Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

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 Topic 016 RUB North/West

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

JOINT STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DAVID HOOKWAY, RYAN BRADLEY AND ERYN SHIELDS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

(PLANNING – WEST AUCKLAND FRINGE)

15 OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 4 4. SCOPE ...... 4 5. GROUP 1 – KUMEU-HUAPAI...... 6 6. GROUP 2 - RIVERHEAD ...... 32 7. GROUP 3 – RED HILLS OUTSIDE THE RUB / TAUPAKI ...... 37 8. GROUP 4 – WHENUAPAI, RED HILLS INSIDE THE RUB ...... 47 9. GROUP 5 – BIRDWOOD ...... 50 10. GROUP 6 – WAITAKERE RANGES SPECIFIC ...... 55 11. GROUP 7 – WAITAKERE RANGES GENERAL SUBMISSIONS ...... 63 12. CONCLUSION ...... 63

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Our names are David Hookway, Ryan Bradley and Eryn Shields and we provide evidence to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) on the location of the proposed Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) in the north west of Auckland. For the purposes of this evidence, the north west of Auckland includes Riverhead, Kumeu / Huapai, and locations south of that to the Waitakere Ranges.

1.2 The key points of our evidence for Kumeu-Huapai, Riverhead, Red Hills / Taupaki, Whenuapai / Red Hills (inside the RUB), Birdwood and the Waitakere Ranges are as follows.

Kumeu-Huapai

1.3 Ryan Bradley concludes that the RUB at Kumeu-Huapai can be amended slightly on its western edge in order to provide a more defensible boundary. This amendment reduces the RUB to strengthen the buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku, and provide a more defensible boundary in landscape terms. Mr Bradley relies partially on the advice of the Mr Brown, Council’s landscape witness in this matter.

1.4 In Mr Bradley’s evidence, no other changes to the RUB for Kumeu–Huapai are suggested for a variety of reasons. These include submissions seeking the inclusion of land that would lack a defensible boundary, a submission from mana whenua opposing urban expansion to the south east, the existence of prime soils in this area, and geotechnical and flooding hazards.

Riverhead

1.5 David Hookway supports those submissions that support the RUB as notified, except in relation to two properties, being 30 Cambridge Road and 307 Riverhead Road. In these two properties, Mr Hookway supports a minor relocation of the RUB and Future Urban zoning to align with the eastern edge of the Electricity Transmission Line overlay that crosses these two properties.

1.6 Mr Hookway, together with other council experts consider that there should be no significant extension to the RUB at Riverhead for capacity reasons, the potential use of prime soils, the exposure to flooding and sensitive downstream marine receiving environments, and submissions seeking land to be included inside the RUB that is located under High Tension power lines.

Red Hills (Outside the RUB) / Taupaki

1.7 Mr Hookway concludes that the requested significant additions to the RUB west of Red Hills are not necessary because the land is not required to provide for additional capacity. There would be potential stormwater effects within Brigham Creek and the Upper Waitemata Harbour and the land contains elite and prime soils.

1.8 In relation to a request to rezone Taupaki Village for urban use, Mr Hookway concludes that this is not supported as the area in question is located within a flood prone area, a portion of which has high liquefaction potential and contains an area of elite and prime soils.

Red Hills (Inside the RUB) / Whenuapai

1.9 The part of Red Hills that is located within the RUB is located west of Don Buck Road and Fred Taylor Drive (the former State Highway 16).

1.10 The submissions related to these two areas all seek the retention of the RUB, which Eryn Shields supports. One submission from the New Zealand Defence Force relates to the land designated for the Whenuapai Airbase, and seeks the removal of the Future Urban Zone, which Mr Shields does not support, as one of the key planning approaches in the PAUP is that all land in Auckland is zoned.

Birdwood

1.11 Mr Shields concludes that the land subject to submissions in Birdwood and north of Swanson Local Village is not suitable for inclusion within the RUB. His view is that the RUB as proposed is the most appropriate, because of the geotechnical issues and storm water constraints for the Birdwood area, and the lack of a defensible boundary north of Swanson Local Village.

Waitakere Ranges

1.12 Mr Shields supports retention of the notified RUB without any amendments to include land within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area for the following reasons:

(a) the proposed RUB aligns with the boundary of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and it is appropriate to avoid urban expansion into this in terms of the effects on the rural character of the foothills

(b) the land that is subject to the submissions does not form a defensible RUB

(c) that the expansion of urban development into the northern and eastern foothills will not meet the requirements of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act in terms of maintaining the rural character.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 This evidence is a joint statement prepared by David Hookway, Ryan Bradley and Eryn Shields for Topic 016 Rural Urban Boundary – Northwest on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). This statement relates to the Kumeu / Huapai, Riverhead, Red Hills (outside the RUB) / Taupaki, Whenuapai / Red Hills (inside the RUB), Birdwood and the Waitakere Ranges groups.

2.2 Our qualifications and experience are provided in Attachment A.

2.3 Eryn Shields was involved in the development of the location of the RUB in the Whenuapai, Red Hills and Waitakere areas, including advice on the location of the RUB in the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan and consideration of feedback on the draft location of the RUB.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 We confirm that we have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that we agree to comply with it. We confirm that we have considered all the material facts that we are aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that we express, and that this evidence is within our areas of expertise, except where we state that we are relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE

4.1 We are providing a joint statement of planning evidence in relation to the submissions made on Kumeu / Huapai, Riverhead, Red Hills (outside the RUB) / Taupaki, Whenuapai / Red Hills (inside the RUB), Birdwood, the Waitakere Ranges and Waitakere Ranges General submissions.

4.2 This statement addresses each sub-group as follows:

(a) Background to the RUB location

(b) Key issues raised by submitters

(d) Response

4.3 Any relevant documents considered in preparing this statement are identified under the relevant sub-group.

4.4 In preparing this statement the evidence of the following Council witnesses are relied on:

(a) Joint statement of evidence of Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) by David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Stuart.

(b) The joint statement of Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur for Auckland Transport (AT)

(d) Stephen Brown (landscape)

(e) Philip Jaggard (storm water).

4.5 The following information is attached to this statement and referred to within the assessment of submissions:

(a) Attachment B – IHP Submission Point Pathway Report for the group of submissions

(b) Attachment C – Assessment of submissions against Edge Criteria for each sub-group

(d) Attachment E – Map of proposed change to RUB – Kumeu-Huapai

(e) Attachment F - Map of proposed change to RUB - Riverhead

(f) Attachment G - Policy Map Z of Part 5 of the Policy Section of the operative District Plan

(g) Attachment H – Birdwood Structure Plan

(h) Attachment I – Swanson Structure Plan

(i) Attachment J – Birdwood Urban Concept Plan

5. GROUP 1 – KUMEU-HUAPAI

Background to RUB Location

5.1 Kumeu-Huapai is currently a small rural town to the north west of Auckland that has 1,410 residents1. It is 25km by road to central Auckland and 8km to the emerging Metropolitan Centre of Westgate.

5.2 Around 120ha in Huapai North was given a ‘live’ residential zoning in 2013 and there is currently a significant amount of subdivision and housing construction in the area.

5.3 The Auckland Plan Development Strategy identifies Kumeu-Huapai as a ‘Rural and coastal town’. This is a level down in the hierarchy from the ‘Satellite towns’ of Warkworth and Pukekohe but the plan still expects Kumeu-Huapai to grow substantially. It is also noted that the town will be less of a focus for intensification or for developing substantial employment. The Auckland Plan labels the area around Kumeu-Huapai as a greenfield area for investigation.

5.4 The greenfield area of investigation around Kumeu-Huapai was analysed in the preparation of the PAUP. This resulted in a new RUB that includes a large area to the west of Huapai towards Waimauku and an area of countryside living land to the north east of Kumeu. All the land not already zoned for urban uses is zoned Future Urban, which is a holding zone prior to a ‘live’ urban zoning. There is around 800ha of Future Urban zoned land in Kumeu-Huapai which is over 70% of the urban land in the town.

5.5 It should be noted that the total area is significantly larger than those that previously earmarked as future urban by the former Rodney District Council and includes areas that were not previously contemplated for urbanisation through previous planning initiatives.

5.6 The evidence of Ian Bayliss for this topic outlines how the RUB in the notified PAUP was established and provides a regional context. Key considerations in establishing the RUB specifically in the Kumeu-Huapai area included the following:

 Maintaining a greenbelt or buffer between the existing urban areas; between Kumeu-Huapai and Auckland, as well as between the neighbouring settlements

1 Census 2013

of Riverhead and Waimauku (to keep them physically separate from each other). This arose as a reoccurring theme in the feedback on the draft RUB (including from the Rodney Local Board).

 Landscape boundaries; in particular, the exclusion of the urban area from the Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) in the northern hills and the use of Puke Road ridge in the west. These defining features were identified in the landscape assessment from Enpad Ltd referenced in the PAUP Section 32 Report Part 2.2 RUB Location and Part 3.2 and Appendix 3.2.4.

 Geotechnical issues, such as liquefaction have been identified in extensive areas of land to the southeast. The desktop geotechnical analysis from Tonkin and Taylor Ltd (PAUP Section 32 Report Part 2.2 RUB Location and Part 3.2 and Appendix 3.2.1) which identifies these areas uses a scale that refers to ‘development premiums’. This area is identified as having a high development premium in terms of geotechnical issues. The notified RUB is located to include areas that are easier to develop (refer to the geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier).

 Flood hazards in the form of floodplains are identified throughout the Kumeu and Huapai area. The avoidance of development within floodplains or displacement of flood plains is a consideration for the location of development in this area. Limiting the impacts ’upstream’ of the Kumeu area is a key concern given this catchment has existing problems related to flooding through the urban areas of Kumeu-Huapai (refer to the stormwater evidence of Phil Jaggard).

 Feedback from Mana Whenua in consultation meetings on the proposed RUB seeking the land south of Kumeu be avoided for urbanisation and raising concerns around the western extent of Huapai (seeking that a rural buffer be maintained between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku).

5.7 As shown in Figure 1 below, the Kumeu-Huapai RUB is located to the north of the settlement using the Kumeu River. Urban growth to the north is constrained by the presence a floodplain and of an area of steep hills to the north with extensive ONL and Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlays. To the west the RUB is largely predicated on the Puke Road ridge and the Ahukuramu Stream. To the southeast, the RUB uses the Tawa Road ridge and avoids areas with geotechnical and flood hazards. To the direct east the RUB is located using the existing urban zoned land,

avoiding a large area of flood hazard and the Kumeu Showgrounds. Finally, to the north east the RUB is set to exclude areas of SEA, and floodplain, and follows a cadastral boundary to exclude an area of smaller, fragmented land.

Northern RUB: Floodplain, SEAs, ONL North eastern RUB: SEA, Floodplain, cadastral

Retain Retain separation separation from from Waimauku Riverhead

Eastern RUB: Western Floodplain, RUB: Retain Showgrounds Floodplain, separation Ridgeline from Auckland Southern RUB: Ridgeline, floodplain and legacy boundary

Figure 1: Map showing the high level RUB for Kumeu-Huapai

5.8 Since the PAUP was notified two Special Housing Areas (SHA) have been identified within the Future Urban zone around Kumeu-Huapai as shown in Figure 2 below. The ‘Huapai Triangle’ SHA is anticipated to provide around 1,200 additional homes in a mixed housing development while the ‘Oraha Road’ SHA is planned for around 250 new dwellings. Plan Variations are being progressed by the Housing Project Office for both SHAs.

Oraha Road SHA

Huapai Triangle SHA

Figure 2: SHAs in Kumeu-Huapai

Key issues raised by submitters

5.9 I have grouped the submissions received in relation to the RUB in to 5 sub-groups in order to address the key ‘themes’. The sub-group areas are spatially represented in Figure 3 below.

Sub-group area 5

Sub-group area 1

Sub-group area 3

Figure 3: Kumeu-Huapai RUB sub-group areas

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 1 (remove/retain the new urban areas within the RUB)

5.10 There are twelve submission points seeking that the urban expansion proposed through the RUB in the notified PAUP be removed. The submissions are inferred to be requesting the Kumeu-Huapai RUB to be retracted to the zoned urban edge as shown in the operative Auckland District Plan Rodney Section (2011). The specific areas to be removed from the RUB are shown on Figure 4 below. Also in sub-group area 1 are eight submission points seeking that the RUB be retained for specific properties as well as for the general area.

Urban reduction

Figure 4: Kumeu-Huapai Sub-Group Area 1

5.11 I do not support the submission points in sub-group area 1 that seek a reduction of the RUB back to the extent of the urban zonings identified in the operative plan. My opinion is based on my analysis of the inclusion of sub-group area 1 against the RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. In my opinion the retention of the RUB in the location identified as notified is preferable to that which is identified by submitters for sub group 1 as it aligns with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy (APDS); results in a defensible urban boundary; takes advantage of an area with few environmental values to locate development; is located in an area comparatively free of natural hazard constraints; contributes to the effective and efficient provision and use of infrastructure; and offers opportunities for a mix of types of development. These matters are considered in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Alignment with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy

5.12 The APDS identifies the area around Kumeu-Huapai as a Greenfield Area for Investigation. The Greenfield Areas for Investigation were recognised as having existing infrastructure or being viable areas for new infrastructure, being close to or

able to provide new employment and new homes, and being relatively unconstrained by environmental factors. The notified RUB identified a significant urban expansion in the Kumeu-Huapai area is consistent with the APDS. Removing the new areas of Future Urban would not in my opinion be aligned to the strategy.

5.13 As explained in the evidence of Dawne MacKay, the Future Urban Zoned (FUZ) area in Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead is anticipated to accommodate around 8,600 dwellings. Retracting the RUB in Kumeu-Huapai may require these dwellings to be made up in other areas to meet Auckland’s anticipated growth.

Defensible boundary

5.14 The reduction of the RUB back to the operative plan urban edge would not provide a defensible boundary to the west (south of State Highway 16). In this location the RUB would not follow any defensible feature, but simply follow cadastral boundaries. In this location in particular, I consider the cadastral boundaries alone to form a weak urban edge as there is little to differentiate between neighbouring sites and to justify including or excluding them from the RUB. I note that the other urban zone boundaries in the operative plan do generally align with defensible RUB features (e.g. river, floodplain).

Environmental and natural hazard constraints

5.15 The land identified in sub-group 1 contains no identified SEAs, ONFs, ONLs , Sites of Significance or Value to Mana Whenua (SSMW), or Historic Heritage Places (HHP).

5.16 There are areas of floodplain identified within the areas sought to be removed. However, the floodplains are primarily related to local streams, for example Coopers Creek, and I consider that their function and any associated risks could be managed through the structure planning process to achieve the policy directives of the PAUP. Such ‘management’ of these areas may involve setting these areas aside for ‘green infrastructure corridors’ or passive recreation.

5.17 The land is largely free from areas of high development premium (geotechnical) as discussed in the evidence of Robert Hillier. There are only small areas with high development premiums around the Kumeu River and Coopers Creek. Again, I consider that these areas could be managed through the structure planning process.

5.18 The general absence of environmental values and significant natural hazards in relation to this land means that, in these regards at least, the land is suitable for urban land uses. Removing such a large area of suitable land from the RUB would result in the need to make up for this land in other locations across the region. These other locations could potentially have greater environmental values and more significant natural hazards constraints. As noted in the evidence of Ian Bayliss on this topic, land that has few significant physical constraints for development is a scarce resource in Auckland.

