BEFORE THE 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 017 RUB South

AND

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

JOINT STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF VRINDA MOGHE, DANNI BRIGGS AND JOY LA NAUZE ON BEHALF OF

(URBAN EDGE – FLATBUSH, HOWICK - , POINT VIEW DRIVE, MANGERE, FAVONA, OTAHUHU AND HINGAIA)

15 OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 5 4. SCOPE ...... 6 5. REZONING ...... 7 6. SUB-GROUP 1 HOWICK – EAST TAMAKI: POINT VIEW DRIVE ...... 7 7. SUB-GROUP 2 – ...... 17 8. SUB-GROUP 3 - MANGERE, FAVONA AND OTAHUHU ...... 24 9. SUB-GROUP 4 - HINGAIA ...... 29 10. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ...... 36 11. CONCLUSION ...... 36

Page 1

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Our names are Vrinda Moghe, Danni Briggs and Joy LaNauze. We are planners at Auckland Council (Council). Our evidence addresses Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) submissions that have been grouped into the "Urban Edge" group of submissions. Reasons for grouping these areas together has been discussed in the joint statement of evidence of Mr Trevor Watson, Mr Peter Vari and Mr Eryn Shields.

Howick- East Tamaki

1.2 Several submitters have sought an expansion to the existing eastern urban edge along Point View Drive.

1.3 The proposed RUB follows the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) in this location, with the exception of one property at 178 Point View Drive, that was included within the proposed RUB at the time of notification of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

1.4 Submitters consider expanding the urban area along the Point View Drive section of the ridgeline will lead to efficient use of land and provide for additional residential development in the region.

1.5 Submissions have also been received on amending the proposed RUB to the 2010 MUL i.e. excluding 178 Point View Drive from the urban area. Submitters consider inclusion of this property within the RUB has set a precedent of urban development in the area that could have an adverse impact on the surrounding rural uses.

1.6 The Council’s landscape expert witness Ms Rebecca Skidmore is of the view that the elevated area under consideration acts as an effective buffer to the more intensively developed urban corridor to the west and the rural uses to the east. In addition to the topography, established large scale vegetation assists dwellings to integrate with the surrounding landscape and visually reinforces the ridgeline when viewed from the west. She considers that from a landscape and urban design perspective, the location of the RUB as notified will maintain the buffer and backdrop to the urban environment. I agree with the conclusions of Ms Skidmore.

1.7 No information has been provided by the submitters on the potential transport infrastructure effects. Auckland Transport (AT) has indicated that urbanisation of the

Page 2 area will require the upgrade of Point View Drive from a rural to urban standard. This would be a reasonably significant investment for the relatively low yield of residential development achieved.

1.8 Consequently, I consider the notified RUB along Point View Drive to be the most appropriate location to achieve the objectives of B2.1 and B2.2 of the RPS that seek to promote a compact urban form and a quality built environment.

Flat Bush

1.9 A number of submitters have sought expansion of the urban area of Flat Bush (over countryside living areas) that was informed by extensive planning processes in the 2000s.

1.10 Submitters seeking the expansion state that there is additional land which is capable of urban development in the catchment. The submitters identify the area as an ideal location for accommodating part of the region’s urban population and consider that the PAUP has not given sufficient regard to the efficient use and development of the future urban land or to the supply of housing in Auckland which will result in unacceptable delays in the release of land.

1.11 The Council’s landscape expert witness Ms Rebecca Skidmore is of the view the elevated topography and the vegetation patterns in the area, assisted by the lower intensity residential environment within the Countryside Living zone, reinforces the landscape value of this area and provides a backdrop to the more intensively developing urban environment in the lowlands to the west. Ms Skidmore and Mr Hillier (the Council’s expert witness on geotechnical matters) note deeply dissected gullies within the upper catchment and associated geotechnical constraints that prohibit urban densities to be located within the area.

1.12 Ms Skidmore supports the proposed RUB location in Flat Bush, as in her view the historic subdivision patterns will limit the potential for further development at an urban intensity to create a good urban structure. I agree with the conclusions of Ms Skidmore.

1.13 AT is of the view that urban expansion of Flat Bush into the upper catchment along the ridge would place considerable pressure on the surrounding roading network.

1.14 Urban expansion into the upper catchment will also lead to development within areas marked as conservation stormwater management policy areas. Urbanisation would

Page 3 require a reconsideration of the stormwater management strategy for the entire Otara catchment as development within the upper catchment would lead to additional impervious surfaces and associated stormwater flows into the already urbanised lower catchments.

1.15 I consider retaining the notified RUB is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of B2.1 of the RPS as it supports a quality compact urban form with a clear defensible limit to urban expansion. Furthermore, the retention of the proposed RUB in this location protects a number of sensitive landscape features, including the Redoubt Road ridgeline, the streams and conservation stormwater management policy areas in the upper catchment, and the identified significant ecological areas from inappropriate development.

1.16 I consider the notified RUB is effective in providing certainty, particularly with regard to character and amenity outcomes, while promoting significant environmental protection and enhancement for wider community benefits.

Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu

1.17 The Council received several submissions regarding the southern RUB, specifically within Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu. The location of the RUB in this area reflects the fairly recent Environment Court Decision of Gavin H Wallace Ltd & Ors v Auckland Council [2012] NZEnvC 120 on Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (PC13) and Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (PC14), which were made operative in May 2013.

1.18 Submitters have sought minor alterations to the RUB in the Ihumatao area, to include or exclude land from the RUB. Inclusion of the Auckland International Airport designated land and the Rennie Homestead site (619 Oruarangi Road) in the RUB would create a clear and defensible boundary and remove isolated rural parcels. However, the exclusion of the property at 1 Oruarangi Road would isolate this parcel and would not create a clear defensible RUB I consider that this property should remain within the RUB.

1.19 There are two submissions which relate to properties well within the urban area seeking to either retain the situation where the RUB does not apply to the site or to include a RUB along the coastline. I consider that no change should be made to the RUB in these locations.

Page 4 Hingaia

1.20 Three submitters support the RUB as notified.

1.21 One submission relates to Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands and seeks to include them in the RUB.

1.22 I do not support the inclusion of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands within the RUB. As discussed in the evidence of the Council's landscape witness, Mr Peter Kensington, Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands have a unique coastal and non- urban character and this should be retained. The islands are an important sensitive environment visually, environmentally, and culturally, and therefore differentiated from urban zoned land on the mainland.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 This evidence is a joint statement prepared by Vrinda Moghe (Principal Planner), Danni Briggs (Planner) and Joy LaNauze (Principal Planner) for PAUP Topic 017 RUB South (Topic 017). This statement relates to the submissions received on the RUB that comprise the Urban Edge group of submissions. This includes: Howick- East Tamaki - Point View Drive (Sub-Group 1), Flat Bush (Sub-Group 2), Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu (referred under Mangere) (Sub-Group 3), and Hingaia (Sub- Group 4).

2.2 Our qualifications and experience are provided in Attachment A.

2.3 Our evidence relates to localities (Flat Bush, East Tamaki and Hingaia) that we have been closely involved in over a number of years, and have been responsible for in terms of managing significant plan changes.

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.

Page 5 4. SCOPE

4.1 We are providing a joint statement of planning evidence in relation to the submissions detailed in Attachment B. Sub Group 1 Howick – East Tamaki and Sub Group 2 - Flat Bush has been authored by Vrinda Moghe, Sub Group 3 – Mangere has been authored by Danni Briggs, Sub Group 4 – Hingaia has been authored by Joy LaNauze.

4.2 This statement addresses each sub-group as follows:

(a) Background to the RUB location

(b) Key issues raised by submitters

(c) Assessment of submissions

(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 is relied on:

(a) Mr Ian Bayliss

(b) Ms Chloe Trenouth

(c) Mr Peter Vari, Eryn Shields and Trevor Watson (joint statement)

(d) Mr David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Brian Stuart - Watercare Services Limited (Watercare Joint Statement)

(e) Mr Theunis van Schalkwyk, Mr Evan Keating, Mr Alasiter Lovell and Mr Scott MacArthur - Auckland Transport (AT Joint Statement)

(f) Ms Rebecca Skidmore (Landscape and Visual effects – Point View Drive and Flat Bush)

(g) Mr Robert Hillier - (Geotech Matters - Point View Drive and Flat Bush)

(h) Mr Peter Kensington (Landscape and visual effects – Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands, Hingaia)

Page 6 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

(c) Attachment D – Section 32AA where RUB is proposed to be changed or introduced

(d) Attachment E – Map of changes to the RUB

5. REZONING

5.1 As outlined in the Council’s joint planning statement providing a sub-regional overview (section 6), where the relief sought by submissions is for rezoning of rural zoned land to an urban zone in the vicinity of the notified RUB then these submissions are assessed in this evidence against the RUB Criteria. Where a change to the RUB location is supported the default zone is Future Urban Zone (FUZ). However, in some circumstances a live zone may be considered appropriate and this will be identified under the sub-group discussion. The substantive discussion about the appropriateness of any proposed live zone will be in the Council's evidence outlined in Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) within the context of the zone principles for and the surrounding geographical area.

6. SUB-GROUP 1 HOWICK – EAST TAMAKI: POINT VIEW DRIVE

Background to RUB Location

6.1 The Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (the District Plan) identified Point View Drive as the eastern boundary of the Te U Kaipo structure plan area, located 8 km east of Manukau metropolitan centre.

6.2 The Point View ridge was identified as a dominant landscape feature in the area by way of a sensitive ridgeline notation on the district plan. This notation has been carried forward into the PAUP.

