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 081b Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

AND

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

EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY JOSEPH FRANCIS JEFFRIES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT

26 JANUARY 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...... 3 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...... 4 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 5 4. SCOPE ...... 5 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL ...... 6 6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS ...... 6 PART B: OVERVIEW OF GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT ...... 7 7. CONTEXT ...... 7 PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 9 8. SUBMISSION THEMES ...... 9 9. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 11 10. INCORRECTLY CODED SUBMISSION POINTS ...... 12 PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 12 11. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS ...... 12 12. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ...... 19 13. CONCLUSIONS ...... 19 ATTACHMENT A: CV OF REPORT WRITER ...... 20 ATTACHMENT B: TRACK CHANGES FOR GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT ...... 21

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this Evidence Report (Report) is to consider submissions and further submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081). This Report considers submissions and further submissions received by Auckland Council (the Council) in relation to the Gulf Harbour Precinct.

1.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in submissions. The Gulf Harbour precinct is a 350 ha master planned development located at Hobbs Bay on the Whangaparoa Peninsula. It provides for separate areas of residential development encompassed by open space. The residential areas have a range of densities, from a higher density adjacent to the Gulf Harbour centre and Eastern Boat Harbour (Hobbs Wharf) to lower densities to the north and east of the centre.

1.3 The precinct is separated into six sub-precincts:

(a) Sub-precinct A contains the main commercial centre which provides for retail, commercial and entertainment related activities along with supported residential care facilities;

(b) Sub-precinct B is situated on the eastern side of the marina. It provides for Mixed Use development, berthage, commercial and service activities, and residential development;

(c) Sub-precinct C provides for high density residential development near the waterway, with medium density residential development on slopes rising from the waterway areas;

(d) Sub-precinct D covers the largest area of residential development, generally bounded by or adjoining the golf course and areas of open space;

(e) Sub-precinct E provides for lower density residential areas to the periphery of the precinct; and

(f) Sub-precinct F provides for the protection of the open space character and the recreational and integrative functions of the land on which the golf course is situated.

1.4 The overall purpose of the precinct is to encourage comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment within and around a marine and golf course setting.

1.5 The following overlays apply to the Gulf Harbour precinct:

(a) Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua;

(b) Historic Heritage Extent of Place;

(d) Significant Ecological Area; and

(e) Natural Hazards – Coastal Inundation.

1.6 The precinct provisions encourage a framework plan to be approved prior to new development building or subdivision in sub-precincts A, B, C and D. This is to ensure that development has appropriate regard to the context in which it is situated, achieves a coherent and attractive character in each neighbourhood, and makes effective use of the opportunities offered by the coastal proximity and landforms of the precinct.

1.7 In my view, the precinct should be retained (subject to proposed amendments set out in this report) and remain subject to the site-specific objectives, policies and rules, in addition to the underlying zones and Auckland wide objectives that apply in this precinct.

PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The purpose of this Report is to consider submissions and further submissions received by the Council in relation to the Gulf Harbour precinct.

2.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in submissions.

2.3 This Report has been prepared by Joseph Francis Jeffries. A summary of the qualifications and experience of the Report writer is attached in Attachment A.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

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

4. SCOPE

4.1 I am providing planning evidence in relation to the Gulf Harbour Precinct.

4.2 In preparing this statement of evidence I have relied on the Auckland-wide evidence of John Duguid for Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and Topic 081, which sets out the statutory framework, methodology, principles and section 32 evaluations used to guide the development and application of zones and precincts.

4.3 The following expert statements of evidence have been relied upon in preparing my Report:

(a) Statement of Evidence of Dave Paul for Topic 081 Rezoning - Hibiscus Coast;

(b) Statement of Evidence of Mark Douglas Bourne (Watercare) on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General);

(c) Statement of Primary Evidence of Rachel Claire Dimery on behalf of Auckland Council (Planning – Chapter G: General provisions: 2.6 framework plans and 2.7.3 framework plans); and

(d) Assessment of Environmental Effects – Penlink, prepared by Beca for Auckland Transport, 26 November 2014.

4.4 This Report relies on the changes to the underlying zones as proposed by the Council in its closing statements for Topics 059, 060, 062 and 063 Residential zones.

5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL

5.1 I have read the Panel’s Interim Guidance direction and in particular those relating to:

(a) Chapter G: General Provisions, dated 9 March 2015;

(b) Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, dated 31 July 2015;

(d) Chapter G: Regional and District Rules, dated 9 October 2015.

6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS

6.1 The approach to precincts is detailed in the evidence of Mr Duguid. In particular Mr Duguid outlines the Plan structure and the relationship between overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions. Mr Duguid also provides an overview of the methodology for applying precincts and the types of precincts identified in the PAUP. I have read and agree with this evidence.

Section 32 and 32AA

6.2 As outlined in the Auckland Unitary Plan Evaluation Report (the Evaluation Report), the Council has focussed its section 32 assessment on the objectives and provisions within the PAUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the current operative Auckland RMA policies and plans. Whilst the Evaluation Report applies to the entire plan, the report targets the 50 topics where the provisions represent a significant policy shift.

6.3 The precinct provisions do not reflect a major policy shift from the operative plans and are evaluated in this Report in accordance with s 32 and s 32AA.

PART B: OVERVIEW OF GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT

7. CONTEXT

7.1 This existing precinct is located at Gulf Harbour at the end of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. The precinct location is shown in Map 1 below:

7.2 The purpose of the precinct is to:

(a) encourage comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment within and around a marine and golf course setting;

(b) limit land use and development to reduce pressure on the existing wastewater system and transport network serving the Whangaparaoa Peninsula; and

(c) recognise that areas of open space including the golf course are essential to offset the areas of higher intensity development.

7.3 The PAUP precinct provisions are contained in Attachment B.

7.4 The Gulf Harbour precinct is based on the Special 18 (Gulf Harbour) Zone in the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) (Operative Plan). The Special 18 Zone was introduced into the Operative Plan as a result of Plan Change 26 which became operative in July 2005.