Efficient provision and use of Infrastructure

5.19 The proposed RUB proposes a large urban expansion that builds on the existing settlement of Kumeu-Huapai. Therefore, it leverages on the existing and planned transport, social, and water and wastewater infrastructure for the area. The Kumeu- Huapai water and wastewater system is connected to the metropolitan network and has existing and planned capacity for the growth set out in the notified PAUP. This is detailed in the joint statement of evidence of Watercare Services prepared by David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Stuart.

5.20 Kumeu-Huapai currently has a number of social facilities including a library, community hall, an existing primary school (Huapai School) and a planned new primary school (Huapai North). The submissions seeking a reduction of the RUB would remove the opportunity for urban zoning within an area that has access to a significant amount of planned and ‘in place’ infrastructure. This would result in a need to make up for this urban capacity in other locations across the region where there may not be the same level of existing infrastructure.

5.21 I also consider that the large area of land included within the RUB at Kumeu-Huapai will assist in the efficient provision and use of infrastructure by supporting greater use of public transport. This is because it will create a critical mass of urban land to better support public transport services than the much smaller urban area shown in the operative plan. As explained in the transport evidence of Josh Arbury, it is necessary to have sufficient population and employment catchments to enable cost-effective public transport services at a level that makes them attractive to use. While there is little public transport available in Kumeu-Huapai currently, the joint statement of evidence of Auckland Transport prepared by Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott Macarthur specifically refers to the construction of a North- Western Busway along the SH16 corridor and a potential station at Huapai (based on the large Future Urban area in the notified PAUP).

Opportunity for mixed development

5.22 The submissions seek a reduction of the urban area by around 650ha. This would restrict the types or mix of development that may occur in Kumeu-Huapai as the remaining land would be limited and it may not be viable to have more varied land use (such as provision for land extensive industry which could introduce the opportunity for local employment).

Response

5.23 I consider that the general RUB location identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the sub-regional joint- statement for the reasons set out above.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (Kumeu western edge)

5.24 There are four submission points seeking changes to the RUB along the western edge of Kumeu-Huapai. I have further split them into two groups. Sub-group area 2A includes three submission points2 seeking urban expansion to the west. Sub-group area 2B includes one submission point3 seeking a reduction of the RUB in the west. I note that the submission in sub-group area 2B does not include a map and the map in Figure 5 below represents the inferred area for the RUB reduction.

2 73-1 (Andrew Watkins), 5072-1 (Rob Mihaljevich), 848-1 (George Vitasich) 3 2849-1 (Timothy Hay)

Sub-group option 2B

Sub-group option 2A

Urban expansion

Urban reduction

Figure 5: Kumeu-Huapai sub-group areas 2A and 2B

Sub-group Area 2A (urban expansion to the west)

5.25 I do not support the submissions in sub-group area 2A that seek an expansion of the RUB to the west. This is based on the analysis of sub-group area 2A against the RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. In my opinion the notified RUB, is preferable to that which is proposed as it provides a defensible urban boundary; avoids encroachment into an area with identified geotechnical and flood hazards; adheres to the understanding of the relationship of Maori to the area and their culture; and the current location of the RUB provides a clear separation from the

adjacent rural land use using a defensible landscape boundary, Puke Road ridge. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

Defensible boundary

5.26 The notified RUB in the west follows the Puke Road ridge (south of Trigg Road) and then a cadastral boundary and the Ahukuramu Stream floodplain (north of Trigg Road) as shown in Figure 6. I consider the western RUB in Kumeu-Huapai to be a defensible urban boundary where it follows the strong landscape feature of the Puke Road ridge. Two of the submissions4 seeking an urban expansion use cadastral boundaries for the RUB. In this location, I consider the cadastral boundaries alone to be a weak urban edge as there is little to differentiate between neighbouring sites and to justify including or excluding them from the RUB. Submission 73-1 seeks a RUB expansion using Foster Road as the new boundary. In this location I consider that there is a more defensible urban boundary to the east and I discuss this further in paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27 below.

Figure 6: PAUP zonings with non-statutory floodplain layer and 5m contours

4 5072-1 (Rob Mihaljevich), 848-1 (George Vitasich)

5.27 The expansion of the RUB to Foster Road under sub-group area 2A would encroach into the Ahukuramu Stream flood plain. As discussed in the evidence of Robert Hillier, this area is also subject to high soil compressibility potential that would lead to it having a high development premium. This would mean engineering solutions would result in this land being more expensive to develop than land without these constraints. In addition, expansion of the RUB solely to include an area with an identified flood plain and prominent water course would potentially conflict with the RPS objectives in B.6.7 which aim to maintain the function of floodplains and avoid risks to people, property and the environment. Several policies also prefer the retention of natural systems and protection of watercourses and this may also be compromised by expanding the RUB in this area. The area around the Puke Road/Tawa Road intersection also has geotechnical constraints with regards to instability.

Mana Whenua

5.28 The expansion of the RUB to the west could compromise the relationship of Maori and their culture. Strong feedback was received from Mana Whenua on the importance of the rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku. During Mana Whenua engagement meetings in 2013. Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara expressed concern around extending urban development west of Tapu Road. I note that urban expansion west of Tapu Road has already occurred as the operative district plan has a ‘live’ residential zone for Huapai North and a Future Urban zone south of SH16. The notified RUB now extends the Future Urban area further west. The principle that I understand to be of greatest concern to Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara in this area is the need to maintain a rural buffer between Huapai and Waimauku. The expansion of the RUB to the west under sub-group area 2A would reduce the buffer further than the notified RUB.

Separation of land uses

5.29 Finally, the expansions sought in sub-group area 2A, to move the RUB over the Puke Road ridge, would in my opinion result in potential land use compatibility issues as it would introduce new urban land uses into an otherwise rural catchment.

Sub-group area 2B (urban reduction in the west)

5.30 Submission 2849-1 (sub-group area 2B) seeks a reduction of the RUB around Foster Road. I support this request based on my analysis of sub-group area 2B against the

RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. In my opinion, the area suggested by the submission performs better than the notified RUB in terms of providing a stronger defensible boundary; removing an area of land identified as having a High development premium in terms of geotechnical issues; splitting urban and rural uses into separate visual catchments; and providing a larger rural buffer between Kumeu- Huapai and Waimauku. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

Defensible boundary

5.31 While I consider the majority of the western RUB of Kumeu-Huapai along Puke Road ridge is strong, the defensible qualities of the RUB are somewhat weaker between Trigg Road and State Highway 16. This is the general area covered by sub-group area 2B.

5.32 North of Trigg Road the RUB follows a cadastral boundary and then largely follows the flood plain of the Ahukuramu Stream. While a flood plain has been used as an urban boundary in some locations, following the floodplain in this location means that urban development will spill over into another visual catchment. I consider that retracting the RUB to follow the ridge to the east would result in a stronger urban boundary because the ridge is a better basis to retain the visual separation between the urban and rural uses.

Natural hazards and physical constraints

5.33 The removal of this area from within the RUB would also have the benefits of excluding some land that has been identified as having geotechnical issues5. It also avoids the urbanisation of steep land that may have impacts on the water quality and quantity of the Ahukuramu Stream catchment.

Compatibility of land uses

5.34 I support a retraction of the RUB in the west as it would avoid potential land use compatibility issues. The retraction sought by submission 2849-1 would retract the RUB out of a ‘rural catchment’, separating urban and rural uses into largely separate visual catchments.

5 Refer to the geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier

Rural buffer and Mana Whenua feedback

5.35 The RUB reduction in sub-group area 2B would assist in increasing the opportunity to retain a rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku. As discussed in relation to sub-group area 2A above, the importance of the rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku is recognised by Mana Whenua and was the subject of significant support during consultation on the draft RUB (including from the Rodney Local Board). For this reason a retracted area of RUB to the west supports this approach.

5.36 The rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku is already under significant pressure. Based on the built up urban area visible today, the rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku is 3.3km along State Highway 16. The urban zone in the operative district plan, including the recently approved Huapai North Plan Change (PC127), reduces the buffer to 2.7km. The notified RUB further reduces it to 1.4km. As well as reducing the physical distance, the notified RUB allows urban development on the west facing slopes at the edge of Kumeu-Huapai. This will further erode the sense of separation between the settlements as urban land use will be more easily visible from further away.

5.37 The submission in sub-group area 2B gives the opportunity to improve this situation by retracting the RUB back to the ridgeline.

5.38 The landscape evidence of Stephen Brown also supports the reduction of the RUB in this location, identifying also that amendment would avoid the ‘spilling over’ of urban land uses in to a rural catchment. However, Stephen Brown goes further and recommends that the RUB be reduced back beyond the ridge. At paragraph 20 he recommends that:

“a knoll and ridge feature immediately east of Foster Rd, linked to the stream that runs under SH16…would afford a logical and defensible Rural Urban Boundary. The knoll …[has] significant appeal as an amenity feature in its own right. The steam running down its immediate eastern flank helps to demarcate the knoll / ridge – both physically and visually…In my view, allowing development to roll onto the crest of the ridge or up the eastern side of the knoll would compromise this combination of local ‘natural / rural features’ and potentially lead to the situation in which development on one side of ridge / knoll (its eastern flanks) inexorably leads to development of the other (western side) in the future. In other words, instead of acting as a logical physical bulwark against

further urban expansion towards Waimauku, it instead becomes the ‘launch point’ for further development.”

5.39 The map in Figure 7 below illustrates the reduction of the RUB in this location that I support (back to the ridgeline) and the view of Stephen Brown supports which further reduces the RUB to the east beyond the ridgeline.

Planner recommendation

Landscape recommendation

Figure 7: Area Ryan Bradley (Planning) recommends to be removed from the RUB compared to the area recommended by Stephen Brown (Landscape)

5.40 It is my view that while the RUB should be reduced in this location, it does not need to be reduced to the extent recommended by Stephen Brown. This is because:

(a) I consider that the future land use on the eastern side of the ridge can be managed through a structure plan process. A structure plan could consider

whether the landscape values of the eastern slopes warrant limited urban uses and could propose land uses consistent with its landscape value (e.g. open space, large lot sizes, limited building coverage and heights).

(b) I am also unconvinced that allowing urban development on one side of the ridge would provide justification for encroachment of urban uses to the other side. Ridges are commonly used as urban edges and I consider them to be a strong urban boundary as they separate urban and rural uses into different visual and stormwater catchments.

(c) Finally, by reducing the urban area further east it creates a disconnect between the land uses on either side of State Highway 16. Under Stephen Brown’s proposal, around 0.5km the northern side would be urban while the southern side would be rural. The western entrance to Kumeu-Huapai on State Highway 16 would not create a clear urban edge and delineation between town and country with these mismatching land uses. Under my suggested change to the RUB the disconnect is only 0.1km.

5.41 In terms of the overall growth strategy, the removal of around 32ha of Future Urban zoned land will not have a significant impact. This is due to its small size and the constraints on the land outlined above that may have limited its development potential. As explained in the evidence of Douglas Fairgray, the Future Urban areas have enough capacity to meet the 70:40 split for growth under the compact city approach. As shown in the joint statement of evidence of Peter Vari, Eryn Shields and Trevor Watson, the loss of this relatively small area of land is being made up elsewhere such as through large additional areas at Dairy Flat.

Response

5.42 I support both the retention of the majority of the RUB in the west and the retraction of the RUB (north of Trigg Road). Aside from the retraction of 32ha from within the RUB as shown on the map in Attachment E discussed above, I consider that the RUB location in the west identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate following reasons:

Submissions in sub-group area 2A:

(a) The Puke Road ridge forms a defensible boundary;

(b) It clearly separates out urban and rural uses to avoid conflict between adjoining land uses;

(d) It avoids areas of geotechnical constraints around the Puke Road/Tawa Road intersection and the Ahukuramu Stream;

(e) It retains a larger rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku than the proposals under sub-group area 2A;

(f) It avoids urban uses spilling over into a new rural catchment;

Submissions in sub-group area 2B:

(g) The ridgeline forms a more suitable defensible RUB than the floodplain that the notified RUB is based on;

(h) The reduced RUB provides a more effective rural buffer between Kumeu- Huapai and Waimauku;

(i) The reduced RUB better splits urban and rural uses into separate visual catchments and limits conflict between adjoining land uses;

(j) The reduced RUB will result in an area with slope stability issues being removed from within the RUB;

(k) The reduction of the RUB will not undermine the APDS and the 70:40 growth split under the compact city approach; and

(l) The reduced RUB performs best in the s32AA analysis in Attachment D.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group 3 (south eastern edge)

5.43 There are 32 submission points seeking amendments to the RUB along the south eastern edge of Kumeu-Huapai. There is also one submission6 that straddles the southeast and northeast but has been addressed as part of the northeast.

5.44 In my analysis of the submission points I have identified that 27 of the 32 points are pro-forma submissions that seek that the Mixed Rural zoning around Dysart Lane be changed to either a Countryside Living zone or a Large Lot zone. The request for a

6 6709-11 (Kumeu-Huapai Residents and Ratepayers Association Incorporated)

Countryside Living zone will be considered as part of Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographic Areas) while the request for a Large Lot zoning has been coded to Topic 016 RUB North, Waiheke and West as the Large Lot zone is an urban zoning. Where an urban zone is proposed on the edge of the RUB it is considered an expansion of the urban area and would require a RUB shift to bring it within the urban area.

5.45 I note that these pro-forma submissions specifically state that they do not want the subject land to be within the RUB or to be zoned Future Urban. They simply seek a Large Lot zoning.

5.46 The total area subject to submissions in sub-group area 3 is shown on Figure 8 below.

Urban expansion

Figure 8: Kumeu-Huapai sub-group area 3 (south eastern edge)

5.47 I do not support amendment to the RUB to the south east. This is based on the analysis of sub-group area 3 against the RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. In my opinion the expansion proposed would not result in a defensible urban boundary; it would encroach into an area with geotechnical and flooding hazards; it

could compromise the relationship of Maori and their culture, and it encompasses a relatively large area of prime soils. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

Defensible boundary

5.48 I consider the current south eastern RUB to be a strong urban boundary as it largely follows the Tawa Road ridge. This ridge is not as prominent as the Puke Road ridge, located to the west, but is still a landscape feature that forms a defensible urban boundary in this otherwise reasonably flat area (notably around the Dysart Lane area).

5.49 The expansion under sub-group area 3 would result in an urban boundary defined largely by local roads and cadastral boundaries. In this location, I consider the cadastral boundaries to be a weak urban edge as there is little to differentiate between neighbouring sites to justify including or excluding them from the RUB. I similarly consider local roads where they do not also follow a landscape feature to be a relatively weak urban boundary. I this case, I consider Tawa Road (which follows the ridge) to be the stronger urban boundary in this vicinity.

5.50 If the RUB was to be extended to the south east, the next defensible boundary would likely be the Hanham Road ridge7 in conjunction with the railway line and the Kumeu River floodplain. However, extending the RUB to these boundaries would encompass approximately a further 700ha of land within the RUB. This additional amount of land is not required to meet the 30 growth projections to be accommodated within the RUB.

Natural hazards

5.51 The expansion of the RUB sought would encroach into an area with geotechnical and flood hazards. As detailed in Robert Hillier’s geotechnical evidence, aside from the western part, this area has geotechnical constraints (potential compressibility and liquefaction issues). This leads to it having a high development premium across a significant portion of this area. Urbanisation of the catchment to the south of the RUB could also exacerbate flooding issues downstream in the Kumeu River. Flooding is already a significant hazard in the urban area of Kumeu-Huapai (particularly around the Kumeu Town Centre area) and the urbanisation of part of the upper catchment of the Kumeu River could generate a larger floodplain downstream.