Page 7 6.3 Change 4 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) by Auckland Regional Council (ARC) considered the location of the MUL in the area 2004-05.

6.4 In determining the alignment of the MUL, several factors, including serviceability of infrastructure (stormwater, wastewater and water), landscape values, visual effects, traffic, access and geotechnical constraints were taken into account.

6.5 The reports prepared for Change 4 concluded that land up to Reduced Level 64 (RL 64) was capable of being fully serviced with no significant adverse environmental effects. This location of the MUL along RL 64 was confirmed in April 2005 and is referred to as the 2010 MUL location in my evidence.

6.6 The proposed RUB in the eastern areas of the region is located generally along the 2010 MUL, with the exception at 178 Point View Drive.

6.7 The inclusion of Point View Drive in the proposed RUB was considered by the Auckland Development Committee in July 2013. The Committee resolved to include 178 Point View Drive within the urban area and the property was rezoned from a rural zone to an urban zone in the notified PAUP (although this was not supported by Council officers)1.

6.8 Following notification of the PAUP, the developers at 178 Point View Drive applied to the Housing Project Office (HPO) for their site to be identified as a Special Housing Area (SHA) under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA).

6.9 The request was considered by the Auckland Development Committee at its December 2014 meeting and the application at 178 Point View Drive was approved for recommendation to the Minister as a proposed SHA. In February 2015, the Governor General declared the site at 178 Point View Drive a SHA by an Order in Council.

Key issues raised by submitters

6.10 A total of 9 submissions were received seeking amendments to the proposed RUB. These have been categorised as: (See Figure 1 & 2 below).

1 Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ Appendix 3.2.23 to Council’s s32 report

Page 8

Category 3 Category 2

Category 3

Category 1

178 Point View Drive

Category 3

Figure 1: RUB Submission area Figure 2: Submission Groups

6.11 Category 1: Retain the notified RUB. This category includes submissions2 that support the location of the proposed RUB at Point View Drive as a defensible boundary for the urban area.

6.12 Submissions in support of the notified RUB state that inclusion of 178 Point View Drive will lead to efficient use of land and provide for additional residential development in the region.

2 2833-1, 2833-7 Ross Reid Limited, 4233 Anh Nham

Page 9 6.13 Category 2: Amend the RUB to the 2010 MUL. This category includes submissions3 that seek to exclude 178 Point View Drive from the RUB and retention of the 2010 MUL boundary.

6.14 Submitters requesting retention of the 2010 MUL boundary have raised the issue of the incompatibility of suburban development within the sensitive ridge line, the precedent set by development at 178 Point View Drive and the impact on the integrity of the Countryside Living zone.

6.15 Submitters have also noted that the amendment to the RUB to include 178 Point View Drive is contrary to the Council’s own “Edge”4 report.

6.16 Category 3: Alternate RUB locations. This category includes submissions that identify the top of the ridge on Point View Drive5 or the western extent of the sensitive ridgeline6 as an appropriate location for the RUB. Submissions have also been received that seek inclusion of specific properties along Kinmont Rise and Mangerton Lane7.

6.17 Submitters requesting that the RUB be located at the top of the ridge along Point View Drive or that it follow the western length of the sensitive ridgeline overlay have raised the issue of inequality for other landowners along Point View Drive.

6.18 Submitters also state that any intensification of the lots below the sensitive ridge line will have little effect on the amenity of the area whilst still creating a graduated transition from urban to rural.

6.19 Category 4 (not shown on Figure 2): Submissions8 seek to align the proposed RUB with property and zone boundaries within this area for specific properties to correct mapping errors.

Assessment of submissions

6.20 Submissions seeking a change to the location of the RUB have not provided any new technical reports to support their request. The requests have therefore been assessed based on information9 that Council holds for this area.

3 6245-2 – Vicki & Phillip Lowe, 2922-1 Point View Heritage Society Inc. and 7300-1 O Singh 4 Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ Appendix 3.2.23 to Council’s s32 report 5 962-1 David & Alisa Bunker 6 3680-1 David G Hand and 10 signatures 7 5292-1 Pa and Vilavan Lim 8 5716- 3039, 5716-3040 Auckland Council 9 Information that was collated part of Plan Change 5 Pont View Drive

Page 10 Category 1 Retain Notified RUB

6.21 The importance of landform and its relationship with urban form along Point View Drive has been discussed in Mr Bayliss’ evidence. His evidence also discusses the Unitary Plan RUB project objectives, principles and methodology for determining the RUB.

6.22 I agree with Mr Bayliss that a robust and detailed process and methodology was followed to evaluate the relevance and defensibility of the 2010 MUL and its appropriateness as the proposed RUB in the PAUP. I also note that the proposed RUB meets the RUB criteria discussed in Ms Trenouth’s evidence. Hence, I support the submissions seeking retention of the notified RUB.

Category 2 Submissions seeking 2010 MUL

6.23 Submissions seeking that the RUB be amended to the 2010 MUL area refer to the draft Unitary Plan (March 2013) (draft UP) version and note the inconsistency in the Council’s decision on 178 Point View Drive with the recommendations made in the Council’s s32 report10.

6.24 I note that the public feedback process on the draft UP provided a number of landowners (including developers at 178 Point View Drive) the opportunity to request that their land be included within the proposed RUB.

6.25 To assist in the assessment of requests for additional land to be included within the urban area prior to finalisation of the PAUP for notification, the Council commissioned Hill Young Cooper to produce a report titled ‘Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ in August 2013.11

6.26 This report analysed the RUB several requests along Point View Drive ridge (including the site at 178 Point View Drive) against Edge criteria including – alignment with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy, defensible boundary, infrastructure constraints, landscape and environmental values and natural hazards.

6.27 The report did not support inclusion of additional sites along Point View Drive ridge area (including 178 Point View Drive) within the RUB at that time and concluded that the 2010 MUL as identified in the draft UP along Point View Drive was the most

10 Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ in August 2013 11 Evidence of Ian Bayliss 016/017 RUB

Page 11 appropriate location to meet the defensible boundary and compact urban form objectives of the RPS12.

6.28 As discussed in para 6.9, 178 Point View Drive has been confirmed as a SHA. While the submissions to the PAUP, including those on the proposed RUB, will be heard under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the resource consent will be considered under HASHAA. For the purpose of preparing and processing resource consent under the HASHAA, the PAUP provisions that apply to the land, including the proposed RUB are considered to be operative.

6.29 The HPO has received a qualifying development consent application for earthworks, subdivision and development on the site. HPO staff are currently processing the application and it is anticipated that the resource consent will be granted by the end of October 2015.

6.30 Given that the decision on an identified SHA cannot be rescinded unless there are special circumstances, and that the granting of the resource consent is likely to occur in the short term, I consider that amending the proposed RUB to the 2010 MUL will not reflect the intended use of the land in this location which has been earmarked for urbanisation.

Category 3: Submissions seeking alternate RUB locations

RUB along the western extent of the sensitive ridgeline

6.31 Submissions seeking expansion of the urban area to align with the western extent of the sensitive ridgeline state that intensification of the lots below the sensitive ridge line will have little effect on the amenity of the area.

6.32 As discussed in Ms Trenouth and Mr Bayliss’ evidence, landscape elements are used in defining physical limits to urban growth. I agree with Mr Bayliss’ analysis and the RUB criteria in Ms Trenouth’s evidence and therefore do not consider the western extent of the sensitive ridgeline notation as a defensible boundary proposition.

6.33 I consider the proposed location to be contrary to B2.1 Objective 1 (a quality compact urban form with a clear defensible limit)13 of the RPS.

12 Evidence of Ian Bayliss and Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB 13 Evidence of Ian Bayliss and Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB

Page 12

Submissions seeking RUB along Point View Drive

6.34 The Point View Drive section of the ridge is approximately 3.5 km long and is contiguous with the urban area. There are approximately 120 rural properties between the proposed RUB and the top of Point View Drive.

6.35 The section of Point View Drive ridge, north and south of the submission area has been included within the proposed RUB. The area was marked for urban expansion as part of Change 4 to the ARPS and has now been fully urbanised.

Landscape and Urban form

6.36 The landscape values of the ridge along Point View Drive have been assessed by the Council's landscape expert witness Ms Rebecca Skidmore in light of the submissions14.

6.37 Ms Skidmore’s evidence refers to a previous report where she noted the role of this area in creating a transition between urban development (west of the ridge) and the rural area east of Point View Drive. Ms Skidmore considers the characterisation of the area to be relevant in today’s context.

6.38 Ms Skidmore has evaluated the development at 178 Point View Drive (that takes into account the design response to the location within this section of the ridge) and concludes the extension of the RUB up to the ridge in this location will result in some reduction in the effectiveness of the hill slopes in creating a visual buffer to the urban environment. I agree with the findings of Ms. Skidmore, however as discussed in para 6.28 - 6.30, inclusion of this property with the RUB now reflects the SHA proposed in this location.

6.39 In reliance on Ms Skidmore’s conclusions about 178 Point View Drive and her previous report15, I am of the view that further urban expansion along the Point View Drive ridge will lead to a loss of that transition area as urban development would be extended to the ridgeline, thereby creating a hard urban edge against the rural area. In particular, development to an urban intensity would likely result in the loss of existing vegetation and would preclude the establishment of vegetation to a scale that would visually reinforce the ridgeline.

