I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on:
Date: Tuesday 30 January, Wednesday 31 January and Thursday 1 February 2018 Time: 9.30am Meeting Room: Reception Lounge Venue: Level 2, Auckland Town Hall 301-303 Queen Street, Auckland
HEARING AGENDA - VOLUME TWO PLAN CHANGE 4 - CORRECTIONS TO TECHNICAL ERRORS AND ANOMALIES IN THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN OPERATIVE IN PART
COMMISSIONERS
Chairperson David Mead Commissioners Cherie Lane Basil Morrison
Leerina Savage HEARINGS ADVISOR
Telephone: 09 890 7634 or 021 719 620 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a decision of Council. Should commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please contact the hearings advisor. WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the commissioners and council staff and will briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair.
Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori or speak in sign language should advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided.
Catering is not provided at the hearing. Please note that the hearing may be audio recorded.
Scheduling submitters to be heard
A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Hearing Procedure
The usual hearing procedure (as specified in the Resource Management Act) is: • (Public plan change) The reporting officer may be asked to provide a brief overview of the plan change. • Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer’s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission. • Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your submission please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter. • Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is permitted at the hearing. • After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification. • The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their representatives leave the room. The hearing panel will then deliberate “in committee” and make its decision by way of formal resolution. You will be informed in writing of the decision and the reasons for it. Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018
A NOTIFIED PLAN CHANGE TO THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL UNITARY PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
Reporting officer’s report 13-268
Attachment 1 Allocation of Submission Topics to Council Planners 269-272
Attachment 2 Relevant sections of the RMA 1991 273-290
Attachment 3 Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) and Further 291-334 Submissions Spreadsheet
Attachment 4 Submissions reproduced as a separate volume
Attachment 5 Recommended Changes (text and diagrams) 335-506
Attachment 6 Recommended Changes (spatial changes in the AUP 507-594 GIS Viewer)
Attachment 7 Recommended Changes (land zoned for open space) 595-596
Attachment 8 Section 32 Evaluation Report (includes attachments 1-5) 597-678
Attachment 9 Section 32 Evaluation Report (includes attachments 6-30) 679-718
Attachment 10 Notified - Text and Diagrams 719-878
Attachment 11 Notified - Spatial Changes in the AUP GIS Viewer 879-962
Attachment 12 Notified - Attachment 35 Drury South Industrial Precinct 963-988 Appendix
Attachment 13 Notified - Vested Land to be Rezoned Spreadsheet 989-994
Attachment 14 Notified - Vested Land Map Changes North 995-1152
Attachment 15 Notified - Vested Land Map Changes Central 1153-1170
Attachment 16 Notified - Vested Land Map Changes South 1171-1296
Attachment 17 Notified - Vested Land Map Changes West 1297-1398
Attachment 18 Correspondence Recievied on Specific Submissions with 1399-1422 Submitters
Attachment 19 Correspondence Received from Submitter and Proposed 1423-1466 Tracked-Changes on I614 Wainamu Precinct
Page 3 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Reporting officer, Gurv Singh, Tony Reidy, Juliana Cox, Jasmin Kaur, Tara Hurley, Sorcha Peren, Todd Elder, Kimberley Edmonds, Ewen Patience, Roger Eccles, Sisira Jayasinghe, Ezra Barwell
Reporting on proposed Plan Change 4: Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)
SUBMITTERS: Page numbers below relate to separate submissions agenda Page 12 Gary James and Barbara PO Box 58580 Botany Cross Page 14 Beachlands Junction LTD Zomac Planning Solutions P.O. Box 103 LTD Whangaparaoa Page 18 Robert McCallum 17 Liston Crescent Cockle Bay Page 22 Jemma Schonhof 6B Ridge Road Howick Page 24 D. Harrison 47 Pohutukawa Ave Shelly Park Page 26 K.Harrison 47 Pohutukawa Ave Shelly Park Page 28 Meg Gallagher Caldwell 44 Uxbridge Road Mellons Bay Page 30 Bronwyn Shelley ade 2 Cyclades Place Shelly Park Page 32 Howard Colin Tisdall 54 Cheriton Road Mellons Bay Page 34 Diane Beverley Tisdall 54 Cheriton Road Mellons Bay Page 36 Ian Williamson 2/101 Macleans Road Bucklands Beach Page 38 Sally Ann Barclay 8/23 Wellington St Howick Page 40 Ruth Elizabeth Hammond 24 Cockle Bay Road Howick Page 42 Rebecca Foster 252 Mangakahu Valley RD 4 Road Taumarunui Page 44 Max Allen 26 fir street Waterview Page 46 Fay Bellamy 79B Wellington Street Page 48 Tina Patricia Brown 8 Cosy Place Howick Page 50 Blair Botherway 41 Granger Road Howick Page 52 Shane McLennan 3/23 Liston Crescent Cockle bay, Howick Page 54 Robert pollard ainsworth PO Box 39144 Howick Page 56 Jayne Beacham 2/35 Pah Rd Cockle bay Page 58 Maxwell Allen Christiansen P.O. Box 38378 Howick Page 60 Judith Lindsay McDonald 109D Pah Road Cockle Bay Page 62 Sandra Scott 19E/1 Paparoa Rd Cockle Bay Page 64 Alarna Thompson 32 Pandora place Pakuranga Page 66 Wendy Morris PO Box 22 Pauanui Page 68 David Edmund Smith 30A Waterloo St Howick Page 70 Philippa Wheatcroft 86 Marine Parade Howick Page 72 John Procter 5 Seneca Court Golflands Page 74 Edward Douglas evans 156 Bradbury road Howick
Page 4 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 76 Ocean Numan 67 Wakelin Road Beachlands Page 78 Annette Mary Stewart 24 Beach Road Mellons Bay Page 80 Gail Stubbins 33A Gibraltar Street Howick Page 82 Christoph Muller 23A Luplau Crescent Cockle Bay Page 84 Cora Jean Young 55 Rodney St Howick Page 86 Catherine Maclean 39 Sorrel Crescent Bucklands Beach Page 88 Paul Lowman 9 Nimrod Place Half Moon Bay Page 90 Brian King 24 Tainui Rd Cockle Bay Page 92 Dorothy Elizabeth Gaunt 9C Beach road Mellons Bay, Page 96 Wayne Oakley 26 Fieldstone Court Northpark Page 98 Alan Mincher 2/34 Devon Rd Bucklands Beach Page 102 David Mallowes 100 Mellons Bay Rd Howick Page 106 Merilyn Mallowes 100 Mellons Bay Rd Howick Page 108 Leonard William Painter 18 Gibson Place Mellons Bay Page 110 David Morell Stevenson 64A Mirrabooka Avenue Botany Page 112 Laraine Jane Mills 1A Tanglewood Place Cockle Bay Page 114 Alan Steele 5 Miller Road Mangere Bridge
Page 116 Christine Keeling 18 Tanglewood Place Cockle Bay Page 118 Terry Turner 39 Gillett Pl Botany Downs Page 120 Sharon Fisher 6 The Glebe Cockle Bay Page 122 Marie Hillary 80 Beach Rd Howick Page 124 Mark Hillary 80 Beach Rd Howick Page 126 Lisa Gaylene Talbot 9 Chilton Place Howick Page 128 Rhys Talbot 9 Chilton Place Howick Page 130 Liam Rhys Talbot 9 Chilton Place Howick Page 132 Anna Elizabeth Talbot 9 Chilton Place Howick Page 134 Jennifer Pitches 12 Cockle Bay Road Howick
Page 136 Spark New Zealand Trading Spark New Zealand CBD Limited Trading Limited PO BOX 92028 Page 140 Lisa Coetzee 15 Howe Street Howick Page 143 Christopher John Irwin 61 Bleakhouse Rd Howick Page 145 Glendale Van der Maas PO Box 39576 Howick Page 147 Emma Jeffery C/- 1/75 Evelyn Road Howick Page 149 Andrea Blondel 23b Luplau Crescent Howick Page 151 Shona Macleod 4 Seymour Road Mellons Bay Page 153 Brooke Williams 32b Selwyn Road Cockle bay
Page 5 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 155 Agnes Thomas 2/42 Howe St Howick Page 157 Sofia Ang 27 Windsong Court Northpark Page 159 Ethan 7/55 Cook Street Howick Page 161 Tessa Clarke 46 Parkhill Road Howick Page 163 Amy Morrissey 160 Mellons Bay Road Howick Page 165 Ryan Anthony Mason 126a Wellington Street Howick Page 167 Shanika Liang 139 Tasman street Mount Cook Page 169 Lorraine Wilson 24 Lilybank Crescent East Tamaki Page 171 Michelle Hull 41a Bleakhouse Road Howick Page 173 Maddison Palmer 46 Neilson Street Howick Page 175 Robert James Voulk 141 Bleakhouse Rd Howick Page 177 David Grant Hand 137 Cook Street Howick Page 179 Dudley Arthur 23 Elmsway, Ashford, Middx
Page 181 J.L.Hinson Po Box 39173 Howick Page 183 James Henry Bernhard 10 Liam Place Half Moon Bay Page 185 Amanda Weaver 26 Hattaway Ave Bucklands Beach Page 187 Grant Robertson Unit 23, 172 Barrier Reef Mermaid Drive Waters QLD
Page 189 Daniel Lucas 100 Beach Road Mellons Bay Page 191 Penny Henning 17 Covina Place Somerville Page 193 Cheryl Barnett 2/36 Clydesdale Ave Somerville Page 195 Peter Barry 11 Bretton Lane Mellons Bay Page 197 Barbara & Jon Marwick 13 Bledisloe Street Cockle Bay Page 199 Tricia Burns 75 Millen Ave Pakuranga
Page 201 Shahina Oberoi 35 Fortunes Rd Half Moon Bay Page 202 Bernarda Sheppard PO Box 39019 Howick Page 204 David Sheppard PO Box 39019 Howick Page 206 Diane & Graeme Lane 90 Mellon’s Bay Road
Page 208 Kate Rynbeck 16 Patrons road Howick Page 211 Tania Haime 120 Pigeon Mountain Half Moon Bay Road Page 213 Verdant green ltd 157 Aviemore Drive Highland Park Page 215 Elizabeth Louise Hamblin 161 Bleakhouse Road Howick Page 217 Steve Savage 30 Montgomery Cres Cockle Bay Page 219 Julie Todd 30 Falstaff Place Half Moon Bay
Page 221 Sandra Good 96 Gills Rd Bucklands Beach Page 223 Leighton Gosnell 15 Willowbank Close East Tamaki
Page 6 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Heights Page 225 Andrew Barr 17 Maroubra Place Botany Downs Page 227 Howick Ratepayers and Howick Ratepayers and PO Box 38370 Residents Assn Inc Residents Assn Inc. Howick Page 229 Bethany Deborah Brown 4 Struan Place Highland Park Page 231 Euan Lavis Round 3 Camwell Close Bucklands Beach Page 233 Andrea Christine Round 3 Camwell Close Bucklands Beach Page 235 William Knighting Unit 1/ 50 Moore Street Howick Page 237 The Nakhle Investment Trust 420 Airfield Road Papakura
Page 239 Manukau Quarries Limited 420 Airfield Road Papakura
Page 244 Margaret West 72 Beach Road Howick Page 246 Geoffey West 72 Beach Road Howick Page 248 Beachlands Avenues Limited PO Box 16 Warkworth
Page 251 Elizabeth Anne Edwards 28 Pohutukawa Avenue Howick Page 253 Karaka North Village PO Box 5760, Wellesley Auckland Street Page 258 Andries Popping 6 Mellons Bay Howick Page 260 Kevin Taylor 2/14 Eastridge Court Howick Page 262 Denis and Lencia Denton 173B Cook Street Howick Page 265 Osborne Hay (North) Ltd PO Box 16 Warkworth
Page 267 HLC (2017) Limited PO Box 5760 Wellesley Street Page 271 Di Wood 13 Eclipse Place Half Moon Bay Page 273 Colin Marshall 2A Endymion Place Half Moon Bay Page 275 Clevedon Cruising Club INC. P.O. Box 202197 Southgate Page 277 TONEA Investments (NZ) P.O. Box 3426 Shortland Limited Street Page 279 Praveen Dasarathi 12A Sturdee Road Manurewa Page 292 Nicky McCormick 59b Moore St Howick
Page 294 Eman Asaad 14 Roxborough Place East Tamaki Heights Page 296 Dulcie Emma Hobson 9B Abercrombie St Howick Page 298 Penny Anson 39 Grange Road Mt Eden Page 300 Brian Kinsman 32 Drake Street Howick Page 302 Na Wang 22 Mellons Bay Road Howick Page 304 Francis John Ramsey 493 Whitford Road Howick RD1 Page 306 Kingseat Group P 0 Box 63 Shortland Street Page 309 Envoco Ltd P.O.Box 393 Papakura
Page 7 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 311 Frances Joy Oxford 5a Solana Court Botany Downs Page 313 Dianne Elizabeth Giles P.O. Box 183 Clevedon Page 315 David Morell Stevenson 64A Mirrabooka Avenue Botany Page 317 Kok Seng & Janice Lee 2/175 Cook Street Howick Page 318 Anand Nair 4A Ridge Road Howick Page 320 Janet Stevenson 37 Ridge Road Howick Page 322 UP Management Limited and PO Box 1509 Auckland Waiwera Properties Limited Page 327 Robert Gordon Finley 63 Parkhill Rd Howick Page 329 Shuk Yee Lau 152A Aviemore Drive Highland Park Page 331 Trevor Giles P.O. Box 183 Clevedon Page 333 Bledisloe Property Group P O Box 147001 Ponsonby Limited Page 339 Anna Maria Roestenburg 67 Cook St Howick Page 341 Matvin Group Limited PO Box 1986 Shortland Street Page 343 Kordia Limited 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 1509 Page 400 Television New Zealand 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Limited Box 1509 Page 457 THE ASCOT HOSPITAL AND PO Box 4492 Shortland Auckland CLINICS Street LIMITED Page 466 Phillip Charles and Victoria 340 Point View Drive Shamrock Park Louise Lowe Page 468 Bush Park Development Ltd 57 Te Pene Road Maraetai Page 475 Jeffrey Lee & Karen Elizabeth 54 Coulter Road Henderson Matthews Valley Page 539 Avondale Jockey Club PO Box 147001 Ponsonby Incorporated Page 545 Fisk Madsen Trust 14 Hall Street Pukekohe Page 552 Wendy Petersen 21 Juliet ave. Howick Page 554 Horticulture New Zealand Level 19 Shortland 48 Emily Place Street PO Box 1585 Page 557 Axis Consultants Limited PO Box 34 658 Birkenhead Page 560 V Farman 8A Robbies Rd Shelly park
Page 562 Phillip Collin and Ruth 21 Needham Road Paerata Margaret Sinclair Page 573 Malcolm John and Penney 15 Needham Road, RD 2 Drury, Paerata Lorraine Beal Page 575 Orua View Company Limited 168 Stone fields Avenue Stonefields
Page 577 Philip Lawrence and Sharon 333 Tuhimata Rd Paerata Lesley Hardie Page 579 Catherine Linton 3/24 Selwyn Road Cockle Bay
Page 8 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 581 Susan Marie Eccersall 1 Cleary Terrace Howick Page 583 Thomas Eccersall 1 Cleary Terrace Howick Page 585 James Scott Clifford 38B Elliot Street Howick Page 587 Department of Conservation Level 4, 73 Rostrevor Hamilton Street Page 593 Janette Lee Clifford 38B Elliot Street Howick Page 595 The National Trading The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Company of New Zealand Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Limited Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 599 Viaduct Harbour Holdings The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Limited Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 604 Kiwi Property Group Limited The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland and Kiwi Property Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 608 Northcote RD1 Holdings The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Limited and W Smale Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 612 Department of Corrections Private Box 1206 Wellington Page 616 The University of Auckland PO Box 1986 Shortland Street Page 619 Vernon Howard and Barbara 56a Needham Road, RD2 Drury, Paerata Ellis Page 621 Mansons TCLM Limited PO Box 91250 Auckland Page 623 Federated Farmers of New Private Box 92 - 066 Auckland Zealand Page 625 Carol Ann Clarke 3/55 Moore Street Howick Page 627 Judi Robin Longdill 16 Burford Place Mellons Bay Page 629 Sarah Marie Laing 7 Liston Crescent Cockle Bay
Page 631 Peter Bankers 13 Judkins Crescent Cockle Bay Page 633 Joanne Hand 137 Cook Street Howick Page 635 David Hand 137 Cook Street Howick Page 637 AV Jennings Hobsonville Pty PO Box 147001 Ponsonby Limited Ponsonby Page 646 Ministry of Education PO Box 6345 , Wellesley Auckland Street Page 649 CivilPlan Consultants Ltd PO Box 97796 Manukau City Page 670 The Wheeler Family The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 677 Box Property Limited P.O. Box 4013, Shortland Auckland Street Page 680 Dougal Laing 7 Liston Crescent Howick
Page 9 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 682 Pine Harbour Marina Limited PO Box 60-240 Titirangi Page 695 Orewa West Investments PO Box 60-240 Titirangi Limited Page 700 Te Arai North Limited PO Box 91250 CBD Page 706 The Warehouse Limited’s PO Box 33470 Takapuna Page 708 Anthony Robert 4/48A Exmouth Road Northcote Page 713 Clevedon Waterways Ltd PO Box 90842, Victoria Auckland Street West Page 719 Te Arai South Holdings Limited PO Box 91250 CBD, Auckland Page 725 Build Rich Limited PO Box 1986 CBD, Auckland Page 727 Roman Catholic Bishop of the PO Box 47020 Ponsonby Diocese of Auckland Page 785 Diocesan School for Girls PO Box 47020 Ponsonby Page 804 Housing New Zealand The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Corporation Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 824 Summerset Villages PO Box 37-359, Parnell (Hobsonville) Limited Page 826 Craig Allan Robertson 42 Moore Street Howick Page 828 Universal Homes Limited PO Box 90842, Victoria Auckland Street West Page 834 Vector Limited 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 840 Scentre (New Zealand) Ltd 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 844 Heritage New Zealand PO Box 105 291 Auckland City Pouhere Taonga Page 847 Auckland International Airport 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Limited Box 8 Page 851 Laurence Slee 3 Estuary Views Shelly Park Page 853 Cockle Bay Residents and 3 Estuary Views Shelly Park Ratepayers Association Page 855 Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai PO Box 1986, Shortland Auckland Rawa Ltd Street Page 860 Progressive Enterprises Ltd 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 864 Bunnings Limited 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 868 Winstone Aggregates 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 871 Drury South Limited 48 Shortland Street, PO Auckland Box 8 Page 876 Orewa West Investments PO Box 60-240 Titirangi Limited Page 881 Catherine Priscott PO Box 39090 Howick
Page 883 Derek Priscott PO Box 39090 Howick
Page 10 Plan Modification 4 - Plan Change 4 Date: TUESDAY 30 JANUARY, WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY AND THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2018 Page 885 Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki PO Box 91689, Victoria Auckland Makaurau Authority Street West Page 891 SFH Consultants Limited PO Box 86 Orewa Page 910 Pararekau Holding Ltd PO Box 86 Orewa Page 927 Daniel and Louise Shaw PO Box 86 Orewa Page 960 Northbridge Properties Limited PO Box 86 Orewa Page 986 Candleford Green Ltd PO Box 517 Pukekohe Page 995 Brookland TMT P.O. Box 2 Clevedon Page 999 Janet Dickson 2/24 Selwyn Road Cockle Bay Page 1001 Life Centre Limited PO Box 46 015 Herne bay
FURTHER SUBMITTERS: Page 1004 Spark New Zealand Trading PO Box 92028 Auckland 1010 Limited (Spark) Page 1008 CE & SE Tickle Family Trust 55 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Page 1010 BT & JE Blackmore Family 49 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Trust Page 1012 Archibald Campbell 49 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe McPherson & Susan Anne McPherson Page 1018 The G&C Wharfe Family 57 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Trust Page 1024 Scott Nicholas & Gillian 51 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Rachel Beatson Page 1029 Robin Louis Peach 1 Four Trees Cockle Bay Page 1031 Howard Colin Tisdall 54 Cheriton Road Mellons Bay Page 1033 Micheal James Felton 41 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Page 1037 Andries Popping 6 Mellons Bay Road Howick Page 1039 Universal Homes Limited PO Box 90842, Victoria Auckland Street West Central 1142
Page 1048 Vector Limited Russell McVeagh, Vero Auckland Centre, 48 Shortland Central 1140 Street, PO Box 8 Page 1052 TŪPUNA MAUNGA O PO Box 91689, Victoria Auckland TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Street West AUTHORITY Page 1055 Housing New Zealand The offices of Ellis Gould, Auckland Corporation Level 17, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 1509 Page 1075 Donald Alexander and gail 53 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Elizabeth Holmes Page 1085 Bruce William Moana 47 Lough Bourne Drive Pukekohe Wilson
Page 11
Page 12 ATTACHMENT SEVEN
RECOMMENDED CHANGES (LAND ZONED FOR OPEN SPACE)
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Appendix 7
Recommended Changes to Vested Land to be rezoned
There are no recommended changes to vested land to be rezoned upon review of submissions received to PC4.
I recommend that the PC4 attachments as notified be accepted. These attachments are included to the Hearing Report as Appendixes 13-17.
595 596 ATTACHMENT EIGHT
SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT (INCLUDES ATTACHMENTS 1-5)
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Proposed Plan Change 4 (PC4) Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) version
SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT
Updated 8 December 2017
Advice note: Please read the ‘How to guide’ on the Proposed Plan Change 4 prior to reading any of the reports and attachments. This guide will help you to navigate through the material and find technical errors and anomalies in Proposed Plan Change 4 and its attachments.
1
597 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 5 1 Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Why we do a section 32 evaluation? ...... 6 1.2 The evaluation approach...... 6 2 Issues ...... 8 2.1 Background...... 8 2.2 Assessment of errors and outputs considered ...... 9 2.3 The resource management issue to be addressed...... 16 3 Objectives ...... 20 4 Development and evaluation of options ...... 20 4.1 Development of options ...... 20 4.2 Evaluation of options ...... 22 5 Reasons for the proposed plan change ...... 30 5.1 Reasons for the preferred option ...... 30 5.2 Scope of PC4 ...... 30 5.3 Errors / anomalies that are beyond the scope of PC4 ...... 33 6 Statutory Evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of the Resource Management Act (RMA) ...... 36 6.1 Part 2 of the RMA ...... 36 6.2 Relevant sections of the RMA ...... 36 6.3 Sections 86B–86G of the RMA ...... 38 7 National and Regional Planning Context ...... 41 7.1 National Coastal Policy Statement ...... 41 7.2 National Policy Statements ...... 41 7.3 National Environment Standards ...... 41 7.4 National Planning Standards ...... 42 7.5 Other Acts ...... 43 7.5.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ...... 43 7.5.1 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2008 ...... 43 7.5.2 Local Government Act 2002 ...... 44 7.5.3 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 ...... 44 7.5.4 Reserves Act 1977 ...... 45 7.5.5 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 ...... 45 7.5.6 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 ...... 45
2
598 7.5.7 Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 ...... 46 7.6 The Auckland Plan ...... 46 7.7 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part version) (AUP) ...... 46 7.8 Iwi Management Plans ...... 48 7.9 Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau 2014 ...... 48 8 Development of the Proposed Plan Change ...... 50 8.1 Assessment of errors (recap) ...... 50 8.2 Methodology and development of PC4 ...... 50 8.2.1 Overall methodology ...... 50 8.2.2 Review of technical errors and anomalies in Schedule 12 for inclusion into PC4 (methodology) ...... 53 8.2.3 Review of technical errors and anomalies in Schedule 14.1 for inclusion into PC4 (methodology) ...... 53 8.2.4 Review of recently vested land for a proposed zone change in PC4 (methodology) ...... 54 8.3 Information Used ...... 59 8.4 Consultation ...... 60 8.4.1 Summary of general consultation undertaken ...... 60 8.4.2 Consultation with iwi authorities ...... 60 8.4.3 Consultation with submitters ...... 62 9 Evaluation of individual issues and provisions ...... 64 10 Conclusion ...... 68 List of Attachments ...... 69 Glossary...... 71 Glossary of Māori Terms ...... 72
3
599 List of abbreviations
AUP Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part) Council Auckland Council DP / dp District Plan GB Governing Body (Auckland Council) HASHA Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 HGMPA Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 HNZPTA Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 HSNOA Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 IHP (or the Panel) Independent Hearings Panel IMPs Iwi Management Plans LGA Local Government Act 2002 LGATPA Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 MHS Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (in the AUP) MHU Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (in the AUP) NCPS National Coastal Policy Statement NESs National Environment Standards NPS National Policy Statement OS Open Space PAUP Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan PC4 Proposed Plan Change 4 PLA Planning Committee (Auckland Council) RA Reserves Act 1977 RCP / rcp Regional Coastal Plan RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RPS / rps Regional Policy Statement (within the Auckland Unitary Plan) SCRCA The Soil Conservation and River Controls Act 1941 THAB Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (in the AUP) WRHPA Waitākere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2008
4
600 Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to summarise the evaluation undertaken as part of the preparation of Proposed Plan Change 4 (PC4) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP), as required by section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘RMA’).
The key objective of PC4 is to correct technical errors and anomalies within the AUP (except for the regional coastal plan provisions).
In accordance with Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the RMA, and section 32, this evaluation report has been prepared to determine the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency as well as the costs and benefits of PC4. This report determines that a plan change to the AUP is the most appropriate option for correcting these errors and anomalies. It summarised that correcting these technical errors and anomalies together in one plan change to the AUP:
• is effective, as it better aligns with its relevant objectives, policies and purpose of the RMA; • is efficient, as the potential for users to interpret these provisions incorrectly is reduced; and • is appropriate, as the AUP will function more efficiently and productively with the correction of these errors. PC4 is the first ‘administrative’ plan change to the AUP. Majority of the technical errors and anomalies within PC4 show that the nature and degree of change is limited to a specific part of the AUP that is causing ambiguity.
PC4 does not seek to alter the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the AUP. Neither does it introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, and zoning, or any new additions to the maps or schedules from what is already included in the AUP. The policy approach, their purpose and function remains unchanged, and this report does not evaluate these unchanged purposes and functions in any more detail.
The PC4 is shown in Attachments 31-34 and 36-40.
5
601 1 Introduction
This report is prepared as part of the evaluation required by section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the RMA’) for proposed Plan Change 4 (PC4) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).
1.1 Why we do a section 32 evaluation?
In order to give effect to the RMA, the council must carry out a number of different functions. This includes the establishment, implementation and review of objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. The council has satisfied this function by establishing and implementing (in part) the AUP, which comprises all of a regional policy statement, regional plan and regional coastal plan and district plan.
Prior to publically notifying a proposed plan change to any planning document, an evaluation under section 32 of the RMA (section 32 evaluation report) must be completed. A section 32 evaluation report examines:
• The extent to which the objectives of the proposals being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA – these are specific objectives being introduced or amended, or the purpose of the proposals (if they do not relate to specific objectives); and • Whether the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives – these are the specific policies that implement, or give effect to, the objectives of the proposals.
This report will outline the requirements of section 32 in more detail. Due to the large number of sections referenced in this report and the sizes of the sections of the RMA, the council recommends readers to view the RMA online1. Attachment 1 provides a web-link to the RMA.
1.2 The evaluation approach
This section outlines how PC4 has been evaluated. The rest of this report will follow the evaluation approach described in the table below. In accordance with section 32(6) of the RMA and for the purposes of this report:
i. the ‘proposal’ means PC4; ii. the ‘objectives’ means the purpose of the proposal (PC4); and iii. the ‘provisions’ means the policies, rules, zoning or other methods that implement, or give effect to the objectives of the proposal.
The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules, zoning and other methods. PC4 is not altering the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the AUP.
1 Best to view the Act and any other Acts on the New Zealand Legislation website www.legislation.govt.nz
6
602 This evaluation report on PC4 is targeted at corrections of errors and anomalies (including updating the zoning of recently vested land where appropriate) within the existing policies, rules, zoning and other methods of the AUP.
The policy approach, its purpose and function remains unchanged, and this report will not evaluate these unchanged purposes and functions in any more detail.
Sections of this report Evaluation Approach
Section 2: Issues This part of the report will explain the resource management issues and why there is a need to resolve them.
Section 3: Objectives This part of the report will outline the purpose of PC4.
Section 4: The In accordance with section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the RMA, this section development and examines whether the options appropriately achieve the objectives evaluation of options of the AUP and the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. The options are assessed by their efficiency and effectiveness, costs, benefits and risks to resolve the RMA issue.
Section 5: Reasons for In accordance with subsections 32(1)(a) and (1)(b)(iii) of the RMA, the proposed plan this part of the report examines the extent to which the objectives of change the proposal (PC4) are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. This section outlines the reasons for PC4 and the scope of PC4.
Section 6: Statutory This part of the report evaluates the relevance of PC4 to Part 2 evaluation (sections 5-8) and other relevant parts / sections of the RMA.
Section 7: National and This part of the report evaluates the relevance of PC4 against the local planning context national and local planning context.
Section 8: This part of the report outlines the methodology and development Development of the of PC4, including the information used and consultation undertaken plan change in preparing PC4. This section includes a summary of all advice received from iwi authorities on PC4 (as required by section 32(4)(a) of the RMA).
Section 9: Evaluation This part of the report outlines the evaluation conducted on of provisions individual issues contained within PC4.
Section 10: This part of the report concludes that PC4 is the most efficient, Conclusion effective and appropriate means of addressing the resource management issues identified.
This section 32 evaluation report will continue to be refined in response to any consultation feedback provided to the council, and in response to any new information received.
7
603 2 Issues
The background and assessment of errors and anomalies outlined below provides context to the resource management issues identified and why there is a need to resolve them.
2.1 Background
The decisions version of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP Decision Version) was notified in August 2016, with the AUP becoming operative in part on 15 November 2016. A chronology on the Unitary Plan development is included in Attachment 2.
When the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) PAUP recommendations (IHP PAUP Recommendations Version) was released and when council was making decisions on the PAUP, a number of potential errors and inconsistencies were started to be identified by submitters involved in the development of the AUP. These submitters were property owners, planning consultancies acting on behalf of their clients, lawyers, iwi authorities, elected members and community groups involved in the development of the AUP.
In August 2016, an email address was set up for all internal and external (public) queries and concerns relating to the AUP. Over time, staff advised members of the public and internal staff to send their potential errors or anomalies to the specific email address so that they could be registered with the team and assessed. All potential errors and anomalies were registered, categorised and grouped in a spreadsheet by their respective AUP chapter, section, precinct, GIS mapping layer, provision/standard and/or property.
In addition, since the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP Notified Version) was publicly notified in September 2013, a number of new land parcels around the region have been vested as “reserve”. This has typically occurred as a result of recent subdivisions. Also, there were historic land parcels vested as reserves that have not been previously identified in either the legacy district plans or the AUP. All situations involving vesting require a corresponding change to the AUP to ensure that the appropriate zoning is applied to the vested land.
When the PAUP decisions version was approved in August 2016, the Council’s governing body made a resolution (GB/2016/201) to “direct the Chief Executive to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any further technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan and report back to the incoming Council, no later than March 2017.”
In response to this resolution2, Council staff formed a project workstream to assess the potential errors and anomalies identified to date and determines if a plan change, or plan changes, was warranted to address the technical matters (errors) and anomalies. The assessment was to be done immediately, for council staff to report back to the Governing Body no later than March 2017.
2 GB/2016/201
8
604 Over 1,300 potential errors or anomalies have been recorded to date and the number continues to grow as greater numbers of3 AUP users identify and send these potential errors to the Council’s specified email address.
The errors and anomalies identified so far are found in all components of the AUP (text and maps), and cover a range of matters. Examples include:
• spelling and grammatical mistakes; • nonsensical provisions or references i.e. where a reference does not make sense and doesn’t apply to the provision; • duplicated provisions i.e. where a policy or standard has been repeated unnecessarily; • inconsistency of provisions, references or formatting; • rules or standards that don’t make sense and don’t work in the intended manner that they have been written; • key information in schedules are missing or incorrect; • where the spatial application of a zone or overlay has been clearly applied to the wrong site, either wholly or partially; and • where the spatial application of a zone does not reflect land recently vested as open space, roads and other types of reserve e.g. utility reserves.
2.2 Assessment of errors and outputs considered
From December 2016 to June 2017, the council undertook a review of all identified potential errors and anomalies and considered an appropriate course of action for each error.
All errors and anomalies were registered, categorised and grouped in a spreadsheet by their AUP chapter, section, precinct, property, or mapping layer. Council staff then used this spreadsheet to filter and assess the errors and anomalies.
In summary, the assessment of errors and issues involved:
• Reviewing the original issue/error raised by the customer in an email along with any background documentation or attachments provided; • Checking if the error had already been logged in the spreadsheet register; and if a recommendation had already been made and approved; • Checking the AUP to see if there was an error or not; • Checking if the error was, or is, affected by an appeal, or if there was interpretation guidance on the error; • Reviewing any background documents, IHP reports, notified PAUP and all evidence received on the issue to understand what has happened (where the error occurred); • Contacting the subject matter experts and if required, any internal departments or Council Controlled Organisations (i.e. Auckland Transport) to discuss the issue;
3 Practitioners include planners, consultants, lawyers, specialists and anyone who uses the AUP in practice i.e. for consenting, plan-making, or plan review processes.
9
605 • Checking if the landowner was aware of the potential error and if there are any other affected parties; and • Checking with the customer (who raised the issue) for more clarity or information if required. The above steps were completed to help council make recommendations on the correction of individual errors and anomalies. A quality assurance process was incorporated in all assessments to ensure a consistent and robust assessment was taken on the issue for management approval.
There are three ways in which errors and anomalies in the AUP can be corrected under the Act:
• Clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for alterations of a minor effect, or the correction of minor errors: • Clause 20A of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for the correction of minor errors: • Plan change/s to the AUP. One of the following actions was recommended for each error and anomaly:
a) Correct the error through Clause 16(2); b) Correct the error through Clause 20A; c) Requires ‘no further action’ as the error is not seen to be an error and the assessment has concluded nothing further is required; d) The error will be addressed via another process (such as the appeals process or internal interpretation/guidance/practice notes); e) The error requires further investigation and review, which may lead to a future potential plan change/s to the AUP; and f) The error is beyond the scope of clause 20A but should be amended through the first ‘administrative’ plan change as a technical error or anomaly. A pictorial of the assessment process and recommended actions is shown in Figure 1.
Technical errors are defined to a technical point (provision, reference, activity, rule, diagram) in which a change is required to correct the point in order for it to function in the way it was intended and does not result in a policy shift, debate or change in the intention of the provision. These are one-off errors that are not anomalies in the AUP.
Anomalies are points that are odd, peculiar, and abnormal or do not fit within the provisions of the AUP. These have either deviated from the AUP or have been incorrectly applied for no apparent reason. Therefore are inconsistent with the provisions and should be amended.
The council has assessed and reviewed all errors and anomalies received as of 26 May 2017 to the Unitary Plan email address. Any new errors or anomalies that were sent to the email address after this date were registered into a new spreadsheet for future assessment.
Any new errors or anomalies that are provided to Council after the notification of PC4 will also be registered into a new spreadsheet for a future assessment to determine how best they can be resolved.
10
606 Figure 1: Assessment of ‘errors’ and ‘issues’ in AUP provision 607
Note: the annotations of (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) relate to the recommendations and are explained in more detail on the following pages. 1
A summary of the assessment process and associated recommendations is outlined in more detail below:
A. Clause 16(2) process In undertaking its clause 16 assessment, council identified a number of potential errors and anomalies raised by users of the AUP that could be corrected using clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
In June 2017, council staff acting under delegated authority processed and amended 34 errors using clause 16(2). These changes were to the regional coastal plan and to the sections of the AUP that is affected by the regional coastal plan. The regional coastal plan provisions are not yet operative as they are awaiting approval from the Minister of Conservation.
Under the clause 16(2) process, the corrections included:
• spelling mistakes; • grammatical errors; • cross-references; • numbering errors; and • inconsistencies with the tagging of provisions to the regional coastal plan which were recommended by the IHP. The above changes were all minor in nature, as contemplated by clause 16, and the amendments did not change the application or intent of the relevant provisions.
B. Clause 20A process In undertaking its clause 20A assessment, council identified a number of potential errors raised by users of the AUP that could be corrected using clause 20A. The council has established a ‘clause 20A process’ and aims to correct errors through this process, where appropriate in terms of the scope of clause 20A, every two months.
In June 2017, council staff acting under delegated authority processed and corrected over 500 errors in the AUP using the clause 20A process.
These corrections included:
• incorrect spelling, punctuation, plurals and grammatical errors; • incorrect numbering; • deleting words duplicated in text; • correcting cross references to the intended provisions (e.g. change of cross reference from precinct plan 2 to precinct plan 1 when there is no precinct plan 2 for that particular precinct); • deleting items from a schedule where the item does not exist and it was not included in the maps; • correct formatting and incorrect labelling; • correct inconsistencies in the tagging of provisions to the regional plan that was recommended by the IHP as part of their recommendations;
12
608 • correcting the zone of a fraction of a site (e.g. a sliver of land that has been incorrectly zoned and the zone selected is that of the adjacent property where there is no debate as to zoning); • correcting the zoning on a diagram with the zoning in the GIS viewer, or vice versa; • correcting the boundaries of a precinct plan to align with the boundaries on the GIS viewer to match with new subdivision boundaries, where this does not change the zone, control or precinct itself; • correcting the boundaries of a zone, control or overlay to match with property boundaries; • correct zoning of properties incorrectly zoned road, or incorrectly zoned public open space and not owned by council; and • naming discrepancies and schedule references between the GIS viewer and AUP provisions.
C. Errors with no further action required In undertaking its assessment, the council determined that a number of potential errors identified by users of the AUP were not errors. In some cases, the issue raised was intentional and as a result no change to the AUP is required. In others, the error or anomaly would be able to be addressed through another process.
In June 2017, the council identified 287 errors or anomalies that required no further action, as the ‘error’ was either not an error, or the assessment concluded that nothing further needed to happen.
D. Errors will be addressed via another process In undertaking its assessment, the council determined that a number of potential errors identified by users of the AUP could be addressed as part of a separate process.
In June 2017, the council identified 112 errors that could be addressed as part of a separate process. The other processes include:
• the error may be affected by provisions that are subject to appeal and could be resolved via the appeal process (if there is scope and agreement to do so); • the error can be addressed using interpretations guidance or practice notes developed by the Council’s Plans and Places Department or Resource Consents Department to ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of the AUP; • the error will be corrected when the AUP transitions from the PDFs to the electronic plan (e-plan software) on council’s website; • the error may relate to designations and will be dealt pursuant to the provisions of Part 8 of the Act; and • it is not an error and council will continue to monitor the relevant provisions to determine if any change is warranted in future; as such, those errors will be added to a list and reviewed part of the council’s ongoing monitoring programme.
13
609 E. Errors requiring further investigation and review In undertaking its assessment, the council identified a number of potential errors identified by users of the AUP that will require further investigation and review, and which may lead to a future potential plan change/s to the AUP.
At this stage, there is a lack of information or insufficient information available about this type of error or anomaly to propose any amendments. Extensive research and investigation will be required before determining the right approach to correcting such errors or anomalies.
The council considers that the changes required to address these errors or anomalies would be more than minor, and that acting without further investigation and information will create significant risk for council.
As such, any changes to those errors or anomalies will need to be processed in future stand- alone plan change/s (more than one plan change may be required to correct these errors or anomalies).
The assessment to date has highlighted that Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule (Schedule 10) in the AUP would benefit from a systematic and wider review and, as a result, that assessment will be completed as part of a separate work stream.
In relation to Schedule 10, Council staff have identified mapping issues (e.g. tree identification is mapped at the wrong location), incorrect information (e.g. address and/or legal description is incorrect, the number of trees is missing/incorrect, the botanical and common names are incorrect or do not align), as well as items missing from Schedule 10 or included by mistake. These errors are creating uncertainty for consenting processes.
In March 2017, the Council’s Planning Committee made a resolution (PLA/2017/40) to “agree to develop a second plan change to make corrections to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).”
Council staff recommended that a comprehensive review of Schedule 10 is undertaken and that any corrections to Schedule 10 be addressed as part of a separate stand-alone plan change. The council’s review will ensure that the text and maps for Schedule 10 align, and that the information is correct and up-to-date. It is anticipated that this separate plan change will be publicly notified in mid-2018.
Similarly, the Heritage Unit has undertaken a review of Schedule 14.1 - Schedule of Historic Heritage, which considered places identified for their built values. This work has been separated into another work project with the purpose of ensuring that the text and maps for Schedule 14.1 align, and that the information is correct and up-to-date. It is anticipated that a separate plan change on these matters will be notified before the end of 2017.
Outside of these separate reviews, the council has identified approximately 150 errors (from the assessment process) that will require further investigation. At this stage, council is proposing to begin the investigation of these errors in late 2017 with a view to preparing a further future plan change, proposed for notification in mid-2018.
14
610 F. Correct technical errors and anomalies as part of the first ‘administrative’ plan change The council’s ability to make changes to an operative plan using clause 20A of Schedule 1 to the RMA is limited to situations where an alteration is “of minor effect” or involves the correction of a “minor error”. Council staff acting under delegated authority have corrected a number of errors using both clause 20A and clause 16(2) of the RMA. See Figure 2 for examples.
The council has also identified that there are errors or anomalies in the AUP that require further investigation and review, before the appropriate course of action can be determined. These are often policy-related and can lead to multiple options for changes. See Figure 2 for examples. Figure 2: The examples of errors in relation to the recommended course of action
However, it is evident through the assessment process that there are errors within the AUP that need to be corrected immediately and without the need for extensive/further research or investigation. The council has found that there are a number of errors that can be identified as technical errors and anomalies for correction in the AUP. See Figure 2 on examples.
15
611 At present, these technical errors and anomalies do not appropriately give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP, and require clarity. The issue is impacting on the functionality of the AUP where it is limiting parts of the AUP to function in the way that it was intended.
Evidence shows that there is sufficient information on the subject issue to act upon and identify the proposed amendment in the AUP to correct the technical error or anomaly in the AUP. The assessment concluded that extensive research or investigation is not required on these errors compared to errors identified in sub-section E above.
Any proposed changes to the AUP that fall outside of clause 16 and clause 20A will need to be processed as part of a plan change/variation to the AUP.
As such, the council recommended that an ‘administrative’ plan change be developed and notified to correct technical errors and anomalies in the AUP, so that the AUP can function in the way that it was intended, and to resolve them as soon as possible.
2.3 The resource management issue to be addressed
The technical errors and anomalies can create confusion and ambiguity within the AUP which, in turn, impacts on functionality and integrity of the AUP. The resource management issue to be resolved is the removal or correction of technical errors and anomalies, to remove ambiguity and improve the workability of the AUP.
Examples of the Issue
An example of a technical error to be corrected via a plan change process is found with RPS B7.2 - Indigenous biodiversity of the AUP.
Objective B7.2(1) refers to 'Coastal Marine Area' and Policy B7.2(3) refers to the term 'Coastal environment' instead of ‘Coastal Marine Area’, and this is repeated in the new Policy B7.2(4) of the AUP.
The use of the terms 'coastal environment' is inconsistent with the words stated in Objective B7.2(1), where areas of indigenous biodiversity are to be protected on land, in freshwater or in the coastal marine area (and so will be protected in one of these three ways). The use of ‘Coastal Marine Area’ in the objective is specific and suggests that the provisions/chapter does not relate to areas landward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS). The use of ‘coastal environment’ in the policies does not reflect the above intent.
The PAUP IHP Recommendations version made these changes and council accepted the changes in the PAUP Decisions version, now carried through into the AUP.
The terms 'coastal environment' in policies B7.2(3) and B7.2(4) of the AUP should be replaced with the correct term of 'coastal marine area' stated in Objective B7.2(1). This will make the policies consistent with the objectives of RPS B7.2 of the AUP.
This change is beyond the scope of a clause 20A change but the information gathered shows a clear way to correct the error in the AUP. The difference between this error and an
16
612 error identified for further investigation is that there is sufficient information on the subject matter and provisions to act upon and remedy the error.
There are similar examples of technical errors and anomalies in the AUP where there is sufficient information on the subject matter to act and remedy the error in the AUP.
These errors are found both in the text and the maps, and across all components of the AUP (i.e. Regional Policy Statement, Auckland-wide provisions, District Plan provisions, and the spatial GIS viewer).
Other examples that illustrate the issue are –
1. There are technical errors within Chapter L, Schedule 14.1: Schedule of Historic Heritage where:
• the extent of place is incorrectly mapped; • primary features and / or exclusions are incorrectly identified; • Category A places have no primary feature identified; • a place has duplicate entries within the schedule and therefore requires to be merged; and • minor amendments for sense and for consistency within the schedule. There is existing information available to remedy all of the above errors in the AUP. By not correcting these errors, the places included within the schedule will not be appropriately managed by the provisions of the AUP. 2. For mana whenua, including iwi authorities, there are technical errors and/or anomalies in 51 out of 75 sites and areas of significance (Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua). This creates uncertainty for Plan users and council. It also does not acknowledge the cultural importance of the site or area. For example:
• where the mapped extent is too small, in the wrong location or not mapped at all, it means that there are significant sites or areas that are not protected by Schedule 12 provisions; or • where the mapped extent is too big or in the wrong location, it means that adjoining land parcels are inadvertently affected by Schedule 12 provisions. Ensuring correct information about each site, particularly name, is essential to recognise the cultural significance and mana of these sites and areas. 3. Over the past four years, a large number of land parcels across the Auckland region have been vested as ‘reserve’ to council and do not have the appropriate corresponding zone in the AUP. These are anomalies within the AUP that need to be appropriately zoned to enable its appropriate use, management and development in the region.
The land parcels which may potentially be Open Space have been identified using the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) NZ Parcel Statutory Actions List. A Statutory Action is the action that is authorised by a specific Part or Section of an RMA, with the table providing information about the current statutory actions as recorded against specific parcels. The information contained within this table includes the Action taken against the parcel ([Create], [Referenced]), its Purpose (e.g. Local Purpose Reserve) and a Gazette Reference (E.g. Conservation Act 1987).
17
613
To identify possible open space, the statutory actions have been filtered to include only those parcels with a “Purpose” of either Reserve or Accessway of which are not currently zoned Open Space, Road, Coastal, Water or Strategic Transport Corridor as identified in the AUP.
Through this process, council staff have identified approximately 400 land parcels that require a land use zone change in the AUP.
Why does this issue need to be addressed
Technical errors and anomalies within the AUP are creating significant confusion for users of the AUP i.e. Council’s resource consents department and external planning practitioners involved in consenting processes. The uncertainty or ambiguity with certain provisions has an impact on the functionality of the AUP and limiting the AUP’s ability to function as intended. In addition, there is an increased risk of debate and litigation in relation to the administration of the AUP.
As Auckland’s population grows, demand on land, infrastructure and facilities will be required to support this growth. In particular, additional areas of open space will be required for both informal and active recreation and sport; community facilities such as libraries, cemeteries, roads, accessway and service lanes to support new and growing communities. This land needs to be appropriately zoned to enable its appropriate use and development.
The cost of doing nothing (or not correcting the technical errors, anomalies or zoning of recently vested land) and not promoting a proposal to correct the errors and anomalies could result in:
• Additional costs to the individual property owner who cannot develop or build on their site as there is an error to the application of a property zone, overlay, or control on their property; • Higher consenting costs to resolve the matter through a consent application (i.e. the application may need to be fully notified or assessed under a different activity status); • Potential litigation costs for getting other professionals involved (i.e. getting a lawyer involved, going to Court); • Longer waiting time or things are put hold until the matter can be resolved via a consent application or a change to the provisions via a future plan change; and • Inappropriate use and development of land that does not align with the AUP, which has the potential to threaten the policy intent of the AUP. All of this can create undesirable environmental, economic, social and cultural effects and outcomes for a range of users – from the person who owns the land to the community group who want it protected and cared for. The effects vary according to the scale and significance of the error or anomaly identified. Technical errors and anomalies identified to date are impacting on the efficiency and effectiveness of the policies, rules and methods of the AUP. These errors and anomalies do not appropriately give effect to relevant objectives and policies. This in turn impacts on the functionality and integrity of the AUP. All of which has an impact on the ongoing monitoring of the AUP (council’s requirements under section 35 of the RMA).
18
614 In March 2017, the Council’s Planning Committee resolved (PLA/2017/40) to “agree to develop the first administrative plan change to correct technical matters and anomalies identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).” The council agreed that it needs to take appropriate action (having regard to the methods available to it under this RMA) to remedy or correct errors and anomalies where possible. In order to give effect to that resolution, PC4 has been prepared. In June 2017, the council concluded its assessment of the errors raised as at that date and identified approximately 260 errors that could be amended through the first administrative plan change, as either a technical error or anomaly. In addition, there are approximately 400 land parcels that have been vested as reserve that require a zoning update.
Council staff recommend that all of these errors and anomalies be addressed through the proposed administrative plan change (PC4), which was anticipated by the Governing Body’s resolution4.
4 GB/2016/201 and PLA/2017/40
19
615 3 Objectives
The purpose of the PC4 is to correct technical errors and anomalies (including updating the zoning of recently vested land where appropriate) in all components of the AUP.
PC4 is the first ‘administrative’ plan change to the AUP.
4 Development and evaluation of options
In accordance with section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the RMA, this section examines which options appropriately achieve the objectives of the AUP and the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Options are identified and considered against the proposal. The options are assessed by their efficiency and effectiveness, costs, benefits and risks.
4.1 Development of options
The key resource management issue that these options seek to address is the current uncertainty or ambiguity with the AUP due to technical errors and anomalies. Any option identified will need to be timely and able to be completed within existing resources. In determining the options available to resolve this issue, the following factors were considered:
• Suitability – the range of regulatory and non-regulatory tools available in the ‘policy tool-box’ to address the issue; • Acceptability – what tools can meet the expectations of stakeholders and address the issue; • Timeliness – to respond in a prompt manner so that users of the Unitary Plan (i.e. consenting departments etc.) are not further affected by errors / anomalies; and • Appropriate within current resource allocation – the solution does not require significant additional staff resources and can be carried out within existing baselines. The ‘policy tool-box’ refers to the range of regulatory and non-regulatory tools available to address the issue. These include guidance notes, practice notes, information sheets, briefing sheets, seeking declarations from the Environment Court, non-statutory plans (i.e. area plans, centre plans), and statutory planning processes (i.e. plan change, designation, plan variation).
Considering these factors, the following spectrum of options was developed:
Non-statutory options Statutory options
Status Quo- Practice and Group technical errors Multiple plan Review of Do nothing guidance and anomalies into changes Auckland
notes one plan change Unitary Plan
20
616 Of the options identified above, ‘multiple plan changes’ was not considered a realistic option to pursue further. Multiple plan changes would encompass a plan change for each of the 400+ technical errors and anomalies. This is too resource intensive and not feasible in terms of resourcing.
A reduced multiple plan change option was also considered. Rather than 400+ plan changes as above, errors could be addressed within each council-initiated plan change as they normally occur through the life of the AUP. This was estimated to result in approximately 100 plan changes. When each plan change is initiated, staff would need to look to the register of errors (i.e. spreadsheets) to see if there are any errors related to those provisions addressed within that particular proposed plan change that needs to be incorporated. This option has been discounted for the following reasons:
• No certainty that errors across whole AUP will be addressed through the life of the AUP; • Errors that have component parts in multiple places within the AUP would only be partially addressed; and • Errors identified after a section had been reviewed (through a plan change) would be left unaddressed through the remaining life of the AUP. Further to the consideration of options above, one option considered but not listed or included is to group all errors reviewed in the assessment process (technical, anomalies and errors identified for further policy investigation) and process them together in one large plan change process to the AUP. This option is a mix of the options outlined above.
However, that option was considered and dismissed as part of the assessment of errors work undertaken. The assessment of all potential errors concluded that technical errors and anomalies should be separated from errors that require further investigation.
While it may be efficient to correct all errors in one plan change together, reviewing, identifying and then determining a recommendation for each error would widen the scope and size of a combined errors plan change. The total number of errors included in this plan change would be 400+. This is not feasible and not manageable.
The scope of such a plan change would be too wide and could result in a large number of appeals that would prevent certain provisions becoming operative promptly, when they should be corrected immediately.
Errors identified for further policy investigation need more time and resources to determine the ‘actual’ error, and what should be proposed as an amendment/s (if any) to correct the respective error. Errors identified as technical errors and anomalies should be kept separate from those more complicated errors, given that the appropriate amendment should be obvious.
21
617 Options
Four of the five options identified above were further evaluated in accordance with section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the RMA. These options are:
• To leave the error as it is and do not make the change (Option 1: Status Quo) • To pursue non-regulatory approaches such as practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes to deal with this issue (Option 2: Non-regulatory approaches) • To group the technical errors and anomalies together and undertake one regulatory plan change process to correct these types of errors (Option 3: Pursue an ‘administrative’ plan change) • To correct the errors when the Unitary Plan is reviewed (Option 4: Incorporate into review of Auckland Unitary Plan’)
4.2 Evaluation of options
With the key resource management issue and outcome in mind – to remove ambiguity and uncertainty and improve the functionality and integrity of the AUP, the five options identified were assessed on appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, costs, benefits and risks, in accordance with section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the RMA. Table 1 below details the assessment criteria to assess Options 1 to 4.
Detailed assessment of options is provided in Tables 2 to 5 and a summary of options comparison is provided in Table 6.
Spatial zoning of land recently vested
A separate section 32 analysis on options to the spatial zoning of land recently vested with Council has been done in accordance with section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the RMA (see Attachment 5). The three options are:
• Do not change the zoning of vested land to “align” with the purpose for which it has been vested (Option 1: Status Quo/Do Nothing) • Change the zoning of all vested land to an appropriate unitary plan zone or new zone if no equivalent (Option 2: Change the zone in AUP via a plan change) • Change the zoning of vested land to an appropriate zone where one exists (Option 3: change the zone in AUP via a plan change) Options 2 and 3 involve rezoning vested land. Option 2 involves apply an existing zone to all vested land or if no appropriate zone exists, introducing a new zone. Option 3 involves applying a zone to vested land, only where a suitable zone already exists. For example, land is sometimes vested for drainage purposes, local purposes – amenity reserve or utility reserve but this does not necessitate a change in zoning.
The section 32 analysis of the above three options is provided in Attachment 5.
22
618 Table 1: Detailed assessment criteria and ranking
Sections of the RMA Criteria
Is this option the most appropriate way in which to address Appropriateness s32(1)(a) and the issue at hand? In doing so, is this option the most s32(1)(b) of appropriate way to meet the objective of the AUP and the the RMA purpose of the RMA?
Effectiveness How successfully can this option address the issue? Does s32(1)(b)(ii) of this option successfully meet the objectives of the AUP and the RMA the purpose of the RMA?
Efficiency s32(1)(b)(ii) of Does this option address the issue at lowest cost and the RMA highest net benefit?
Costs s32(2) of the What are the social, economic, environmental or cultural RMA costs and/or negative impacts that this option presents?
Benefits s32(2) of the What are the social, economic, environmental or cultural RMA benefits and/ or positive impacts that this option presents?
Risks s32(2)(c) of What are the risks of addressing this issue? What are the the RMA risks of not addressing this issue?
Sections of the Ranking RMA Poor Moderate Strong
Appropriate in addressing Not appropriate in Somewhat addresses the the resource management Appropriateness addressing issue issue issue
Not effective in addressing Somewhat effective in Addresses the issue Effectiveness issue addressing issue effectively
Efficient in addressing Not efficient Somewhat efficient Efficiency issue
Poses a high cost and/or Moderate costs and/or Little cost and/or negative Costs had negative impact negative impacts impacts
Little benefit and/or positive Moderate benefits and/or High benefit and/or positive Benefits impacts positive impacts impacts
Risks High risks Moderate risks Low risk
23
619 Table 2: Detailed analysis of Option 1: Status Quo (do nothing)
Criteria Assessment Option1: Status Quo (do nothing) Description: Under this option, a plan change is not promoted and technical errors and anomalies in the AUP will remain. Under this option users of the AUP will potentially interpret the AUP differentially.
This option does not address the issue, which is the ambiguity and uncertainty created by the technical errors and Not Appropriateness anomalies. This in turn impacts on the integrity of the AUP which undermines purpose of the RMA. It is not appropriate appropriate in addressing the issue.
By allowing the errors and anomalies to remain, it reduces the efficacy of the provisions in meeting its relevant objective and policies and limits the functionality of the AUP. This option does not address the issue at all. The AUP will Effectiveness Not effective not be effective in achieving the relevant objectives and policies if errors remain and continue to be a resource management issue for council.
This option is not efficient, as users of the AUP will need to interpret and clarify technical errors and anomalies. This Efficiency Not efficient raises costs of consenting and undermines the efficiency of the AUP. If users of the AUP interpret the AUP differentially because of these errors and anomalies, there is an economic and environmental cost. The economic impact is a slowing down of the consenting or an activity assessed under a different activity status. For example, costs associated the resource consent process if the zoning and the purpose for which the land has been vested do not align. Costs High costs
Also there is potential litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP. The environmental cost is that some of these errors and anomalies are in conflict with the objectives and policies of the AUP. This in turn undermines the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
As a plan change is not pursued under this option, a benefit is that more potential errors and anomalies can be discovered and potentially remedied at a later date. There is savings in staff time and resources when a plan change is Benefits Low benefit not pursued. In the meantime, the issues can be monitored. Another benefit is that the correction of any error and anomaly could create more issues. With no action, this cannot be prevented.