7 Refer to Figure 8 above, Hanham Road ridge is located to the south of the area identified in the figure for urban expansion.

Mana Whenua

5.52 The expansion could compromise the relationship of Maori and their culture. As discussed earlier Mana Whenua expressed interest in the location of the RUB in the Kumeu-Huapai area, there may be cultural issues around any expansion of the RUB to the east of Kumeu-Huapai. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority have lodged a further submission (2960) opposing the submission of Dysart Lane Area (4297-1) that seeks urban expansion (Large Lot) to east. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority submission states that while limited provision for Large Lot/Countryside Living zoning in the area is appropriate, the area to the south of Tawa Road is not suitable and should remain Mixed Rural or be staged for future development at a later date. The submitter may provide further evidence on this matter for the hearing, as no further information has been provided to date to further inform my understanding of this matter.

5.53 Finally, the expansion encompasses a relatively large area of prime soils which chapter B.8.2 of the RPS seeks to protect (refer to the evidence of Chloe Trenouth). While it is noted that the land already within the RUB is also on prime soils, this expansion would result in the further loss of this resource and would be contrary to the policy direction in B.8.2.

Response

5.54 I consider that the RUB location in the south east of Kumeu-Huapai identified in the notified PAUP remains the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the sub-regional joint-statement for the following reasons:

(a) It has a defensible boundary based on landscape features (Tawa Road ridge);

(b) It avoids areas of land further to the south which have been identified as being subject to geotechnical and flood hazards;

(d) It avoids urbanising a large area of prime soils that the RPS seeks to protect.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group 4 (Kumeu north eastern edge)

5.55 There is one submission point8 seeking an amendment to the RUB along the north eastern edge of Kumeu-Huapai.

5.56 The submitter (Kumeu-Huapai Residents and Ratepayers Association Incorporated) seeks that the existing countryside living area around Oraha Road and Old North Road are rezoned to residential Large Lot. As explained in paragraph 5.39 above, Large Lot zoning requests on the edge of the RUB are considered to be comparable to an expansion of the RUB. I do note that the submitter appears to oppose an extension of the RUB to include this area as Future Urban and only seeks a rezoning to Large Lot.

5.57 I also note that the submission did not supply a map and the area is simply described in the submission as Oraha Road and Old North Road. I infer from the submission that it is referring to all the land zoned Countryside Living zone north of Oraha road up to Old North Road.

5.58 The area understood to be addressed by the submission in sub-group area 4 is represented on Figure 9 below.

8 (6709-11)

Urban expansion

Figure 9: Kumeu-Huapai sub-group area 4

5.59 I do not support the submission in sub-group area 4 that seeks an expansion of Kumeu-Huapai through a Large Lot zoning to the north east. This is based on the analysis of this request against the RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. Most notably the expansion proposed would not align with the Auckland Plan in relation to expansion of low intensity development; could compromise the protection of important environmental values; it would encroach into an area with geotechnical hazards; it would not offer opportunities for a mix of development, and it could lead to land use incompatibility. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

Auckland Plan Strategic direction

5.60 The expansion of the RUB to the north east would not align with Directive 10.4 of the Auckland which aims to:

“Locate and develop greenfield areas as sustainable liveable neighbourhoods in a way that… demonstrates the most efficient use of land… [and] provides a broad range of housing choice to cater for the diversity of housing needs in Auckland”.

5.61 The expansion proposed under sub-group area 4 is for a residential Large Lot zoning only. A large scale, low intensity greenfields expansion is inconsistent with the compact city approach for greenfield areas as outlined in the Auckland Plan.

Environmental values and physical constraints

5.62 The proposed expansion would also incorporate a relatively large area of SEA in the western portion of this land. The extent of this SEA means urban expansion into this area would not achieve the RPS direction around SEAs and biodiversity.

5.63 An expansion of the RUB in this area would encroach into an area with geotechnical hazards. This area (particularly to the west) has geotechnical constraints (slope stability) that would lead to it having a high development premium (refer to the evidence of Robert Hillier).

Limit development opportunities and incompatible land uses

5.64 The expansion sought corresponds to a request for residential Large Lot zoning only. In this respect, the proposal would undermine the structure planning process by pre- emptively assigning a land use and density to this large area without considering its role in conjunction with the wider Kumeu-Huapai urban area. In my opinion this would not offer opportunities for a mix of development types in this location.

5.65 Finally, urban expansion to the north east creates a potential conflict with adjoining land uses. This is not necessarily with neighbouring rural land uses, which include production forestry but more specifically the Waitemata Gun Club (located on Old North Road).

Response

5.66 I consider that the RUB location in the northeast identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the sub-regional joint-statement for the following reasons:

(a) It aligns with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy;

(b) It avoids areas with large extents of SEAs;

(d) It avoids potential land use conflicts with neighbouring land uses.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group 5 (104 Matua Road)

5.67 There is one submission point9 in sub-group area 5 that seeks an extension to the RUB at 104 Matua Road, Huapai. The submission seeks to increase the area of Large Lot zoning on the property, expanding it to the floodplain boundary. The submission states that the RUB around all of Huapai North follows the floodplain boundary but for the subject property it instead follows the transmission line corridor. The submitter provides a letter from Transpower, which does not oppose the submitters proposed increase to the Large Lot zoning as long as certain conditions are met.

5.68 The specific area covered by the submission in sub-group area 5 is shown on figure 10 below.

Urban expansion

Figure 10: Kumeu-Huapai sub-group area 5

5.69 I do not support the expansion of the Large Lot zoning on 104 Matua Road. This is based on the analysis of sub-group area 5 against the RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C. The primary reason for my view is that an expansion of ‘urban

9 (5760-1)

zoning’ would encroach into an area subject to flood hazards and would not result in an efficient use of the land.

5.70 The stormwater evidence of Philip Jaggard explains that further modelling has been carried out in relation to the floodplain in the Kumeu-Huapai area. This modelling shows that the floodplain is in fact much larger than that shown on the current PAUP non-statutory floodplain layer. In the area around 104 Matua Road the 1 per cent AEP floodplain is identified at around the 20m contour line.

5.71 The floodplain modelling means the possible area of new urban land (if the RUB is extended to the floodplain as sought in the submission) is reduced from around 5.5ha (using the non-statutory floodplain layer in the PAUP) to around 1.8ha (using the new floodplain modelling). Approximately half of this 1.8ha is in the Electricity Transmission Corridor (ETC) which is subject to constraints in terms of location of buildings which means that the actual useable urban land is under one hectare. A possible extension to the RUB on 104 Matua Road that avoids the newly modelled (larger) floodplain is shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Area outside the new floodplain that could potentially be included within the RUB.

5.72 Overall, the floodplain that reduces the land by such a great extent that the useable land is limited to that directly adjacent to the transmission lines. I consider the remaining useable land to be small, separated from the rest of the urban area (by the 75m ETC) and to offer poor amenity for residential use as it is adjacent to transmission lines. Given the constraints present, I do not support the expansion of the RUB in this location.

Response

5.73 I consider that the RUB location identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the sub-regional joint- statement for the following reasons:

(a) It avoids urbanising an area subject to a flooding hazard; and

(b) It avoids locating urban activities directly adjacent to the ETC.

6. GROUP 2 - RIVERHEAD

Background to RUB Location

6.1 Riverhead is a rural and coastal town located on an upper reach of the Waitemata Harbour. The Town has only recently been provided with wastewater and water reticulated services so most of the settlement has been developed on the basis of a minimum site size of 800m2 which has created a spacious landscape amenity for the settlement This site size has provided for in the PAUP via a special site size provision for this area (Chapter H Auckland Wide Rules 5.2.3.1 Table 3) though in the new Riverhead South Precinct, sites smaller than this have been approved in parts of the development.

Stream Effective zoning in Stream PAUP floodplain and overhead Riverhead power South transmission Development lines Land

Hari Krishna Temple

Stream boundary Golf Course Figure 12: Factors in determining the Riverhead RUB

6.2 The Operative Plan provided for Future Urban Zoning to the north (approximately 370 sites) and to the south (approximately 574 sites).In addition the PAUP provides for a further area of Future Urban Zoning west of the existing township of between 675-900 sites within the proposed RUB to provide additional capacity for the township’s growth over the planned thirty year period of the plan. This will allow Riverhead to grow from its 2013 population of 3195 to between 7500-8150 by 2042. (see Figure 12 above of Riverhead showing proposed RUB).

6.3 In setting the RUB for Riverhead it is apparent that the Council assessed the quantum of existing development already in place in the northern and southern areas of the township and then developed an approach for further growth provision based around Riverhead’s location. I understand and support these planning factors which are as follows :

 As a rural and coastal settlement adjacent to the Waitemata there was a concern to maintain the towns separate identity and not intrude too greatly upon the good rural soils of the area while maintaining defensible urban boundaries. The flat land of the Future urban zoning out to the western Rural Urban Boundary is transcribed in the north by a stream and associated flood plain and the passage of high tension power lines across this area. Further south the Future Urban zone follows a north –south aligned set of cadastral boundaries until they intersect with Lathrope Road and the stream boundary and floodplain areas which form the southern boundary of the existing town. The southern boundary of Riverhead is further reinforced by the large, stable and land extensive uses of the Hari Krishna Temple complex which has a special purpose zoning, and the local golf course both of which were initially established on rural land.

 Community preference and heritage. As a recently reticulated settlement all the sites in the old area of Riverhead are largely in excess of 800m2 and this gives the area a special character that the community wished to retain.

 Urban design principles. To develop a moderately sized town with walkable distances a new centre has been zoned and the future urban expansion out to the west is sized to support this walkable urban configuration.

 Infrastructure. While the present growth areas of the town are able to be serviced by town water supply and wastewater, the proposed Future Urban Zoned area is not able to be serviced at the moment and will require future

expansion of these services by Watercare. Structure planning of the area will be important to ensure these infrastructure provisions are sequenced and open space and access issues are resolved. For instance the proximity of the Coatesville-Riverhead State Highway provides both an opportunity to support growth and potential for adverse effects for the town’s growth and the function of the highway.

 The southern urban edge of Riverhead is located where the Riverhead South Precinct which is being developed at the present time.The Hari Krishna land and temple complex, Riverhead Golf Course and an unnamed local stream, provide a stable land use edge in this location for the southern urban extent of the Riverhead township .(refer to figure 1 above).

Key issues raised by submitters

6.4 There are two geographical clusters of submissions seeking extensions to the RUB at Riverhead.

6.5 One group of six submissions (209, 1230, 1434, 5399, 5741-1 and 2, 6602) are focused on incremental extension to the RUB out to the west of Riverhead.

6.6 Another group of 4 submissions (numbers 62, 64, 4844-198 and 5976) are in respect to the southern edge of Riverhead . The submitters seek expansion of the town beyond this established urban boundary and some seek to urbanise all the land to Whenuapai and to Kumeu. This is a considerable extension to the RUB.

6.7 A general submission (9099-1 and 2) from the Riverhead Residents and Ratepayers group supports the PAUP as being a centres based approach to growth based on urban design principles and reflecting local perspectives on maintaining the distinct separate form of Riverhead, rather than a linear sprawl approach.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 1 (Riverhead West)

6.8 The western RUB for Riverhead provides a 72 hectare FUZ that equates to capacity for over 1800 additional people. This is a considerable increase in growth potential over and above that already provided for the town by the zonings of both the Operative and PAUP Plans which also provide a substantial amount of greenfield capacity. I consider the extent of the proposed RUB provides for a

walkable future urban form, as sought by Directive 10.4 of the Auckland Plan, centred around the Alice and Queen Street triangle that is identified as the nucleus of a new centre for Riverhead as it grows. I am advised (refer to evidence of Dr Douglas Fairgray) that the extent of land provided in the RUB will be sufficient to achieve the quantum of growth required to achieve the overall regional 70:40 growth allocation of the Auckland Plan and high level policy outcomes of the PAUP. As noted above there were six submissions which seek expansion or retraction of the FUZ to the west of Riverhead, with a general focus on individual sites. Of these there are three relating to the Riverhead north- western RUB extension submissions (1230, 5399 and 6602) which are located within the stream floodplain and are affected by the ETC overlay passing though this area (refer to Attachment E for details).

6.9 With regard to submission 5399 in respect of 30 Cambridge Road, most of this site is clear of any restrictions but a triangular portion of the rear of the site has been excluded from the RUB using the edge of the floodplain affecting this locality. I am advised that so long as the storm water hazard is accounted for and mitigated in the development of the land especially if this area is only a part of the site affected, then this land can be urbanised. It is therefore my opinion that the RUB should be shifted to align with the existing ETC overlay running diagonally across this property and a small segment of the neighbouring site at 307 Riverhead Road, in accordance with the submitters request .

6.10 The other submission 1230 at 303A Riverhead Road and Submission 6602 being Lot 1 DP 154985 off Duke Street, are located almost entirely in the floodplain right down to the stream, and are also bisected by the ETC overlay. Therefore because of these combined and substantial risks these sites should remain within the Rural Production zone (refer to RUB Assessment Criteria in Attachment C).

6.11 There are three submissions in the south west RUB extension (submissions’ 209, 1434 and 5741-1 and 2) which are site specific. The RUB boundary at this point follows a cadastral boundary with a strong north /south orientation. The submitters’ land lies to the west or immediate south of this boundary and gain access to either Riverlands Road or Lathrope Road. As the submissions are individual requests that I consider this would result in a piecemeal RUB boundary further to the west and south of Riverhead (out to Riverhead Road due to the nature of the existing subdivision) which would compromise outcomes for the form and servicing of the RUB and FUZ and consequentially the urban form of

Riverhead as outlined above in section 6.3 (refer also to RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C). Access of urban development onto these roads would then compromise the rural character of these roads.

Response

6.12 I consider that the RUB to the west of Riverhead should be amended in part with a minor relocation of the RUB and FUZ to align with the eastern edge of the ETC overlay that crosses 30 Cambridge Road (Refer to Attachment F)

6.13 I consider that the RUB to the west of Riverhead should be amended in part with a minor relocation of the RUB and FUZ to align with the eastern edge of the ETC overlay that crosses the land on 307 Riverhead Road (Refer to Attachment F).

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (Riverhead South)

6.14 The submitters 62-1, 64-1, 5976-1 seek expansion of the town beyond this established urban boundary and one (4844-198) seeks to urbanise all the land back to Whenuapai and out to Kumeu . The submissions relating to the expansion of the RUB southwards to Riverland Road, encompass the Hari Krishna land, Golf-course and rural land to the north of Riverland Road. The other submitter seeks the RUB to be extended to an area of land between Brigham Creek, Kumeu and areas further west of Riverhead.

6.15 The submitters wish to develop their land for housing on the basis that it is close to other urban settlements, the land is highly fragmented and rural use diminished as a consequence. They see that urban development of this area would support the provision of enhanced infrastructure to the wider area. The submissions do not address the strategic needs for their rezoning requests or the environment effects of such large scale rezoning. The coastal location and proximity to a sensitive marine environment of some of this land, the high productive value of much of this land, and the flood plain nature of some areas especially in the vicinity of the Kumeu River are not addressed. Such an extent of rezoning would also have marked consequences for the provision of all infrastructure and services which are not accounted for in the request (Refer to Rub Assessment Criteria in Attachment C, and the joint statement of evidence of Watercare prepared by David Colin Blow, Chris John Allen and Andre Brian Stuart, and the joint statement of evidence of Auckland Transport prepared by Theunis Van

Schalkwyk, Evan Alexander Keating, Alastair Douglas Lovell and Scott Andrew Macarthur).