7.5 The underlying zoning of land in the Gulf Harbour precinct is Local Centre, Mixed Use, THAB, Mixed Housing Suburban, Single House, Large Lot, and Public Open Space.

7.6 There is one request to change the zoning from Mixed Housing Suburban to Mixed Use between sub-precincts B and C. However, for the reasons set out in the Statement of Evidence of Dave Paul for Topic 081 Rezoning Hibiscus Coast, I do not support a change in zone from Mixed Housing Suburban to Mixed Use.

7.7 The following overlays apply to the Gulf Harbour precinct:

(a) Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua;

(b) Historic Heritage Extent of Place;

(d) Significant Ecological Area; and

(e) Natural hazards – Coastal Inundation.

7.8 The surrounding area is characterised by the Large Lot zone to the west, a large Regional Park to the east, and the surrounding Hauraki Gulf.

PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS

8. GULF HARBOUR PRECINCT

8.1 A total of 29 submission points have been received requesting relief in relation to the precinct.

8.2 Of the 29 submission points received:

(a) 20 submission points are from the submission of Top harbour Limited, a major land holder in the precinct. Top Harbour are seeking to:

(i) Amend the precinct description to better describe the sub-precincts and to focus on the comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment as the purpose of the precinct (submission point 6159-2).

(ii) Delete objective 1 (submission point 6159-3).

(iii) Delete [General] policy 1 (submission point 6159-4).

(iv) Delete [General] policy 4 (submission point 6159-5).

(v) Amend policy 12(a) to remove the expectation that sub-precinct B should have an architectural theme that is compatible with and complimentary to existing development in sub-precinct A and around the northern waterway (submission point 6159-6).

(vi) Amend policy 15 (relating to sub-precinct C) to reflect that one household unit per 150m2 is allowed throughout the sub-precinct (submission point 6159-7).

(vii) Delete [sub-precinct C] policy 16 (submission point 6159-8).

(viii) Add a new policy: 'Recognise that parts of the Gulf Harbour Marina are privately owned and will be subject to a degree of private management' (submission point 6159-9).

(ix) Amend the boundary between sub-precincts B and C to align with The Anchorage (submission point 6159-10).

(x) Delete 'The conversion of a dwelling into a maximum of two dwellings' from rule 1. Activity table (submission point 6159-13).

(xi) Delete the activity 'A framework plan,...not complying with clause 3.3 below' [third row] from rule 1. Activity table (submission point 6159- 14).

(xii) Amend the activity status of subdivision, development or buildings that comply with an approved framework plan (sub-precincts A-D), from discretionary to controlled, in 1. 'Activity table' [row 4] (submission point 6159-15).

(xiii) Amend the activity status of subdivision, development or buildings that do not comply with an approved framework plan (sub-precincts A-D), from non-complying to discretionary, in 1. 'Activity table' [row 5] (submission point 6159-16).

(xiv) Delete rule 2(1) Notification, relating to public notification of development that does not comply with the development cap land use control (submission point 6159-17).

(xv) Amend rule 2(2) Notification, to read: "... limited notification may be undertaken to any owner of land within the comprehensive development area who has not provided their written approval.' (submission point 6159-18)

(xvi) Delete land use control 3.1 'Development cap' (submission point 6159-19).

(xvii) Delete land use control 3.3 'Framework plans' (submission point 6159- 20).

(xviii) Amend development control 4.2 'Sub-precinct B - height' (which provides for buildings up to 5 storey in height), to add 'provided that one building only may be erected to a height of 25m' (submission point 6159-21).

(xix) Delete subdivision control 5.1 'Framework plans' (submission point 6159-22).

(xx) Amend precinct plan 1 'Comprehensive development areas' to change the boundaries of areas 1, 2 and 3 and to create a new area (13) (submission point 6159-23).

(b) The Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association Incorporated are seeking to:

(i) Amend the rules to clearly identify activity status' for activities in the sub-precincts (2837-2).

(ii) Amend the rules for sub-precinct C to provide lower density limits for sites located away from the waterways (2837-3).

(iii) Add policy to sub-precinct C clarifying whether minor dwellings are provided for or otherwise (2837-4).

(c) Two submitters (Whangaparaoa Ratepayers and Residents Association 6503-3 and Thomas G Parsons 6596-8) are seeking to retain the development cap of 2913 dwellings.

(d) Auckland Council (5716-1320 and 5716-1389) are seeking the addition of an objective and policy to ensure development is in accordance with Auckland Transport aims.

(e) Top Harbour has lodged a further submission. This further submission:

(i) opposes submission points 6596-8 and 6503-3 which seek to retain the development cap.

(ii) supports submission points 2837-2 and 2837-4 from the Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association Incorporated.

(iii) opposes submission points 2837-3 from the Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association Incorporated.

9. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS

9.1 As outlined in Mr Duguid’s evidence, a number of amendments are proposed which are, or may be out of scope of the submissions. This is to ensure:

(a) that the most appropriate PAUP method is used to address the precinct matters;

(b) the removal of duplication following a comparison review of the precinct to the amended PAUP position as proposed in the Council’s closing statements to the Panel;

(d) consistency with the Council’s position on framework plans.

9.2 Additionally I have proposed a number of amendments to the precinct provisions to correct minor technical or editorial errors. There are no particular submissions to which these amendments respond. All amendments are shown in my track changes attached as Attachment B.

10. INCORRECTLY CODED SUBMISSION POINTS

10.1 Valerie Cole (4236-36). This submission point requests that phrases such as ‘where possible’ and ‘where appropriate’ should be removed from the objectives and policies. However these phrases are not used in the Gulf Harbour precinct and this submission point is not relevant to the Gulf Harbour Precinct.

10.2 Whangaparaoa Ratepayers and Residents Association (6503-5) request retention of the 8,000m2 minimum lot size for land bordering the Weiti Estuary. However this request applies to the Rodney landscape precinct and has been incorrectly coded to the Gulf Harbour precinct. This topic is dealt with in the evidence report of Dave Paul on the Rodney Landscape Precinct. The precinct has a minimum site size of 8,000m2 and enables cluster subdivision at a density of 1 site per 4,000m2. Mr Paul supports the retention of the Rodney Landscape precinct including these provisions.

PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

11. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS 11.1 The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland-wide rules are set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1

Main precinct provision or group of Difference from PAUP provisions changes

Activity Table The precinct makes the conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings a Non- complying activity.

The precinct makes development that complies with an approved framework plan a RD activity and a NC activity if it does not comply.

The precinct makes subdivision, development, or buildings a RD activity if it complies with an approved framework plan and NC if it does not comply.

Notification The precinct requires public notification of resource consent applications that do not comply with the development cap.

Land use Controls The precinct provides a development cap of 2913 dwellings.

The precinct provides for a maximum density of one dwelling per 150 m2 in sub precinct B and in the THAB zoned area of sub precinct C, in contrast to the underlying THAB and Mixed Use zones which have no density limits.

The precinct provides for a maximum density of one dwelling per 275 m2 in sub- precinct D, while the underlying MHS zone allows for one dwelling per 200m² and no density limits where the site is greater than 1000m2.

The precinct requires that land in the sub- precinct F area be retained as open space.

Development Controls The precinct has a maximum building coverage control of 50% in sub-precinct A while the underlying Local Centre zone has no site coverage rule.

Precinct Plan The precinct provides a precinct plan which sets out sub-precincts which have different provisions applying to them.

Development Cap

11.2 Top Harbour Limited is seeking to have the development cap removed (submission point 6159-19), while Thomas G Parsons (submission point 6596-8) and the Whangaparaoa Ratepayers and Residents Association (submission point 6503-3) are seeking its retention.

11.3 I support the retention of the development cap as it is required to limit development due to transport and wastewater constraints on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula.

11.4 Located at the far eastern end of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula, transport access to Gulf Harbour is currently poor. Whangaparaoa Road, the arterial road serving the peninsula, is predominantly a single lane road (50kmph) used by approximately 30,000 vehicles per day.1 The proposed Penlink connection which would provide greater road capacity to Gulf Harbour is currently unfunded. Gulf Harbour is not served by buses on the Rapid and Frequent Network (RFN) and the Gulf Harbour to downtown ferry service only operates six return services per day.

11.5 Constraints in the wastewater network serving Gulf Harbour are set out in the Statement of Evidence for Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) of Mark Douglas Bourne of Watercare on behalf of Auckland Council.

1 Assessment of Environmental Effects – Penlink, prepared by Beca for Auckland Transport, 26 November 2014.

Description

11.6 Top Harbour Limited has requested that the precinct description be amended to better describe the sub-precincts and to focus on the comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment as the purpose of the precinct (submission point 6159-2).

11.7 I support this request in part. I consider that it is necessary to add comprehensive planned development to the precinct description as comprehensive development is a significant reason for the precinct’s existence.

11.8 I also support changing the description to recognise the Eastern Boat Harbour, and to better describe sub-precincts A and B.

Objectives and Policies

11.9 Top Harbour requests the deletion of Objective 1, Policy 1, and Policy 4 (submission points 6159-3, 6159-4, and 6159-5).

11.10 I do not support the deletion of these objectives and policies. These are required due to the constraints in the transport and wastewater networks serving the area outlined above at 11.3.

11.11 Top Harbour request that policy 12(a) be amended to remove the expectation that sub-precinct B should have an architectural theme that is compatible with and complimentary to existing development (submission point 6159-6).

11.12 I support this submission point. I consider that it is not appropriate for the precinct to require that development should have a specific architectural theme.

11.13 Top Harbour have requested that policy 15 be amended to reflect that one household unit per 150m2 is allowed throughout the sub-precinct (submission point 6159-7).

11.14 I do not support this amendment as the density of one dwelling per 150m2 is only intended to apply to multi-unit development in sub-precinct C, not to the entire sub- precinct.

11.15 Top Harbour request the deletion of policy 16 (submission point 6159-8).

11.16 I do not support this request as I consider that it is important that buildings adjacent to the waterways are designed to facilitate access to recreational boat berthage in

order to strengthen the links between the waterway and the remainder of the precinct.

11.17 Top Harbour have requested that a new policy be added to 'recognise that parts of the Gulf Harbour Marina are privately owned and will be subject to a degree of private management' (submission point 6159-9).

11.18 I do not support the addition of this policy as it is self-evident that privately owned land will be subject to private management, and I do not consider that this is something that needs to be addressed in a policy.

11.19 Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association have requested the addition of a policy for sub-precinct C clarifying whether minor dwellings are provided for or otherwise (submission point 2837-4).

11.20 I do not support this request as minor dwellings are covered in general policy 4 which applies to the entire precinct including sub-precinct C.

11.21 Auckland Council (5716-1320 and 5716-1389) are seeking the addition of an objective and policy to ensure development is in accordance with Auckland Transport aims.

11.22 I do not support these submission points from Auckland Council as transport is addressed in the Auckland Wide and underlying Zone Objectives and Policies, which apply to this precinct.

Activity Table

11.23 Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association request an amendment of the rules to clearly identify activity status' for activities in the sub-precincts (submission point 2837-2).

11.24 I do not support this request as the precinct Activity Table only covers activities that are different from those in the underlying zone. Other activities are covered by the activity tables for the underlying zone and Auckland Wide rules.

11.25 Top Harbour request the deletion of 'The conversion of a dwelling into a maximum of two dwellings' from rule 1. Activity table (submission point 6159-13).

11.26 I do not support this request as this rule is required to limit development due to transport and wastewater constraints.

11.27 Top Harbour requests the deletion of the activity 'A framework plan,...not complying with clause 3.3 below' [third row] from rule 1. Activity table (submission point 6159- 14).

11.28 I do not support this request as this activity is required to encourage the use of framework plans in order to provide for comprehensive development in accordance with policy 5 of the precinct.

11.29 Top Harbour requests the amendment of the activity status of “subdivision, development or buildings that comply with an approved framework plan” (sub- precincts A-D), from discretionary to controlled, in 1. 'Activity table' [row 4] (submission point 6159-15).