14 Evidence of Rebecca Skidmore 017 RUB South 15 Conclusion of Report: Rural 3 to Main Residential Plan Change: Mill Road and Point View Drive Landscape and Visual Assessment, Boffa Miskell (Rebecca Skidmore), July 2003

Page 13 6.40 The expansion of the area would have a significant impact on the landscape and amenity values of the area as a change to an urban zone could increase the residential yield on 120 properties between an additional 3616 to 250017 properties depending on the urban zone applied. Given the historic subdivision pattern and poor street connectivity within the block, I agree with Ms Skidmore that achieving a good urban structure would be difficult if this land were to be zoned for an urban intensity of development.

6.41 In this regard, I consider urban expansion along Point View Drive to be inconsistent with RPS B2.1 and B2.2 and the Auckland Plan18 which aims to achieve a compact urban form and a quality built form with a defensible limit.

Geotechnical Constraints

6.42 The geotechnical stability constraints for the ridge have been reviewed by Mr Robert Hillier (Tonkin & Taylor). The statement of evidence takes into account geology, topography and geotechnical hazards (slope stability, liquefaction and settlement) to identify the development premium.

6.43 Mr Hillier notes that the downslope areas of the ridge line along Point View Drive are on the edge of the southern landslide zone, an area historically known to be susceptible to slope instability. Mr Hillier concludes that large scale earthworks would be required to stabilise the ridge to allow urban densities.

Infrastructure: Transport & Water

6.44 No information on the potential transport effects of the proposed RUB have been provided by the submitters. Point View Drive currently has been designed as a rural Road and the AT Joint Statement of evidence has indicated that the cumulative effect of development within this area would at least require it’s upgrading to an urban standard (i.e. including footpaths and drainage) and potentially realigning parts of the road to address safety issues.

6.45 Urban expansion will also trigger upgrades to Watercare’s infrastructure to pump water above RL64 level to service the new development. Watercare has confirmed

16 Approximate Residential yield from Large Lot Residential zone 17 Approximate Residential yield from Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The yield is based purely on land available for subdivision and does not take into account geotechnical constraints. The yield will significantly reduce once this constraint is taken into account. 18 Evidence of Ian Bayliss 016/017 RUB

Page 14 that it does not support provision of onsite infrastructure (pumps) for new developments.19

6.46 With regard to provision of infrastructure, I consider a shift to the proposed RUB to either of the locations as suggested by the submitters to be contrary to Auckland Plan and the objectives of the RPS which aim to achieve efficient utilisation of infrastructure.20.

Submissions seeking individual properties within the RUB

6.47 I consider the inclusion of properties at Kinmont Rise and Mangerton Lane is considered to be inconsistent with the RPS. I consider adding properties on an ad hoc basis will undermine objectives set under B2.1 of the RPS that seek to create a compact urban form and B2.2 of the RPS that seeks to deliver a quality built environments within the compact urban form.21

Category 4: Minor Mapping Errors

6.48 Submitters22 seeking correction to mapping errors request that the proposed RUB follows the property boundaries along the following sites:

(a) 16 Kinmont Rise (south-western boundary of 18 and 31 Kinmont Rise); and

(b) 109 Point View Drive.

6.49 Having reviewed the requests, I consider these amendments to be minor in nature and will eliminate the issue of split zoning on lots that are otherwise wholly within the proposed RUB. I consider the approach of correcting minor mapping errors as an efficient way of achieving consistency in the PAUP.

Response

6.50 I support the proposed RUB as notified in the PAUP for the following reasons:

(a) A shift to the RUB will undermine the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and PAUP objectives of creating a compact urban form and a defensible boundary (RPS); and

19 WSL has agreed to allow developers at 178 Point View Drive to install a private pump for providing water to the new development. WSL has confirmed that this is an exception to the rule as the site has been confirmed as a SHA. 20 Evidence of Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB 21 Evidence of Ian Bayliss , Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB 22 Auckland Council

Page 15 (b) retraction of the proposed RUB to the 2010 MUL location would not reflect the Council’s decision on SHA at 178 Point View Drive and the intended use of this land for urban purposes.

6.51 I do not support the request to expand the urban area along Point View Drive for the following reasons:

(a) An expansion would be contrary to the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and PAUP objectives and policies pertaining to quality compact urban form (B2.1 Objective 1, (s5 RMA));

(b) Addition of individual sites within the proposed RUB or alignment with the western extent of the sensitive ridgeline or Point View Drive would lead significant adverse effects on infrastructure provisions and would be contrary to the RPS objectives and policies (B2.1 Policy 2(c)(i), s7(b),(g)RMA) and further degradation of scenic values of the area (s5, s6(c), s7(b),(c), (f), (g) RMA);

(a) It would result in development on areas subject to natural hazards i.e. land instability (B2.3 Policy 3(g) RPS, s5, s7(b) RMA); and

(b) Ad hoc addition of land would not lead to integrated planning within the region (s5 RMA).

6.52 The appropriate zone for the sites identified with minor mapping errors is suggested to be Mixed Housing Suburban zone. This will be discussed further in the Council's evidence for Topic 081.

Page 16 7. SUB-GROUP 2 – FLAT BUSH

Background to RUB Location

7.1 Flat Bush is one of the largest and most comprehensively planned new greenfield areas in , encompassing 1730 hectares in south . By 2025 it is anticipated that the area will be home to at least 36,000 people. Flat Bush is located approximately 24km from the Auckland CBD.

7.2 The location of the RUB at Flat Bush as set out in the PAUP has been informed by extensive planning processes. The former Council’s work on the Flat Bush Area informed the Auckland Regional Growth Forum’s strategy document (Auckland Regional Growth Strategy) that set and adopted the MUL in 1999.

7.3 In determining the alignment of the MUL around the Flat Bush area several factors, including infrastructure (stormwater, wastewater), landscape, visual, traffic, access and geotechnical constraints were taken into account.

7.4 The study included land contiguous to the urban development around East Tamaki to the rural area beyond the Redoubt Road ridge, approximately 1730ha of land in the Otara Stream catchment.

7.5 As part of initial discussions with the former Auckland Regional Council, the former Manukau City Council proposed the urban extent to align with the top of Redoubt Road.

7.6 Topography in the area varies from flat to rolling terrain in the lower catchment, to steep slopes and gullies in the upper catchment along the ridge.

7.7 The landscape and visual assessment of the area concluded that the amenity values in the upper catchment would be highly compromised if urban development was allowed up to Redoubt Road.

7.8 The location of the MUL at the foothills was considered as an appropriate and defensible boundary to contain urban development within the lower to mid catchment, leaving the upper steep areas of the catchment to be developed with an appropriate rural zone. This approach therefore achieved a gradual transition from the urban area to the rural hinterland.

Page 17 Key issues raised by submitters

7.9 A total of seven submissions were received on the RUB in this location. Two submissions seek expansion of the urban area, two support the current location of the RUB, and three that seek minor mapping errors be corrected. Submissions have been grouped into one area.

Sub-Group 2 Flat Bush

Figure 3 – Sub-Group 2 Flat Bush

7.10 Submissions support the location of the RUB at 19 Fairhill Place, Flat Bush23 and 98 Chateau Rise, Flat Bush24.

7.11 Submissions from Meadowview Estates Limited25 and Murphys Development Limited26 seek expansion of the urban area west and south west of the proposed RUB over rural land.

23 3345-2 Morgan Family Trust 24 4291-2 MGM Limited

Page 18 7.12 The submitters state that there is additional land which is capable of urban development in the Flat Bush catchment, but have not provided any technical evidence to support their proposal or to justify the requests.

7.13 Submitters believe that the Flat Bush area is an ideal location for accommodating part of the region’s urban population and that the PAUP has not given sufficient regard to the efficient use and development of the future urban land or the supply of housing in Auckland, and will result in unacceptable delays in the release of land.

7.14 Submissions27 have been received that seek to amend the proposed RUB with property and zone boundaries to correct minor mapping errors.

Assessment of submissions

Expansion of the Urban area

7.15 Submissions requesting expansion of the urban area have not provided any supporting technical information to assess the request. Hence the request has been assessed based on the information Council holds for this area.

7.16 As discussed in paras 7.2 - 7.8, land identified in the submissions for inclusion within the RUB was considered as part of the change to the ARPS.

7.17 I note that the public feedback process on the draft Unitary Plan provided a number of landowners (including the landowners at 125 Murphys Road) the opportunity to request that their land be included within the proposed RUB.

7.18 To assist in the assessment of requests for additional land to be included within the urban area prior to finalisation of the PAUP for notification, the Council commissioned Hill Young Cooper to produce a report titled ‘Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ in August 201328.

7.19 This report29 analysed the RUB requests at 125 Murphys Road against several Edge criteria including alignment with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy, defensible boundary, infrastructure constraints, landscape and environmental values and natural hazards.

25 3345-2 Meadowview Estate Limited 26 6872-2 Murphys Development Limited 27 5716- 3041, 5716-3042, 3041-3043 Auckland Council, 2410-1 Lai Yp Huachan Pan 28 Evidence of Mr Ian Bayliss 016/017 RUB 29 Technical Report – Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’ in August 2013

Page 19 7.20 The report concluded30 that the site was not suitable for inclusion within the RUB as it was constrained by Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), designations including the High Voltage Electricity Transmission Corridor, and that the topography limited the opportunities for development of the land to provide a quality compact urban form while not causing significant environmental effects.

7.21 The submission seeking inclusion of 45 Murphy’s Road within the RUB is also constrained by similar topographic conditions and a SEA notation.