6.16 I support the RUB approach to Riverhead that builds on the existing urban framework by providing for Riverhead to grow from its 2013 population of 3195 to between 7500-8150 by 2042 while managing the rural and environment resources of this area over the planning period.

Response

6.17 I support the Rural Urban Boundary to the south of Riverhead remaining unchanged from that in the notified PAUP.

Conclusion in respect to Riverhead

6.18 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Riverhead has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. These assessments have led me to conclude that there should only be a minor change to the RUB at Riverhead. This change is in respect to the properties at 30 Cambridge Road and 307 Riverland Road where the RUB should be moved to align with the eastern edge of the ETC Overlay that passes through these sites. The land brought within the RUB should be given a FUZ . Otherwise there should be no change to the RUB at Riverhead .

7. GROUP 3 – RED HILLS OUTSIDE THE RUB / TAUPAKI

Background to the RUB in this Location

7.1 The Red Hills area is located to the west of Westgate’s retail centre and residential area .The Red Hills area encompasses a small valley of approximately 600 hectares that is bounded by the north-western motorway to the north, Taupaki / Nixon Roads in the west, Red Hills Road to the south and Fred Taylor Drive in the west. The valley is bisected approximately in half by the Brigham Creek and the eastern side of the valley has been zoned Future Urban (240 hectares) while the western half has been given a Mixed Rural zone (360 hectares) in the PAUP. The land at present has an open rural character comprising rolling hills, shelter belt plantings and well defined water courses, the principal one being Brigham

Creek itself which runs to the north and empties into the upper reaches of the Waitemata Harbour (see Figure 13 below).

7.2 Taupaki is a small rural settlement which is located midway between the Waitakere and Kumeu townships. This area of the Taupaki flats is flood prone and constitutes the upper reaches of the Kaipara River which flows out to the Kaipara Harbour in the vicinity of Helensville.

7.3 The existing Taupaki settlement is zoned General Rural in the Operative Plan and Mixed Rural in the PAUP and comprises a series of low density residential sites, a hall, and an area of open space (Harry James Reserve). This settlement is located to the west of the North Auckland rail line. This continuity of rural zoning indicates a consistent position taken in respect to the Taupaki area.

7.4 As an unserviced rural settlement the Auckland Plan does not envisage any additional growth taking place for Taupaki and this is reflected in the Mixed Rural zoning applied to the area by the PAUP.

7.5 Key considerations in establishing the RUB in the notified PAUP in this area included feedback on the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan which stressed the importance of retaining a “green gap” between the urban limits of Auckland and Kumeu-Huapai. I consider that Brigham Creek forms good defensible natural rural/urban boundary for the Red Hills east area as it creates a strong visual gateway and division in the landscape between the rural area of Rodney while also providing a buffer between urban Auckland and the rural township of Kumeu. Brigham Creek is substantial and it also provides a clear and defensible urban boundary that will be reinforced on subdivision and development of the eastern area by the provision of stream boundary setbacks and esplanade reserves.

Key issues raised by submitters

7.6 The key issues identified from the submissions and addressed in this report are:

a) Sub-group area 1: Extending the RUB – Red Hills area

b) Sub-group area 2: Extending the boundaries of the RUB – Taupaki

7.7 These areas are shown on Figure 13 below.

Sub-group area 1

Sub-group area 2

Figure 13: Red Hills –Taupaki Map subgroup areas

Assessment of the submissions – Sub-group area 1 (Red Hills area)

7.8 Three submissions seek to extend the RUB or rezone the land Countryside Living as follows:

 (2153 and 1146) seek to extend the RUB (refer Figure 14 red outline) comprising an area of approximately 1260 hectares

 (3360) seeks to extend the RUB (refer Figure 14 green outline) comprising an area of approximately 440 hectares, being part of the larger area requested by submitters 2153 and 1146.

Figure 14: Red Hills Western RUB extension request

7.9 The submitters’ reasons as specified in their submission for seeking the inclusion of the Red Hills North and Taupaki areas within the RUB are as follows:

 The land is not economic to farm and little rural use presently takes place  To provide some additional capacity for housing in the region. If this is not accepted by the Council, submitters request that the identified area be zoned Future Urban and included in the RUB.

7.10 The NZTA (1394) lodged further submissions to submitters (3360) and (2153). Their submission raises concerns about the implications of the additional capacity included in the submissions, especially if the extent of the FUZ on the State Highway network, and whether the extension would increase (or bring forward)

the need for additional transport investment over and above that currently budgeted for.

7.11 The process of determining the RUB at Red Hills is set out in the Section 32 report prepared in support of the PAUP. Four options were investigated; the Status Quo, and three growth alternatives. The initial Section 32 recommended the RUB be located out to Taupaki Road (see red line on Figure 14). This is also the catchment boundary for Brigham Creek .

7.12 The initial Section 32 assessment was based on the following:

 to support development at Massey North and Westgate  to maximise growth which adjoins the metropolitan urban area  the area has good accessibility and can be developed to support transport initiatives to the wider area  the additional area is contained within a defendable boundary (road and catchment)  visual gateway issues can be addressed at the structure plan stage.

7.13 However during the Section 32 engagement process the Rodney Local Board did not agree with all these reasons and requested that Brigham’s Creek become the RUB’s western boundary for the Red Hills North area. The Local Board considered that this area is an important gateway to rural Rodney as it forms a buffer between the city and rural towns and helps to protect the area’s vineyards and rural character. Consequently the RUB line was shifted to reflect map 13 above in the PAUP of this area using Brigham Creek as a natural and defensible urban boundary. I support this boundary as a defensible boundary as I outline in 7.5 above.

7.14 My assessment of this proposed extension to the RUB as requested by the submitters is as follows;

 The land is not required to provide additional population capacity in terms of achieving the 70:40 growth targets for the North-western sub-regional area of the City (refer to the evidence of Dr Douglas Fairgray)  The land in the western quadrant of this catchment is bisected by a number of water courses the upper reaches of which are steep and subject to flooding (refer to figure 15). Development in this area would require

earthworks having the potential to cause sediment runoff within Brigham Creek and to the sensitive waters of the Upper Waitemata Harbour

Figure 15: Flood plain and 10m contours

 The land contains prime soils (LUC Class II and III soils) as shown in Figure 16. Residential development in these areas are considered contrary to the Regional Policy Statement’s objectives and policies.

Figure 16: Land Use Capability map showing prime soils (LUC Class II and III)

 There is no wastewater capacity to serve this area(as detailed in the evidence by Watercare)  Major transport infrastructure is required to address access and severance issues (as detailed in the joint statement of Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur for AT in sections.8.7-8.11).

7.15 The conclusion of my evidence for Redhills (Outside the RUB) and Taupaki is that extending the RUB further west from Brigham Creek to take in the rest of the Red Hills catchment and the Taupaki area is not supported for the reasons outlined above.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (extending the boundaries Taupaki)

7.16 One submission (3800-1) is particular to just the Taupaki area. The submission seeks to increase the size of Taupaki’s existing settlement by requesting a ‘Large Lot zoning 4,000m² Lot size’ for the red outlined area shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Land referred to within Submission 3800

7.17 This submitter considers the proposed Mixed Rural zoning does not reflect the area’s existing land use patterns. This submission requests that the Mixed Rural zoning be replaced by an urban zone, i.e. an extension to the RUB. The submitter considers the Mixed Rural zoning does not reflect the existing land uses in the area, since none are used for productive farming. Also the submitter states that for the past 50-60 years subdivision has occurred around the former Taupaki Railway Station and none of the 1000m² plus lots are used for productive farming.

7.18 The Taupaki area is located within a flood prone area (refer Figure 18), a portion of which has liquefaction potential (refer Figure 19 and the GeoTechnical evidence of Robert Hillier)and prime soils (LUC Class II) (refer Figure 16 above).

Figure 18: Taupakai Floodplain map

Figure 19: Soil compressibility map

7.19 I do not support the expansion of the RUB over Taupaki. This is because it is an expansion of an un-serviced settlement which is covered in PAUP objectives B.2.5 Rural and coastal towns and villages Objective 2: “Growth within unserviced villages is contained within their urban zones existing at September 2013”.

7.20 Taupaki has only ever had a rural zoning and this consistent planning approach should be maintained because expansion into this area is not required to meet the intensification policy for Auckland and will give rise to additional infrastructure and

servicing costs to expand these into this area and give rise to effects such as are listed in the RUB Criteria assessment (refer Attachment C).

7.21 Rezoning this area around Taupaki to Large Lot Residential zoning would lead to further subdivision and infrastructure servicing costs and pressures within this flood sensitive location.

7.22 Furthermore submission 3800 relates to land which is included within other submissions (2153 and 1146) (refer Figure 14 above, red outline). Therefore the same evidence that I provide in respect of those submissions also apply to submission (3800), including the assessment outlined within Attachment C.

Response

7.23 No amendments to the RUB at Red Hills and/or Taupaki are supported for the following reasons :

 The 70/40 urban/greenfield growth targets for the north-western sub- regional area does not require the provision of additional population capacity as would be provided by this requested expansion to the RUB.  There is a need to avoid as much as possible further storm water inputs into the sensitive receiving environment of the Upper Waitemata Harbour .  There are general flooding and liquefaction constraints applying to the whole Taupaki area which indicates that urbanisation of this land would create additional costs to achieve this.  There is a need to protect the elite soils of this area for productive use.  Wastewater servicing capacity is not at present available to this area.  There are major transport consequences and cost arising from the extension of urban development into this area.(refer to 8.7-8.11 joint statement of Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur for Auckland Transport).

8. GROUP 4 – WHENUAPAI, RED HILLS INSIDE THE RUB

8.1 This group relates to the submissions on land known as Whenuapai and the land known as Red Hills. All of this land is located inside the proposed RUB (see Figure 20 below). There is currently a low level of development within the operative Waitakere District Plan “Countryside Living Human Environment” for the

majority of these two areas. They are both proposed to have a Future Urban Zone.

8.2 The Whenuapai area has pockets of residential development in the north-east (towards Herald Island) and to the south of the Whenuapai Village (comprised of Ministry of Defence housing). These areas are currently zoned “Rural Villages Human Environment” in the operative Waitakere District Plan with a proposed single house zone in the PAUP. Westgate Town Centre is located to the south- west of this area. The Whenuapai area supports the New Zealand Defence Force’s airbase, which has a designation for military purposes.

8.3 The Red Hills area (inside the proposed RUB) includes over 300 hectares of land to the west of Westgate, abutting Don Buck Road, between Red Hills Road and Dunlop Road. It is characterised by a series of plateaus dissected by relatively steep land (particularly to the west) when compared to the Massey, Whenuapai and Hobsonville areas. Historically this area has been used for pastoral activity and is presently a mixture of rural and rural residential development. The area is currently proposed to be located inside the RUB, and is proposed to be zoned Future Urban under the PAUP. Parts of the Red Hills land has also been identified as a Special Housing Area (SHA) (see Figure 20 below).

Figure 20: Red Hills (Inside the RUB) and Whenuapai

Background to RUB Location

8.4 Planning for growth in this area occurred in the early 2000’s under Waitakere City Council, prompted by the re-alignment of State Highways 16 and 18. In 2005 the Metropolitan Urban limit was proposed to be moved at Westgate (Waitakere City Council Plan Change 15), along Hobsonville Road (Waitakere City Council Plan Change 14) and at Hobsonville Point (Waitakere City Council Plan Change 13). The zoning of these areas is now operative, and development is occurring. Waitakere City Council also proposed (as part of Waitakere City Council Plan Change 16) timing for the development of Red Hills, (after 2020) in Policy Map Z of Part 5 of the Policy Section of the operative District Plan, to maximise growth adjacent to Westgate (see Attachment G).

8.5 The Auckland Plan provided the basis for population growth in what was known as the “North-Western Cluster”. It identified the need for 19,000 additional dwellings to be accommodated over the next 30 years. The Plan also proposed employment growth for land expansive industry and commercial activities. Whenuapai was identified as an area that could accommodate land for business. The on-going operation of Whenuapai Airbase was also acknowledged in the Plan. On this basis, Whenuapai and Red Hills were included in the RUB.

Key issues raised by submitters

8.6 This group of submissions relates to land that is located either inside the proposed RUB in Red Hills, or properties inside the RUB, east of State Highway 16 in Whenuapai. There are nine submitters in this group, as follows:

 Choi 2277-1  CDL Land NZ Limited 3159-34  Miesque Bloodstock Limited and Hay Family Trusts 3872-1, 3872-3  Zeng 4301-1  Selak 4798-1  New Zealand Retail Property Group Limited 5165-40  Hugh Green Limited 5259-134  Barbour 5278-2.

8.7 The submission by the New Zealand Defence Force 838-58 seeks the removal of the Whenuapai Airbase from the Future Urban Zone. The subsequent submission

point in the New Zealand Defence Force submission raises the possibility of a live zone rather than the proposed Future Urban Zone.

Assessment of submissions

8.8 The key issue raised by the first group of submitters is that they are all seeking the retention of the RUB and / or the retention of the proposed Future Urban Zoning of their land.

8.9 The key issue raised by the New Zealand Defence force is the removal of Whenuapai Airbase from the Future Urban Zone. The Airbase also has a designation that manages much of the military operations of the Airbase.

Response

8.10 In response to these submissions, I support the nine submissions that seek to retain the RUB and the Future Urban Zoning on land in Whenuapai and Red Hills. This is because these submissions achieve PAUP Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Objectives 1 and 2, and follows the guidance provided by RPS Policies 1 and 4.

8.11 The removal of the Airbase land from the FUZ would create a gap within the zoning of land in Whenuapai. Therefore I do not support the removal of the land that is included in the New Zealand Defence Force designation for Whenuapai Airbase from the Future Urban Zone, as this does not comply with Chapter A 4.1A, which states that all land in Auckland is zoned (other than most roads). I will need to consider this matter further once I am in receipt of the evidence provided to the Panel for the New Zealand Defence Force.

8.12 For these reasons I support these submissions that seek to retain the RUB in Whenuapai and Red Hills, and I also support retaining the land included in the New Zealand Defence Force Whenuapai Airbase in the RUB.

9. GROUP 5 – BIRDWOOD

9.1 The land located north of the Swanson Local Centre that progresses to Westgate is outside the RUB and is proposed to be zoned Countryside Living. This area is known as Birdwood. This area has plateaus and steep valley sides and is known to have geotechnical issues and downstream flooding issues. The current subdivision capacity of this land is managed by a rural residential structure plan, known as the “Birdwood Structure Plan” that is part of the operative District Plan.

This structure plan has been operative since 2005, and applies to a portion of the area where submitters are now seeking to move the RUB (see Attachment H for a map of the Structure Plan area).

Background to RUB Location

9.2 The 1998 decisions on the Waitakere City Council Proposed District Plan identified this area as the “Birdwood Special Area”, and indicated that further investigation was required to identify the development potential of that land. The Birdwood Structure Plan followed in 2005, following the establishment of structure planning as a method via the Environment Court decision on the Oratia Structure Plan in 2001. The Birdwood Structure Plan followed, and was completed in 2005. Several of the subdivision opportunities allocated by this Structure Plan have been exercised, and those sites are now subdivided and developed.