11.30 I support this request in part and support that this activity be changed to Restricted Discretionary in accordance with Council’s position on framework plans as set out in the statement of primary evidence of Rachel Dimery.

11.31 Top Harbour requests the amendment of the activity status of subdivision, development or buildings that do not comply with an approved framework plan (sub- precincts A-D), from non-complying to discretionary, in 1. 'Activity table' [row 5] (submission point 6159-16).

11.32 I do not support this request as the non-complying activity status is required to encourage the use of framework plans in order to provide for comprehensive development in accordance with policy 5 of the precinct.

Notification

11.33 Top Harbour requests the deletion of rule 2(1) Notification, relating to public notification of development that does not comply with the development cap land use control (submission point 6159-17).

11.34 I do not support this request. One of the purposes of the precinct is to limit land use and development to reduce pressure on the existing wastewater system and transport network. This is achieved through the development cap which provides certainty over the ultimate level of development in the precinct. I consider that it is appropriate that any development that does not comply with the development cap is publicly notified.

11.35 Top Harbour requests the amendment of rule 2(2) Notification, to read: "... limited notification may be undertaken, including notice being given to any owner of land

within the comprehensive development area who has not provided their written approval.' (submission point 6159-18)

11.36 I partially support this request in order to remove redundant words but do not support replacing the reference to the ‘sub-precinct’ with ‘comprehensive development area’ as the comprehensive development areas are being deleted from the precinct.

Land use controls

11.37 The Gulf Harbour Marine Village Residents' Association request the amendment of the rules for sub-precinct C to provide lower density limits for sites located away from the waterways (submission point 2837-3).

11.38 I partially support this request. The density limit of one dwelling per 150 m2 in sub precinct C is only intended to apply to multi-unit development in the THAB zoned area adjacent to the waterway. I support amending this provision to make this more apparent.

11.39 Top Harbour requests the deletion of land use control 3.3 'Framework plans' (submission point 6159-20).

11.40 I do not support the full deletion of this control but I support deleting significant parts of it to remove duplication of the Activity Table and for consistency with the Council’s approach to framework plans as set out in the statement of primary evidence of Rachel Dimery. My proposed amendment to this control is set out in the track changes in Attachment B.

Development controls

11.41 Top Harbour request the amendment of development control 4.2 'Sub-precinct B - height' (which provides for buildings up to 5 storeys in height), to add 'provided that one building only may be erected to a height of 25m' (submission point 6159-21).

11.42 I do not support this amendment as I have recommended that this development control be deleted and the Building Height control of the underlying zone be relied on instead. A resource consent may be applied for, for any potential buildings above the underlying zone height.

Subdivision controls

11.43 Top Harbour request the deletion of subdivision control 5.1 'Framework plans' (submission point 6159-22).

11.44 I support this request as I support deleting comprehensive development areas altogether due to their being made redundant by development to date. In addition the activity status of subdivision is covered in the activity table.

Precinct Plans

11.45 Top Harbour requests an amendment to the boundaries of the comprehensive development areas in precinct plan 1 (submission point 6159-23).

11.46 I support deleting precinct plan 1 as development to date means that the comprehensive development areas are no longer relevant. The deletion of precinct plan 1 would make Top Harbour’s request redundant.

11.47 Top Harbour requests an amendment to the boundary between sub-precincts B and C to align with The Anchorage (submission point 6159-10).

11.48 I do not support this request as the sub-precincts align with the boundary between the Mixed Use and Mixed Housing Suburban zones, and I do not support an expansion of the higher density Mixed Use zone.

11.49 Having regard to the requirements of section 32 and 32AA of the RMA and the other statutory criteria of the RMA outlined in the evidence of Mr Duguid and the matters raised by submitters, I consider that the proposed set of provisions as marked up in Attachment B are appropriate because they are consistent with the approaches in the rest of the plan, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the precinct in achieving its objectives and policies, and better align the precinct with the agreed legacy provisions.

12. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP

12.1 There are no consequential amendments required to other parts of the Plan.

13. CONCLUSIONS

13.1 I have considered the submissions received on the Gulf Harbour precinct. I consider that the amendments as set out in Map 1 and the proposed set of provisions in Attachment B most appropriately meet the purpose of the Act

Joe Jeffries

26 January 2016

ATTACHMENT A: CV of Report Writer

Joe Jeffries

Career Summary

2012 to present Planner Auckland Council

Qualifications

2011 University of Auckland Master of Planning Practice (Hons)

2002 University of Otago Bachelor of Arts

ATTACHMENT B: Track changes for Gulf Harbour precinct

Track changes for Gulf Harbour Precinct

Editorial notes:

Council's proposed changes are shown in strikethrough and underline

Black text changes record amendments proposed in track changes version

Yellow highlighted text changes record amendments that are considered to be outside the scope of submissions

Grey highlighted text changes records amendments that are consequential amendments from previous hearings/evidence. Any additional changes to consequential amendments are highlighted in pink.

Green text changes record amendments proposed and agreed to in mediation (those amendments not agreed to stay black)

Red text changes record amendments proposed in rebuttal evidence

Blue text changes record amendments proposed post hearing (e.g. right of reply)

Numbering of this precinct will be reviewed as part of the overall review of the UP numbering protocols.

5.13 Gulf Harbour Comment [1]: Relocated below "precinct Refer to the planning maps for the location and the extent of the precinct. description" for consistency with other precincts. 1. Precinct description Comment [2]: Numbering added for consistency with other precincts.

Comment [3]: First sentence added for The underlying zoning of the land within the Gulf Harbour precinct is Large Lot, Single House, Mixed consistency with other precincts. Housing Suburban, Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, Mixed Use, Local Centre and Public Open Space zones. Refer to the planning maps for the location and the extent of the precinct.

Gulf Harbour is a 350ha master planned development located at Hobbs Bay on the Whangaparāoa Peninsula. The precinct contains separate areas of residential development encompassed by open space. The residential areas have a range of densities, from a higher density adjacent to the Gulf Comment [4]: Amendment responds to Harbour centre and Eastern Boat Harbour (Hobbs Wharf) to lower densities to the north and east of submission point 6159-2. the centre.