7.22 The Council’s landscape expert witness, Ms Rebecca Skidmore has reviewed the area in light of the submissions.

7.23 Ms Skidmore notes that the planning framework for Flat Bush adopts a transition of residential densities with the highest densities located within and around the commercial centres and along strategic transport corridors, transitioning to lower densities at the periphery of the urban area. She identifies the elevated land to the west of Redoubt Road as providing a backdrop to the more intensively developing lowland to the west. She notes that the elevated land is deeply dissected in areas and is subject to geotechnical constraints. In her view, this limits the potential to create a good pattern of residential development at an urban intensity without significant land modification. Ms Skidmore also notes that the land tenure pattern along the Redoubt Road corridor is highly fragmented. This, in her view, would limit the potential to provide good connectivity between this corridor and the urban environment to the west. Ms Skidmore is of the view that enabling development of land to an urban intensity up to the Redoubt Road ridgeline would likely result in poor urban structure outcomes.

7.24 Ms Skidmore’s evaluation is consistent with the evidence of Mr Bayliss that discusses the importance of landform and its relationship with urban form.

7.25 Mr Bayliss’ evidence discusses the Unitary Plan RUB project objectives, principles and methodology for determining the RUB. As discussed in Ms Trenouth and Mr Bayliss’ evidence, landscape elements usually assist in defining physical limits to urban growth.

7.26 I agree with Mr Bayliss’ analysis and consider that the boundaries identified by the submitters31 (road and cadastral boundaries - east of Redoubt Road) are arbitrary

30 Appendix 3.2.23 – Assessment of Edge Request for Inclusion within RUB (Section 5.3.9), Evidence of Mr Ian Bayliss and Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB 31 3345-2 Meadowview Estate Limited , 6872-2 Murphy’s Development Limited

Page 20 in nature as they have not been defined by any landscape feature or an obvious edge to contain urban development to form a defensible boundary.

7.27 I also agree with Mr Bayliss that a robust and detailed process and methodology was followed to evaluate the relevance and defensibility of the 2010 MUL and its appropriateness as the proposed RUB in the PAUP. Ms Skidmore has confirmed that from a landscape and urban design perspective she supports the notified RUB. In her view, the area under consideration provides a valuable buffer and visual containment to the expanding urban environment on the lower land to the west. I rely on Ms Skidmore’s assessment on the matter.

7.28 In that regard, I do not consider the proposed boundaries (east of Redoubt Road) to be defensible32 and therefore it is not the most appropriate way to achieve B2.1 Objective 1.

Infrastructure: Stormwater Management & Transport

7.29 Land within the upper catchment is marked by steep slopes and gullies along the ridge. This has led to identification of conservation stormwater management policy areas that drain into the lower catchment. Urbanisation within the upper catchment would require reconsideration of the stormwater management strategy for the entire Otara catchment as development within the upper catchment would lead to additional impervious surfaces and associated stormwater flows into the already urbanised lower catchments.

7.30 An expansion in area for Flat Bush as sought by the submitters would place greater pressure on existing road infrastructure. A key challenge for transport agencies will be to deliver sufficient infrastructure in a timeframe that aligns with planned growth within the quantum of funding available33. In this regard, additional growth in this area is considered inconsistent with the patterns of growth the Auckland Plan encourages, which aim to achieve efficient utilisation of infrastructure.

7.31 This approach will be contrary to B2.1 Policy 2(c)(i) of the RPS and the Auckland Plan which aim to achieve efficient utilisation of existing infrastructure and s7(c) of the RMA.

32 As outlined in Chloe Trenouth’s evidence 33 Evidence of Chloe Trenouth 016/017 RUB, Evidence of Joshua Arbury Auckland Transport 016/017 RUB

Page 21 Geotechnical Constraints

7.32 The geotechnical stability constraints for the ridge have been reviewed by Mr Robert Hillier (Tonkin & Taylor). The statement of evidence takes into account geology, topography and geotechnical hazards (slope stability, liquefaction and settlement) to identify the development premium.

Mr Hillier notes that relatively large tracts of the Flat Bush area are mapped as the Southern Landslide zone, referring to unstable ground generally controlled by deep seated geological structures. Mr Hillier stresses that the geotechnical assessment has been undertaken on a regional basis, and is not intended for interpretation at an individual lot level. Overall, he concludes that extensive earthworks and mitigation measures will be required in these areas for urbanisation.

7.33 By excluding these areas from urban development, the RUB will serve as an effective tool for achieving the objective of maintaining and enhancing areas of significant environmental value.

7.34 I consider retaining the notified RUB is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of B2.1 of the RPS as it supports a quality compact urban form with a clear defensible limit to urban expansion. Furthermore, the retention of the RUB in this location protects a number of sensitive landscape features, including the Redoubt Road ridgeline, the streams and stormwater management areas in the upper catchment, and the identified significant ecological areas, from inappropriate development. I consider the notified RUB is effective in providing certainty, particularly with regard to achieving character and amenity outcomes while promoting significant environmental protection and enhancement for wider community benefits.

Mapping Errors

7.35 The following submissions seek to correct mapping errors where the RUB has been incorrectly mapped as it relates to property boundaries:

(a) 568 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush

(b) 109 Adamson Road, Flat Bush

(c) 27 Arrowsmith Drive, Flat Bush

(d) 30 Hilltop Road, Manukau

Page 22 (e) 1 and 3 Alexia Place, Manukau

7.36 The error has led to a small section of the properties being zoned rural. In my view the errors are relatively minor in nature and it is not efficient to retain the rural zone on land that was intended to be otherwise urbanised.

Response

7.37 I support the location of the notified RUB for the following reasons:

(a) A shift to the proposed RUB will undermine the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and is not the most appropriate way to achieve the RPS objectives in B2.1 and B2.2 of creating a compact urban form with a defensible boundary and quality built environment; and

(b) Any further urban expansion along Redoubt Road would lead to significant adverse effects on infrastructure provisions and further degradation of landscape values of the Redoubt Ridge34.

7.38 I do not support the request to expand the urban area along Redoubt Ridge for the following reasons:

(a) It does not have appropriate regard to the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and will not achieve the PAUP objectives and policies pertaining to quality compact urban form with clear defensible limits (B2.1 Objective 1);

(b) Urban expansion will lead to significant adverse effects on provisions of infrastructure and further degradation of scenic values of the area and is therefore not in accordance with s5, s6 (c), s7(b),(c), (f), (g) of the RMA;

(c) It will not avoid areas subject to natural hazards as the expansion would urbanise areas prone to flooding (marked as conservation stormwater management policy areas) and instability (B2.3 Policy 3(g) RPS; s5, s7(b) of the RMA);

(c) It would not contribute towards effective and efficient provision and use of infrastructure (B2.1 Policy 2(c)(i); s7(b),(g) of the RMA);

(d) It is not consistent with the protection of important environmental values and avoids scheduled areas like significant ecological areas or the sensitive ridgelines (s5, s6 (c), s7(b),(c), (f), (g) of the RMA); and

34 Evidence of Rebecca Skidmore 017 RUB South

Page 23 (e) It would not lead to integrated planning within the region (s5 and s30 of the RMA).

7.39 As will be discussed further in the evidence for Topic 081, the appropriate zone for the sites identified with minor mapping errors is recommended to be Mixed Housing Suburban zone35, Large Lot zone36 and Future Urban zone37.

8. SUB-GROUP 3 - MANGERE, FAVONA AND OTAHUHU

Background to RUB Location

8.1 Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu are established neighbourhoods and communities reflecting a diversity of cultures, histories, physical qualities and values. The Mangere area is home to Mangere Mountain, Ambury Regional Park, and significant archaeological sites including the Otuataua Stonefields. Auckland International Airport, New Zealand’s largest and busiest airport with over 13 million passengers per year, is situated in the area. Passenger demand is expected to more than double by 2025. The Auckland Plan identifies the Auckland Airport as a key shaper and enabler for the city, and one that influences the nature of land use activities that co-locate near it.

8.2 The location of the RUB in the PAUP around the Ihumatao area, north west of the airport, reflects the fairly recent Environment Court decision Gavin H Wallace Ltd & Ors v Auckland Council [2012] NZEnvC 120 (2012 Environment Court Decision) on Auckland Regional Policy Statement – Plan Change 13 (PC13) and Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) – Plan Change 14 (PC14) which were made operative in May 2013.

8.3 PC13 extended the MUL to encompass the Mangere Gateway Heritage Area. PC14 addressed the appropriate future development and zoning of that area to the north of the existing Airport Zone at Auckland International Airport, and also the future development of land in the vicinity of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. It sought to reflect the MUL and also identify the entire area of Ihumatao as open space, to protect the cultural values of the land. This approach was not upheld by the Environment Court’s decision on appeals to the Plan Change.

35 5716-3041, 5716-3042, 5716-3043, 5716-3046- Auckland Council 36 3410-1 Lai Yip and Huichan Family 37 RUB at 125 Murphy’s road to follow property boundaries.

Page 24 8.4 The 2012 Environment Court Decision shifted the MUL to include the land parcels subject to the appeal, zoned these properties Future Development Zone (FDZ) and also cancelled the Notice of Requirement subject to appeal. The Environment Court accepted that the land holds significant heritage, cultural and historic values however stated that “those values do not necessarily mean that the landscape has to be protected from all urban type development”. It was considered that the most appropriate action was to include the land within the FDZ which would require a more detailed structure planning exercise in the future.