9.3 The Birdwood Urban Concept Plan (Plan Change 4) enabled urban density development east of Don Buck Road, on top of the ridge that falls into Birdwood Valley (see Attachment I for a map of the Birdwood Urban Concept Plan).

9.4 The land that was not included in the Birdwood Structure Plan was included in the Swanson Structure Plan (see Attachment J for a map of the Swanson Structure Plan). The Swanson Structure Plan utilised the same methodology as Birdwood, and allocated rural residential development subdivision opportunities through the catchment. Following extensive Environment Court consideration, this was made operative in 2013. The western portion of the Swanson Structure Plan along Sunnyvale Road, which is land subject to this submission, is identified as a Significant Ecological Area in the PAUP.

9.5 Waitakere City Council did not progress a small area of land in the Birdwood area as part of the Birdwood Structure Plan. The land at Crows Road has been identified as FUZ in the PAUP, as this abuts existing urban development. This was also identified as a Special Housing Area (SHA) as part of Tranche 3 in May 2014. This SHA includes the properties at 1-11 and 10 Crows Road, 161 Birdwood Road, and 8 Yelash Road. It is currently understood that some of this area will be developed into approximately 277 new sections and dwellings.

9.6 Given the history of this valley in terms of the existing subdivision allocation and the understanding of the constraints that apply in the area, the PAUP has excluded the Birdwood land from the RUB.

9.7 Two submissions seek the extension of the RUB in the area north of Swanson, and south of Red Hills Road. The submitters are as follows:

 Residents of Yelash Road 2702-2  Addams Trust Company Limited 7019-3

9.8 The location of the properties identified in the Yelash Road submissions seeking to be included inside the FUZ is provided on Figure 21 below.

Figure 21: Submissions seeking to be included within the RUB

9.9 The location of the 19 Church Street submission seeking to be included inside the FUZ is provided on Figure 22 below

Figure 22 : 19 Church Street

Key issues raised by submitters

9.10 The Residents of Yelash Road 2702-2 submission has 22 signatories, and therefore represents a significant number of land holdings. The submission refers to the difference in the location of the RUB between the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan and the PAUP. The submission seeks that the land subject to the submissions be included in the RUB and be zoned Large Lot Residential

9.11 Addams Trust Company Limited 7019-3 seeks the inclusion of land at 19 Church Street within the RUB. This land was previously included within the Auckland Regional Policy Statement Metropolitan Urban Limit, and was removed in the PAUP.

Response

9.12 In response to the submission by the Residents of Yelash Road 2702-2, the RUB followed the line of the Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit in the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Following feedback on the Draft, the PAUP shifted the RUB to its location, being contiguous with the existing urban development, and thereby

avoiding the geotechnical issues identified further west across the Birdwood Valley.

9.13 The land included in the submission is known to be geo-technically unstable in many areas (refer to Geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier) and has storm water issues (refer to Storm water evidence Phillip Jaggard). These issues led to the legacy Waitakere City Council enabling only low density (approximately 1.5 hectare lot size) rural lifestyle development in this area via the Birdwood Structure Plan (Variation 87 to the Waitakere City District Plan) (refer Attachment H). Where the land was geo-technically stable, the legacy Council enabled urban density development adjacent to Don Buck Road, via Plan Change 4, known as the Birdwood Urban Concept Area (refer Attachment J).

9.14 The PAUP consequently moved the location of the RUB to the western extent of existing urban development, which I support. This also aligns with a landscape assessment completed by LA4, which is referenced in the section 32 report Appendix 3.2.23 Assessment of Edge Requests for inclusions in the Rural Urban Boundary, at page 13. Consequently I do not support moving the RUB as sought by the submitters, as the RUB as notified aligns with the PAUP RPS Objective 1.

9.15 In terms of the RUB Assessment Criteria (see Attachment C), the land subject to the Yelash Road submissions does not, in my view, meet seven of the eleven criteria. In terms of the criteria that the land meets, I note that the extent of the land subject to the submissions is partly contiguous with existing urban development, and follows Red Hills, Sunnyvale and Crows Roads. These three roads follow ridgelines and meet the defensible boundary assessment criteria. There is no land known to be of significance to mana whenua, and it does not have elite soils located within it.

9.16 However the land does not meet the criteria relating to alignment with the Auckland Plan as it is already subject to limited subdivision opportunities via legacy council rural residential structure plans. It has evidence of natural hazards, is subject to the Significant Ecological Area and Storm Water Management overlays. Development of the land would require significant upgrading of Birdwood Road, and is likely to be developed as large lot or single house, thereby not contributing significantly to a compact urban form, and urban development would adversely affect the adjacent rural character of land further west.

9.17 In response to the submission by the Addams Trust Company Limited 7019-3, this site is located north of a stream and so does not contribute to a defensible RUB, as required by the PAUP RPS Objective 1. In terms of the assessment of this site against the RUB Assessment Criteria, this site meets four of the eleven assessment criteria. The site is contiguous with urban development on its southern side (albeit across the stream) and supports a quality compact urban form. There is no land known to be of significance to mana whenua, and it does not have elite soils within it.

9.18 The land does not meet the criteria relating to alignment with the Auckland Plan, and has evidence of natural hazards, is subject to the Significant Ecological Area and Storm water Management Overlays. Development of the land would require significant upgrading of Church Street, and is likely to be developed as large lot or single house, and urban development would adversely affect the adjacent rural character to the north west.

9.19 For these reasons I do not support any movements to the RUB in the Birdwood Area or at 19 Church Street, Swanson.

10. GROUP 6 – WAITAKERE RANGES SPECIFIC

Background to RUB Location

10.1 The Waitakere Ranges are part of a remnant volcanic landform and are the western visual backdrop to Auckland. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA) spans approximately 27,700 hectares of public and private land located between Auckland and the coast of the Tasman Sea to the west, the Manukau Harbour coastline to the south and the Waitakere Valley to the north. The Waitakere Ranges are of local, regional and national significance and are outstanding for their terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, which include large continuous areas of primary and regenerating lowland and coastal rainforest, wetland, and dune systems with intact ecological sequences. The Waitakere Ranges also contain distinctive and outstanding flora, fauna and landscapes. The foothills and coastal areas are a combination of rural, urban, and natural landscapes that create an important transition to the forested part of the Waitakere Ranges. In 2013 Census data states that the usual resident population in the WRHA was 20439, who live mostly in bush clad urban, rural, and coastal communities.

10.2 The eastern foothills of the Waitakere Ranges are characterised by low density residential development, remnant orchard and vineyard activities, and pastoral landscapes. There is a clear visual threshold between the adjacent suburbs and the rural areas. This differs in the vicinity of Titirangi Village, where historic subdivision patterns have established a higher urban density.

Background to RUB Location

10.3 The debate about the extent of subdivision to be enabled in the eastern Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges has continued since the early 1990’s. The former Waitakere City Council established a four hectare minimum lot size in 1995, and enabled the reduction of lot sizes by using rural-residential lifestyle subdivision methods. This methodology was tested by the Environment Court in the Oratia10 and Swanson 11 structure plans, which are both located in the foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

10.4 The substantial and on-going debates about the extent of subdivision was a contributing factor the initiative of the former Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council and Rodney District Council to initiate and support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (WRHAA). The WRHAA :

a. establishes the boundary of the heritage area (Schedule 1 to the WRHAA);

b. states the national significance of the heritage area and defines its heritage features;

c. specifies the objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage area;

d. requires the council to give effect to the Act's purpose and objectives in plan development at both regional and district levels and when considering discretionary and non-complying resource consent applications; and

e. provides additional matters for council to consider when making a decision, exercising a power or carrying out a duty that relates to the heritage area.

10.5 The WRHA boundary is not a boundary established by the PAUP. The PAUP has provided precincts for managing land use and development in the WRHA (Topic 075). The purpose of the precincts are to provide a policy and rule framework for

10 Environment Court Consent order 2002 11 Environment Court decision A3 / 2009 Swanson Structure Plan (Eighth Decision)

the WRHA that gives effect to the both the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the WRHAA.

10.6 It is important that while these debates about subdivision in the foothills progressed through the 2000’s, the possibility that the land included in these debates could be developed at an urban density was rarely advocated for (excluding certain sites). The majority of the debates focussed on the appropriate rural residential density, which was generally identified as being approximately one house per 1.5 hectares. The process of the PAUP has, however, led to some submitters advocating for urban density within the WRHA in the vicinity of its boundary and the boundary of the RUB. These submissions have not, to date, provided any expert or technical information to support their submissions.

10.7 The key considerations in establishing the RUB in the notified PAUP in this area include:

 The location of the boundary of the WRHA  The feedback from consultation meetings on the proposed RUB relating to the location of the RUB and supporting its exclusion of the WRHA  Excluding this area from being within the RUB supports the development of a compact urban form and a defensible limit.

Key issues raised by submitters

10.8 The key group of submissions relates to land that is generally located just outside the proposed RUB boundary and just inside the legislated WRHA boundary in the eastern foothills in Oratia, Henderson Valley, in the vicinity of Simpson Road and south west of Swanson Village. There are fifteen submitters in this group, with 19 points of submission as follows:

 Tvrdeich 363-2, 363-4  Vitasovich K 808-1  Vitasovich 1969-1  CDL Land NZ Limited 3159-27  Zeng 4301-3  Dehui Ye 5050-1  Oratia Foothills Limited 5264-1  Sheer 5265-1  Urban Design Forum of NZ 5277-358, 359, 360  NZ Institute of Architects 5280-362  Auckland Council 5716-3209

 Henderson Valley Edge Group 5877-1, 5877-2  Oratia District Residents and Ratepayers Association Incorporated 6374-6  Hafeez 7343-1

The locations of these submissions are identified in Figure 23 below :

Figure 23 Waitakere Ranges Submission locations

10.9 The exception to these submissions are as follows. The first is the submission by the Trustees of Forest Trust 9302-15, which has submitted on land that is located in the vicinity of Anzac Valley Road, in northern hinterland of the WRHA. This land is addressed in my evidence as part of the group of submissions that relate to the WRHA boundary, as it is part of the foothills of the WRHA in the northern part of the WRHA. This land is identified in the Figure 24.

Figure 24 : Land subject to the Trustee of Forest Trust submission

The next is a driveway between 302 and 304 Glengarry Road, serving 306, 306A and 306B Glengarry Road. The RUB crosses the driveway and 302B, and is to be amended to place those properties outside the RUB. This is shown on Figure 25 as follows:

Figure 25 : Glengarry Road RUB

Response

10.10 In many cases the land that is the subject of these submissions is in close proximity to urban development within the operative Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit / PAUP RUB. Urban services (water, waste water, storm water, power, telephone, public transport, community facilities) are either at the boundary of the submitters’ sites, or the submitters hold the view that these services are within short distances, “easy” to connect to, and that capacity within these services exists.

10.11 The proximity of the submitters land to the RUB is not in dispute. However, the submitters land is all located within the WRHA. The WRHAA provides, in section 7, the national significance and heritage features of the WRHA, as a list. Sub section 2 lists the heritage features. I note the following in sub- section 2 (h) and (i):

(h) the eastern foothills, which—

(i) act as a buffer between metropolitan Auckland and the forested ranges and coasts; and

(ii) provide a transition from metropolitan Auckland to the forested ranges and coast

(i) the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape, which is reflected in—

(i) the individual identity and character of the coastal villages and their distinctive scale, containment, intensity, and amenity; and

(ii) the distinctive harmony, pleasantness, and coherence of the low-density residential and urban areas that are located in regenerating (and increasingly dominant) forest settings; and

(iii) the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland, orchards, vineyards, uncultivated areas, indigenous vegetation, and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities

This is followed up in section 8 where the objectives of the Act are stated. I note in objective 8 that sub sections (e), (f) and (g) are particularly relevant to the RUB and the nature of subdivision and development in the eastern foothills:

(e) to recognise that, in protecting the heritage features, the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision:

(f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,— (i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:

(g) to maintain the quality and diversity of landscapes in the area by— (i) protecting landscapes of local, regional, or national significance; and (ii) restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes; and (iii) managing change within a landscape in an integrated way, including managing change in a rural landscape to retain a rural character:

I also note section 10(1) of the Act that states :

When preparing or reviewing a regional policy statement or regional plan that affects the heritage area, the Council must give effect to the purpose of this Act and the objectives

10.12 In my view to move the RUB to enable subdivision and development at an urban density in the eastern foothills does not maintain the objectives of the WRHAA, and will have a high likelihood of adversely affecting the heritage features of the WRHA, particularly the rural character. The character of urban development will not maintain rural character of the northern and eastern foothills.

10.13 In terms of the RUB Assessment Criteria (see Attachment C), the land subject to the eastern and northern foothills submissions does not, in my view, meet seven of the

eleven criteria. In terms of the criteria that the land meets, the land subject to the submissions is contiguous with urban zoned land within the RUB, other than the Trustees of Forest Trust land. There is no land known to be of significance to mana whenua, and it does not have elite soils located within it. Infrastructure is located within proximity to the land subject to the submissions, other than the Trustees of Forest Trust land.

10.14 The eastern and northern foothills were not identified for urban growth in the Auckland Plan, and the land subject to the submissions does not provide a defensible boundary for the RUB. Urbanising the land subject to the submissions does not meet the requirements of the WRHA. Parts of the land are subject to the Significant Ecological Area Overlay, and may generate flooding downstream from the rural catchments. Urban development is likely to be either Large Lot or Single House, and that does not contribute to a compact urban form.

10.15 The Glengarry Road error was identified by Auckland Council and a submission made (5716-3209) seeking a correction. This correction is very small, and seeks to correctly align the RUB in this location (see Figure 26 below). I support this submission and consider that the correction will assist with the defensibility of the RUB.

Figure 26 : Glengarry Road Correction To The RUB

10.16 For these reasons I do not support any movements to the RUB in the northern and eastern foothills of the Waitakere Ranges, within the WRHA, other than the correction at Glengarry Road. .

11. GROUP 7 – WAITAKERE RANGES GENERAL SUBMISSIONS

11.1 This group of submissions relates to general matters related to the RUB in the WRHA that have no specific location. There are three submitters in this group, as follows:

 Strategic Property Advocacy Network Incorporated 7474-31  Mitchell 4727-58  Kylana Trust 7210-20

11.2 These three submitters seek that the RUB be reviewed in its entirety, and that a study of the capacity of the WRHA to sustain subdivision and development be undertaken. I do not support these submissions. The consideration of the capacity of the WRHA to sustain subdivision and development has been the central debate for at least 20 years. This has led to extensive assessments of the Oratia and Swanson catchments, and the enabling of limited subdivision in those locations. The Henderson Valley / Opanuku catchment is known to have flooding issues, and so was not considered for the development of a structure plan during the time that it was managed by Waitakere City Council.

11.3 The RUB is a regional method, and seeks to manage Auckland’s growth for the next 30 years. The Council has under taken substantial assessments of the Region, and has identified approximately 11,000 hectares of land that is appropriate for urban growth. In that context, the edge of the RUB is a small portion of the overall method, and when considered in a regional context the land within the WRHA is not required for urban growth. Consequently I do not support the submissions that seek a further review of the RUB, nor a subdivision capacity study of the WRHA.