The purpose of the Gulf Harbour precinct is to: Comment [5]: Amendment responds to - encourage comprehensively planned development of a high quality urban environment submission point 6159-2. within and around a marine and golf course setting

- limit land use and development to reduce pressure on the existing wastewater system and transport network serving the Whangaparaoa Peninsula.

- The precinct also recognises that areas of open space including the golf course are Comment [6]: Minor grammatical correction. essential to offset the areas of higher intensity development.

The precinct comprises six sub-precincts: Comment [7]: Amendments responds to •sub-precinct A contains the main commercial centre which provides for retail, commercial and submission point 6159-2. entertainment related activities along with supported residential care facilities Comment [8]: Amendments in this bullet point •sub-precinct B is situated on the eastern side of the marina. It provides for the Mixed Use respond to submission point 6159-2. development, of including berthage, commercial and service activities, and is available for residential development •sub-precinct C provides for high density residential development near the waterway, with medium density residential development on slopes rising from the waterway areas •sub-precinct D covers the largest area of residential development generally bounded by or adjoining the golf course and areas of open space •sub-precinct E provides for lower density residential areas to the periphery of the precinct •sub-precinct F provides for the protection of the open space character and the recreational and integrative functions of the land on which the golf course is situated.

The precinct provisions encourage a framework plan to be approved prior to new development, building or subdivision in sub-precincts A, B, C and D. This is tTo ensure that development has appropriate regard to the context in which it is situated, achieves a coherent and attractive character in each neighbourhood, and makes effective use of the opportunities offered by the coastal proximity and landforms of the precinct., the precinct provisions encourage a framework plan to be approved Comment [9]: Reworded to break up long prior to new development, building or subdivision in sub-precincts A, B, C and D. Framework plans sentence will need to include the design of road and block layouts, the number and density of dwellings, open space and pedestrian linkages, and give effect to the precinct objectives and policies with particular regard to the co-ordinated and integrated design of future development.

2. Objectives

Comment [10]: Amended for consistency with The objectives are as listed in the underlying zone except as specified below. other precincts.

The underlying zones and Auckland-wide objectives apply in this precinct, in addition to those specified below.1. Development is limited to avoid excess pressures on the capacity of the road and wastewater infrastructure serving the precinct. 2. The form and intensity of development is controlled to maintain and enhance the amenity values and environmental quality of the precinct, and reinforce the coherence and character of each sub- precinct. 3. Subdivision and development is designed and implemented in a comprehensive, efficient and Comment [11]: This is standard phrasing for integrated way which achieves a high quality urban environment. precincts with framework plans.

3. Policies

Comment [12]: Amended for consistency with The policies are as listed in the underlying zone except as specified below. other precincts. The underlying zones and Auckland-wide policies apply in this precinct, in addition to those specified below.

General 1.Limit the total amount of development within the precinct through a development cap. 2.Maintain and reinforce the differences of intensity and character between each sub-precinct. 3.Reinforce and encourage visual and functional linkages between development that is proximate to the waterways or the marina, and the marine environment. 4.Discourage the conversion of existing dwellings into two dwellings. 5.Encourage the development of framework plans to provide for the comprehensive development of sub-precincts A, B, C and D, which: a. has appropriate regard to the context in which it is situated b.achieves a coherent and attractive character in each neighbourhood c.makes effective use of the opportunities offered by the coastal proximity and landforms of the precinct d.reduces the potential for undeveloped areas. 6.Encourage consultation with any other owners of land within a sub-precinct when preparing a framework plan. 7.Require any framework plan to demonstrate the interrelationship and future integration with: a.other land within the sub-precinct, where a framework plan can only be prepared for part of the sub- precinct b.any neighbouring sub-precinct.

Sub-precinct A Comment [13]: Reworded to remove reference 8. Encourage development to be consistent with an approved framework plan undertaken in to ‘compliance’ as per amended approach to compliance with a framework plan approved by the council, and designed so that the arrangement of framework plans, and ‘approved by council’ as “approved framework plan’ is a defined term. buildings, parking and opens spaces, and the provision for vehicular and pedestrian circulation will: Comment [14]: Minor grammatical correction. a.provide activities that are appropriate to the commercial, social and cultural needs of the Gulf Harbour community b.be safe, convenient and achieve high standards of amenity c.be consistent with the form, scale and character of development which has occurred in the commercial centre up to that time d.be aesthetically coherent and reinforce the urban design precedents which have been established in the locality - particularly the admission of sunlight and orientation of shops and restaurants to outdoor public spaces and the adjacent waterway e.reflect and capitalise on the unique marine environment and waterfront position f.maintain the commercial and civic qualities of the commercial centre and provide for the full commercial floor space requirements of the local community and not compromise the requirements of future residents g.ensure that public access to and around the edge of the waterway in proximity to the commercial centre is maintained h.enable pedestrian access and orientation i.enable provision for pedestrian shelter around buildings in the form of verandahs, colonnades, canopies or similar structures j.notwithstanding that some such facilities may be privately owned and controlled, enable provision for amenity areas such as promenades, piazzas and open space for the use and enjoyment of the public to: i.provide space for nodes of activity to occur (such as cafes or markets) complemented by contemplation zones for rest and people-watching ii.be designed in such a way as to be versatile spaces that enable a variety of activities to take place iii.provide direct access paths along the most utilised routes, with appropriate lighting and seating 9.Require buildings to be of a solid and durable construction (e.g. solid masonry, concrete and brick, as opposed to hollow and sheet cladding), appropriate to the marine environment and to ensure a high standard of aesthetic coherence and amenity consistent with existing development in the sub- precinct. 10.Enable residential accommodation on upper levels above commercial units. 11.Guide development so that the range and scale of retail, commercial and community services is appropriate to the local needs of the Gulf Harbour community and to ensure that adverse effects on adjacent or nearby residential areas are avoided or mitigated.