8.5 Public feedback on the draft Unitary Plan included three requests for changes to the RUB at Mangere, one identified a site for inclusion in the RUB whilst the other two sought that area to be excluded from the RUB. These site requests were assessed in the August 2013 Hill Young Cooper report ‘Assessment of ‘Edge’ Requests for Inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary’, which is Appendix 3.2.23 to the Auckland Council’s Section 32 Report on the PAUP. The assessment did not support these three requests to include or exclude land, primarily because the alignment of the RUB

reflects the recent Environment Court decision on PC14, which was made fully operative in May 2013.

Key issues raised by submitters

8.6 Submissions received relating to the RUB at Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu can be grouped into three locations, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Map of submissions

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Page 25 8.7 Category 1 includes 2 submissions relating to properties that are within the existing urban area. Favona Road Landowners (4001-5) raise the issue that whilst the subject area (land between Favona Road and the Mangere Inlet) was within the MUL, this does not appear to have been transferred to the RUB overlay. The submission point states that the RUB should follow the harbour edge, being the defensible boundary line. Contact Energy Limited (6084-7) has submitted with regards to the location of the RUB relative to the Otahuhu Power Station site at 8 and 10 Sparky Road, Otara. The submitter wishes to retain the situation whereby the RUB does not apply to the site.

8.8 Category 2 comprises the submission by Roger Gummer (5034-5) who opposes the zoning of the site at 1 Oruarangi Road and the inclusion of the land within the RUB, displayed as sub-group 2 in Figure 1. The submission point also indicates that the zoning should remain rural.

8.9 Category 3 comprises two submissions requesting changes to the RUB and FUZ at Mangere. Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) (5294-346) seeks that the land west of Renton Road, at 260 Ihumatao Road, be included within the RUB. The land has been designated for airport purposes. Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust (6386- 229) opposes the Future Urban zoning associated with the RUB around the Otuataua Stonefields. The submission point does not seek any alternative zoning for the site.

Assessment of submissions

8.10 Favona and the Otahuhu Power Station (8 and 10 Sparky Road, Otara) are located well within the metropolitan urban area of Auckland and as such, the location of the RUB line does not apply to or affect these two sites. The RUB is not required to be mapped along the coastline as it acts as a rural urban interface, not a boundary between land and water.Therefore the submission from Favona Road Landowners (4001-5) is not supported and no change to the notified RUB is suggested. The submission point from Contact Energy Limited (6084-7) seeking to retain the situation whereby the RUB does not apply to the site is supported and no change to the notified RUB is proposed.

8.11 In response to a submission received regarding the site at 1 Oruarangi Road, this property was included within the MUL as a result of the Council’s decision (December 2009) on PC13. The site is located to the west of Oruarangi Road and was isolated from all other rural land prior to the plan change. The Decision Report for PC13 stated that “This site is somewhat of an anomaly in that keeping the land outside the MUL would have left a small single site as rural. In general terms, we consider that the MUL

Page 26 should be located along Oruarangi Road so that open land is located on the western side of the road to the coast providing extensive views of the Manukau Harbour and the future habitat area.” It is for these same reasons that I do not support the submission from Roger Gummer (5034-5) and propose no change to the notified RUB .

8.12 As discussed in paragraphs 8.1-8.5 above, the MUL boundary and zonings in Mangere were considered as part of PC13 and PC14 and determined by the 2012 Environment Court decision. The MUL location has been incorporated in the PAUP as the RUB. This has resulted in an irregular RUB line with areas around Ihumatao and Oruarangi Roads that are excluded from the RUB. The area identified as Future Development Zone (FDZ) by the Court has been included in the PAUP as FUZ.

8.13 The land covered by the AIAL submission is designated for airport purposes and referenced as 1101 ‘Auckland International Airport – Renton Road Area’, with an underlying zone of Rural Production under the PAUP. The designation conditions applying to the land include provisions for landscaping and the future re-alignment of Renton Road. The subject land was excluded from the MUL in the Environment Court’s 2012 decision due to the limited scope afforded by the appeals. Given that the land (which is adjacent to the main airport designation) is already designated for airport purposes, and is contiguous to the RUB as notified, in my opinion it is logical to include the land in the RUB. It is important to note however that should the RUB be repositioned, the most appropriate zone would be FUZ to ensure that future development is comprehensively assessed during the structure plan process. The issue of zoning for this site will be further dealt with during the hearing for Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

8.14 The subject AIAL land, along with the adjacent Rennie Homestead site (619 Oruarangi Road, owned by the Council), are the only remnant rural areas along Oruarangi Road, see Figure 4 above. The Rennie Homestead is a significant heritage property on 8.9 hectares of land, zoned as Rural Production under the PAUP. The land directly east and west of the Rennie Homestead site is located in the RUB and zoned FUZ under the PAUP. The parcel to the north east, at 545-561 Oruarangi Road, has also been approved as a Special Housing Area. Moving the RUB to include the AIAL land would therefore leave the Rennie Homestead as an isolated rural property. For this reason, I consider that the RUB should be extended to include this portion of land.

8.15 Extending the RUB to include Rennie Homestead and applying FUZ will require a Structure Plan to be prepared to determine appropriate development and land use

Page 27 activities in the future. The Structure Plan process provides an integrated approach to address wider land use and infrastructure planning and enable the integration of the significant cultural, historic heritage and landscape values. The Structure Plan process will ensure that attention is focussed on the interface between the Otuataua Stonefields and surrounding FUZ land to address the importance of recognising and respecting the values associated with the area. Therefore, in order to create a clear and defensible boundary, I consider that the RUB line should be extended to include the AIAL and Rennie Homestead land.

8.16 There is no scope and no planning justification to extend the RUB any further to include the Otuataua Stonefields and beyond. The Otuataua Stonefields are zoned Public Open Space – Conservation in the PAUP, with an Outstanding Natural Features overlay. These plan provisions contribute to the defensibility of the RUB in this location.

8.17 A submission was also received from Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust (6386-229) opposing the FUZ associated with the RUB around the Otuataua Stonefields. The 2012 Environment Court decision amended the zoning to FDZ, which under the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) is a "holding zone" that flags the potential for land to be developed for more intensive purposes. It requires a structure plan to first be prepared as the basis for a subsequent plan change and specific zoning provisions. The Court was satisfied that a Future Development zoning could both adequately recognise the particular values of the land and provide for appropriate development in the future. The FDZ has being included in the PAUP as FUZ. As outlined in paragraph 8.15, future development within the FUZ will require a structure plan ensuring that the natural and physical resources of the land, including its heritage and cultural values, can be protected.

Response

8.18 I consider that the RUB location identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate method for achieving the RPS objectives including B2.1 objective 1 for the following reasons:

(a) The RUB is a rural urban interface, not a boundary between land and water, and therefore is not required at Favona.

Page 28 (b) Excluding 1 Oruarangi Road, Mangere from the RUB would result in an isolated rural property and would not contribute to creating a defensible boundary line. The requested change was assessed against the RUB criteria (Attachment C).

8.19 I support category 1 to retain the RUB for the following reasons:

(a) The property referred to in submission point 6084-7 from Contact Energy Ltd (see Attachment B) is located in an inner urban area, has been given an urban zone in the PAUP and abuts the coast. Therefore the RUB does not apply to this property.

8.20 I support category 3 to change the RUB for the following reasons:

(a) The inclusion of the Auckland International Airport designated land at 260 Ihumatao Road and the Rennie Homestead site at 619 Oruarangi Road would create a clear and defensible boundary. The change has been assessed against the RUB criteria (Attachment C) and s32AA analysis prepared (Attachment D). The map in Attachment E outlines the proposed RUB location.

(b) Applying the FUZ on these properties will be consistent with surrounding areas and provide an opportunity to further consider cultural impacts during the structure plan process.

9. SUB-GROUP 4 - HINGAIA

Background to RUB Location

9.1 Hingaia Peninsula is west of the Southern Motorway at Papakura and is bounded by the Pahurehure Inlet/Manukau Harbour to the north, and Drury Creek to the west and south. Together with Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands to the north, which are accessed by single lane private causeways from the mainland, the area of the Hingaia Peninsula is approximately 684ha. Road access to the peninsula is limited; via Hingaia Road which passes through the northern part of the peninsula from east to west, and the southern part of the peninsula is accessed from east of the motorway by the Park Estate Road bridge. These two access roads are not connected.

9.2 The RUB as notified in the PAUP includes all the mainland extent of the Hingaia Peninsula, but excludes Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands. Some 450ha of FUZ is proposed in the PAUP.

Page 29 9.3 Hingaia is part of the area identified in the Auckland Plan as a Greenfield Area for Investigation. The PAUP section 32 report proposes including the Hingaia mainland in the RUB, but excludes Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands.

9.4 Hingaia Peninsula was signalled as a greenfield area with urban growth in two stages in the ARPS. The Hingaia Peninsula Structure Plan 2002 resulted in Plan Change 5 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section) (PC5) which rezoned most of the northern part of the peninsula from rural to urban (operative 2006). RPS Change 6 and Papakura Plan Change 10 determined that proposed plan changes to urbanise the rest of the Hingaia Peninsula. Stage 1 would occur from 2015, with Pararekau Island identified as a Countryside Living area.

9.5 Plan Change 13 (Rural Plan Change) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) (PC13) became operative in October 2014. It rezoned parts of the peninsula not covered by PC5 (excluding Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands) to “Future Urban Zone” (not the same zone as the Unitary Plan FUZ).