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Riverhead has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. Mr Hookway does not support any change to the location of the RUB at Riverhead due to the issues of maintaining defensible boundaries,

retaining productive soils ,the avoidance of flooding risks and the avoidance of storm water impacts upon the sensitive receiving waters of the Waitemata Harbour . Mr Hookway supports a small extension of the RUB in Riverhead West to create a more defensible urban boundary.

12.2 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Kumeu / Huapai has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. Mr Bradley supports the retention of the RUB around Kumeu-Huapai and does not support extensions to the RUB due to issues including defensible boundaries, geotechnical, flooding, and mana whenua. Mr Bradley supports a relatively small retraction of the RUB in the west to create a more defensible urban edge, avoid areas with geotechnical issues and to create a better rural buffer between Kumeu-Huapai and Waimauku.

12.3 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Red Hills / Taupaki has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. Mr Hookway does not support any change to the location of the RUB at Red Hills /Taupaki due to the issues of maintaining defensible boundaries, retaining productive soils ,the avoidance of flooding and liquefaction risks , the major provision and cost of new infrastructure required to service this area and the avoidance of storm water impacts upon the sensitive receiving waters of the Waitemata Harbour .

12.4 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Whenuapai / Red Hills (within the RUB) has required an assessment of these submissions when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. As these submissions seek to retain the RUB in its location, Mr Shields supports these submissions. In relation to the New Zealand Defence Force submission, Mr Shields reserves his position until I have viewed the evidence in support of that submission.

12.5 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for Birdwood has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. Mr Shields does not support the submissions following consideration of the geotechnical and storm water evidence.

12.6 Consideration of the extent of the RUB for the Waitakere Ranges has required an assessment of the site specific location of the RUB when viewed against the amended Regional Policy Statement provisions of the PAUP section 2.1- 2.5 and the RUB assessment criteria in Attachment C. Mr Shields does not support any amendments to the location of the RUB where that includes land within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.

Ryan Bradley

David Hookway

Eryn Shields

15 October 2015

ATTACHMENT A

DAVID HOOKWAY

Career Summary

I have over 40 years of local government and town planning experience in policy development, area planning and consenting for pre-1989 Auckland City, Onehunga Borough, Auckland City (post 1989), North Shore City and now Auckland Council.

Qualifications Bachelor of Arts in Geography (University of Auckland 1974) Diploma of Town Planning (University of Auckland 1979).

Affiliations

I am a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

RYAN BRADLEY

2013 – 2015 Planner/Principal Planner Auckland Council 2011 – 2012 Planning Enforcement Officer London Borough of Newham 2005 – 2010 Senior Policy Planner Rodney District Council 2002 – 2005 Resource Management Planner Opus International Consultants 2001 Planning Assistant Jenny Hudson Planning

Qualifications

2002 Auckland University Bachelor of Planning (Hons)

Affiliations

Graduate Plus Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

ERYN JAMES SHIELDS

Career Summary

I have nineteen years of planning and resource management experience. I am currently employed as Team Leader North West Planning at Auckland Council. I have held this position for five years. From 2003 to 2010 I held the position of Planner / Principal Planner at the Waitakere City Council. Waitakere City Council was amalgamated into the Auckland Council on 1 November 2010.

Qualifications

Bachelor of Planning from Auckland University Bachelor of Social Sciences from Waikato University

Affiliations

I am a Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

ATTACHMENT B

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Kumeu-Huapai

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 1023-2 R M and S M West Rezone land south of Access and Tawa Rds Kumeu from Mixed Rural to West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not McBride Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for details. Auckland support

1059-2 Alexander D K West Rezone land south of Access and Tawa Roads Kumeu from Mixed Rural West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not McIntosh to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for details. Auckland support

1101-1 David Yang West Increase extent of Future Urban zone by rezoning land south of State West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Highway 16, including Tawa Rd Kumeu and the surrounding area, from Auckland support Mixed Rural to Future Urban 1101-2 David Yang West Rezone 63 Tawa Road, Kumeu from Mixed Rural to Future Urban West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Auckland support

1101-3 David Yang West Retain approach of releasing more land for residential zones in the West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Kumeu-Huapai-Waimauku areas including use of Future Urban zone Auckland

1141-2 David G and Fay L West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Watson Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to attached plan with submission for Auckland support details. 1192-2 Rupert L and J M West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Rds, Kumeu from Mixed West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Lister Rural to Large Lot Unserviced. (Refer to plan attached to submission). Auckland support

1195-2 Mark and Diane West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Rds, Kumeu from Mixed West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Hall Rural to Large Lot Unserviced. (Refer to plan attached to submission). Auckland support

1215-2 Glenn S and West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Roads Kumeu from Mixed West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Heather I Baker Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for details. Auckland support

1229-1 Ross Spence West Decline the PAUP as it relates to Kumeu-Huapai. Expresses concern West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not about infrastructure, loss of countryside amenity, and the lack of a Auckland support regional cohesive approach to development.

1671-2 John and Phillipa West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Roads (refer submission West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Baker attachment, page 3/3) from Mixed Rural to Large Lot Unserviced. [cross Auckland support reference to submission point 1 for preferred decision sought.]

1772-1 Xiongbin Chen West Retain Future Urban zoning at 152 Station Road, Kumeu. West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Auckland

2834-3 Kumeu River Wines West Reduce the area of the future urban zone in Kumeu and Huapai to avoid West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Limited and M G creating dormitory suburb accommodation and to create the feel of a Auckland support Brajkovich Family proper town. Trust

2834-8 Kumeu River Wines West Retain the location of the rural urban boundary at the eastern edge of West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Support Limited and M G Kumeu. Auckland Brajkovich Family Trust

2849-1 Timothy Hay West Amend the Rural Urban Boundary to create an adequate buffer or border West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 2 Support between the Rural and Urban Zones i.e road /reserve separation at 23 Auckland Foster Road Kumeu. 3337-2 Matt Dorler West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Roads, Kumeu, as shown on West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not the map in submission 3337, from Mixed Rural to Large Lot unserviced. Auckland support

362-1 Deog Yong Ha West Retain future urban development of Kumeu West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Auckland

4297-1 Dysart Lane Area West Rezone properties in Dysart Road area, Kumeu refer to submission for West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not map page 7/7 from Mixed Rural Zone to "Countryside Living" or "Large Auckland support Lot" zoning or a combination of "Large Lot" or "Countryside Living".

4397-1 Jo Craddock West Rezone Huapai and Kumeu from Future Urban zone to allow for the West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not preservation of the rural environment. Auckland support

4598-2 David and Nellie West Retain the RUB with particular regard to Kumeu and Huapai. West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Papa Auckland

4874-1 John T Slater West Decline the Kumeu/Huapai Proposed Future Urban Zone provisions. West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Auckland support

4874-2 John T Slater West Delete the Future Urban zoning of land bounded by Burns Lane, Koraha West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Road and Oraha Road, Kumeu. Auckland support

4874-3 John T Slater West Delete the Future Urban zoning of land at Huapai North that is accessed West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not by Matua Road. Auckland support

4874-4 John T Slater West Delete the Future Urban zoning south of land Huapai covering land West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not bounded by Access Road and Tawa Road, Puke Road to the West and Auckland support State Highway 16. 5072-1 Rob Mihaljevich West Rezone 200-240 Tawa Road, Kumeu from Rural Production to Future West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 2 Do not Urban, and adjust the RUB accordingly. Auckland support

5089- Jennifer Mein West Rezone in Kumeu / Huapai area from Future Urban to a zoning which West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support 12 protects the vineyard and winery culture Auckland

5156-1 Steven and West Retain the Future Urban zoning for 278 Matua Road, Huapai. West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Adrienne Smith Auckland

5760-1 Glynis Edmunds West Increase area of Large Lot zoning on 104 Matua Road, Huapai. West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 5 Do not and R J Tuffnell Auckland support

5764-1 David Savery West Rezone land along Tawa Road, Pomona Road and Dysart Lane, West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Kumeu to be within the Rural Urban Boundary. Refer to submission page Auckland support 3/3 for plans. 5774-1 Joanne Howes West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Countryside Living or Large Lot Unserviced. Refer to Auckland support submission page 3/3 for plan. 6324-4 Angelique Cathcart West Retain the semi rural feeling of the Kumeu / Huapai area. West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Auckland support

6630-1 Dean Forster West Retain land at Matua Road, Huapai (Lot 2 DP 592126) within the Future West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support Urban zone. Refer to details in submission at page 4/4 of volume 1. Auckland

6709- Kumeu-Huapai West Rezone the two [unspecified] areas [shown on urban Grid 18] on Oraha West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 4 Do not 11 Residents and Road, Old North Road and Access Road, Kumeu, [from Countryside Auckland support Ratepayers Living] to Large Lot Residential zone. Refer to details in submission at Association page 11/19 of volume 1. Incorporated

7101-2 Caroline Tibbits West Delete Future Urban zone in Kumeu to preserve the greenbelt. West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Auckland support

7102-2 Nigel C Tibbits West Delete Future Urban zone in Kumeu to preserve the greenbelt. West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Auckland support

7117-2 Dave Hurley West Reject proposed large expansion of the Kumeu/Huapai area. West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not Auckland support

73-1 Andrew R Watkins West Rezone land along the eastern side of Foster Road and the northern side West - Huapai West Kumeu-Huapai 2 Do not of Trigg Road, Huapai, from Mixed Rural to Future Urban. Auckland support

7316-1 Nigel G Taylor and West Rezone the land south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Hazel E Denyer (identified on the plan on page 3/3 of the submissions) form Mixed Rural Auckland support to Countryside Living or Large Lot Unserviced (see pages 1-2/3 of the submission for details)

7316-2 Nigel G Taylor and West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Hazel E Denyer Mixed Rural to Large Lot. (refer to plan on page 3/3 of the submission for Auckland support details)

7394-3 The Kumeu Trust West Retain the land (Corner Oraha Road and Burns Lane) in Kumeu, West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Support described in submission, within the Kumeu - Huapai RUB [page 6/126]. Auckland

794-2 Blair McDonald West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details. 799-2 Shane Borrell West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer plan attached with submission for Auckland support details. 800-2 Kerr Industries West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Limited Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details. 801-2 TE and CB O'Leary West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details. 802-2 Faye L Starkey West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer plan attached with submission for Auckland support details. 803-2 Christine N Faram West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to attached plan with submission for Auckland support details. 804-2 Wayne N and Lyn West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road,Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not M Anderson Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details.

805-2 Bruce Carter West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot (unserviced). Refer to plan attached with Auckland support submission for details. 805-3 Bruce Carter West Exclude the land south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not being within the Rural Urban Boundary. Refer to plan with submission. Auckland support

812-2 Jenny Bramley and West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Lee Boell Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details.

813-2 Dennis Talyancich West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road, Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details 814-2 John S M and West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Catherine M Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support Tollemache details.

815-2 Sara and Kerry West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Stanley Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to attached plan with submission for Auckland support details. 848-1 George F C West Include 227 Trig Road, Kumeu within the zone for future urban West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 2 Do not Vitasich expansion. Auckland support

860-2 Graham W and West Rezone the area south of Access Road and Tawa Road,Kumeu from West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Jillian M Palmer Mixed Rural to Large Lot. Refer to plan attached with submission for Auckland support details.

8965-1 Clari Davies West Delete the provision for 2000 new houses and the expansion of heavy West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 1 Do not industry in the Kumeu Huapai area until infrastructure is in place. Auckland support

2804-2 Warcol Family Trust West Rezone the area south of Access and Tawa Rds, Kumeu from Mixed West - Kumeu West Kumeu-Huapai 3 Do not Rural to Large Lot [Refer to plan attached to submission] Auckland support

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Riverhead

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 1230-1 Deborah M Bassett- West Rezone 303A Riverhead Rd, Riverhead as future residential West - Riverhead West Riverhead 1 Do not Clarke Auckland support

1434-1 Kelvin G Michael West Rezone 214 Riverhead Road, Riverhead from Rural Production to Future West - Riverhead West Riverhead 1 Do not Urban zone. Auckland support

209-1 David Kwan West Rezone 27 Lathrope Road, Riverhead to Future Urban. West - Riverhead West Riverhead 1 Do not Auckland support

4844- C Zambucka West Amend the RUB to include the land to the South and West of Riverhead West - Riverhead West Riverhead 2 Do not 198 and North of State Highway 16. Refer submission for detail [vol. 4, pg. Auckland support 60/60]. 5741-1 Judith Kilpatrick West Rezone 60 Lathrope Road, Kumeu from Rural Production to Future West - Kumeu West Riverhead 1 Do not Urban. Auckland support

5741-2 Judith Kilpatrick West Rezone 51 Lathrope Road, Kumeu from Future Urban to Rural West - Kumeu West Riverhead 1 Do not Production. Auckland support

5976-1 Mike Wood West Rezone 63 Riverland Road and adjacent land (as per map on page 4/14 West - Riverhead West Riverhead 2 Do not of submission), Riverhead from Rural Production to Future Urban and Auckland support include within the RUB. 62-1 Louise Wood West Re-zone 63 Riverland Road, Riverhead for residential housing West - Riverhead West Riverhead 2 Do not Auckland support

64-1 Mike Wood West Re-zone 63 Riverland Road, Riverhead from Rural Production to West - Riverhead West Riverhead 2 Do not Residential Auckland support

6602-1 Aberdeen West Rezone land at Duke Street, Riverhead (Lot 1 DP 154985) from Rural West - Riverhead West Riverhead Do not Adventures Limited Production to Future Urban zone, or to Countryside Living zone Auckland 1 support with associated amendments to allow for a minimum net site area of 1ha.

9099-1 Riverhead West Retain the RUB in its proposed location around Riverhead. West - Riverhead West Riverhead general Support Residents and Auckland Ratepayers Association Incorporated

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Red Hills outside the RUB/Taupaki

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 1146-2 Thomas McCahill West Amend the RUB to include 57 Amreins Road Taupaki and surrounding West - rural and Rural and Taupaki N/A Do not land area, only if the area is not rezoned to Countryside Living. coastal settlement Coastal support aeras Towns/Villages

2153-2 Taupaki Residents West Rezone land in the Taupaki area, including 23 Taupaki Road, from Mixed West - rural and Rural and Taupaki N/A Do not and Ratepayers Rural to Future Urban. Refer to submission for details. coastal settlement Coastal support Association aeras Towns/Villages

3360-1 Colin Devcich West Amend RUB boundary to include the area from Nelson Road, Amriens West - rural and Rural and Taupaki N/A Do not Road and Sunnyvale Road, Taupaki, as per map in Submission 3360. coastal settlement Coastal support aeras Towns/Villages

3800-1 Peter Sinton and West Rezone Taupaki Township [as identified on page 4/5 of the submission] West - rural and Rural and Taupaki N/A Do not Graham McIntyre from Mixed Rural to Large Lot. coastal settlement Coastal support aeras Towns/Villages

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Whenuapai/Red Hills inside the RUB

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 2277-1 Hyun Hea Choi West Retain 67 Trig Road (Whenuapai) within the Rural Urban Boundary and West - Whenuapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support the Future Urban zone. Red Hills inside the RUB

3159- CDL Land New West Retain within the RUB the land at 4-6 Hobsonville Road, West Harbour West - West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support 34 Zealand Limited (Section 6 SO 455955, CT 579283), and nearby land identified in the Hobsonville Red Hills inside submission at page 10/97 and Attachment A of volume 7. the RUB

3872-1 Miesque West Retain Future Urban zone on properties on Kennedys Road and Brigham West - Whenuapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support Bloodstock Limited Creek Road, Whenuapai (See submission for map of properties). Red Hills inside and Hay Family the RUB Trusts

3872-3 Miesque West Annotate properties on Kennedys Road and Brigham Creek Road, West - Whenuapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support Bloodstock Limited Whenuapai (See submission for map of properties) as 'Future Red Hills inside and Hay Family Residential'. the RUB Trusts

4301-1 J Zeng West Retain RUB, including 80 Fred Taylor Drive, Massey and adjacent sites West - Massey West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support along the Western side of Fred Taylor Drive, Massey. Red Hills inside the RUB

4798-1 I and M Selak West Retain 70 Fred Taylor Drive, Massey, within the RUB and retain the West - Massey West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support Limited Future Urban zone. Red Hills inside the RUB

5165- New Zealand Retail West Retain the Future Urban zone in north-west Auckland [Relief unclear West - Huapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support 40 Property Group volume 2 page 1/5, states that the mapping of Future Urban Zones is Red Hills inside Limited opposed]. Refer to map Figure 1, volume 2, page 2/5 of the submission. the RUB

5259- Hugh Green West Retain the following properties within the RUB: 1 and 3 Dunlop Road, West - Massey West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support 134 Limited Massey, 69-69B and 75-79 Red Hills Road, Massey, 41-43 Red Hills Red Hills inside Road, Massey, 315 Red Hills Road, Massey, 122, 126, 128 Henwood the RUB Road, Massey, 85 Red Hills Road, Massey, and 88-90 Fred Taylor Drive, Westgate-Whenuapai.