Sub-precinct B Comment [15]: Reworded to remove reference 12. Encourage development to be consistent with an approved framework plan undertaken in to ‘compliance’ as per amended approach to compliance with a framework plan approved by the council, and designed so that: framework plans, and ‘approved by council’ as “approved framework plan’ is a defined term. a.the overall design of the sub-precinct achieves aesthetic and architectural coherence and is of a design, scale, form and character appropriate to the unique marine environment and waterfront location., with an architectural theme that is compatible with and complementary to existing Comment [16]: Delete reference to architectural development in sub-precinct A and around the northern waterway theme in response to submission point 6159-6 b.buildings, parking and open spaces are arranged, and vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation is provided to: i.enable the establishment of activities that are appropriate for the comfort and convenience of visitors and the local community ii.be safe and convenient, and achieve high standards of amenity iii.be functionally linked with, and physically connected by walkways to, the commercial centre iv.be consistent with and complementary to existing and future development within the commercial centre v.be aesthetically coherent and reinforce good urban design, particularly the orientation of shops and restaurants to outdoor public spaces and the adjacent waterway, utilising a variety of architectural elements such as balconies, railings, window boxes and cornices vi.ensure that public access to the waterway itself is provided and maintained vii.ensure that public access to and around the edge of the boat harbour is established and maintained viii.enable pedestrian access and orientation ix.enable mixed use development including residential accommodation; x.notwithstanding that some such facilities may be privately owned and controlled, enable provision for amenity areas such as promenades, beach area, piazzas and open space for the use and enjoyment of the public to: •provide space for nodes of activity to occur (such as cafes or markets) complemented by contemplation zones for rest and people-watching •be designed in such a way as to be versatile spaces that enable a variety of activities to take place •provide direct access paths along the most utilised routes, with appropriate lighting and seating. 13.Require buildings to be of a solid and durable construction (e.g. solid masonry, concrete and brick, as opposed to hollow and sheet cladding), appropriate to the marine environment and to ensure a high standard of aesthetic coherence and amenity consistent with the aim of providing an attractive destination for visitors.

Sub-precinct C Comment [17]: Reworded to remove reference 14. Encourage development to be consistent with an approved framework plan undertaken in to ‘compliance’ as per amended approach to compliance with a framework plan approved by the council, and designed so as to strengthen the framework plans, and ‘approved by council’ as “approved framework plan’ is a defined term. links between the existing marina and waterways, and the remainder of the land in the Comprehensive Gulf Harbour precinct. Comment [18]: Deleted for consistency Comment [19]: For consistency of language. 15.Enable residential development at varying intensities, up to one household unit dwelling per 150m2 in close proximity to the waterways, but require lesser intensities on the slopes which rise from the waterway areas. 16.Require buildings adjacent to waterways to be designed to facilitate access to, and safe and secure berthage for, recreational boats.

Sub-precinct D 18.Enable development for residential purposes in forms that maintain or enhance the amenity values of the golf course, are compatible with its safe operation, and avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. Comment [20]: Reworded to remove reference 19. . Encourage development to be consistent with an approved framework plan undertaken in to ‘compliance’ as per amended approach to compliance with a framework plan approved by the council which enables residential development at framework plans, and ‘approved by council’ as “approved framework plan’ is a defined term. varying intensities from place to place but not exceeding an average intensity of one household unit

2 Comment [21]: Changed for consistency of dwelling per 275m net site area. terminology

Sub-precinct F 21.Protect the open space character, and the recreational and amenity values of the land on which the golf course is situated. 22.Enable buildings that are directly associated with the function of the golf course, subject to their design and landscaping mitigating any adverse effects on the amenity values and open space character of the land. 23.Control land shaping and landscaping so that they are in harmony with the coastal landform, and require the use of indigenous vegetation.

5.13 Gulf Harbour

The activities, controls and assessment criteria in the underlying zone apply unless otherwise specified Comment [22]: Amendments for consistency below. with other precincts.

The underlying zoning of land within this precinct is Local Centre, Mixed Use, Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, Mixed Housing Suburban, Single House, Large Lot, and Public Open Space zones. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct.

The provisions in Chapter I for the underlying zones and Auckland-wide provisions of Chapter H apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below.

1. Activity table

Comment [23]: Amendments for consistency The activity table of the underlying zone applies within the Gulf Harbour precinct unless otherwise with other precincts. specified in the activity table below.

The underlying zone and Auckland-wide activity tables apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below.

Activity Sub-precinct activity status

A B C D E

The conversion of a NC NC NC NC NC dwelling into a maximum of two dwellings A framework plan, RD RD RD RD NA amendments to an approved framework plan or a replacement Comment [24]: This is a result of the deletion of framework plan for a Comprehensive development areas which have been defined comprehensive made redundant by development to date. development area as shown in Precinct Plan 1 complying with clause 3.3 below A framework plan, NC NC NC NC NA amendments to an approved framework plan or a replacement framework plan for a defined comprehensive development area as shown in Precinct Plan 1 not complying with clause 3.3 below Comment [26]: Amendments respond to Subdivision, DRD DRD DRD DRD NA submission point 6159-15. development or buildings in a comprehensive development area as shown in Precinct Plan 1 complying with an approved framework plan on sites that are the subject of an approved framework plan, or a concurrent application Comment [25]: Reworded to ensure consistency for a framework plan with PAUP-wide approach to framework plans Subdivision, NC NC NC NC NA development or buildings in a comprehensive development area as shown in Precinct Plan 1 not complying with an approved framework plan, or prior to the approval of a framework plan on sites that are not the subject of an approved framework plan, or a concurrent application Comment [27]: Reworded to ensure consistency for a framework plan with PAUP-wide approach to framework plans 2. Notification

Comment [28]: Amendment for consistency of 1. The council must will publicly notify resource consent applications for development that does not drafting. comply with the development cap land use control in clause 3.1.1 below. Comment [29]: Grammatical correction. 2. The council will consider restricted discretionary activity resource consent applications for Comment [30]: Deleting redundant text. framework plans (including amendments to an approved framework plan or a replacement framework Comment [31]: Amendment for consistency plan) without the need for public notification, except that limited notification may be given with other precincts. however limited notification may be undertaken, including notice being given to any owner of land Comment [32]: Responds to submission point 6159-18. within the sub-precinct(s) who has not provided their written approval. 3. Land use controls