A significant risk of this option is that users of the AUP could be interpreting provisions differentially as a result of these Risks High risk technical errors and anomalies. Risk of doing nothing will lead to significant interpretation issues in the implementation 620 of the AUP. There is a legal risk of litigation if these errors are not corrected or acted upon.
24
Table 3: Detailed analysis of Option 2: Non-statutory approaches
Criteria Assessment Option 2: Non statutory approaches Description: Under this option the technical errors and anomalies will be corrected through guidance notes, practice notes, information sheets, briefing sheets, non-statutory plans (i.e. area plans, centre plans). Guidance on these errors can form an ‘addendum to the Auckland Unitary Plan’ to be made publicly available. This option addresses the issue by providing guidance around the technical errors and anomalies. Also, if more errors are found, this approach can resolve the issue in a timely manner. However, the statutory standing of these guidance Appropriateness Moderate and practice notes limits the appropriateness of this option.
The statutory standing of these guidance and practice notes is unclear, and therefore this limits the effectiveness of this option in addressing the issue. Furthermore, the remedy for these technical errors and anomalies are arguably, still Effectiveness Poor open to interpretation without a robust plan change process.
This option requires limited staff time and resourcing, compared to a plan change. If the guidance and practice notes can adequately address the ambiguity in the AUP, this option efficiently addresses issue. However, the potential for guidance and practice notes to be challenged undermines efficiency gains of this approach. Efficiency Moderate Also as the guidance and practice notes in this option will have limited outreach –i.e. consent planners, planning consultants and some other users, more general users of the AUP might not be aware of these technical errors and anomalies. As such the broadcast and outreach of these guidance notes is limited.
While there is limited staff time and resources involved for this option as opposed to a plan change, there are potential negative economic and environmental impacts. The economic impact is a slowing down of the consenting or an activity assessed under a different activity status. Also Costs Moderate there is potential litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP. The environmental cost is that some of these errors and anomalies are in conflict with the objectives and policies of the AUP. This in turn undermines the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
The key benefit of this option is that the technical errors and anomalies are addressed in a way that does not require extensive time. Also as these errors are being resolved in a non-statutory manner, it provides scope for any further Benefits High errors to be resolved promptly.
The key risk for this approach is that the ambiguity in the AUP still exists. As any guidance notes are non-statutory and still open to different interpretations, there is still a risk that different users of the AUP might interpret the error Risks High risk differentially. Furthermore, a series of guidance and practice notes has the potential to impact on the integrity and 621 public opinion of the AUP.
25
Table 4: Detailed analysis of Option 3: Pursue an administrative plan change
Criteria Assessment Option 3: Pursue an administrative plan change Description: Under this option the technical errors and anomalies are grouped so that the Council can promote one regulatory plan change, in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. It is called an ‘Administrative Plan Change’ because of the administrative nature of the issue.
This option can address the issue of technical errors and anomalies in the AUP, through a statutory process. The statutory process of the plan change allows for the errors to be remedied in a clear and legally robust manner that Appropriateness Good reduces the potential for ambiguity. This in turn improves the functionality of the AUP and its role in meeting the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
The ‘Administrative Plan Change’ can effectively address technical errors and anomalies as it corrects these to align to the objectives and policies in the AUP. Effectiveness Good In doing the plan change, it removes these errors and anomalies and resultant ambiguity from the AUP, so there is clarity in the meaning and purpose of the provisions in the AUP.
It is efficient to undertake one plan change to correct errors than a series of discrete plan changes. Also with the methodology and quality assurance that accompanies each error correction, it is easier to see connections across the Efficiency Good plan. While there is a cost in terms of staff time and resources, this option improves the efficiency of the AUP and is the most efficient way to achieve the outcome sought.
At present, the Administrative Plan Change can be met through existing staff budgets and resources. There is the Costs Low potential for higher costs in the future, if there are more technical errors and anomalies identified in the AUP.
By removing the ambiguity in the AUP, consenting is more efficient and there is less need for users of the AUP to interpret the provisions. The AUP is more productive and functional. Benefits High Also an important benefit of a plan change is that the errors and anomalies will better align to its relevant objectives and policies which will advance the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
In addressing the issue through this option, there is a risk that the correction of these technical errors and anomalies could result in more errors. To alleviate this, the methodology includes a quality assurance aspect to ensure no additional errors are created. Risks Low Another risk is that all possible technical errors and anomalies may not have been identified as part of this plan change process, therefore the issue of ambiguity and functionality in the AUP may not be fully resolved if more errors are found. 622
26
Table 5: Detailed analysis of Option 4: Correct errors at a later date, as part of a full AUP review
Criteria Assessment Option 4: Correct errors at a later date, as part of a full AUP review
Description: Under this option, the technical errors and anomalies are corrected when the AUP is reviewed.
This is a holistic approach as the technical errors and anomalies are addressed as part of a wider policy and structural Appropriateness Good review of the AUP.
As this option involves a comprehensive review of the AUP, these errors and other potential errors can be comprehensively reviewed at the same time. Effectiveness Moderate However, this option postpones the remedy of these errors to a 5-10 year timeframe; it is not an effective approach as the errors will remain unresolved for a while.
It is efficient to correct the errors as part of a wider review of the AUP. However, these efficiencies will not be realised Efficiency Good until the AUP is reviewed in 5-10 years.
As the technical errors and anomalies will remain until the AUP is reviewed, in the immediate term, the economic and environmental costs of the errors remain. The economic impact is a slowing down of the consenting or an activity assessed under a different activity status. Also Costs High there is potential litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. The environmental cost is that the errors can be in conflict with the objectives and policies of the AUP, which in turn undermine the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
This option is efficient in that it can correct the technical errors and anomalies as part of a wider review of the AUP. Benefits Low However, the benefit is not realised for a while as the timeframe for the review is approximately 5-10 years. In the meantime the cost of the technical errors and anomalies will significantly outweigh the benefits.
As timeframe for a comprehensive review of the AUP and therein the correction of errors is 5-10 years away, current Risks High 623 risks whereby users of the AUP interpret these errors differently, can pose a legal, environmental and economic risk.
27
Table 6: Summary comparison of Options 1 to 4
Option 4 Option 3 Option1 Option 2
(correct errors as part of AUP (pursue a plan change to Status Quo (do nothing) (non-statutory approaches) statutory review, in 5-10 year correct errors) timeframe)
Adequately resolves the issue- Addresses the issue in the Unclear of statutory standing of Appropriateness Does not address the issue the errors will be removed and context of the policy and guidance and practice notes resolved structural review of the AUP Guidance and practice notes Effective to review it holistically, can be open to interpretation Effective and prompt resolution Effectiveness Does not address the issue but timeframe is 5-10 years without a robust plan change of issue away process Lowest cost, however it is the Lower cost without a plan Resource savings if the whole Higher cost, but highest net Efficiency option with the lowest net change. But limited outreach to AUP is reviewed and corrected benefit benefit users of AUP at the same time Lowest monetary costs, but In the immediate term, the Lower monetary cost, but higher environmental cost and Higher monetary cost, but lower costs are high- there is a high Costs higher environmental cost and loss of productivity – as it does environmental, economic cost environmental cost and loss in loss of productivity not address the issue productivity While a holistic review is Removes ambiguity and Lower monetary costs, but Can resolve errors promptly beneficial for savings, the net improves the productivity of the Benefits higher environmental cost and and further errors can be environmental and economic AUP. Better meets loss of productivity quickly resolved cost of the errors undermines environmental objectives this benefit Ambiguity still exists as the Legal risk in the immediate Differential interpretation from Differential interpretation from statutory standing of practice term is removed. However, Risks users of the AUP and legal users of the AUP and legal notes is unclear. Also the there is a risk that more errors risks risks integrity of the AUP is at risk will be found Summary Do not recommend Do not recommend Recommended option Do not recommend
624
28
Summary of options analysis Overall, the plan change approaches (i.e. Option 3 and Option 4) are better in terms of addressing the issue of technical errors and anomalies in the AUP. Plan changes initiated by Council will correct any technical errors or anomalies.
However, the key difference between Option 3 and 4 is timeframes. While Option 4 is more holistic and cost efficient, in the immediate term the issue remains unresolved. Timeliness is an important dimension in addressing this issue, as the potential costs and risks posed by these technical errors and anomalies are significant (i.e. it does not meet the purpose of the RMA and there are different interpretations).
The non-statutory approach, such as guidance a notes in Option 2, is not recommended as it does not effectively achieve the outcome sought. The statutory standing of any potential guidance and practice notes is unclear. Furthermore, it poses a reputational risk to the integrity of the AUP.
Option 1, which is to do nothing, is not recommended. The technical errors and anomalies can result in differing interpretations of the AUP, can delay consenting and have an overall impact on the functionality and integrity of the AUP (including productivity).
Option 3, which is an ‘Administrative Plan Change’ to correct the technical errors and anomalies, is the recommended approach. It brings about a swifter resolution, while meeting the objectives and policies in the AUP, and the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
With regard to the spatial zoning of land recently vested land with Council, Option 3 identified in Attachment 5 strikes the best balance between aligning the purpose for which the land has been vested with the appropriate zone, while recognising that some “types” of vested land do not require an equivalent AUP zoning. This will correct the appropriate land use zoning and can be included into the Administrative Plan Change as mapping anomalies for correction.
29
625 5 Reasons for the proposed plan change 5.1 Reasons for the preferred option
The evaluation of options concludes that a plan change is most appropriate option to address the technical errors and anomalies in the AUP. This option groups all technical errors and anomalies into one ‘administrative’ plan change, rather than pursuing individual plan changes for each error in provisions.
The administrative plan change (PC4) will directly address the resource management issue (i.e. technical errors and anomalies); realign these errors and anomalies with its relevant objectives and policies in the AUP; and is the most appropriate to meet the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
The administrative nature of the plan change clarifies that no new objectives and policies are being proposed. PC4 seeks to realign the errors and anomalies to existing objectives and policies in the AUP, rather than alter or introduce new objectives and policies.
As such the scale and significance of PC4 is limited, to the existing objectives, policies and outcomes envisioned in the AUP. However, there are positive economic and environmental impacts of PC4. As the technical errors and anomalies are interpreted and implemented differently by different users of the AUP, this negatively impacts on the consistent administration of the AUP that in turn causes productivity and efficiency losses to the plan users and the implementation of their proposals (development). Also, as the errors and anomalies do not properly align with the current objectives and policies, this in turn impacts on the sustainable management intent of the AUP.
Overall, the correction of these errors and anomalies positively impacts on the integrity and functionality of the AUP.
5.2 Scope of PC4
The scope of PC4 is to correct technical errors and anomalies in all parts of the AUP (except for regional coastal provisions) to ensure that the provisions that give effect to its objectives and policies are operating in the way that they should.
PC4 has a narrow focus. For instance, clear errors or discrepancies that may have arisen between mediation, Council’s closing statement position, PAUP IHP Recommendations, and the Decision Version and the Operative in Part Version of the AUP.
PC4 is targeted at corrections to technical errors and anomalies found within the existing AUP provisions. The AUP policy approach, its purpose and function remains unchanged, and PC4 does not evaluate these in any detail.
As such the scope of PC4 generally includes:
a) Technical corrections where it is clear from the IHP PAUP recommendations that their intentions have not been carried forward into the AUP;
30
626 b) Corrections to reflect agreements reached between a submitter and the council through mediation where the Panel accepted the agreements and recommended they be implemented but this is not reflected in the AUP; c) Technical amendments to the provisions to correct information where it does not change the policy or intent of the provision; d) Corrections to an overlay, precinct, zone or control where the spatial application has clearly been applied to the wrong land (and this is clearly seen to be an technical error or anomaly and does not lead to a substantive argument / debate of the proposed change in any form); e) Corrections to the schedules where there is clear discrepancy between council’s closing statement evidence and the AUP and the matter has been agreed between the parties and/or is silent in terms of the Panel’s recommendations; f) Corrections to anomalies within the AUP where it has either deviated from the AUP or have been incorrectly applied for no apparent reason, and thereby is inconsistent with the provisions and should be amended; and g) Updating the GIS viewer to land recently vested as open space, roads and other types of reserve e.g. utility reserves. PC4 does not seek to alter the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the AUP. Neither does it seek to introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, zoning or other methods, or new additions to the maps or schedules, from that which is already included in the AUP.
Errors in Schedule 12
In relation to Schedule 12: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua, the following matters are included and in scope of PC4:
• Overlay mapping error: where the mapped extent does not match the legacy District Plan or legacy Regional Plan; the location description; or, information provided by mana whenua or within historic records. This is deemed to be an anomaly. • Schedule 12 content: where there is incorrect, unclear or missing information, spelling or formatting errors as well as missing macrons. These are technical errors for correction. Matters that are considered out of scope and not included in PC4 are:
• Adding new sites or removing existing sites; • Amendments to the schedule to reflect nominating Iwi (one or more) in relation to individual sites; and • Amendments where there is insufficient information to verify type and extent of error e.g. Site 002 (possible errors to mapped extent, site name, location description and site description). These will be addressed via a future plan change process to the AUP.
31
627 Errors in Schedule 14.1
The Heritage Unit within council have undertaken a review of Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage, focused on places identified for its built values. This work has been divided into a separate work programme, with the purpose to ensure that Schedule 14.1 text and maps align, and that the information is correct and up to date.
Technical errors within Schedule 14.1: Schedule of Historic Heritage is included in PC4 where:
• The extent of place is incorrectly mapped; • Primary features and / or exclusions are incorrectly identified; • Category A places have no primary feature identified; and • A place has duplicate entries within the schedule and therefore requires to be merged and minor amendments for sense and for consistency within the schedule. The Heritage Unit has introduced a principle of “refining management”. This is defined as making the management of the place appropriate to the specific values and significance of that place. This may involve:
i. The review of a category A* place to clarify if it is category A or category B; ii. Identification of a primary feature; iii. Correction/updating of any other column, including name, legal description, exclusions, and historical values, as required; and/or iv. Revising, or where required identifying, the mapped extent of place. As PC4 has been prepared to correct the errors described in the sections above, including any “refining management” has not been possible. Therefore, some historic heritage places identified as having errors have been excluded from PC4 and will be included within a future plan change. This has occurred so the correction of the identified error and the refining of the management of the place can occur through a single process.
It is anticipated that a plan change to implement these amendments will be notified before the end of 2017.
Zoning of land recently vested to council
The vesting of land as a “reserve” requires a corresponding zone in the AUP to ensure the appropriate zoning is applied. The change to subject sites is included in PC4.
For example, when land is vested as an esplanade reserve, the zoning needs to be changed from, typically a residential or business zoning, to an open space zoning to reflect the land qualities and intended use and development. Not all vested land however will require a change to its zoning. For example “crown land reserved from sale” will not require a corresponding zone change.
Each land parcel that has been vested as reserve (using the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) NZ Parcel Statutory Actions List) was checked to determine whether a change in zoning or a change to road was required. Where a change was required, the appropriate
32
628 zoning was determined and included in PC4. There are approximately 400 land parcels included in PC4 for a zoning change.
We note that there are some inconsistencies in the way “esplanade reserves” have been zoned in the AUP. This is, historically, based on the various approaches applied by the former councils in Auckland Region to land use zoning. All four zones have been applied to esplanade reserves across the region:
i. Open Space – Conservation zone ii. Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone iii. Open Space – Conservation zone for the first 20m and then an appropriate open space zoning for the balance of the land iv. Open Space – Sport & Active recreation – for marine based recreation facilities such as boat ramps.
PC4 does not address the inconsistent application of land use zoning to esplanade reserves. This will require separate investigation and a possible plan change at a later point in time.
5.3 Errors / anomalies that are beyond the scope of PC4
Where an error or anomaly requires further research and investigation, or there are various possible scenarios or corrections, or where the impact of the correction is unclear, these will be excluded from PC4. Those errors and anomalies will be put forward into a list for further investigation and considered for possible future plan change/s to the AUP.
Section 5.2 of this report has outlined what is in scope of PC4 and what is not in scope of PC4 for Schedules 12 and 14 and zoning of land recently vested to Council. Council is pursuing and preparing five proposed plan changes to the AUP to address some of these issues:
Proposed Plan Change Notification Date Addition of historic heritage places to Schedule Anticipated that a plan change to 14 Schedule, Statements and Maps implement these amendments will be notified before the end of 2017. The proposed plan change seeks to add approximately 60 places and potentially three areas to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage.
The addition of areas will also require information to be added to Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance. The exact number of additions is subject to further research and each addition proposed must meet the threshold for scheduling.
33
629 Amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Anticipated that a plan change to Historic Heritage implement these amendments will be notified before the end of 2017. This plan change seeks to correct errors and update columns in Chapter L, Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage for approximately 150 places. The exact number of places is subject to further research. This plan change is to places already on the schedule that have been scheduled for their known built heritage values.
Examples of the types of changes proposed in the plan change include: - correctly naming the place; - accurately describing the location of the place; - adding legal descriptions; - listing the primary feature (the key component of the place’s identified values); - listing exclusions, if any; and - correctly mapping the extent of the place. Corrections to Schedule 10 Notable Trees Proposed for notification in early 2018. Schedule
The proposed plan change will address the anomalies and errors contained in Schedule 10 of the AUP.
These anomalies include incorrectly described trees, irregularities in the number of trees listed and inconsistencies in terms of listed addresses where scheduled trees are located. Inclusion of additional sites to Schedule 12 To be considered by the Council’s Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Planning Committee for public Whenua notification in mid-late 2018.
The proposed plan change is part of the Māori Cultural Heritage Programme that is intended to improve the understanding of Māori cultural heritage and to provide appropriate planning responses to its long-term protection and management. Enhancements to the AUP plan change Proposed for notification in mid-2018.
The proposed plan change will improve the AUP without changing the policy direction. Amendments proposed as part of this plan change will enhance the performance of the AUP where there are current issues or gaps in the provisions which are leading to outcomes that do not align with the policy direction of the AUP. Additional amendments proposed will improve the workability of the AUP where the current wording of provisions is not clear.
34
630 Where an error is found to be within these respective plan changes, the error will be considered out of scope, excluded from PC4 and will be put forward for consideration into the relevant proposed plan change.
Provisions subject to appeals
Where an error is found in a section affected by provisions subject to appeals, the error will be excluded from PC4 and will be put forward to the relevant appeals process for consideration (if there is scope and agreement to do so).
These errors are then tracked to confirm that they have been corrected. Where this does not occur they are reinserted into the administrative plan change or set aside for future administrative plan changes, if the opportunity for inclusion has passed.
Regional Coastal Plan provisions
There are very few errors identified in PC4 that are Regional Coastal Plan provisions. Most of the coastal plan is in ‘Chapter F Coastal’. There are also regional coastal plan provisions in nine overlay chapters, 15 Auckland-wide chapters, 18 precincts, 9 schedules and six appendices. They are all marked in the plan as [rcp].
The regional coastal plan component of the AUP was sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval on 14 July 2017. The special status of the coastal marine area as “common land” means a regional coastal plan has an additional approval step compared to other plans prepared under Schedule 1 to the RMA. When a regional coastal plan is no longer subject to submissions or appeals, the council adopts it by affixing the council seal, and then refers it to the Minister of Conservation for approval.
Due to this process, council has excluded substantive errors relating to the regional coastal plan provisions. Any such errors will be parked for consideration into a future plan change process.
The Minister’s legal team are reviewing the provisions. When approval is received, the council will issue a public notice with the date that the RCP will be operative.
Some parts of the regional coastal plan provisions are still subject to appeal. These relate to Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Genetically Modified Organisms, two Significant Ecological Area sites, and the definition of ‘height’. Any errors identified in these sections will also be considered out of scope of PC4 and put forward to the relevant appeals process for consideration (if there is scope).
35
631 6 Statutory Evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 6.1 Part 2 of the RMA
The RMA provides a legislative framework for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in New Zealand. Due to the large scale of PC4, the council describes the relevance of PC4 to Part 2 (Sections 5-8), the Purpose and Principles of the RMA as a whole (to all of the issues covered in the PC4). See Attachment 1.
RMA Relevance to the PC4 S5 Purpose PC4 is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA, in particular with the purpose of the RMA as it seeks to provide for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the Auckland region.
PC4 is correcting technical errors and anomalies within the AUP. By correcting these errors, PC4 is assisting with the management of use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well- being, and for their health and safety.
S6 Matters of In respect of section 6 of the RMA, all sub-clauses are considered relevant to the national PC4. There are errors within PC4 that relates to the various matters of national importance importance. By correcting these errors, PC4 is recognising and providing for the matters of national importance, which is achieving the purpose of the RMA.
S7 Other matters In terms of section 7 of the RMA, all of the sub-clauses are considered relevant to the PC4. There are errors within PC4 that have particular regard to s7 other matters. By correcting these errors, PC4 is having particular regard to other matters, which is achieving the purpose of the RMA.
S8 Treaty of There are errors within PC4 that affect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. By Waitangi correcting these errors, PC4 has taken into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is achieving the purpose of the RMA.
Therefore it is considered that PC4 gives effect to the purpose and principles within Part 2 of the RMA.
6.2 Relevant sections of the RMA
There are relevant sections of the RMA that must be considered in context of the proposed plan change:
• Section 30 – Functions of regional councils under this Act • Section 31 – Functions of territorial authorities under this Act • Section 60 – Preparation and change of regional policy statements • Section 61 – Matters to be considered by regional council (policy statements) • Section 62 – Contents of regional policy statements • Section 63 – Purpose of regional plans • Section 65 – Preparation and change of other regional plans • Section 66 – Matters to be considered by regional councils (plans) • Section 67 – Contents of regional plans
36
632 • Section 68 – Regional rules • Section 72 – Purpose of district plans • Section 73 – Preparation and change of district plans • Section 75 – Contents of district plans • Section 76 – District rules • Section 79 – Review of policy statements and plans • Section 80 – Combined regional and district documents
Due to the large number of sections referenced in this report and some of the sizes of the sections of the RMA, the council recommends readers to view the RMA online. Attachment 1 provides a web-link to the RMA. The council has reviewed the above sections of the RMA together for all issues included in PC4.
Relevance to the above sections
Sections 30 and 31 of the RMA states that a function of council is to control any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district and regional level.
Section 80 of the RMA sets out the approach to which local authorities may prepare, implement, and administer the combined regional and district documents. Auckland Council has a combined regional and district plan called the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).
In preparing PC4, the council must apply the requirements of section 80 of the RMA. In particular subsection 6A ‘in preparing or amending a combined document, the relevant local authority must apply the requirements of this Part, as relevant to the documents comprising of the combined document’. The AUP contains a regional policy statement, a regional plan, a regional coastal plan and a combined district plan for the Auckland region.
Sections 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 79 of the RMA are relevant to the preparation and implementation of PC4.
In addition to the above sections, section 80(6B) of the RMA, ‘the relevant local authorities may also, in preparing the provisions of a regional plan or a district plan, as the case may be, for a combined document that includes a regional policy statement – (a) give effect to a proposed regional policy statement; and (b) have regard to an operative regional policy statement.’
The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules and other methods that are of regional and district significance. PC4 is correcting technical errors and anomalies within the AUP. By correcting these errors, PC4 will have regard to the operative regional policy statement provisions and will give effect to any proposed amendments to the regional policy statement.
Overall, it is considered that PC4 assists the council in carrying out its functions set out in section 30 and 31 of the RMA to meet the requirements of the prescribed sections of the RMA set out above.
It is important to note that PC4 is not altering or re-litigating any of the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC4 is targeted at corrections to clear technical errors and anomalies within the
37
633 existing policies, rules, or other methods of the AUP. The policy approach, their purpose and function remains unchanged, and this report will not evaluate these parts in any more detail.
6.3 Sections 86B–86G of the RMA
Sections 86B to 86G of the RMA specify when a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect. See Attachment 1 on link to the legislation.
When deciding the date a plan change takes effect, the RMA provides in section 86B(1) that ‘a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect only once a decision on submissions relating to the rule is made and publicly notified’.
Exceptions are provided for in section 86B(3), ‘a rule in a proposed plan has immediate legal effect if the rule –
(a) protects or relates to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or (b) protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or (c) protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or (d) protects historic heritage; or (e) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities.’
Certain types of rules in the AUP have immediate legal effect from the date of notification of PC4, provided that they fit within section 86B(3) of the RMA. Immediate legal effect means that a rule must be compiled with from the day the proposed rule (or change) is notified.
Table 7 identifies the rules that are in PC4 and will have immediate legal effect on and from the date on which the PC4 is publicly notified (28 September 2017).
Attachment 31 contains PC4 provisions that have immediate legal effect from notification of PC4. Rules that have immediate legal effect from notification are annotated in the AUP with a blue annotation bar and text ‘PC4 s86B(3) Immediate legal effect (see modifications)’.
The key implication of this relates primarily to the amendments to the overlays:
• Sites or areas not currently protected by the schedule provisions (e.g. where the current mapped extent is too small, in the wrong location or not mapped at all) will be protected; and • Adjoining land parcels which are inadvertently affected by items in the schedule provisions (e.g. where the current mapped extent is too big or in the wrong location) will no longer be affected by the schedule provisions. The remaining proposed amendments in PC4 (Attachments 32-40) will not have legal effect until after the conclusion of PC4. These are annotated in the AUP with a blue annotation bar and text ‘PC4 (see modifications)’.
The operative regional and district provisions within the AUP remain to apply until the proposed rules are operative (e.g. decisions released and any appeals resolved).
38
634 Table 7: List of rules subject to amendments in PC4 that will have immediate legal effect on and from the date on which the PC4 is publicly notified (28 September 2017)
Section of the AUP Specific Rule/s (abbreviated)* D12 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay Table D12.4.2 Activity table (including maps) D12.6.3.4 D12.6.3.5 D12.6.4.19 D12.6.4.23 Figure D12.10.2 Numbering change for Figures D12.10.10-D12.10.18 D14 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive D14.6.1 Areas Overlay (including maps) D14.6.3 D17 Historic Heritage Overlay (including maps) Table D17.4.1 Activity table Table D17.4.3 Activity table D17.6.4 D17.6.6 D18 Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential Table D18.4.1 Activity table and Business D18.8.2.2 D19 Auckland War Memorial Museum Viewshaft Figure D19.6.1.1 Overlay Figure D19.6.1.2 Figure D19.6.1.3 E7 Taking, using, damming and diversion of water E7.4.1 Activity table and drilling E7.6.1.4 E11 Land disturbance - Regional E11.4 Activity table E12 Land disturbance - District Table E12.4.1 Activity table Table E12.4.2 Activity table E15 Vegetation management and biodiversity Table E15.4.1 Activity table E15.6.4 E15.6.8 E15.6.9 E15.8.2 E31 Hazardous substances Table E31.4.3 Activity table E38 Subdivision – Urban E38.8.2.6 Table E38.8.2.6.1 H20 Rural – Waitākere Foothills Zone Table H20.4.1 Activity table Chapter J Definitions Definition of ‘Pest Plant removal’ and new definition on ‘Vegetation alteration or removal’ Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Outstanding Natural Feature Overlay Schedule ID 80 Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to There are multiple changes to the Mana Whenua Schedule and AUP GIS Viewer – schedule and overlay in AUP GIS Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua viewer (outlined in Attachment 31) Overlay
Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage; There are multiple changes to the AUP GIS Viewer – Historic Heritage Overlay Place; schedule (table 1 places) and overlay AUP GIS Viewer – Historic Heritage Overlay Extent in AUP GIS viewer (outlined in of Place Attachment 31)
Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and Map 14.2.12.1 statements of significance
39
635 Section of the AUP Specific Rule/s (abbreviated)* Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, 15.1.7.1 Statements and Maps Figure 15.1.7.5.1 Figure 15.1.7.6.1 (1) and (2) Figure 15.1.7.7.1 AUP GIS Viewer – Natural Stream Management Remove overlay on specific Areas Overlay properties listed in Attachment 31 AUP GIS Viewer – Waitākere Ranges Heritage Adjust the Waitākere Ranges Area Overlay Heritage Area Overlay to five areas outlined in Attachment 31 AUP GIS Viewer – Regionally Significant Volcanic Introduce a Height Sensitive Area to Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay a specific property listed in Attachment 31
*Due to the large number of rules, Table 7 has abbreviated and listed the specific rule number or given reference to an attachment. Attachment 31 contains the full content and name of the specific rules listed above along with the proposed amendments marked up and subject to PC4.
40
636 7 National and Regional Planning Context
In addition to the statutory evaluation detailed in Section 6.0 of this report, there are a number of other Act’s, regulations, national directives, policies and plans that are of relevance to PC4.
7.1 National Coastal Policy Statement
Sections 62(3), 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA require that a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan must give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). See Attachment 1.
The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules, zoning and other methods that give effect to the NZCPS.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, PC4 is considered consistent with the purpose and principles of the NZCPS.
7.2 National Policy Statements
National policy statements are instruments issued under section 52(2) of the RMA and state objectives and policies for matters of national significance. There are four national policy statements in place:
• National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity • National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management • National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation • National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission At present, the Ministry for the Environment is in the process of developing a proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.
The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity sets out a desire to provide for urban environments that enable the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of current and future generations as well as provide opportunities for development of housing and business land to meet demand.
Sections 62(3), 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA require that a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan must give effect to any national policy statements. See Attachment 1.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, PC4 is considered to be consistent with the purpose and principles of the national policy statements listed above.
7.3 National Environment Standards
National environmental standards (NES) are standards for maintaining a clean, healthy environment. These are issued under s43 of the RMA and apply nationally. The government sets standards where appropriate so everyone in our country has clear air to breathe, clean
41
637 water to drink, and clean land to live on. NES can prescribe technical standards, methods or other requirements for environmental matters. Each regional, city or district council must enforce the same standard. In some circumstances, councils can impose stricter standards.
The following standards are in force as regulations:
• National Environmental Standards for Air Quality • National Environmental Standard for Sources of Drinking Water • National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities • National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities • National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health The following standards are at various stages of development, ranging from initiating consultation to being legally drafted. • Proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels • Proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture • Proposed National Environmental Standard for the Outdoor Storage of Tyres The previously proposed National Environmental Standard for Measurement of Water Takes is now regulations under section 360(1)(d) of the RMA.
The National Environmental Standard on Plantation Forestry has now been published and will come into effect on 1 May 2018.
Section 44A of the RMA requires local authority to recognise national environmental standards. See Attachment 1.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, PC4 is considered to be consistent with the national environment standards listed above.
7.4 National Planning Standards
The purpose of the National Planning Standards (Standards) is to improve consistency in plan and policy statement structure, format and content so they are easier to prepare, understand, compare and comply with. The Standards also support implementation of national policy statements and help people observe the procedural principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
The Standards have been introduced as part of the 2017 amendments to the RMA. The development of the National Planning Standards is enabled by sections 58B–58J of the RMA.
Section 58I of the RMA requires local authority to give effect to any provision in a national planning standard in their regional policy statement, proposed regional policy statement, a proposed plan, plan, variation and change. See Attachment 1.
At the time of notification, there are no national planning standards in place.
42
638 7.5 Other Acts 7.5.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) has the purpose of seeking the integrated management of the national, historic and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments. See Attachment 1 on a link to the HGMPA to view online. It also established the Hauraki Gulf Forum, the Park itself and the recognition of tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands. The HGMPA recognises that the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance, s6 of the RMA.
PC4 is focused on corrections to technical errors and anomalies (including updating the zoning of recently vested land where appropriate) within the existing policies, rules, zoning and other methods of the AUP.
Applying an open space zoning to land vested as reserve will assist in achieving the purpose of the act, in particular integrating the management of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, and recognising the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the purpose of HGMPA and section 6 of the RMA (recognition of the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, and its islands).
7.5.1 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2008
The purpose of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2008 (WRHPA) is to recognise the national, regional and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges heritage area and promote its protection and enhancement for present and future generations. See Attachment 1 on a link to the WRHPA to view online.
To achieve this, the WRHPA established the Waitākere Ranges area as a matter of national significance (s6 of the RMA) and defines its heritage features. Furthermore, it provides additional matters for the council and other parties to consider when making decision, exercising a power or carrying out its duty that relate to the heritage area.
There are corrections to technical errors and anomalies within the AUP that relates to the Waitākere Ranges area. The outcome sought in PC4 is to:
• correct technical errors within D12 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay provisions so as to remove ambiguity in the AUP; • correct the spatial mapping of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay to match with the area identified in WRHPA; and • apply an open space zone to land vested as reserve in the Waitākere Ranges area, which assists in achieving the purpose of the act, in particular recognising the national, regional, and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges heritage area; and
43
639 promoting the protection and enhancement of its heritage features for present and future generations. In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the purpose of WRHPA and section 6 of the RMA (recognition of the national significance of the Waitākere Ranges and its heritage features).
7.5.2 Local Government Act 2002
Council’s functions and powers are derived from the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LGA mandates the purpose, funding, and governance duties of the council. With additional responsibilities for Auckland Council under the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, including the preparation of a Spatial Plan. See Attachment 1 on a link to the LGA to view online.
Section 12 of the LGA states that a local authority has full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any, or enter into any transaction with full rights, powers and privileges subject to any other enactment and the general law.
PC4 is prepared under the RMA and overall considered to be consistent with the LGA.
7.5.3 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
The purpose of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is to resolve further matters relating to the reorganisation of local government in Auckland begun under the Local Government (Tāmaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and continued under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
In s3(2)(d) of the LGATPA it states this Act “provides a process for the development of the first combined planning document for Auckland Council under the RMA”.
Part 4 (sections 115-171) of the LGATPA outlines the process for development of the combined plan for Auckland Council. The development of the first combined plan followed the legislation set out in LGATPA, and the Hearings Panel (also known as IHP) was set-up under the LGATPA.
A chronology on the development of the first combined plan – the Unitary Plan – for Auckland Council is included in Attachment 2 of this report.
PC4 is correcting technical errors and anomalies that have arisen from the development of the first combined plan process. The council is referring to the material developed in this process to support the proposed amendments included in PC, which includes evidence and reports:
• Developed by council on the development of the PAUP, pre, during and post hearings and in any decision-making processes including the PAUP Decisions Version and AUP; • Developed by submitters on the PAUP, pre, during and post hearings including any submissions; and
44
640 • Developed by the IHP before, during and after hearings, including the IHP recommendations to council on the PAUP. As the AUP is operative in part, PC4 is prepared under the RMA and overall considered to be consistent with the LGATPA.
7.5.4 Reserves Act 1977
The purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) is to provide for the preservation and management of areas of possessing recreational use/potential, wildlife, indigenous flora/fauna, environment and landscape amenity or interest or special features or value for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public. See Attachment 1 on a link to the RA to view online.
In PC4, the rezoning of vested land to an appropriate Unitary Plan zone (typically an open space zone) will assist in achieving the purpose of the RA. There are also corrections to spatial anomalies within PC4 where land not considered a reserve have been incorrectly zoned open space in the AUP. PC4 will correct the zoning of these properties.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the purpose of RA.
7.5.5 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) purpose is to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand, whilst the Act’s principles include recognising that historic places have lasting value in their own right. See Attachment 1 on a link to the HNZPTA to view online.
The HNZPTA provides for the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (NZHL/RK), comprising historic places, historic areas, wāhi tapu, wāhi tapu areas, and wāhi tūpuna, as a means for recognising heritage values, and, through is regulatory functions, prohibits the modification or destruction of an archaeological site unless an authority is obtained from Heritage New Zealand.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, PC4 is consistent with the purpose and principles of this HNZPTA. Within the AUP, the RPS sets out the historic heritage evaluation criteria and thresholds against which places are to be evaluated to determine whether they warrant inclusion in the Schedule. The identification of places and the threshold or inclusion for scheduling is generally aligned with this HNZPTA. The use of a Schedule within the UP is generally complementary to, and compatible with, the NZHL/RK, and so too are the corrections proposed through PC4.
7.5.6 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNOA) purpose is to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or
45
641 managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms. See Attachment 1 on a link to the HSNOA to view online.
Section 5 of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resource, which includes managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
In PC4, there is a correction to E31 Hazardous substances of the AUP. The outcome sought in PC4 is to correct the anomaly so as to remove ambiguity in the AUP. Overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the purpose of HSNOA and section 5 of the RMA.
7.5.7 Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941
The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA) purpose is to make provision for the conservation of soil resources, the prevention of damage by erosion and to make better provision for the protection of property from damage by floods. See Attachment 1 on a link to the SCRCA to view online.
The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules, zoning and other methods that give effect to the SCRCA.
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the purpose of SCRCA.
7.6 The Auckland Plan
The Auckland Plan was released in 2012 by Auckland Council. It is a spatial plan for the Auckland region. A non-RMA document prepared under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 represented the council’s and its community aspirations for Auckland’s growth and development over the course of the next 30 years. The full text of the Auckland Plan can be viewed on council’s website.
For the purpose of guidance on the long term planning outcomes sought by Auckland, the Auckland Plan has been a primary starting point for the development of approaches within the AUP. There are a number of strategic directions and long term goals of the Auckland Plan that are relevant to PC4. Overall, PC4 is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the strategic directions and directives of the Auckland Plan.
7.7 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part version) (AUP)
The AUP replaces the previous district plans, regional plans and regional policy statement to provide one comprehensive planning framework for the Auckland region. The statutory
46
642 purpose of the AUP is to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. More specifically:
• To provide an overview of the resource management issues of the region and policies and methods to achieve integrated management of natural and physical resources; and • To assist council and the Minister of Conservation achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal marine area; and • To assist council carry out its functions as a regional and territorial authority to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The AUP is structured in a manner that sets out the Regional Policy Statement, Overlay provisions, Auckland-wide provisions, Zone provisions, and Precinct provisions.
Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the AUP
The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules and other methods that are of regional significance. The RPS sets out the direction for managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. The strategic objectives and policies of the RPS provide a framework to achieve the integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the region’s resources.
In the context of PC4, all RPS provisions must be considered and give effect to:
• B1 Ngā take matua ā-rohe - Issues of regional significance • B2 Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form • B3 Ngā pūnaha hanganga, kawekawe me ngā pūngao - Infrastructure, transport and energy • B4 Te tiaki taonga tuku iho - Natural heritage • B5 Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua - Built heritage and character • B6 Mana Whenua • B7 Toitū te whenua, toitū te taiao - Natural resources • B8 Toitū te taiwhenua - Coastal environment • B9 Toitū te tuawhenua - Rural environment • B10 Ngā tūpono ki te taiao - Environmental risk • B11 Monitoring and environmental results anticipated Full text of the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS can be viewed on council’s website.
Relevance to the PC4
PC4 is correcting technical errors and anomalies within the AUP. By correcting these errors, PC4 will have regard to the operative RPS provisions and will give effect to any proposed amendments to the regional policy statement.
PC4 is not re-litigating any of the objectives and policies of the RPS. PC4 is focused on corrections to the errors and anomalies within existing policies, rules, zoning and other methods of the AUP. The policy approach, their purpose and function remains unchanged.
47
643 The outcome sought in PC4 is to correct these technical errors and anomalies so as to remove ambiguity in the AUP. Overall, it is considered that PC4 is consistent with the RPS provisions of the AUP.
7.8 Iwi Management Plans
An iwi management plans (IMPs) is a term commonly applied to a resource management plan prepared by an iwi, iwi authority, rūnanga or hapū. IMPs are generally prepared as an expression of rangatiratanga to help iwi and hapū exercise their kaitiaki roles and responsibilities. IMPs are a written statement identifying important issues regarding the use of natural and physical resources in their area.
The RMA describes an iwi management plan as "…a relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the council". IMPs must be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans (sections 61(2A)(a), 66(2A)(a), and 74(2A) of the RMA – see attachment 1 for web-link to see the detail of these sections).
Council is aware that the following iwi authorities have an iwi management plan:
• Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei • Te Kawerau-a-Maki • Ngāti Rehua • Ngāti Paoa • Waikato – Tainui • Ngāti Te Ata • Ngātiwai • Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki • Te Uri o Hau
In light of the narrow purpose of PC4 to correct clear technical errors and anomalies, overall, PC4 is considered to be consistent with the IMPs listed above.
7.9 Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau 2014
The Māori Plan was developed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board with Tāmaki Māori (mana whenua and matawaka). It is non-statutory, long term plan based on Māori values and outcomes and intended to guide how council and other agencies can act more responsively towards Māori. This includes taking issues of importance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau into account and acting in accordance with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Māori Plan also provides a framework to monitor outcomes and measure changes to Māori wellbeing. This will show the Auckland Council and other agencies where they can act more responsively towards Māori.
It is a thirty year plan based on Māori objectives and is a unique document that complements, and does not replace, strategic and planning documents prepared by Mana Whenua and Mataawaka.
48
644 Of relevance to PC4 is the following Māori Plan Outcome, “Māori heritage of Tāmaki Makaurau is valued and protected”. In this case, PC4 will ensure that Māori heritage identified within Schedule 12 will be valued and protected, particularly in relation to those sites where corrections are proposed to the mapped extent.
49
645 8 Development of the Proposed Plan Change 8.1 Assessment of errors (recap)
As outlined in Section 2.0 of this report, council staff and the public identified and sent in potential errors and anomalies found in the AUP to the council’s unitary plan email address and staff undertook a review of all identified potential errors and considered an appropriate course of action for each of the errors.
Through this assessment, it was identified that errors considered technical errors and anomalies, beyond the scope of clause 20A of the RMA, should be corrected through a plan change process, which is considered as the first administrative plan change to the AUP.
Council found that there is existing information that shows the proposed amendment and correction required to each of the errors. As such, the council recommended an ‘administrative’ plan change is developed to correct these technical errors and anomalies in the AUP to enable the AUP to function in the way that it was intended, and resolve them as soon as possible. This recommendation is what was anticipated by the Governing Body resolution5.
In June 2017, the assessment concluded that 260 errors can be amended as a technical error or anomaly through the administrative plan change. The definition of what is a technical error or anomaly is defined in Section 2.0 (sub-section F) of this report.
8.2 Methodology and development of PC4
After completing the assessment, council began to prepare PC4 for public notification and in doing so, undertook the following methodology outlined in Section 8.2.1 of this report, see below. In addition to the overall methodology, specific steps were undertaken in preparing the development of PC4 with relation to technical errors and anomalies identified under Schedule 12, Schedule 14.1 and recently vested land of PC4. This is described later in this section.
8.2.1 Overall methodology
Step 1: Form register of errors for PC4
Council copied errors from the original spreadsheet identified for the first administrative plan change into a new spreadsheet register. This spreadsheet would contain all errors within PC4.
In the original spreadsheet, errors were registered, categorised and grouped by their chapter, section, precinct, property or mapping layer and recommended course of action. Council used the original spreadsheet to identify the errors for PC4.
5 GB/2016/201 and PLA/2017/40
50
646 The errors are kept in their original groupings, that is, the relevant chapters, section, precinct, and mapping layer (i.e. Chapter B, North Precincts, Schedule 12, sub-geographic mapping changes) in PC4. The groupings align with the AUP structure and table of contents.
Note that not all sections of the AUP are listed, as there are no errors identified for correction in PC4 for those sections. These groupings help to navigate the user in finding errors and proposed amendments in PC4. See Attachment 3 on the list of groupings.
Step 2: Develop the scope statement of PC4
Council developed a statement on the scope of the PC4. This is outlined in Section 5.0 of this report. The statement on scope provided the criteria to determine which errors will remain and be included in PC4.
Step 3: Review existing errors against scope of PC4
Council staff reviewed the existing 260 errors identified for the administrative plan change from the existing assessment list and determined if these remain to be within the scope of the PC4.
Council staff removed any errors that did not fall within the scope of the PC4 from the spreadsheet and redirected the error to the most appropriate course of action (i.e. correct error through the Clause 20A/Clause 16 processes, will be addressed in another process such as appeals, or be parked for further investigation and review).
On the completion of this review, 229 errors were identified to remain within scope of PC4 and are included in PC4.
Step 4: Identify errors by the type of category and sub-categories
Within PC4, there are two main categories of errors; these are technical errors and anomalies. Council further categorised these into sub categories to help with the analysis. The sub-categories are outlined in Attachment 4.
Step 5: Quality assurance
A quality assurance or quality control process was undertaken to ensure all errors were identified to the appropriate category and sub-category.
Step 6: Gathering information and evidence
Council then gathered and reviewed existing reports, evidence and versions to help support the inclusion of an error in PC4. This information was gathered and used in the analysis and reasoning to how the error has been made and why it should be included in the PC4 for correction.
Step 7: Complete section 32 analysis on the particular error / issue
Council captured the relevant information from its list of documents and filled out and started the section 32 analysis on the various errors included in PC4. This evaluation is outlined in Section 9.0 of this report and shown in Attachments 6-30.
51
647 Step 8: Quality assurance
A quality assurance or quality control process was again undertaken to ensure all analysis was completed.
Step 9: Collation of proposed amendments for PC4
Council then captured the proposed amendments for PC4 and inserted them into the following documents:
• Attachment 31 – this shows PC4 changes to the text and diagrams of the AUP that has immediate legal effect under section 86B(3) of the RMA upon notification; • Attachment 32 – this shows PC4 changes to the text and diagrams of the AUP; • Attachment 33 – this shows PC4 spatial mapping changes to the AUP GIS viewer; • Attachment 34 – this shows PC4 consequential amendments to other parts of the AUP; • Attachment 35 – contains the Drury South Industrial Precinct Appendix of PC4; and • Attachments 36-40 – this shows PC4 spatial mapping zoning changes of land recently vested with Council as open space.
Step 10: Consultation
Council undertook consultation on the draft PC4 and section 32 reports. The consultation is outlined in Section 8.4 of this report.
Step 11: Finalise draft PC4 for notification
Feedback received from the consultation was used to amend and finalise the draft PC4 for notification. Feedback and changes made are summarised in section 8.4 of this report.
Step 12: Notify PC4
On 5th September 2017, council staff reported to the Council’s Planning Committee to publicly notify a change to the AUP to correct technical errors and anomalies. The Planning Committee made the resolution (PLA/2017/117) to:
a) approve the notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to correct technical errors and anomalies included as Attachments E-N of the agenda report. b) endorse the section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment B to the agenda report. c) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member the authority to make amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification to incorporate any changes due to feedback from iwi authorities or other minor amendments.
On Monday 18th September 2017, council staff sought approval from the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and a member from the Independent Māori Statutory Board to approve amendments to PC4 prior to public notification. PC4 is to be publicly notified on 28 September 2017.
52
648 8.2.2 Review of technical errors and anomalies in Schedule 12 for inclusion into PC4 (methodology)
Further to the methodology used above in Section 8.2.1 of this report, the council undertook the following steps in reviewing technical errors and anomalies identified in Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule:
1. Comparative analysis between Schedule 12 (overlay and schedule) to ensure the mapped extent matched the location description within Schedule 12. 2. Comparative analysis between Schedule 12 and operative plans prepared by the former councils in Auckland to ensure the mapped extent as well as name, location and type descriptions were correct. 3. Identification of spelling errors and missing macrons. 4. Where issues were identified, background information was reviewed to verify the error and determine the requirement correction(s). Background information was sourced internally and through an online repository for the AUP. Information was also sourced through Council Archives regarding former councils in Auckland treatment of waahi tapu and Māori cultural heritage and iwi engagement. 5. Site specific memos were then prepared for those sites with identified errors. This process confirmed 51 sites with errors, 23 relating to the mapped extent to be included as part of PC4.
In all cases, the recommended amendments do not change the intent of the Schedule or Overlay. Where there is an error to the mapped extent, it means that the AUP provisions in relation to Schedule 12 will apply to the correct area.
8.2.3 Review of technical errors and anomalies in Schedule 14.1 for inclusion into PC4 (methodology)
Further to the methodology used above in Section 8.2.1 of this report, the council undertook the following steps in reviewing technical errors and anomalies identified in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage.
The purpose of this review was to correct errors in Schedule 14.1. This review focussed on ensuring places had been correctly identified and mapped, being in accordance with the RPS Policy B5.2.2 and the Methodology for Evaluating Historic Heritage Significance6 and that the information is correct and up to date.
Through this process, errors to 21 places within the schedule were identified that fit the definition of an error for PC4, as defined within Section 2.2 (sub-section F) of this report. These errors have been classified as technical errors and under the sub-category of ‘amendments to schedules’.
6 Current version 7.5 – dated October 2013.
53
649 These errors consist of:
• mapping errors where the extent of place is to be extended (two places) or is to be reduced (two places); • primary features and / or exclusions are incorrectly identified (nine places); • Category A places have no primary feature identified (nine places); • a place has duplicate entries within the schedule and therefore requires to be merged (one place); and • minor amendments for sense and for consistency within the schedule (two places). Errors within the schedule, resulting in historic heritage places incorrectly identified and/or mapped, mean the provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay may not apply appropriately to the place, and therefore place is not appropriately protected and managed. The risk of not acting, being the retention of the identified errors, is the potential for the reduction in significance and the loss of historic heritage value to the subject place.
This process confirmed 21 places with errors, four relating to the mapped extent to be included as part of PC4. In all cases, the recommended amendments do not change the intent of the Schedule or Overlay. Where there is an error to the mapped extent, it means that the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 14.1 will apply to the correct area.
8.2.4 Review of recently vested land for a proposed zone change in PC4 (methodology)
Further to the methodology used above in Section 8.2.1 of this report, the council undertook the following steps in reviewing recently vested land with Council for a zone change in PC4:
1. Determine the purpose for which the land has been vested (i.e. the statutory action contains a description of the purpose of the vested land); 2. Determine if the vested land requires a change to the zone(s); 3. If a change is not required, leave the current zoning in place; and 4. If a change in zoning is required, assess the appropriate zone against the following guiding principles. Open Space
The broad principles guiding the application of a zone to land vested as reserve are summarised as follows. (Note: these were the same principles used to assess zoning requests through the Unitary Plan process):
(a) When considering rezoning of sites, have regard to the impacts on regionally and nationally significant infrastructure to ensure that these are appropriately protected from incompatible development and reverse sensitivity effects; (b) Avoid split and spot zones on one property unless there is planning justification for this. Generally, it is not appropriate to spot zone small parts of a large Public Open Space with a different Public Open Space zone, unless there is clearly a distinct difference in reserve purpose and usage and clear reasoning to provide specifically for this;
54
650 (c) Zone boundaries should generally follow cadastral boundaries and be separated by streets or clearly distinguishable land-uses; (d) A rezoning was proposed as part of plan changes under operative plans. Land is only zoned Open Space if there is formal agreement to vest land to council or for council to purchase; (e) Privately owned “open space” is generally only zoned Open Space in agreement with the landowner; and (f) As a general principle, Open Space zones should align with the zone descriptions and objectives set out in PAUP Chapter D2. Table 8 below summarises Open Space rezoning principles relating to specific types of open space and/or facilities:
55
651 Table 8: Open Space Rezoning Principles
Open space type How to allocate appropriate zone
Accessway from street to street Road where it is 8m wide or less. Open Space (OS) zone consistent with use (default, as Informal recreation) where is greater than 8m wide.
Accessway from road to park Zone consistent with adjoining park.
Cemeteries Open for internments – Special Purpose Cemetery. Closed for internments and in public ownership – OS Conservation zone.
If the land is in private ownership, then the zoning of the surrounding land should apply.
Community buildings/facilities e.g. dog pound, Generally, do not spot zone existing community library, plunket rooms, play centre, Council depot buildings on OS Conservation, OS Informal Recreation, OS Sport and Active Recreation or OS Civic Spaces zones.
If mixed zonings or spot zonings in district plan then bring through to unitary plan.
If the certificate of title/gazette notice provides for community use and there is a community building on that area of land –OS Community Zone.
If there is an imminent future community building/facility planned for the site (i.e. a line item in the LTP) then spot zone the defined area to OS Community Zone.
If park/reserve is predominantly a community building/facility space –OS Community Zone.
If buildings/facilities/libraries not on a park/reserve (e.g. a community house in a residential or rural zone) –OS Community Zone.
If on land vested as Local Purpose Reserve – Community or similar, the same zoning as the surrounding land should apply.
If buildings/facilities/libraries dominate the site and are located in a business or centre zone - leave zoning as business or centre zone as these zones offer much greater flexibility of land use.
Crown land reserved from sale No change – status as “crown land reserved from sale” does not have any implications for the zoning of the land. Drainage reserve/works/channel No change – status as a “drainage reserve or drainage channel does not affect the zoning . However, land vested as reserve and containing stormwater ponds should be zoned OS – Informal Recreation.
56
652 Open space type How to allocate appropriate zone
Education purposes Crown land vested for education purposes should have the same zoning as the surrounding land. In most cases a designation will apply.
Esplanade reserves Case-by-case basis. Consider consistency with surrounding open space zones in assessment.
Undeveloped wilderness/bush which may include tracks and paths (e.g. Waitākere Ranges) – OS Conservation Zone.
Areas which have natural, ecological, biological, landscape, cultural or historic heritage values (identified through PAUP overlays and local knowledge) – OS Conservation Zone.
Developed, with e.g. lawn, pathways, landscaping; boat ramps/jetties with no associated club building –OS Informal Recreation Zone.
Developed, with specific water-related recreational facilities (e.g. sailing club building with associated boat ramps/jetties) and/or infrastructure (e.g. hardstand/boat maintenance areas) – OS Sport and Active Recreation Zone.
Infrastructure – e.g. waste water treatment plant, Infrastructure should have the same zoning as pumping stations, aerodrome site the surrounding land unless a Special Purpose zoning applies e.g. Airport. Significant infrastructure will be subject to designation.
Legal Road and Reserve for road purposes – Road. unformed and comprising part of a formed park, but there may be demand for the road to be formed in the future (e.g. road widening) Legal road and Reserve for road purposes – Zone consistent with the adjoining park. unformed and comprising part of a formed park and unlikely to be formed as road in the future (e.g. road ends sloping to coast, vehicle access impracticable)
Memorials – e.g. war memorials If have some soft/green area(s)/useable recreational space –OS Informal Recreation Zone.
If purely hard surfaces/paved/no usable recreational space –OS Civic Spaces Zone. Stormwater pond/drainage If stormwater pond/drainage infrastructure is part of a wider park – zone should be consistent with the rest of the park.
If the stormwater pond/drainage is the only purpose of the open space (e.g. pond adjacent to a motorway), apply the most appropriate open space zone. In most cases this will be OS Informal Recreation Zone.
57
653 This process confirmed approximately 400 land parcels require a zone change and are included as part of PC4.
Excluded from the PC4 are Roads
In reviewing recently vested land for a zone change in PC4, the council excluded roads from PC4. The Panel’s Interim Guidance on Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, dated 31 July 2015, endorsed the approach to not zone roads or having a road zone in the PAUP notified version.7 The PAUP notified Version adopted the approach and did not zone roads or having a road zone, except for State Highways and motorways which are zoned “Strategic Transport Corridor”.
Road is defined in the PAUP notified Version as “having the same meaning as in s.315 of the Local Government Act 1974 but excludes the Strategic Transport Corridor zone”. The Local Government Act’s definition of road includes:
The whole of any land which is within a district, and which – … (c) is laid out by the council as a road or street after the commencement of this Part; or (d) is vested in the council for the purpose of a road as shown on a deposited survey plan; or (e) is vested in the council as a road or street pursuant to any other enactment …
The criteria used in the PAUP notified version for determining whether a land parcel or area is identified in the planning maps as "road" includes: (a) The land being vested in the council as road reserve; and/or (b) The land in question having no owner or legal description, noting that: i. For corner splays (i.e. land taken for road widening) the final gazetting may not have occurred – so many of these are not vested as "road"; and ii. For pedestrian accessways, the legacy councils used different approaches.
The approach adopted in the PAUP notified version is that where a pedestrian accessway provides access between roads, it has been shown as "road". Where a pedestrian accessway provides access from a road to a reserve, then it has been identified on the planning maps as an area of Open Space.
The above approach used in the PAUP notified version was adopted into IHP PAUP recommendation and Council’s AUP version. In addition, the IHP inserted a rule into their PAUP recommendations version, to providing for the automatic update of the plan where land is vested as road.
E26.2.3 Activity Table
(3) Any zoning (including precinct provisions) ceases to have effect from the time the land is vested or dedicated as a road.
It is thereby, the zone change of vested roads can occur outside of the plan change process.
7 IHP PAUP Interim Guidance: Best practice approaches to re-zoning, precincts and changes to the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) 31 July 2015, p.1
58
654 8.3 Information Used
The following documents have been used to help with the assessment of the errors included in PC4:
Abbreviation Name of document, report, plan PAUP Notified Version Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (September 2013)
Council evidence All rebuttal evidence and evidence prepared by council
Submitters evidence All rebuttal evidence and evidence prepared by submitters Council closing Closing statements from council, including the tracked change statement position version available on the IHP website
PAUP IHP Recommendations from the Panel received on 22 July 2016 Recommendations Version
IHP report(s) The reports to explain Panel recommendations received on 22 July 2016
PAUP Decision Version Decisions following recommendations from the IHP and staff – this is August 2016
Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part version of the AUP – November 2016 (Operative in part)
LINZ Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) NZ Parcel Statutory Actions List
Legacy District Plan Operative district plan prepared by the former councils in Auckland Legacy Regional Plan Operative regional plan prepared by the former councils in Auckland
In some limited circumstances, operative plans prepared by the former councils in Auckland (district and regional plans) may have been used in the development of the plan change. Where relevant, this is referenced and included in an individual error / issue analysis.