838-58 New Zealand West Amend the extent of the RUB to exclude Whenuapai Airbase, West - Whenuapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Do not Defence Force Whenuapai. Red Hills inside support the RUB

5278-2 Campbell N West Retain the Future Urban zone marked on Figure 1 [page 2/5 of West - Whenuapai West Auckland Whenuapai / N/A Support Barbour submission] Red Hills inside the RUB

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Birdwood

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 2702-2 Residents of Yelash West Extend the Rural Urban Boundary to include properties in the area of West - Massey West Birdwood N/A Do not Road with 22 Yelash Road, Birdwood Road, Crows Road and the Eastern part of Auckland support Signatures Sunnyvale Road.

7019-3 Addams Trust West Amend the RUB boundary to include the property at 19 Church Street, West - Swanson West Birdwood N/A Do not Company Limited Swanson. [Refer to submission pages 4-6/6]. Auckland support

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Waitakere Ranges Specific

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 1969-1 George and Mara West Amend the Rural Urban Boundary to include properties at Henderson West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Vitasovich Valley Road and Forest Hill Road, Henderson. Refer to the map in the full Ranges support submission [page 6/7]. Specific

3159- CDL Land New West Include 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson, in the RUB. West - Swanson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 27 Zealand Limited Ranges support Specific

363-2 Ljubo and Lucija West Move the RUB to include the land at 236 Henderson Valley Rd, West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Tvrdeich Henderson, and surrounding properties. (See submission for plan of Ranges support suggested change to the RUB) Specific 363-4 Ljubo and Lucija West Begin the process of removing 236 Henderson Valley Rd, Henderson and West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Tvrdeich surrounding land from the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 Ranges support and including them within the Housing Accords and Special Housing Specific Areas Act 2023 4301-3 J Zeng West Extend the RUB to include the mid-upper plateau area of 351 Henderson West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Valley Road, Henderson. Ranges support Specific 5050-1 Dehui Ye West Rezone area of Swanson as depicted in map attached to submission West - Swanson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not from Countryside Living to Mixed Housing Suburban, including Ranges support associated shift in the RUB Specific 5264-1 Oratia Foothills West Rezone 121-123 Parrs Cross Road (lot 4 DP 402587), Glen Eden from West - Glen Eden West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Limited Countryside Living to Single House and include within the RUB. Ranges support Specific 5265-1 Ali Sheer West Rezone 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley from Countryside Living to West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Single House and include within the RUB. Ranges support Specific 5277- The Urban Design West Rezone land on Tram Valley Road and Christian Road, Swanson as West - Swanson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 358 Forum New shown in the submission [refer to page 93/104] from Countryside Living to Ranges support Zealand Future Urban. Specific

5277- The Urban Design West Rezone land on Candia Road and Sturges Road, Swanson as shown in West - Swanson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 359 Forum New the submission [refer to page 93/104] from Countryside Living to Future Ranges support Zealand Urban. Specific

5277- The Urban Design West Rezone land on Parrs Cross Road, West Coast Road and Pine Avenue, West - Oratia West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 360 Forum New Oratia as shown in the submission [refer to page 93/104] from Ranges support Zealand Countryside Living to Future Urban. Specific

5280- The New Zealand West Rezone land on Parrs Cross Road, West Coast Road and Pine Avenue, West - Oratia West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 362 Institute of Oratia as shown in the submission [refer to page 93/104] from Ranges support Architects Countryside Living to Future Urban. Specific

5716- Auckland Council West Extend the RUB to include all of 302B Glengarry Road, Glen Eden. Refer West - Glen Eden West Auckland Waitakere N/A Support 3209 to submission Volume 4, page 28/35 and Attachment 913 Volume 21. Ranges Specific 5877-1 The Henderson West Amend the RUB boundary to include the properties [in the vicinity of West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Valley Edge Group Henderson Valley Road] as per submission. Refer to submission for Ranges support with 10 Signatures details. Specific 5877-2 The Henderson West Remove the properties as described in the submission from within the West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Valley Edge Group boundary of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. See submission Ranges support with 10 Signatures for details. Specific

6374-6 Oratia District West Maintain the RUB where it borders Oratia as shown on the RUB overlay. West - Oratia West Auckland Waitakere N/A Support Ratepayers' and Ranges Residents' Specific Association Incorporated

7343-1 Abdul Hafeez West Include 105-107 Parrs Cross Road within the RUB. West - Glen Eden West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Ranges support Specific 808-1 Kathleen Vitasovich West Rezone 107 Forrest Hill Road and the remaining rural area of Candia West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not Road, Henderson from a rural to a residential zone and include within the Ranges support Rural Urban Boundary. Refer to addtional material provided with Specific submission. 9302- Trustees of Forest West Amend the RUB to include the land shown marked blue and notated West - Henderson West Auckland Waitakere N/A Do not 15 Trust and A135 on plan D4 in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan - Ranges support successors et al Waitakere Section and the neighbouring land. [Addresses or map not Specific supplied, inferred referring to the area around Anzac Valley Road, Waitakere].

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Waitakere Ranges General

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 4474- Strategic Property West Undertake a thorough analysis as to the location of the RUB in the West. West - Huapai West Waitakere N/A Do not 31 Advocacy Network Auckland Ranges support Incorporated General

4727- Paul and Karyn West Amend RUB to determine a new location for the RUB from Don Buck West - Henderson West Waitakere N/A Do not 58 Mitchell Road south to Titirangi foreshore. Auckland Ranges support General 7210- Kylana Trust West Undertake a capacity study of the location of the RUB along the West - Oratia West Waitakere N/A Do not 20 Waitakere Ranges to include more land within the RUB. Investigate Auckland Ranges support alternative development models such as cluster housing. General

ATTACHMENT C

Assessment of submissions against RUB Assessment Criteria – Kumeu-Huapai

RUB criteria Current PAUP Sub-group area 1 Sub-group area 2A Sub-group area 2B Sub-group area 3 Sub-group area 4 Sub-group area 5

(Notified RUB) (Remove the new urban (Kumeu western edge (Kumeu western edge (Kumeu eastern edge) (Kumeu northern edge, (Kumeu northern edge, areas within the RUB) expansion) reduction) specifically Large Lot) 104 Matua Road)

1. Change is contiguous with N/a Yes, reduction would Yes, area is contiguous Yes, reduction would Yes, area is contiguous Yes, area is contiguous Yes, area is contiguous existing urban area or leave a contiguous area of with Future Urban zone. leave a contiguous area of with Future Urban zone. with Future Urban zone. with Future Urban zone. Future Urban Zone as urban land. urban land. notified in the PAUP

2. Aligned with Auckland Yes, Kumeu-Huapai is No, the reduction would Yes, the expansion is Yes, the reduction is only Yes, although as this No, the proposed Large Yes, the expansion is only Plan Development identified in the Auckland remove a significant relatively small scale small (approximately option has no clear Lot zone does not support small scale Strategy (reflected in RPS Plan as a Greenfield Area amount of land that the (approximately 50ha) 32ha) therefore it will not defensible boundary this “quality compact” urban (approximately 5.5ha) policies / planning for Investigation and the Auckland Development therefore it will not impact on the 70:40 option could lead to a development but rather therefore it will not principles for the RUB) notified RUB reflects this. Strategy identified as impact on the 70:40 growth strategy. large area (700ha) being promotes distributed impact on the 70:40 largely suitable for urban growth strategy. urbanised which would growth and supporting growth strategy. expansion by labelling it impact on the compact infrastructure. as a Greenfield Area for city approach by

Investigation. compromising the 70:40

split.

3. Provides a defensible No, while most of the RUB No, the reduction back to No, the western boundary Yes, the reduction would No, the expansion largely Yes, the Old North Road Yes, the floodplain in this boundary (based on water uses defensible the operative plan urban of Kumeu-Huapai would take the RUB back to a follows cadastral ridge is a landscape location is a defensible catchment boundaries, boundaries (ridges, edge would not provide a be based on ad-hoc ridgeline. boundaries which do not feature that could be boundary. The RUB visual catchment floodplain), there are a very defensible boundary cadastral boundaries. The link to any landscape used as a defensible follows the floodplain boundaries, major roads few parts of the RUB that as to the west (south of use of Foster Road as a feature that could be boundary and I consider along the northern edge or transport routes, land are not defensible SH16) does not follow any boundary is reasonable used as a defensible that it a stronger of Kumeu-Huapai. protected from boundaries (e.g. cadastral defensible feature. but a local road is not as a boundary. landscape feature that development / public boundaries). defensible urban the notified RUB in this reserves) boundary as a landscape location. However, it is feature. There are other noted that the current RUB options nearby that boundary of the follow landscape features countryside living zone to (a ridgeline or floodplain). the east would not be a Urban growth would defensible boundary. overflow into a new visual catchment.

4. Consistent with relevant Yes, the notified RUB is Yes, the reduction is Yes, the expansion is Yes, the reduction is Yes, the expansion is Yes, the expansion is Yes, the expansion is legislation, plans and consistent with relevant consistent with relevant consistent with relevant consistent with relevant consistent with relevant consistent with relevant consistent with relevant policies (i.e. Waitakere legislation legislation. legislation. legislation. legislation. legislation. legislation. Ranges Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, NZCPS, Treaty settlements)

5. Consistent with the Yes, the notified RUB No, the reduction Yes, the expansion is clear Yes, the reduction does Yes, the expansion is clear No, the expansion Yes, the expansion is clear protection of important incorporates areas with removes an urban zoning of any identified area of not compromise any of any identified area of includes relatively large of any identified area of environmental values and few environmental from a large area with important environmental identified area of important environmental areas of SEA. The important environmental avoids scheduled areas values. few environmental values. important environmental values. cumulative impacts of values. (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, values. This would result values. onsite wastewater in this significant indigenous in the need to make up area could also impact on vegetation, heritage sites) for this land in other environmental values.

locations across the region (where potentially there may be higher environmental values).

6. Provides for the No, the importance of the Yes, the importance of No, the importance of the Yes, the importance of No, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Yes, it is noted that there Yes, it is noted that there relationship of Maori and rural buffer between the rural buffer between rural buffer between the rural buffer between Authority have lodged a are no identified sites of are no identified sites of their culture and Kumeu-Huapai and Kumeu-Huapai and Kumeu-Huapai and Kumeu-Huapai and further submission significance and value to significance and value to traditions with ancestral Waimauku was raised by Waimauku was raised by Waimauku was raised by Waimauku was raised by opposing an extension to Mana Whenua in this Mana Whenua in this lands, water, sites, waahi Mana Whenua in Mana Whenua in Mana Whenua in Mana Whenua in the RUB to the east. area. area. tapu consultation on the RUB consultation on the RUB consultation on the RUB consultation on the RUB and the notified RUB and this option and this option reduces and this option increases It is noted that there are reduces that buffer significantly increases that that buffer further. that buffer. no identified sites of further. buffer. significance and value to It is noted that there are It is noted that there are Mana Whenua in this no identified sites of no identified sites of area. significance and value to significance and value to Mana Whenua in this Mana Whenua in this area. area.

7. Avoids areas subject to Yes, the notified RUB No, the reduction No, the expansion Yes, the reduction of the No, the expansion No, there are some flood No, council’s new natural hazard areas incorporates areas with removes an urban zoning encroaches into some urban area under this encroaches into some plain areas included with floodplain modelling where possible (flooding, few natural hazard from a large area with areas of identified option removes an area of areas of identified the proposed RUB shows that much of the instability, liquefaction) constraints. few natural hazards floodplain and an area of land identified as having a floodplain and an area of expansion. Although it is site is covered by the constraints. This would land identified as having a high development land identified as having a noted that these are not floodplain. This is more result in the need to make high development premium in terms of high development any different to areas of than that shown on the up for this land in other premium in terms of geotechnical issues. premium in terms of floodplain already PAUP floodplain layer. locations across the geotechnical issues. geotechnical issues. included within the new The expansion also region (where potentially Future Urban zoned encroaches into some there may be more areas. The expansion also areas of land identified as significant natural hazards encroaches into some having a high constraints). areas of land identified as development premium in having a high terms of geotechnical development premium in issues. terms of geotechnical issues.

8. Avoids productive land No, the notified RUB Yes, the reduction No, the expansion Yes, the reduction No, the expansion No, the expansion No, the expansion (elite and prime soils), includes a large area excludes a large area includes more identified excludes an area includes more identified includes more identified includes more identified significant mineral identified as prime soils. identified as prime soils. prime soils (LUC II in this identified as prime soils prime soils. prime soils. Although, it is prime soils. resources, aquifers and location). (LUC II in this location). noted that this already is recharge areas already zoned (particularly where Countryside Living. required for rural

production)

9. Contributes to the Yes, the notified RUB No, the reduction No, NZTA have raised Yes, the reduction will No, NZTA have raised No, NZTA have raised Yes, AT and NZTA have effective and efficient builds on the existing removes an urban zoning concerns about the result in less demand for concerns about the concerns about the not raised concerns provision and use of settlement of Kumeu- from a large area with impact of the urban infrastructure in this impact of the urban impact on SH16. AT’s around the small scale infrastructure (transport, Huapai and therefore significant infrastructure expansion on SH16. AT’s location. The reduction is expansion on SH16. AT’s evidence states that expansion. Watercare social infrastructure, leverages on the already in place and/or evidence states that relatively small scale so evidence states that further urban expansion have advised that it could water and wastewater) transport, social, and planned for (e.g. water, further urban expansion will not result in further urban expansion beyond the RUB would be serviced, subject to water and wastewater wastewater, schools, beyond the RUB would inefficient provision of beyond the RUB would exacerbate the transport further investigation of infrastructure that is in library). This would result exacerbate the transport infrastructure for the rest exacerbate the transport issues discussed in their the wastewater network place. in the need to make up issues discussed in their of the Kumeu-Huapai issues discussed in their evidence and require in this location. for this land in other evidence and require urban area. evidence and require additional investment. locations across the additional investment. additional investment. This expansion would region (where potentially significantly increase the there may be more new The proposed expansion number of rural roads infrastructure required). would require further requiring upgrade to upgrading of a rural road urban standard for which could be avoided relatively low yield in by retaining current RUB return. boundaries.