9.6 Private Plan Change 8 (Pararekau Island Countryside Living Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section) (PPC8) became operative on 19 December 2012. It provides for eleven countryside living lots on Pararekau Island. Controls are imposed to protect coastal amenity, archaeological and landscape features, and there is also a requirement to plant native plants.

9.7 Private Plan Change 11 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) (PPC11) seeking urban zoning for 152ha of land east of Oaklands Road (already within the MUL) was lodged with Council in July 2010. This has been placed on hold since then because further information requests had not been met. That area is now the subject of a SHA request.

9.8 The locations of relevant plan changes are mapped here:

Page 30 Figure 5 Recent Hingaia Area Plan Changes

Key Issues Raised By Submitters

Figure 6 Map of Hingaia Submissions

9.9 Three submissions were received in support of the position of the RUB as notified.

9.10 One submission was received seeking an extension to the RUB to include Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands:

(a) The submission included requests to:

Page 31 (i) rezone Pararekau Island and the access across Kopuahingahinga Island as Mixed Housing Urban, with the balance of Kopuahingahinga Island to be zoned Open Space-Conservation.

(ii) modify provisions in the Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands Precinct

(b) The submission cited as reasons:

(i) Since PPC8 became operative:

(1) Special Housing Area legislation has been passed by government

(2) The Auckland Plan and the PAUP have been settled and publicly notified respectively. Those documents contain provisions that reinforce the need to intensify urban activities with an immediately adjacent to the Auckland Metropolitan Area.

(ii) Pararekau Island’s proximity to the urban area of Auckland, the Southern Motorway and the employment and commercial centre at Manukau

(iii) Pararekau Island’s relatively flat and easily developed contour and soils

(iv) Pararekau Island is able to be serviced with infrastructure from the adjacent Harbourside Estate Development

(v) Capacity to be developed for an attractive residential form of development whilst:

(1) Maintaining public access around the perimeter of Pararekau and Island and across Kopuahingahinga Island; and

(2) Providing a high quality of amenity for residents and visitors.

Assessment of Submissions

9.11 The submission seeking extension of the RUB has not provided any new technical reports to support the request.

Page 32 9.12 While the whole of the Hingaia Peninsula is earmarked for urban development on the basis of it having been previously structure planned for urban development, Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands were specifically excluded from the notified RUB on the basis of their unique character.

9.13 Little information is included in the submission to justify changes to the details of the recent PPC8 as agreed by Environment Court Consent Order in 2012.

9.14 PPC8 became operative in December 2012 following the resolution of appeals through the Environment Court and determined the nature and scale of development on Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands.

9.15 The PPC8 Council hearing and the Consent Order extensively considered the character of the islands. PPC8 clearly signalled that the unique coastal and non- urban character of the islands should be retained. PPC8 restricts the development of Pararekau Island’s natural landform and retains and enhances the island’s landscape and ecological characteristics through extensive landscaping and native planting requirements.

9.16 Under PPC8 planning rules provide for Pararekau Island to be subdivided into up to 11 countryside residential lots with identified building platforms. The identified building platforms are required to give particular recognition to the landscape characteristics of the coastal environment, existing open space, visual amenity values and cultural and archaeological values of Pararekau Island.

9.17 The PAUP as notified proposes a Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands Precinct. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for the subdivision and development of Pararekau Island for countryside living and to retain and enhance the ecology and character that contributes to the amenity of the area. Submissions relating to the precinct will be addressed in the Council’s evidence for Topic 081.

9.18 Urban development has occurred on the Hingaia coastal mainland in the Hingaia Harbourside Estate subdivision since PPC8 became operative. Those parts of the Hingaia Peninsula zoned FUZ under the PAUP have also been announced as Special Housing Areas.

9.19 Evidence updating and confirming the landscape values of the islands has been prepared by Peter Kensington, who prepared the 2010 landscape report, “Proposed Private Plan Change 8 Pararekau Island Countryside Living Zone Assessment of

Page 33 Landscape and Visual Effects Prepared for Papakura District Council” (by Boffa Miskell Ltd 24 June 2010).

9.20 Peter Kensington advises that he stands by the assessment and conclusions that he reached in June 2010 when he assessed the natural character, landscape and visual effects of PPC 8. He considers that Pararekau Island has a unique character which transpires from a combination of factors, including:

 the landform;

 the proximate context of the inner harbour coastal landscape;

 the visual relationship and proximity of the site to the residential and rural- lifestyle properties on the mainland to the south; and

 the strong vegetated “buffer” being provided by Kopuahingahinga Island and the mangroves.

9.21 Peter Kensington concludes that inclusion of the islands within the RUB and rezoning them to Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban would have adverse effects on natural character, landscape and visual amenity values for this sensitive coastal landscape.

9.22 Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands are of significance to mana whenua. Following PPC8 Court facilitated mediation, Council and Karaka Harbourside Estate Ltd (KHEL) agreed to jointly commission a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) from Ngati Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho and Te Akitai. The CIA was completed and circulated in June 2011. A Supplementary Report was provided on behalf of Ngati Pare Waiohua by Te Akitai Waiohua Trust and Pukaki Maori Marae Committee on 16 June 2011. An Addendum to the CIA was provided by Karl Flavell of Ngati Te Ata and Lucie Rutherford on 17 June 2011.

9.23 As a consequence of mediation and the CIA, the PPC8 Consent Order included a number of changes which addressed cultural and archaeological matters, including changes to provisions relating to access, subdivision, affected party status, and archaeological sites. The provision for alternative on-site wastewater disposal was removed to respect the sensitivity of the environment and Maori concerns with discharges into water bodies.

Page 34 9.24 Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands are within the area serviced by Veolia Water Limited (Veolia). Watercare have advised in the joint evidence of Mr David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Brian Stuart that there is limited local water supply wastewater network infrastructure capacity to service the islands.

9.25 Subdivision consent was granted in 2013 for two lots on Pararekau Island; a smaller lot containing the existing house, and a residue lot. To meet Section s224(c) conditions, Veolia Water Ltd had to confirm that the two lots are capable of being connected in the future to a public reticulated sewerage system and to a public water supply system when the public systems are operational. Stormwater rain gardens are required on Lot 1.

9.26 Watercare states that Veolia has advised that 11 lots would likely be serviceable from the existing local network (yet to be demonstrated by the developer). However local infrastructure augmentation would be required if rezoned to either Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban zone.

9.27 Pararekau Island is accessed across two privately owned causeways which link the islands to the mainland and are the subject of subdivision amalgamation conditions. A causeway is between the mainland and Kopuahingahinga Island and another causeway is between Kopuahingahinga Island and Pararekau Island.

9.28 Public access to the islands is provided via pedestrian access and cycleway easements in gross in favour of the Council. There is an esplanade strip around the perimeter of Pararekau Island.

9.29 Auckland Transport have advised in the Joint statement of evidence of Theunis Van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur that relying on a single road access (two causeways) generates risk in the event that this access is not available in future. They state that this could occur due to natural hazards (e.g. subsidence, sea level rise, earthquake), or prohibitive maintenance costs which would need to be shared between multiple owners of the causeways. While the above risks are private, Auckland Transport consider that there would be pressure on them to adopt and maintain the causeways as a public road in the event that they were unusable.

9.30 Auckland Transport have also advised that complex transport modelling for the Hingaia Special Housing Areas has not included Pararekau Island They advise that movements to the RUB would require the modelling to be updated, and that this

Page 35 would undermine confidence in the modelling undertaken to inform the transport improvements (such as widening Hingaia Road) and cost apportionment arrangements which are already significantly progressed (three plan variations have already been notified).

Response

9.31 I consider that the RUB location identified in the notified PAUP which specifically excludes Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands from the RUB is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the PAUP Regional Policy Statement.

9.32 The reason for this is because Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands have a unique coastal and non-urban character and this should be retained. The islands are an important sensitive environment visually, environmentally, and culturally, and therefore differentiated from urban zoned land on the mainland.

9.33 In addition, I consider that the PPC8 Consent Order provisions demonstrate that Pararekau Island is not suitable for intensive urban development. Given the recent thorough consideration of what the appropriate nature and scale of the future development of the islands should be, in my view the provisions of the PPC8 Consent Order should be retained and the islands’ characteristics retained and enhanced by their continued exclusion from the RUB.

10. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP

10.1 Sub-Group 2 – Flat Bush – The proposed RUB along 125 Murphys Road will be amended to align with the subdivision boundaries.

10.2 Sub-Group 3 - The site at 619 Oruarangi Road to be included within the RUB is an out of scope amendment which is considered necessary for the reasons outlined in paragraph 8.14-8.15 above.