There are also a number of subject matter expert reports, research and correspondence by various parties (Council, IHP, submitters) that may have been used in the development of the plan change. Where relevant, these are also referenced and included in an individual error / issue analysis.
59
655 8.4 Consultation
In accordance with clause 3 of Schedule 1 to the RMA, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, the local authority shall consult with:
a) the Minister for the Environment; and b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan; and c) local authorities who may be so affected; and d) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and e) any customary marine title group in the area. A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.
8.4.1 Summary of general consultation undertaken
Due to the administrative focus and avoidance of policy implications of PC4, no specific consultation was undertaken with the community prior to notification.
After notification of the PAUP decisions version, an email address was set up for all internal and external (public) enquiries on the AUP. Staff advised members of the public and internal staff within the council to send their potential errors to the email address ([email protected]) so it could be registered with the team as a potential error for correction.
In June 2017, letters were sent to customers who had sent potential errors to the Unitary Plan inbox email address to advise them on the outcome of the errors assessments. A number of these customers were advised that their potential error will be addressed as part of the first administrative plan change process. New letters will be sent to these customers to advise and confirm the error is part of PC4.
All letters have been sent prior to notification and provide information on the plan change process. Council have also sent a copy of PC4 to statutory bodies and parties specifically affected by amendments in PC4 (such as the Ministry for the Environment).
8.4.2 Consultation with iwi authorities
In accordance with Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, states that local authorities shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.
Due to the nature and scale of PC4, staff have identified, through the mana whenua-defined rohe maps, the following iwi authorities with whom the council must consult with on this matter:
• Ngāti Wai • Ngāti Manuhiri • Ngāti Rehua
60
656 • Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua • Te Uri o Hau • Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara • Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei • Te Kawerau a Maki • Ngāti Tamaoho • Te Akitai Waiohua • Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua • Te Ahiwaru • Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki • Ngāti Paoa • Ngāti Whanaunga • Ngāti Maru • Ngāti Tamaterā • Te Patukirikiri • Waikato-Tainui Clause 4A of Schedule 1 to the RMA states that local authorities must:
• Provide a copy of a draft proposed policy statement or plan to iwi authorities to consider • Have regard to feedback provided by iwi authorities on the draft proposed policy statement or plan • Provide iwi authorities with sufficient time to consider the draft policy statement or plan. And in addition to the above, recent legislation changes to the RMA introduced section 32(4A):
(4A) If the proposal is a proposed policy statement, plan, or change prepared in accordance with any of the processes provided for in Schedule 1, the evaluation report must—
(a) summarise all advice concerning the proposal received from iwi authorities under the relevant provisions of Schedule 1; and (b) summarise the response to the advice, including any provisions of the proposal that are intended to give effect to the advice. (c) a summary of all advice received from iwi authorities on the PC4 (section 32 (4)(a) of the RMA). Summary of feedback from iwi authorities
In June 2017, council staff informed all 19 iwi authorities about PC4 and advised that a draft copy will be provided for feedback. Nine out of the 19 iwi authorities indicated an interest to see a draft copy of the plan change prior to notification.
Accordingly, a draft copy of PC4 was provided to all 19 iwi authorities in the Auckland region on 21 August 2017.
61
657 Three of the 19 iwi authorities responded to the 21 August letter which was Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. Te Akitai Waiohua did not provide any feedback on PC4 but want to be kept informed of the process.
Council staff met with two iwi authorities (Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua) whom provided feedback on the documents. The feedback received was on:
i. importance to include, use and reference Māori values and Māori language in documents, particularly in operational and strategy documents i.e. Auckland Plan, and the Auckland Unitary Plan; ii. putting an Auckland context to any review or discussion of National Policy Statements in reports especially when talking about the regional and local planning context; and iii. the proposed amendments to Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule (Schedule 12) and proposed spatial map changes of Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay in the AUP GIS Viewer.
In response to (i) above, council staff agreed with the representative of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua that their feedback was more on the Auckland Plan refresh than on the proposed plan change documents. This feedback has been provided to the Auckland Plan Refresh project team for their information and use.
In response to (ii) above, the feedback seeking an Auckland context to National Policy Statements has been reflected in additional statutory context being iwi management plans recognised within the section 32 evaluation report as a matter to which the plan change must consider under s61, s66 and s74 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
In response to (iii) above, advice received from iwi authorities confirmed the proposed amendments to Schedule 12 in PC4.
Following receipt of feedback from iwi authorities, council staff updated the Section 32 evaluation report and PC4 attachments. Council staff considered all changes to be appropriate and these do not change the form, content, intent and scope of PC4.
8.4.3 Consultation with submitters
During the preparation of the hearings report, a number of submitters were contacted to discuss their submissions. Below is a summary of the discussion held with each submitter in respect of their submission to PC4:
Submission 59
The submitter, Spark New Zealand Trading Limited, emailed Council on 13 October 2017 to confirm that the correct sub-heading sought for deletion is “maximum number of antennas” in E26.2.5.3, not “number of antennas”.
Submission 184
During the preparation of this Hearings Report, Submitter 184 (AV Jennings Hobsonville Pty Limited) met with Council staff on Monday 4 December 2017 to discuss their submission.
62
658 The discussion covered the submission 184 on PC4, the scope of PC4 and recommendations to how the submitter may wish to proceed outside of PC4 hearings process. It was indicated by the submitter that there is a resource consent granted and the ownership of the land has now transferred over from Orewa West Investments Limited to AV Jennings Hobsonville Pty Limited. The submitter is seeking a number of changes including introducing a new precinct with provisions to the AUP for the subject land.
In the meeting, I expressed to the submitter that the submission (184) on PC4 is seeking a new addition and change to the AUP that is beyond the scope of PC4. We advised the submitter that the best route for addressing their submission is a private plan change request to Auckland Council. This advice does not confirm whether Council will accept or decline the request. While we recognise a resource consent has been granted for specific activities on the subject land, any new precinct or change of zoning (other than as an spatial anomaly) needs to be addressed through a separate and future plan change to the AUP. This is outside of PC4 process.
Submission 187
During the preparation of this Hearings Report, Submitter 187 (The Wheeler Family) legal representatives and planning consultant met with Council staff on Monday 27 November 2017 to discuss their submission. The discussion covered submission 187 on PC4 and the scope of PC4. Council’s proposed track changes in response to the submission were handed to the submitter at the meeting.
Without prejudice, we advised the submitter that we agreed that the standard relating to the 6m separation distance is an error and should be removed, and that additional to its removal the inclusion of stronger provisions around landscape protection are proposed to be added. The Wainamu Precinct sits within an Outstanding Natural Landscape and accordingly strengthening I614.8.1 and I614.8.2 in response to the removal of the 6m separation control is considered appropriate.
The submitter’s legal representatives and planning consultant agreed that they would consider Council’s proposed track changes and respond with their proposed amendments. On 1 December, the submitter provided their track changes to the proposed amendments and these are attached to the hearings report.
Submission 203
Submitter 203 (Universal Homes Ltd) was emailed on 24 November 2017 requesting evidence supporting their submission and summary of decision requested for ‘commerce’ activities enablement to be be extended to Westgate Drive when all existing evidence indicated a stop at Don Buck Road roundabout (further north).
The submitter responded by email on 28 November 2017 (following some further clarifications) and set out their reasons, advising that “detail evidence will be provided on behalf of Universal Homes by 12 January 2018”.
The main point outlined in their email to Council was that the enablement would provide a buffer given the commercial activities across the road in the Westgate centre (albeit zoned Light Industrial). The points put forward have been taken into account but are not persuasive in my opinion, and accepting the request would go outside the scope of PC4 and amount to a new policy decision.
63
659 9 Evaluation of individual issues and provisions
In accordance with section 32(1)(b) of the RMA, an evaluation report is required to examine whether the provisions in PC4 is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of PC4 and therein, the purpose of the RMA.
PC4 has grouped technical errors and anomalies, rather than pursuing individual plan changes for each error in provisions (as discussed in Section 4). The technical errors and anomalies are grouped as outlined in Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Technical errors and anomalies identified in PC4
An assessment of the appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, benefits, costs and risks of correcting technical errors and anomalies has been done as a whole package (PC4) rather than at individual issues. Section 4 of this evaluation report summarised that correcting these technical errors and anomalies together in one plan change to the AUP:
• is effective, as it better aligns with its relevant objectives, policies and purpose of the RMA • is efficient, as the potential for users to interpret these provisions incorrectly is reduced • is appropriate, as the AUP will function more efficiently and productively with the correction of these errors. Council has not identified options or conducted an assessment of the appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, benefits, costs and risks in relation to each individual issue (technical error or anomaly) identified in PC4.
It is evident from the research and information gathered, along with the analysis conducted on the particular issue that there is a clear way to correct the technical error or anomaly.
64
660 Majority of the technical errors and anomalies within PC4 show that the nature and degree of change is limited to a specific part of the AUP that is causing ambiguity. Doing nothing is not an option recommended to be pursued. Evidence shows that there is an error and a proposed amendment to correct the error.
This is an administrative plan change in which PC4 does not introduce or alter objectives or policies in the AUP, but seeks to remedy these clear technical errors and anomalies in the provisions. The correction of these errors and anomalies will enable the AUP to function as it was intended.
Previous sections of this report have explained the type of errors and anomalies and the methodology used to develop the PC4. All of this information supports the analysis and evaluation of the technical errors and anomalies.
The evaluation of individual technical errors and anomalies been kept together with their relevant chapter / sub-sections of the AUP i.e. Chapter B, Chapter D, Chapter E and so forth, and were done in a spreadsheet form. List of groupings are outlined in Attachment 3.
The spreadsheets are found in Attachments 6-30. The structure and content of what is contained in the spreadsheet is outlined in Table 9 below. You can find specific issues and amendments by their relevant groupings.
This evaluation process was done for all technical errors and anomalies in PC4, excluding zoning of land recently vested as a reserve.
Table 9: Explanation of the spreadsheets
Column heading Reason Type of error Whether this is a technical error or anomaly (two main categories of errors).
Sub-category of error Further categorises the error into sub-categories (see list provided in Attachment 4).
Nature and degree of Identify the nature and degree of change to one of the four graph change quadrants – this is explained in more detail below.
Sub-section of the The section name and number of the AUP that the error is within. AUP Specific provision The specific provision name and number of the AUP that the error reference of the AUP is within.
Current issue Summarise the error and issue.
Proposed State the recommendation and where possible, shown with Recommendation underline / strikethrough.
Rationale The reasons for change and where relevant this includes discussion on the appropriateness of the change to the objectives and policies of the AUP, and if any previous work was developed to help interpret the issue.
65
661 Column heading Reason Consequential This lists any consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the changes on other proposed amendment. parts of the AUP including the viewer Which attachment This lists the attachment that you will be able to find the proposed shows the proposed recommendation / change in PC4. recommendation
PC4 is shown in Attachments 31-40.
Nature and degree of change
In completing the evaluation of individual technical errors and anomalies, a graph was developed to identify the nature and degree of change per issue.
The horizontal line of the graph is the degree (numbers) of change and the vertical side of the graph is the nature of change (the level / scale of effects). The graph is used to identify the number of change/s proposed by an issue against the level of effect it will make in the AUP. This is used to describe the issue and proposed change against the status quo of the AUP. It shows the nature and degree of change for each issue in the PC4.
The graph is then defined into four quadrants, identified as C1, C2, C3 and C4:
C1 Low or a few number of changes across the AUP and the nature of change is low C2 Low or a few number of changes across the AUP and the nature of change is high, where it affects more parts of the AUP C3 High number of changes across the AUP and the nature of change is low C4 High number of changes across the AUP and the nature of change is high, where it affects more parts of the AUP
66
662 Council assessed and identified each issue to a quadrant that it fits best. Categories C1 to C4 are all within scope of the recommended PC4.
Changes to open space
Previous sections of this report have explained the methodology used to identify land recently vested as a reserve for a propose zone change. Attachment 36 contains a spreadsheet with the details of all vested land to be rezoned as open space. The spreadsheet contains the following information:
- map number, - geographic area, - legal description (or appellation), - owner, - address, - current zoning, - proposed new zone and - notes on the reasons for the change. Each proposed change has an accompanying map depicting the area of change. Attachments 37-40 show the proposed spatial zoning changes of land recently vested with Council as open space. These are grouped by the sub-geographic areas (North, Central, South and West).
67
663 10 Conclusion
The purpose of PC4 is to correct clear technical errors and anomalies in the AUP. PC4 is the most efficient, effective and appropriate means of addressing the resource management issues identified. The main conclusions of the evaluation under Part 2 and section 32 of the RMA are summarised below:
1. PC4 is consistent with the purpose of sustainable management in section 5 and the principles within Sections 6, 7, 8 and within Part 2 of the RMA.
2. PC4 assists the council in carrying out its functions set out in sections 30 and 31 of the RMA.
3. PC4 is consistent with the objectives and policies of the AUP Regional Policy Statement.
4. The evaluation undertaken in accordance with section 32 concluded: i. The use of the existing objectives of the AUP would be the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. ii. The existing policies, rules and methods (including the changes set out in Attachments 31-34) are the most appropriate means of achieving the objectives identified in Section 3.0 of this report.
68
664 List of Attachments
Attachment Name of Attachment 1 Links to relevant legislation 2 Chronology on the development of the Unitary Plan 3 List of Groupings 4 Sub-categories of errors 5 S32 analysis on the proposed re-zoning of land recently vested with Council
Attachments 6-30: The evaluation of individual technical errors and anomalies been kept together with their relevant chapter / sub-sections of the AUP i.e. Chapter B, Chapter D, Chapter E and so forth, and were done in a spreadsheet form. The structure and content of what is contained in the spreadsheet is outlined in Table 9 of this report.
6 Chapter B Regional Policy Statement 7 Chapter D Overlays 8 Chapter E Auckland wide 9 Chapter H Zones 10 Chapter I Precincts – Auckland wide • I101 Motorsport Precinct • I103 Waitematā Navigation Channel Precinct
11 Chapter I Precincts – City Centre • I208 Port Precinct • I211 Viaduct Harbour Precinct • I214 Wynyard Precinct
12 Chapter I Precincts – Central • I318 Monte Cecilia Precinct • I319 MOTAT Precinct • I323 Observatory Precinct • I325 Ōkahu Marine Precinct • I332 Tamaki Precinct • I334 Wairaka Precinct
13 Chapter I Precincts – South • I402 Auckland Airport Precinct • I403 Beachlands 1 Precinct • I404 Beachlands 2 Precinct • I408 Clevedon Precinct • I409 Clevedon Waterways Precinct • I410 Drury South Industrial Precinct • I412 Flat Bush Precinct • I417 Karaka North Precinct • I418 Kingseat Precinct • I429 Pararēkau and Kōpuahingahinga Islands Precinct • I430 Patamahoe Precinct • I431 Pine Harbour Precinct • I432 Puhinui Precinct • I433 Pukekohe Hill Precinct
69
665 Attachment Name of Attachment • I434 Pukekohe Park Precinct • I437 Runciman Precinct • I438 Takanini Precinct
14 Chapter I Precincts – North • I509 Greenhithe Precinct • I510 Gulf Harbour Marina Precinct • I516 Kumeū Precinct • I519 Long Bay Precinct • I532 Pinewoods Precinct • I537 Silverdale 3 Precinct • I541 Te Arai North Precinct • I545 Waiwera Precinct
15 Chapter I Precincts – West • I605 Hobsonville Point Precinct • I610 Redhills Precinct • I615 Westgate Precinct
16 Chapter I Precincts – Special Housing Areas • Hingaia 1 Precinct • Huapai Triangle Precinct
17 Chapter J Definitions 18 Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule 19 Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule 20 Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage 21 Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance 22 Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps 23 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Overlays 24 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Controls 25 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Precincts 26 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – Central 27 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – South 28 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – North 29 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – West 30 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – Open Space
Attachments 31-40: PC4
31 Proposed amendments with immediate legal effect 32 Proposed amendments to text and diagrams 33 Proposed amendments to maps in the AUP GIS viewer 34 Consequential amendments to other parts of AUP 35 Proposed amendments to Drury South Industrial Precinct Appendix 36 Spreadsheet Index of land recently vested with Council as reserve and proposed for zoning changes 37 Proposed spatial zoning changes of land vested as open space in the North 38 Proposed spatial zoning changes of land vested as open space in the Central 39 Proposed spatial zoning changes of land vested as open space in the South 40 Proposed spatial zoning changes of land vested as open space in the West
70
666 Glossary
Auckland Plan – the spatial plan for Auckland as mandated in s79 and s80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP) – Operative in part version of the AUP – November 2016
Council closing statement position – Closing statements from council, including the tracked change version available on the IHP website
Council evidence – All rebuttal evidence and evidence prepared by council
IHP report – The reports to explain Panel recommendations received on 22 July 2016
Part 2 RMA – the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991
PAUP – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the combined regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan for Auckland, but excludes the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the District Plan
PAUP Decision Version – Decisions following recommendations from the IHP and staff – this is August 2016
PAUP IHP Recommendations Version – Recommendations from the Panel received on 22 July 2016
PAUP Notified Version – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (September 2013)
s32 – section 32 of the RMA, which sets out the evaluation required under the RMA in relation to a proposed policy statements, proposed plans, changes or variations to policy statements or plans, and regulations.
71
667 Glossary of Māori Terms
The following Māori terms are provided to assist with interpretation of terms used within this report and PC4. They are not intended to be used as definitions.
Hapū – A number of whānau related through a common ancestor – section of a large kinship group
Iwi – A number of hapū related through a common ancestor
Kaitiaki – Guardian
Kaitiaki contacts – Contacts within iwi and hapū organisations authorised to take RMA and consent application enquiries
Kaupapa – Topic, issue
Mana – Authority, status, prestige
Mana Whenua – The people of the land who have mana or customary authority – their historical, cultural and genealogical heritage are attached to the land and sea
Māori – Mana Whenua and Mataawaka.
Mataawaka – Māori who live in Auckland and are not within a mana whenua group.
Mātauranga – Knowledge
Maunga – Mountain, mount or peak. Also refers to volcanic cones
Pā – Māori settlements and villages
Rohe – Region, district or area
Rohe moana – Marine region or area
Tāmaki Makaurau – The Māori name for Auckland
Tangata whenua – Indigenous people of the land
Te Tiriti o Waitangi – The Treaty of Waitangi which is the document upon which the British and Māori agreed to found a nation state and build a government
Tikanga – Customary lore and practice, Māori protocols
Wāhi tapu – Sacred ancestral sites and places of significance to iwi, hapū or whanau
Whenua – Land, country, earth, ground
A full glossary of Māori terms can be viewed online within the N1 Glossary of Māori terms of the AUP: http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Images/Auckland%20Unitary%20Plan%20Operati ve/Chapter%20N%20Glossary%20of%20Māori%20terms/N1%20Glossary%20of%20Māori %20Terms.pdf
72
668
Attachment 1 – Links to relevant legislation Listed in the order it is referenced in the report
Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)
Due to the large number of sections referenced in this report and some of the sizes of the sections of the Act, we recommended you view the Act online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html#DLM240 686
National Coastal Policy Statement (NCPS)
You can view the NCPS online: http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/science- publications/conservation-publications/marine-and-coastal/new-zealand-coastal-policy- statement/new-zealand-coastal-policy-statement-2010/
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA)
You can view the HGMPA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0001/latest/DLM52558.html?search=qs _act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_hauraki+gulf_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Protection Act 2008 (WRHPA)
You can view the WRHPA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/local/2008/0001/latest/DLM1076035.html?search=q s_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_waitakere+ranges_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)
You can view the LGA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170873.html?search=q s_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Local+government+_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA)
You can view the LGATPA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0037/latest/DLM3016607.html?search= qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Local+government+_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
1
669
Reserves Act 1977 (RA)
You can view the RA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0066/latest/DLM444305.html?search=q s_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_reserves+_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA)
You can view the HNZPTA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0026/latest/DLM4005414.html?search= ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_heritage+new_resel_25_a&p=1
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNOA)
You can view the HSHNOA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381222.html?search=q s_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_hazard_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA)
You can view the SCRCA online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1941/0012/latest/DLM230365.html?search=q s_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_soil_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1
2
670
Attachment 2 – Chronology of the Auckland Unitary Plan
2010-2013 Auckland Council prepares combined plan & undertakes consultation
From eight former councils in the Auckland region:
Auckland City Council Auckland Regional 30 September 2013 to 28 February 2014 Council, Franklin Auckland Council notifies PAUP and submission period opened for 60 working days District Council, Manukau City Council North Shore City Council, Papakura District Council, May-July 2014 Rodney District Council Waitakere City Council Auckland Council gives public notice of summary of submissions. 30 working days further submission period
Excludes the Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the District Plan
Minister for the Environment & Minister of Conservation established a Hearings Panel in consultation with Auckland Council and Independent Maori Statutory Board
September 2014 - May 2016 Hearings Panel holds hearing sessions according to procedures set out in LGATP Act.
22 July 2016 IHP provide their recommendations and reports on the PAUP to Auckland Council
22 July to 19 August 2016 Auckland Council reviews the IHP PAUP recommendations & publicly releases IHP recommendaitons
19 August 2016 Auckland Council notifies the PAUP decision version
19 August to 16 September 2016 Appeal period opens. Submitters may appeal to the Environment Court or High Court on set matters outlined in the LGTPA, Appeal period closed on 16 Sept.
November 2016 Council amends plan and parts of the plans are deemed to be adopted or approved parts as per the timeframes & criteria in the Act. Appeal process begins.
15 November 2016 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part
1
671
Attachment 3 – Groupings
The evaluation of individual technical errors and anomalies been kept together with their relevant chapter / sub-sections of the AUP i.e. Chapter B, Chapter D, Chapter E and so forth.
Name of Groupings Analysis is shown in Attachment Chapter B RPS 6 Chapter D Overlays 7 Chapter E Auckland wide 8 Chapter H Zones 9 Chapter I Precincts – Auckland wide (I100+) 10 Chapter I Precincts – City Centre (I200+) 11 Chapter I Precincts – Central (I300+) 12 Chapter I Precincts – South (I400+) 13 Chapter I Precincts – North (I500+) 14 Chapter I Precincts – West (I600+) 15 Chapter I Precincts – Special Housing Areas 16 Chapter J Definitions 17 Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule 18 Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana 19 Whenua Schedule Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage 20 Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements 21 of significance Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and 22 Maps AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Overlays 23 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Controls 24 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Precincts 25 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – Central 26 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – South 27 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – North 28 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – West 29 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning – Open Space 30
1
672
Attachment 4 – Sub-categories
The sub-categories and associated examples of technical errors are as follows:
Sub-Categories Description of Error Example (the description below does not (these are examples only – encompass all types of errors that not any actual or proposed could be identified under the sub- change) category)
Amendments to Missing diagrams, figure, tables, or A diagram may be referred to Diagrams, figures, appendices or where parts of a but does not exist, but existed tables or diagram, figure, table or appendix in previous versions of the appendices needs to be amended or deleted Plan.
Amendments to Missing macrons, mapping errors, For example, where the Schedules incorrect identification of schedule extent of place is to be items, missing key information extended (two places) or is to (name, location, type, primary be reduced (in size) features and/or exclusions), minor text amendments for correction
Clarification or Addition, deletion, amendment or Provisions poorly drafted or Explanation reformatting of text for clarification that don’t make sense. purposes. (A91)Tree alteration or removal of any tree less than 4m in height or less than and trees 400mm in girth Duplication Duplication of provisions, e.g. where Where a provision has been a policy or standard has been repeated exactly or almost repeated unnecessarily. exactly. Inconsistency of Where provisions or references For example, reference to the provisions, aren’t consistent or clearly wrong. wrong standards or activity references, terms or Inconsistency of terms. table. formatting Inconsistency of terms, i.e. coastal marine to coastal marine area.
1
673
The sub-categories and associated examples of anomalies are as follows:
Sub-Categories Description of Error Example (the description below does not (these are examples only – encompass all types of errors that not any actual or proposed could be identified under the sub- change) category)
Zone Mapping Error Corrections to a zone where the For example, where there spatial application has been clearly are a few parcels zoned applied to the wrong site, wholly or differently from its partially. neighbouring parcels for no apparent reason
Updating the GIS viewer to land recently vested as open space, roads etc.
Overlay Mapping Corrections to overlay, precinct or For example, mapped extent Error, or control boundaries where this is of place in Operative in part Precinct Mapping clearly incorrect between different and Council's case position Error, or versions of the Plan. The precinct Viewers doesn't exactly Control Mapping Error overlay or control boundary match extent of place as extends over the wrong sites, or is marked up and agreed on. inconsistent with the Precinct Plan, or former version of the AUP.
Nonsensical outcomes Amendments to correct For instance, height limits nonsensical provisions or reference Macro-invertebrate references – i.e. where a reference overlay (where height limits does not make sense and doesn’t won’t apply). apply to the provision. There is an anomaly that arises between provisions. A clear discrepancy between the plans.
2
674
Attachment 5 – S32 analysis on the proposed re-zoning of land recently vested
A section 32 analysis on options to the spatial zoning of land recently vested with council has been done in accordance with Section 32(1)(b) and (2) of the Act, see below.
The three options are:
• do not change the zoning of vested land to “align” with the purpose for which it has been vested (Option 1: Status Quo/Do Nothing)
• change the zoning of all vested land to an appropriate unitary plan zone or new zone if no equivalent (Option 2: Change the zone in AUP via a plan change)
• change the zoning of vested land to an appropriate zone where one exists (Option 3: change the zone in AUP via a plan change)
Both Options 2 and 3 involve rezoning vested land to an appropriate zone. Options 2 involves apply an existing zone to all vested land or if no appropriate zone exists, introducing a new zone. Option 3 involves applying a zone to vested land, only where a suitable zone existing. For example, land is sometimes vested for drainage purposes, local purposes – amenity reserve or utility reserve but this does not necessitate a change in zoning.
The options were assessed against the following criteria:
Sections of the Act Criteria s32(1)(a) Is this option the most appropriate way in which to Appropriateness and address the issue at hand? In doing so, is this option
s32(1)(b) of the most appropriate way to meet the objective of the
the Act AUP and the purpose of the Act? Effectiveness How successfully can this option address the issue? s32(1)(b)(ii) Does this option successfully meet the objectives of of the Act the AUP? Does this option address the issue at lowest cost and Efficiency s32(1)(b)(ii) highest net benefit? Whether the option is the most of the Act efficient in terms of implementation (note; there is some overlap here with costs/benefit? Costs s32(2) of the What are the time and money/expense associated with Act the option Benefits s32(2) of the What are the savings in terms of time and Act money/expenses Risks s32(2)(c) of What are the risks of addressing this issue? What are the Act the risks of not addressing this issue?
1
675
The section 32 analysis of the above three options is provided below.
Option 1: Status Option 2: Change Option 3: Change the Quo/Do Nothing the Zoning of All Zoning of Vested Land to Vested Land to An an Appropriate Zone Appropriate Unitary Where One Exists via a Plan Zone or New plan change to the AUP Zone if No Equivalent via a plan change to the AUP Cost Costs may occur if use Costs (both time and Costs (both time and and/or development is money) associated money) associated with the to take place – i.e. with a plan change to plan change. costs associated with align the purpose for Costs may occur if use the resource consent which the land was and/or development is to process if the zoning vested to a Unitary take place – i.e. costs and the purpose for Plan zone. associated with the resource which the land has consent process if the been vested do not zoning and the purpose for align. which the land has been vested do not align.
Benefit No costs associated Reduced or no costs Reduced or no costs if the with a Council Plan if the zoning and the zoning and the purpose for Change. purpose for which the which the land has been land has been vested vested align. This will align. This will negate negate the need for the need for resource resource consents. consents.
Effectiveness If the zoning and the A change in zoning A change in zoning will purpose for which the will ensure that the ensure that the purpose for land has been vested purpose for which the which the land has been do not align, the land has been vested vested aligns with the Unitary Plan will not be aligns with the Unitary Unitary Plan’s objectives effective in achieving Plan’s objectives and and policies. Option the relevant objectives policies. Some “types” recognises that some and policies. of vested land may “types” of vested land may not have an not have an equivalent equivalent Unitary Unitary Plan zoning. The Plan zoning. A new zoning of the land as per the zoning may be Unitary Plan would therefore required. continue to apply.
2
676
Option 1: Status Option 2: Change Option 3: Change the Quo/Do Nothing the Zoning of All Zoning of Vested Land to Vested Land to An an Appropriate Zone Appropriate Unitary Where One Exists via a Plan Zone or New plan change to the AUP Zone if No Equivalent via a plan change to the AUP Efficiency There could be the With land zoned in a With land zoned in a need for costly manner that closely manner that closely aligns resource consents aligns with the with the purpose for which it (both time and money) purpose for which it has been vested, the use to undertake activities has been vested, the and development of it will be and development that use and development efficient. are closely aligned to of it will be efficient. Some land will not be able what the land was Creating new to aligned because there is vested for. additional zones is not an equivalent Unitary The process would not an efficient use of Plan zoning. therefore not be the Unitary Plan. efficient. New zone(s) may be required when there is not an equivalent Unitary Plan zoning.
Appropriateness Least appropriate of A more appropriate The most appropriate the options. The option (than option 1). option. Aligns the Unitary Unitary Plan’s However, some Plan zoning with the objectives and policies “types” of vested land purpose for which the land are unlikely to be may not have an has been vested. achieved with the land equivalent Unitary Recognises that not all not having an Plan zoning and this vested land has an appropriate zoning. may necessitate equivalent zoning and that additional zone(s). rural, residential or business zones are appropriate in some situations. Risk The purpose for which Risk of spot zoning or Some land will not have an the land is vested may creating additional equivalent Unitary Plan be frustrated due to an zones. zoning but the vast majority inappropriate zoning. Adds extra complexity of vested land will. This could trigger the to the Unitary Plan. need for a resource consent and the associated costs and delays.
3
677
Summary of Analysis
With regard to the spatial zoning of land recently vested land with Council, Option 3 strikes the best balance between aligning the purpose for which the land has been vested with the appropriate zone, while recognising that some “types” of vested land do not require an equivalent AUP zoning. This will correct the appropriate land use zoning and can be included into the Administrative Plan Change as mapping anomalies for correction.
4
678 ATTACHMENT NINE
SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT (INCLUDES ATTACHMENTS 6-30)
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Chapter B: Regional Policy Statement
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Terminology Error B5 Built Heritage and C1 NA The chapter title does not reflect the chapter content. The title is limited to "built" heritage, while Amend the title of the chapter to "Built Historic The title of the chapter will accurately reflect the content of the chapter. There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Proposed recommendation Character the content includes consideration of archaeological sites, gardens, and shipwrecks, amongst Heritage and Character". proposed amendment. These changes are: shown in Attachment 32 other historic heritage places. - section heading of Built Heritage and Character in Chapter D: Overlays in the table of contents, GIS Viewer layer titles and GIS Consequential changes shown viewer map legend, and in Attachment 34 - additional referencing amendments in B8.6 Coastal environment - Explanation and principal reasons for adoption, Table 11.4 Monitoring and environmental results anticipated - Built heritage (B5), and D17.8.2 Historic heritage overlay - Assessment criteria.
Technical Inconsistency of B7 Toitū te whenua, toitū C1 B7.2.2 Policies (3) and (4) There is inconsistency in terms used within the RPS Chapter B7.2 - Indigenous biodiversity Replace the term ‘coastal environment’ with ‘coastal The change of terms ensures the policies correctly references and gives There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 provisions, references, te taiao – Natural provisions of the AUP. marine area' in policies B7.2.2. (3) and (4). effect to RPS Objective B7.2(1), which specifically references to ‘Coastal terms or formatting resources Marine Area’. Objective B7.2(1) refers to the 'Coastal Marine Area', however in Policy B7.2(3) the term 'Coastal environment' is used instead of ‘Coastal Marine Area’, and this is repeated in the new This makes it clear that the provisions do not relate to areas landward of Policy B7.2(4) of the AUP. Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) and ensures that landward area is not assessed against SEA-M factors. The use of the terms 'coastal environment' is inconsistent with the words stated in Objective B7.2(1), where areas of indigenous biodiversity are to be protected on land, in freshwater or in the coastal marine area (and so will be protected in one of these three ways). The use of ‘Coastal Marine Area’ in the objective is specific and suggests that the provisions/chapter does not relate to areas landward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS). The use of ‘coastal environment’ in the policies does not reflect the above intent.
The PAUP IHP recommendations version made these changes and Council accepted the changes in the PAUP Decisions version, now carried through into the AUP.
The terms 'coastal environment' in policies B7.2(3) and B7.2(4) of the AUP should be replaced with the correct term of 'coastal marine area' stated in Objective B7.2(1). This will make the policies consistent with the objectives of RPS B7.2 of the AUP.
Page679 1 of 40 Chapter D: Overlays
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C1: D12: Waitakere Ranges D12.6.4.19 Subdivision of any site An incorrect map (Figure D12.10.2) is referenced in Standards D12.6.4.19. Recommendation is: This incorrect reference requires the any subdivision within Holdens Road, There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 31 provisions, references, Low/ few number of Heritage Area Overlay within the area bounded by Holdens To remove incorrect reference, which is: Forest Hill Road, Pine Avenue and Parrs Cross Road, to be subject to proposed amendment. The changes are consequential re- terms or formatting changes Road, Forest Hill Road, Pine Avenue Standards in D12.6.4.19 relate to Holdens Road, Forest Hill Road, Pine Avenue and Parrs • to remove the reference to Figure 12.10.2 Overlay additional standards that relate to Swanson South (Foothills). numbering of standards D12.6.4.19 (2) to (5) in D12: Waitakere Low effect and Parrs Cross Road Road. Subdivision Plan 2 within D12.6.4.19 Ranges Heritage Area Overlay. As these areas are not related in the AUP, this may result in confusion about Figure D12.10.2 refers to Swanson South, which is not within the Holdens Road to Parrs Road This will also require: which standards apply with which areas. area outlined above. • subsequent renumbering of the rest of the standards (2) to (5) in D12.6.4.19 Therefore the reference to Figure D12.10.2 is incorrect.
.
Technical Duplication C3: D12: Waitakere Ranges Figure D12.10.10 - Overlay D12.10.9 and D12.10.10- Overlay Subdivision Plan 7c- Bush Living (Ranges), are duplicate Recommendation is: The duplication of Figures D12.10.9 and D12.10.10 is potentially confusing to There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 31 High number of changes Heritage Area Overlay Subdivision Plan 7c - Bush Living figures. To remove Figure D12.10.10 to avoid duplication. users of the AUP. proposed amendment. In removing Figure D12.10.10 , the Low effect (Ranges) consequential change is re-numbering subsequent figures (i.e. This issue was first noted in the PAUP IHP Recommendations Version, before it was carried This also includes: There is no change to the policies or provisions of D12, and therefore the D12.10.11- D12.10.19). Also, there is a need to renumber the over to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part). • an update to the numbering of Figures D12.10.11 to change remains appropriate to the plan objectives. references in the relevant text sections of Chapter D12. D12.10.19 • to update the figure references in the Chapter D12 The change is mainly a technical one, which requires re-numbering of subsequent figures from D12.10.11 to D12.10.19; and updating figure references in text sections of Chapter D12.
Technical Amendment to C2: D12: Waitakere Ranges Figure D12.10.2: Overlay On the diagram D12.10.2, he site at 54 Coulter Road allows for two further subdivided sites to Recommendation is: Figure D12.10.2 outlines areas with subdivision rights in the area. As a There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 diagrams, figures, tables Low/ few number of Heritage Area Overlay Subdivision Plan 2- Swanson South occur. To delete references to subdivirsion at the 54 Coulter subdivision consent has already been granted for a site on the figure, any or appendices changes (Foothills) Road site. references to further subdivision potential should be removed. High effect However, the subdivision consent has already been issued for this site. Therefore, this site cannot be further subdivided, as the subdivision right has already been exercised This includes amending Figure D12.10.12 as follows: Without the change, the site could be further subdivided, which would be in • remove the reference to '2' conflict with the policies and provisions for that area. • remove the grey boundary around the site • remove the enhancement area in yellow
Technical Clarification or C4: D14: Volcanic D14.6 Standards The issue lies with the interpretation of standard D14.6.3 (a) (iii), which results in heights that Recommendation is: The history of the rule through the PAUP Notified Version through to the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Explanation High number of changes Viewshafts and Height could undermine the policy intent of D14 (Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Overlays. To amend D14.6 as follows: PAUP IHP Recommendation Version, is clear that the intention of the rule is High effect Sensitive Areas Overlay • to add the following to D14.6.1.1 to allow new buildings to reach a permitted height that sits between the Standard D14.6.3 (a) (iii) seeks to ensure that the permitted height for a new building sits (1) In applying these standards …..except if using highest roof points of the neighbouring buildings. This is to ensure that new between the highest roof points of the neighbouring buildings. However, the calculation of this standards D14.6.3(1)(a)(ii) and D14.6.3(1)(a)(iii) where buildings are only restricted in accordance with the neighbouring buildings permitted height is not apparent. the maximum height is restricted by another method. that are already impacting on the views to the maunga (volcanic feature).
If ground level is used as a reference point for the height calculation, the permitted height of the • to add the following to D14.6.3.1 However, the issue lies with the measurement of the permitted height. If the new building could be higher than that neibouring buildings. The reason for this is that the (1) Buildings on sites that have a contiguous boundary ground level height at which highest roof point is measured, is lower than ground level of the neighbouring property could be much lower than the site uopon which the with a site with a volcanic feature.... which the new building will be constructed on, then the new building will be new building is constructed. (a) the lowest of.. taller than its neighbouring building. This is not the intention of the rule in light (i) the height defined on the height sensitive area of its context. The impact of allowing this rule to remain is that new buildings planning maps or otherwise 9m, or and could further encroach on the views of the maunga (volcanic feature).
(ii) the average height above sea level (RL) of the two The recommended change is in line with the PAUP Notified Version and nearest buildings (other than accessory buildings) on Council's evidence to use the 'average of the levels' of the highest points of adjoining sites where those sites also have a the roofs of the nearest two buildings to determine the height of the new contiguus boundary with the volcanic feature, provided building. This would need to be determined using the RL of hte average of that such buildings are both higher than the average the highest points of the toof of the nearest two buildings. contiguous boundary of the application site with the volcanic feature; or
Technical Clarification or C2: D17: Historic Heritage D17.4.1 Activity table (A2) Clarification is required for the activity status of the demolition or destruction of less than 30% of Recommendation is: Any work on a scheduled historic feature that is less than 30% by volume or There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Explanation Low/ few number of Overlay a feature within a scheduled historic heritage place. To add a note in (A2) of Activity Table D17.4.1, that footprint can be considered a modification and are subject to acivity status in changes says: the Modification and Restoration section. High effect Activity table D17.4.1 expressly provides for demolition or destruction of 30% or more by volume or footprint (whichever is the greater) of any feature, being Rules A1 and A2. At present, this is not clarified in the Activity Table D17.4.1 and there is a gap In the same table, Rule A9 – Modification and restoration – provides for modifications to "Note: Demolition or destruction of less than 30%, by in the protections for scheduled historic heritage features. features, except where provided for in another rule in this overlay. The intent was that Rule A9 volume or footprint (whichever is greater) of any would capture modification activities involving demolition and/or destruction not provided for feature; is considered under ‘Modification and The addition of the note into A2 clarifies the activity status for users of the under Rule A1 and A2. This would make such an activity restricted discretionary, unless the Restoration’ – Activity (A9), in this table (D17.4.4)" AUP and ensures a level of protection for scheduled histroric heritage feature was identified as an exclusion. features. Through the implementation of these provisions it has become apparent that greater clarity is necessary. Namely, that an activity involving the demolition and/or destruction of less than 30% Also by clarifying the activity status it better aligns to the objectives and of a feature within the extent of place of a scheduled historic heritage place is managed under policies for D17, to protect scheduled historic heritage features from Rule A9. inappropriate modifications and destruction, but also better aligns to the Regional Policy Statement B5: Built Heritage and Character.
Technical Clarification or C2: D17: Historic Heritage D17.4.1 Activity table (A8) Inconsistency in definition. The activity tables currently use the terms '...biosecurity measures, Recommendation is: In order to use more general terms in the plan, the PAUP IHP There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 31 Explanation Low/ few number of Overlay D17.4.3 Activity table (A32) tree works.." which are erroneous terms and contradicts the provisions in another part of the To replace Biosecurity measures and tree works, with recommendations version of the plan had used the term 'biosecurity proposed amendment. The changes are in D17 overlay provisions. changes AUP. 'biosecurity tree works' in: measures and tree works'. High effect • Activity table D17.4.1 (A8) Originally, the PAUP Notified Version stated "pest plant removal, biosecurity tree works" to align • Activity table D17.4.3 (A32) However, this change had the effect of altering the meaning of biosecurity with definitions in the notified vesion. tree works. 'Tree works' is a broader term that can refer to 'Biosecurity, This also includes: emergency tree works' etc. Tree works, as a broad term is not defined in the PAUP IHP recommendations version altered this to "pest plant removal, biosecurity measures • a change in the title of D17.6.4. AUP but 'biosecurity tree works' is defined in J1 Definitions. 'Biosecurity tree and tree works". However, 'biosecurity measures and tree works' are not defined in the AUP, works' is a specific term that outlines work required for pest protection and but 'biosecurity tree works' is a specific type of activity that is defined in E15 Vegetation biosecurity reasons. management and biosecurity and is a definition included in J1 Definitions. This recommended change ensures the wording of the rule aligns with the definition in the AUP and aligns to rules in E15 Vegetation management and biosecurity. The recommended change provides clarity in relation to the type of tree works allowed as a permitted activity in the Historic Heritage Overlay. Technical Clarification or C1: D17: Historic Heritage D17.4.3 Activity table- Activities in The use of 'Temporary activities' in the title in Recommendation is The words 'temporary activities' is superflous and misleading to to the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Explanation Low/ few number of Overlay Historic Heritage Areas [dp] D17.4.3 Activity table- i.e. Signs, ancillary and temporary activities" is misleading to the purpose To remove 'temporary activities' in D17.4.3 Activity purpose of the section in the activity table. changes of hte section in the activity table. table title as follows- Low effect • title of Section for A35 to A38- The rules in the activity table relates to temporary structures and signs, rather Removing 'temporary activities' in the title- helps clarify that the rules relates to 'temporary Signs, ancillary structures and temporary structures than temporary activities. Activity status for temporary activities is covered in structures and signs' and not the activities themselves. and signs chapter E40 of the AUP. Therefore, the title is misleading, as it suggests there are rules and standards that relate to temporary activities. Removing ‘ancillary structures’ clarifies that the rules contained in the table relate to ‘temporary structures and signs’ only. This change alters the title to better reflect its purpose in the activity table.
Page680 2 of 40 Chapter D: Overlays
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C2: D17: Historic Heritage D17.6.6 Temporary buildings and Standard D17.6.6(1)(b) misses some text, which results in this standard being inconsistent with Recommendation is to: The missing text (i.e. attached, painted, fixed or projected) would result in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 provisions, references, Low/ few number of Overlay structures and signs, including those other standards for the same activity, being signs within a scheduled historic heritage place. Add the following text to standard D17.6.6(1)(b)- more permissive standards for temporary signs or structures than for other terms or formatting changes accessory to a temporary activity standards for signs. High effect This standard refers only to “affixed” signs, while the other standards (such as D17.6.7) refer to "(b) the building, structure or sign being attached, a greater range of signage including, “attached, painted, fixed, or projected” signs. painted, fixed, or projected to any existing building, Adding the text back into the standard creates consistency with similar structure or feature within the scheduled historic signage standards and also ensures the appropriate management of signs heritage place, other than a building, structure or within scheduled historic heritage places. feature identified in the exclusions column in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage...... " Technical Amendment to C2: D18: Special Character D18.4.1: Activity tables- Special This issue relates to Activity (A1) in Activity table D18.4.1. Recommendation is: The objectives and policies in this section (i.e. D18: Special Character There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 diagrams, figures, tables Low/ few number of Areas Overlay- Character Areas Overlay- Residential • to include the word 'maintenance' into A1 of the Overlays), permits the maintenance, repair and restoration of buildings. or appendices changes Residential and (A1) In the PAUP Notified Version the word 'maintenance' was used alongside restoration and repair D18.4.1 Activity Table as follows: However, 'maintenance' is not carried through into the provisions High effect Business to a building in a Special Chatacter Area Overlay. However, this was omited at the PAUP IHP recommendations Version and concomitantly in the AUP (operative in part) "Restoration, maintenance and repair to a building on Adding 'Maintenance' into the activity status further clarifies the intent of the all sites in the ……." provisions.
Technical Clarification or C4: D18: Special Character D18.4.1: Activity tables- Special The issue is that it is not clear that all parts of the following Special Character Overlay areas are Recommendation is: The Special Character Areas Overlay seek to provide an appropriate level of There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Proposed recommendation shown Explanation High number of changes Areas Overlay- Character Areas Overlay- Residential subject to demolition controls: Birkenhead Point; Devonport and Stanley Point; and Northcote • to include the following into Activity table D18.4.1 protection to manage total or substatial demolition of buildings. proposed amendment. It is recommended that references are added in Attachment 31. High effect Residential and (A3) Point. The maps in Schedule 15 that show these special character areas indicate that those (A3): to the legends on Maps 15.1.7.5.1, 15.1.7.6.1, and 15.1.7.7.1 that Consequential changes shown in Business parts of the areas that are Area A, Area B and Area C are subject to the demolition controls but Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential: North Areas in the Special Character Areas Overlay - North Shore - Birkenhead refer to where the rules relating to Area A, Area B and Area C are Attachment 34. the other parts of the areas are not. Area A, Area B and Area C that are shown relate to density Shore- Birkenhead Point Point, Devoport and Stanley Point, and Northcote Point have been identified located (Table E38.8.2.6.1). It is also recommended that a reference controls in the Subdivision Chapter of the AUP, and this is not clear in the Schedule 15 maps. Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential: North as Area A, Area B and Area C. These areas are the residential parts of the is added to Table E38.8.2.6.1 to advise where the maps showing All sites within these special character areas should be subject to demolition controls, as they Shore- Devonport and Stanley Point; and special character overlay and there are rules relating to density controls on these areas are located (i.e. Schedule 15). were under Plan Change 33. Special Character Areas Overlay- Residential: North these sites in the subdivision chapter of the AUP. There are some business- Shore- Northcote Point; zoned sites in the North Shore special character overlay areas and these are This mistake occured from the PAUP IHP recommendations versions, as the incorrect maps not shown as Area A, B or C in the maps in Schedule 15. The legend on the were referenced at the time. • to update Figures in Schedule 15, that is 15.1.7.5.1; maps in Schedule 15 indicates that it is only Areas A, B and C that are 15.1.7.6.1 and 15.1.7.7.1, to draw a boundary around subject to the demolition controls in D18. This was not the intention, and this the areas subject to the 'total and substantial error occurred when the PAUP IHP recommended changes to the maps. demolition control'.
Technical Clarification or C2: D18: Special Character D18.8.2.2: Special Character Areas This issue relates to inconsistent terms used in Activity table D18.4.2 and its associated Recommendation is: The omission of alterations is an error, the Activity table provides for this There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 31 Explanation Low/ few number of Areas Overlay- Overlay- Business standards in D18.8.2.2. • to include alterations to the assessment criteria for activity, however, the corresponding assessment criteia has omitted the proposed amendment. There are consequential changes in the text changes Residential and 'additions to character defining buildings', as follows: word. in D18 (D18.8.2.2(a) (i) to (ix)). High effect Business While Activity table D18.4.2 provides activity status for alterations to buildings, there aren't any "D18.8.2.2(2) For additions and alterations to a corresponding standards or assessment criteria for alterations. character defining building…." Adding alterations into the assessment criteria enhances clarity in the AUP. It • to subsequently update the text in D18.8.2.2(2) (a)(i) is apparent what assessment is associated with the activity. Alterations were included in the PAUP Notified Version, and subsequently omitted in the PAUP to (ix) to reflect 'additions and alterations'. IHP recommendations Version and the AUP (operative in part). Alterations, like additions to Special Character Overlay- Business are considered a restricted discretionary activity in Activity table D18.4.2
In the PAUP Notified version the alterations and additions had to be assessed against the same assessment criteria. The assessment criteria is relevant to both additions and alterations. Therefore, the recommendation to add 'alterations' to assessment criteria D18.8.2.2, is appropriate. Technical Amendment to C2: D19: Auckland War D19.6.1.1 Height limit surface 1 Currently, Figure D19.6.1.1 is an outdated version of the height limit surface, that was used in Recommendation is: Updating Figure D19.6.1.1 to that which was used in Council's closing There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 31 diagrams, figures, tables Low/ few number of Memorial Museum D19.6.1.2 Height limit surface 2 Council evidence. Council closing statement updated this figure so as to show the full extent of • to amend D19.6.1.1 Height limit surface 1, to the statement will show the full extend of the height limit, which will be clearer for proposed amendment. There are consequential changes to the or appendices changes Viewshaft Overlay D19.6.1.3 Height limit surface 3 the height limit. figure that was used in Council's closing statement users of the AUP. There is no change in the actual height limit surface. subsequent figures - D19.6.1.2 and D19.6.1.3. High effect • to amend D19.6.1.2 Height limit surface 2, to the The AUP (operative in part) uses the outdated version of Figure D19.6.1.1. figure that was used in Council's closing statement Consequentially, the D19.6.1.2 and D19.6.1.3 will need to be updated as • to amend D19.6.1.3 Height limit surface 3, to use the well. D19.6.1.3 does not use the NZ Transverse Mercator and will need ot be The IHP GIS Viewer, included the amended extent of the overlay, and not the outdated version. New Zealand Transverse Mercator coordinate dataset. updated to be accurate.,
Therefore, it is a clear mistake between the different versions of the AUP. Illustrating the full extent of the height limit will promote clarity in the AUP.
Page681 3 of 40 Chapter E: Auckland-wide
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C2 E7 Taking, using, E7.4.1 Activity Table Under heading Take and use of groundwater, Activity (A24) the column for Wetland Insert 'Discretionary' in the last column 'Wetland No geothermal areas in Auckland are within a Wetland Management Area. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 damming and diversion Management Areas Overlay is blank. This appears to be an error, rather than intentional. Management Areas Overlay' for row (A24). However if circumstances changed, it is considered of benefit to insert an of water and drilling activity status in the AUP. Based on comments below, this activity status This is throughout all versions of the plan. The Panel's report is silent on the matter. should be Discretionary. The insertion of an activity status will have no effect on current activities given that no geothermal areas currently exist within a Wetland Management Area, however could affect future use. In summary, insert 'Discretionary' in the last column 'Wetland Management Areas Overlay' for row (A24). Technical Clarification or C2 E7 Taking, using, E7.6.1.4 The thresholds in permitted activity standard E7.6.1.4 (relating to the take and use of This daily volume should be 20m3/day. It is not consistent This clarification of the provisions will improve the usability of the plan. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation damming and diversion groundwater) do not align with the thresholds in the activity table. with the Table E7.4.1 Activity Table (A15). Change 5m3 to of water and drilling 20m3”. Error throughout all versions of the plan. Not picked up in Council's track changes or panel's recommendation.
The figure in the activity table is correct. This aligns with provision 6.5.31 of the ARC: ALW Plan. Drafting error to be corrected.
Technical Clarification or C2 E11 Land disturbance – E11.4, Note 1 Note 1 defines the Sediment Control Protection Area, which includes 50 m landward of the edge Amend as follows: The requested change clarifies the application of this rule. Note that the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation Regional of a watercourse. However, ‘watercourse’ is not defined in the Unitary Plan or the RMA and so is E11.4 Note 1 ARP:SC plan definition for 'watercourse' would not have extended to include potentially open to interpretation. However, it is reasonably anticipated that this to rivers, Sediment Control Protection Area is defined as: intermittent streams, however this was not included in the UP, therefore the streams and lakes, but not ephemeral streams or overland flow paths (which are all defined by ... explanation / definition of Sediment Control Protection Area is unclear. the Plan or the RMA). Panel's report is silent on this matter. (b) 50m landward of the edge of a watercourse lake, river or stream, or the edge of a wetland of 1000m2 or more. This definition for Sediment Control Protection Area is not in Chapter J: Definitions, although sediment control is defined as "Measures to prevent or minimise the discharge of sediment that has been eroded".
This clarification is required to for the correct implementation of the plan.
Technical Amendments to C4 E12 Land disturbance – E12.4.2 (Table) Land disturbance provisions for the Special Character overlay – Isthmus C area have been That a new column is added to activity table E12.4.2, called Land disturbance provisions for the Special Character overlay – Isthmus C There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter diagrams, figures, tables District omitted from Chapter E12 of the Plan. "Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential: Isthmus C" area were recommended by the panel to be incorporated to the activity or appendices with (A32) and (A33) being Discretionary Activities within this tables, and need to be reinstated to give the correct guidance for land The equivalent provisions for land disturbance within the Special Character overlay – Isthmus C overlay, and all other Activities to be N/A. disturbance in this overlay. This change clarifies the intended policy direction area were included in activity table E26.6.3.1 for infrastructure providers, therefore it is likely within this overlay. that the absence in the Auckland-wide provisions of Chapter E12 was due to a drafting error. The plan has not been updated to include the rebuttal evidence of Robert Brassey.
The recommended change will have the effect of making earthworks (A32) Greater than 5m3 up to 250m3 and (A33) Greater than 250m3, in the Special Character – Isthmus C area a Discretionary activity, rather than Restricted Discretionary, as it is now in the AUP-Operative in part.
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C2 E12 Land disturbance – E12.4.2 (Table) The reoprted error stated that all "2" notation in Table E12.4.2 was in error. However, this That the "2" notation is removed from activites A29 and A32 Note 2 indicates Restricted discretionary activity for additional rules for There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 District notation indicates that for permitted activitues within archaeological sites, additional restricted only in activity table E12.4.2, This will have a neutral effect. archaeological sites or features apply as listed in Schedule 14 Historic discretionary activity rules apply. Heritage Schedule, Statements and Map. It cannot be applied to permitted activities (A29&A32) Activities A25, A26, A27, A28 and A31 are P except where archaeological controls apply - in which case they will be RD. Therefore, the 2 notation is to be kept. This is consistent with the No other options avaiable. mark-up attached as Council rebuttal evidence for Topic 041-earthworks hearing. This change allows for the additional rules for archaeological sites or features Activities A29 and A32 in the Historic Heritage column have included a notation "2" next to the apply as listed in Schedule 14 to be applied to the correct activity. activity status which is unnecessary. This appears to be added in error, as the case team position had an asterisk which was struck through.
Technical Inconsistency of C2 E15 Vegetation E15.4.2 Activity table and tree There is no permitted activity standard for tree trimming in an Significant Ecological Area. This That through a plan change process the standard for this There was a PA standard relating to tree trimming in an SEA in Council’s There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter provisions, references, management and trimming standards appears to be a drafting error. activity that was in Council’s version be added as the evidence. The Panel agreed to the rule for this activity and it appears that the terms or formatting biodiversity permitted activity standard for tree trimming, as below: standard with this activity was omitted as a drafting error. For Topic 023 (Significant Ecological Areas and Vegetation Management) the closing statement has the tree trimming standard (2.2) on page 17, there is no explanation given for its removal in E.15.6.28 Tree trimming This should be amended as it does not change the activity status but the Panel's report. The Standard should be reinstated. improves the usability of the plan for resource consent monitoring and (1) The maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm. compliance purposes.
(2) No more than 10 per cent of live growth of the tree is The reintroduction of this standard is required to give guidance on how tree removed in any one calendar year. trimming is to occur.
(3) Trimming must meet best accepted arboricultural practice.
(4) The trimming must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree.
Add as E15.6.8 so that reumbering is not required
Technical Clarification or C2 E15 vegetation E15.4.1 (Table) The list of zones contained in activities A20-A21 inclusive in Activity table E15.4.1 does not (A20) Vegetation alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 The new Rural - Waitakere Ranges Zone is described as mirroring “the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation management and include all the relevant zones. of contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of provisions of the Rural – Rural Conservation Zone and provides limited biodiversity any indigenous tree over 3m in height within 50m of mean opportunity for growth and development. Adding this zone to those listed in The Waitakere Ranges Zone and Waitakere Foothills Zone were new zones proposed by high water springs in the Rural - Rural Production Zone, A20 and A21 will manage vegetation in rural zones near the coast Council at Hearings to reflect the uniqueness of the area. This was supported by Panel (Topic Rural - Mixed Rural Zone, Rural - Rural Coastal Zone, Rural - consistantly. 075 para 3), but has been left out of the recommendations version in error. Rural Conservation Zone, Rural - Countryside Living Zone, Rural – Waitakere Ranges Zone or Future Urban Zone As activities A20-A21 relate to rural zones in close proximity to the coast, the ‘Rural – Waitakere RD Ranges’ zone should be added to this list. (Note that the ‘Rural - Waitakere Foothills’ zone does not extend down to the coastal edge). (A21) Vegetation alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree over 3m in height within 20m of mean high water springs in all zones other than in a Rural - Rural Production Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone, Rural - Rural Coastal Zone, Rural - Rural Conservation Zone, Rural - Countryside Living Zone, Rural – Waitakere Ranges Zone or Future Urban Zone RD Technical Amendments to C2 E15 vegetation E15.4.1 (Table) The provisionfor a general permitted activity for vegetation alteration or removal not otherwise Insert new heading after A23 activity: The General permitted activity rule was intended to apply in the Activity There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter diagrams, figures, tables management and listed in the table has been erraneously deleted in different versions of the plan. All zones and areas Table, as the Panel was supportive of: using permitted activity to provide for or appendices biodiversity reasonable maintenance without requiring a resource consent within the This is considered to be a drafting error that results in outcomes that were not intended, (A44) Vegetation alteration or removal not otherwise identified sensitive environments; and no requirements for vegetation particularly when the default rule for activities not provided for in a discretionary activity under provided for, and not subject to any standard listed in E15.6. management rules requiring resource consent outside of the identified Chapter C. P sensitive environments (outside the RUB; coastal environment; and riparian / wetland margins) (refer to para 3.2 Panel report for Topic 023).