Comment [33]: Amendments for consistency The underlying zone and Auckland-wide land use controls apply in this precinct, unless otherwise with other precincts. specified below. 1. The land use controls in the underlying zone apply in the Gulf Harbour precinct unless otherwise stated below. 3.1 Development cap

1. The total amount of development must not exceed the following: a. for the Gulf Harbour precinct collectively: i. 2913 dwellings ii.338 visitor accommodation rooms. b.for sub-precinct A: i. 7000m2 combined total gross floor area for retail, commercial services and entertainment facilities ii. 100 bed spaces in supported residential care facilities iii. 100 dwellings iv. 38 visitor accommodation rooms. c.for sub-precinct B: i. 2000m2 combined total gross floor area for retail, commercial services and entertainment facilities ii. 1000m2 combined total gross floor area for offices. 2.Development that does not comply with clause 3.1.1 above is a non-complying activity.

3.2 Maximum density

1. Where more than one dwelling on a site is proposed in sub-precincts B, C and D, the number of dwellings on that site must not exceed the limits specified below:

Table 1 Comment [34]: Amended for consistency with Sub-precinct Average density operative plan Sub-precinct B and C (THAB zone) One dwelling per 150m2 net site area Comment [35]: Deleting redundant text. Comment [36]: To ensure consistency with Sub-precinct D One dwelling per 275m2 net site area policy 15 and partially in response to submission point 2837-3

2. Development that does not comply with clause 3.2.1 above is a discretionary activity. 3.3 Framework plans

1. New building or development must not take place within a comprehensive development area identified in Precinct Plan 1 unless it complies with an approved framework plan. 2. New building or development that does not comply with clause 3.3.1 above is a non-complying Comment [37]: This is covered by the reworded activity. activities in the activity table for subdivision, 3. Where an applicant elects to prepare a new, or amended, or replacement framework plan, the development and buildings. resource consent application shall A resource consent application for a framework plan, amendments Comment [38]: Reworded as per framework to an approved framework plan or a replacement framework plan must: plan template for consistency a.apply only to land within a sub-precinct that the applicant is the owner of, or to sites in multiple ownership where the landowners make a joint application Comment [39]: All subsequent development will b.comply with the controls specified for this precinct have to comply with any relevant controls. Not a c.comply with the general rules and information requirements applying to framework plans specified in relevant control for a framework plan. clause 2.6 of the general provisions d.seek consent for the following: i. roads (including street and pedestrian connections) ii. open space. Comment [40]: Covered by the Local Centre 3.4 Sub-precinct A – location of dwellings zone.

1. Dwellings must not locate on the ground floor. 2. Dwellings that do not comply with clause 3.4.1 above are a discretionary activity. 3.54 Sub-precinct F – retention of open space 1. The land Within sub-precinct F: a. must be retained as open space by means of a covenant or like mechanism acceptable to the council A legal protection mechanism must provide for the retention of the land in perpetuity as open space. b. must not be used for purposes other than golf course purposes. The land must not be used for any Comment [41]: Amended because “acceptable to other purpose than a golf course. the council” retains a level of discretion that is 2. Development that does not comply with clause 3.4.1 above is a non-complying activity, except that inappropriate for a rule. the following will be assessed as discretionary activities: a. buildings for the golf club, driving range tees, a golf school, and to house machinery and equipment to service the golf course.

4. Development controls

Comment [42]: Amendments for consistency 1. The underlying zone development controls and Auckland-wide controls apply in this precinct, with other precincts. unless otherwise specified below. 1.The development controls in the underlying zone apply in the Gulf Harbour precinct unless otherwise specified below. 2.Unless otherwise stated, development that does not comply with clauses 4.1 or 4.2 below is a discretionary activity. Comment [43]: Delete this and instead rely on 4.1 Sub-precinct A – building height the Local centre height of 16 metres (+2 metres for roof form). Having different activity status’ for different heights has been avoided elsewhere in the 1. Buildings in sub-precinct A must not exceed 12m in height. PAUP as experience in the North Shore district plan has shown the RD limit effectively becomes the new 2. Buildings between 12m and 15m in height will be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity. permitted level. There is only one metre difference between the 16 m limit in the Local centre zone and 3. Buildings may exceed 15m in height for up to 50 per cent of the building coverage, provided that the 15 m RD limit in this control. The local centre height limit is also consistent with the height in the the extra height does not exceed 22m.This will be assessed as a discretionary activity. adjacent THAB zone and the Mixed Use zone in sub precinct B. 4.2 Sub-precinct B - height Comment [44]: This is no longer needed as the Mixed Use height has been changed to 5 storeys, as proposed by Council. 1. Buildings in sub-precinct B must not exceed 5 storeys in height. 4.3 Sub-precinct A - site coverage

1. The maximum building coverage is 50 per cent of net site area. 5. Subdivision controls

The subdivision controls in the Auckland-wide rules – Subdivision apply in the Gulf Harbour precinct Comment [45]: This is not needed as there are unless otherwise specified below. no subdivision controls

5.1 Framework plans

1. Subdivision must not take place within a comprehensive development area identified in Precinct Plan 1 unless it complies with an approved framework plan. 2. Subdivision that does not comply with clause 5.1.1 above is a non-complying activity. Comment [46]: Comprehensive development 23. Subdivision that does not comply with an approved framework plan is a non-complying activity. areas have been deleted. Activity status of subdivision is covered in the activity table. 6. Assessment - Restricted discretionary activities

6.1 Framework plans

6.1.1 Matters of discretion When assessing a framework plan, amendments to an approved framework plan or a replacement framework plan as a restricted discretionary activity, the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters: For development that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Gulf Harbour precinct, the council will Comment [47]: Reworded for consistency with restrict its discretion to the following matters: PAUP-wide approach to precincts 1.the provision of roads and streetscape Comment [48]: Changed for consistency of 2.indicative numbers and densities of household units dwellings and the location of dwellings, terminology including site layout 3.within sub-precinct B, the type, form and scale of buildings, the nature and scale of proposed Comment [49]: Deleted as buildings are the activities and their relationship to the water areas of the harbour and marina subject of subsequent resource consent applications, 4.within sub-precinct A; integration of new development with the existing commercial centre; the so these are not appropriate matters of discretion relationship between buildings, activities, neighbouring sites, public amenity areas and the waterway; the type, form and scale of building 5.the provision of pedestrian linkages 6.the provision of public open space, including where relevant, neighbourhood reserves, esplanades and pedestrian walkways 7.conservation values and landscape 8.provision of infrastructure.