10. Offers opportunities for Yes, the notified RUB No, the reduction would No, the expansion is onto Yes, the reduction is Yes, the expansion is for a No, while the area is large No, due to the small area, particular types or mix of includes significant new significantly reduce the a relatively small area of relatively small scale large area (over 200ha) much of the land is steep constraints on the land types of residential / areas of urban land that urban area and therefore land (50ha) that has a (32ha) and the remaining which includes areas and therefore limits the (floodplain, electricity business development would be suited to a restrict the types or mix number of constraints for urban area will still offer capable of types of urban land uses transmission corridor) and range of land uses of development that urban use (flooding, opportunities for a range accommodating a mix of that could locate here to the surrounding land use (residential, industry, could occur. geotechnical) and this of urban development urban land uses. low density residential development in Huapai centres). would limit the mix of types. development. North (large lots on the urban uses that could urban edge), the locate here. expansion would likely only be able to accommodate low density residential development.

11. Land use continuity and Yes, the notified RUB No, the reduction is large No, the scale of the RUB Yes, the reduction of the No, the ad-hoc urban No, there is a potential Yes, the expansion is compatibility - does not includes significant new scale so would not enable expansion is small scale urban area will separate edge will mean that there land use compatibility small and would maintain conflict with adjoining areas of urban land that integrated planning. and ad-hoc and urban and rural uses into is no buffer (i.e. road) issue with the adjoining a separation from land uses, scale enables would enable integrated encroaches into a rural separate catchments. The between urban and rural Waitemata Gun Club. neighbouring rural integrated planning planning. catchment. reduction is relatively uses. It is also noted that activities through the small so would still retain there is a submission Kumeu River and the a scale of Future Urban (2834-8) opposing floodplain setback on the land to enable integrated expansion of the RUB to property (ranging from planning. the east due to the between 40m-200m on conflicts with wine the property – based on growing areas. the PAUP floodplain layer).

It is noted that the land is adjacent to an electricity substation, but that Transpower have not raised any concerns around this (see Transpower letter

attached to submission 5760-1)

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria - Riverhead

RUB criteria Sub-group area 1 Sub-group area 2

Riverhead West Riverhead South

1. Change is contiguous with existing urban yes Yes. area or Future Urban Zone as notified in the PAUP

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Yes. achieves a centre based expansion to the Riverhead town ship that is walkable and No .overall existing capacity is deemed sufficient to meet the 30 year planning period while Development Strategy (reflected in RPS locates a proposed new centre in a position central to the whole existing and proposed achieving the 70 urban to 40 greenfields intensification policy of the Auckland Plan and the policies / planning principles for the expanded township PAUP l RUB) The extrapolation of this to a wholesale expansion between Whenuapai , Riverhead and Kumeu has the consequence of created linear sprawl contrary to Auckland Plan Policy

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based Yes . The proposed Riverhead builds upon the existing structure of the town with the RUB yes the proposed RUB is aligned with water catchment boundaries reinforced on the rural on water catchment boundaries, visual expansion set at appropriate natural and cadstral boundaries within this coastal edge by stable land uses namely the Golf course and Hari Krishna temple complex catchment boundaries, major roads or environment transport routes, land protected from development / public reserves)

4. Consistent with relevant legislation, yes No .Urban develop will result in a substantial increase of discharges to the Waitemata plans and policies (i.e. Waitakere Ranges Harbour in regards to the NZCPS and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park legislation Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, NZCPS, Treaty settlements)

5. Consistent with the protection of no Yes . Impacts on coastal qualities , and water values. Overlays covering the area are natural important environmental values and resources-acquifer , SEA –water , High use stream Management Area , etc avoids scheduled areas (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, heritage sites)

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori Yes, absence of any site specific engagement with Iwi to determine effects .Would need to Yes,Absence of any site specific engagement with Iwi to determine effects .Would need to and their culture and traditions with be determined at structure plan stage be determined at structure plan stage ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard No . While generally avoiding natural hazards there are some localised areas of flooding No . While generally avoiding natural hazards there are some major areas of flooding and areas where possible (flooding, that will need to be resolved at structure plan or consenting level .RUB boundary to the liquefaction in the Brigham Creek and Kumeu areas that call into question the approach instability, liquefaction) north west of Riverhead is set by a combination of floodplain areas and Electricity suggested by the submitters for generalised RUB expansion Transmission corridor overlay

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime No. affects prime land in much of this area as all area comprised of good soil. No. Affects prime land in much of this area. Water acquifer identified through much of this soils), significant mineral resources, area aquifers and recharge areas (particularly where required for rural production)

9. Contributes to the effective and efficient No , AT reiterates concerns regarding the Rub expansion in this area giving rise to loss of No , AT reiterates concerns regarding the Rub expansion in this area giving rise to loss of provision and use of infrastructure service to main roads serving the area .Structure plan may address this issue . Current service to main roads serving the area .Structure plan may address this issue . Current (transport, social infrastructure, water capacity for Water and Wastewater is limited to serving the existing zonings only and this capacity for Water and Wastewater is limited to serving the existing zonings only and this and wastewater) would be a major cost for the southern expansion as it is so large would be a major cost for the southern expansion proposal as it is so large

10. Offers opportunities for particular types Yes. Riverhead looking at primarily a residential future as a dormitory town ,but with the Yes. Riverhead looking at primarily a residential future as a dormitory town ,but with the

or mix of types of residential / business development of a local centre also with associated mixed use area development of a local centre also with associated mixed use area development

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - Yes , as the amendment is a minor adjustment . It enhances Riverheads RUB as a No. RUB expansion would encroach into rural areas and will not support the centres based does not conflict with adjoining land defensible boundary while allowing reasonable future use of a small additional area of approach to Riverhead etc. which underpins the Councils Liveable City objective uses, scale enables integrated planning land .

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Redhils outside the RUB/Taupaki

RUB criteria Sub-group area 1 Sub-group area 2

Red Hills Taupaki

1. Change is contiguous with existing urban area or Future Yes it would be contiguous with the future urban zone as notified No it would not be contiguous with the future urban zone as notified Urban Zone as notified in the PAUP

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Development Strategy No. There is already sufficient land to cater for the future growth set out in the No. Due to potential impacts on water quality arising from storm water runoff (reflected in RPS policies / planning principles for the 70 urban :40 rural and other strategy for the 30 year planning period – not and development areas which contain prime quality soils. There is already RUB) required sufficient land to cater for the future growth set out in the 70 urban :40 rural and other strategy for the 30 year planning period

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based on water No the RUB extensions requested by the submitters does not align with natural No the RUB extensions requested by the submitters does not align with natural catchment boundaries, visual catchment boundaries, boundaries as it crosses between the Red Hills and Taupaki catchments and boundaries major roads or transport routes, land protected from generally follows road boundaries that only partially relate to natural features development / public reserves)

4. Consistent with relevant legislation, plans and policies No. RPS objectives and policies regarding development on high quality soils No. RPS objectives and policies regarding development on high quality soils (i.e. Waitakere Ranges Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf would not be met. NZCPS2010 policy 22 refers to sedimentation requirements would not be met. NZCPS2010 policy 22 refers to sedimentation requirements Marine Park, NZCPS, Treaty settlements) related to minimising sedimentation. Discharges to the Waitemata Harbour and related to minimising sedimentation. Discharges to the Kaipara Harbour the Kaipara Harbour

5. Consistent with the protection of important No does compromise as stormwater would discharge to a SEA-water Yes does not compromise environmental values and avoids scheduled areas (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, heritage sites)

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture No does compromise as increased discharges will occur to Brigham Creek and No does compromise as increased discharges will occur to Kaipara River and this and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi Kaipara River and this has the ability to compromise the mauri of the receiving has the ability to compromise the mauri of the receiving waters tapu waters

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard areas where No –Rehills has some flooding risks but could be avoided by structure planning No Taupaki has general risks of flooding and liquefaction potential possible (flooding, instability, liquefaction) of the area

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime soils), significant No due to the high quality soils in the area No due to the high quality soils in the area mineral resources, aquifers and recharge areas (particularly where required for rural production)

9. Contributes to the effective and efficient provision and No. The area is close to State-Highway 16 . NZTA has made a submission No. The area is close to State-Highway 16 . NZTA has made a submission use of infrastructure (transport, social infrastructure, regarding potential issues for road network in the area arising from urban regarding potential issues for road network in the area arising from urban water and wastewater) development of this area. The area has no wastewater or water reticulation to development of this area. The area has no wastewater or water reticulation to these locations . these locations

10. Offers opportunities for particular types or mix of types Yes criteria would be met Yes criteria would be met of residential / business development

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - does not conflict Yes .Does conflict with adjoining land uses as RUB cuts across two catchments Yes .Does conflict with adjoining land uses as RUB cuts across two catchments with adjoining land uses, scale enables integrated and will result in rural land uses and urban land use conflict on roading use, and will result in rural land uses and urban land use conflict on roading use planning stock and pastoral uses. ,stock and pastoral uses.

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Birdwood and Eastern and Northern Foothills Waitakere

RUB criteria Group 5 Birdwood Group 5 19 Church Street Group 6 Eastern and Northern Foothills Waitakere Ranges 1. Change is contiguous with existing urban area or Future Urban Zone as notified in the Yes, in some cased the sites identified by the Yes, along southern edge of the site. Yes, the submissions relate to parcels of land adjacent to the PAUP submissions are contiguous. Proposed RUB, and located within the Waitakere Ranges heritage Area boundary 2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Development Strategy (reflected in RPS policies / planning No, as the submissions do not align with PAUP Yes, supports quality compact urban form No, as the submissions do not align with the Auckland Plan principles for the RUB) RPS Objective 1, in terms of providing a quality as it was not identified in the Auckland Plan as an area for compact urban form . Area was not identified in urban growth the Auckland Plan as an area for urban growth 3. Provides a defensible boundary (based on water catchment boundaries, visual catchment Yes, based on water catchment and visual No, the submissions rely on cadastral No, the submissions rely on cadastral boundaries only to boundaries, major roads or transport routes, catchment boundaries boundaries only to establish the RUB establish the RUB land protected from development / public reserves) 4. Consistent with relevant legislation, plans and policies (i.e. Waitakere Ranges Heritage No, does not align with previous rural residential No, does not align with previous rural No – does not align with the objectives in section 8 of the Areas, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, NZCPS, structure plans enabled for this land residential structure plan for this land Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act Treaty settlements) 5. Consistent with the protection of important environmental values and avoids scheduled No, as large areas of Significant Ecological No, has Significant Ecological Area on land No, as some areas of Significant Ecological Areas on land areas (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant Areas on land in the western part of the area and has Natural Stream Management and subject to submissions, and has Natural Stream Management indigenous vegetation, heritage sites) subject to submissions, and has Natural Stream Storm Water Management Overlays Overlays across parts of the land subject to the submissions Management and Storm Water Management Overlays across substantial areas of the land subject to the submissions 6. Provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, Yes, no sites or places of significance or value Yes, no sites or places of significance or Yes, no sites or places of significance or value to mana water, sites, waahi tapu to mana whenua value to mana whenua whenua 7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard areas where possible (flooding, instability, No –geotechnical stability issues Unknown –uncertain stability issues No – flooding issues are known to occur in downstream areas liquefaction) associated with past clean filling activities associated with the Opanuku and Oratia Streams 8. Contributes to the effective and efficient use of land by avoiding productive land (elite Yes - is not elite or prime soil, not known to have Yes - is not elite or prime soil, not known to Yes - is not elite or prime soil, not known to have significant and prime soils), significant mineral resources, significant mineral resources, aquifers or have significant mineral resources, aquifers mineral resources, aquifers or recharge areas aquifers and recharge areas (particularly where recharge areas or recharge areas required for rural production) 9. Contributes to the effective and efficient No, Birdwood Road would require significant provision and use of infrastructure (transport, upgrading to manage the additional traffic, and No- isolated from existing services by Yes Infrastructure connections are available. social infrastructure, water and wastewater) provision of underground services (Waste water stream and public water supply will be difficult due to the steep topography 10. Offers opportunities for particular types or mix of types of residential / business No – Likely to only be Single House or Large No – Likely to only be Single House or No – Likely to only be Single House or Large Lot, as all development. Lot, as the topography will limit the density of Large Lot, as the topography will limit the contiguous housing inside the RUB is Single House. residential housing density of residential housing 11. Land use continuity and compatibility - does not conflict with adjoining land uses, scale No – rural character of adjacent land uses would No – rural character of adjacent land uses No – heritage features of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage enables integrated planning be adversely affected would be adversely affected Area Act would be adversely affected.

Attachment D

Section 32AA Assessment where changing the Kumeu-Huapai RUB

Status Quo – Proposed line Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Description / Map

Notified RUB line Sub-group option 2A Sub-group option 2B Sub-group option 2B (expansion to the west) (reduction east to the ridge) (reduction east over the ridge)

Costs (environmental, social,  Landscape impacts as urban activities  Urbanises land within a floodplain  Reduces size of urban area (approx.  Reduces size of urban area (approx. cultural, economic) spill over into a new, rural character  RUB follows ad-hoc property 32ha) 40ha) catchment boundaries  Landscape impacts as urban activities spill over into a new, rural character catchment Benefits (environmental, social,  Maintains a consistent floodplain  Provides more urban land (approx.  Limits the landscape impacts  Limits the landscape impacts cultural, economic) boundary for the urban area on both 50ha)  Moves urban uses away from a new  Moves urban uses away from a new sides of SH16 water catchment water catchment

Efficiency and effectiveness of This approach does not meet the This approach does not meet the This approach meets the objective for the This approach largely meets the objective achieving the objective objective for the RUB to be a clear objective for the RUB to be a clear RUB to be a clear defensible limit for for the RUB to be a clear defensible limit defensible limit for urban expansion as it defensible limit for urban expansion as it urban expansion as pulls back the for urban expansion as pulls back the encroaches into a new visual catchment. encroaches into a new visual catchment boundary to a more defensible visual boundary from encroaching into a new, and follows ad hoc property boundaries. catchment boundary. rural character catchment. However, this line is not as defensible as it creates anomalies between the northern and southern side of SH16. Risks (if there is uncertain or N/a N/a N/a N/a insufficient information)

Section 32AA Assessment where changing the Riverhead RUB

Status Quo – Proposed line Option 1 Description / Map 30 Cambridge Road and 302 Riverland Road Relocate RUB

Costs (environmental, social, Restricts use of land Will require any use of floodplain land to address mitigations and the cultural, economic) associated costs

Benefits (environmental, social, Avoids possible mitigation cost of development and use of land affected by better eventual use of land overall cultural, economic) 1%AEP floodplain

Efficiency and effectiveness of Limited achievement of objective Rub set at a line that is clearly controlled for good reasons ie HEV overlay achieving the objective line set for health and safety reasons

Risks (if there is uncertain or Not defensible New RUB line based on actual effects of major infrastructure over the site insufficient information)

Attachment E

Map of proposed change to RUB – Kumeu-Huapai

Attachment F

Map of proposed change to RUB - Riverhead

Attachment G

Policy Map Z of Part 5 of the Policy Section of the operative

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section)

Attachment H

Birdwood Structure Plan

Attachment I

Swanson Structure Plan

Attachment J

Birdwood Urban Concept Plan