This clarifies that all other activities involving vegetation alteration and removal outside the identified sensitive environments, do not require resource consent, so that the unwarranted assessment of such does not occur.
Page682 4 of 40 Chapter E: Auckland-wide
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Amendments to C4 E15 vegetation E15.4.1 (Table) Some of the provisions have been deleted from the Auckland-wide Activity table E15.4.1; chiefly Replace headings in table E15.4.1, as indicated below: Headings were included in Council’s version to clarify where rules applied. In There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter diagrams, figures, tables management and 2. Headings in table E15.4.1 which specified where the provisions were to apply, between the [preceding Activities (A1) – (A9) inclusive:] the Panel’s drafting these were omitted but result in unintended or appendices biodiversity notified and recommendations version of the plan. All zones / areas mentioned above consequences, such as permitted activity standards applying where they were not intended, and effectively introducing a general tree protection rule, There is nothing in the Panel's report to suggest a rationale for the removal of these sub- Relocate the row for Activity (A23) to follow (A9) rather than it only applying in certain sensitive areas. headings. These headings should be reinstated. [preceding Activity (A10): ] All zones outside the RUB
[preceding Activities (A11) – (A19) inclusive:] Riparian areas
[preceding Activities (A20) – (A22) inclusive:] Coastal areas Technical Clarification or C2 E15 vegetation E15.6.2 Tree trimming is a permitted activity in Activity table E15.4.2, but there are no standards for this Reinstate the Permitted activity standard in AC's closing The change will create certainty in terms of what standards are permitted for There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation management and Veg management rules for SEA tree activity. The standards for tree trimming were contained in the PAUP Notified Version and in statement as follows: tree trimming or alterations. biodiversity trimming Council closing statement position. E15.6.9 Tree Trimming within Special Ecological Areas (1) The maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm The absence of standards can create differential outcomes for this permitted at severance activity. (2) No more than 10 per cent of live growth of the tree may be removed in any one calendar year. (3) The works must meet best arboricultural practice. (4) The trimming or alteration must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree.
Technical Clarification or C2 E15 Vegetation E15.8.2(1) Standards **Proposed change for E15.8.2(1) Assessment criteria for matters of Restricted Discretion There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation Management and Proposed PA control 'H4.3.2.4 - Vegetation alteration or removal located within the 100-year (a)(iii) the extent to which the proposal for vegetation Proposed PA matter H4.3.(quarry zones) Biodiversity floodplain' has been erroneously added to the PA standards for 'Vegetation alteration or removal alteration or removal has taken into account relevant Offsetting is referenced in the RPS, Overlay and Auckland-wide Policies for for routine operation and repair of existing tracks, lawns, gardens...' at E15.6.4 objectives and policies in Chapter B7.2 Indigenous vegetation management. The specific RD matters for clearance within a This should be a separate standard. biodiversity, E15 Vegetation Management and biodiversity quarry zone have been deleted from the Plan and the default RD, matters of B4. Natural heritage, Chapter E18 Natural character of the discretion and assessment criteria do not anticipate consideration of offsets. coastal environment and E19 Natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment This change adds greater clarity to the plan.
Anomaly Inconsistency of C2 E16 Treees in open E16.4 Treees in open space The intro text for E16.4 should be consistent with E17 and E26 and identify that asset owner Add the following into the explanation for E16.4 Activity This follows similar words written in E17 and E26 under the activity table There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 provisions, references, space approval must be obtained. As asset owner approval must be obtained whether this is stated in Table as a second bullet point: section terms or formatting the plan or not, this is a very low priority error. - all activities obtain the approval of the Tree Asset Manager, in respect of oepn space zones, owned by the Council, is the Auckland Council Parks Department.
Technical Clarification or C2 E25 Noise and vibration E25.6 Standards There is an absence of any noise insulation provisions for residential units in the Industrial Addition of “…and the Industrial Zones” to rule E25.6.10, It is appropriate that workers accommodation permitted in the industrial There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Zones in the UP:DV. Workers accommodation (bedrooms for permanent residential activity) are and to add Industrial Zones in the middle row of the zones be subject to a noise insulation standard otherwise there is a likelihood permitted in the Industrial Zones but the rules in E25 miss out reference to these zones. This is requirements in Table E25.6.10.1 beneath Business – Mixed that without noise insulation, they would be subject to intolerable noise levels. an oversight that needs to be amended. Use Zone. No other options available, aligned with the regional policy statement. This is aligned with Council's position, supported by the Panel, that noise levels should take into account whether a building is occupied or not (Topic 040, Lighting, noise and vibration, para 3.6): :"The Council's practice is to require noise to be measured at such buildings on the basis that they are "able to be occupied." Workers accomodation in industrial zones are able to be occupied and therefore should be included in this rule.
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C2 E25 Noise and vibration E25.6 Standards E.25.6.27(2) The 6.00pm to 7.30am max noise level is louder than the daytime max noise limit. Table E25.6.7.2 (Construction noise levels for noise These changes are needed so that the provisions make sense, and can be There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 affecting any other activity) - max noise level for 7.30am- implemented as intended. In E25.6.7.2. the times listed are incorrect and 6am should read 6pm for weekdays and 6pm is 75dB but for 6pm-7.30am is 80dB. This means you Saturdays - this is a clear drafting error. can make more noise at night than during the day No other options available, aligned with the regional policy statement. Table E25.6.7.1 (Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise except City Centre and Metro centre zones). For weekdays max noise levels are: 6.30am-7.30am = 60dB 7.30am-6pm = 75dB 6apm-8pm = 70dB 8pm-6.30am = 45dB
The same change is also required for the Saturday times in the same table. Technical Clarification or C2 E26 infrastructure E26 Infrastructure The following alterations are recommended to correct a minor error in E26 so that it reflects the Table E26.4.3.1 Activity table - Network utilities and Misalignment, changes made for consistency. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation corresponding provisions in the E16 and E17 activity tables. This was a translational error. electricity generation – Trees in roads and open space zones and the Notable Trees Overlay No other options available, aligned with the regional policy statement.
(A91)Tree alteration or removal of any tree less than 4m in height or less than and trees 400mm in girth
(A92)Tree alteration or removal of any tree greater than 4m in height and greater than trees 400mm in girth Technical Inconsistency of C4 E26 Infrastructure E26.2.3.1 Activity table - Network In E26 Infrastructure line items (A65) and (A66) state that an activity is non-complying if the Corrections: The standards need to be added to the activities within roads and unformed There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, utilities and electricity generation - all respective electricity and magnetic field and radiofrequency standards are not complied with Amend (A65) road activity table. terms or formatting zones and roads (E26.2.5.2(6) and (7)). However the respective standards only apply in zoned areas, because Any activity that does not comply with Standard E26.2.5.2(6) they are located in E26.2.5.2 Activities within zones in Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table. The and E26.2.5.1 (6) This will ensure that the electricity and magnetic field and radiofrequency standards do not technically apply to roads, although they should. Amend (A66) standards apply in roads as well. Any activity that does not comply with Standard E26.2.5.2(7) Add standards E26.2.5.2(6) and (7) into E26.2.5.1 Activities within roads and unformed roads in and E26.2.5.1(7) Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table. Reference to these new standards can then be added to (A65) Add new standards to E26.2.5.1. Activities within roads and and (A66) so that they are non-complying activities as well. unformed roads in Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table
(6) Electricity transmission and distribution (Electric and magnetic fields): (a) network utilities that emit electric and magnetic field emissions must comply with the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric and magnetic fields (1Hz – 100kHz) (Health Physics, 2010, 99(6); 818- 836) and recommendations from the World Health Organisation monograph Environmental Health Criteria (No 238, June 2007).
(7) Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields): (a) network utilities should not result in radio-frequency fields produced by the network utility exceeding the maximum exposure level of the general public in the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3 kHz to 300GHz (NZS 2772.1: 1999) measured at all places reasonably accessible to the general public.
Page683 5 of 40 Chapter E: Auckland-wide
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 E26 Infrastructure E26.2.5.3 The agreed version enable existing antenna to be increased in width by 20%. The AUP The following amendment is required: In simplifying the above rule, IHP lost the intention of the rule, which was to There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation decision version restrict width to existing width. The outcome is no ability to upgrade the provide for 20% increase both for existing antenna (i.e. regular ones) and antenna. This appears to be an editing/formatting issue. (j) the replacement of an existing antenna with a new dish antenna antenna provided that:
(i) the new antenna does not exceed the maximum dimension of the existing antenna by more than 20 percent; and
(ii) where the antenna is a dish antenna the diameter of the new antenna must not increase by more than 20 percent; and
(iii) the overall height of the facility to which the antenna is attached either does not increase or that any height increase is as a result of the antenna size increase only.
Technical Clarification or C2 E26 Infrastructure E26.4 Network utilities and electricity Incorrect reference: E26.2.5.1. Activities within roads and unformed roads in Table E26.2.3.1 Change wording to read The change means that the plan will always reflect the current practice There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation generation - all zones and roads Activity table (1) Temporary network utilities: … (b) the site must be reinstated in accordance E26.25.1 (1) Temporary network utilities: … (b) the site document. with conditions specified in the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to must be reinstated in accordance with conditions specified Transport Corridors (2011). in the latest edition of the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors (2011). AT Comments: This rule includes an incorrect reference to National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors (2011). Please change the wording to ”(2015)” or “the latest edition of the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors” and any relevant local conditions. Technical Clarification or C4 E26 Infrastructure E26.4.5.1. Trees in roads and open The following alterations are recommended to correct a discrepancy in E26.4.5.1 so that it E26.4.5.1. Trees in roads and open space zones - tree Re-structuring by separating the provisions relating to Trees in roads and There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation space zones - aligns with the corresponding provisions in E16 and E17 (including assessment criterion trimming or alteration public open space zones into two chapters; E16 Trees in open space zones E26.4.7.2(1)(e)) regarding reference to ‘best arboricultual practice’. and E17 Trees in roads. This facilitates the creation of a combined chapter E26.4.5.3. Notable trees - tree (1) Tree trimming or alteration of trees in streets and open containing all the rules relating to Infrastructure (E26) and ensures clarity of trimming or alteration The following alterations are recommended to correct an error in E26.4.5.3 so that it reflects the space zones must comply with the following standards: purpose. The rules from D13 Notable Trees Overlay, E16 Trees in open corresponding provision in D13, and aligns with assessment criterion E26.4.7.2(2)(e) space zones and E17 Trees in roads have been replicated in E26. (b) no more than 20 per cent of live growth of the tree must be removed in accordance with best arboricultural practice Therefore, for consistency, the words should be inserted into the E26 rules. which can be increased to 30 per cent under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified arborist and if there is an agreed tree management plan in place for trimming between 20 – 30 per cent;
E26.4.5.3. Notable trees - tree trimming or alteration
(1) Tree trimming or alteration of notable trees must meet the following standards: (a) the maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm at severance; (b) must not result in the removal of more than 20 per cent of live growth of the tree in any one calendar year; and (c) the trimming must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree; and
(d) the works must meet best arboricultural practice. Technical Inconsistency of C4 E27 Transport E27.6.4.3.2 Activity Table Vehicle Correction to Sections E27.8.1(9) and E27.8.2(8) E27.8.1. Matters of discretion (9) any activity or E27.8.1(9) Matters for discretion states “any activity or development which There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, crossing and vehicle access widths development which infringes the standards for design of infringes the standards for design of parking and loading areas or access terms or formatting The matters of discretion and assessment criteria for activities that infringe the standards for parking and loading areas or access under Standard under Standard E27.6.3”. However the standards for access are in E27.6.4, design of parking and loading areas or access refers only to Standard E27.6.3, even though this E27.6.3 or the standards for design, number and location of and there are no other matters that specifically refer to infringe of the access standard only relates to the design of parking and loading areas, while Standard E27.6.4 relates vehicle crossings and access under Standards E27.6.4.2, standards. Therefore E27.8.1(9) and E27.8.2(8) need to include reference to to access. E27.6.4.3 and E27.6.4.4: the relevant sections in E27.6.4 as well.
There are no direct assessment criteria related to infringing access widths as an RDA. The referencing of other Business zones in the transport rules is misleading E27.8.2. Assessment criteria (8) any activity or development and inconsistent with the policy direction contained in the relevant zones (e.g. This is a drafting/cross referencing error that is present in all versions of the plan. The Panel is which infringes the standards for design of parking and H9.2. Objective (8), H9.3. Policy (18) and H10.2. Objective (9), H10.3 Policy silent on the matter. loading areas or access under Standard E27.6.3 or the (18)). The proposed amendments can therefore be viewed as correcting standards for design, number and location of vehicle Business zone references in the Auckland-wide Transport provisions to crossings and access under Standards E27.6.4.2, E27.6.4.3 ensure consistency with the relevant zone policies (as an administrative plan and E27.6.4.4: change). Technical Inconsistency of C2 E27 Transport E27.6.4.4.1 Activity Table Table E27.6.4.4.1 specifies the maximum gradient for vehicle access, with vehicle access The suggested amendment is to add in specific activities to To incorporate the maximum gradient allowed in the subdivision section of There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, servicing residential activities being no more than 1 in 5. However, Table E38.8.1.2.1 (in the the transport section to define the 1 to 4 for access into rear the Plan. This clears up any confusion. terms or formatting Subdivision – Urban chapter) provides for a maximum gradient of 1 in 4 where an access residential sites and leave 1 to 5 for residential. services a single rear site within a residential zone. The requirement for access as part of a Table E27.6.4.4.1 Gradient of vehicle access subdivision to comply with E27 Transport results in access provided for by Table E38.8.1.2.1 Access type Maximum gradient unable to comply with Table E27.6.4.4.1. (T159) Vehicle access serving residential 1 in 5 (20 per cent) (T160) vehicle access serving rear residential 1 in 4 (25 per Error in transfer from Council's evidence (Topic 043 and 044: Additional closing statement p 39) cent) as the Panel's report does not suggest otherwise (T161) Vehicle access used by heavy vehicles 1 in 8 (12.5 per cent) (T162) Vehicle access serving all other activities1 in 6 (16.7 per cent)
Technical Inconsistency of C4 E27 Transport E27.4.1 Activity table Incorrect reference: E27.4.1 Activity Table Formatting, reference to activity tables, and standard (A6) should read: The access control referred to in (A6) relates to the VAR – General Control There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, reference need to be reviewed in detail. Use of an existing vehicle crossing where a Vehicle Access (shown on planning maps in the City Centre Zone) and Key Retail Frontage terms or formatting Restriction applies under Standard E27.6.4.1(1) to service control as shown on the planning maps. Adds the H8 - Business City Centre Zone the establishment of a new activity, a change of activity type, Deletes the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, General Business and Business Park Zones the expansion or intensification of an existing activity or These VAR controls apply to the City Centre, Metropolitan Centre, Town where a building(s) is constructed, or additions to buildings Centre and Mixed Use Zones (refer to Policies 21 & 24). Unless the extent of So that vehicle access restrictions are applied in the relevant zones, cross referencing error. that are not permitted activities in these site specific controls has been extended to other business zones, the • Table H8.4.1 Activity table; activity table should be amended to only include the relevant zones where • Table H9.4.1 Activity table; or these VARs are applied. • Table H10.4.1 Activity table; or • Table H11.4.1 Activity table; • Table H12.4.1 Activity table; • Table H13.4.1 Activity table; • Table H14.4.1 Activity table; or • Table H15.4.1 Activity table.
Technical Amendments to C2 E27 Transport E27.6.1 New development A new development threshold ‘Retail (Non-drive through)’ has been omitted from Table Insert new activity (T160) under retail as Retail Activities To reflect the Panel's decision to adopt the evidence of the Key Retail Group. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter diagrams, figures, tables thresholds E27.6.1.1. (non-drive through) the threshold of 1667m2 GFA into the or appendices table. This is not in the recommendations version in error . Clause 4.2 of the IHP’s recommendation for Topics 043 and 044 (page 7-8) recommends the preferred evidence of the joint statement of evidence from the Key Retail Group dated 16 June 2015, paragraph 3.7, pages 7-8. The trip generation threshold is increased from 1000m2 to 1667m2 for retail activities (non-drive through).
Page684 6 of 40 Chapter E: Auckland-wide
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 E27 Transport Table E27.6.2.4 Parking rates – area The intention of the minimum parking rate for places of assembly is that the capacity of the main (T62) in Table E27.6.2.4 Parking rates – area 2 should The new wording provides greater clarity on the intention of the rule, and There is a consequential change in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter Explanation 2 and Table E27.6.2.3 Parking rates- assembly area should be considered only. This is unclear in the current wording of Activities read: "…lobby spaces which are do not have a separately reflects how the plan should be correctly applied. proposed amendment. This change is to activity T21 in table area 1 T21 and T62 of this chapter. use from the primary place of assembly shall be E27.6.2.3. (T21) in Table E27.6.2.3 Parking rates-area 1 should disregarded)" read: "lobby spaces which are do not have a separately use from the primary place of assembly shall be disregarded)" Technical Amendments to C2 E27 Transport Table E27.6.4.3.2 Vehicle crossing Part the standard relating to the minimum formed access width was inadvertently omitted. (T151) Serves 10 or more car parking spaces or six or more Part of the standard has been omitted and should be added back in. The There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter diagrams, figures, tables and vehicle access widths (T151) dwellings words were in Council's closing statement, so the plan can be implemented or appendices Not in plan from recommendation version, Error in transfer from Council's evidence (Topic 043 as intended, giving effect to the RPS. and 044: Additional closing statement p 37) as the Panel's report does not suggest otherwise
This issue was registered to Council's internal 'Interpretation process'. The Interpretaions process ensures that interpretation and implementation of rules in the AUP, are applied correctly and consistently. An interpretation guidance note was prepared on this matter for the Resource Consents department. This proposed amendment will remedy the error and reflect the correct application of rules, currently managed by the interpretation guidance note. When this proposed amendment is implemented, the interpretation guidance note will become void.
Technical Clear mistake between C2 E27 Transport Table E27.6.4.4.1 Gradient of vehicle Error in transfer of correct standard from Council track changes. Suggested solution :Access (T157) needs to be amended to differentiate between the To incorporate the maximum gradient allowed in the subdivision section of There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter different versions of the access (T157) type Maximum gradient maximum allowable gradients for rear (1 in 4) and other the Plan. This clears up any confusion. Plan (text only) (T157) Vehicle access serving residential 1 in 4 5 (250 per cent) residential (1 in 5) sites.
Error in transfer from Council's evidence (Topic 043 and 044: Additional closing statement p 39) See error 1128, where the track change is incorporated into as the Panel's report does not suggest otherwise. the activity table.
This issue was registered to Council's internal 'Interpretation process'. The Interpretaions process ensures that interpretation and implementation of rules in the AUP, are applied correctly and consistently. An interpretation guidance note was prepared on this matter for the Resource Consents department. This proposed amendment will remedy the error and reflect the correct application of rules, currently managed by the interpretation guidance note. When this proposed amendment is implemented, the interpretation guidance note will become void.
Technical Clear mistake between C2 E31 Hazardous E31.4.3 Activity Table Activity Table E31.4.3 has an error in that it fails to include the Airport zone. Amend the header in Table E31.4.3 Activity Table – Clear oversight that requires correcting There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter different versions of the substances Hazardous facilities that store or use the listed hazardous Plan (text only) • Activity Tables in E31.4 provide for various zones, except for the Airports and Airfields zone. substances, as follows: This is an error, as Airports are hazardous facilities due to the nature of their activities. • Council’s hazardous substances expert, Norbert Schaffoener, has confirmed that this is an “Business – Light Industry Zone; Business – Heavy Industry error, and Airports and Airfields zone should be included in one of the Activity Tables in E31.4. Zone; Coastal – Defence Zone, Special Purpose – Airports • In the Council’s track changes version to the IHP, Airports zone (now Airports and Airfields and Airfields Zone and Special Purpose – Quarry Zone” zone) was included alongside the Light and Heavy Industry zones, Defence zone, Quarry zone and Minor Port zone. • The provisions relating to the above zones are now located in Activity Table E31.4.3. Norbert has confirmed that the Airport and Airfields zone should be added to the list of zones in Activity Tabel E31.4.3
Technical Clarification or C2 E38 Subdivision – E38 Esplanade reserves and strips E38 policy 25(e) concerning when to avoid reducing the width of an esplanade reserve is It should say that (e) any scheduled historic heritage places Incorrect wording that reverses the intent of the policy. Change the wording of There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Urban policy 25(e) incorrect. It reads ‘(e) any scheduled historic heritage places and sites and places of and sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua will the exception as indicated. significance to Mana Whenua will be adversely affected;’ not be adversely affected The policy should be the same as E39 policy 22(e), which is an identical policy, and correct. When the Panel reformatted the policies within E38 a typo has occurred. Page 13 of the Council’s final track changes for subdivision make it clear that the waiving of the requirement to provide an esplanade reserve or strip is only intended to occur where any historic or cultural heritage place or Maori cultural values are not adversely affected Technical Clarification or C2 E38 Subdivision – E38 policies 25 and 26 E38 policies 25 and 26 are poorly drafted. It is unclear whether all, some or only one of the (25) Avoid reducing the width of esplanade reserve or strip, E38 policy 25 and 26 are amended to state ‘any of the following’ to make the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Urban policy criteria need to be satisfied. or the waiving of the requirement to provide an esplanade intention of the policy completely clear. reserve or strip, except where any of the following apply: In E38, policies 25 and 26 have the word ‘or’ between the penultimate and final sub-policy. This is causing interpretation difficulties for consents as it is not clear whether for the policy to be (26) Require esplanade reserves rather than esplanade satisfied, do all the criteria need to be met or does only one of the sub-policies need to be met. strips unless any of the following apply: These policies should be amended to say ‘any of the following’ to make the intention completely clear. This aligns with Council’s final track changes (see page 13). It is not necessary to add “all” as suggested by resource consents as “any” is broad enough to encompass “all”.
Technical Clarification or C2 E38 Subdivision – E38.8.2.6 Standard E38.8.2.6 and Table E38.8.2.6.1 specifies the minimum net site area for sites E38.8.2.6 is amended to clearly specify that where the The minimum net site areas included within Table E38.8.2.6.1 are a roll over There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Matter Explanation Urban identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay. However, Table E38.8.2.6.1 does not include Special Character Area is not included within Table of legacy provisions. Some of the special character areas did not have a all of the Special Character Areas, and does not indicate what minimum net site area should E38.8.2.6.1 the minimum net site area of the underlying minimum net site area within the legacy plan, or they are new character areas apply in those areas not listed in the table. zone applies where the subdivision potential is determined by the underlying zone.
E38.8.2.6. Subdivision of sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business
(1) Proposed sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business must comply with the minimum net site area in Table E38.8.2.6.1 Special Character Overlay – Residential and Business subdivision controls.
(2) Proposed sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business that are not listed in Table E38.8.2.6.1 must comply with the relevant minimum net site area for that site’s zone in Table E38.8.2.3.1 Minimum net site area for subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare.
Technical Duplication C2 E39 Subdivision - Rural E39 Subdivision - Rural There is a (reported) doubling up (i.e. straight repetition) of the objectives in E39 Rural They are not the same. Objective 15 specifies rural areas There is no need to specify rural areas, given the topic of the Chapter, and There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Subdivision (E39.2 Objectives). Objective 8 and 15 are word for word the same. where Objective 8 does not. the fact that the underlying character of the FUZ is likely to change.
Recommend deleting number 15 and leaving number 8, Suggest Objective (8) reads "Subdivision maintains or enhances the natural features and landscapes that contribute to the character and amenity values of the areas."
Technical Clarification or C2 E39 Subdivision - Rural E39 Subdivision - Rural An activity was intended to be added to Activity Table E39.4.2 Subdivision in rural zones as Add the new activity (A38) as underlyined to the activity Adding the underlined activity as stated to the activity table, is not a policy There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation follows: table. shift, just a further clarification. Does not alter rights or entitlements from the decision provisions. Any Transferable Rural Site Subdivision where the receiver site is not located in the Countryside Any Transferable Rural Site Subdivision where the receiver Living zone. NC site is not located in the Countryside Living zone. NC
This activity was for clarification purposes (as it is a Non-complying activity in any case under “any other subdivision not provided for” but the lawyers thought we should make it crystal clear).
Page685 7 of 40 Chapter E: Auckland-wide
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 E39 Subdivision - Rural E39 Subdivision - Rural The second row of the table E39.6.4.6.1 should read 10,000m2 (not 1,000m2). This is a Change 1,000m2 to 1.0ha in Table E39.6.4.6.1 (third row). Typo error but one that would affect how the plan is applied. This There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation typographical error (see page 45 of the Council’s closing statement track changes). The There is also a space in the title of the table that needs to be amendment is necessary to improve the plan usability amendment will clarify how to assess applications. deleted: Table E39.6. 4.6.1 Technical Clarification or C4 E39 Subdivision - Rural E39.4 Correction to Section E39.4 Section E39.4 includes the comment “For all other subdivision refer Amend Section E39.4 as follows: Clarification of what zones the chapter applies to is needed within the chapter There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation to E38 Subdivision – Urban.” Tables E39.4.1 to E39.4.5 specify the activity status of description to improve the usability of the chapter. subdividing land pursuant to section 11 of the Resource However, the only previously mentioned subdivision in that section is subdivision within the Management Act 1991 within the following zones: National Grid Corridor Overlay. This is inconsistent with section E39.1, which specifies the • Rural – Rural Production Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone, zones to which this chapter relates (with all other zones subject to E38), and is otherwise not Rural - Rural consistent with all other text within chapters E38 and E39. Coastal Zone, Rural – Rural Conservation Zone and Rural – Countryside Living Zone; • Rural – Waitākere Foothills Zone and Rural – Waitākere Ranges Zone; • Future Urban Zone; and • Special Purpose – Quarry Zone.
For subdivision within the National Grid Corridor Overlay, the activity status for subdivision in the rural zones as listed in Tables E39.4.1 to E39.4.5 below will apply unless there are different provisions in D26 National Grid Corridor Overlay in which case the overlay provisions will take precedence. For all other subdivision refer to E38 Subdivision – Urban.
Page686 8 of 40 Chapter H Zones
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Amendments to C3 H2 Rural and Coastal • Figure H2.6.6.2, The standard relating to this diagram refers to 'roof projections' in addition to gable ends and Change the label of Figure H2.6.6.2, Figure H3.6.7.2, This is an anomaly as the standard (of e.g. H4.6.6 (6) refers to 'gable end, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables Settlement Zone • Figure H3.6.7.2, dormers. The label of these diagram only referes to 'gable ends and dormers' and is therefore Figure H4.6.6.2, H5.6.5.2, H6.6.6.2 - to state: dormer or roof' - and the diagram does not reflect roof projections in the title. of the AUP. or appendices H3 Single House Zone • Figure H4.6.6.2, incorrect. “Exceptions for gable ends, and dormers and roof H4 Residential – Mixed • Figure H5.6.5.2, projections”. Housing Suburban Zone • Figure H6.6.6.2 H5 Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone H6 Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone
Technical Clarification or C1 H3 Residential: Single House H3.5.1.(a) Notification Integrated residential development has been listed as an activity that can be considered without Reccomended that H3.5 Notification 1(a) to be deleted This is an error because there are no development standards that must be There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation Zone public notification if it complies with the standards listed in H3.4.1 Activity table. This clause was and consequential renumbering of clause below as per complied with listed in the activity table for this activity. This clause should of the AUP. included by the IHP who made integrated residential development a restricted discretionary tracked plan change. have been deleted as part of the alternative solution. activity within the single house zone. The Council has now changed this to a discretionary activity and therefore there are no longer development standards that have to be complied with.
Anomaly Amendments to C2 H7 Open Space Zones H7.9.1 - A39 H7.9.1 Activity Table In H7.9.1 Activity table, Rule A39, the activity 'New To have buildings that do not comply with the standards as a permitted There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables Rule A39 ‘New buildings that do not comply with one or more standards’ in the Open Space – buildings that do not comply with one or more activity is not logical and defeats the purpose of the standards for the of the AUP. or appendices Community Zone (Section H7 Open Space zones) is a Permitted Activity. standards' should be Discretionary rather than Community Zone. It is also inconsistent with the activity status for the same Permitted Activity status under Community Zone. activity within other zones. This is a clear error/anomaly that has been carried through from the IHP version to the Operative in part version. This was corrected through Council’s marked up decision version (refer Attachment A decisions report), however did not seem to carry through to the text.
Anomaly Clarification or C1 H7 Open Space zones H.7.11.3 The purpose statement for H7.11.3.1 Yards does not address the required riparian and coastal Recommend that the purpose statement for H7.11.3.1 The purpsoe statement for this standard provides an explanation for the front There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation yard setback. This is inconsistent with other zones which have the same required riparian and Yards is amended t to explain the purpose for the yard, side and rear yard setbacks. There is no explanation however, for the of the AUP. coastal yard setback i.e. the Residential zones. riparian and coastal yard setback to improve plan required riparian or coastal protection yard setback requirements. This is usability and for consistency with other zones inconsistent with other zones where the purpose statement for the yard (Deliverable 2). standard explains that it is necessary to set back buildings from streams and the coastal edge to maintain water quality and provide protection from natural hazards. Technical Clarification or C3 H8 City Centre zone Figures H8.6.28.1, H9.6.9.1, Wind standard text has been omitted from the wind environmental control graph in the Business Insert the following explanation text after the Wind This text was included in Council’s closing track changes for Topic 051-054 There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation H9 Metropolitan Centre zone H10.6.9.1, H11.6.7.1, H12.6.7.1, and centre zone diagrams (the technical criteria & equation that explain how the wind environment control graph in Figures H8.6.28.1, Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, Business activities and of the AUP. H10 Town Centre zone H13.6.8.1, H14.6.6.1, H15.6.6.1 performance graph is derived). H9.6.9.1, H10.6.9.1, H11.6.7.1, H12.6.7.1, H13.6.8.1, Business Controls. The matter was discussed in the evidence of George H11 Local Centre zone H14.6.6.1, H15.6.6.1 (as per Proposed Plan Change Farrant on Topic 051-054 where he specifically requested that the text above H12 Neighbourhood Centre This issue was registered to Council's internal 'Interpretation process'. The Interpretaions process text) be included in the City Centre zone as it had been omitted in error. zone ensures that interpretation and implementation of rules in the AUP, are applied correctly and H13 Mixed Use zone consistently. An interpretation guidance note was prepared on this matter for the Resource H14 General business zone Consents department. H15 Business park zone This proposed amendment will remedy the error and reflect the correct application of rules, currently managed by the interpretation guidance note. When this proposed amendment is implemented, the interpretation guidance note will become void. Technical Amendments to C2 H8 Business – City Centre H8 Business – City Centre Table H8.6.11.1 Bonus floor area lists ‘residential’ as a bonus feature. There is a problem with Recommend that Table H8.6.11.1 is amended to In the PAUP, the bonus applied to dwellings only. Submissions were received There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables Zone Table H8.6.11.1 Bonus floor area this because the residential nesting table doesn’t actually nest anything under residential, they delete the reference to “residential” and replace this seeking that a bonus should also be given for visitor accommodation. The of the AUP. or appendices are all separate activities and residential is just the name of the nesting table. with “dwellings and visitor accommodation”. This evidence for Topic 050 City Centre, discusses this topic and recommends that amendment should occur through the administrative visitor accommodation should also qualify for use of the bonus. It appears an This issue was registered to Council's internal 'Interpretation process'. The Interpretaions process plan change (Deliverable 2). error was made when translating this recommendation into the Plan and ensures that interpretation and implementation of rules in the AUP, are applied correctly and ‘residential’ was listed as the bonus whereas it should be ‘dwellings and visitor consistently. An interpretation guidance note was prepared on this matter for the Resource accommodation’. Consents department. This proposed amendment will remedy the error and reflect the correct application of rules, currently managed by the interpretation guidance note. When this proposed amendment is implemented, the interpretation guidance note will become void.
Anomaly Clarification or C2 H8 City Centre zone H8.6.26 Verandahs There is a misalignment between Standard H8.6.26.(5)(b) and H8.6.26.(5(e) – Table H8.6.26.1 The sixth row of Table H8.6.26.1 should be amended There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation ‘for all other frontages’. The 600mm dimension in the table has no effect given the requirement to 700mm to align with Standard H8.6.26(5)(b). of the AUP. that a verandah can be no closer than 700mm to the edge of the carriageway. To improve useability of the PLan. The Central Area plan enabled verandahs This issue was registered to Council's internal 'Interpretation process'. The Interpretaions process be no closer than 500mm. There is no evidence to ascertain why this was ensures that interpretation and implementation of rules in the AUP, are applied correctly and changed from 500mm to 700m. Because of the change it contradicts the consistently. An interpretation guidance note was prepared on this matter for the Resource frontages activity in table H8.6.26.1 where 600mm is the standard for all other Consents department. frontages.i.e because 600mm enable varandahs to place closer to the road This proposed amendment will remedy the error and reflect the correct application of rules, carriageway edge. currently managed by the interpretation guidance note. When this proposed amendment is implemented, the interpretation guidance note will become void.
Anomaly Clarification or C2 H8 City Centre zone H8.6.28. Wind Standard H8.6.28(1)(c) Wind. Clause (c) does not make sense. This rule was carried over from Amend H8.6.28(1)(c) to read: "an existing wind speed There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 All other business centre zones have the equivalent standard for wind and do Explanation the Central Area Operative Plan but clause (c) has been changed. The correct standard is used which exceeds the controls below of Standard of the AUP. not have the error identified within the City Centre zone. The change to the in the Metropolitan Centre zone H9.6.9(1)(c) “an existing wind speed which exceeds the controls H8.6.28(1)(a) or Standard H8.6.28(1)(b) above to provision provides clarity and corrects the reference to the appropriate of Standard H9.6.9(1)(a) or Standard H9.6.9(1)(b) above to increase”. This phrasing should be increase." provisions applicable. This also makes it consistent with the other business used in the City Centre zone (with city centre standard cross references). centre zones. Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C1 H8 Business – City Centre H8.8.2. Assessment criteria (1)(d) There is a grammatical error where “or” has been used instead of “and” within the assessment Recommend that H8.8.2 (1)(d)(i) is amended to H8.8.2 (1)(d)(i) lists the assessment criteria for the design and layout of There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Zone criteria for the design and layout of dwellings, visitor accommodation and boarding houses within replace the “or” with “and” through the administrative dwellings, visitor accommodation and boarding houses within the city centre of the AUP. H8.8.2 (1)(d)(i) City Centre Zone. plan change (Deliverable 2). zone. This list covers distinct design elements which all need to be considered and are not interchangeable. The use of “or” is therefore inappropriate and should be amended to state “and”. This amendment is necessary to improve the plan usability. Technical Inconsistency of C2 H8 Business – City Centre H8.8.2 (10) H8.8.2(10) City Centre zone outlook space assessment criteria refers to “non-permanent Recommend that H8.8.2(10) is amended to delete the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 provisions, references, Zone accommodation” when the matter for discretion refers to “visitor accommodation”. “Non- reference to “non-permanent accommodation” and of the AUP. This amendment is necessary to improve the plan usability. The amendment terms or formatting permanent accommodation” is a term used in the legacy plans. replace this with “visitor accommodation” for will clarify how to assess applications and therefore needs to be included in a consistency with the matter for discretion. This plan change as a technical matter. amendment should occur through the administrative plan change (Deliverable 2). Technical Amendments to C2 H10 Town Centre Zone H10.6.1 Building Height Clause (1) states that buildings must not exceed the heights shown in Table H10.6.1.1 for sites It is recommended to amend Table H10.6.1.1 to Standard H10.6.1 Building height in the Town Centre zone is currently There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables subject to the Height Variation Control on the planning maps. Table H10.6.1 only lists 5 different capture heights less than 13m that apply to particular unworkable where the height applied to a town centre is less than 13m as this of the AUP. or appendices possible Height Variation Control heights, being 13m, 18m, 21m, 27m and exceeding 27m. parts of town centres. This is considered a technical is not recognised within Table H10.6.1.1. This is amisalignment between the However the planning maps show a height Variation Control of either 9m or 13m for different amendment which should be progressed through the text and the maps which needs to be amended to improve the usability of the town centres. administrative plan change. plan. Anomaly Amendments to C1 H14 Business – General H14.6.2.3. The diagram that is missing from the Chapter is Diagram H14.6.2.3 Recession plane indicator for It is reccomended to insert diagaram H14.6.2.3 The diagram was mistakenly omitted from the Decisions Version of the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables Business Zone sites adjacent to an open space. This was present in the IHP Reccomendations version of the 'Recession plane indicator for sites adjacent to open Unitary Plan, however was present within the Reccomendations Version. This of the AUP. or appendices Plan, but not the Council Decisions Version. space zone ' below Figure H14.6.2.2, as per the IHP gives effect to Table H14.6.2.1 Height in relation to boundary. Reccomendations Version of the Plan. Technical Clarification or C1 H15 Business - Business Park H15.6.4 (1) Standard H15.6.4 (1) Landscaping contains two standards within one and requires amendment Provision to be re-worded as per attachment. The re-written standard is more legible and makes grammatical sense. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation Zone for greater clarity. The maximum impervious area standard needs to be separated into its own The maximum impervious area standard is still Creating a new rule does not alter the environmental outcome, hence the of the AUP. standard / bullet point. incorporated into the existing rule but made more clear retention of the maximum impervious rule, albeit a sub-clause for greater with a stand alone sub-clause . clarity.
Technical Clarification or C1 H19 Rural Zones H19.10.3 The purpose statement for H19.10.3 Minimum yard setback requirements does not address the The purpose statement should be updated to reflect the The purpose statement for this standard provides an explanation for the front There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation required riparian and coastal yard setback. This is inconsistent with other zones which have the rule. Recommend that the purpose statement for yard, side and rear yard setbacks. There is no explanation however, for the of the AUP. same required riparian and coastal yard setback i.e. the Residential zones. H19.10.3 Minimum yard setback requirements is required riparian or coastal protection yard setback requirements. This is amended to explain the purpose for the riparian and inconsistent with other zones where the purpose statement for the yard coastal yard setback to improve plan usability and for standard explains that it is necessary to set back buildings from streams and consistency with other zones (Deliverable 2). the coastal edge to maintain water quality and provide protection from natural hazards.
Page687 9 of 40 Chapter H Zones
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Amendments to C2 H20 Rural - Waitakere Activity Table H20.4.1 (A15) In H20 Rural Waitakere Foothills Zone Activity table H20.4.1, row A15 has a blank box in the Reccomended that row A15 should be 'D' as per The correct Activity Status is Discretionary which is consistent with similar There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Diagrams, figures, tables Foothills Zone activity status. It should have ‘D’ to be consistent with the Waitakere Ranges zone row A15. tracked plan change. provisions. i.e. A11 of Table H19.8.1 of Chapter H19 (rural) and A16 of Table of the AUP. or appendices H21.4.1 of Chaper 21 (Rural - Waitakere Ranges).
Anomaly Amendments to C1 H28 Quarry zone Figure H28.6.2.1.1 The extent of the zone in the GIS Viewer was increased on the western boundary but the figure Figure H28.6.2.1.1 Hunua quarry effects line area of p.5 of Council’s Closing remarks for topic 080f (special purpose: quarry zone) There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, tables (H28.6.2.1.1) was not updated to reflect this. 'Hunua Quarry' (shaded) needs to be amended so that shows the agreed changes to the zone and buffer area, while p.24 shows the of the AUP. or appendices the area shown as Hunua Quarry is the same extent as Quarry effects line unchanged. Consider that updating the diagram was the Special Purpose Quarry zone in the GIS Viewer. forgotten and this is a drafting error.
Page688 10 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (Auckland-wide)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or Minor - two changes to I101 Motor sport I101.6.2.1. All motorsport activities The exeption for weekday practices has been left out of the Clauses, ever since the precinct was Recommendation: This change to provide clarity and correct the provisions to reflect current There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation provide a link between precinct incorporated into the recommendations version. (1) Between 1 October in one year and 31 May in the use. A link between clause (1) and clause (3) of the noise standards. of the AUP. related clauses following year no motorised activities will occur on one Change as underlined to the right. Need to add in the exclusion of weekday practices, which the week in every three weeks (except for weekday There is no to little change to the intent of the policy, it is clarifying the legacy District Plan has. practices as detailed below). meaning of a provision.
The Panel's report for Topic 076 Major Recreation is silent on this matter. (2) Between 1 June and 30 September no motorised This, therefore does not affect the direction of the RPS. Change appropriate These exceptions are in Appendix B - Planning Maps, C01-09, of the Isthmus Plan. activities will occur on one week in every two weeks for plan objectives. Clarification of a policy via a plan change - no other (except for weekday practices as detailed below). options available.
(3)...
Technical Clarification or Moderate - 1 change I101 Motor sport I101.6.2.1. All motorsport activities Operation times need to be amended. I101.6.2.1. All motorsport activities. This error is in all Recommendation: This change is to provide clarity and correct the provisions to reflect current There is a consequential change to the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter Explanation and 1 subsequent precinct versions of the plan. The IHP's report for Topic 076 Major Recreation is silent on this matter. (4) Weekday practice may take place between: use of the precinct.Change does not alter the intent of the policy/application proposed amendment. This change is amending the practice times change to operation and These reflect the operation hours in Appendix B - Planning Maps, C01-09, of the Isthmus Plan. (a) 12 noon 3pm and 8.00 8.30pm from 1 October to of the provisions, but rather providing clarity and correcting the provisions to to enable an earlier start and finish, the hours of operation for lighting hours. 31 May; and reflect current practice already in place. floodlights must be no later than 8.00pm instead of 10.30pm.
I101.6.2.2. Lighting...(2) Hours of operation for floodlights must be no later than 8.00 10.30 pm daily except where agreed by Council for special national or international events for a maximum of six days per year. Technical Clarification or Minor - deletion of a I101 Motor sport I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway I101.6.2.4(3) is superfluous to requirements and appears to be added in mistake. In all versions of I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway Riders Club This change is to delete a clause that is not required. It is not in the legacy There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation clause that is not precinct Riders Club motorsport activities the Plan. It is not in the legacy plan. The wording of this provision does not even make sense. It motorsport activities 3) Two two-day race meetings Auckland City Council District Plan rules. of the AUP. required. should be deleted. The IHP's report for Topic 076 Major Recreation is silent on this matter. can occur a year between 12pm and 6pm on Saturday and Sunday. Does not add anything to the provisions, or change the intent of the policy. It is not in the old Avondale Racecourse Precinct Rebuttal either, before this was merged into the motorsports precinct. It first appeared in AC's propsed marked up version of the Motersports Precinct and in subsequent evidence.
Technical Clarification or Minor - 1 change to I101 Motor sport I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway Riders Club motorsport activities Recommendation: This chanbge is to reflect the actual practice whereby Powersports submits There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation clarify policy precinct Riders Club motorsport activities Clause 7 does not adequately represent the way in which motor sports programmes are submitted to I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway Riders Club the programme to council, as advised by Council Planner A. Reidy after of the AUP. Council. The following recommendation reflacted the current practice. It is not in the legacy plan motorsport activities rebuttal evidence. provisions. The IHP's report for Topic 076 Major Recreation is silent on this matter. 7) Auckland Speedway Riders Club may specify on the programme submitted to Council Power Sports It is a clarification of a policy, but does not change its intent or meaning, or Association who will submit to Auckland Council, a the intended direction of the plan (RPS). twilight meeting between 4pm and 9pm on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday ... Technical Clarification or Minor - this is a single I103 Waitematā I103.3 Policies Waitemata When the Panel made their recommendations and changed the Coastal Zone provisions, an Recommendation: The reference in the AUP of ‘D.5.1.3’ was under the PAUP notified version. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation change to correct a Navigation Channel Navigation Channel precinct incorrect policy reference error was found. 2. I103.3. Policies [rcp] As the plan structure and references have been amended, This former of the AUP. reference in a policy Precinct The Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone, Auckland-reference does not apply and the correct policy under the AUP needs to be In Chapter I Precincts I103.3 Policies, there is an accompanying explanation with reference to wide and overlay policies apply in this precinct in referenced. The new policy is under F2.4.3 Dredging Policy 3. “D.5.1.3 Dredging Policy 4 of the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.” D.5.1.3 relates to addition to those specified above, with the exception of Coastal zones under the PAUP NV not DV. In the AUP this policy is now F2.4.3(3). D.5.1.3 Dredging Policy 4 of the Coastal - General Correction of a cross reference - no other options availabe. Coastal Marine Zone F2.4.3(3) Dredging Policy of F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone. By correcting this error, the provision is giving effect to the appropriate policy of the RPS.
Page689 11 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (City centre)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Amendments to C1 I214 Wynyard Precinct Table I214.6.2.2. Maximum office In the Wynyard Precinct, Standard/Table I214.6.2.2 (Maximum office Gross Floor Area (GFA) 2) Amend in Table I214.6.2.2: Standard I214.6.2.2 cannot be implemented in its current form due to the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Diagrams, figures, gross floor area 2 there are two errors. The first error is that the table lists incorrect sub-precincts – in particular Sub-precinct C D incorrect precincts being referenced, and an incorrect maximum office GFA of the AUP. tables or appendices sub-precinct C should be sub-precinct D, sub-precinct D should be sub-precinct E, and sub- Sub-precinct D E 45,000m2 43,500m2 listed for precinct E. precinct E should be sub-precinct F. Sub-precinct E F This plan change will allow the precinct to be implemented as intended, For sub-precinct E, the permitted GFA is 34000m2 and the maximum additional GFA (as an RD therefore giving effect to the RPS. activity) is 8500m2, giving a total of 43500m2, not 45,500m2 as stated. This is a simple adding error. The table needs to be changed to reflect the corrections below: Practice notes would need to have been administered if this was not included in this plan change. This error has existed since the unitary plan was notified where it appears incorrect details have been transferred from the Central Area District Plan.
Anomaly Amendments to C1 I214 Wynyard Precinct I214.10.6 Wynyard: Precinct plan 6 - It is clearly intended that the viewshafts were meant to remain as the operative in part standard Viewshafts are to be readded to precinct plan 6, in line Standards I214.6.12 (1) - (6) cannot be implemented as intended as they rely There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, Indicative lanes and viewshafts I214.6.12. Lanes and view shafts includes the following: with the policies of the precinct. on the viewshafts being showed correctly in Precinct Plan 6. They are of the AUP. tables or appendices … missing due to an oversight. (2) Where the lanes shown on Precinct plan 6 are also shown as view shafts on land, the This effects how the precinct plans are implemented, minimum width must be 10m. and what development is deemed appropriate in the This plan change will allow the precinct to be implemented as intended, (3) Where a view shaft on land is indicated alone, it must have a minimum width of 10m. lanes. therefore giving effect to the plan bojectives/RPS. … This error will need to be amended through a plan change. The viewshafts shown on the A plan change is required to fix this error. No other options are aavailable. precinct plan below need to be transferred to I214.10.6 Wynyard: Precinct plan 6 - Indicative lanes and viewshafts (other information shown on the plan below is no longer correct so do not replace the operative in part precinct plan entirely with the one below).
Anomaly Amendments to C1 I214 Wynyard Precinct I214.4.1 Activity table – land use The first ‘activity status’ column (sub-precinct A and sub-precinct B) A23 has a second error. (A23) Office activity that exceeds the maximum office This error has also been carried through all versions of the unitary plan, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, (A23) The activity status for Area 1 (to be changed to Sub-precinct A) should be RD, not NC. It activity gross floor area in I214.6.2(1) below, subject to however it will affect how the unitary plan is applied, and applications may be of the AUP. tables or appendices appears that the intention was that it would be a non-complying activity to add more office on compliance with the maximum office activity gross subjected to a more rigorous assessment than necessary. This will need to any site other than Lot 1 DP179403. Given the restriction in I214.6.2 (2) that means that the floor area in I214.6.2(2) below #... be corrected through a plan change (technical matter). maximum restricted discretionary office GFA only applies to Lot 1 DP179403 there is no need for the non-complying activity status, because on all other sites development of office in Sub-precinct A and Sub-precinct B - RD Throughout the activity table (I214.4.1), areas 1-6 are listed when the correct exceedance of I214.6.2 (1) would be a non-complying activity under Rule 1214.4 (A56). The (not Area 1 and 2) and corresponding terminology is Sub-precincts A-F. There is also another activity status of the rule should be restricted discretionary. This change will need to be made Sub-precinct F RD NC error in A23 for sub-precinct F, where two statuses are listed for the same through a plan change. activity. The correct activity status should be restricted discretionary, as that is the purpose of the rule.
These changes are required so that this standard can be implemented correctly, and that applications for office activity are assessed under the correct activity status. Technical Clarification or C1 I208 Port Precinct Rules E25.6.14-E25.6.22 within the The issue that we have identified is that by applying Noise Rules E25.6.14-E25.6.22 of the Wording to read as follows: In Council’s final closing remarks for Topic 040 (lighting, noise, vibration) as There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation Port Precinct Unitary Plan to the Port Precinct, a conflict arises with the application of Port Precinct noise The Auckland-wide Lighting rules E24 and Noise rules that was after 050 (City Centre). Council and POAL agreed that the Auckland-of the AUP. standard I208.6.1.1. For example, while specific noise levels are required to be achieved at the E25.6.2 - E25.6.13; E25.6.23 - E25.6.26; E25.6.27 - wide lighting and noise rules do not apply and the Auckland-wide vibration Outer Control Boundary of Precinct Plan 3, the application of E25.6.19 applies a second, more E25.6.29 and E25.6.31 - E25.6.33 ; E25.6.32; rules do apply. onerous standard on those residentially-zoned properties that are located within this area. E25.6.33 do not apply to land and the coastal marine Chapter C.1 of the Unitary Plan provides no clear guidance as to rule would apply in such area in the Port Precinct. There is nothing in the Panel’s reports for topic 040 or 050 that explains any circumstances, and as such, it appears that both sets of rules would technically apply despite disagreement with that position. the conflict. I agree that there appears to be an error in the decision version of the Port Precinct in not including E25.6.14 to E25.6.22 in the list of noise standards that do not apply. If E25.6.14 (coastal interface) and E25.6.19 (business interface) apply, it is difficult to see how the more specific rule in the Port precinct also applies. Several of the other rules relate to noise from rural zones or schools so they could not apply to noise in the Port precinct anyway.
The only Auckland-wide noise standards that should apply are E25.6.1 (general standards) and E25.6.30 (vibration).
Page690 12 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (Central)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change the AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Clarification or C1 I318 Monte Cecilia I.318.3.1. Policy Policy incorrectly refers to a Character Statement. This error was included in the proposed plan. Amend the policy to refer to the Monte Cecilia The amendment corrects an error. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation Precinct Character Statements are relevant to Special Character Areas. As Monte Cecilia is a Historic Statement of Significance. of the AUP. Heritage Area it is subject to a Statement of Significance. Technical Clarification or C1 I319 MOTAT Precinct 1319.8.2(1) Assessment criteria 1319.8.2(1) considers "the extent to which the amount of light falling into Change Assessment criteria 1319.8.2(1) to read: "(h) The addition of the wording "established dwellings within a residential zone" There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation habitable rooms of (suggested words missing) during the hours of darkness is minimised to the extent to which the amount of light falling into clarifies the clause Assessment criteria 1319.8.2(1) and would align it with of the AUP. control effects on indoor amenity and sleep disturbance". It is indicated that the criteria omits habitable rooms of established dwellings within a I319.6.2. Lighting including I319.6.2.(5)(a). Although this phrase was not the phrase "established dwellings within a residential zone" in error. residential zone during the hours of darkness is included in the AUPOP and was not included in the Auckland Council minimised to control effects on indoor amenity and evidence to the IHP re the MOTAT precinct, the inclusion of these works sleep disturbance". makes the intent of the clause clear and is entirely consistent with the body of I319.6.2. where this phrase is used on a number of occasions. Anomaly Clarification or C1 I319 MOTAT Precinct I319.6.2(5)(a)and (b) and Standard I319.6.2 relates to lighting and includes a number of inconsistent references to where Amend Standard I319.6.2(5)(a)and (b) and Standard The aim has been to provide a consistent approach through out the AUPOP. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation I319.6.2(7) illuminance limits are to be measured: I319.6.2(7) to from “lawfully established dwelling” to The phrase in the I319 MOTAT Precinct Standard I319.6.2(5) (a) & (b) and of the AUP. Standard I319.6.2(5) (a) & (b) and Standard I319.6.2(7) includes a limit to be measured "at the “dwelling” Standard I319.6.2(7) “lawfully established dwelling” is not supported by a boundary of any residentially zoned site containing a lawfully established dwelling". The phrase definition in the AUPOP. Dwelling however is defined in the RMA. Retaining lawfully established dwelling does not have a definition in the AUPOP. It is recommended that the current wording is like to cause confusion and create additional cost in this be changed to 'dwelling' as defined in the RMA. determining whether a dwelling is lawfully established. It is therefore recommended to amend Standard I319.6.2(5)(a)and (b) and Standard I319.6.2(7) to from “lawfully established dwelling” to “dwelling” .
Anomaly Clarification or C1 I319 MOTAT Precinct I319.6.2. Lighting The qualifying phrase "residentially zoned site" is omitted from Standard I319.6.2(5)(b) meaning Add the following qualifier to; Standard I319.6.2(5)(b) The qualifying phrase "residential zone" is omitted from Standard There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation that protection could be afforded to a dwelling in a non residential zone, for example a dwelling "within a residential zone". I319.6.2(5)(b) meaning that protection could be afforded to a dwelling in a of the AUP. in a mixed use zone or a workers' dwelling. Standard I319.6.2(7) refers to the measurements at non residential zone, for example a dwelling in a mixed use zone or a the windows of habitable rooms of a lawfully established dwelling within a residential zone (and workers' dwelling. The question whether the protection from adverse lighting at the boundary 'of any residentially zoned site where' a dwelling does not yet exist). effects should only apply in a residential zone rather than to any dwelling could be reviewed as part of preparing the plan change. Standard I319.6.2(5)(b) does not include the "within a residential zone " qualifier. However in reading the Ak Council evidence to the IHP it appears that this has been omitted in The lack of consistency both within the relevant Motat Precinct (I319.6.2. error. The AUPOP I319.6.2(5)(b) does not align with the Council's evidence and is inconsistent Lighting) paragraph see I319.6.2(7) and the fact that it does not reflect the with the overall paragraph on Light in the AUPOP and the Council's evidence. content of the Council's submission to the IHP indicates that is an anomaly can be corrected. The remedy is the addition of the following qualifier to Standard I319.6.2(5)(b) "within a residential zone". This aligns the sentence with the rest of the paragraph.
Anomaly Amendments to C1 I323 Observatory I323.10.1. Observatory Precinct: There would appear to be an error in the AUPOP Observatory precinct plan key which states Observatory Precinct: Precinct plan 1 – Maximum The AUPOP indicates a inconsistency between I323.6.1.(1) Maximum There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 diagrams, figures, tables Precinct Precinct plan 1 – Maximum building that the maximum building height for Area A is 3m. However the maximum building height building height - Amend Observatory Precinct: Precinct building height - Buildings must not exceed 9m above the height of the of the AUP. or appendices height standard states that the maximum height for Area A is 9m. plan 1 key to change Area A height limit from 3m to existing ground level and the key in the Observatory Precinct map key which I323.6.1. Maximum building height - Buildings must not exceed 9m above the height of the 9m. indicates which 3 metres for the Area A height limit. This a appears to be a existing ground level in (1 ) Area A as shown on Observatory Precinct: Precinct plan 1. The IHP carryover from the notified PAUP version of the Observatory Precinct plan. hearing report on this topic states that they support having a two-step height control. This In there evidence on the Observatory Precinct plan to the IHP the Auckland consistent with rules 1363.6.1 (1) & (2). In evidence to the IHP the Auckland Council planner Council planner states, 'the notified precinct plan has been inaccurately states that in her opinion 'the notified precinct plan has been inaccurately copied from the copied from the Observatory concept plan contained in the legacy Isthmus Observatory concept plan contained in the legacy Isthmus Plan which identifies the maximum Plan which identifies the maximum building height as 9m above existing building height as 9m above existing ground level for Area A and 3m above existing ground ground level for Area A and 3m above existing ground level (Jan. 1993) for level (Jan. 1993) for Area B. Area B. In response to the evidence the IHP has included I323.6.1.(1) - however the mistake in the AUPOP Observatory precinct plan key. The AUPOP Precinct plan 1 – Maximum building height, plan key states that the maximum building height for Area A is 3m, and 3m for Area B as well. The diagram should be amended maximum building height for Area A from 3m to 9m. Anomaly Amendments to C1 I325 Ōkahu Marine I325 Ōkahu Marine precinct plan 1 There is an error in the AUPOP Ōkahu Marine precinct plan 1. There is an error in the AUPOP Ōkahu Marine precinct The AUPOP Ōkahu Marine precinct plan 1 contains an error in labelling and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 diagrams, figures, tables precinct The domain (label) on the plan Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct A [rcp] should be Ōkahu Marine sub- plan 1. The domain (label) on the plan Ōkahu Marine means that it does not align with the content of the AUPOP Ōkahu Marine of the AUP. or appendices precinct A [rcp/dp] sub-precinct A [rcp] should be Ōkahu Marine sub- precinct activities table or describe reality of the area which covers both the The domain (label) on the plan Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct B [dp] should be Ōkahu Marine sub- precinct A [rcp/dp] marine and land base environments and requires reference to both the precinct B [rcp/dp] rcp/dp. The domain (label) on the plan Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct A [rcp] The current AUPOP Ōkahu Marine precinct plan 1 is not aligned to the AUPOP Ōkahu Marine The domain (label) on the plan Ōkahu Marine sub- should be Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct A [rcp/dp] The domain (label) on the activities table or the PAUP activities table. It is also not an accurate description of the are precinct B [dp] should be Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct B plan Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct B [dp] should be Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct covered which is both Coastal Marine Area and land. There is an error on pages 15-19 of the [rcp/dp] B [rcp/dp]. This is an error first shown on pages 15-19 of the Council’s Council’s recommendation report. recommendation report. Conversely, the PAUP Ōkahu Marine precinct Activities Table identifies the that sub-precinct A and B both incorporating the CMA (rcp) and Land area (dp) as with.