11. CONCLUSION

11.1 For the reasons discussed in body of this joint statement of evidence, with respect to the Urban Edge group of RUB submissions we support:

Page 36 (a) the retention of the notified RUB at Point View Drive (Sub-group 1) except where mapping errors have been identified;

(b) the retention of the notified RUB at Flat Bush (sub-group 2), except where mapping errors have been identified;

(c) The retention of the RUB as notified at 1 Oruarangi Road and whereby it is not mapped along the coastline at Favona and Manukau (sub-group 3);

(d) Moving the RUB at Mangere Gateway to include 260 Ihumatao Road and 619 Oruarangi Road (sub-group 3); and

(e) the exclusion of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands from the RUB at Hingaia

Vrinda Moghe (Point View Drive, Flat Bush)

Danni Briggs (Mangere, Favona and Otahuhu)

Joy LaNauze (Hingaia)

15 October 2015

Page 37

ATTACHMENT A

Vrinda Moghe

Career Summary

Career Summary Period Organisation Role 2008- Auckland Council Principal Planner (former Manukau City (Southern Planning Unit/ Council) Unitary Plan Teams)

2006-2008 Duffill Watts & King Planner

2003- 2006 Maverick Solutions Director (Architectural and Planning Services) (Walker Architects, Miller Architects)

Qualifications

Master of Planning (Housing), (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, 2002), India

Bachelor of Architecture (Nagpur University, 2000), India

Affiliations

Associate Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

Danni Briggs

Career Summary

Career Summary Period Organisation Role 2015 - Auckland Council Planner (Southern Planning Unit)

2014 (June – Dec) London Borough of Planner Haringey

2014 (Feb – June) Westminster City Council Planner

2013 - 2014 London Borough of Planner Newham

2010 - 2011 City of Mandurah Statutory Town Planner

Qualifications

Bachelor of Science (Honours) (Urban and Regional Planning), University of Western Australia, 2010

Joy LaNauze

Career Summary:

Principal Planner employed by Auckland Council in the Planning South Unit.

Has 23 years New Zealand local authority planning experience.

Since June 2005 has undertaken planning work relating to the former Papakura District, which includes Hingaia. This includes organising and attending the Papakura District Council 2010 hearing for Private Plan Change 8 (Pararekau Island Country-Side Living Zone) and notifying Council’s decision in October 2010.

Since November 2010 work has also included some planning for the former Manukau and Franklin Districts

Qualifications: Bachelor of Town Planning from the University of Auckland.

Affiliations: Graduate Plus member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

ATTACHMENT B

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence

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 option position

2833-1 Ross Reid Limited South Retain RUB along Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Support Howick 2833-7 Ross Reid Limited General Reject Appendix 3.2.23 of the Section 32 report [Assessment of edge Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not requests for inclusion within the Rural Urban Boundary] to the extent Howick support that the PAUP is contrary to the report 2922-1 Point View Heritage South Rezone 178 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights, as Countryside Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not Society Living, as per the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, and maintain the RUB on Howick support Incorporated the line of the old Metropolitan Urban Limit 3680-1 David G Hand and South Amend the RUB to align with the western perimeter of the sensitive Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not 10 signatures ridge line of Point View Drive, Howick, to allow residential development Howick support - see Submission pages 3-10/10 for detail. 4233-1 Anh Nham South Retain 178 Point View Drive, East Tamaki within the Rural Urban Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Support Boundary. Howick 5292-1 Pa and Vilavan Lim South Amend the rural urban boundary and rezone 31 to 48 Kinmont Rise and Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not 9 Mangerton Lane, Howick, from Countryside Living to Mixed Housing Howick Support Suburban. 5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Support 3039 boundaries at 16 Kinmont Rise, Howick (LOT 6 DP 366946). Refer to Howick submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 750, Volume 21. 5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Support 3040 boundaries at 109 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights (LOT 2 DP Howick 319801). Refer to submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 751, Volume 21. 5997-1 T Knight South Amend the PAUP with regard to the Rural Urban Boundary, Sunnyhills Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not and Howick Ward. [No specific relief provided] Howick Support 6245-2 Vicki and Phillip South Rezone 178 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights, from Mixed Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not Lowe Housing Suburban [to Countryside Living]. Howick Support 7300-2 O Singh South Retain the Metropolitan Area 2010 Boundary in respect of the site at Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not 178 Point View Drive, Botany. Howick Support 962-1 David and Ailsa South Move the RUB to the top ridge of Point View Dr, East Tamaki Heights, Urban Edge East Tamaki and 1 Do not Bunker on the Botany (western) side of the road Howick Support

4291-2 MGM Limited South Retain location of RUB at Chateau Rise, East Tamaki. Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support 2410-1 Lai Yip and South Amend the RUB so that it follows the southern boundary of 568 Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support Huichan Pan Ormiston Road, Flatbush, and therefore contains the whole of this property, as indicated on Attachment 1 at Page 8/8 of submission. 3345-2 Meadowview South Rezone Flat Bust Sub Precinct area from Countryside Living to Large Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Do not Estates Limited Lot. support 3898-1 Morgan Family South Retain 19 Fairhall Place, Flat Bush, within the RUB. Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support Trust

5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support 3041 boundaries at 109 Adamson Road (LOT 600 DP 458456) and Section 3 SO 69996, Flat Bush. Refer to submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 752, Volume 21. 5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support 3042 boundaries at 27 Arrowsmith Drive, Flat Bush (LOT 2 DP 433698). Refer to submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 752, Volume 21. 5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Support 3043 boundaries at 30 Hilltop Road, Flat Bush (LOT 1 DP 433698). Refer to submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 752, Volume 21. 6872-2 Murphys South Amend RUB to include additional land in Flat Bush catchment. Refer to Urban Edge Flat Bush 2 Do not Development map on page 5/9 of the submission support Limited 5716- Auckland Council South Re-align the Rural Urban Boundary with the property and zone Urban Edge Takanini 2 Support 3046 boundaries at Redoubt Road and [1 and 3 Alexia Place, The Gardens (LOT 28 DP 410485, LOT 27 DP 410485)]. Refer to submission, Volume 4, page 17/35 and Attachment 755, Volume 21.

Favona Road Ensure RUB boundary near Favona Road, Favona and upper Manukau Rural and Coastal Mangere Do not 4001-5 Landowners South Harbour follows Mean High Water Spring Tides. settlement areas Urban Edge Gateway/Manukau 1 support Rezone 1 Oruarangi Road, Mangere from Light Industry to a Rural zone Mangere and Mangere Do not 5034-5 Roger A S Gummer South and exclude it from being within the RUB. Manukau Urban Edge Gateway/Manukau 2 support Auckland Include land at Mangere shown on the plan attached to the submission 5294- International Airport as Map 2 within the RUB. Refer to details in submission at page Mangere and Mangere 346 Limited South 164/218. Manukau Urban Edge Gateway/Manukau 3 Support Retain the absence of an 'Rural Urban Boundary' overlay at the Otahuhu Power Station site (located adjacent to State Highway 1 and Contact Energy the Tamaki River, Otara). Refer to the full submission for a map of the East Tamaki and Mangere 6084-7 Limited South site in Attachment A [page 34/36]. Howick Urban Edge Gateway/Manukau 1 Support 6386- Te Akitai Waiohua Delete Future Urban zoning around Otuataua Stonefields, Mangere. Mangere and Mangere Do not 229 Waka Taua Trust South Manukau Urban Edge Gateway/Manukau 3 support

1139-1 Plymouth Brethren South Retain 221 Park Estate Road Hingaia and adjoining land within the Urban Edge Hingaia Support Christian Church RUB. 3644-1 Karaka South Include Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands, Hingaia within the Urban Edge Hingaia Do not Harbourside Estate Rural Urban Boundary. support Limited 3644-2 Karaka South Rezone Pararekau Island, Hingaia from Countryside Living to Mixed Urban Edge Hingaia Do not Harbourside Estate Housing Urban. support Limited 3644-3 Karaka South Rezone along the course of the access road across the causeways and Urban Edge Hingaia Do not Harbourside Estate through the centre of Kopuahingahinga Island, Hingaia from support Limited Countryside Living to Mixed Housing Urban. 4856-1 Parklands South Retain Hingaia Peninsula including 72 Hinau Road, Hingaia within the Urban Edge Hingaia Support Properties Limited RUB 5259- Hugh Green South Retain 144, 152, 180, 200 and 252 Park Estate Road, Hingaia within Urban Edge Hingaia Support 137 Limited the RUB.

ATTACHMENT C

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria

Edge criteria Group1 - Howick- East Tamaki Group1 - Howick- East Group2 - Flat Bush Group 3 – Mangere, Group 3 – Mangere, Group 4 – Hingaia – Point View Drive Tamaki – Point View Drive Favona and Otahuhu Favona and Otahuhu

Sub-Group 2,4 Option 1 Sub-Group 3 Option 2 Sub Group 2 Sub Group 3 Expansion 2010 MUL alignment

1. Change is contiguous with existing Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes – the area is contiguous No – the MUL is on the urban area or Future Urban Zone as with an existing urban area mainland. Access to The extension sought is The extension sought is The extension sought is The area is contiguous with notified in the PAUP (Special Purpose – Airport) Pararekau Island from the contiguous to existing urban contiguous to existing urban contiguous to existing urban an existing urban area and Future Urban Zone. mainland is across a area. area. area. causeway, across Kopuahingahinga Island,

and across another causeway

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan No. Yes. No. No. Yes – will create a No Development Strategy (reflected in defensible RUB. The The extension does not meet The Auckland Plan The extension does not meet Will result in an isolated RPS policies / planning principles for Environment Court The islands are a sensitive the RPS policies and planning emphasises 70% growth to the core objective of the rural property and will not environment visually, the RUB) decision on Plan Change 14 principles for the RUB as it be contained within the 2010 Auckland Plan that create a defensible RUB. and Plan Change 13 to the culturally, and fails to meet the objective of a MUL. emphasises 70% growth to ARPS resulted in an environmentally, and are compact urban area with a be contained within the 2010 irregular RUB line. The therefore differentiated defensible RUB. MUL. changes will tidy this up by from the mainland creating a clear boundary The extension does not meet line. the RPS policies and planning principles for the RUB as it fails to meet the objective of a compact urban area with a defensible RUB.

