the land in Sub-precinct A is Neighbourhood Centre zone and Public Open Space – Community zone, Sub-precincts B and C are both Single House zone, with Sub-precinct C zoned Public Open Space – Conservation. There is a tiny silver Coastal Transition zone within the precinct.
3. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the serviced expansion of Whitford Village. The reason for the three sub-precincts within the precinct is to ensure that new subdivision and development in any sub-precinct is serviced by connection to reticulated wastewater collection and disposal system constructed by the subdivider of Sub-precinct C. This prevents un-serviced expansion of the settlement.
4. The legacy provisions in the Manukau Section of the Operative District Plan, on which the precinct provisions are based, were finalised by the Environment Court consent order on 14 May 2012. The consent order resolved two appeals relating to Plan Change 27 to the plan, relating to the Whitford Village Special Policy Area. Plan Change 27 was made operative in December 2012. The precinct carries forward the provisions that require private wastewater provisions to be made to sensitive the greenfields extension, with enough capacity to incorporate connections to sites that are redeveloped within the already developed parts of the village.
5. Watercare Services Ltd does not plan to provide or take over financial responsibility for owning or operating reticulated wastewater at Whiftord, so it is important that the rules for subdivision and development require the construction, operation and maintenance of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal to be by privately funded reticulated network. The precinct is the most effective mechanism under the PAUP for making this provision.
6. The Council's evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Bain Cross dated 26 January 2016 and supplementary evidence dated 24 February 2016. Mr Cross supports the Whitford Village precinct as a whole for the following reasons:
a. The Auckland-wide rules for wastewater treatment and disposal do not provide sufficient direction about the need to ensure that reticulated wastewater collection, treatment and disposal is provided when the greenfields land is subdivided and developed. Watercare has been very clear that it does not wish to take over responsibility for collection, treating and disposing of wastewater from this settlement. If the precinct provisions did not apply, it is likely that the greenfields land would be subdivided and developed with on site wastewater treatment and disposal which would be unsatisfactory for two reasons; the high risk of groundwater contamination and the low density of housing development that would be required using on-site treatment would be wasteful of the land;
31560772:631364 Page 250
b. The Auckland-wide rules for water supply do not provide adequate direction to ensure that adequate water supply is provided and tailored to this location;
c. The underlying zonings are the most appropriate as its rules are the closest of the PAUP zones to those in the legacy Manukau plan.
7. Mr Cross proposes a number of amendments to the precinct provisions, which are detailed in his evidence. Among these is an (out of scope) proposal to delete framework plan provisions, on the basis that they do not in his opinion add value in such a small precinct.
8. We note that Mr Cross has prepared a supplementary statement of evidence, as certain minor wording and terminology amendments sought by Auckland Council Stormwater Unit had not been incorporated into the draft precinct provisions. The purpose of the supplementary evidence is to incorporate those amendments into the precinct provisions. The amendments are set out at paragraph 3.1 of the supplementary evidence.
31560772:631364 Page 251
WIRI 2 PRECINCT
Drafting note: The parties involved in this Precinct (and the related Auckland-wide provisions) have been granted an extension to their rebuttal evidence timetable to allow for additional risk assessment material to be circulated by WOSL. The Council will file its precinct summary in advance of its scheduled hearing on this precinct on 7 April.
31560772:631364 Page 252
WIRI 3 PRECINCT
PROPOSED PRECINCT
1. The Wiri 3 precinct is not in the PAUP as notified and is proposed to be applied to the site of the former Wiri North quarry located at 114 Roscommon Road, Wiri (approximately 38 ha of land) in the submissions of Auckland Council (submission 5716-3295) and Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited (submission 2461-2) (Fletchers). Both submissions seek to incorporate the Wiri North Structure Plan provisions set out in the Auckland Council Operative Plan (Manukau Section) into the PAUP which were incorporated via Private Plan Change 36 which was made operative in 2014. That Structure Plan provided for the establishment of a mixture of light and heavy industry uses on the site.
2. The Council’s evidence regarding the precinct is contained in the evidence report of Sukhdeep Singh dated 26 January 2016. Ms Singh does not support the proposed precinct primarily because the resource management matters addressed by the legacy plan are already adequately addressed in the PAUP, in particular:
a. New Auckland-wide provisions are proposed within the PAUP to manage land uses within identified risk management areas for hazardous facilities or infrastructure which will address the risks associated with the neighbouring Wiri Oil Terminal.
b. The quarry floor has been significantly raised as a result of the importation of fill material from the Waterview Tunnel project and the Council’s stormwater team confirms that the levels that will be achieved in accordance with the resource consent for the detention pond are appropriate and that ongoing stormwater matters are able to be addressed through the other provisions of the PAUP. Therefore the legacy plan rules requiring that the finished ground level be at least one metre above the 1% AEP flood level of the Puhinui Stream are adequately addressed.
c. The geological feature that was acknowledged in the legacy plan provisions has been largely covered as a result of the site rehabilitation works and therefore rules regarding the desirability of its retention are unnecessary.
d. The Wiri Lava Cave is identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature in the PAUP and the Wiri North Waahi Tapu area is identified as one of the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua. The overlay provisions adequately address the protection of these resources and therefore no particular provision needs to be made through the application of a precinct.
Remaining issues
3. Ms Singh has discussed her position in relation to the Wiri 3 precinct with representatives for Fletchers. Mr Paul Arnesen, the planning consultant for Fletchers, has confirmed that he is in agreement with her position and this is recorded in his evidence in chief.135 Wiri Oil Services Limited has also confirmed that it supports the Council’s position.136
135 Statement of Evidence of Paul Arnesa (Planning) on behalf of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited, dated 10 February 2016. 136 Statement of Evidence of Georgina McPherson for Wiri Oil Services dated 10 February 2016 at para 12.4.
31560772:631364