6.1.2 Assessment criteria When assessing a framework plan, amendments to an approved framework plan or a replacement framework plan as a restricted discretionary activity, the council will apply the following assessment criteria:

For any restricted discretionary activity in the Gulf Harbour precinct, the council will apply the following Comment [50]: Changed for consistency with assessment criteria: other precincts and to ensure the assessment criteria applies to the RD activity “subdivision, development and buildings on sites that are the subject of an 1. Whether the layout and design of roads will: approved framework plan” a. ensure appropriate connections to existing and future roads b. respond to the site’s existing landform, vegetation, views, natural water courses (for the purposes of stormwater runoff) and areas of public open space c. accommodate safe traffic speeds and sightlines for all road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorists) d. provide sufficient width to accommodate expected traffic generation, parking, services, footpaths, cycle ways (where practicable) and amenity landscaping, and comply with the relevant code of practice e. promote a consistent design theme which will ensure high amenity values f. have regard to the future design relationship between the road, adjoining land and adjacent precincts. 2.Whether future development sites have been identified in a manner that: a. responds to the context within which the development site is to be located, including roads, open space, pedestrian linkages, views and natural features is appropriate to the type and form of housing (i.e. whether for single unit housing development or integrated development), having regard to the overall limit of 2913 dwellings, and in sub-precinct B, the desirability for household units dwellings to Comment [51]: Changed for consistency generally be located on levels other than ground level c. is in accordance with the policies d. has regard to the relationship with existing developed areas e. gives consideration to the size, shape and aspect of the land and its suitability for future development, with particular regard to the relationship of the site to the road and adjoining sites f. integrates the development of sites with the relevant sub-precinct as a whole g. promotes a community identity, such as through provision of design processes and guidelines. 3.The extent to which the type, form and scale of buildings, the nature and scale of proposed activities, their relationship to the water areas of the harbour and marina, and their relationship to the existing commercial centre and public amenity areas give effect to the objectives and policies for the Comment [52]: Deleted as a framework plan Gulf Harbour precinct. does not approve this. 4.Whether pedestrian linkages have been identified which will ensure: a. internal (to the sub-precinct) linkages between development sites b. external linkages to natural features, reserves, public open space and adjoining precincts and, where relevant, to sub-precincts A and B c. the siting and design of pedestrian pathways so that they are accessible, visible and safe. 5.Whether provision to be made for public open space: a. has regard to the existing provision of public open space in the vicinity and proposed provision for public open space b. will meet the likely open space needs of the precinct to be served c. serves the needs of the community, with reference to size, shape, aspect and intended form of development d. enables sun access e. has regard to the need for shelter f. enables retention of views g. promotes safety (surveillance from public streets and dwellings) h.is an appropriate shape to accommodate children’s play equipment i.within sub-precinct B, ensures provision for and maintenance of public access, use and enjoyment of waterways, berthing facilities, and the water edge (including beach and promenades), with such provision to be protected by covenants or other legal mechanisms approved by the council j.within sub-precinct A, ensures provision for and maintenance of public access, use and enjoyment of the water edge, band rotunda and promenades, with such provision to be protected by covenants or other legal mechanisms approved by the council. 6.Whether the location and extent of neighbourhood reserves is consistent with and/or complementary to the neighbourhood reserve network, and must be considered having regard to the: a.relationship of the neighbourhood to other reserves and open spaces, existing and proposed b.distance and accessibility of the neighbourhood reserve to users c.quality of the reserve in terms of its potential to be used for structured and unstructured activities d.relationship of the reserve to the surrounding street and site layout such that the personal safety, surveillance and convenience of users is promoted e.opportunities to link open space networks, community facilities and public services f.size of the population that will be served by the neighbourhood reserve g.presence of other neighbourhood reserves in the vicinity (e.g. land adjoining or nearby to existing neighbourhood reserves may obviate the need to provide additional land, in which case a cash Comment [53]: Deleted as there are no financial contribution shall be required). contribution rules, so this provision can’t require a 7.Whether features of natural and historic heritage significance within the Gulf Harbour precinct are cash contribution. recognised by: a. retaining and protecting native, significant exotic or historic trees b. retaining bush and trees where this is necessary to achieve the planned character of each sub- precinct c. retaining so far as practicable, bush and trees that contribute significantly to ecological or habitat values and amenity values or enhance the character of the area d. undertaking earthworks, excavations and the removal of topsoil, only where and to the extent necessary to provide for the activities for which the land is to be used e. designing the layout of sites and buildings so that watercourses or wetlands which are ecologically significant, and landforms which contribute to amenity values or the character of the locality are disturbed to the least practicable extent f. protecting places or features which are listed for protection because of their historic, archaeological or cultural value, or which are recognised as having significance in those respects during the course of detailed planning or development g. Whether existing natural features such as streams, the coast and vegetation have been identified, and natural features are protected or enhanced, by methods such as precinct design criteria or Comment [54]: Delete as these duplicate covenants. provisions in the underlying zones and Auckland- 8.Whether the availability and capacity of existing infrastructure including roads and in-ground wide rules services, and the proposed method(s) of servicing the development are satisfactory having regard to the type, intensity and scale of development proposed. 7. Precinct plans

Comment [55]: This precinct plan deleted as it Precinct Plan 1: Gulf Harbour comprehensive development areas has been made redundant by development to date.

Precinct Plan 21: Gulf Harbour sub-precincts