3. Provides a defensible boundary Yes. Yes. No. No - will result in an Yes - the RUB line will be Yes – inclusion of the (based on water catchment isolated rural property. located along the Public islands in the RUB would Point View Drive can be Proposed RUB alignment The RUB identified by the boundaries, visual catchment Open Space boundary. present a defensible considered as a defensible along RL 64 (except at 178 submissions is not defined by boundary boundaries, major roads or transport boundary. Point View Drive) has been any landscape features or routes, land protected from accepted as a defensible roads and hence can be development / public reserves) boundary. considered as an arbitrary line.

4. Consistent with relevant legislation, Yes. Yes. Yes. No – the change would be Yes – the change would be No plans and policies (i.e. Waitakere inconsistent with Plan consistent with the intent There is no critical legislation There is no critical legislation There is no critical legislation NZ Coastal Policy Ranges Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf Change 14 and Plan Change of the Environment Court specific to the area concerned. specific to the area specific to the area 13 to the ARPS. decision on Plan Change 14 Statement: PPC8 addressed Marine Park, NZCPS, Treaty concerned. concerned. the preservation of the settlements) and Plan Change 13 to the ARPS and the associated EC coastal environment and decisions. These parcels of the protection from land were excluded from inappropriate subdivision, the MUL as they were out use and development through the proposed low

of scope of the appeals. density of development, controls on the location of development, and the external appearance and form of houses.

Between the time of the original landscape assessment for PPC8 and now, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has been replaced, with the new statement having stronger natural character and landscape policies than the earlier statement.

5. Consistent with the protection of No. Yes. No. Yes – will not impact the Yes - The Rennie No important environmental values and protection of the nearby Homestead (out of scope) Part of the area has been Maintains a clear buffer that Most of the area marked for coastal environment. is a Historic Heritage Place Urban development would avoids scheduled areas (i.e. SEA, marked as being within the visually contrasts with and urban development is under the PAUP. However impact on the islands’ ONL, HNC, ONF, significant sensitive ridgeline overlay. contains the urban located with the sensitive if the property is zoned landscape characteristics of environment to the west. ridgeline overlay and part of Future Urban, a structure the coastal environment, indigenous vegetation, heritage The well vegetated buffer that the area is also identified as a plan would be required for existing open space, visual sites) visually contrasts with and Maintains landform integrity. significant ecological area. future development which amenity values and on contains the urban would ensure the archaeological and cultural environment to the west may Potential to create an protection of a significant heritage values be significantly diminished. elevated, well-vegetated heritage building. Considerable landform buffer that visually contrasts Neither Kopuahingahinga modification may be required. with and contains the urban nor Pararekau Island have environment to the west been included as either a Amenity and Urban form - may be significantly Coastal Natural Character Development may result in a diminished. Area, an Outstanding poor urban structure with Natural Feature, or an poor street connectivity and Significant land modification Outstanding Natural poor street interface for sites. may be required that Landscape. However the diminishes the natural PAUP’s schedule of Notable landscape patterns of the Trees includes a tree fern area. (#2286) on the western side of Kopuahingahinga Amenity and urban form - Island and four due to existing land tenure pohutukawa trees (#2287) pattern and geotechncial on the south-eastern side constraints, urban of Pararekau Island. subdivision of area may result in poor urban structure with poor connectivity to Redoubt Road corridor and requirement for extensive land modification/retaining

structures and poor inter property site relationships.

6. Provides for the relationship of No. No. No. Yes – will not impact the Yes. The site is in close No Maori and their culture and nearby cultural significant proximity to the stonefields Consultation on the Edge Consultation on the Edge Consultation on the Edge Following PPC8 traditions with ancestral lands, sites. and has multiple Sites and requests identified Mana requests identified Mana requests identified Mana Environment Court water, sites, waahi tapu Places of Value to Mana Whenua consider the ridgeline Whenua consider the Whenua consider the Whenua on the southern mediation, a Cultural to have significant cultural ridgeline to have significant ridgeline to have significant end of the property. If the Impact Assessment was value. cultural value. cultural value. land is zoned Future Urban, prepared. a structure plan would be The subsequent PPC8 required for future Consent Order provisions development which would reflect the outcome of ensure the protection of litigation relating to the culturally significant cultural and archaeological areas. However it is still matters. considered that this proposed will have an The Consent Order impact on Mana Whenua. included a number of In regards to the changes which addressed stonefields, there is already cultural and archaeological Future Urban Zoned land in matters, including changes between the stonefields to provisions relating to and the subject site and access, subdivision, therefore it is not affected party status, and considered that this change archaeological sites. A would have an impact. provision for alternative on-site wastewater disposal was removed to respect the sensitivity of the environment and Maori concerns with discharges into water bodies.

7. Avoids areas subject to natural No. Yes. No. Yes – land not affected by No - the land is located on Yes – esplanade strip hazard areas where possible the flood plain. the coast and is subject to established partly in The ridge will require major The ridge will require major (flooding, instability, liquefaction) the flood plain overlay. The response to coastal erosion stability works if the area was stability works if the area area is designated to be urbanised. was urbanised. used as a landscape buffer for the airport and The catchment management therefore flooding will not plan for Flat Bush will have have an impact on the use. be reconsidered if the upper catchment was to be urbanised as urbanisation could lead to loss of stormwater management areas.

8. Avoids productive land (elite and Yes. Yes. Yes. Land has elite soils No – the land has elite Yes prime soils), significant mineral however the change is soils. However the No prime soils have been No prime soils have been No prime soils have been resources, aquifers and recharge proposed to rural. Environment Court identified within the identified within the identified within the

areas (particularly where required catchment. catchment. catchment. decision concluded that the for rural production) land in this area in not viable for farming due to the close proximity to urban land uses.

9. Contributes to the effective and No. Yes. No. No – the site is currently No – the site is currently No efficient provision and use of unserviced unserviced. There is local Additional development will No additional upgrades or Additional development will Auckland Transport infrastructure (transport, social water and wastewater create greater pressures on funding will be required. create greater pressures on supply capacity but future consider that relying on a infrastructure, water and existing roading network and existing roading network and single road access wastewater) development would need water infrastructure and will water infrastructure and will to be staged and local (comprised of two generates additional demand generates additional demand distribution infrastructure causeways) generates risks on funding. on funding. upgraded. As this parcel of in that the event that this land is designated as a access is not available in landscape buffer for the future. airport, lack of Watercare Services Ltd infrastructure would not state that Veolia has have an impact. advised that 11 lots would likely be serviceable from the existing local network. However local infrastructure augmentation would be required if rezoned to either Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban zone.

Cultural issues with on-site wastewater disposal

10. Offers opportunities for particular Yes. No. Yes. No – the change would No – part of the airport Yes – for limited types or mix of types of residential / rezone the property to designation. Countryside Living as Given the topography, Given the topography, business development rural. specified under PPC8. landscape values associated landscape values associated with the area, geotech issues with the area, geotech issues and infrastructure constraints and infrastructure (roading and water) the best constraints (stormwater, zoning option is considered to wastewater and roading) the be Large Lot zone or best zoning option is Countryside Living zone. considered to be Large Lot zone or Countryside Living zone.

11. Land use continuity and Yes. No Yes. Yes – adjacent to light Yes – adjacent land is No compatibility - does not conflict with industrial land. The change zoned for airport purposed Aligning the RUB with top of The surrounding land is rural. Residential development adjoining land uses, scale enables would create an isolated and Future Urban. The Point View Drive will provide Urbanisation along Redoubt on the mainland should not integrated planning rural property. subject land will act as a continuity as land to the north ridge could lead to a hard buffer between the two. extend onto and alter the and south of the area subject urban edge that would unique character of the to submissions has been fully create a conflict with adjacent islands

urbanised. surrounding rural area due to a lack of transition area.

Attachment D

Section 32AA Assessment where change Group 3 Mangere Gateway

Status Quo – Proposed line Option 1 Option 2 Description / Map Keep RUB as notified PAUP Include Auckland International Airport designated land at Shift the RUB to the coastline. 260 Ihumatao Road and the Rennie Homestead site at 619 Oruarangi Road within the RUB.

Costs (environmental, social,  Does not provide a defensible RUB.  Adjacent land has significant heritage, cultural and  Majority of land subject to change is out of scope of cultural, economic)  Results in isolated rural properties. historic values. submissions.

  Covers productive land with elite soils. Subject land has significant heritage, cultural and historic values.

Benefits (environmental, social,  Will meet the wishes of some of the community who  Land is not currently used for rural purposes which  Best option for creating a clear defensible RUB. cultural, economic) wish to see limited change. would unlikely change in the future.  Would include the currently isolated properties into

 Would create a clear defensible RUB. the RUB.  Would include the currently isolated rural properties into the RUB. Efficiency and effectiveness of  Does not achieve the objective of creating a clear  Creates a clear defensible limit (RUB).  Creates a clear defensible limit (RUB). achieving the objective defensible limit (RUB). Risks (if there is uncertain or  N/A  Out of scope change subject to appeals.  Out of scope changes are subject to appeals. insufficient information)

Attachment E

Map of proposed change to RUB

Group 1 – East Tamaki

16 Kinmont Rise, East Tamaki

109 Point View Drive , East Tamaki

Group 2 – Flat Bush

109 Adamson Road , Flat Bush, 27 Arrowsmith Drive, Flat Bush

30 Hilltop Road, Manukau, 1& 3 Alexia Place, Manukau

568 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush

125 Murphy’s Road, Flat Bush

Group 3 – Mangere Gateway