Technical Clarification or C1 I332 Tamaki Precinct I332.7 Assessment – controlled Re I332 Tamaki Precinct as there are controlled activies in this the causes are redundant and The two clauses need to be removed. I332.7.1 Matters AUPOP I332 Tamaki Precinct There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation activities need to be removed. of control As there are no controlled activities with the Tamaki precinct the addition of of the AUP. I332.7 Assessment – controlled activities. There are no controlled activities in this precinct. clauses in the AUPOP I332.7.1 and I332.7.2 is a mistake and redundant. The I332.7.2 Assessment criteria two clauses need to be removed . Remove the following two clauses: There are no controlled activities in this precinct. I332.7 Assessment – controlled activities I332.7.1 Matters of control Add under I332.7 Assessment – controlled activities. I332.7.1 Matters of control There are no controlled activities in this precinct. There are no controlled activities in this precinct. There are no controlled activities in this precinct. I332.7.2 Assessment criteria I332.7.2 Assessment criteria There are no controlled activities in this precinct There are no controlled activities in this precinct. Clauses I332.7.1 and I332.7.2 are to be replaced by The AUPOP I332.7.1 and I332.7.2 are redundant and a mistake and the two clauses need to be There are no controlled activities in this precinct, which follows directly on removed . They can be replaced by : There are no controlled activities in this precinct. from I332.7 Assessment – controlled activities.
Technical Amendments to C2 I334 Wairaka Precinct 1334 Wairaka Precinct, Activity I334 Wairaka Precinct, Activity Table - I334 errors in provisions: I334.8.1. Matters of discretion (3) Connections AUPOP I334 Wairaka Precinct. Matters of Discretion I334.8.1(3) and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter diagrams, figures, tables Table (A29) Connection of any roads to the Precinct with a public road: RD between the Precinct and Laurel Street, Renton Road Assessment Criteria I334.8.2(3) apply to restricted discretionary activities and of the AUP. or appendices (A30) Direct vehicle connection between Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue and the or Rhodes Avenue with a public road: I334.8.2. do not align with the Activity Table specifically (A30) where the activity is Special Purpose – Tertiary Education zone: NC Assessment criteria (3) Connections listed as a NC. The Activity Table NC activity status was a result of mediation (A30) is in contradiction to Matters of Discretion I334.8.1(3) ‘Connections between the Precinct between the Precinct and Laurel Street, Renton Road between the Council and Mt Albert residence concerned about access to the and Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue with a public road’ and Assessment Criteria or Rhodes Avenue with a public road: precinct from Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue. I334.8.2(3) ‘Connections between the Precinct and Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue with a public road’. A30 is a NC activity and should not be listed re Matters of Discretion I334.8.1(3) and Assessment Criteria I334.8.2(3). The activity that should be These same roads are shown as discretionary and as for restricted discretionary activities vis- listed under the matters of discretion I334.8.1 is A29: "Connection of any axis the assessment criteria. This indicates that (A30) is wring and not required in the activities roads to the Precinct with a public road." table. Council evidence on this matter to the IHP appears to be silent on the matter and does not The corresponding assessment criteria I334.8.2.3 will need to change to align require NC activity status to manage these roads. with the above. Remove I334.8.1. Matters of discretion - Laurel Street, Instead the roads in question can be included in (A29) Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue. Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue I334.8.2. Assessment criteria Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue
Page691 13 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (Central)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change the AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 I334 Wairaka Precinct Assessment Criteria I334.8.2.2(g)(i) Assessment Criteria I334.8.2.2(g)(i) ‘the extent to which parking buildings avoid fronting Include in 1334.8.2.2(g)(i) "or avoid having direct The proposed amendment is to add the words 'avoid having' in There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation and Assessment Criteria Carrington Road or Oakley Creek or have direct access from Laurel Street…’. Wording is access from Laurel Street." I334.8.2.2(g)(i) to provide clarity to the purpose of the standard. The of the AUP. I334.8.2.3(c)(i) slightly ambiguous and implies the emphasis is on having access when in fact it is to avoid the Include Assessment Criteria I334.8.2.3(c)(i) '.. and amended text would then read as: 'the extent to which parking buildings avoid access, so suggest changes as follows: ensure the provision of walkway and cycleway access fronting Carrington Road or Oakley Creek or avoid having direct access from ‘the extent to which parking buildings avoid fronting Carrington Road or Oakley Creek or avoid is not restricted’. Laurel Street. having direct access from Laurel Street…’. Assessment Criteria I334.8.2.3(c)(i) does not make clear sense and it proposed that an amendment is made as follows: Assessment Criteria I334.8.2.3(c)(i) ‘the extent of any positive benefits arising from the proposed connection (excluding benefits related to diversion of traffic from Carrington Road) ‘the extent of any positive benefits arising from the proposed connection and the provision of walkway and cycleway access is not restricted’. (excluding benefits related to diversion of traffic from Carrington Road) and ensure the provision of walkway and cycleway access is not restricted. This criteria does not make clear sense and it is proposed that an amendment is made as This change supports the context of clause which aims to provide for future follows: walkways and cycleways. ‘the extent of any positive benefits arising from the proposed connection (excluding benefits related to diversion of traffic from Carrington Road) and ensure the provision of walkway and cycleway access is not restricted’. Technical Amendments to C1 I334 Wairaka Precinct I334.10.2 Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 The map I334.10.2 Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 – Protected Trees is the incorrect plan. This plan I334.10.2 Wairaka Precinct plan 2: needs to be There is a need to align the Wairaka Precinct Plan Map with the Table There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter diagrams, figures, tables identifies trees outside the precinct and not listed in the identified trees list on page 14 of the changed to match AUP Table I334.6.7.1 - Identified I334.6.7.1 - Identified Trees. The Table does not include trees 4, 6 and 12 of the AUP. or appendices provisions. An updated plan was provided in Council’s Closing remarks and Points of Trees. An updated map is provided Council’s Closing they are outside the boundary of the precinct plan identified in Map I334.10.2 Clarification for the Wairaka Precinct (31 March 2016) with the plan shown on page 26 of 48. remarks in Points of Clarification for the Wairaka Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 – Protected Trees and therefore the precinct plan This AUPOP plan should be updated to reflect those induced in the provisions. There is a need Precinct (31 March 2016). Remove trees. should be updated. Table I334.6.7.1 was adjusted in relation to Council's to align the Wairaka Precinct Plan Map I334.10.2 with the Table I334.6.7.1 - Identified Trees. closing remarks however the updated map was not included in the AUPOP. The table does not include trees identified as 4, 6 and 12 they are outside Wairaka: Precinct plan. The trees need to be removed from Protected Trees - and therefore should be removed An updated plan was provided in Council’s Closing remarks and Points of Map I334.10.2 Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 – Protected Trees. Clarification for the Wairaka Precinct (31 March 2016). However, this map was not included in and AUPOP. This anomaly can be corrected as part of the administrative Plan Change.
Page692 14 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C1 I402 Auckland Airport I402.8.1(1) Need to change - Matters of Discretion I402.8.1(1). The Recommendation There is a need to change Matters of Discretion I402.8.1(1) . The I402.6.19 . There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct I402.6.19 . Standard - the Auckland-wide and overlay standards apply in this precinct unless I402.8.1 (1) "...which is not in accordance with Standard states - the Auckland-wide and overlay standards apply in this of the AUP. specified. The standards apply to permitted activities, controlled activities and restricted I402.10.1 Auckland Airport Precinct plan 1 and / or not precinct unless specified. The standards apply to permitted activities, discretionary activities. However, I402.10.1 (A44) refers to - Any building, structures and complying with Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision. controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities. However, works or subdivision in Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F that is not in accordance with either I402.10.1 (A44) refers to - Any building, structures and works or subdivision one of or both of: I402 10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1, or the subdivision Standard in Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F that is not in accordance with either one I402.6.19 Subdivision Gateway Subprecinct. That is activities not complying to the rule/s are of or both of: I402 10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1, or the subdivision also subject to matters of discretion. Matters of discretion I402.8.1(1) - therefore needs to be Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision Gateway Sub precinct. amended as follows to reflect activity allowed in A44. Recommendation That is activities not complying to the rule's are also subject to matters of I402.8.1 (1) "...which is not in accordance with I402.10.1 Auckland Airport Precinct plan 1 and / discretion. Matters of discretion I402.8.1(1) - needs to be amended to or not complying with Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision." reflect activity of A44, that are not complying with the standard .
Technical Clarification or C1 I402 Auckland Airport I402.8.2.(1) There is a need to change I402.8.2(1) Accesssment Criteria Recommendation There is a need to change I402.8.2(1) Accesssment Criteria. The I402.6.19 There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct I402.6.19 . Standard - the Auckland-wide and overlay standards apply in this precinct unless I402.8.2(1) "..which is not in accordance with . Standard - the Auckland-wide and overlay standards apply in this precinct of the AUP. specified. The standards apply to permitted activities, controlled activities and I402.10.1 Auckland Airport Precinct plan 1 and / or not unless specified. The standards apply to permitted activities, restricted discretionary activities. However, I402.10.1 (A44) refers to - Any building, complying with Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities. However, structures and works or subdivision in Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F that is not in I402.10.1 (A44) refers to - Any building, structures and works or subdivision accordance with either one of or both of: I402 10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1, or the in Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F that is not in accordance with either one subdivision Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision Gateway Subprecinct. of or both of: I402 10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1, or the subdivision That is activities not complying to the rule/s are also subject to Accessment Criteria. Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision Gateway Subprecinct. Accessment Criteria I402.8.2(1) - needs to be amended as follows to reflect activity of A44 That is activities not complying to the rule's are also subject to matters of and are not complying with the standard . Recommendation Accessment Criteria. Accessment Criteria I402.8.2(1) - needs to be I402.8.2(1) "..which is not in accordance with I402.10.1 Auckland Airport Precinct plan 1 and / amended as follows to reflect activity of A44 and are not complying with the or not complying with Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision. standard .
Technical Clarification or C3 I403 Beachlands 1 In the Beachlands 1 Precinct (I403) the - Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting Recommendation: In the Beachlands 1 Precinct (I403) the - Landscape buffer area planting plan There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct schedule is missing from the precinct controls. This set of controls: "The Landscape buffer area Add I403.10.3. The Landscape buffer area planting and planting schedule is missing from the precinct controls. This set of proposed amendment. These changes are as follows: planting plan and planting schedule' is included under the PAUP Beachlands 1 Precinct as plan and planting schedule. controls: "The Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule' is Appendix 11.6.1. and was part of the Manukau City Council Plan Change 30. However the included under the PAUP Beachlands 1 Precinct as Appendix 11.6.1. and I403.6.14. Landscape buffer area to be changed as follows schedule was not included in the AUPOP. It is referred to in the landscape section of was part of the Manukau City Council Plan Change 30. However the (c) be planted in accordance with the landscape plan for the buffer Beachlands 1 Precinct (I403). This schedule needs to be included part the AUPOP I403 schedule was not included in the AUPOP. It is however referred to in the area and the planting scheduled contained in I403.11.1 Beachlands Beachlands 1 Precinct. It is recommended that be added to the body of the precinct text. To landscape section of Beachlands 1 Precinct (I403). The schedule was not 1 Beachlands Village Design Guidelines to 1403.10.3. The attach as a further appendix is likely to cause confusion with the existing - Beachlands Design included in evidence to the panel but needs to be be included to interrept the Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule. Guidelines appendix. The planting plan and planting schedule - to be referenced as 1403.10.3. precinct controls. This schedule needs to be included part the AUPOP The Beachlands 1 precinct also incorrectly refers to the Beachlands Design Guidelines in I403 Beachlands 1 Precinct. Also need to be changed: Landscaping along Whitford–Maraetai relation to landscape planting in three instances. Re Landscaping along Whitford–Maraetai Road provision (26) Require planting of the landscape buffer area Road provisions (26) and (27). I403.6.14. Landscape buffer area has consequential changes. with native and exotic species in accordance with I403.11.1 Recommendation; Add I403.10.3. The Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting Beachlands 1: Beachlands Village Design Guidelines to 1403.10.3 schedule. Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule. and (27) Protect views from Whitford-Maraetai Road to the Hauraki Gulf by means of the view corridor through the landscape buffer area identified in I403.11.1 Beachlands 1: Beachlands Village Design Guidelines to 1403.10.3 Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule.
Technical Clarification or C3 I403 Beachlands 1 Adjust the I403 (Beachlands 1 Precinct) and in particular - I403.10.1. Beachlands 1: Precinct Recommendation: Adjust the I403 (Beachlands 1 Precinct) the boundary of the precinct is There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct plan 1, the boundary lines. Need for correction. Realign Southern and Eastern precinct boundaries to incorrect in two places. and needs to be adjusted. This would align with the proposed amendment. The change required is to extend landscape The boundary of the precinct is incorrect in two sections and does not align with the land parcels match land parcels and road boundaries. property boundaries and roads as shown in the GIS precinct. The Southern buffer area out to boundary. or road as shown in the GIS precinct. Changes to the precinct boundary are: 1. Pulling back the Consequential change required to extend landscape boundary needs to align with the property land parcel and the road. Southern boundary so that it aligns with the property land parcels and the road. The precinct buffer area out to boundary. The Eastern boundary of the precinct needs to be clarified and aligned currently includes the road as is clearly out of alignment. 2. Extending the Eastern boundary (to (shown by the dashed line) with property boundaries. the dashed line) so that it aligns with property boundaries and road. These changes would align Reasons for recommendation the I403.10.1. Beachlands 1: Plan with the GIS precinct. This will clarify the exact location of the precinct boundary, and will ensure On the eastern section there is also a consequential change required to extend landscape that the boundaries are buffer area out to boundary. aligned with the precinct boundary in the GIS viewer.
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I403. Beachlands 1 I403 Beachlands 1 Precinct, Table I403.4.1 Activity table, the activities (A3) and (A4) as (A4) Any activity requiring wastewater servicing that is The change is needed to make the distinction between activities (A3) and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter provisions, references, Precinct Table I403.4.1 Activity table currently worded are the same. Activity A4 should be the one which has "servicing that is not not connected to a public reticulated wastewater (A4). Accordingly the activity (A4) is changed to represent the activity of the AUP. terms or formatting connected to a public reticulated wastewater sytem". Therefore this should change by adding system”, for which the correct activity status should be requiring wastewater servicing that is not connected toa reticulated the word "not" as follows: NC. This is to be amended through a plan change NC. wastewater system. The corresponding activity status "NC" matches with hsi change. (A4) Any activity requiring wastewater servicing that is not connected to a public reticulated (A17) New buildings and any modifications to a wastewater system”, for which the correct activity status should be NC. This is to be amended builiding other than those listed above - This should be through a plan change NC. a permitted activity and hence activity status should be "P". Therefre insert "P" in activity status column. (A17) New buildings and any modifications to a builiding other than those listed above - This should be a permitted activity and hence activity status should be "P". Technical Clear mistake between C2 I403. Beachlands 1 Table I403.6.2.1 Yards Minimum Depth for Front Yard is amended as follows: Minimum Depth for Front Yard is amended as follows: The legacy provisions makes it clear that there is a 6m front yard which could There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter different versions of the Precinct 6 8m except as follows: 6 8m except as follows: be reduced to 3m if the site adjoins a Stormwater Management Area (SWMA) of the AUP. Plan (text only) or Public Open Space zone (POS) and a street-Rule 17.16.10.2(a)(i)(4). However the yard adjoining the SWMA or POS shall be a minimum of 6m- 8 6m for 8 6m for Rule 17.16.10.2(a)(i)(3). Note this is not the front yard. - sites adjoining Jack Lachlan Drive that are subject to standard I403.6.14 - sites adjoining Jack Lachlan Drive that are subject to - yards adjoining a stormwater management area or public open space. standard I403.6.14 The Unitary Plan requires a 6m front yard for front or corner sites if the site - yards adjoining a stormwater management area or adjoins the SWMA or POS. However the SWMA and POS yard (6m) has 3m for public open space. been drafted in both the legacy and unitary plans on the assumption that - one yard only on a corner site there is a front yard requirement for the site. There could be the possibility of - sites that adjoin a stormwater management area or public open space or a street. 3m for a rear site being created, in which case the front yard requirement would not - one yard only on a corner site apply. Any rear yard applied to a rear site would be subject to an 8m yard - sites that adjoin a stormwater management area or requirement. public open space or a street. Rule 17.16.10.2(a)(i)(3) in the legacy plan and its equivalent (Table I403.6.2.1) in the Unitary Plan should stand alone and should not be confused with the front yard requirement of 6m.
As it is currently drafted, the rule appears to link the front yard with the SWMA or POS yard. This rule should be redrafted for greater clarity as a stand alone yard rule and not be linked with the front yard requirement.
For sites that adjoin a SWMA or POS or a street, there is a 3m minimum front yard requirement.
The reduced 3m front yard requirement relates a sites situation with the possibility that it adjoins a SWMA or POS or a street.
Page693 15 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C1 I404 Beachlands 2 This error relates to the Beachlands 2 precinct (Local Centre). The Beachlands 2 precinct is Recommendation - that sub-precinct B be changed to This error relates to the Beachlands 2 precinct (Local Centre). The There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct based on the Beachlands Village Improvement Centre in the Manukau District Plan (CH.17.17). RD and that for sub-precinct C be changed to NC. Beachlands 2 precinct is based on the Beachlands Village Improvement of the AUP. The Beachlands 2 precinct was introduced through the hearings to reflect Plan Change 30A to Centre in the Manukau District Plan (CH.17.17) and was introduced through the legacy Manukau District Plan. the IHP hearings process. Table I404.4.1 Activity table - sets out the activities for the three sub- Table I404.4.1 Activity table - sets out the activities for the three sub-precincts. For (A10) trade precincts. For (A10) trade suppliers there is reversal in the appropriate suppliers there appears to be a reversal in the appropriate activity status between sub -precincts activity status between sub -precincts B & C based on the evidence to the B & C. It should be RD in sub-precinct B, but is shown as NC. And should be NC in sub- IHP hearings and the Manukau District Plan Change 30 and Chapter 17.17 precinct C, but is shown as RD. This would align with the evidence to the IHP and previous of the District Plan. It should be RD in sub-precinct B, but is shown as NC Manukau District Plan. and it should be NC in sub-precinct C, but is shown as RD. Recommendation - that sub-precinct B be changed to RD and that for sub-precinct C be changed to NC.
Technical Amendments to C2 I410 Drury South Figure I410.6.2.1 Carpark Design Under the I410.6.2. sub-precincts A - E, the section I410.6.2.8 refers to fully planted permeable This should be corrected as per the design layout - The fully planted permeable carpark design layout detailed in Figure There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter Diagrams, figures, Industrial Precinct carpark design layout detailed in Figure I410.6.2.1. However this design layout is wrong. This detail given in Diagram 6 of the I410 Drury South I410.6.2.1 should be corrected as per the design layout - detail given in of the AUP. tables or appendices should be corrected as per the design layout - detail given in Diagram 6 of the I410 Drury South Industrial Precinct Appendix. Diagram 6 of the I410 Drury South Industrial Precinct Appendix. Industrial Precinct Appendix. Technical Amendments to C2 I410 Drury South Attachment 5 In the I410 Drury South Industrial Precinct Appendix document, the Attachment 5 is missing. Insert the Attachment 5 as Appendix I410.11.1 - Insert the missing Attachment 5 as Appendix I410.11.1 - Attachment 5, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachments 32 and 34 (actual matter Diagrams, figures, Industrial Precinct Insert the Attachment 5 as Appendix I410.11.1 - Attachment 5, namely, Streams and Wetland Attachment 5, namely, Streams and Wetland namely, Streams and Wetland Rehabilitation Guidelines June 2013 - Boffa of the AUP. appendix) tables or appendices Appendix Rehabilitation Guidelines June 2013 - Boffa Miskell. Rehabilitation Guidelines June 2013 - Boffa Miskell. Miskell. Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I.417.5. Notification In section I417.5. Notification, equestrian centre activity is provided only in Rural - Rural Coastal This should be corrected as follows: The Activity, Equistrian Centre is within Sub-precinct A where both Rural - There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct zone. However, Rural - Mixed Rural zone that is part of the Sub-precinct A and needs to be (2) Any application for resource consent for any of the Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal zones exist. Therefore this correction of the AUP. included along with Rural - Rural Coastal zone. following activities will be considered without public or is needed to include all the zonning within the Sub-precinct where Equestrian This should be corrected as follows: limited notification or the need to obtain the written activity. (2) Any application for resource consent for any of the following activities will be considered approval from affected parties unless the Council without public or limited notification or the need to obtain the written approval from affected decides that special circumstances exist under section parties unless the Council decides that special circumstances exist under section 95A(4) of the 95A(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991: Resource Management Act 1991: (a) restaurants in the Residential - Mixed Housing (a) restaurants in the Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone; and Suburban Zone; and (b) equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed Rural or Rural – Rural Coastal Zones. (b) equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed Rural or Rural – Rural Coastal Zones.
Technical Clarification or C1 I417 Karaka North I.417.6.6.Minimum site size There are more than one site size being referred to in the table. Change to notification Change notification requirement as given below. As there are several site sizes in the table, this sentence is changed to There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct requirement as given below. (1) The minimum site sizes for the Karaka North sub- reflect that. of the AUP. (1) The minimum site sizes for the Karaka North sub-precincts is are set out in Table I417.6.6.1 precincts is are set out in Table I417.6.6.1 Minimum Minimum site sizes below. site sizes below. Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I417.1. Precinct Description I417.1. Precinct Description I417.1. Precinct Description This correction ensures that all the zones included in the Karaka North There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct Last paragraph of the Precicnt Description provides names of all the zones within the Karaka Last paragraph: The zoning of land within this precinct Precinct are included in the Precinct description. of the AUP. North Precinct. However Rural - Mixed Rural zone is missing, and therefore needs to be added. is Business - Local Centre Zone, Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, Residential - Single House 1) I417.1. Precinct Description Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone and Rural - Rural Last paragraph: The zoning of land within this precinct is Business - Local Centre Zone, Coastal Zone. Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, Residential - Single House Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone and Rural - Rural Coastal Zone.
Technical Clarification or C1 I417 Karaka North I417.1.Activity table In the second paragraph of the section I417.4. Activity table, add missing word spaces: Table In the second paragraph of the section I417.4. Activity This correction ensures that the numbering of Precincts follow the same There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct I417.4.1. table, add missing word spaces: TableI 417.4.1. format and style consistently throughout the AUP. of the AUP.
Table_I417.4.1 specifies the activity status of land use, development and subdivision activities Table_I417.4.1 specifies the activity status of land in the Karaka North Precinct pursuant to section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act1991. use, development and subdivision activities in the Karaka North Precinct pursuant to section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act1991.
Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I417.7.1. Matters of control All the zones within the precinct are correctly included the section I.417.7.1 Matters of control. This sections should be changed as follows: This change is needed to ensure that all the zones within the Precinct are There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct This sections should be changed as follows: correctly included. of the AUP. (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zones; and Zones; and dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones: dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones:
Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I417.7.2. Assessment criteria All the zones within the precinct are correctly included the section I.417.7.2. Assessment This sections should be changed as follows: This change is needed to ensure that all the zones within the Precinct are There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct criteria. This sections should be changed as follows: correctly included. of the AUP. (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zones; and Zones; and dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones: dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones:
Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I417.8.1 Matters of discretion The section I417.8.1 Matters of discretion deals with equestrian centre activity which is provided This section should be changed as follows: Equistrian Centre is an activity within Sub-precinct A where both Rural - There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct for in both zones, Rural - Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal. Accordingly, this section (2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal zones exist. Therefore this correction of the AUP. should be changed as follows: Rural - Rural Coastal Zones: is needed to include all the zonning within the Sub-precinct where Equestrian (2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones: activity is provided for. Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North I417.8.2 Assessment criteria The section I417.8.2 Matters of discretion deals with equestrian centre activity which is provided This section should be changed as follows: Equistrian Centre is an activity within Sub-precinct A where both Rural - There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct for in both zones, Rural - Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal. Accordingly, this section (2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal zones exist. Therefore this correction of the AUP. should be changed as follows: Rural - Rural Coastal Zones: is needed to include all the zonning within the Sub-precinct where Equestrian (2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones: activity is provided for. Technical Clarification or C1 I417 Karaka North Table I417.4.1 Activity table A blank in Table I417.4.1 Activity table below means that the provisions of the overlays, zone or This should be corrected as follows: This correction ensures that the presentation follow the same style and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct Auckland-wide apply. structure in sentences consistently throughout the AUP. of the AUP. A blank in Table I417.1.1_Activity table below means A blank in Table I417.1.1_Activity table below means that the provisions of the overlays, zone or that the provisions of the overlays, zone or Auckland- Auckland-wide the zone, overlay or Auckland-wide provisions apply. wide the zone, overlay or Auckland-wide provisions apply. Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North Table I417.4.1 Activity table In the Table I417.4.1 Activity Table, the Activity (A3) is defined as Dwellings outside the Rural This should be corrected as follows: Both Rural - Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal zones are provided for There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct Amenity Area or the Rural Character Area in the Karaka North Precicnt Plan 1. This area is (A3) Within the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural within the Sub-precinct A. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to both these of the AUP. within the Sub-precinct A which has both the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones Coastal Zones, Ddwellings in the Rural - Rural Coastal zones when the Activity A3 is defined. within the sub-precicnt. Hence it is necessary that both zones are included. outside the Rural Amenity Area or the Rural Character Area identified in identified in Karaka North: Precinct This should be corrected as follows: Plan 1 (A3) Within the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones, Ddwellings in the Rural - Rural Coastal outside the Rural Amenity Area or the Rural Character Area identified in identified in Karaka North: Precinct Plan 1
Page694 16 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 I417 Karaka North Table I417.4.1 Activity table In the Table I417.4.1 Activity Table, the Activity (A7) Equestrian Centre in the Rural - Mixed This should be corrected as follows: The Activity, Equistrian Centre is within Sub-precinct A where both Rural - There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones has an error. (A7) Equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed Rural or Mixed Rural and Rural - Rural Coastal zones exist. Therefore this correction of the AUP. Sub precinct A has both Rural - Mixed Rural, and Rural - Rural Coastal Zone and therefore both Rural – Rural Coastal Zone enable avoiding potential confusion. zones should be mentioned in the activity.
This should be corrected as follows: (A7) Equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed Rural or Rural – Rural Coastal Zone
Technical Inconsistency of C2 I418 Kingseat Precinct I418.8.2 Assessment Criteria Assessment Criterion 16 Subdivision is incorrect. Assessment criterion 16(a) should refer all This should be amended as follows: Assessment critrion I418.8.2 (16)(a) only refers to previous critiera There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter provisions, references, criteria I418.8.2(1) to I418.8.2(15). Therefore this should be amended as follows: I418.8.2(1) to I418.8.2(11) by mistake. This should include criteria upto of the AUP. terms or formatting (16) Subdivision I418.8.2(15). This is a clrear mistake that should be corrected. (16) Subdivision (a) In addition to considering the relevant assessment (a) In addition to considering the relevant assessment criteria I418.8.2(1) - (11) (15) above the criteria I418.8.2(1) - (11) (15) above the Council Council will……… will………
Technical Inconsistency of C2 I418 Kingseat Precinct I418.8.2 Assessment Criteria Assessment Criterion 16 Subdivision is incorrect. Assessment criterion 16(a) should refer all This should be amended as follows: Assessment critrion I418.8.2 (16)(a) only refers to previous critiera There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter provisions, references, criteria I418.8.2(1) to I418.8.2(15). Therefore this should be amended as follows: I418.8.2(1) to I418.8.2(11) by mistake. This should include criteria upto of the AUP. terms or formatting (16) Subdivision I418.8.2(16). This is a clrear mistake that should be corrected. (16) Subdivision (a) In addition to considering the relevant assessment (a) In addition to considering the relevant assessment criteria I418.8.2(1) - (11) (16) above the criteria I418.8.2(1) - (11) (16) above the Council Council will……… will………
Technical Inconsistency of C2 I418 Kingseat Precinct I418.8.2 Assessment Criteria Assessment criterion 19(b) refers to "any scheduled building, structure, area or tree". Therefore Amend criterion I418.8.2 (19) (b) as follows: Assessment criterion 19(b) refers to "any scheduled building, structure, area There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter provisions, references, this clearly relates to criteria 11(c)(i) which has reference to scheduled building, structure or (19 )(b) With reference to provision I418.8.2(19)(a) or tree". Therefore this clearly relates to criteria 11(c)(i) which has reference of the AUP. terms or formatting area. above and consideration of any scheduled building, to scheduled building, structure or area. structure, area or tree, assessment criteria in section Hence amend criterion I418.8.2 (19) (b) as follows: I418.8.2(11)(c)(i) are relevant. (19 )(b) With reference to provision I418.8.2(19)(a) above and consideration of any scheduled building, structure, area or tree, assessment criteria in section I418.8.2(11)(c)(i) are relevant.
Technical matteInconsistency of C1 I429. Pararēkau and I429.9.1 Landscape Plan 1429.9.1 Landscape Plan (1) should also refer to Pararekau Island. And “includes” should be The missing words "Pararēkau and" should be added The Precinct I429 is about two islands, namely, Pararēkau and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 provisions, references, Kōpuahingahinga plural. as follows: Kōpuahingahinga. Therefore the missing words "Pararēkau and" should be of the AUP. terms or formatting Islands Precinct added. I429. Pararēkau and Kōpuahingahinga Islands Precinct I429.9.1 Landscape Plan
(1) Applications for subdivision must provide a I429.9.1 Landscape Plan landscape plan for those parts of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands and includes: (1) Applications for subdivision must provide a landscape plan for those parts of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands and includes:
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I430 Patamahoe I430.6.4, I430.6.5, I430.6.6, I430.6.9, A number of standards and assessment criteria only apply to sub-precincts B, C and D, as set Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment identifies and clarifies where particular standards There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, Precinct I430.6.10, I430.6.11, out in Council's evidence, which was accepted by the panel. However this was not carried and assessment criteria apply in the precinct. of the AUP. terms or formatting I430.6.12 through to the AUP. I430.6. Standards The overlay, zone… I430.6.4. Vehicle parking and access in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.5. On-site stormwater mitigation in sub- precincts B, C and D … I430.6.6. Interface with Kingseat Road - all sites fronting Kingseat Road in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.9. Landscape buffer in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.10. Public open space in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.11. Staging in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.12. Stormwater management in sub-precincts B, C and D
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I430 Patamahoe I430.8, I430.8.1 Incorrect grammar is used within I430.8. Within I430.8.1 Policy (2)(e) provides additional Amend text as shown in track changes related to The proposed amendments correct a grammatical error, and provide greater There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, Precinct stormwater assessment criteria for Sub-precincts B, C & D and do not follow on from the other I430.8, I430.8.1 (track changes do not fit into cell). clarity and standing for the assessment criteria. of the AUP. terms or formatting policies under clause (2) which addresses subdivision and infringements in general. Needs to be a separate assessment criteria for greater standing. Technical Clear mistake between C2 I431. Pine Harbour I431.6. Standards The ‘Northern Terraces’ under the Operative plan, the equivalent of ‘Pine Harbour Precinct B I431.6. Standards I431.6.Standards should apply to permitted and restricted discretionary There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter different versions of the Precinct overlay’ under the PAUP provides for new dwellings as a controlled activity. The development The Auckland-wide and zone standards apply in this activities. The omission of restricted discretionary activities is an error that of the AUP. Plan (text only) standards for buildings under Rule 17.15.9.3.2 (legacy plan) apply to both permitted and precinct unless specified below. should be corrected. controlled activities. In PAUP process, dwellings were considered as RDA and not Controlled All activities listed as permitted or restricted Activity. Therefore, I431.6. Standards should be changed to "All activities listed as permitted or discretionary in Tables I431.4.1, I431.4.2 and I431.4.3 restricted discretionary" instead of "All activities listed as permitted". must comply with the following permitted activity standards. I431.6. Standards I431.6.1.Development within the precinct The Auckland-wide and zone standards apply in this precinct unless specified below. (1) All development within the precinct must be in All activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Tables I431.4.1, I431.4.2 and general accordance with Pine Harbour: Precinct plan I431.4.3 must comply with the following permitted activity standards. 1. I431.6.1.Development within the precinct (1) All development within the precinct must be in general accordance with Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1.
Technical Clear mistake between C2 I431. Pine Harbour I431.6.6. Site depth In the Pine harbour Precinct, I431.6.6. Site depth is also incorrectly stated as it does not The correction should be as follows: From the Legacy Plan, it is clear that lot widths and depths and front There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter different versions of the Precinct specifically refer to sub Precincts B and C. setbacks have been set for the Northern Terraces and Gateway Integrated of the AUP. Plan (text only) I431.6.6.Site depth Housing Precincts which are likely to be developed for terrace housing or I431.6.6.Site depth The minimum site depth in Sub-precincts B and C duplexes respectively. These controls will ensure each lot is of an adequate The minimum site depth in Sub-precincts B and C must meet one of the following: must meet one of the following: size while at the same time controlling, in part, potential adverse effects on (a) 22m if garages are located fronting the street; or (a) 22m if garages are located fronting the street; or adjoining sites or the streetscape. (b) 30m if garages do not front onto the street and are accessed from rear lane. (b) 30m if garages do not front onto the street and are accessed from rear lane. It is clear that the standard is mean to be exclusive to Sub-precincts B and C, and has been transferred incorrectly from the legacy plan. However, in its current form it would be applied to all precincts and would affect development in other precincts, and therefore needs to be corrected.
Page695 17 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clear mistake between C2 I431. Pine Harbour I431.6.8 Maximum building coverage Incorrect sub-precinct name, site area and building coverage included for sub-precincts in the These errors create inconsistency between the legacy plan and Unitary Plan. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter different versions of the Precinct Pine Harbour Precinct. Therefore these need to be corrected. of the AUP. Plan (text only) I431. Pine Harbour Precinct Standard I431.6.8(2) should be max building coverage of 50%, not 65% for sites greater than I431.6.8 Maximum building coverage 200m2 not for sites greater than 500m2. This would be consistent with legacy plan provisions. (1) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building The site size thresholds would also then align with clause (1). Standard I413.6.8(4) should be for coverage is 65 per cent of net site area for sites less sub-precinct C, not sub-precinct B and should be for sites greater than 300m2, not for sites less than 200m2. than 300m2. This would be consistent with Legacy plan and would align with corresponding (2) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building clause (3) which is for sub-precinct C and for sites less than 300m2. coverage is 65 50 per cent of net site area for sites greater than 500 200m2. I431. Pine Harbour Precinct (3) For sub-precinct C, the maximum building I431.6.8 Maximum building coverage coverage is 50 per cent of net site area for sites less (1) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building coverage is 65 per cent of net site area for sites than 300m2. less than 200m2. (4) For sub-precinct BC, the maximum building (2) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building coverage is 65 50 per cent of net site area for coverage is 40 per cent of net site area for sites sites greater than 500 200m2. greater less than 300m2. (3) For sub-precinct C, the maximum building coverage is 50 per cent of net site area for sites (5) For sub-precincts D and E, the maximum building less than 300m2. coverage is 75 per cent of net site area. (4) For sub-precinct BC, the maximum building coverage is 40 per cent of net site area for sites (6) For sub-precinct F, the maximum building coverage greater less than 300m2. is 80 per cent of net site area. (5) For sub-precincts D and E, the maximum building coverage is 75 per cent of net site area. (7) For sub-precinct G, the maximum building (6) For sub-precinct F, the maximum building coverage is 80 per cent of net site area. coverage is 50 per cent of the precinct area. (7) For sub-precinct G, the maximum building coverage is 50 per cent of the precinct area.
Technical Clarification or C1 I432 Puhinui Precinct 1432.5 Puhinui Precinct I432.5 Notification be amended as follows (additions underlined): Recommendation add or Table 1432.4.2 Activity table 1432.5 Notification be amended as follows (additions underlined): (1) There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation (1) Any application for resource consent for an activity listed in Table 1432.4.1 Activity table or above Any application for resource consent for an activity listed in Table 1432.4.1 of the AUP. Table 1432.4.2 Activity table above. This reflects the presence of two Activity tables that impact Activity table or Table 1432.4.2 Activity table above. This reflects the on resource consents. Recommendation add or Table 1432.4.2 Activity table above. presence of two Activity tables that impact on resource consent Technical Clarification or C1 I432 Puhinui Precinct I432.8.2 Assessment Criteria (5) (b) Change the use of the capital V for I432.8.2 Assessment Criteria (5) (b) Visual effects is Recommendation change as follows The use of the capital V for (b) visual effects is grammatically wrong and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation grammatically wrong and does not align with the previous use in the precinct. Assessment criteria. does not align with the previous useage. This needs to be changed to a of the AUP. Recommendation change as follows Assessment criteria. (5) for urupā small v. . (5) for urupā (a) effects on groundwater: (a) effects on groundwater: (i) whether an urupā would cause leachate emergence (i) whether an urupā would cause leachate emergence or contamination to groundwater; and or contamination to groundwater; and (b) visual effects on neighbouring sites or open spaces used for recreation: (b) visual effects on neighbouring sites or open spaces used for recreation:
Technical Clarification or C1 I432 Puhinui Precinct Re I432.8 Assessment Re I432.8 Assessment - restricted discretionary actives. This change has been made to align Recommendation to read I432.8 Assessment - restricted discretionary actives. This change has been There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation with the assessment in 1432.8.2 Assessment criteria 6(d) whether the reduction of the Puhinui Road yard made to align with the assessment in 1432.8.2 Assessment criteria of the AUP. The Assessment Criteria I432.8.2. 6(d) identifies whether will compromise the future development of a rapid The Assessment Criteria I432.8.2. 6(d) the reduction of the Puhinui Road yard will compromise the future development of a rapid transit transit corridor. identifies whether the reduction of the Puhinui Road yard will compromise the corridor along the southern boundary. However it has not been determined which side of the Remove: along the southern boundary. future development of a rapid transit corridor along the southern boundary. boundary the rapid transit corridor will be developed. However it has not been determined which side of the boundary the rapid Recommendation to read transit corridor will be developed. 6(d) whether the reduction of the Puhinui Road yard will compromise the future development of a rapid transit corridor. Remove: along the southern boundary. Technical Clarification or C1 I432 Puhinui Precinct Re I432.8 Assessment Criteria Re: I432.8.2.(2) Assessment criteria. Recommendation 1432.8.2.(2) Assessment criteria. There is no standard 1432.6.1.4 as There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 matter explanation There is no standard I432.6.1.4 as indicated in as part of the Assessment Criteria text. Re: 1432.8.2.(2) Assessment criteria. indicated in as part of the Assessment proposed amendment. These changes are as follows: I432.8.2.(2) b - for road infrastructure. This needs to be changed as there is no standard (2) for road infrastructure Criteria text. For (2) for road infrastructure this needs to be changed 1432.6.1.4 as indicated. and should be changed to I432.6.1.2.3. This changes needs to occur The assessment criteria within I432.8.2(1)(g) - Maori I432.6.1.2(3) and the clauses to read Standard I432.6.1.2(2) and The assessment criteria within I432.8.2(1)(g) - Maori cultural under I432.8.2.(2) b. and is referred to on three seprate occasions. (See consequential cultural landscape values above also applies to road I432.6.1.2(3) .That is I432.6.1.2(2) replaces I432.6.1.2(3) where appropriate landscape values above also applies to road infrastructure. this changes). Where I432.6.1.2(2) is referred to currently this clause is to read Standard infrastructure. and I432.6.1.2(3) replaces 1432.6.1.4 where appropriate. this provides for a requires a consequential change as follows. I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3) as shown below. Reference to (b) standard I432.6.1.2(3) and (b) standard I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3) Road consequential change. I432.6.1.2(4). Infrastructure (b) standard I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3) Road Infrastructure Road Infrastructure (Traffic Generation) :(Traffic Generation) be deleted as indicated in (i) whether traffic generated by the development will (i) whether traffic generated by the development will adversely affect appropriate clause. I432.8.2. (2) Assessment criteria(b) standard I432.6.1.2(3) and adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the the safe and efficient operation of the road network; I432.6.1.2(4) Road Infrastructure (Traffic Generation): road network; (ii) whether compliance with Standard I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3) (ii) whether compliance with Standard I432.6.1.2(2) is demonstrated by: and I432.6.1.2(3) is demonstrated by: • an assessment of the traffic generation of the proposal including all • an assessment of the traffic generation of the modes of transport that would support the land uses proposed; proposal including all modes of transport that would • an assessment of the performance of the local network as a result support the land uses proposed; of the development showing compliance with performance criteria in • an assessment of the performance of the local Standard I432.6.1.2(3) and I432.6.1.2(3); This requires removal of network as a result of the development showing 1432.6.1.4 compliance with performance criteria in Standard I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3); Recommendation delete I432.6.1.2 (4) and see consequntial changes. Road Infrastructure (Traffic Generation) :(Traffic Generation) be deleted as indicated in appropriate clause. I432.8.2. (2) Assessment criteria(b) standard I432.6.1.2(3) and I432.6.1.2(4) Road Infrastructure (Traffic Generation):
Technical Inconsistency of C2 I433 Pukekohe Hill I433.6.4. Stormwater soakage (1) Pre-treated water must be diverted to a soakage system. The soakage system The assessment criteria within I432.8.2(1)(g) - Maori The stormwater soakage standards is originated from the lagacy council There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter provisions, references, Precinct must comprise all of the following: cultural landscape values above also applies to road District Plan, namely the Franklin District Council District Plan. The of the AUP. terms or formatting infrastructure. amendment is needed to correct the standard accordingly. (a) soak holes, drilled to a sufficient depth to encounter permeable rock or soils, constructed with a selected backfill and tested to demonstrate the ability to dispose of the runoff volume;
(b) soakage trenches constructed with selected backfill and with sufficient volume to store the designed runoff and trench volume must be calculated at a rate of 6m3/100m2 of impervious area based on a sand porosity of 0.3;
(c) infiltration ponds constructed with sufficient volume to store the designed runoff and tested to demonstrate the ability to dispose of the runoff volume; and (d) trench volume must be calculated at a rate of 6m3/100m2 of impervious area based on a sand porosity of 0.3; and
(d) (e) Standard I433.6.4 does not apply to Sub-precinct D.
Page696 18 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C2 I433 Pukekohe Hill I433.6.6.Standards There is no reference to parent sites of 1 hetare or greater in Table I433.4.1 above these (b) standard I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3) Road There is no reference to parent sites of 1 hetare or greater in Table I433.4.1 There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Precinct I433.6.Standards. This means there is no precinct specific exception for subdivisions of vacant Infrastructure above these I433.6.Standards. This means there is no precinct specific of the AUP. sites involving parents sites of 1 hectare or greater. Therefore the last bullet point is an error, exception for subdivisions of vacant sites involving parents sites of 1 hectare and needs to be deleted. or greater. Therefore the last bullet point is an error, and needs to be deleted.
• Remove reference to standard E38.8.3.1 Vacant sites subdivisions……parent sites of 1 hectare or greater
I433.6. Standards The standards applicable to the zone and Auckland-wide apply in this precinct, except for the following: • Standard H3.6.9 Maximum impervious area; • Standard H3.6.10 Building coverage; • Standard E38.8.2.3 Vacant sites subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare; and • Standard E38.8.3.1 Vacant sites subdivisions involving parent sites of 1 hectare or greater.
Technical Clarification or C1 I434 Pukekohe Park I434.6.1 Motorsport activities noise Duration of the daily use of the track is specified in I434.6.1(2). Time duration for Catrgory B (i) whether traffic generated by the development will Time duration for category B days is given twice. These two are not the same There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct days is provided for under (2)(a) and (2)(b) as between 7am and 7pm and 8am and 6pm adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the and cause confusion. Therefore the version in (2)(b) should be deleted of the AUP. respectively. This appears to be a drafting error as Category B days are referred to twice. These road network; leaving (2)(a) which represents the position of the Residents Group. relate to two different options, one from the Council's position and the other being the resident group's position. To be consistent with the recommendation report and to avoid confusion, clause (2)(b) should be deleted. Technical Clarification or C1 I434 Pukekohe Park I434.6.3. General noise The intention of this section is to define a general notional boundary noise control limit of 55dB (ii) whether compliance with Standard I432.6.1.2(2) Even though section I434.6.3 General noise is intended to provide noise There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter explanation Precinct and 45dB (the details of which are given in table I434.6.3.1). The clause I434.6.3(1) appears to and I432.6.1.2(3) is demonstrated by: standards for activities other than motorsport and Public Address system, of the AUP. set noise limts for activites other than motorsport and the Public Address (PA) system, as it this has not been clearly stated. In order to avoid potential misinterpretation, refers to "any activity". However this needs more calrity in order to avoid potential this amendment is suggested. misinterpretation. It is suggesed to amend the clause as follows:
I434.6.3(1) The noise rating level from any activity (other than activities provided for in rules I434.6.1 and I434.6.2) as measured at any notional boundary must not exceed the noise limits in Table I434.6.3.1. Technical Amendments to C4 I437 Runciman Precinct I437.10. Precinct plans I437.10.2 Runciman Precinct: Precinct plan 2 - reserves and connections is a diagram showing • an assessment of the traffic generation of the The diagram is without Indicative route of trail even though the legend shows There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 matter Diagrams, figures, Trail Destination Point, Paper Roads, Indicative route of trail, Road Network, DoC Reserve, proposal including all modes of transport that would that information is part of the Precinct plan 2 - reserves and connections. of the AUP. tables or appendices Council Reserve and Parcel Boundaries. However, this diagram has omitted the Indicative route support the land uses proposed; This needs to be corrected. of trail. The same diagram was in the former Franklin District Council Dictrict Plan with Indicative route of trail. This is an error that needs to be corrected by replacing the diagram with Indicative route of trail. Technical Inconsistency of C1 I438 Takanini Precinct I438.1. Precinct Description With the removal of 5.4ha of Walters Road land from the precinct, the total precinct area is now • an assessment of the performance of the local The proposed amendment corrects the total land area of the precinct. There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, incorrect. However the total area of the precinct was incorrect to begin with. Accordingly, the network as a result of the development showing proposed amendment. The land area of the relevant sub-precincts terms or formatting total area needs to be updated. compliance with performance criteria in Standard needs to be revised. I432.6.1.2(2) and I432.6.1.2(3); Anomaly Amendments to C1 I438 Takanini Precinct I438.10.1. Takanini Precinct: Takanini Precinct: Precinct plan 1 refers to an outdated road network, refers to indicative roads Recommendation delete I432.6.1.2 (4) and see The proposed amendments correct omissions and unnecessary inclusions in There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, Precinct plan 1 in the eastern pat of sub-precinct D which is incorrect, and omits the' restricted access to road consequntial changes Takanini Precinct: Precinct plan 1. of the AUP. tables or appendices frontages’ annotation. These are mapping errors have arisen from inconsistences in the translation of the Kirikiri Structure Plan into the Takanini Precinct.
Page697 19 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (North)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I509 Greenhithe I509.4.1 Activity Table; I509.6 Various ambiguities exist due to the transfer of Council's evidence recommendations to the Amend text as follows (refer Word document for The proposed amendments remove ambiguities and uncertainties and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, Precinct Standards; I509.6.2 Yards (table); Independent Hearings Panel's decision version of the PAUP, which in turn were adopted in full detail): restore integrity with the decisions intended, and with the former legacy Plan of the AUP. terms or formatting Table I509.6.5.1 Minimum net site by the Council for its final decision version of the PAUP. provisions from which the precinct was generated. area (table) 1. Modify the Precinct activity table to remove The changes required are minor administrative matters that clear away the uncertainties and ambiguity as to activity status of urban subdivision, by maintain full integrity with the IHP adopted precinct provisions. It is noted that the changes are referring simply to Chapter E38, rather than duplicating in turn entirely consistent with the legacy operative (North Shore) provisions, from which the certain of the forms of subdivision in the precinct. precinct was originally formed. 2. Modify "I509.6 Standards" to - a) separate the 'subdivision' from the 'development' provisions; b) clarify the non-precinct Unitary Plan provisions that apply in each case, for subdivision and development respectively; c) add the (missing) heading 'Development'; d) state under Yards the actual distances required for 'sites over 4000' (10m and 6m) so that the reader does not need to refer to another section of the Plan; e) insert words in place of a blank space in Table I509.6.5 (Minimum net site area) for 'over 1ha' to remove the present ambiguity as to what the special requirements are (there are not any). f) make necessary minor text changes associated with the above.
Technical Clarification or C1 I510 Gulf Harbour Table I510.4.1 Activity table – use on The subject activity was track changed from C to NC in Council evidence. The Independent Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment identifies the correct activity status for the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Marina Precinct land and associated occupation of Hearing's Panel accepted Council's evidence, however the NC status was not carried through Manufacture of vessels and boating/marine equipment. of the AUP. the common marine and coastal area the plan versions. 'I510. Gulf Harbour Marina Precinct' 'Table I510.4.1 Activity table – use on land and associated occupation of the common marine and coastal area' 'Industry' (A12) Manufacture of vessels and boating/marine equipment...[Column] Sub-precinct B (land)...C NC Technical Clarification or C1 I516 Kumeū Precinct I516.6.2. (2) Inconsistency between Council evidence and the PAUP Decision Version, resulting in the Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment improves the readability of the AUP by removing a There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation repetition of a standard within I516.6.2 Maximum retail/commercial gross floor area. repetition of a standard of the AUP. I516. Kumeū Precinct
I516.6.2. Maximum retail/commercial gross floor area (1) The total gross floor area of the following activities must not exceed 20,000m2 in the Kumeū Precinct: (2) Trade suppliers are exempt from this standard.
Technical Clarification or C1 I516 Kumeū Precinct I516.6.4. Yards (1)(b)(i) Absence of wording ‘car park or’ in I516.6.2(2), creating a misalignment between Council Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment ensures that I516.6.4. Yards captures both car There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation evidence and the PAUP Decision Version. park occurrences, as intended by Council evidence. of the AUP. I516. Kumeū Precinct
I516.6.4. Yards (1)(b)(i) 2 metres in Sub-precincts A and B where the front of a site or part of the site frontage is occupied by a car park or car park building.
Technical Clarification or C2 I516 Kumeū Precinct I516.8.1. Matters of discretion Reference to ‘5 or more dwellings’ in the context of the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment provides consistency in the use of ‘3 or more There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation (7)(ii) is inconsistent with the use of ‘3 or more dwellings’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in dwellings’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part). of the AUP. part) Chapter H5 text around the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone I516. Kumeū Precinct I516.8.1. Matters of discretion (7)(ii) the matters of discretion in Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone H5.8.1(2) for dwellings apply to applications for 35 or more dwellings per site in Sub- precinct C;
Technical Clarification or C2 I516 Kumeū Precinct I516.8.2. Assessment criteria Reference to ‘5 or more dwellings’ in the context of the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment provides consistency in the use of ‘3 or more There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation (7)(b) is inconsistent with the use of ‘3 or more dwellings’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in dwellings’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part). of the AUP. part) Chapter H5 text around the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone I516. Kumeū Precinct I516.8.2. Assessment criteria (7)(b) ) the assessment criteria in Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone H5.8.2(2) for dwellings apply to applications for 35 or more dwellings per site in Sub- precinct C;
Technical Clarification or C2 I519 Long Bay I519.6.5 (2) There is an incorrect height in relation to boundary reference within the Long Bay precinct due to Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment improves the clarity of the Height in relation to There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation drafting error. In the IHP report, the height in relation to boundary table was amended to remove boundary standard by removing incorrect references. of the AUP. reference to sub-precincts A, B & D. However the panel did not update the referencing within I519. Long Bay Precinct I519.6.5 (2), which continues to refer to sub-precincts A, B & D. I519.6.5. Height in relation to boundary (2) Development that does not comply with Standard I519.6.5(1) above is a restricted discretionary activity where located in Sub-precincts A, B, and D F to I
Technical Clarification or C1 I530 Orewa 2 Precinct I530.6.5. (2) Within I530.6.5. Yards, standard (3) is nonsensical as a standalone clause, it should be read in Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment improves the readability and interpretation of the There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter Explanation conjunction with (2). This aligns with how this standard was written and interpreted in the AUP by joining two criterion together. proposed amendment. The change is to amend numbering within associated Special 33 Zone in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section I530 Orewa 2 Precinct I530.6.5. Yards , as relevant. 2011. I530.6.5. Yards (2) In the case of rear sites between 450m2 and 650m2 only one yard of a minimum of 6m will be required. All other yards are deemed to be side yards, only one of which will be required to be a minimum of 3m. (3) All other yards are deemed to be side yards, only one of which will be required to be a minimum of 3m.
Technical Clarification or C2 I532. Pinewoods Table 1532.4.1 Activity table Activity status is missing for 'Dwellings'. The intended activity status is Permitted. Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment ensures there is no ambiguity as to the activity There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct status for dwellings in the Pinewoods Precinct. of the AUP. I532. Pinewoods Precinct Table 1532.4.1 Activity table (A2) Dwellings P
Page698 20 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (North)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C2 I537 Silverdale 3 I537.10.1 Silverdale 3: Precinct plan In the key of Precinct Plan 1, reference is made to the clause as it was in the Auckland Council Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment corrects the reference made to the Auckland There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct 1 (sitting within the key) District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011, this needs to be updated. The same clause Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011, instead replacing it of the AUP. reference also needs to be reworded to align with the correct phrasing. I537 Silverdale 3 Precinct with the appropriate Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) reference. I537.10.1 Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1 (sitting within the key)
Indicative Roads (may be varied by more than 20m, see clause standard I537.6.23.3 may be removed) Indicative Roads (see clause standard I537.6.23.3) Technical Clarification or C2 I537 Silverdale 3 I537.6.2(2) The wording is incorrect as a spillover from removing reference to framework plans. The rule Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment corrects referencing within the text as a result of There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct was intended to enable certain identified indicative roads to be moved by more than 20m I537 Silverdale 3 Precinct the removal of framework plans. of the AUP. following the preparation of a Framework plan. With the removal of the requirement for a I537.6.2. Indicative Roads framework plan it is still appropriate to enable the movement of the roads by more than 20m as (2) With the exception of Standard I537.6.2(1) above the alignment could vary after detailed design is carried out. Other rules still require the the alignment of those indicative roads specifically indicative roads to connect to identified points on the existing network. identified on I537.10.1 Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1 may be varied by more than up to 20m. Technical Clarification or C1 I537 Silverdale 3 Notes relating to Table I537.4.1 In the IHP report, the panel proposed that the text surrounding background studies/statistics be Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment incorporates text that was previously omitted, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct Silverdale 3 Precinct (all of precinct) shifted to a ‘note’ that sits under the main activity table, instead of sitting within the land use providing a more comprehensive note for vehicle movement in the afternoon of the AUP. controls. The panel has extracted the relevant text and placed it in the ‘note’, however some I537 Silverdale 3 Precinct peak. text has not been extracted, and therefore has not carried over into the AUP. Table I537.4.1 Silverdale 3 Precinct (all of precinct)
Note for Vehicle movement in the PM peak:
Activity A2 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that this level of development within this precinct can occur without collectively generating more than 136 vehicle trips from this precinct on to east Coast Road and the Hibiscus Coast Highway in any one hour of the PM Peak (4pm to 6pm week days).
This rule Activity A3 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that this level of development can occur within this precinct without collectively generating more than 227 vehicle trips onto East Coast Road and the Hibiscus Coast Highway from this precinct in any one hour of the PM Peak (4pm to 6pm week days). Hibiscus Coast Bus Station is a public transport interchange on land with legal title: Section 1 SO 469067.
This standard Activity A4 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that subject to the above road network improvements greater than 227 vehicle Technical Amendments to C2 I537 Silverdale 3 Table I537.4.2, I537.2. Standards The reference in the precinct activity table to “retail except as set out in this table” being non That text within Table I537.4.2 be amended as per The proposed amendment corrects the status of activities in Table I537.4.2, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Diagrams, figures, Precinct complying means that activities under the nesting table for “retail" have been inadvertently attachment. and additionally corrects how I537.2. Standards apply. of the AUP. tables or appendices made non complying. The “retail except as set out in this table” was only intended to capture retail activities A22, A23, and A 24 in the General Business zone and not all the nested activities under retail. The industry activity is also affected by the nesting table.
The Standards limit their application to the activities listed in the precinct Activity Table. Activities in the underlying zone that were intended to be caught by the standards in the precinct are therefore not caught - and the proposed amendment intends to fix this.
Technical Clarification or C1 I541 Te Arai North I541.8.2.1. (21) Text has been incorrectly placed as a criterion when it is considered to be a note only. In Amend text as follows (and adjust indent where The proposed amendment corrects an oversight, therefore providing clarity There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct Council evidence the relevant sentence does not sit as a criterion, but a note. However in the necessary): that specific text is to be read as a note and not a criterion. proposed amendment. The change is to renumber criteria within PAUP IHP recommendations Version the sentence is shown to be criterion. I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites I541. Te Arai North Precinct I541.8.2. Assessment in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 September 2013 as criteria appropriate. I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 September 2013
(21) Note: In circumstances where one or more of the above criteria are not met, the proposal may be considered inappropriate and the Council in its discretion may refuse consent, or grant consent to a lesser number of sites, and/or to a different design of subdivision.
Technical Clarification or C1 I541 Te Arai North I541.8.2.1. (3) Text has been incorrectly placed as a criterion when it is considered to be a note only. In Amend text as follows (and adjust indent where The proposed amendment corrects an oversight, therefore providing clarity There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct Council evidence the relevant sentence does not sit as a criterion, but a note. However in the necessary): that specific text is to be read as a note and not a criterion. proposed amendment. The change is to renumber criteria within PAUP IHP recommendations Version the sentence is shown to be criterion. I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites I541. Te Arai North Precinct I541.8.2. Assessment in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 September 2013 as criteria appropriate. I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 September 2013
(1) The adequacy of measures proposed to ban cats and dogs and other inappropriate domestic pets.
(2) The extent to which proposed measures to protect shorebirds, lizards and threatened plant species, during earthworks and the construction period and thereafter are adequate and appropriate .
(3) Note: Where the measures in (1) – (2) are not provided, the subdivision will be considered inappropriate.
Page699 21 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (North)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C1 I541 Te Arai North I541.8.2.1. (9) Incorrect wording has been identified – ‘for should be replaced by ‘or’. A subsequent error has Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment ensures criterion 9 of I541.8.2.1. is interpreted There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Precinct been identified in the same paragraph, being the deletion of a word. correctly. of the AUP. I541. Te Arai North Precinct I541.8.2. Assessment The PAUP IHP recommendations Version splits what was a paragraph in Council's evidence criteria into two separate criterion. I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 In doing so, ‘or’ has been translated into ‘for’ in criterion (9), which is not consistent with the use September 2013 of ‘or’ in (8), and has subsequently been carried through into the PAUP Decision Version. This is considered an oversight in the translation of the Council’s evidence. (9) Whether sites viewed from excluding any areas of reserve proposed to be vested for regional park allow specified building areas for future buildings to be integrated into the landscape as far as practical to avoid adverse visual amenity effects or where avoidance is not practicable, whether effects will be remedied or mitigated. Where this is not achievable, the specified building area/s will be considered inappropriate.
Technical Clarification or C1 I545 Waiwera Precinct I545.8.1. Matters of discretion, In Table I545.4.1 Activity table sub-precincts A and B Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment incorporates food and beverage facilities in the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Matter Explanation I545.8.2. Assessment criteria, Table (A21) 'Food and beverage greater than 500m2 gross floor area with the sub-precinct' is a matters of discretion, and assessment criteria, correcting an omission. of the AUP. I545.4.1 Activity table sub-precincts restricted discretionary activity. However this activity has been omitted from the matters of I545. Waiwera Precinct A and B discretion and assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities. This is considered an I545.8.1. Matters of discretion oversight. (5) Conference facilities, food and beverage facilities and healthcare facilities greater than 500m2 in Sub precincts A and B:
I545.8.2. Assessment criteria (5) Conference facilities, food and beverage facilities and healthcare facilities greater than 500m2 in Sub precincts A and B:
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C1 I547 Wēiti Precinct Table I547.4.1 Within table I547.4.1, visitor accommodation (A3) is a prohibited activity in sub-precinct A. Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment corrects an inconsistency found within table There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Activity (A4) refers to activity not complying with the visitor accommodation standards as being I547.4.1. of the AUP. non-complying. However this is redundant, as the activity itself, visitor accommodation in sub- I547. Wēiti Precinct precinct A is prohibited. Accordingly the activity outlined in (A4) should also read as prohibited Table I547.4.1 Activity table under sub-precinct A. (A4) Any activity that does not comply with Standard I547.6.3.1 Visitor accommodation --> Sub-precinct A -- > NCPr
Page700 22 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts - West
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature / degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I605 Hobsonville Point I605.6 Standards There are standards referred to the introductory paragraph of the precinct that do not exist. Amend as follows: There are no such standards. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 provisions, references, Precinct terms or formatting I605.6. Standards… All subdivision that is a controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity must comply with the standards I605.6.3, I605.6.5.8, I605.6.8, and I605.6.9.1., I605.6.9.2, I605.6.10 and I605.6.10.1.
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I605 Hobsonville Point I605.6.9. Subdivision - Landing Sub- Standard I605.6.9 subdivision – Landing Sub-precinct (Sub Precinct F): introductory clause Amend as follows: The land underlying sub precinct F is zoned Business - Mixed Use There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 provisions, references, Precinct precinct (Sub-precinct F) states that the underlying residential zones subdivision standards apply. It should read underling terms or formatting mixed use zone. I605.6.9. Subdivision - Landing Sub-precinct (Sub- precinct F) (1) The subdivision standards for the Landing Sub- precinct (Sub-precinct F) are those applying to the underlying residential Business - Mixed use zones and listed...
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I605 Hobsonville Point I605.8.2.9. Infrastructure Assessment criterion 8 under I605.8.2.9 Infrastructure states that catchment wide stormwater Delete (8) under I605.8.2.9. Infrastructure There was agreement with Council officers that this be removed, and it fell There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 provisions, references, Precinct management facilities such as wetlands and treatment ponds should only be used as the final (8) Catchment wide stormwater management facilities away as a matter of contention. In earlier versions of provisions it is shown as proposed amendment. The changes is to the numbering of terms or formatting form of treatment, not the primary one. This should be removed. such as wetlands and treatment ponds should only be struck out. It has somehow made its way back in (in error) through the editing provisions in I605.8.2.9 Infrastructure as a result of the proposed used as a final form of treatment, not the primary form. process. amendment. The provision numbers change from 9-12 to 8-11.
Evidence in chief and track changes shows that AC requested this provision to be retained. However, after direct discussions with Hobsonville Land Company Limited AC agreed to remove the provision as discussed in my rebuttal evidence and associated track changes of the provisions.
Technical Amendments to C1 I605 Hobsonville Point Table H1.6.4.9.2 Apartments and Table 1605.6.4.4.1 Maximum impervious area, building coverage and landscaping – asterix in Rename Table H1.6.4.9.2 I605.6.4.8.2 Apartments. Asterisks are orphaned and should not be there – they no longer refer to There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, Precinct Table I605-6-5-7-2 Apartments max impervious area (Buckley sub-precinct) doesn’t relate to anything – originally it referred to anything. There was a note under the table in earlier iterations that they tables or appendices the definitions which are now notes (after activity table on page 8). Remove asterik next to 1500L in Table H1.6.4.9.2 referred to but this has since been relocated. Their removal was overlooked I605.6.4.8.2 Apartments and Table I605-6-5-7-2 at some stage. Table H1.6.4.9.2 Apartments and Table I605-6-5-7-2 Apartments – asterix next to 1500L (3 Apartments. Bedrooms) doesn’t relate to anything – have checked legacy and notified and the comprehensive development plans – seems to be an error and can be removed Technical Inconsistency of C1 I605 Hobsonville Point Table I605.4.1. Activity Table - Sub- Reference to ‘five or more dwellings’ in the context of the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Amend in Table I605.4.1 Activity Table – Sub-precincts This activity was not included in Ms J Harts evidence (081d Ak Cncl - West - There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 provisions, references, Precinct precincts A-E (Residential Zones) zone is inconsistent with the use of ‘3 or more dwellings’ in the AUP Chapter H5 text around the A-E (Residential Zones) , Activity A16 as follows: Precincts (Hobsonville Point) - (J Hart) - Planning - REBUTTAL – LATE), but terms or formatting Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone came about through the Independent Hearings Panel recommendations. Five Three or more dwellings per site within the “I605.4.1 activity table refers to the use (versus the building) 5 or more houses as a permitted Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone The activity itself refers to the Independent Hearings Panel recommendation activity. This I think should read three or more rather than five or more, as up to 2 in the that five or more dwellings per site be a restricted discretionary activity within underlying zone are permitted. The intention is to make all use permitted, but as it stands 3-4 the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone Auckland-wide. Accordingly, houses requires consent, and any more or less does not – this does not make sense”. the precinct refers back to this standard.
This Independent Hearings Panel recommendation was not accepted by Council (five or more dwellings being restricted discretionary), and the AUP reverted back to the three or more dwellings as being a restricted discretionary activity for the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone. However, a consequential amendment to the Hobsonville Point precinct to update this reference was not undertaken.
Accordingly, it is considered that error E_514 is a technical matter to be corrected through a plan change.
Technical Inconsistency of C1 I605 Hobsonville Point Table I605.4.2 Activity table - Sub- Note 5 under I605.4.1 Activity table defines “frontage” and states it has the same meaning as Delete the first sentence in Note 5 under Table I605.4.2 As there is no There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 provisions, references, Precinct Precinct F (Mixed Use Zone) under rules I605.6.7.2. This cross reference is incorrect, The person who raised the error Activity table – Sub-precinct F (Mixed Use Zone) terms or formatting suggested that is should be updated to I605.6.6.2. However, I605.6.6.2 is for Yard control and not a definition of 'frontage'. Can't find definition of frontage in precinct . Suggest that it is Note 5 deleted and so the general definition for frontage in Chapter J applies. ‘’Frontage’ has the same meaning as in Rule I605.6.7.2.
Technical Clarification or C1 I605 Hobsonville Point Table I605.6.4.5.1 Outdoor living 5. Table I605.6.4.5.1: refers to small houses but the term is not defined. Earlier iterations of Insert the following text under Table I605.6.4.5.1 There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Explanation Precinct space the rules had the definitions all in one place, now there are set out under specific rules. The Outdoor living space: intention is that the same definition apply as is noted under standard I605.6.4.7 note (1). There should either be a cross reference to this note, or the small house definition should be noted * Refer to definition of 'small house' in Note 1 for Table under the table I605.6.4.5.1. I605.6.4.7.1 Outlook space and building separation
Technical Clarification or C1 I610 Redhills Precinct I610.4 Activity table Section I610.4 specifies that Table I610.4.1 relates only to activities within the THAB zone Amend text as follows: The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the applicability of Table I610.4.1, There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Explanation between Dunlop Road and Don Buck Road. However, this table includes activities that are it is clearer and easier to understand. intended to apply to the whole of the precinct, such as subdivision in accordance with the Table I610.4.1 specifies the activity status of land use, precinct plan. No other activity table is provided. development and the provision of wastewater disposal and water supply associated with subdivision activities More clarity is sought in the wording of I610.4. Activity table. The description needs to refer to in the Redhills Precinct. Terrace Housing and the two tables separately because the first one refers to land use activity and latter is for Apartment Buildings zone adjacent to Fred Taylor Drive subdivision. Amend text as indicates. between Dunlop Road and the Don Buck Road roundabout pursuant to sections 9(3) and 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Activities (A1) to (A8) inclusive apply to the Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone adjacent to Fred Taylor Drive. Technical Amendments to C1 I615 Westgate Precinct I615.10.1 Westgate Precinct plan 1 The Community Facility shown on the precinct plan is no longer required. This was indicative Delete 'community facility' from the key and Council and the submitter supported removing this in their evidence but this There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Attachment 32 Diagrams, figures, and I615.8.2(2)(k) Assessment only. corresponding blue hatched map annotation on did not happen in the IHP recommendation or Decisions versions proposed amendment. These changes are: Amend I615.8.2 tables or appendices Criteria I615.10.1. Westgate Precinct plan 1. Assessment Criteria (2)(k) to read as follows:
And amend I615.8.2 Assessment Criteria (2)(k) to read (k) Whether community facilities are located in a place positions as follows: shown on the Westgate Precinct: Precinct plan 1 or a location nearby that offers visual prominence and is easily accessible for (k) Whether community facilities are located in a place pedestrians and public transport users; positions shown on the Westgate Precinct: Precinct plan 1 or a location nearby that offers visual prominence and is easily accessible for pedestrians and public transport users;
Page701 23 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts - West
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature / degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Clarification or C1 I615 Westgate Precinct I615.4 Activity table In the PAUP Decisions Version and AUP, there are no activities for sub-precinct G which trigger Insert a new table - I615.4.3 Development - Sub- The purpose of sub-precinct G is to manage future road alignment. In its There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Explanation resource consent and therefore the important restricted discretionary matters for assessment precinct G with two new activities as follows: Decision Version council added Objective 9 (Sub-precinct G indicates a road and assessment criteria for subdivision in sub-precinct G can’t actually be considered. that provides an integrated and efficient roading network) and restricted There are restricted discretionary assessment criteria for subdivision that require consideration (A18) Any vehicle access to Fred Taylor Drive, other discretionary activity assessment criteria for subdivision and added sub- of future road alignment, but there are no activities for sub-precinct G that would trigger than through the strategic access points identified in precinct G to the GIS Viewer. requirement for consent. The precinct description also describes what is in precinct plans 1 and Precinct plan 2, or left in left out access points on Fred 2. This description doesn’t align with what is in the precinct plans. Taylor Drive. - D The addition of the two new activities would trigger the restricted discretionary assessment criteria for subdivision in sub-precinct G. Recommend add ing a new activity table for sub-precinct G managing two activities focused on (A19) Roads and pedestrian linkages - RD vehicle access to Fred Taylor Drive and Roads and pedestrian linkages.
Technical Clarification or C1 I610 Redhills Precinct I610.8.2(8) This section relates to subdivision and development which does not comply with Standard Section I610.8.2(8) Need to delete the references to water and wastewater, and update all terms There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Explanation I610.6.1 Infrastructure Upgrades or Timing of Development - Transport or Standard I610.6.2 to refer to roading, as the standards only pertain to transport. Infrastructure Upgrades and Location of Development - Transport. However, the assessment Subdivision and development...shall: criteria outlined in the section that relates to bulk water and wastewater infrastructure as well as roading. (a) demonstrate that all necessary transport infrastructure services external to the project are available, including bulk water, wastewater and road infrastructure, and can be connected in a timely and co- ordinated manner to service the precinct;
(b) demonstrate that sufficient evidence of capacity in the wastewater, water and roading network exists;
(c) ensure that networks to the sub-division area can be suppled with (and connected to the public system for) water and wastewater services and roading external to the precinct;
(d) ...
(e) where public roading infrastructure is required to be extended upgraded, undertake the preparation ... in a timely manner.
Page702 24 of 40 Chapter I: Precincts (Special Housing Areas)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C2 Special Housing Areas: Development Control 4.5 Development control 4.5.1 refers to “catchments on Precinct plan 2 (catchments draining to Recommendation: Under the HASHA decision, there were two maps, the zoning map There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter provisions, references, Hingaia 1 Precinct intermittent or permanent streams)” and development control 4.5.1 refers to “all other 4.5 On-site Stormwater Management – new (incorrectly called precinct plan 1) and the precinct map (incorrectly called terms or formatting catchments (catchments draining to the coast)”. However, there is not Precinct plan 2 or any impervious surfaces precinct plan 2). Intermittent and permanent streams are indicated on the other part of the precinct provisions that specify which development control applies to which 1. In the catchments on Precinct plan 2 (catchments precinct map. Therefore change as indicated. However, catchment extent is area. Reference to the precinct plan should be removed. draining to intermittent or permanent streams (as not indicated, and it is not inluded anywhere else on the GIS viewer. indicated on Hingaia 1 - Precinct Map) all new impervious surfaces of 50m² and over are to be A plan change is required to clarify the development control as indicated, designed to achieve... there are no other options available.
This change is required to make the provision implementable, and align it with the correct precinct map. It does not indicate a change in policy, and allows for the precinct provisions to be applied as intended - thereby giving effect to the RPS.
Technical Clarification or C3 Special Housing Areas: 5.62 Huapai Triangle Precinct The Green Corridor "zone" in has been described incorrectly in the precinct description. It is not Huapai Precinct Description (paragraph 3) to read: Rewording of paragraph and correction of terminology, and delete inaccurate There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 32 Matter Explanation Huapai Triangle Precinct Description applied to the majority of the precinct. Also recommend updating the term to "green The Mixed Housing Suburban zone, with appropriate part of description - Inconsistent with the AUP GIS Viewer, where it has been infrastructure corridor zone" to be aligned with the GIS viewer. modifications for the Huapai Triangle precinct, is called the green infrastructure corridor zone. This zone needs to be specified applied to the majority of the precinct to enable the in the keys for Figures 5-7. It is not applied to the majority of the precinct. development of a new neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Centre zone provisions are applied to Plan change (techincal matter) required to clarify the precinct description and the central neighbourhood centre. The Green Corridor the intended direction of the plan within this precinct. The option of leaving zone, with appropriate modifications for the Huapai as is was considered, as the terminology is correct under the PAUP and Triangle precinct, is applied to the majority of the HASHA legislation, but this creates unclarity of purpose of the precinct going precinct to enable the development of a new forward as part of the AUP:OIP. neighbourhood. The Green Corridor zone Infrastructure Corridor Zone, with appropriate However, this calls into question the appropriateness of calling this a zone, modifications is applied to the northern and eastern when it is only applied within this specific precinct - could be more of a periphery of the precinct containing stormwater precinct control/management layer. It is technically correct under the HASHA management areas, susceptible to flooding, green legislation, but could be better aligned with the rest of the plan going linkages, and potential car parking close to Huapai foreward. This is a policy debate to be had as part of the enhancements plan station for future rail passenger services. change. Correct as underlined in the interim.
Page703 25 of 40 Chapter J: Definitions
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C1 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions. Definition of ‘Building’, There is a drafting error in the definition of ‘buildings’ (Table J1.4.1) that results in changing the Amend Table J1.4.1 Buildings to the following: The definition of stacks or heaps of materials as written makes a stack or There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 within table J1.4.1 definition of: heap of material 2m high a building from its placement, rather than from of the AUP. • stacks or heaps of materials (re-ordered wording makes a stack not a building unless is Stacks or heaps of materials when it is in existence for longer than one month. This was a drafting error in exists for over a month rather than existing for more than a month). As it stands, the definition Over 2m high splitting out the stack height from the period of existence. indicates that if a stack of materials is in existence for 1 week, it is a building, however if it exists Do not exist In existence for more than one month for 12 months, it is not a building. This makes little sense.
Anomaly Inconsistency of C2 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - “Gross Floor Area” There is a reference to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the definition of Gross floor area (GFA). Amend definition of Gross floor area as follows: Floor area ratio is a separate definition which is the relationship between the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 provisions, references, This reference is confusing and should not be in the definition. … gross floor area and the net site area. The reference to 'FAR' within the of the AUP. terms or formatting (2) For the purposes of calculating the gross floor area definition of the Gross Floor Area is therefore misleading and confusing. (FAR) (GFA) the sum of the total floor area…
Anomaly Inconsistency of C2 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - "Height" The definition of height refers to “the daylighting standard”, which is not otherwise defined. This Amend the definition of height as follows: The reference to 'daylighting' is incorrect and the name of the standard is There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 provisions, references, should Excludes : (1) …and 1.5m above the maximum 'height in relation to boundary'. The correction improves clarity as to which of the AUP. terms or formatting reference “the height in relation to boundary standard”, which most zones include. permitted activity height or the daylighting height in standard applies. relation to boundary standard for the site, whichever is the lesser… Anomaly Nonsensical outcomes C2 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - "Height" The definition of height excludes chimneys within certain thresholds - that only chimneys 1.5m Amend the definition of height (part relating to It would be nonsensical to exclude only chimneys only exceeding 1.5m in There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 above the permitted activity height for the site are excluded. This threshold is nonsensical and chimneys) as follows: "(18) chimneys that do not height but less thatn 1.1m in width from the definition of height. The definition of the AUP. was introduced by the IHP (and not Council) with no commentary. exceed 1.1m width on any elevation or that do not makes more common sense as amended. exceed above the permitted activity for the site;" Technical Inconsistency of C1 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - Definition of 'Pest The definition of Pest Plant Removal incorrectly references some documents. DOC does not Amend the definition of Pest plant removal as follows: To update the definition of Pest plant removal. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 provisions, references, plant Removal' have a Pest Plant list, and the Auckland Regional Plant Pest Management Strategy should refer The alteration or removal of any tree or vegetation The ‘Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy’ is now callled the of the AUP. terms or formatting to the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy (i.e. remove the word Plant). listed as a plant pest within the Auckland Regional ‘Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan’ under changes to the Plant Pest Management Strategy, Department of Biosecurity legislation. Also the Department of Conservation does not have a Conservation Pest Plants List or the National Pest ‘Pest Plant List’, therefore is redundant in the definition of Pest plant removal. Plant Accord (excluding research organisms) under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Technical Inconsistency of C2 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - "Site" The definition of “site” (b)(i) refers to section 37 of the Building Act 2004. This is incorrect as this Amend defintion of site (b)(i) to replace section 37 with This part of the site definition is referring to land that is composed of 2 or There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 provisions, references, part of the defintion relates to two or more contiguous lots - it should refer to section 75 of the section 75 of the Building Act 2004.. more contiguous lots held in two or more CTs. In the Building Act, Section 37 of the AUP. terms or formatting Building Act 2004. relates to not complying with district plan, whereas Section 75 relates to construction of building on 2 or more allotments.
Technical Inconsistency of C1 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - "Vegetation alteration Vegetation alteration and removal is no longer defined within the definitions and as such no Include the following definition: This is a clarification to assist plan users and consents when interpreting the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Matter provisions, references, and removal" longer include reference to works within the root zone, although it was in the notified version of Vegetation alteration and removal: plan. of the AUP. terms or formatting the plan. Damaging, cutting, destroying or removing any part of protected vegetation including roots. Council's closing statement included the definition for vegetation alteration and removal, Includes: however it is not in the recommendations version of the plan, but the panel's report (Topic 065 • tree alteration Definitions s12.2) does not recommend its deletion. Therefore, the definition for Vegetation • tree removal. Alteration and removal as notified, should be reinstated. Excludes: • the alteration or removal of vegetation planted as crop, garden or pasture. Technical Clarification or C2 Chapter J: Definitions J1 Definitions - Definition of 'Yards' The definition of 'Yards' do not include the exclusions on 'any crop support structures, artifical The proposed change is to insert these words back The issue raised in Horticulture New Zealand's (Hort) appeal to the High There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 32 Explanation crop protection structures, hedges or shelter belts'. As such any crop structure would be subject into the exclusion list for the yard definition and Court relates to the definition of 'Yard'. Horticulture New Zealand seeks to of the AUP. to Yard standards.Therefore, farmers may be required to obtain a resource consent for erecting introduce a definition for the 'artifical crop protection amend the definition of yard, for an exclusion to 'artificial crop protection, crop structures that infringe yard standards. This is inappropriate as the yard standards were not structures, hedges or shelter belts'. hedges or shelter belts'. drafted with the intent of managing crop structures. Yard The missing exclusions suggest that a resource consent may be required for Excludes: infringing yard standards. Therefore, farmers may be required a resource Council's evidence (Buxton Topic 065) supported the inclusion of artificial crop protection • eaves of any building and any roof, gutter or consent for erecting crop structures. structures and crop support structures into the definition to to address submitters concerns. downpipe that projects over any yard by However, through the IHP process, this definition has been removed and the impact of which is not more than 750mm; and Council evidence had supported the exclusion of "Any crop support an unclear treatment of crop structures within the AUP. • fire escapes required under the NZ Building Act structures, artificial crop protection structures, hedges, or shelter belts" to 1991. yard rules. • Any crop support structures, artificial crop protection structures, hedges, or shelter belts. Council has agreed in principle to add these exclusions into the definition of 'Yard', as part of the settlement of Horticulture New Zealand's appeal. Artificial crop protection structures Open structures that are used to protect crops from damage. Includes: • bird netting; and • wind-break netting. Excludes: • greenhouses.
Page704 26 of 40 Chapter L: Schedules: Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay schedule
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the Specific provision Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the AUP reference of the AUP viewer proposed recommendation? Technical Inconsistency C1 Chapter L: Schedule Schedule 6: Feature ID 80 (Lunn Avenue Backed Sediments) is no longer reflected on the AUP Remove Feature ID 80 from Chapter L, Schedule 6 of Council's evidence as part of the IHP hearings supported the removal of this There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 Outstanding Features maps. This feature was removed as part of the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) the AUP. feature as the baked sediments identified as the outstanding natural feature Overlay Schedule (ID: process. Council's closing statement position and the PAUP IHP recommendations is no longer exposed. 80) version supported the removal of this feature. Do not recommend renumbering the other Feature ID numbers. Although this feature was subsequently deleted from the map as part of the While this feature has been removed from the AUP maps, it has not been removed IHP process, the text in Schedule 6 was not deleted in both the PAUP IHP from the relevant schedule (i.e. Schedule 6) recommendations version and subsequently the AUP (operative in part).
This is a clear error and Feature ID 80 should be deleted from Schedule 6 as the AUP map no longer shows this feature.
Subsequent feature IDs (i.e. 81 and onward) should not be renumbered, as these are linked to AUP maps and text.
Page705 27 of 40 Schedule 12: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Inconsistency of C1 Schedule 12 Sites of Sites 003, 011, 020, 021, 030, 031, Macrons are missing from some of the words within Schedule 12. Correct spelling and macrons of Maori To reflect the correct spelling of names and words There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 error references, terms or Significance to Mana 032, 033, 047, 048, 052, 054, 057, words. within Schedule 12. of the AUP. formatting Whenua 058, 059, 064, 065, 072, 073, 074
Technical Inconsistency of C1 Schedule 12 Sites of Sites 001, 005, 007, 009, 010, 011, The site name and/or location description for 37 sites within Schedule 12 are incorrect or Correct site name and/or location To: There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 error references, terms or Significance to Mana 013, 014, 015, 018, 019, 021, 022, unclear. description. * correct and/or provides greater clarity about, the of the AUP. formatting Whenua 023, 024, 029, 030, 034, 035, 036, location of the sites. 037, 043, 044, 048, 049, 050, 052, * reflect the correct spelling of the site name, which in 053, 054, 055, 058 059, 060, 061, turn, upholds the mana of this site. 072, 074, 075
Anomaly Overlay Mapping Area C1 Sites of Significance to Sites 003, 005, 009, 010, 012, 013, The mapped extent is incorrect. Correct the extent of place in the GIS To reflect the correct extent of place. In some cases: There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Mana Whenua Overlay 015, 016, 017, 020, 021, 022, 023, viewer. * The mapped extent is too big or in the wrong of the AUP. 024, 029, 030, 044, 052, 055, 056, location, which means that adjoining land parcels are 058, 060, 061 affected by Schedule 12 provisions, which is not what was intended. * The mapped extent is too small or in the wrong location, which means that there are areas that are not protected by Schedule 12 provisions, which is not what was intended.
Page706 28 of 40 Chapter L: Schedules - 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the AUP viewer proposed recommendation? Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID00255 Railway workers' residences This entry into the schedule requires amendment to reflect the evidence of Auckland Council Add to exclusions column "interior of building(s); all In error the agreed position included in evidence for this place was not There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage (Rebecca Freeman) and Housing New Zealand Corporation (Amelia Linzey) for Topic 32: buildings that are not primary feature(s)" reflected the entry in Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Historic heritage schedules. The amendment is to the exclusions column. Historic Heritage)
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01117 Fort Takapuna This place has duplicate entries into the schedule. This duplicate entries error was introduced Merge the duplicate entries, through the deletion of In error this place has duplicate entries into the schedule and the last portion There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage (Operetu)/Fort Cautley military within the proposed plan. In addition, the entry ID01117, requires amendment to the primary ID00830 from the schedule and from the maps. Add to of the list of primary features has been deleted. 14.1 Schedule of complex R11_1723 and ID00830 feature. This primary feature error was introduced through the recommendations by the panel. primary feature column "8. Guard house/hut; 9. Historic Heritage) Fort Takapuna (Operetu)/Fort The last portion of the list of primary features was deleted in error. Pillboxes" Cautley military complex R11_1723
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01596 St Benedict's Catholic This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Church; presbytery". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage Church and Presbytery place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan. There are also some minor corrections for consistency with the rest of the schedule, such as reducing the use of capital letters.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01625 Whare Tane This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Residence; garage". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01678 Pumphouse The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect. The extent of place was mapped as Amendment to GIS Viewer to enlarge the extent of The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect for this place. The There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage being the footprint of the primary feature in error. This error was introduced through the place to that shown in the evidence of MOTAT extent of place does not does not meet Policy B5.2.2.2 nor does it reflect that 14.1 Schedule of recommendations from the panel. (Attachment G to the planning evidence in chief of recommended by the Independent Hearings Panel and accepted within Historic Heritage) Helen Hamilton). decisions by the Governing Body. Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01679 Engineer's House The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect. The extent of place was mapped as Amendment to GIS Viewer to enlarge the extent of The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect for this place. The There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage being the footprint of the primary feature in error. This error was introduced from the place to that shown in the evidence of MOTAT extent of place does not does not meet Policy B5.2.2.2 nor does it reflect that 14.1 Schedule of recommendations from the panel. In addition, this entry to the schedule requires amendment to (Attachment C to the planning evidence in chief of recommended by the Independent Hearings Panel and accepted within Historic Heritage) exclusions for the purpose of clarity. Helen Hamilton). In addition, amend the exclusion decisions by the Governing Body. The amendment to exclusions was for the column to: "Interior glass partitions of Engineer's purpose of clarity. House; bBuildings and structures that are not the primary feature;, including interior glass partitions and vegetation."
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01684 Remuera Railway Station This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Railway station; signal In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage and signal box place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of box". Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01709 Holy Sepulchre Church and This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Church; hall". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage hall place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01727 St Barnabas's Chapel The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect. This place was the subject of Amendment to GIS Viewer to reduce the extent of The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect for this place. The There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage mediation with Diocesan School for Girls during hearings on the proposed plan. The extent of place. The extent of place should be reduced to the extent of place covers land that is not part of the historic heritage place, 14.1 Schedule of place was agreed during these mediations, and this has not accurately shown with GIS Viewer. south, and not include any portion of the building to the therefore does not meet Policy B5.2.2.2. Historic Heritage) The extent of place extends further to the south than what was agreed, and therefore extends rear. over an adjoining building. Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01730 Stoneways/William Henry This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Residence". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage Gummer's House (former) place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01770 Shot tower This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Tower". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01823 Marivare This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Residence". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01857 St John's College historic In error the Kinder Wing has been identified as a primary feature. In the legacy Auckland City Amend primary feature column to: "Chapel; Dining In error the Kinder Wing was identified as a primary feature. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage campus District plan, St John’s College had three separate scheduled buildings, being Chapel, and Hall/Waitoa Room and Kinder Wing" 14.1 Schedule of Dining Hall and Waitoa Room – both category A, and Kinder Wing – category B. As part of the Historic Heritage) rollover to the proposed plan, these three buildings were combined into a single place – St John’s College historic campus – category A and the primary features were identified as “Chapel, Dining Hall/Waitoa Room and Kinder Wing”. As the Kinder Wing was a Category B item in the legacy plan, and as no re-evaluation of this place occurred during the rollover, it is not considered appropriate that it is identified as a primary feature of the place. Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID01892 Pearson House This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Building". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02038 Strand Arcade This entry into the schedule requires amendment to include a primary feature for a category A Add to primary feature column "Building". In error a primary feature for this category A place was omitted for the entry in There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage place. The proposed plan (E.2 Historic Heritage Overlay) stated "The primary features of Schedule 14.1. 14.1 Schedule of Category A... are identified in the schedule and shown on the planning maps." A primary feature Historic Heritage) was omitted for this place in error in the proposed plan, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02048 Myers Park historic This place requires amendment to exclusions. This place was scheduled in the legacy Auckland Add to exclusions column "Interior of cottage". In error the interior of the caretaker's cottage is protected. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage landscape, including trees and City District Plan as two seperate entries, being the park and the kindergarten. During the 14.1 Schedule of caretaker's cottage R11_2195 and rollover to the proposed plan, the scheduled park/building were combined into a single category Historic Heritage) R11_2669 A historic heritage place – ID02048. In error the interior of the caretaker's cottage was included in the protection, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan. The interior of the cottage does not warrant heritage protection.
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02054 St Patricks Cathedral This place requires an amendment to exclusions. Through mediation with the Roman Catholic Delete Liston House from the exclusions column. In error Liston House was retained in the exclusions column despite no There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage complex Bishop of the Diocesen of Auckland it was agreed to reduce the extent of place to exclude longer being within the extent of place for the complex. 14.1 Schedule of Liston House. This did occur. In error Liston House continued to be within the exclusions column Historic Heritage) for this place, despite no longer being within the extent of place.
Page707 29 of 40 Chapter L: Schedules - 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the AUP viewer proposed recommendation? Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02073 Campbell Free This place requires an amendment to exclusions. Extent of place includes air space above land. Amend exclusions column to: "Interior of building(s), In error the exclusions column does not list the viaduct. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage Kindergarten The airspace for this place inlcudes the motorway viaduct. The viaduct does not add to the except the front room and Arts and Craft staircase; 14.1 Schedule of heirtage values of the place and therefore should be identified as an exclusion. viaduct". Historic Heritage) Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02074 City Destructor Buildings This place requires amendment to exclusions. This place was scheduled in the legacy Auckland Add to exclusions column "Interior of building(s), In error the destructor building and stables interiors are not protected. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage (former), including boiler room, depot City District Plan as a number of separate buildings/structures. The destructor building and except destructor building and stables" 14.1 Schedule of perimeter buildings, generator room, stables had their interiors protected within the legacy plan. During the rollover to the proposed Historic Heritage) battery house, chimney, stables, and plan, the scheduled buildings/structures were combined into a single category A historic destructor building heritage place – ID02074. In error the interiors of the destructor building and stables were excluded from protection, this error was carried over into the operative in part plan. .
Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02735 Queens Wharf This place requires amendment to exclusions. This error was introduced through the addition of Add to exclusions column "…replacement of corroded In error the last portion of the exclusions has been deleted. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage the place to the schedule through recommendations by the panel. The last portion of the list of reinforcement, coating of reinforcement and 14.1 Schedule of exclusions was deleted in error. reinstatement with new concrete either by spraying or Historic Heritage) recasting with concrete or mortar." Technical Amendments to C1 4.1 Schedule of Historic ID02779 Ngahere The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect. The extent of place was mapped over Amendment to GIS Viewer to reduce the extent of The extent of place shown within GIS Viewer is incorrect for this place. The There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 schedules (Schedule Heritage the neighbouring property in error, being 72 Mountain Road. The place Ngahere occupies only place. The extent of place should be only on 74 extent of place covers land that is not part of the historic heritage place, 14.1 Schedule of 74 Mountain Road and as such that should be the extent of place. This error was introduced Mountain Road. therefore does not meet Policy B5.2.2.2. Historic Heritage) through the recommendations from the panel.
Page708 30 of 40 Chapter L: Schedules: Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas - Maps and Statements of Significance
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the Specific provision Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the AUP reference of the AUP viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Amendments to C1 Schedule 14.2 Historic Map 14.2.12.1 Historic The map incorrectly identifies 19 Beresford Square, containing St James Church (former), as a Amend Map 14.2.12.1 to show St James Church The amendment corrects an error and ensures map correctly identifies the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 diagrams, figures, tables Heritage Areas - Maps Heritage Area: non-contributing site. This error was introduced through an error in the Karangahape Road (former) at 19 Beresford Square as a contributing site sites that contribute to the historic heritage area. or appendices and Statements of Karangahape Road Historic Heritage Area evaluation. The evaluation notes 15-27 Beresford Square is a car park to the Karangahape Road Historic Heritage Area. Significance and therefore “non-contributing”. The property is labelled as “non-contributing” in the evaluation map. The address however also contains St James Church (former) at 19 Beresford Square. The building is noted in the evaluation as being “contributing” and is included, specifically, in the (e) Technological criteria. Accordingly 19 St James Church (former) should be identified as a contributing site within the Karangahape Road historic heritage area, and within Map 14.2.12.1.
Page709 31 of 40 Chapter L: Schedules: Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the Specific provision Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the AUP reference of the AUP viewer proposed recommendation?
Technical Amendments to C1 Schedule 15 Special 15.1.7.1.1 Special The map is correct but the legend contains an error. The residential Special Character Area Amend map legend for 15.1.7.1.1 to state “sites The amendment corrects an error and ensures this Special Character Area There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 31 diagrams, figures, tables Character Schedule, Character Areas Map legends identify “sites subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules”. The legend for subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules”. Map aligns with the other maps and the Special Character Overlay or appendices Statements and Maps Overlay - Residential: these maps were changed during the panel recommendations. The Helensville legend provisions. Helensville - Extent of identifies “sites with identified historic character buildings”. This is the wording of the proposed Area (Special Character plan, and is therefore an error. Area Map)
Page710 32 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Overlays
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Overlay mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Natural Stream Management Areas The Natural Stream Management Overlay incorrectly remains on this site. Remove the Natural Stream Management Overlay The natural stream on this site does not meet the criteria for a natural stream There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Management Layers > Overlay - 63 Morrison Road, Waiuku from this site management area. of the AUP. Overlays > Natural According to Council's evidence, the natural stream on this site does not meet the criteria for a Resources natural stream management area. Therefore there is an additional layer of provisions for this site which is not applicable. The Natural Stream Management Overlay was therefore left on this site, incorrectly. This also aligns with Council closing statement position which outlined that the Natural Stream Management Overlay should be removed from this site. Anomaly Overlay mapping error C3 Unitary Plan Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay is a statutory layer on the GIS viewer that gives Realign the AUP Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area As the AUP GIS layer seeks to implement the Waitakere Ranges Heritage There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Management Layers > Overlay effect to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. Overlay to the Statutory Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, it should align with the area that the Act covers. of the AUP. Overlays > Natural Area Overlay, in the parts where they do not align. Heritage The AUP GIS layer- Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay is a spatial representation of the If these two overlays do not align, it misrepresents the spatial area that the AUP implementation of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 applies to.
These two overlays should be aligned and they are not aligned in some parts of the AUP GIS viewer.
Anomaly Overlay mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Regionally Signficant Volcanic Without the Height Sensitive Area Overlay, the Ascott Hospital will have a less than 9m height Add a permitted 9m Height Sensitive Area Overlay to Without the permitted height of 9m, the Ascott Hospital will be limited in its There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 31 Management Layers > Viewshafts and Height Sensitive restriction (i.e. 3-4m restriction) to the site. the Ascott Hospital site (98 Mountain Road, Epsom) ability to expand upwards. Given the restricted land supply in the area, the of the AUP. Overlays > Natural Area Overlay hospital will need to build vertically to meet demand for growth. Heritage Council's closing statement position supported a permitted 9m Height Sensitive Area Overlay to 98 Mountain Road, Epsom the Ascott Hospital Site. However, this was not applied in the AUP (operative in part) version. Council's closing statement position supported a permitted 9m Height Sensitive Area Overlay, as it was in the operative plan at the time (Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999), therefore the omission of this overlay is a clear error.
Page711 33 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Controls
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP the AUP or affected viewer proposed recommendation? property(ies)
Anomaly Control mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Management Building frontage controls > Key There are key retail frontage controls on sites that are zoned Open Space. Key retail Remove the key retail frontage control from the following This is a clear error as key retail frontage controls do no apply to Open Space Zones. There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts of the Attachment 33 Layer > Controls Retail Frontage frontage controls do not apply to open space zones. The mistake occurred from the PAUP sites: Remove key retail frontage control on open space zones. No change to objectives or AUP. IHP Recommendations Version, when the zoned were changed from Mixed Use to Open ● 1/595 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula policies or provisions in the AUP Space. ● 2 Memorial Drive, New Lynn If these key retail frontage controls remain, it can undermine the credibility of the The key retail frontage that was applied to the Mixed Use Zone, was left on the site by other mapping controls that appy to the sites. Removing the key retail frontage mistake. control will clarify any doubts on the controls that apply to these sites.
Anomaly Control mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Management Height Variarion Control Height Variation Control applies to sites zoned Town Centre, around Curley Avenue, Add Height Variation Control of 18m, at 31 Curley Avenue, This is a clear omission as the zone for the site was changed to Town Centre, from There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts of the Attachment 33 Layer > Controls (31 Curley Avenue, Silverdale) Silverdale. While 31 Curley Avenue, Silverdale is zoned Town Centre, the Height Variation Silverdale. the PAUP IHP Recommendations Version. Add the Height Variation Control on a AUP. Control is omitted for this site. parcel of land zoned Town Centre to be consistent with contiguous sites zoned Town Centre. No change to objectives or policies in the AUP. This issue occurred from the PAUP Notified to the PAUP IHP Recommendation Version, when 31 Curley Avenue was zoned Town Centre. The Height Variation Control was omitted The change will allow this site to be consistent with its contiguous sites. It will ensure by mistake. that there is no difference in height allowances between sites in the town centre and keep development standards consistent across the area.
Anomaly Control mapping error C4 Unitary Plan Management Height Variarion Control Mixed use zones adjacent to the Howick Town Centre should have Height Variation Controls Add Height Variation Control to mixed use zones in Howick The IHP retained the height variation controls for the Howick Town Centre, noting the There is a consequential impact on Chapter H10- Business: Town Centre Attachment 33 Layer > Controls (Howick Town Centre) applied, but have been omitted in the AUP (operative in part) Version. Town Centre historic importance of the area. Also, Council's closing statement, did not support an Zone and Chapter H13: Business: Mixed Use Zone. increase in heights from those that was notified in the PAUP Notified Version. The PAUP Notified Version included Height Variation Controls for these mixed use zones. Consequently, the following text needs to be altered in Therefore, the omission of the Height Variation Controls is clear error. Table H10.6.1.1 and Table H13.6.1.2 set out total permitted building height The Council's closing evidence and the IHP report (029, 030,079 and 0101- Special Chapter H10 and H13, as follows: shown in Height Variation Controls. At present it does not cater for heights Character and pre-1944), supported the retention of Height Variation Controls for these ● to insert the option of 'Total Building Height' of less than Also, it would be contrary to the intent of the Height Variation Controls in Howick less than 13m. mixed use zones in the Howick Town Centre area. 11m to Table H13.6.1.2 Town Centre, if the adjacent mixed use zones were permitted heights of greater than ● to insert the option of 'Total Building Height' of less than 9m. However, the Height Variation Control was omitted at in the AUP (operative in part) Version. 11m to Table H10.6.1.1 This is a clear error between different versions of the AUP.
Anomaly Control mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Management Height Variarion Control Mixed use zones adjacent to the Howick Town Centre should have Height Variation Controls Add Height Variation Control to sites 30-54 Cook Stree, As the Business- Mixed Use Zones adjacent to the Howick Town Centre seek to There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts of the Attachment 33 Layer > Controls (Howick Town Centre) applied, but these have been omitted in the AUP (operative in part) Version. Howick, which are zoned Business- Mixed Use reestablish the Height Variation Control of 9m, these sites, as Business Mixed Use AUP. 30-54 Cook Street, Howick Zones should have the Height Variation Control of 9m applied as well. The sites at 30-54 Cook Street, Howick were zoned Residential-Single House under the PAUP Notified Version. These were subsequently changed to Business- Mixed Use in the It would be contrary to the intent of the Height Variation Controls in Howick Town PAUP IHP Recommendations Version. Centre, if the adjacent these mixed use zones were permitted heights of greater than 9m. The PAUP Notified Version included Height Variation Controls for mixed use zones adjacent to the Howick Town Centre. The Council's closing evidence and the IHP report (029, 030,079 and 0101- Special Character and pre-1944), supported the retention of Height Variation Controls for these mixed use zones.
As these sites have been re-zoned Business- Mixed Use, these should have the Height Variation Control of 9m applied to be consistent with its surrounding Business- Mixed Use sites. Anomaly Control mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Management Height Variation Control There is a 12.5m height control placed on these sites. The Panel sought that plan provisions Amend the Height Variation Control on these sites to 13m: The Panel in its recommendation report (IHP Report to AC Topic 010, 029, 030, 079 There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts of the Attachment 33 Layer > Controls 71, 75 and 128 Hingaia Road (including height variation controls) be simplified and clarified. As such height variation 128 Hingaia Road Special character, section 10, page 16), sought that plan provisions are clarified and AUP. 17 Pararekau Road, Hingaia controls across the region refrain from half metre (0.5m) heights but round it off (i.e. 12.5 to 71 Hingaia Road simplified.For Height Variation Controls, this means that variable heights allowed on 13m). Also other areas (e.g. Howick Town Centre) have changed height variation controls 17 Pararekau Road the planning maps (i.e. 11.75m, 12.25m or 12.5m) are simplied to 13m. from 12.5 to 13m for simplicity and clarity. 75 Hingaia Road The purpose is to enable a simplifed assessment criteria rather that separate provisions. These areas retained the 12.5m height variation control, in error. Height Variation Controls across the region have been amended in line with the Panel's recommendations, including the Howick Town Centre heights which was changed from 12.5 to 13m. Anomaly Control mapping error C1 Unitary Plan Management Subdivision Variation Control Three sites zoned Rural- Countryside Living in Warkworth do not have its associated Add Subdivision Variation Control to three areas, in These Countryside Living Zone sites in Warkworth are subject to subdivision rules in There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts of the Attachment 33 Layer > Controls (Warkworth) Subdivision Variation Controls. Warkworth zoned Rural-Countryside Living Zone. Chapter E39, including transferable rural site subdivision controls in Table AUP. E39.6.5.2.1. However, the AUP GIS Viewer (i.e. the maps) do not illustrate the sites Table E39.6.5.2.1 of the AUP (operative in part) Version identifies Rural- Countryside Living that the subdivision rules apply. zones in Warkworth as being receiving areas for transferable rural site subdivisiond. However, the AUP GIS Viewer (the maps) do not show the Subdivision Variation Control To ensure consistency bewteen the rules in Chapter E36: Subdivision Rural and the applied to any of the Countryside Living Zones in Warkworth. maps, Subdivision Variation Controls should be added to the Rural Countryside Living Zones in Warkworth. This is a clear error between different versions of the plans. This clarifies the rules that apply for transferable rural subdivision sites, and provides no doubt that these rules apply to these sites in Warkworth.
Page712 34 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Precincts
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Precinct Mapping Error C2 I410 Drury South Approximately 152 Maketu Road, In the GIS viewer, this property is shown as a part of sub-precinct A. This is clear mistake. In the Alter sub-precinct boundaries for sub-precinct A and Alter sub-precinct boundaries for sub-precinct A and sub-precinct C to There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 Industrial Precinct Drury precinct text, I410.10.1.Drury South Industrial: Precinct Plan - 1 shows this property as part of sub-precinct C to include the land area of include the land area of approximately 152 Maketu Road, Drury. the sub-precinct C. Alter sub-precinct boundaries for sub-precinct A and sub-precinct C. approximately 152 Maketu Road, Drury in the sub- precinct C. Anomaly Precinct Mapping Error C2 I412 Flat Bush Precinct 285 Murphys Road, Flat Bush An area of Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone has extended into 285 Murphys Road. Flat Bush Precinct, sub-precinct F boundary should The property boundary, zone boundary and sub-precinct boundary should There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 The northern boundary of the property was established on DP 350409 when Lot 2 DP 350409 follow the precinct boundary, as shown in I412.10.1 coincide with each other to form a common boundary that avoids undefined was created and vested In Manukau City Council as recreation reserve. Flat Bush: Precinct plan 1 - Sub-precincts Boundary. land parcels. The change will align with the precinct boundaries, as per I412.10.1 Flat Bush: Precinct plan 1 in the AUP. This reserve will contain the footpath on the northern side of the Park Edge Road (Argento In the viewer, the Flat Bush Precinct, sub-precinct F Drive) which intersects with Murphys Road. This road was provided for in the Flat Bush structure boundary ‘should coincide with the property boundary plan. and the Open Space Zone boundary, and sub-precinct F should also extend to the eastern boundary of the The Flat Bush Sub-Precinct F boundary is not coincident with either the property boundary or the THAB zone. Open Space Zone, and Sub Precinct F should also extend to the northern boundary of the THAB zone.
These changes should be made through a plan change (anomaly) as there is a misalignment between the IHP report and the GIS viewer.
Anomaly Precinct Mapping Error C1 I412 Flat Bush Precinct 317 Te Irirangi Drive, Clover Park, Part of 317 Te Irirangi Drive , Clover Park was zoned School Zone and the remaining part was Remove sub-precinct A, D, and E over the subject site The residential sub-precincts should not remain when the site has been There are consequential changes to the AUP as a result of the Proposed recommendation is Auckland zoned THAB in the notified version of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Then the zoning in the GIS viewer. rezoned to Special Purpose – School. Removal of the sub precincts over the proposed amendment. The changes is to remove sub-precinct A, D, shown in Attachment 33. changed from THAB to Special Purpose – School zone. site in precinct plan is needed to rectify this. and E over the subject site in I412.10.1 Flat Bush: Precinct plan1 – Flat Bush residential sub- precincts A, D & E, have remained over the property even after that Sub-precincts Boundary. Consequential changes is part of the site has been rezoned from THAB to Special Purpose – School Zone. shown in Attachment 34.
Sancta Maria Catholic Primary School currently occupies the site. The sub-precincts over this site should have been removed as a consequential amendment as part of the rezoning. This is a clear oversight. The residential sub-precincts should not remain when the site has been rezoned to Special Purpose – School. Removal of the sub precincts over the site in precinct plan is needed to rectify this.
Page713 35 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning (Central)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of the Current issue Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including Which attachment shows the change AUP AUP or affected property(ies) the viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue, Mt Albert Re: the zoning of 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue, Mt Albert Marist Primary School. Change the Rezone 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue from Mixed The property at 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue belongs to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) zoning from Mixed Housing Urban to Special Purpose – School. The property at 10 and 12 Housing Suburban to Special Purpose: School zone. Diocese of Auckland and has been developed as part of Marist Primary School. The sites of the AUP. Kitenui Avenue belongs to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland and has were zoned Mixed Housing Uurban in the Notified Version of the PAUP. been developed as part of Marist Primary School. The sites were zoned Mixed Housing Uurban in the Notified Version of the PAUP. The Roman Catholic Bishop submitted to rezone the sites to Special Purpose – School The Roman Catholic Bishop submitted to rezone the sites to Special Purpose – School (Submission 5256-89). The Council’s evidence for topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (Submission 5256-89). (General) supported the rezoning of school land to School zone (Evidence Report of Bruce Young, Special Purpose School zone 3 December 2015, Attachment C). No maps were The Council’s evidence for topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) supported the rezoning provided. No parties opposed the requested rezoning. In the Evidence Report 6.2, Mr of school land to School zone (evidence of Bruce Young, 3 December 2015, Attachment C), Young state "Existing independent and integrated schools (are) to be zoned Special however, no maps were appended to the Council’s evidence “due to the large number of maps Purpose-School...on the basis that it would provide for efficient use and development of associated with the school rezoning” requests (evidence of Bruce Young, para 13.1). No school sites and would give greater flexibility than other zones for the type and scale of parties opposed the requested rezoning. buildings required for school purposes".
The sites have been zoned Mixed Housing Urban in the Panel’s Recommendations Version of The sites have been zoned Mixed Housing Urban in the Panel’s Recommendations Version the Plan, and the Council has carried that zoning through to the Decisions Version of the Plan. of the Plan, and the Council has carried that zoning through to the Decisions Version of the The Panel has not discussed the zoning of the site in any of its recommendations reports and Plan. The Panel has not discussed the zoning of the site in any of its recommendations neither the Panel nor the Council has provided a rationale for the Mixed Housing Urban zoning. reports and neither the Panel nor the Council has provided a rationale for the Mixed The on the maps is at odds with the Council’s evidence and unsupported by any explicit Housing Urban zoning. There is therefore an error in the zoning that needs to addressed - recommendations, decisions or rationale and appears to be a mistake. Rezone 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue from Mixed Housing Suburban to Special Purpose: School zone. The Bishop seeks that the zoning of 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue be corrected to Special Purpose – School in line with the Bishop’s submission and the Council’s evidence. This change of zoning is supported.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 46 Point Chevalier Road, Point Rezoning of 46 Pt Chevalier Road, Pt Chevalier - The 46 Pt Chevalier Road is occupied by Rezone 46 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier 46 Pt Chevalier Road is occupied by the presbytery for the parish of St Francis and St There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Chevalier the presbytery for the parish of St Francis and St Therese and is the property of the belongs to from THAB to Special Purpose:School zone. Therese and is the property of the belongs to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of of the AUP. the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland. The parish church and school are Auckland. The parish church and school are located on the adjoining lots at 2 Montrose located on the adjoining lots at 2 Montrose Street. The presbytery lot was zoned Mixed Housing Street. The presbytery lot was zoned Mixed Housing Suburban in the Notified Version of the Suburban in the Notified Version of the PAUP. PAUP. The Roman Catholic Bishop submitted to rezone the site to Special Purpose – School (Submission 5256-109) – the same as the adjoining lot occupied by the school. The Roman Catholic Bishop submitted to rezone the site to Special Purpose – School (Submission 5256-109) – the same as the adjoining lot occupied by the school. The Council’s consistent approach throughout the PAUP has been to apply a single zoning, the Special Purpose – School zone, to sites owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop on which The Council’s consistent approach throughout the PAUP has been to apply a single zoning, the a school, church and presbytery has been developed. In addition, Council’s evidence for Special Purpose – School zone, to sites owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop on which a topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) supported in principle the rezoning of such land school, church and presbytery has been developed. to Special Purpose – School (evidence of Bruce Young, 3 December 2015, paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, 12.4 and Attachment B). Appendix C omits reference to this submission, however, no In addition, Council’s evidence for topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) supported in parties opposed the requested rezoning. The site has been zoned Terrace Housing and principle the rezoning of such land to Special Purpose – School (evidence of Bruce Young, 3 Apartment Buildings in the Panel’s Recommendations Version of the Plan, and the Council December 2015, paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, 12.4 and Attachment B), however, no maps were has carried that zoning through to the Decisions Version of the Plan. appended to the Council’s evidence “due to the large number of maps associated with the school rezoning” requests (evidence of Bruce Young, para 13.1) and Appendix C omits The Panel has not discussed the zoning of the site in any of its recommendations reports reference to this submission. No parties opposed the requested rezoning. and neither the Panel nor the Council has provided a rationale for applying the Terrace The site has been zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings in the Panel’s Housing and Apartment Buildings zoning or distinguishing between the approach taken on Recommendations Version of the Plan, and the Council has carried that zoning through to the this campus and the approach taken on all of the Bishop’s other campuses within the Plan. Decisions Version of the Plan. The zoning shown on the maps is at odds with the consistent approach of the PAUP to the Bishop’s campuses and the Council’s evidence and unsupported by any explicit The zoning shown on the maps is at odds with the consistent approach of the PAUP to the recommendations, decisions or rationale and therefore appears to be a mistake.Rezone 46 Bishop’s campuses and the Council’s evidence and unsupported by any explicit Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier from THAB to Special Purpose:School zone. recommendations, decisions or rationale and therefore appears to be a mistake. The Bishop seeks that the zoning of 32 Pt Chevalier Road be corrected to Special Purpose – School in line with the Bishop’s submission.
Page714 36 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning (South)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment contains change AUP AUP or affected property(ies) viewer the proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 218 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe The property at 218 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe (approx.. 15.5 ha) is partly zoned Rural - Rezone the entire property at 218 Pukekohe East The front portion of the property at 218 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe has There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Rural Production, and the remaining part is shown as in the Waikato District Council area. The Road, Pukekohe to Rural - Rural Production Zone. been correctly zoned Rural - Rural Production. So are the adjoining of the AUP. entire property should be in Auckland Council's area and zoned Rural - Rural Production Zone. properties 216 and 218 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe. It is therefore necessary to rezone the entire property at 218 Pukekohe East Road, This error was first noticed in the PAUP IHP recommendations version, and was then carried Pukekohe to avoid spot zoning as well as split zoning. forward to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).
The land has been transferred from Waikato District Council to Auckland Council in 2011 (through a gazette notification). Therefore the entire properties should reflect the appropriate zone (In this case, Rural Production zone).
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C2 AUP GIS Viewer Wairoa Hill Road - Hunua Wairoa Hill Road in Hunua area runs through land zoned Rural - Rural Production and Public Change the zoning of Wairoa Hill Road from Rural – Wairoa Hill Road in Hunua has not been depicted as "Road" in the Auckland There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Open Space - Conservation. However this road is not shown in the map as Road in white and Rural Production Zone and Public Open Space – Unitary Plan (Operative in part) maps. This road has been given the same of the AUP. instead the road also has the same colour of the zones of the land on both sides of the road. Conservation to Road. zoning of the surrounding zones, namely, Rural - Rural Production and Public Open Space - Conservation respectively. This is an error that needs This error was first noticed in the PAUP IHP recommendations version, and was then carried to be fixed by showing Wairoa Hill Road in white. forward to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C4 AUP GIS Viewer Multiple properties Several residential properties in Manuwera have been zoned Mixed Housing Urban instead of Change the zoning of those properties listed in Table The surrounding properties in the area has been zoned Residential - Mixed There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Mixed Housing Suburban, and do not match the adjacent properties. 1 below from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Housing Suburban. However, those properties which were earlier zoned of the AUP. Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Single House due to potential flood and inundation risks were subsequently Change the zoning of those properties listed in Table 1 below from Residential - Mixed Housing rezoned to Residential - Mixed Housing Urban inadvertently. This needs to Urban to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban. be corrected to avoid spot zoning. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 184 Papakura-Clevedon Road, This property is zoned ‘Rural - Mixed Rural’ under the IHP recommendation but should be Change the zoning of the property at 184 Papakura- The surrounding properties are zoned Rural - Countryside Living leaving this There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Clevedon, Auckland ‘Rural - Countryside Living’. The land use being a single unit (detached dwelling) is aligned with Clevedon Road, Clevedon from Rural - Mixed Rural property in Rural - Mixed Rural Zone. This is a clear mistake. The land use of the AUP. the Rural – Countryside Living Zone, not the Rural – Mixed Rural Zone. The surrounding land is Zone to Rural - Countryside Living Zone. being a single unit (detached dwelling) is aligned with the Rural – also zoned Rural – Countryside Living. Hence change of zone is required. Countryside Living Zone, not the Rural – Mixed Rural Zone. Change of zone required.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 37 Miller Road, Mangere Bridge Westmount School campus located at 37 Miller Road, Mangere Bridge. The campus property Change the zoning of the property at 37 Miller Road, Westmount School is a private/independent school and in accordance with There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) has been zoned Mixed Housing Suburban zone in the decision version of the Unitary Plan. Mangere Bridge from Residential - Mixed Housing the approach taken in the Unitary Plan, this should be zoned Special of the AUP. Westmount School is a private/independent school and in accordance with the approach taken Suburban Zone to Special Purpose - School Zone. Purpose - School which is applied to properties of all independent and in the Unitary Plan, this should be zoned Special Purpose: School which is applied to all integrated schools. independent and integrated schools.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 164 Coronation Road, Mangere The property at 164 Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge (approximately 265m from 37 Miller Change the zoning of the property at 164 Coronation The Planning Consultant, on behalf of the School has confirmed that the site There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Bridge Road) is zoned Special Purpose - School zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part). Road, Mangere Bridge from Special Purpose - School is not part of a school complex and is a residential building. The property is of the AUP. The Planning Consultant representing the School has confirmed that the site is not part of a Zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban. owned by Westmount Education Trust Incorporated. The Auckland Council school complex and is a residential building. The property is owned by Westmount Education District Plan ( Manukau Section) has the property zoned Main Residential. In Trust Incorporated. The Auckland Council District Plan ( Manukau Section) has the property this background, the change of zone is needed. zoned Main Residential. The change of zone is required. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 68 Hutton Street, Otahuhu 68 Hutton Street Otahuhu, has been incorrectly zoned Mixed Housing Suburban, where it The property at 68 Hutton Street, Otahuhu should be Council evidence supported rezoning the cemetery from MHS to Cemetery There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) should be Special Purpose – Cemetery to reflect the current land use as the Hutton Street rezoned to Special Purpose – Cemetery to reflect its zone as sought by submitter. However this was never rezoned in the Council of the AUP. Cemetery. current use. case position GIS Viewer, and therefore is a mistake and misalignment To correct this error, the above property should be rezoned to Special Purpose – Cemetery to between evidence and zone. reflect its current use. Council evidence in Topic 081 supported rezoning the cemetery from MHS to Cemetery zone as sought by submitter. However this was never rezoned in the Case team version of the GIS Viewer, and therefore this is a clear mistake.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C2 AUP GIS Viewer 30 Walters Road, Takanini, Auckland Even though the property at 30 Walters Road, Takanini is part of the Town Centre zone, the In order to correct this error, insert maximum building The property at 30 Walters Road, Takanini is part of the Town Centre zone, There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) maximum building height applied to Town Centre zone at Takanini is not shown on the GIS height applied as 18m under Height Variation Control however the maximum building height applied to Town Centre zone at of the AUP. viewer in the Height Variation Control Overlay for the AUPOP. Change of zoning from Mixed for this site in the GIS viewer of the Auckland Unitary Takanini is not shown on the GIS viewer in the Height Variation Control Use to Town Centre was confirmed in the decision version of GIS, and only the maximum Plan (operative in part). Overlay. Town Centre zoning for the property is confirmed in the GIS, and building height which is 18m was missing. (However this is correctly shown for the rest of the only the maximum building height which is 18m is missing. This error should Town Centre zone areas in Takanini). be corrected.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 171 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, This property and the surrounding properties were zoned Future Urban in the Draft version of Accordingly, this property at 171 Hingaia Road should When the Special Purpose – School zone was removed from the school There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Auckland the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The zoning was changed to Special Purpose – be zoned Mixed Housing Urban which is the zoning of properties owned by the Ministry of Education, those properties were of the AUP. School zone in the notified version of the PAUP. In the Case Team version, only the zoning of surrounding properties.. rezoned back to the previous zoning which is generally the zoning of the this property was changed back to Future Urban whilst surrounding properties remained in surrounding properties as well. Accordingly, this property at 171 Hingaia Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone. This is a mistake. When the Special Purpose – Road should be zoned Mixed Housing Urban which is the zoning of School zone was removed from the school properties owned by the Ministry of Education, surrounding properties.. those properties were rezoned back to the previous zoning which is generally the zoning of the surrounding properties as well. Accordingly, this property at 171 Hingaia Road should be zoned Mixed Housing Urban which is the zoning of surrounding properties. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 211 Kitchener Road, Waiuku, This property is zoned Mixed Housing Suburban whereas all the surrounding properties are Accordingly, this property at 211 Kitchener Road, This property is zoned Mixed Housing Suburban whereas all the surrounding There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Auckland zoned Residential Large Lot. The spot zoning was overlooked in different versions of the Waiuku should be rezoned Residential – Large Lot properties are zoned Residential Large Lot. The spot zoning was overlooked of the AUP. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). This is a mistake. Accordingly, this property at 211 which is the zoning of surrounding properties. in different versions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). This is a Kitchener Road, Waiuku should be rezoned Residential – Large Lot which is the zoning of mistake. Accordingly, this property at 211 Kitchener Road, Waiuku should be surrounding properties.. rezoned Residential – Large Lot which is compatible with the zoning of surrounding properties..
Page715 37 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning (North)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature of change Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts Which attachment shows the AUP the AUP or affected property of the Plan including the viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Zoning Mapping Error C1 Unitary Plan zoning Sites at 16-18 and 20 Dominion The 'school' zoning of these lots is clearly wrong, as the land is privately owned and has been Rezone the sites (from 'school') to The proposed zoning change is an important correction, given the fact that There are no consequential changes to Attachment 33 maps only (GIS viewer) Street, Takapuna, adjacent to St developed in private residential units for many years. The zoning 'error' existed prior to the Residential Mixed Housing - Urban the land is private residential land and not part of the adjacent school. The other sections or other parts of the AUP. Joseph's Catholic School (Lots 1 Unitary Plan being notified but has not previously been formally identified and corrected (see zone. error seems to relate for old subdivisions and former acquisitions of portions DP 156416, Pt lot 2 DP 4553, Pt lot also Error Register, E_440) of (house) sites for 'school' purposes. 6, DP 4553)
Page716 38 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning (West)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 490B Don Buck Road, Massey The land at 490B Don Buck Road, Massey (approx. 4ha) has been incorrectly zoned Special Re-zone 490B Don Buck Road, Massey from Special The Special Purpose zoning of the land provides for the establishment and There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Purpose School zone. This error was first seen in the PAUP IHP recommendations version, Purpose School Zone to Residential - Mixed Housing operation of private schools. The land at 490B Don Buck Road is used for of the AUP. that was then carried over to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part). The property is Urban Zone. residential purposes/ countryside living and the owners do not use or intend privately owned and used for residential purposes. to use the land for school purposes. The property should be rezoned to align with the adjacent residential zone as Residential Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The adjacent site at 490A Don Buck Road, Massey is St Pauls College, a private catholic school zoned Special Purpose School zone. The subject site has had the Special Purpose zoning applied to it as a result of a GIS mapping error due to the presence of the St Pauls College immediately next to the subject site. The land to the east, north and south of the subject site is zoned Residential - Mixed Housing Urban zone in the AUP.
The subject site was zoned Future Urban Zone in the PAUP Notified Version and Council's closing statement evidence in the Independent Hearings Panel Process. The PAUP IHP recommendations version rezoned the surrounding Redhills area from Future Urban Zone to a mix of residential zones. In doing so, it kept the Special Purpose School on 490A Don Buck Road but in error zoned the subject site to Special Purpose School Zone.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 122-134 Lincoln Road, Henderson The subject site at 122-134 Lincoln Road, Henderson has been split zoned. This is a GIS Extend the Business – Mixed Use zone to apply to the Zone boundaries should follow property boundaries. Generally there should There are no consequential changes to other sections or other parts Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) (Lot 1 DP 505338) mapping anomaly where the site has been split zoned Business - Mixed Use zone (east part of entire site at 122-134 Lincoln Road, Henderson. be no split zones or more than one zone applied to a property. The entire of the AUP. site/at street frontage), and Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone property at 122-134 Lincoln Road should be rezoned to align with the (west/rear part of site). business zone covering the majority of the site and adjacent sites along Lincoln Road. The Business Mixed Use Zone covers majority of the site, and is consistent with adjoining sites to the north and south along Lincoln Road. However a small portion of the site, to the rear, is zoned Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone, which is consistent with the adjoining rear site, however creates a split zoning for 122-134 Lincoln Road.
This error has been applied to the property since the PAUP notified version and it has not changed throughout the IHP hearings process through to Council's PAUP Decision version.
There is no apparent reason for the rear portion of the subject site to be zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Building. There is no relevant designation, or overlay which may have created a reason for the split zone. Zoning of the site should follow property boundaries.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 2 Falcon Crescent, Hobsonville (Lot The requiring authority NZTA requested Designation 6741 (State Highway 16 and 18 – Extend the Business – Mixed Use Zone to apply to 2 The underlying Strategic Transport Corridor Zone is no longer appropriate as There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Proposed recommendation is (Unitary Plan Zones) 5 DP 505331) Westgate to Whenuapai and Hobsonville) be partially uplifted from 2 Falcon Crescent, Falcon Crescent Hobsonville as it is no longer subject the site is no longer required for the motorway and Designation 6741 in the proposed amendment. These changes are: shown in Attachment 33. Hobsonville (formerly known as 122 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville) in February 2012 and to the Designation 6741 in the AUP. AUP has been uplifted from the site. While this zone does provide for - Extend the I603 Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary again in February 2014 because the site was no longer required for the purposes of the activities not otherwise provided for by the zone (e.g. dwellings) with the over the subject sites in diagrams I603.10.1 Hobsonville Corridor: Consequential change is shown motorway. This request was not actioned in the Waitakere District Plan and the error was same activity status as provided for within the adjoining zone (being Mixed Precinct plan 1 and I603.10.2 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2. in Attachment 34. carried over into the PAUP Notified Version and now the AUP Operative in part version. Use), it would be better to apply the most appropriate zone. Zoning of the land should reflect the intended use of the site. Furthermore this does not The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located between Hobsonville 2 Falcon Crescent Hobsonville is split zoned Strategic Transport Corridor, Mixed Use, and take into account what is provided for by the precinct which applies to the Road and the Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18), and Local Centre. The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct applies to the part zoned Mixed Use which is adjoining sites. extends from Brigham Creek Road eastwards to Memorial Park directly adjacent to the part zoned Strategic Transport Corridor. Lane at the Hobsonville Domain. The purpose of the precinct is to Propose rezoning the subject site from Strategic Transport Corridor Zone to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to development The purpose of the Strategic Transport Corridor zone is to provide for state highways and to be Business – Mixed Use zone, to be contiguous with the adjoining Business – to enable integrated land use and transport outcomes to occur in the provided for as an integrated transport system. Since the portion of the site is no longer Mixed Use zoning, and to better reflect the current and further intended use proximity of the Brigham Creek interchange. High standards of required for the purposes of the motorway and Designation 6741 in the AUP has been uplifted, of the site (being developed for a mix of commercial and residential uses). urban design and NZTA has requested the zone of this portion be changed to align with adjacent zone. landscape development are required throughout the precinct to provide active, pedestrian-orientated frontages along Hobsonville This is a GIS zone mapping anomaly from the designation no longer applying over the site. The Road and to maintain amenity for Hobsonville primary school and zoning of the land should be amended to reflect the intended use of the site. residents on the south side of Hobsonville Road.
Note the sites to the east of this site have already had the designation uplifted but are still The inclusion of the properties into the precinct willensure an zoned Strategic Transport Corridor. The customer has indicated that these sites to the east are integrated approach to development aligns with the surrounding already being developed for residential purposes and should also be considered for rezoning. If environment. all the sites are to be rezoned, consideration should be given to whether they should be included within the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct.
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 19 Carder Court Hobsonville, 5 The underlying zone of the subject sites are zoned Strategic Transport Corridor. The purpose ofRezone the subject sites from Strategic Transport The underlying Strategic Transport Corridor Zone is no longer appropriate as There are consequential changes in the AUP as a result of the Proposed recommendation is (Unitary Plan Zones) Carder Court Hobsonville, 17 Carder the zone is to provide for state highways and to be provided for as an integrated transport Corridor Zone to Business – Mixed Use Zone. the sites are no longer required for the motorway. While this zone does proposed amendment. These changes are: shown in Attachment 33. Court Hobsonville, 36 Memorial Park system. provide for activities not otherwise provided for by the zone (e.g. dwellings) - Extend the I603 Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary Lane Hobsonville, 33 Carder Court with the same activity status as provided for within the adjoining zone (being over the subject sites in diagrams I603.10.1 Hobsonville Corridor: Consequential change is shown Hobsonville, 29 Carder Court These properties are no longer required for the purposes of the motorway and are not subject Mixed Use), it would be better to apply the most appropriate zone. Zoning of Precinct plan 1 and I603.10.2 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2. in Attachment 34. Hobsonville, 31 Carder Court to any designation. This is a GIS zone mapping anomaly and zoning of the properties should be the land should reflect the intended use of the site. Furthermore this does not Hobsonville, 15 Carder Court amended to reflect the intended use of the site. The subject sites have already been subdivided take into account what is provided for by the precinct which applies to the The Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is located between Hobsonville Hobsonville, 23 Carder Court and are under multiple ownerships. Development of the sites has already begun. adjoining sites. Road and the Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18), and Hobsonville, 7 Carder Court extends from Brigham Creek Road eastwards to Memorial Park Hobsonville, 44 Memorial Park Lane Note the site to the west of these properties is no longer subject to a designation but still zoned Propose rezoning the subject sites from Strategic Transport Corridor Zone to Lane at the Hobsonville Domain. The purpose of the precinct is to Hobsonville, 11 Carder Court Strategic Transport Corridor. This has already been flagged as an issue and addressed in a Business – Mixed Use zone, to be contiguous with the adjoining Business – provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to development Hobsonville, 21 Carder Court seperate line item above. The customer has indicated that this site is already being developed Mixed Use zoning, and to better reflect the current and further intended use to enable integrated land use and transport outcomes to occur in the Hobsonville, 27 Carder Court for residential purposes and should also be considered for rezoning. If all the sites are to be of the site (being developed for a mix of commercial and residential uses). proximity of the Brigham Creek interchange. High standards of Hobsonville, 13 Carder Court rezoned, consideration should be given to whether they should be included within the urban design and Hobsonville, 42 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville Corridor Precinct. landscape development are required throughout the precinct to Hobsonville, 25 Carder Court provide active, pedestrian-orientated frontages along Hobsonville Hobsonville, 38 Memorial Park Lane Road and to maintain amenity for Hobsonville primary school and Hobsonville, 9 Carder Court residents on the south side of Hobsonville Road. Hobsonville, 40 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville, Carder Court The inclusion of the properties into the precinct willensure an Hobsonville integrated approach to development aligns with the surrounding environment.
Page717 39 of 40 AUP GIS Viewer Mapping Zoning (Open Space)
Type of error Sub-category of error Nature and degree of Sub-section of the AUP Specific provision reference of the Current issue Proposed Recommendation Rationale (reasons for change) Consequential changes on other parts of the Plan including the Which attachment shows the change AUP or affected property(ies) viewer proposed recommendation?
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 60A Stanley Point Road, Devonport Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the piece of land and should be zoned to open space Change the zoning from Residential – Single House Site has changed from private ownership and Single Housing Zone to now There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) (Pt Lot 9 DP 3651) to reflect appropriate use of the land. zone to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone being owned by Council for access to the beach at ‘secret cove’. Change of zone reflects actual and appropriate land use zoning for the property. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer Witten Road, Pakiri (Lot 1 DP Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the piece of land and should be zoned to open space Change the zoning from Rural - Rural Coastal zone to Incorrect zoning of land adjacent to existing reserve. Change of zone reflects There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) 185887) to reflect appropriate use of the land. Open Space – Informal Recreation zone actual and appropriate land use zoning for the property. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 2 Brickworks Bay Road & esplanade Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the piece of land and should be zoned to open space Change from Single House zone to Open Space – Auckland Council owned reserve. Important heritage site and proposed There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) reserve off Bannings Way, to reflect appropriate use of the land. Conservation zone zoning is consistent with zoning of adjacent land. Hobsonville (Lot 101 DP 468595 & (Lot 102 DP 468595, Lot 101 DP 378286, Lot 9 DP 58018, & Lot 3 DP 100813) – all esplanade reserve)
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 8 Paul Mathews Drive, Rosedale & Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns one part of land and the other part is privately owned. Change from Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Land exchange occurred between reserve land and private property. Zoning There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Rosedale Park (Pt Lot 2 DP 171142 zone, & Business - Light Industry zone to Business - needs to change to reflect this land exchange. & part of Rosedale Park (Lot 4 DP Light Industry zone & Open Space – Sport & Active 180979, Sec 1 SO 444799, Sec 4 Recreation zone SO 444799 & Lot 3 DP 180979) Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer Aturoa Road, Puhoi (Lot 3 DP Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns this land parcel. Change from "water" to Open Space - Conservation Land is in Auckland council ownership and is an esplanade reserve. It is There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) 493324) Zone currently incorrectly shown as "water" Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer St Patricks Square - Between Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the piece of land and should be zoned to the correct Change the zoning from Open Space – Community Zoning of St Patricks Square is incorrect. It should be Open Space – Civic There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Wyndham and Swanson Streets open space zone to reflect the actual use of the land. zone to Open Space – Civic Spaces zone Spaces which reflects its function and use as a civic space Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 20, 22 & 24 Budock Road, Change in zoning required - Auckland Council has recently acquired the piece of land for a park Change from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Recent acquisition by Auckland Council to widen the entrance to the park There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Hillsborough (Lot 1 DP 98350, Lot 1 entrance. Zoning of land should change to reflect actual and appropriate use of land. zone to Open Space – Conservation zone from Budock Road. Change of zone reflects the change of land ownership DP 177671, & Lot 2 DP 177671) and use of land. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 66 & 72 Hillsborough Road, Change in zoning required - Auckland Council has recently acquired a piece of land to add to Change from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Auckland Council has purchased Liston Village to add to Monte Cecilia Park. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Hillsborough (Lot 5 DP 47308 & Lot 1 Monte Cecilia Park. Zoning of land should change to reflect actual and appropriate use of land. zone to Open Space – Conservation zone Change of zone reflects the change of land ownership and use of land. DP 380498) Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 21A Fearon Avenue, Three Kings Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the piece of land and should be zoned to the correct Change from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone Accessway to Fearon Park is part of the park and should therefore have the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) (part of) (Lot 52 DP 16446) open space zone to reflect the actual use of the land. to Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Zone same zoning as the park
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer Suffolk Street, Eden Terrace (Lot Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council does not own the piece of land and should not be zoned Change from Open Space – Informal Recreation zone Land is in Crown ownership - New Zealand Transport Authority and not open There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) 112A 727, Lot 113 Deeds 1331, Lot Open Space. It is in private ownership. to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone space. Should have an appropriate residential zoning. 126 Deeds 1331, Lot 68 DP 194, Lot 69 DP 194, Lot 81 DP 194, Lot 82 DP 194, Pt Lot 123 DP 3304, Pt Lot 124 DP 3304, Pt Lot 125 DP 3304, Pt Lot 77 Deeds Blue 19, Sec 19 DP 437201, & Sec 9 SO 437201)
Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 5 Paisley Place, Mount Wellington Incorrect zoning. Privately owned land that is currently zoned as Open Space - Informal Change from Open Space - Informal Recreation Zone Land is in private ownership and is not an esplanade reserve. There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) (Lot 4 DP 466684) Recreation Zone. to Business - Light Industry Zone Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 34 Wiri Station Road & 30 Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council owns the reserve land and should be zoned to open space Change from Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Not all the “reserve” land was zoned to Open Space. Change of zone reflects There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Barrowcliffe Place, Manukau Central zone to reflect the actual use of the land. zone to Open Space – Informal Recreation zone actual and appropriate land use zoning for the properties. (Lot 4 DP 474772 & Lot 3 DP 474772) Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 27 Retreat Drive, Mangere (Lot 98 Incorrect zoning. Auckland Council does not own the piece of land and should not be zoned Change from Open Space – Conservation zone to Land is in private ownership and not open space. Should have an There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) DP 334903) Open Space. It is in private ownership. Residential – Large Lot zone appropriate residential zoning. Anomaly Zone Mapping Error C1 AUP GIS Viewer 227, 229 & 245 Great South Road, Change in zoning required - Auckland Council has recently acquired a piece of land to add to Change the zoning from Business – Town Centre zone Land has been purchased by Auckland Council for improvement of the There are no consequential changes on other parts of the AUP. Attachment 33 (Unitary Plan Zones) Papatoetoe (Lot 2 DP 127542, Pt Lot Papatoetoe Recreation Ground. Zoning of land should change to reflect actual and appropriate to Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation zone existing open space (Papatoetoe Recreation Ground) 4 DP 38778, Pt Lot 5 DP 38778, Pt use of land. Lot 16 DP 4493)
Page718 40 of 40 ATTACHMENT TEN
NOTIFIED - TEXT AND DIAGRAMS
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Appendix 10 – Notified PC4
Proposed amendments to text and diagrams (PC4)
Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part
PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 4 (PC4)
Administrative Plan Change
Public notification: 28 September 2017
Close of submissions: 27 October 2017
This is a Council initiated plan change
1
719
Explanatory Noted – Not part of Proposed Plan Change
PC4 is the proposed plan change on corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).
This document contains all the proposed amendments in PC4 that do not have legal effect until after the conclusion of the PC4 process and are annotated in the AUP with a blue annotation bar and text ‘PC4 (see modifications)’.
In the AUP GIS Viewer, proposed spatial changes are annotated with a black diagonal key. When you are in the AUP GIS Viewer, click on ‘Unitary Plan Appeals and Plan Modifications’ under legend, then click on Modifications and then Plan Changes (see image on next page) – this will turn on the layer so you can view which properties are subject to the plan change.
When you specifically click on a property – results of the property will pop up that will tell you which plan change does it relate too.
The operative regional and district provisions within the AUP remain to apply until the proposed rules are operative (e.g. decisions released and any appeals resolved).
2
720
Plan Change Provisions
Note:
1. Amendments proposed by this plan change to the AUP are underlined for new text and strikethrough where existing text is proposed to be deleted. 2. The use of …. Indicates that there is more text, but it is not being changed. These are used when the whole provisions if too long to be included. 3. Some existing text is shown to place the changes in context. 4. Proposed amendments to the diagram or figure in AUP have not been made. In some cases, the existing diagram or figure is shown to diagonally strikethrough to place the changes in context.
Contents of this document
Chapter B Regional Policy Statement ...... 4 Chapter D Overlays ...... 6 Chapter E Auckland-wide ...... 22 Chapter H Zones ...... 46 Chapter I Precincts...... 61 Auckland-wide ...... 61 City Centre...... 63 Central ...... 68 South ...... 75 North ...... 107 West ...... 122 Special Housing Areas ...... 129 Chapter J Definitions ...... 130 Chapter L Schedules ...... 133 Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule ...... 133 Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule ...... 134 Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage ...... 147 Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance ...... 151 Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps ...... 152
3
721
Chapter B Regional Policy Statement
Amend B5 title as follows:
Chapter B Regional policy statement
B1 Ngā take matua ā-rohe - Issues of regional significance…
B5 Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua – Built Historic heritage and character
B6 Mana Whenua …
Amend the title and headers in B5 as follows:
B5 Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua - Built Historic heritage and character
B5. Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua – Built Historic heritage and character
…
Amend B7.2.2 Policies as follows –
B7.2. Indigenous biodiversity…
B7.2.1. Objectives
(1) Areas of significant…
B7.2.2. Policies
(1) Identify and evaluate…
(3) Identify and evaluate areas of significant indigenous vegetation, and the significant habitats of indigenous fauna, in coastal environments the coastal marine area considering the following factors in terms of the descriptors contained in Schedule 4 Significant Ecological Areas – Marine Schedule:
a) recognised international or national significance;…
(4) Include an area of indigenous vegetation or a habitat of indigenous fauna in the coastal environment coastal marine area in the Schedule 4 Significant Ecological Areas – Marine Schedule if the area or habitat is significant.
…
4
722
Amend as a consequential change, text in Chapter B8 Toitū te taiwhenua- Coastal environment as follows:
B8.6 Explanation and principal reasons for adoption The coastal environment includes… In addition to the objectives and policies in this section, the values of the coastal environment are recognised and provided for in the objectives and policies of the regional policy statement relating to: • natural heritage (section B4) • historic built heritage and character (section B5) • natural resources (section B7) • Mana Whenua (section B6) ...
Amend as a consequential change, text in Chapter B11 Monitoring and environmental results anticipated as follows:
B11.1. Background Environmental results…
Table B11.4 Historic built heritage (B5)
Reference Objective Indicators
B5.2.1(1) Significant historic heritage places The total number and distribution of are identified and protected from scheduled significant historic inappropriate subdivision, use and heritage places increases over development. time. B5.2.1(2) Significant historic heritage places The identified values of significant are used appropriately and their historic heritage places are protection, management and protected from inappropriate conservation are encouraged, subdivision, use and development including retention, maintenance over time. and adaptation. B5.3.1(2) The character and amenity values The identified character of of identified special character areas scheduled special character areas are maintained and enhanced. is protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development over time.
5
723
Chapter D Overlays
Amend section title as follows:
Chapter D Overlays
Natural Resources …
Built Historic heritage and character
…
Amend D12 Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay section as follows:
D12.1.1.3. Rural Bush Living (Ranges)
The Rural Bush Living…
The area is identified in Figures D12.10.7 – D12.10.14 D12.10.13 Overlay Subdivision Plans 7a – 7g – Rural Bush Living (Ranges). Its zone is the Rural – Waitākere Ranges Zone.
D12.1.1.4. Ōrātia (Ranges)
The Ōrātia (Ranges) area…
The area is identified in Figure D12.10.15 D12.10.14 Overlay Subdivision Plan 8 – Ōrātia (Ranges). Its zone is the Rural – Waitākere Ranges Zone.
D12.1.1.5. Titirangi – Laingholm (North, South and West)
Titirangi – Laingholm North is located…
The area is identified in Figure D12.10.16 D12.10.15 Overlay Subdivision Plan 9 – Titirangi – Laingholm North, Figure D12.10.17 D12.10.16 Overlay Subdivision Plan 10 – Titirangi – Laingholm South, Figure D12.10.18 D12.10.17 Overlay Subdivision Plan 11 – Titirangi – Laingholm West. Its zone is Residential – Large Lot Zone.
…
6
724
Amend with immediate legal effect, D12 Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay section as follows:
Table D12.4.2 Activity table - Subdivision of sites in the subdivision scheduled areas/sites
Activity Activity status Subdivision of sites within scheduled areas … (A11) Subdivision in Figures 12.10.7 – D12.10.14 D12.10.13 Overlay D Subdivision Plans 7a – 7g – Rural Bush Living (Ranges) that comply with Standard D12.6.3.3 (A12) Subdivision in Figures 12.10.7 – D12.10.14 D12.10.13 Overlay NC Subdivision Plans 7a – 7g – Rural Bush Living (Ranges) that does not comply with Standard D12.6.3.3 (A13) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.15 D12.10.14 Overlay Subdivision Plan 8 NC – Oratia (Ranges) (A14) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.16 D12.10.15 Overlay Subdivision Plan 9 D – Titirangi – Laingholm (North) that complies with Standard D12.6.3.4 (A15) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.16 D12.10.15 Overlay Subdivision Plan 9 NC – Titirangi – Laingholm (North) that does not comply with Standard D12.6.3.4 (A16) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.17 D12.10.16 Overlay Subdivision Plan 10 D – Titirangi – Laingholm (South) that complies with Standard D12.6.3.5 (A17) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.17 D12.10.16 Overlay Subdivision Plan 10 NC – Titirangi – Laingholm (South) that does not comply with Standard D12.6.3.5 (A18) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.18 D12.10.17 Overlay Subdivision Plan 11 D – Titirangi – Laingholm (West) complying with Standard D12.6.3.6 (A19) Subdivision in Figure D12.10.18 D12.10.17 Overlay Subdivision Plan 11 NC – Titirangi – Laingholm (West) that does not comply with Standard D12.6.3.6 Subdivision of scheduled sites …
…
D12.6.3.4. Subdivision within Figure D12.10.16 D12.10.15 Overlay Subdivision Plan 9 – Titirangi – Laingholm (North) …
D12.6.3.5. Subdivision within Figure D12.10.17 D12.10.16 Overlay Subdivision Plan 10 – Titirangi – Laingholm (South) …
D12.6.4.19. Subdivision of any site within the area bounded by Holdens Road, Forest Hill Road, Pine Avenue and Parrs Cross Road
7
725
(1) Subdivision must comply with the Standard D12.6.3.2 for subdivision within Figure D12.10.2 Overlay Subdivision Plan 2 – Swanson South (Foothills).
(2) (1) The average net site area must exceed1.6ha. This is calculated from the existing site area.
(3) (2) The minimum net site area is 4000m2.
(4) (3) The subdivision must not create new roads.
(5) (4) any driveway exceeding 10m in length must not exceed an average slope of 1 in 5.
…
D12.6.4.23. Subdivision at 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley (Part Allot 124 PSH OF Waipareira) (1) Subdivision must be undertaken in accordance with Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley.
(2) Sites identified in the Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley…
(3) Sites identified in Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley...
(4) Sites identified in the Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley...
…
(6) Subdivision to provide a through road between Christian and Tram Valley Roads as identified in Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley.
(7) Vehicle access from the new sites must be through the new internal roads as identified in Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley.
(8) The drainage and green network identified in Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley…
(9) The area identified for a 10m wide planted covenant in the Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley…
(10) The ‘no build’ area identified in Figure D12.10.19 D12.10.18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12– 7-11 Christian Road, Henderson Valley…
…
Figure D12.10.2: Overlay Subdivision Plan 2 – Swanson South (Foothills)
Proposed change/s: Delete any references to subdivision at 54 Coulter Road which
8
726
includes (see the red circle on the map below):
Remove the ‘2 Remove the boundary in grey around the site; and The indicative enhancement area in yellow.
Subject property/ies: 54 Coulter Road, Henderson Valley
Legal Description/s: LOT 2 DP 440480
…
Figure D12.10.9 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7c – Bush Living (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.10 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7c – Bush Living (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.11 10 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7d – Bush Living (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.12 11 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7e – Bush Living (Ranges)
9
727
Figure D12.10.13 12 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7f – Bush Living (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.14 13 Overlay Subdivision Plan 7g – Bush Living (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.15 14 Overlay Subdivision Plan 8 - Ōrātia (Ranges)
Figure D12.10.16 15 Overlay Subdivision Plan 9 – Titirangi – Laingholm (North)
Figure D12.10.17 16 Overlay Subdivision Plan 10 – Titirangi – Laingholm (South)
Figure D12.10.18 17 Overlay Subdivision Plan 11 – Titirangi – Laingholm (West)
Figure D12.10.19 18 Overlay Subdivision Plan 12 – 7 – 11 Christian Road,
Henderson Valley
…
10
728
Amend with immediate legal effect, D14 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay section as follows:
D14.6. Standards
All activities listed as permitted and restricted discretionary in Table D14.4.1 must comply with the following standards.
D14.6.1. Height
(1) In applying these standards, height must be measured using the rolling height method except if using standards D14.6.3(1)(a)(ii) and D14.6.3(1)(a)(iii) where maximum height is restricted by another method.
(2)…
D14.6.3. Buildings on sites that have a contiguous boundary with a site with a volcanic feature mapped as an outstanding natural feature
(1) Buildings on sites that have a contiguous boundary with a site with a volcanic feature mapped as an outstanding natural feature must not exceed a height of:
(a) the lowest of:
(i) the height defined on the height sensitive area planning maps or otherwise 9m; or and
(ii) the average height above sea level (RL) of the two nearest buildings (other than accessory buildings) on adjoining sites where those sites also have a contiguous boundary with the volcanic feature, provided that such buildings are both higher than the average contiguous boundary of the application site with the volcanic feature; or
(ii) where there are buildings on the adjoining sites on either side that also have a contiguous boundary with the site with the volcanic feature, the average height of the highest points of the roofs of the nearest buildings (other than accessory buildings) on each site, provided that such buildings are both higher than the average boundary level of the site of the proposed building; or
(iii) where D14.6.3(1)(ii) cannot be applied, because there are no buildings on adjoining sites, the average height above sea level (RL) of the site boundary which is contiguous with the boundary of the site with the volcanic feature.
(b) 7.3m for buildings on 14A Pickens Crescent Mt Albert (Lot 1 DP 394305; CT 377258); or
(c) RL 103.37 for buildings on 47A Mount St John Avenue Epsom (Lot 1 DP 359371; CT 241868). …
11
729
Amend with immediate legal effect, D17 Historic Heritage Overlay section as follows:
Table D17.4.1 Activity table – Activities affecting Category A, A* and B scheduled historic heritage places [rcp – where reference is made in Chapter F to these rules applying]
Primary Primary Activities Primary Activities Features feature feature within the feature within the identified as Category Category scheduled Category scheduled exclusions A places A* places extent of B places extent of place of place of Category A Category and A* places B places Development Demolition or destruction … (A2) Demolition or NC NC NC D D P - where the destruction of 30% feature is free- cent or more, but less standing than 70%, by volume C – where the or footprint (whichever feature is connected to a is the greater) of any feature scheduled feature Note: Demolition or destruction of less than 30%, by volume or footprint (whichever is greater) of any feature; is considered under ‘Modification and Restoration’ – Activity (A9), in this table (D17.4.4) … Maintenance and repair … (A8) Pest plant removal, P P P P P P biosecurity measures, tree works …
12
730
D17.4.3 Activity table – Activities in Historic Heritage Areas [dp]
Contributing Non- Features sites/features contributing identified as sites/features exclusions
Development… Maintenance and repair … (A32) Pest plant removal, biosecurity measures, tree works P P P … Signs, ancillary structures and temporary structures and signs activities (A35) Temporary buildings, structures and signs, including P P P buildings, structures and signs accessory to a temporary activity (A36) Identification and safety signs P P P (A37) Signs not otherwise specified RD RD (A38) Security lighting and alarm systems P P P …
… D17.6.4. Pest plant removal, biosecurity measures, tree works … D17.6.6 Temporary buildings and structures and signs including those accessory to a temporary activity (1) Temporary buildings…
(b) the building, structure or sign being affixed attached, painted, fixed or projected on to any existing building, structure or feature within the scheduled historic heritage place, other than a building, structure or feature identified in the exclusions column in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage; or
…
13
731
Amend as a consequential change, text in Chapter D17 Historic Heritage Overlay as follows:
D17.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities: (1) for restricted discretionary activities in Table D17.4.1 Activity table – Activities affecting Category A, A* and B scheduled places, Table D17.4.2 Activity table- Activities subject to additional archaeological rules and Table D17.4.3 Activity table – Activities in Historic Heritage Areas: (a) whether the proposed works will result in adverse effects (including cumulative adverse effects) on the heritage values of the place and the extent to which adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated; (b) whether the proposed works will maintain or enhance the heritage values of the place, including by: (i) avoiding or minimising the loss of fabric that contributes to the significance of the place; (ii) removing features that compromise the heritage values of the place; (iii) avoiding significant adverse effects on the place, having regard to the matters set out in B5 Historic Built heritage and character; (c) …
14
732
Amend with immediate legal effect, D18 Special Character Areas Overlay- Residential and Business section as follows:
Table D18.4.1 Activity table – Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential
Activity Activity status Development (A1) Restoration, maintenance and repair to a building on all sites in P the Special Character Areas Overlay–Residential or the Special Character Areas Overlay - General (with a residential zoning) … (A3) Total demolition or substantial demolition (exceeding 30 per cent RD or more, by area, of wall elevations and roof areas) of a building, or the removal of a building (excluding accessory buildings), or the relocation of a building within the site on: (a) all sites in all the following Special Character Areas Overlay - Residential: (i) Special Character Area Overlay – Residential : Isthmus A; (ii) Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential : Pukehana Avenue; (iii) Special Character Area Overlay – General : Hill Park (those sites with a residential zone); and (iv) Special Character Area Overlay – General : Puhoi (those sites with a residential zone); and (v) Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential: North Shore- Birkenhead Point (vi) Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential: North Shore- Devonport and Stanley Point; and (vii) Special Character Areas Overlay- Residential: North Shore- Northcote Point; and (b) all other sites identified as subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules as shown in the maps in the Special Character Areas Overlay Statements. …
…
D18.8.2.2. Special Character Areas Overlay – Business…
(2) For additions and alterations to a character defining building:
(a) policies D18.3(8) to (14) as relevant, and in addition, all of the following:
(i) whether the additions and alterations are appropriate when considered against the relevant assessment criteria for additions in the zone;
15 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 733
(ii) whether at the street elevation(s) maintains an appearance similar to the original façade of the character defining building;
(iii) where relevant, whether the addition and alteration to building is positioned and designed to retain the continuity of the front façade alignment of the building or adjoining buildings and the established horizontal or vertical modulation;
(iv) whether the design and materials respect and respond positively to those originally used and contribute strongly to the architectural character and detailing of the building;
(v) whether the additions and alterations to building are compatible with the architectural form, mass, proportions and style of the existing building(s) on the site;
(vi) whether the additions and alterations to the building retain as much of the existing building fabric as practicable;
(vii) whether the additions and alterations to building use a colour scheme which is compatible with the age and detailing of the building;
(viii) for retail premises whether the additions and alterations to the building have main frontage(s) incorporating significant areas of unobscured display glazing and building entries reflecting traditional forms in order to maintain good visual connections with the street; and
(ix) whether the additions and alterations to the building locate and design attachments, such as signs, aerials and air conditioning units, sympathetically to the existing building.
…
16 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 734
Amend with immediate legal effect, the figures in D19 Auckland War Memorial Museum Viewshaft Overlay as follows:
Figure D19.6.1.1 Height limit surface
Proposed change/s: Delete current Figure D19.6.1.1 Height Limit Surface and replace with new figure below
17 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 735
18 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 736
Figure D19.6.1.2 Height limit surface - 2
Proposed change/s: Delete current Figure D19.6.1.2 Height Limit Surface - 2 and replace with new figure below
19 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 737
20 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 738
Figure D19.6.1.3 Height limit surface - 3
Proposed change/s: Amend current Figure D19.6.1.3 Height Limit – 3 to use New Zealand Transverse Mercator coordinate dataset (the coordinates within the existing figure need to be amended to use the New Zealand Transverse Mercator coordinate dataset)
21 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 739
Chapter E Auckland-wide
Amend with immediate legal effect, E7 Taking, using, damming and diversion of water and drilling section as follows:
Table E7.4.1 Activity Table
Activity Activity status All High- Use Wetland zones Stream Management Management Areas Overlay Areas Overlay … Take and use of groundwater … (A24) Take and use of geothermal water for D D D bathing use not otherwise provided for … …
E7.6.1.4. Take and use of groundwater up to 205m3/day when averaged over any consecutive 20-day period and no more than 5000m3/year
…
22 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 740
Amend with immediate legal effect, E11 Land disturbance – Regional section as follows:
E11.4 Activity table
The following tables…
Note 1
Sediment Control Protection Area is defined as:
...
(b) 50m landward of the edge of a watercourse lake, river or stream, or the edge of a wetland of 1000m2 or more.
…
23 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 741
Amend with immediate legal effect, E12 Land disturbance – District section as follows:
Table E12.4.1 Activity table – all zones and roads Note 1… In addition to the objectives and policies above, the rules in Table E12.4.2, notification, standards, matters and assessment criteria implement the objectives and policies in the following chapters:
D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay and Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay; D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character Overlay; D17 Historic Heritage Overlay; and D18 Special Character Areas– Residential and Business Overlay; and D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay.
… Table E12.4.2 Activity table – overlays (except Outstanding Natural Features Overlay)
Activity Activity status Character Overlay Character Natural Outstanding Overlay Landscapes Natural Outstanding and Overlay Character Natural High Overlay Heritage Historic Overlay Whenua Mana to Significant of Places and Sites Isthmus Overlay Areas Special Character
– C
Residential: Residential:
Fences, service connections, effluent disposal systems, swimming pools, garden amenities, gardening, planting of any vegetation, burial of marine mammals, bridle paths, cycle and walking tracks but excluding ancillary farming earthworks and ancillary forestry earthworks (A16) Earthworks for maintenance P P P P N/A and repair (A17) Earthworks for the P P P2 RD N/A installation of fences, walking tracks and burial of marine mammals (A18) Earthworks for interments in P P P P N/A a burial ground, cemetery or urupā (within the burial plot for that interment) (A19) Earthworks for gardening or P P P P N/A planting Driveways, parking areas and, sports fields and major recreational facilities (A20) Earthworks for operation, P P P P N/A
24 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 742
Activity Activity status Character Overlay Character Natural Outstanding Overlay Landscapes Natural Outstanding and Overlay Character Natural High Overlay Heritage Historic Overlay Whenua Mana to Significant of Places and Sites Isthmus Overlay Areas Special Character
– C
Residential: Residential:
maintenance, resurfacing and repair Cultivation (A21) Up to 500m2 RD P RD D N/A (A22) Greater than 500m2 up to RD P RD D N/A 2500m2 (A23) Greater than RD P D D N/A 2500m2 Irrigation or land drainage (A24) Works below the natural RD P D D N/A ground level Farming (A25) Ancillary farming earthworks P P P2 P N/A for maintenance of tracks Forestry (A26) Ancillary forestry earthworks P P P2 P N/A for maintenance Temporary activities (A27) Earthworks associated with P P P2 RD N/A the installation of the temporary activity Land disturbance not otherwise listed in this table 3 (A28) Up to 5m2 P P P2 D N/A (A29) Greater than 5m2 up to 50m2 RD P RD2 D N/A (A30) Greater than 50m2 RD RD RD D N/A (A31) Up to 5m3 P P P2 D N/A (A32) Greater than 5m3 up to RD P RD2 D D 250m3 (A33) Greater than 250m3 RD RD RD D D
…
25 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 743
Amend with immediate legal effect, E15 Vegetation management and biodiversity section as follows:
Table E15.4.1 Activity table - Auckland-wide vegetation and biodiversity management rules
Activity Activity status Use All zones outside the RUB (A10) Vegetation alteration or removal, including cumulative removal RD on a site over a 10-year period, of greater than 250m2 of
indigenous vegetation that: (a) is contiguous vegetation on a site or sites existing on 30 September 2013; and (b) is outside the rural urban boundary Riparian areas (A11) Vegetation alteration or removal within a Wetland Management D Areas Overlay
(A12) Vegetation alteration or removal of any vegetation within a RD Natural Stream Management Areas Overlay (A13) Vegetation alteration or removal within 50m of the shore of a RD lake within a Natural Lake Management Areas Overlay (A14) Vegetation alteration or removal within 30m of the shore of a RD lake within an Urban Lake Management Areas Overlay (A15) Vegetation alteration or removal within 20m of rural lakes RD
(A16) Vegetation alteration or removal within 20m of rural streams, RD other than those in Rural – Rural Production Zone and Rural – Mixed Rural Zone (A17) Vegetation alteration or removal within 10m of rural streams in RD the Rural – Rural Production Zone and Rural – Mixed Rural Zone (A18) Vegetation alteration or removal within 20m of a natural RD wetland, in the bed of a river or stream (permanent or intermittent), or lake (A19) Vegetation alteration or removal within 10m of urban streams RD
Coastal areas (A20) Vegetation alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of RD contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree over 3m in height, within 50m of mean high water springs in the Rural –Rural Production Zone, Rural – Mixed Rural Zone, Rural –Rural Coastal Zone, Rural –Rural Conservation Zone, Rural – Waitakere Ranges Zone and Rural – Countryside Living Zone or Future Urban Zone
26 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 744
(A21) Vegetation alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of RD contiguous vegetation or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree over 3m in height within 20m of mean high water springs in all zones other than in a Rural – Rural Production Zone, Rural – Mixed Rural Zone, Rural – Rural Coastal Zone, Rural – Rural Conservation Zone, Rural – Waitakere Ranges Zone and Rural –Countryside Living Zone or Future Urban Zone (A22) Vegetation alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of RD contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree over 3m in height, that is within: (a) a horizontal distance of 20m from the top of any cliff with; (b) a slope angle steeper than 1 in 3 (18 degrees); and (c) within 150m of mean high water springs All zones / areas mentioned above (A1) Biosecurity tree works P
(A2) Dead wood removal P
(A3) Vegetation pruning, alteration or removal for customary use P
(A4) Emergency tree works P
(A5) Forestry and farming activities as existing at 30 September P 2013
(A6) Pest plant removal P
(A7) Conservation planting P
(A8) Vegetation alteration or removal for routine maintenance within P 3m of existing buildings
(A9) Vegetation alteration or removal for routine operation, P maintenance and repair of existing tracks, lawns, gardens,
fences, shelterbelts and other lawfully established activities (A23) Permitted and controlled activities in Table E15.4.1 that do not RD comply with one or more of the standards in E15.6. All zones and areas (A44) Vegetation alteration or removal not otherwise provided for, and P not subject to any standard listed in E15.6
…
27 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 745
E15.6. Standards
All activities listed as a permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary activity in Table E15.4.1 or Table E15.4.2 must comply with the following standards…
E15.6.4. Vegetation alteration or removal for routine operation, maintenance and repair of existing tracks, lawns, gardens, fences, shelterbelts and other lawfully established activities
(1)…
(5) Vegetation alteration or removal undertaken within the 100-year ARI floodplain must ensure that erosion control measures associated with vegetation removal and replanting, such as mulch or bark, are not able to be swept off-site in a flood event.
…
E15.6.8 Vegetation alteration or removal undertaken within the 100-year ARI floodplain
(1) Vegetation alteration or removal must ensure that erosion control measures associated with vegetation removal and replanting, such as mulch or bark, are not able to be swept off- site in a flood event.
E15.6.9 Tree trimming within Significant Ecological Areas
(1) The maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm.
(2) No more than 10 per cent of live growth of the tree is removed in any one calendar year.
(3) Trimming must meet accepted modern arboricultural practice.
(4) The trimming must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree. …
E15.8. Assessment – Restricted discretionary activities
The Council will restrict its discretion to all the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application: …
E15.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities from the list below: …
(1) all restricted discretionary activities: (a) ecological values: (i) the extent to which the vegetation alteration or removal is minimised and adverse effects on the ecological and indigenous biodiversity values of the vegetation are able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated; (ii) whether vegetation removal will have an adverse effect on threatened species or ecosystems; and
28 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 746
(iii) the extent to which the proposal for vegetation alteration or removal has taken into account relevant objectives and policies in Chapter B7.2 Indigenous biodiversity, B4. Natural heritage, Chapter E15 Vegetation Management and biodiversity, E18 Natural character of the coastal environment and E19 Natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment. (b) … …
29 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 747
Amend E16 Trees in open space zones section as follows:
E16.4. Activity table
Table E16.4.1 Activity table specifies the activity status for land use activities related to trees in open space zones pursuant to section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991
The rules that apply to network utilities and electricity generation are located in Section E26 Infrastructure.
All activities obtain the approval of the Tree Asset Manager, in respect of open space zones, owned by the Council, is the Auckland Council Parks Department.
These rules …
…
Amend E24 Lighting section as follows:
E24.6. Standards
All activities listed as permitted in Table E24.4.1 Activity table must comply with the following standards.
E24.6.1. General standards
…
(8) The exterior lighting on any property adjacent to a road or adjacent to land on which there is a dwelling must be selected, located, aimed, adjusted and/or screened to ensure that glare resulting from the lighting does not exceed the pre-curfew or curfew limits outlined in Table E24.6.1.5 Pre-curfew luminous intensity limits or Table E24.6.1.6 Curfew luminous intensity limits.
…
30 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 748
Amend E25 Noise and vibration section as follows:
E25.6. Standards
All activities must comply with the following relevant permitted activity standards.
…
E25.6.10. Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone
(1) Noise sensitive spaces must be designed and/or insulated so that the internal noise levels do not exceed the levels in Table E25.6.10.1 Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone below:
Table E25.6.10.1 Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone
Unit affected Time Level
Bedrooms and sleeping areas in the 35dB LAeq Between 10pm Business – Local Centre Zone and in the 45dB at 63 Hz L ; and and 7am eq Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone 40dB at 125 Hz Leq Bedrooms and sleeping areas in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – 35dB LAeq Between 11pm Town Centre Zone, and the Business – 45dB at 63 Hz L and and 7am eq Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy 40dB at 125 Hz Leq Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone
Other noise sensitive spaces At all other times 40 BA LAeq
(2) The levels in Table E25.6.10.1 Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone above must be met based on the maximum level of noise permitted by the zone or precinct standards or any adjacent zone or precinct standards. (3) Where a new room is constructed that is subject to Standard E250.6.10(1) (internal acoustic insulation requirement) and the noise levels in Table E256.10.1 Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry
31 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 749
Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone (internal design noise level) can only be complied with when doors or windows to those rooms are closed, those rooms must, as a minimum: (a) be constructed to ensure compliance with the noise limits in Table E25.6.10.1 Noise levels for noise sensitive spaces in the Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone, Business – Local Centre Zone, Business – Neighbourhood Centre Zone, or the Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – Heavy Industry Zone or the Business – Light Industry Zone; and
(b) for residential dwellings…
…
E25.6.27. Construction noise levels in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone…
(1) Noise from construction activities in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone must not exceed the levels in Table E25.6.27.1 Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone when measured 1m from the façade of any building that contains an activity sensitive to noise that is occupied during the works.
Table E25.6.27.1 Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone
Maximum noise level (dBA) Time of week Time Period Leq Lmax 6:30am - 7:30am 60 75 7:30am - 6:00pm 75 90 Weekdays 6:00apm - 8:00pm 70 85 8:00pm - 6:30am 45 75 6:30am - 7:30am 45 75 7:30am - 6:00pm 75 90 Saturdays 6:00apm - 8:00pm 45 75 8:00pm - 6:30am 45 75 6:30am - 7:30am 45 75 Sundays and 7:30am - 6:00pm 55 85 public holidays 6:00pm - 8:00pm 45 75 8:00pm - 6:30am 45 75
(2) Noise from …
(3) For a project involving a total duration of construction work that is less than 15 calendar days, the noise levels in Table E25.6.27.1 Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to
32 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 750
noise in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone and Table E25.6.27.2 Construction noise levels for noise affecting any other activity above may shall be increased by 5dB in all cases.
(4) For a project involving a total duration of construction work that is more than 20 weeks the noise limits in Table E25.6.27.1 Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone and Table E25.6.27.2 Construction noise levels for noise affecting any other activity above may shall be decreased by 5dB in all cases.
…
33 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 751
Amend E26 Infrastructure section as follows:
Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table - Network utilities and electricity generation – All zones and roads Transport Corridor Zone Roads Purpose Rural zones, Future Urban Zone and Special ZonePort (land) Coastal Purpose Zone Residential zones, Special Purpose Business Zone Industrial zones and the Business Purpose Zone, Business Special Purpose S Special Purpose Centres zones, Business Cemetery Zone Open space zones and the Special Purpose
Activity pecial Purpose ,
u – nformed roads – –
Marina Marina Zone (land) and Coastal
Quarry Zone Tertiary Education Zone
and Special Purpose
–
– – –
Business Park Zone and Special
Healthcare Facility and Hospital Major Recreation Facility Zone, Airport
and the
– s ands Airfields
Mixed Use Zone, Strategic –
– –
General
School Zone Māori
Zone, –
– Minor
General (A1) …
Infringement of standards (A65) Any activity that does not comply with Standard NC NC NC NC NC NC NC E26.2.5.2(6) and E26.2.5.1(6)
(A66) Any activity that does not comply with Standard NC NC NC NC NC NC NC E26.2.5.2(7) and E26.2.5.1(7) …
Table E26.4.3.1 Activity table - Network utilities and electricity generation – Trees in roads and open space zones and the Notable Trees Overlay
Activity Auckland wide-rules Overlay Trees rules Trees in Open space Notable roads [dp] zones [dp] trees [dp] Operation, maintenance, renewal, repair, construction and removal of network utilities and electricity generation facilities and, minor infrastructure upgrading (A77) … (A89) Tree aAlteration or removal of any P P NA trees less than 4m in height and/or less than 400mm in girth (A90) Tree aAlteration or removal of any RD RD NA trees greater than 4m or more in height and/or greater than 400mm or more in girth (A91) …
…
34 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 752
E26.2.5. Standards
E26.2.5.1. Activities within roads and unformed roads in Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table
All activities listed as permitted in Table E26.2.3.1 Activity table must comply with the following permitted activity standards.
(1) Temporary network utilities:…
(b) the site must be reinstated in accordance with conditions specified in the latest edition of the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors (2011).
…
(6) Electricity transmission and distribution (Electric and magnetic fields): (a) network utilities that emit electric and magnetic field emissions must comply with the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric and magnetic fields (1Hz – 100kHz) (Health Physics, 2010, 99(6); 818- 836) and recommendations from the World Health Organisation monograph Environmental Health Criteria (No 238, June 2007).
(7) Radio Frequency Fields (RF fields): (a) network utilities should not result in radio- frequency fields produced by the network utility exceeding the maximum exposure level of the general public in the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3 kHz to 300GHz (NZS 2772.1: 1999) measured at all places reasonably accessible to the general public.
…
E26.2.5.3. Specific activities within zones in Table E26.2.3.1
The specific activities listed below are required to comply with the permitted activity standards in E26.2.5.1 and E26.2.5.2. Where a standard in E26.2.5.3 for a specified activity varies from a standard in E26.2.5.1 or E26.2.5.2, E26.2.5.3 shall apply.
Minor infrastructure upgrading
(1) Minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities must comply with the following controls (where relevant):
(j) the replacement of an existing antenna with a new antenna provided that:
(i) the new antenna does not exceed the maximum dimension of the existing antenna by more than 20 per cent; and
(ii) where the antenna is a dish antenna the diameter of the new antenna must not increase by more than 20 percent; and
(iii) the overall height of the facility to which the antenna is attached either does not increase or that any height increase is as a result of the antenna size increase only.…
35 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 753
E26.4.5. Standards
All activities listed as permitted in Table E26.4.3.1 Activity table must comply with the following permitted activity standards.
Trees in roads and open space zones
E26.4.5.1. Trees in roads and open space zones - tree trimming or alteration
(1) Tree trimming or alteration of trees in streets and open space zones must comply with the following standards: … (b) no more than 20 per cent of live growth of the tree must be removed in accordance with best arboricultural practice which can be increased to 30 per cent under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified arborist and if there is an agreed tree management plan in place for trimming between 20 – 30 per cent;
…
Notable trees
E26.4.5.3. Notable trees - tree trimming or alteration
(1) Tree trimming or alteration of notable trees must meet the following standards:
(a) the maximum branch diameter must not exceed 50mm at severance;
(b) must not result in the removal of more than 20 per cent of live growth of the tree in any one calendar year; and
(c) the trimming must retain the natural shape, form and branch habit of the tree; and
(d) the works must meet best arboricultural practice.
…
36 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 754
Amend E27 Transport section as follows:
Table E27.4.1 Activity table
Activity Activity status (A1) … (A6) Use of an existing vehicle crossing where a Vehicle Access RD Restriction applies under Standard 0.6.4.1(1) to service the establishment of a new activity, a change of activity type, the expansion or intensification of an existing activity or where a building(s) is constructed, or additions to buildings that are not permitted activities in Table H8.4.1 Activity table; Table H9.4.1 Activity table; or Table H10.4.1 Activity table; Table H11.4.1 Activity table; Table H12.4.1 Activity table; Table H13.4.1 Activity table; Table H14.4.1 Activity table; or Table H15.4.1 Activity table. (A7) … …
Table E27.6.1.1 New development thresholds
Activity New development (T2) Residential Dwellings 100 dwellings (T3) Integrated residential 500 units development (T4) Visitor accommodation 100 units (T5) Education facilities Primary 167 students (T6) Secondary 333 students (T7) Tertiary 500 students (T8) Office 5,000 m2 GFA (T9) Retail Drive through 333 m2 GFA
(T160) Retail activities (non- 1667m2 GFA drive through) (T10) Industrial activities Warehousing and 20,000 m2 GFA storage (T11) Other industrial activities 10,000 m2 GFA …
37 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 755
Table E27.6.2.3 Parking rates - area 1
Activity Applies to zones and locations specified in Standard 0.6.2(4) Minimum rate Maximum rate (T18) … (T21) Entertainment facilities and No minimum 0.2 per person the community facilities facility is designed Provided that, for places of to accommodate worship, the “facility” shall be the primary place of assembly (ancillary spaces such as prayer rooms, meeting rooms and lobby spaces which do not have a separate use from the primary place of assembly shall may be disregarded) (T22) … …
Table E27.6.2.4 Parking rates - area 2
Activity Applies to zones and locations specified in Standard 0.6.2(5) Minimum rate Maximum rate (T37) … (T62) Entertainment facilities and community 0.2 per person the No facilities provided that, for places of worship, facility is designed to maximum the ‘facility’ shall be the primary place of accommodate assembly (ancillary spaces such as prayer rooms, meeting rooms and lobby spaces which do not have a separately use from the primary place of assembly shall be disregarded) (T63) … … E27.6.4. Access E27.6.4.1. Vehicle Access Restrictions (1) Vehicle Access Restrictions apply and new vehicle crossings must not be constructed to provide vehicle access across that part of a site boundary which is subject to:
… (b) a Key Retail Frontage Control as shown on the planning maps; infringing this standard is a non-complying activity unless the application involves:
(i) the use of an existing vehicle crossing to service the establishment of a new activity, a change of activity type, the expansion or intensification of an existing activity or where a building(s) is constructed, or additions to buildings that are not permitted activities in:
38 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 756
Table H8.4.1 Activity table; Table H9.4.1 Activity table; or Table H10.4.1 Activity table; Table H11.4.1 Activity table; Table H12.4.1 Activity table; Table H13.4.1 Activity table; Table H14.4.1 Activity table; or Table H15.4.1 Activity table;
…
(2) Standard 0.6.4.1(3) below applies in any of the following circumstances:
(a) …
(d) a building(s) is constructed, or additions to buildings that are not permitted activities in:
Table H8.4.1 Activity table; Table H9.4.1 Activity table; Table H10.4.1 Activity table; Table H11.4.1 Activity table; Table H12.4.1 Activity table; Table H13.4.1 Activity table; Table H14.4.1 Activity table; or Table H15.4.1 Activity table except that this does not apply in the case of a dwelling where the reconstruction, alteration or addition does not increase the number of dwellings on a site.
(3) Vehicle Access Restrictions…
…
Table E27.6.4.3.2 Vehicle crossing and vehicle access widths
Location of site Minimum width Maximum Minimum formed access width frontage of crossing at width of site boundary crossing at site boundary (T149) Residential 2.75m 3.0m Serves 1 2.5m provided it is zone dwelling contained within a corridor clear of buildings or parts of a building with a minimum width of 3m (T150) 3.0m (one way) 3.5m (one Serves nine 3.0m provided it is
39 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 757
way) or less contained within a parking corridor clear of spaces or 2 – buildings or parts 5 dwellings of a building with a minimum width of 3.5m (T151) 5.5m (two-way) 6.0m (two- Serves 10 or 5.5m (providing for This may be way) more car two-way narrowed to parking movements) 2.75m if there are spaces or 6 clear sight lines or more along the entire dwellings access and passing bays at 50m intervals can be provided (T152) …. …
E27.6.4.4. Gradient of vehicle access The gradient of the access must not be steeper than specified in Table E27.6.4.4.1:
Table E27.6.4.4.1 Gradient of vehicle access
Access type Maximum gradient (T157) Vehicle access serving residential 1 in 5 (20 per cent) (T161) Vehicle access serving rear residential 1 in 4 (25 per cent) (T158) Vehicle access used by heavy vehicles 1 in 8 (12.5 per cent) (T159) Vehicle access serving all other activities 1 in 6 (16.7 per cent)
Note 1…. …
E27.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities E27.8.1. Matters of discretion
The Council will restrict its discretion to the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.
(1) park-and-ride…
(9) any activity or development which infringes the standards for design of parking and loading areas or access under Standard E27.6.3 or the standards for design, number and location of vehicle crossings and access under Standards E27.6.4.2, E27.6.4.3 and E27.6.4.4:
…
E27.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities from the list below:
40 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 758
(1) park-and-ride and public transport facility…
(8) any activity or development which infringes the standards for design of parking and loading areas or access under standard E27.6.3 or the standards for design, number and location of vehicle crossings and access under Standards E27.6.4.2, E27.6.4.3 and E27.6.4.4.
…
41 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 759
Amend with immediate legal effect, E31 Hazardous Substances section as follows:
Table E31.4.3 Activity table – Hazardous facilities that store or use the listed hazardous substances
Activity Activity status Class Sub-class (combined quantities) P RD
Business – Light Industry Zone; Business – Heavy Industry Zone; Coastal – Defence Zone, Special Purpose – Airports and Airfields Zone and Special Purpose – Quarry Zone … …
42 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 760
Amend E38 Subdivision – Urban section as follows:
E38.3. Policies …
(25) Avoid reducing the width of esplanade reserve or strip, or the waiving of the requirement to provide an esplanade reserve or strip, except where any of the following apply:
…
(e): any scheduled historic heritage places and sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua will not be adversely affected.
…
(26) Require esplanade reserves rather than esplanade strips unless any of the following apply
…
Amend with immediate legal effect, E38 Subdivision – Urban section as follows:
E38.8.2.6. Subdivision of sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business
(1) Proposed sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business must comply with the minimum net site area in Table E38.8.2.6.1 Special Character Overlay – Residential and Business subdivision controls.
(2) Proposed sites identified in the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business that are not listed in Table E38.8.2.6.1 must comply with the relevant minimum net site area for that site’s zone in Table E38.8.2.3.1 Minimum net site area for subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare.
Table E38.8.2.6.1 Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business subdivision controls
Special Character Areas Overlay – Minimum net site area Residential and Business – Sub area Isthmus A 400m2 or 500m2 where the site does not comply with the shape factor Isthmus B1 and B3 1,000m2 Isthmus B2 600m2 Isthmus C1 400m2 or 500m2 where the site does not comply with the shape factor Isthmus C2 600m2 Isthmus C2a (refer to Figure E38.8.2.6 1,000m2 on sites identified in Figure below) E38.8.2.6 below North Shore Area A* 450m2 North Shore Area B* 500m2 North Shore Area C* 600m2
*The maps showing North Shore Area A, North Shore Area B, and North Shore Area C can be found in Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps.
43 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 761
…
Amend E39 Subdivision – Rural section as follows:
E39.2 Objectives
(1) Land…
(15) Subdivision that maintains or enhances the natural features and landscapes that contribute to the character and values of the rural areas.
(165) Rural subdivision…
(176) Subdivision…
…
E39.4. Activity table
Tables E39.4.1 to E39.4.5 specify the activity status of subdividing land pursuant to section 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within the following zones:
Rural – Rural Production Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone, Rural – Rural Coastal Zone, Rural – Rural Conservation Zone Rural – Countryside Living Zone; Rural – Waitākere Foothills Zone Rural – Waitākere Ranges Zone; Future Urban Zone; and Special Purpose – Quarry Zone.
For subdivision within the National Grid Corridor Overlay…
…
Table E39.4.2 Subdivision in rural zones (excluding Rural – Waitākere Foothills Zone and Rural – Waitākere Ranges Zone)
Activity Activity Status (A11) … ... (A27) Any other subdivision not provided for in Tables E39.4.1 or E39.4.2 NC (A38) Any Transferable Rural Site Subdivision where the receiver site is not NC located in the Rural - Countryside Living zone.
…
44 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 762
Table E39.6. 4.6.1 Maximum number of new sites to be created from the protection of wetland identified in the Significant Ecological Areas Overlay
Area of wetland to be protected Maximum number of Maximum number of rural rural residential sites residential sites that may be that may be created for created for in-situ subdivision Transferable Rural Site Subdivision
Minimum 5,000m2 1 No in-situ subdivision
5,001m21,000m2 – 1.9999ha 2 (maximum)
…
45 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 763
Chapter H Zones
Amend H2 Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone section as follows:
H2.6.6. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose…
(4) A gable end, dormer or roof may project beyond the recession plane where that portion beyond the recession plane is:
(a)…
(b) no greater than 2.5m cumulatively in length measured along the edge of the roof as shown in Figure H2.6.6.2 Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections below.
Figure H2.6.6.2: Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections
…
46 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 764
Amend H3 Residential – Single House Zone section as follows:
H3.5. Notification
(1) Any application for resource consent for the following activities will be considered without public or limited notification or the need to obtain the written approval from affected parties unless the Council decides that special circumstances exist under section 95A(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991:
(a) A integrated residential development which complies with all of the standards
listed in Table H3.4.1 Activity table; or
(b) (a) development which does not comply with H3.6.12 (1a) Front, side and rearfences and walls.
…
H3.6.7. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose…
(5) A gable end, dormer or roof may project beyond the recession plane where that portion beyond the recession plane is:
(a)…
(b) no greater than 2.5m cumulatively in length measured along the edge of the roof as shown in Figure H3.6.7.2 Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections below.
Figure H3.6.7.2: Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections …
47 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 765
Amend H4 Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone section as follows:
H4.6.6. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose…
(6) A gable end, dormer or roof may project beyond the recession plane where that portion beyond the recession plane is:
(a)…
(b) no greater than 2.5m cumulatively in length measured along the edge of the roof as shown in Figure H4.6.6.2 Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections below.
Figure H4.6.6.2: Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections
…
Amend H5 Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone section as follows:
H5.6.5. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose…
(5) A gable end, dormer or roof may project beyond the recession plane where that portion beyond the recession plane is:
(a)…
(b) no greater than 2.5m cumulatively in length measured along the edge of the roof as shown in Figure H5.6.5.2 Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections below.
Figure H5.6.5.2: Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections
…
Amend H6 Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone section as follows:
H6.6.6. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose…
(5) A gable end, dormer or roof may project beyond the recession plane where that portion beyond the recession plane is:
(a)…
(b) no greater than 2.5m cumulatively in length measured along the edge of the roof as shown in Figure H6.6.6.2 Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections below.
Figure H6.6.6.2: Exceptions for gable ends and dormers and roof projections …
48 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 766
Amend H7 – Open Space Zones section as follows:
H7.9. Activity table
Table H70.9.1 specifies the activity status of land use activities in the open space zones pursuant to section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991. Notwithstanding the following rules, the Reserves Act 1977 applies to land vested under section 14 of that Act. … H7.9.1 Activity Table – Open Space Zones
Activity Activity Status Conservatio Informal Sport and Civic Community n Zone Recreation Active Spaces Zone Zone Recreation Zone Zone Use (A1) … Development (A31) … (A39) New buildings that do not D D D D P D comply with one or more standards (A40) …
…
H7.11.3. Yards
Purpose:
Tto provide a reasonable standard of visual amenity between open space zones when viewed from the street and a buffer between open space zones and neighbouring residential and special purpose zones.; and to ensure buildings are adequately setback from streams and the coastal edge to maintain water quality and provide protection from natural hazards. …
49 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 767
In the following zones, insert the text on ‘derivation of wind environment control graph’ after each Wind environment control figure:
H8 Business – City Centre Zone Figure H8.6.28.1 Wind environment control
H9 Business – Metropolitan Centre Figure H9.6.9.1 Wind environment control Zone
H10 Business – Town Centre Zone Figure H10.6.9.1 Wind environment control
H11 Business – Local Centre Zone Figure H11.6.7.1 Wind environment control
H12 Business – Neighbourhood Figure H12.6.7.1 Wind environment control Centre zone
H13 Business – Mixed Use Zone Figure H13.6.8.1 Wind environment control
H14 Business – General Business Figure H14.6.6.1 Wind environment control Zone
H15 Business – Business Park Figure H15.6.6.1 Wind environment control Zone
Derivation of the wind environment control graph:
The curves on the graph delineating the boundaries between the acceptable categories (A- D) and unacceptable (E) categories of wind performance are described by the Weibull expression:
k P(>V) = e⎯(v/c) where V is a selected value on the horizontal axis, and P is the corresponding value of the vertical axis: and where:
P(>V) = Probability of a wind speed V being exceeded; e = The Napierian base 2.7182818285 v = the velocity selected; k = the constant 1.5; and c = a variable dependent on the boundary being defined:
A/B, c = 1.548
B/C, c = 2.322
C/D, c = 3.017
D/E, c = 3.715 …
50 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 768
Amend H8 Business – City Centre Zone section as follows:
H8.6.11. Bonus floor area ratio
Purpose…
Table H8.6.11.1 Bonus floor area
Bonus feature type Activity Bonus floor area available per m2 of Maximum floor area ratio limit to bonuses on a feature provided site
See Map 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 1a 1b 1c 2 3 4 5 6 H8.11.8 Bonus 1c areas and Map H8.11.7 Site intensity
…
Activities
Residential RD 2m2 2m2 2m2 2m2 2m2 2m2 2m2 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 1:1 1:1 1:1
Dwellings and Visitor Accommodation
Public amenities
…
…
H8.6.26. Verandahs
Purpose: provide pedestrians with weather protection on main streets.
(1) A new …
Location Minimum width
Queen Street, north of Wakefield Street except 4m the western side between Aotea Square and Wellesley Street
Karangahape Road 4m
Swanson Street between Mills Lane and Queen 3m Street
Vulcan Lane, south side 3m
Queen Street, west side between Aotea Square 5m and Wellesley Street
51 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 769
All other frontages identified on the plan 3m or setback no further than 6700mm in plan from the edge of the road carriageway, whichever is the lesser
…
H8.6.28. Wind
Purpose: mitigate the adverse wind effects generated by high-rise buildings.
(1) A new building must not cause:
(a) the mean wind speed around it to exceed the category for the intended use of the area as set out in Table H8.6.28.1 and Figure H8.6.28.1 Wind environment control;
(b) the average annual maximum peak 3 second gust to exceed the dangerous level of 25m per second; and
(c) an existing wind speed which exceeds the controls below of Standard H8.6.28(1)(a) or Standard H8.6.28(1)(b) above to increase.
…
H8.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities:
(1) new buildings and external alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for:
…
(d) design and layout of dwellings, visitor accommodation and boarding houses: (i) the extent to which dwellings are located, proportioned and orientated within a site to maximise the amenity of future residents by: • clearly defining communal, semi-communal and private areas within a development; • maximising passive solar access while balancing the need for buildings to front the street; and or • providing for natural cross-ventilation by window openings facing different direction. …
(10) infringement of outlook space standard:
(a) …
(c) privacy, outlook, daylight access and ventilation for visitor accommodation:
(i) the criteria for dwellings in H8.8.2(10)(a) and H8.8.2(10)(b) above apply, except that a lesser dimension of outlook separation to a minimum of 6.0m from bedrooms or principle living areas may be acceptable in some cases where the intent of criteria H8.8.2(10)(a) and H8.8.2(10)(b) above are satisfied and, with the exception of Crown
52 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 770
land, where certainty can be provided, through a registered covenant in favour of the Council or another equally restrictive mechanism, that the building or area within a building is not to be used for accommodation other than non-permanent visitor accommodation and is to be managed as a single entity in perpetuity;
…
53 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 771
Amend H10 Business – Town Centre Zone section as follows:
H10.6.1. Building height
Purpose…
Table H10.6.1.1 Total building height shown in the Height Variation Control on the planning maps
Occupiable building Height for roof Total building height shown on Height Variation height form Control on the planning maps
Same as on the NA Less than 11m planning maps
11m 2m 13m
16m 2m 18m
19m 2m 21m
25m 2m 27m
Same as on the NA Exceeding 27m planning maps
…
Amend as a consequential change, text in Chapter H13 Business- Mixed Use Zone as follows:
H13.6.1. Building height
Purpose…
Table H13.6.1.2 Total building height shown in the Height Variation Control on the planning maps
Occupiable building Height for Total building height shown on height roof form Height Variation Control on the planning maps Same as on the NA Under 11m planning maps 11m 2m 13m 16m 2m 18m 19m 2m 21m 25m 2m 27m Same as on the NA Exceeding 27m planning maps
…
54 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 772
Amend H14 Business – General Business Zone section as follows:
H14.6. Standards
All permitted and restricted discretionary… …
H14.6.2. Height in relation to boundary
Purpose: manage the effects of building height; allow reasonable sunlight and daylight access to public open space excluding streets and neighbouring zones; and manage visual dominance effects on neighbouring zones where lower height limits apply.
(1) Buildings must … (3) Figure H14.6.2.3 will be used to define what is a north, south, east or west boundary, where this is referred to in Table H14.6.2.1 The recession plane angle is calculated by orientating both site plan and Figure H14.6.2.3 to true north. Figure H14.6.2.3 is placed over the site plan with the outside of the circle touching the inside of the site boundary under consideration. At the point where Figure H14.6.2.3 touches the site boundary, the recession plane angle and height at which it begins, will be indicated by Table H14.6.2.1
55 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 773
Proposed change/s: Insert Figure H14.6.2.3 Recession plan indicator for sites adjacent to an open space zone diagram after Figure H14.6.2.2 in H14 Business – General Business Zone section
Figure H14.6.2.3 Recession plane indicator for sites adjacent to an open space zone
…
56 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 774
Amend H15 Business – Business Park Zone section as follows:
H15.6.4. Landscaping and maximum impervious area
Purpose…..
(1) Landscaped areas which in total comprise at least 20 per cent of a site must be provided. landscaped. The maximum impervious area in the zone is 80 per cent of the site.
(2) A landscape buffer of 2m in depth must be provided along the street frontage between the street and car parking, loading, or service areas which are visible from the street frontage. This rule excludes access points.
(3) The required landscaping in Standard H15.6.4(2) above must comprise a mix of trees, shrubs or ground cover plants (including grass).
(4) The maximum impervious area in the zone is 80 per cent of the site.
…
57 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 775
Amend H19 Rural zones section as follows:
H19.10.3. Minimum yard setback requirements
Purpose: to ensure adequate and appropriate separation distance between buildings and site boundaries to minimise:
adverse effects of buildings on the character and amenity values enjoyed by occupiers of adjoining properties; and, opportunities for reverse sensitivity effects to arise.; and, to ensure buildings are adequately setback from streams and the coastal edge to maintain water quality and provide protection from natural hazards. …
58 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 776
H28 Special Purpose – Quarry Zone
Figure H28.6.2.1.1 Hunua quarry effects line
Proposed change/s: Amend ‘Hunua Quarry’ (shaded blue lined area in Figure H28.6.2.1.1) to reflect the correct area of Special Purpose Zone shown in AUP GIS Viewer.
The above diagram shows the extent of Hunua Quarry area (Special Purpose Quarry Zone) that needs to be reflected into FH28.6.2.1.1.
59 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 777
Amend with immediate legal effect, H20 Rural - Waitākere Foothills Zone section as follows:
Table H20.4.1 Activity Table
Activity Activity status … Use Rural … (A15) Disposal of non-residential waste or composting that does D [rp/dp] not comply with Standard H20.6.1.(1) and (2) …
60 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 778
Chapter I Precincts
Auckland-wide
Amend I101 Motorsport precinct as follows:
I101.6. Standards
…
I101.6.2. Sub-precinct Rosebank Road
All permitted and restricted discretionary activities listed in Table I101.4.1 must comply with the following activity standards.
The Auckland-wide and zone noise and lighting standards apply in this sub-precinct except as specified below.
I101.6.2.1. All motorsport activities
(1) Between 1 October in one year and 31 May in the following year no motorised activities will occur on one week in every three weeks (except for weekday practices as detailed below).
(2) Between 1 June and 30 September no motorised activities will occur on one week in every two weeks (except for weekday practices as detailed below).
…
I101.6.2.2. Lighting
(1) The design and location of floodlighting must ensure that the direct illuminance does not exceed 100 lux at the sub-precinct boundary.
(2) Hours of operation for floodlights must be no later than 8.0010.30 pm daily except where agreed by Council for special national or international events for a maximum of six days per year.
…
I101.6.2.4. Auckland Speedway Riders Club motorsport activities
In addition to Standards I101.6.2.1 and I101.6.2.2, these activities must comply with all of the following:
(1)…
(2) Race meetings may occur between:
(a) noon and 6pm on Sundays; or
61 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 779
(b) 4pm and 9pm of Fridays
(3) Two two-day race meetings can occur a year between 12pm and 6pm on Saturday and Sunday.
(4) (3) Practice Sessions…
(5) (4) All vehicles…
(6) (5) Auckland Speedway…
(7) (6) Auckland Speedway Riders Club may specify on the programme submitted to Council Power Sports Association who will submit to Auckland Council, a twilight meeting between 4pm and 9pm on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday following a race to be used in the event of a rainout of a Sunday meeting. A meeting will not be considered rained out if it has continued for more than one hour.
…
Amend I103 Waitematā Navigation Channel Precinct as follows:
I103.3. Policies [rcp]
The Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone, Auckland-wide and overlay policies apply in this precinct in addition to those specified above, with the exception of D.5.1.3 Dredging Policy 4 of the Coastal - General Coastal Marine Zone F2.4.3(3) Dredging Policy of F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.
…
62 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 780
City Centre
Amend I208 Port Precinct as follows:
I208.6. Standards
I208.6.1. Land and water standards
The land and water use standards …
The Auckland-wide Lighting rules E24 and Noise rules E25.6.2 - E25.6.13; E25.6.23 - E25.6.26; E25.6.27 - E25.6.29 and E25.6.31 - E25.6.33 ; E25.6.32; E25.6.33 do not apply to land and the coastal marine area in the Port Precinct.
…
63 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 781
Amend I211 Viaduct Harbour Precinct as follows:
I211.10.4 Viaduct Harbour: Precinct plan 4 - Site intensity controls
Proposed change/s: Add the site intensity control of 3.5:1 (blue) back on PT LOT 1 DP 186548 (H57) in I211 Viaduct Harbour Precinct – Precinct plan 4
64 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 782
Amend I214 Wynyard Precinct as follows:
Table I214.4.1. Activity table – Land use [The regional coastal plan [rcp] provisions are not operative until the Minister of Conservation has formally approved the regional coastal plan part of the Auckland Unitary Plan.]
Activity B Sub and Sub Sub Sub G Sub and Sub Sub [rcp] area Coastal marine
- - - - - precinct A precinct C precinct D precinct E precinct F - - precinct precinct
…
(A23) Office activity that exceeds the Area 1 NC RD RD NC* NA maximum office activity gross floor – NC RD area in I214.6.2(1) below, subject to compliance with the maximum office Area 2 activity gross floor area in - RD I214.6.2(2) below #
…
… Table I214.6.2.2 Maximum office Gross Floor Area 2
Sub- precinct Maximum additional Maximum restricted Total office gross gross floor area discretionary office floor area – permitted activity ratio per site + restricted discretionary A 12,200m2 Only on Lot 1 DP 111,000m2 179403 – 3:1 B 14,700m2 3:1 84,000m2 C D 14,000m2 1.32:1 48,000m2 D E 8500m2 1.27:1 45,000m2 43,5000m2 E F 5000m2 1.18:1 18000m2
…
65 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 783
I214.10.6 Wynyard: Precinct plan 6 - Indicative lanes and viewshafts
Proposed change/s: Add the lane viewshafts to I214.10.6 Wynyard: Precinct plan 6 – Indicative lanes and viewshafts. The viewshafts circled in yellow need to be reinstated in the Auckland Unitary Plan diagram (not viewer). Note that the yellow circles themselves will not be included.
66 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 784
Existing I214.10.6 Wynyard: Precinct plan 6 - Indicative lanes and Viewshafts diagram without the viewshafts
67 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 785
Central
Amend I318 Monte Cecilia Precinct as follows:
I318.3. Policies
(1) Ensure activities are compatible with the Monte Cecilia Statement of Significance Character Statement and Pah Farm Conservation Plan.
…
Amend I319 MOTAT Precinct as follows:
I319.6.2 Lighting
(1)…
(5) The added illuminance from the use of any artificial lighting on any site must not exceed either one of the following;
(a) The limits in Table I319.6.2.2 when measured at the boundary of any residentially zoned site containing a lawfully established dwelling. The illuminance limit will apply horizontally and vertically at any point on the boundary and at any height; or
Table I319.6.2.2: Horizontal and vertical illuminance at a boundary
Illuminance limit
Pre-curfew 100 lux (above the background level)
Curfew 10 lux (above the background level)
(b) The vertical illuminance limits in Table I319.6.2.3 when measured at the windows of habitable rooms of a lawfully established dwelling within a residential zone.
Table I319.6.2.3: Vertical Illuminance at a window
Vertical illuminance limit
Pre-curfew 10 lux
Curfew 2 lux …
(7) Any exterior lighting must be selected, located, aimed, adjusted and/or screened to ensure that glare resulting from the lighting does not exceed 10,000 cd for pre-curfew times and 1,000 cd for curfew times at the windows of habitable rooms of a lawfully established
68 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 786
dwelling within a residential zone and at the boundary of any residentially zoned site where a dwelling does not yet exist.
…
1319.8.2 Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant activities in the overlay and Auckland-wide provisions: (1) The effects of non-compliance with a noise and/or lighting standard on the amenity values of surrounding properties and safety of transport networks:
…
(f) the extent to which the amount of light falling into habitable rooms of established dwellings within a residential zone during the hours of darkness is minimised to control effects on indoor amenity and sleep disturbance.
…
69 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 787
Amend I323 Observatory Precinct as follows:
I323.10.1. Observatory Precinct: Precinct plan 1 – Maximum building height
Proposed change/s: Amend legend to read Area A max height 3 metres 9 metres above existing ground level. Not 3 metres. This aligns with I323.6.1. Maximum building height.
70 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 788
Amend I325 Ōkahu Marine Precinct as follows:
I325.10.1. Ōkahu Marine Precinct: Precinct plan 1- building areas within sub-precinct B
Proposed change/s: Amend the tagging of provisions in Precinct plan 1 to read:
1. Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct A(rcp/dp) 2. Ōkahu Marine sub-precinct B(rcp/dp)
This proposed change will align with what is already shown in the AUP GIS Viewer.
71 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 789
Amend I332 Tamaki Precinct as follows:
I332.7. Assessment – controlled activities.
1332.7.1 Matters of control There are no controlled activities in this precinct. 1332.72 Assessment criteria There are no controlled activities in this precinct. There are no controlled activities in this precinct …
72 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 790
Amend I334 Wairaka Precinct as follows:
I334.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities
I334.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary activity resource consent application, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the zones, Auckland-wide, or overlay provisions:
…
(3) Connections of any roads to between the Precinct and Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue with a public road: … I334.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the zones, Auckland-wide or overlay provisions:
…
(2) Parking buildings and structures (a) Ground contours… (g) Design of parking and access
(i) the extent to which parking buildings avoid fronting Carrington Road or Oakley Creek or avoid having direct access from Laurel Street, Renton Road, Rhodes Avenue (or any extension of those streets), or the western road shown on the Precinct plan;
(ii) … (3) Connections of any roads to between the Precinct and Laurel Street, Renton Road or Rhodes Avenue with a public road: (a) Traffic…
(c) benefits of road connections(excluding benefits related to diversion of traffic from Carrington road):
(i) the extent of any positive benefits arising from the proposed connection (excluding benefits related to diversion of traffic from Carrington Road) and ensure the provision of walkway and cycleway access is not restricted.
…
73 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 791
I334.10.2 Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 – Protected Trees
Proposed change/s: Remove trees 4, 6, and 12 from I334.10.2 Wairaka: Precinct plan 2 – Protected Trees diagram as they do not exist in the plan and are not listed in Table I334.6.7.1 – Identified Trees.
…
74 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 792
South
Amend I402 Auckland Airport Precinct as follows:
I402.6. Standards
The Auckland-wide…
I402.6.1. Retail
(1) Retail (where the goods being sold have not been manufactured on site) in Gateway Sub-precinct area C and D must be less than 200m2 gross floor area per tenancy and with a total combined gross floor area of less than 3000m2 (2) Retail (where the goods being sold have been manufactured within the tenancy) in Gateway Sub-precinct area C and D must not exceed the lesser of 25 per cent of the gross floor area set aside for manufacturing or 250m2.
...
I402.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities
I402.8.1. Matters of discretion
The council will restrict its discretion to the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.
(1) any buildings, structures, works or subdivision within Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F which is not in accordance with I402.10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1 and/or not complying with Standard I402.6.20 Subdivision (a) site layout; (b) design and external appearance of buildings and landscape design; (c) design consistency within and between Gateway Sub-precinct areas; (d) coherent design for the Māngere Gateway heritage route, George Bolt Memorial Drive and surrounds; (e) land use and transport integration; (f) Gateway Sub-precinct areas C – F – relationship to open space; (g) adverse effects on heritage resources; (h) Gateway Sub-precinct areas C and D – comprehensive development of the commercial centre; and (i) landscape treatment.
(2)… …
I402.8.2. Assessment criteria
The council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities.
75 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 793
(1) any building, structure, works or subdivision within Gateway Sub-precinct area A – F not in accordance with I402.10.1 Auckland Airport: Precinct plan 1 and / or not complying with Standard I402.6.19 Subdivision." (a) site layout: (i) the site layout should reinforce or enhance the street pattern; (ii) the site layout should be compatible with the site development of adjoining sites and the streetscape; (iii) the building should align with the street, to create a clear spatial system along the street. Where streets are curved, the building should align with that curve, or alternatively should be stepped in plan in relation to the curve; (iv) buildings on corner sites should be designed to respond to the site’s prominence in the roading network and the adjoining road intersection; and (v) car parking areas should be designed and located to ensure an attractive site layout, particularly when viewed from the road or public open spaces. (b) design… …
76 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 794
Amend I403 Beachlands 1 Precinct as follows:
I403.3. Policies [rp/dp]
General
(1)…
Landscaping along Whitford–Maraetai Road
(25) Require the provision of a landscaped buffer area along the full length of Whitford- Maraetai Road as shown in the I403.10.1 Beachlands 1 Precinct plan 1.
(26) Require planting of the landscape buffer area with native and exotic species in accordance with I403.11.1 Beachlands 1: Beachlands Village Design Guidelines. I403.10.3 Beachlands 1: Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule.
(27) Protect views from Whitford-Maraetai Road to the Hauraki Gulf by means of the view corridor through the landscape buffer area identified in I403.11.1 Beachlands 1: Beachlands Village Design Guidelines. I403.10.3 Beachlands 1: Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule.
Jack Lachlan Drive …
I403.4. Activity table
The provisions in any relevant overlays, Auckland-wide provisions and the zone apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below…
Table 1403.4.1 Activity table
Activity Activity status Use (A1) … (A3) Any activity requiring wastewater servicing that is connected to a P public reticulated wastewater system”, for which the correct activity status should be NC. This is to be amended through a plan change (A4) Any activity requiring wastewater servicing that is not connected NC to a public reticulated wastewater system”, for which the correct activity status should be NC. This is to be amended through a plan change … Development … (A17) New buildings and any modifications to a builiding other than those P listed above … …
77 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 795
I403.6. Standards
The provisions in any relevant overlays, Auckland-wide provisions and the zone apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. … I403.6.2. Yards
(1) A building or parts of a building must be set back from the relevant boundary to the minimum depth listed in TableI403.6.2.1 Yards below. Table I403.6.2.1 Yards
Yard Minimum depth
Front and Corner Sites
Front 6 8m except as follows:
8 6m for - sites adjoining Jack Lachlan Drive that are subject to standard I403.6.14 - yards adjoining a stormwater management area or public open space.
3m for - one yard only on a corner site - sites that adjoin a stormwater management area or public open space or a street. Side One yard must be a minimum of 2m and one yard must be a minimum of 3m
Rear 8m
…
…
I403.6.14. Landscape buffer area
(1) A landscape buffer area must be developed along Whitford–Maraetai Road as shown in the precinct plan I403.10.1 Beachlands 1: Precinct plan 1. The buffer area must:
(a) be consistent with the widths indicated in the precinct plan I403.10.1 Beachlands 1: Precinct plan 1 being a minimum width of 15m at any point;
(b) where it is within any existing site, must be established as a condition of any subdivision of that site;
(c) be planted in accordance with the landscape plan for the buffer area and the planting scheduled contained in I403.11.1 Beachlands 1 Beachlands Village Design Guidelines I403.10.3 Beachlands 1: Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule, prior to the issuing by the council of the s. 224(c) certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to the subdivision referred to in Standard I403.6.14.1(a) above.
78 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 796
…
I403.10. Precinct plans
I403.10.1. Beachlands 1: Precinct plan 1
Proposed change/s: Adjust boundary line at bottom of Precinct plan 1 and right hand side of Precinct plan 1, as highlighted below.
Adjust the precinct boundary
…
79 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 797
I403.10.3 Beachlands 1: Landscape buffer area planting plan and planting schedule
Figure 1:
80 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 798
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
81 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 799
Table 1:
Code Botanic name Common Min PB Min height Spacing Percentage/ name size when planted (mm) number (mm)
Medium to large trees 100%/130
DAC Dacrycarpus Rimu PB95 2500 As 10%/13 cup cupressinum shown
DAC Dacrycarpus Kahikatea PB95 2500 As 10%/13 dac dacrydiodes shown
GIN Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo PB95 2500 As 10%/13 bil shown
LIR Liriodendron Tulip tree PB95 2500 As 10%/13 tul tulipfera shown
LIQ Liquidambar American PB95 2500 As 20%/26 sty styraciflua sweet gum shown
MET Metrosideros Pohutukawa PB95 2500 As 20%/26 exc excelsa shown
POD Podocarpus totara Totara PB95 2500 As 10%/13 tot shown
VIT Vitex lucens Puriri PB95 2500 As 10%/13 luc shown
Small to medium trees 100%/220
CED Cedrus atlantica Atlas cedar PB50 2000 As 10%/22 atl shown
COR Corynocarpus Karaka PB50 2000 As 20%/44 lae laevigatus shown
PYR Pyrus calleryana Callery pear PB50 2000 As 20%/44 cal shown
82 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 800
Code Botanic name Common Min PB Min height Spacing Percentage/ name size when planted (mm) number (mm)
SOP Sophora microphylla Kowhai PB50 2000 As 20%/44 mic shown
QUE Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak PB50 2000 As 10%/22 coc shown
QUE Quercus palustris Pin oak PB50 2000 As 10%/22 pal shown
QUE Quercus robur Fastigate PB50 2000 As 10%/22 rob 'Fastigiata' oak shown
Understory Planting 100%/500
DOD Dodonea viscosa Akeake PB28 1500 As 20%/100 vis shown
HOH Hoheria populnea Lacebark PB28 1500 As 20%/100 pol shown
LEP Leptospermum Manuka PB28 1500 As 15%/75 cop 'Copper Sheen' hybrid shown
PIT Pittosporum Kara PB28 1500 As 15%/75 cra crassifolium shown
PSE Pseudopanax Five finger PB28 1500 As 15%/75 arb aboreus shown
PSE Pseudopanax laetus PB28 1500 As 15%/75 lae shown
…
83 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 801
Amend I404 Beachlands 2 Precinct as follows:
I404.4. Activity table
The provisions in any relevant overlays, Auckland-wide provisions and the zone apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below…
Table I404.4.1 Activity table
Activity Activity status
Sub- Sub- Sub- precinct A precinct B precinct C
Use …
Commerce (A10) Trade suppliers P RD NC RD NC
…
…
84 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 802
Amend I408 Clevedon Precinct as follows:
I408.4. Activity table [rp/dp]
The provisions …
Table I408.4.1 Activity Table
Activity Activity Status (Sub-precinct) A B C D E Use and development Activities (A1) …
Access (A8) Any activity that results in the NC NC NC NC NA construction or modification of vehicle access points onto Papakura- Clevedon Road to service development from land subject to the re-vegetation area shown on I408.10.3 Clevedon Precinct plan 3: Re-vegetation area
…
Subdivision
(A22) Subdivision that does not comply with NC I408.6.4 Subdivision or I408.6.5 Minimum site size
(A23) Subdivision that does not comply with Pr I408.6.2 Wastewater until 1 October 2016 or until such time as all necessary planning approvals for a public reticulated wastewater treatment and disposal systems are obtained, whichever is the earliest date
(A24) Subdivision that does not comply with NC I408.6.2 Wastewater after 1 October 2016 or until such time as all necessary planning approvals for a public reticulated wastewater treatment and disposal systems are obtained, whichever is the earliest date
…
85 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 803
Amend I409 Clevedon Waterways Precinct as follows:
I409.4. Activity table
The provisions…
Table I409.4.1 Activity Status in Sub-precinct A
Activity Activity status Residential (A1) Visitor accommodation up to 200m2 gross floor area per site RD (A2) Dwellings P …
…
86 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 804
Amend I410 Drury South Industrial Precinct as follows:
Figure I410.6.2.1 Carpark design
Proposed change/s: Replace Figure I410.6.2.1 with correct figure below.
87 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 805
Amend I410.11.1 Drury South Industrial Appendix as follows:
Proposed change/s: Reformat Appendix I410.11.1 to reflect Auckland Unitary Plan formatting (i.e. heading format, subheading format, heading and subheading numbering as well as diagram numbering and format).
Insert Attachment 5 into Appendix I410.11.1 – Attachment 5 outlines ‘Stream and Wetland Rehabilitation Guidelines June 2013’, provided as Attachment 35 to this report.
88 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 806
Amend I412 Flat Bush Precinct as follows:
I412.6. Standards
…
I412.6.1.1. Density
(1) The following density requirements shall apply within the Flat Bush Sub-precincts:
Table I412.6.1.1.1 Density requirements
A B D E F G H I J K Minimum 425 300 425 250 425 NA 520 2000 NA 1000 density NA (sqm net site area per dwelling)
Maximum 400 NA 150 180 300 NA NA NA NA NA allowable density within the MANA area (sqm per dwelling)
Maximum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5000 NA NA density
…
89 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 807
Amend as a consequential change, diagrams in I412.10. Flat Bush Precinct as follows:
Diagram I412.10.1. Flat Bush: Precinct plan 1 – Sub-precincts Boundary
Subject property: 317 Te Irirangi Drive, Clover Park, Auckland Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 345321 Current zone: Special Purpose – School Zone Proposed change: Remove sub-precinct A, D, and E over the subject site in I412.10.1 Flat Bush: Precinct plan1 – Sub-precincts Boundary (a snapshot of the area subject to change is taken from the diagram and shown below – please note this is not the full precinct plan diagram).
Remove sub- Remove sub- Remove sub- precinct E precinct D precinct A
90 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 808
Amend I417 Karaka North Precinct as follows:
I417.1. Precinct Description
The purpose of the Karaka North precinct…
The zoning of land within this precinct is Business - Local Centre Zone, Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, Residential - Single House Zone, Rural - Mixed Rural Zone and Rural - Rural Coastal Zone.
…
I417.4. Activity table The provisions in any relevant overlays, Auckland-wide provisions and the underlying zone apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. Table_I417.4.1 specifies the activity status of land use, development and subdivision activities in the Karaka North Precinct pursuant to section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act1991. A blank in Table I417.4.1 Activity table below means that the provisions of the overlays, zone or Auckland-wide the zone, overlay or Auckland-wide provisions apply. Table I417.4.1 Activity table
Activity Activity status Sub- Sub- Sub- precinct A precinct B precinct C Use Residential (A1) Dwellings in the Residential – Single House C C C and Residential – Mixed Housing Surburban Zones (A2) Dwellings in Sub-Precinct B and C not NA D D meeting Standard I417.6.1 (A3) Within the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - C NA NA Rural Coastal Zones, Ddwellings in the Rural - Rural Coastal outside the Rural Amenity Area or the Rural Character Area identified in identified in Karaka North: Precinct Plan 1 … Rural (A7) Equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed RD Rural or Rural – Rural Coastal Zone … …
I417.5. Notification (1)…
91 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 809
(2) Any application for resource consent for any of the following activities will be considered without public or limited notification or the need to obtain the written approval from affected parties unless the Council decides that special circumstances exist under section 95A(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991:
(c) restaurants in the Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone; and
(d) equestrian Centre in the Rural – Mixed Rural or Rural – Rural Coastal Zones.
…
I417.6. Standards The overlay…
I417.6.6. Minimum site size
(1) The minimum site sizes for the Karaka North sub-precincts is are set out in Table 0.1 Minimum site sizes below.
… I417.7. Assessment – controlled activities I417.7.1. Matters of control The Council will reserve its control to the following matters when assessing a controlled activity resource consent application, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant controlled activities in the zone, Auckland-wide, or overlay provisions: (1) subdivision … (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zones; and dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones: …
I417.7.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for controlled activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant controlled activities in the zone, Auckland wide or overlay provisions: (1) subdivision … (2) dwellings in the Residential – Single House, and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zones; and dwellings in the Rural – Mixed Rural, and Rural – Rural Coastal Zones: …
I417.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities
I417.8.1 Matters of discretion
The Council will restrict its discretion to all the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary activity resource consent application, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlay, Auckland-wide or zone provisions:
92 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 810
(1) restaurants …
(2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones:
…
I417.8.2 Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the Auckland wide or zone provisions: (1) restaurants …
(2) equestrian centre in the Rural - Mixed Rural or Rural - Rural Coastal Zones:
…
93 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 811
Amend I418 Kingseat Precinct as follows:
I418.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlay, Auckland wide or zone provisions:
(1)…
(16) Subdivision (a) In addition to considering the relevant assessment criteria I418.8.2(1) - (11)(15) above the Council will also consider : (i) whether the subdivision…
(17) Former Kingseat Hospital site and consistency with relevant precinct plans.
(a) The council in considering the relevant assessment criteria in I418.8.2(1) - (11)(16) above for subdivision and development considered restricted discretionary activities within the former Kingseat hospital site, will also consider the following matters:
(i) the overall character
(19) Historic heritage places (former Kingseat Hospital site) (a) Whether in…
(b) With reference to provision I418.8.2(19)(a) above and consideration of any scheduled building, structure, area or tree, assessment criteria in section I418.8.2(11)(c)(i) are relevant.
(c)…
…
94 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 812
Amend I429 Pararēkau and Kōpuahingahinga Islands Precinct as follows:
I429.9. Special information requirements
An application for subdivision to create one or more Residential - Single House Zone residential sites within Pararēkau Island or an access area or roading within Kōpuahingahinga Island activity must be accompanied by:
I429.9.1 Landscape Plan
(1) Applications for subdivision must provide a landscape plan for those parts of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands and includes:
(a) details in plan form, of existing and proposed vegetation, contours and structures including fences and landscape features;
(b) proposed locations of large grade specimen trees, groundcovers and shrubs and identification;
(c) a plant species schedule detailing plant species and mix grades at the time of planting;
(d) details of the location, height, design and type of any fencing an overview design statement;
(e) an overview design statement; and
(f) an indicative implementation and maintenance programme including timing of planting and weed management principles and means of preventing damage to planting by animals
...
95 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 813
Amend I430 Patamahoe Precinct as follows:
I430.6. Standards The overlay, zone… I430.6.4. Vehicle parking and access in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.5. On-site stormwater mitigation in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.6. Interface with Kingseat Road - all sites fronting Kingseat Road in sub- precincts B, C and D … I430.6.9. Landscape buffer in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.10. Public open space in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.11. Staging in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.6.12. Stormwater management in sub-precincts B, C and D … I430.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities The Council will restrict its discretion to… (1)… (2) Subdivision and infringements of subdivision standards: (a) consistency with the Patumahoe: Precinct plan 1 and Patumahoe: Precinct plan 2 – Staging and stormwater sub-catchment plan; … (d) the layout and design of any roads, vehicle access ways or pedestrian walkways shown on the Patumahoe: Precinct plan 1 and on Figures 1 – 4 below; …
I430.8.1. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria… (1) … (2) Subdivision and infringement of subdivision standards… … (e) For subdivision in sub-precincts B, C and D the following additional stormwater assessment criteria apply: (3) Additional assessment criteria for subdivision and infringement of subdivision standards in sub-precincts B, C and D (a) Stormwater:
96 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 814
(iv) Whether stormwater from sub-catchments “East” and “West 1” as identified in Patumahoe: Precinct plan 2 – Staging and stormwater sub-catchment plan is directed to the Main Stormwater Treatment/Detention Pond in Sub-precinct A (vii) Whether stormwater flows from the western sub-catchments “West 2” and “West 3” as identified in Patumahoe: Precinct plan 2 – Staging and stormwater sub- catchment plan are maintained at pre-development levels. (viiii) Whether a pond should be established on the northern corner of Sub-precinct D, primarily as a flood management system and landscape amenity feature but also as a stormwater quality improvement device if a pond in that location is required for the purpose of maintaining stormwater flows at a pre-development level. (ivii) If a pond is established on Sub-precinct D, whether it is treated as an amenity feature and landscaped accordingly. (viii) Whether on-site stormwater detention is also required (such as soakage pits) except where it can be demonstrated that geotechnical conditions within sub- precincts B, C and D do not allow for on-site soakage. (vix) Whether the development uses water sensitive design techniques, including swales, grey water rainwater harvesting for outdoor use, rain gardens, and/or permeable paving etc. (f)(b) In the event development of the sub-precincts B, C and D is staged:
(i) Whether sub-catchments “East” and “West 1” comprising stage 1 should be developed first and drain to the main pond on Sub-precinct A.
(ii) Whether sub-catchments “West 2” and “West 3” comprising stage 2 should drain to the western pond in Sub-precinct A
(gc) The extent to which the subdivision maintains the natural landform of the Patumahoe Hill by ensuring that the grading of individual lots does not occur as part of the subdivision engineering works; rather, the formation of building platforms occurs at the time individual sites are developed and the modification of the natural gradient of the Patumahoe Hill is thereby minimised. (hd) The extent to which lighting design for streets recognises the visually prominent hillside location of sub-precincts B, C and D by minimising all light pollution. (ie) Whether design of lighting standards includes bollard style standards for street lighting which can be mixed with pedestrian scaled light standards. (jf) The extent to which landscaping consists of ecologically sourced native plants (i.e. those that naturally occur in the Manukau Ecological District) which are appropriate to the site. (Examples of such species are set out in the typical plant palettes in Figure 5 and Tables 1–7 below). (kg) Whether plantings and other landscape features will result in a maintenance free mature landscape, insomuch as is practical. …
97 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 815
Amend I431 Pine Harbour Precinct as follows:
I431.6. Standards
The Auckland-wide and zone standards apply in this precinct unless specified below. All activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Tables I431.4.1, I431.4.2, and I431.4.3 must comply with the following permitted activity standards.
…
I431.6.6.Site depth
(1) The minimum site depth in Sub-precincts B and C must meet one of the following: (a) 22m if garages are located fronting the street; or
(b) 30m if garages do not front onto the street and are accessed from rear lane.
… I431.6.8 Maximum building coverage (1) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building coverage is 65 per cent of net site area for sites less than 200m2.
(2) For sub-precinct B, the maximum building coverage is 65 50 per cent of net site area for sites greater than 500 200m2.
(3) For sub-precinct C, the maximum building coverage is 50 per cent of net site area for sites less than 300m2.
(4) For sub-precinct BC, the maximum building coverage is 40 per cent of net site area for sites less than 300m2.
(5) For sub-precincts D and E, the maximum building coverage is 75 per cent of net site area.
(6) For sub-precinct F, the maximum building coverage is 80 per cent of net site area.
(7) For sub-precinct G, the maximum building coverage is 50 per cent of the precinct area.
…
98 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 816
Amend I432 Puhinui Precinct as follows:
I432.5. Notification (1) Any application for resource consent for an activity listed in Table.1 Activity table or Table.2 Activity table above will be subject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of the Resource Management Act 1991.
…
I432.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlay, Auckland wide or zone provisions: (1) for buildings…
(2) for road infrastructure
The assessment criteria within I432.8.2(1)(g) - Maori cultural landscape values above also applies to road infrastructure.
(a) standard…
(b) standard I432.6.1.2(23) and I432.6.1.2(34) Road Infrastructure (Traffic Generation): (i) whether traffic generated by the development will adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the road network; (ii) whether compliance with Standard I432.6.1.2(23) and I432.6.1.2(3,4) is demonstrated by: • an assessment of the traffic generation of the proposal including all modes of transport that would support the land uses proposed; • an assessment of the performance of the local network as a result of the development showing compliance with performance criteria in Standard I432.6.1.2(23) and I432.6.1.2(34); and • a location policy that ensures specified development takes place in locations that, where relevant, supports sustainable transport mode share. (iii) whether there are opportunities to reduce or remove access points to the State highway network as part of the development of new road infrastructure.
(3) for marine… (5) for urupā (a) effects on groundwater:
(i) whether an urupā would cause leachate emergence or contamination to groundwater; and (b) Vvisual effects on neighbouring sites or open spaces used for recreation:
99 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 817
(i)(ii) the extent to which there are measures to mitigate visual effects on neighbouring sites or open sites used for recreation.
(6) for yards and landscaping
(a) whether the proposed…
(d) whether the reduction of the Puhinui Road yard will compromise the future development of a rapid transit corridor along the southern boundary;
(e)…
100 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 818
Amend I433 Pukekohe Hill Precinct as follows:
I433.6. Standards
The standards applicable to the zone and Auckland-wide apply in this precinct, except for the following:
Standard H3.6.9 Maximum impervious area; Standard H3.6.10 Building coverage; and Standard E38.8.2.3 Vacant sites subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 Hectare.; and Standard E38.8.3.1 Vacant sites subdivisions involving parent sites of 1 hectare or greater.
All permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary activities listed in Table I433.4.1 Activity table must comply with the following standards.
…
I433.6.4. Stormwater soakage
(1) Pre-treated water must be diverted to a soakage system. The soakage system must comprise all of the following:
(a) soak holes, drilled to a sufficient depth to encounter permeable rock or soils, constructed with a selected backfill and tested to demonstrate the ability to dispose of the runoff volume;
(b) soakage trenches constructed with selected backfill and with sufficient volume to 3 2 store the designed runoff and trench volume must be calculated at a rate of 6m /100m of impervious area based on a sand porosity of 0.3;
(c) infiltration ponds constructed with sufficient volume to store the designed runoff and tested to demonstrate the ability to dispose of the runoff volume; and
(d) trench volume must be calculated at a rate of 6m3/100m2 of impervious area based on a sand porosity of 0.3; and
(d) (e) Standard I433.6.4 does not apply to Sub-precinct D.
…
101 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 819
Amend I434 Pukekohe Park Precinct as follows:
I434.6. Standards
All permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary activities listed in Table I434.4.1 must comply with the following activity standards unless otherwise stated.
I434.6.1. Motorsport activities noise
…
(2) The use of the track for any motorsport activity, except for vehicles undertaking track or facility maintenance or repairs, may only take place between: (a) Category A & B days between 7am to 7pm; (b) Category B days between 8am to 6pm; and (c) (b) Category C, D and E days between 10am to 5pm.
... I434.6.3. General noise (1) The noise (rating) level from any activity (other than activities provided for in rules I434.6.1 and I434.6.2) as measured at any notional boundary must not exceed the noise limits in Table I434.6.3.1. …
102 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 820
Amend I437 Runciman Precinct as follows:
I437.10.2. Runciman Precinct: Precinct plan 2 – reserves and connections
Proposed change/s: Add indicative route of the trails to I437.10.2 Precinct plan 2.
103 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 821
104 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 822
Amend I438 Takanini Precinct as follows:
I438.1. Precinct Description
The zoning of land…
The Takanini Precinct applies to some 26390 hectares of land. The precinct…
…
The precinct contains standards in response to known geotechnical limitations.
I438.1.1. Sub-precinct A Takanini Precinct: Sub-precinct A applies to some 53.5 55 hectares of land between the Papakura Stream, Takanini School Road, Manuroa Road and Porchester Road.
…
I438.1.2. Sub-precinct B Takanini Sub-precinct B applies to some 4.5 4.4 hectares of land with frontage to Porchester Road.
…
I438.1.3. Sub-precinct C Takanini Precinct: Sub-precinct C applies to some 184 177 hectares of land throughout the wider precinct, and covers the largest land area of the four sub-precincts.
…
I438.1.4. Sub-precinct D Takanini Precinct: Sub-precinct D applies to some 27 hectares an area of land between Papakura-Clevedon and Old Wairoa Roads. …
I438.10. Precinct plans
I438.10.1. Takanini Precinct: Precinct plan 1
Proposed change/s: Amend Precinct plan 1 - sub-precinct D as follows:
Update the plan to show the correct underlying road network and land parcels within sub-precinct D. Delete the indicative roads shown in the eastern part of sub-precinct D. Add the ‘restricted access to road frontages’ annotation to sub-precinct D (as shown in the Kirikiri Structure Plan). Improve the readability of the precinct plan
105 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 823
...
106 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 824
North
Amend I509 Greenhithe Precinct as follows:
I509.4. Activity table The provisions in any relevant overlays, zone and the Auckland-wide apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. Table I509.4.1 specifies the activity status of subdivision activities in the Greenhithe Precinct pursuant to section 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991. A blank in Table I509.4.1 Activity table below means that the provisions of the overlays, zone or Auckland-wide apply. Table I509.4.1 Activity table Activity Activity status Subdivision (A1) Vacant sites subdivision involving parent sites of less than 1ha (A2) Subdivision around existing buildings and development (A3) Subdivision in accordance with an approved land use resource consent (A1) Subdivision as listed in E38.4 Activity table (Chapter E38, Subdivision – Urban) (A4) Subdivision listed in (A1) to (A3) which does not comply with NC (A2) Standard 0I509.6.5.
…
I509.6. Standards The overlay, Residential - Large Lot Zone and Auckland-wide standards apply to development in this precinct, except for the following: E38 Subdivision – Urban – E38.8.2.3 Vacant sites subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare; E38 Subdivision – Urban – E38.8.3.1 Vacant sites subdivision involving parent sites of 1 hectare or greater; H1 Residential – Large Lot Zone – H1.6.4 (Yards);
H1 Residential – Large Lot Zone – H1.6.5 (Impervious surfaces); and H1 Residential – Large Lot Zone – H1.6.6 (Building coverage).
107 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 825
The Auckland-wide standards in E38 Subdivision – Urban applies to subdivision in this precinct, except for the following: Standard E38.8.2.3 (2) and Table E38.8.2.3.1 Minimum net site area for subdivisions involving parent sites of less than 1 hectare; and Standard E38.8.3.1 (2).
All activities listed as restricted discretionary in Table I509.4.1 Activity table, unless they are discretionary or non-complying activities, must comply with the following standards. … I509.6.2. Yards (1) A building or parts of a building must be set back from the relevant boundary by the minimum depth listed in Table I509.6.2.1 Yards. Table I509.6.2.1 Yards Yard Minimum depth Sites less than Sites between Sites over 1,499m2 1,500m2 and 4,000m2 3999m2 Front yard 5m 5m 10m Residential – Large Lot Zone standards apply Side and rear 1.2m 3m 6m yards Residential – Large Lot Zone standards apply
… Subdivision I509.6.5. Minimum net site area (1) Within Sub-precinct A, the minimum net site area for subdivision is 2ha. (2) Within Sub-precinct B, the minimum net site area for subdivision is 500m2 and must be in accordance with Table 0.1 Minimum net site area.
Table I509.6.5.1 Minimum net site area
108 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 826
Minimum net site area Requirements
Between 500m2 and Each site must: 2 2499m 2 i. have a minimum building envelope of 400m that has an average slope of less than 8 degrees; and ii. be capable of being connected to a reticulated wastewater network
Between 2500m2 and 1ha Each site must: i. have a minimum building envelope of 1500 m2 that has an average slope less than 15 degrees
Over 1ha No minimum requirements
… I509.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities … I509.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlay, zone or Auckland- wide provisions: (1) Effects associated … (2) Effects associated with the location and development of building platforms and accessways: (a) whether building platforms, access ways and development should be are located to:
(ii) integrate with the landscape and minimise visual obtrusion when viewed from public places including the coastal marine area; …
109 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 827
Amend I510 Gulf Harbour Marina Precinct as follows:
Table I510.4.1 Activity table – use on land and associated occupation of the common marine and coastal area [The regional coastal plan [rcp] provisions (for activities or resources in the coastal marine area) are not operative until the Minister of Conservation has formally approved the regional coastal plan part of the Auckland Unitary Plan.]
Activity status Sub-precinct A Sub- Sub- Activity precinct B precinct C Land [dp] CMA [rcp] Land [dp] Land [dp] Use … Industry (A12) Manufacture of vessels P C C NC NC and boating/marine equipment …
…
110 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 828
Amend I516 Kumeū Precinct as follows:
I516.6. Standards
The standards…
All activities listed as permitted and restricted discretionary in Tables I516.4.1 Precinct-wide, I516.4.2 Sub-precinct A, I516.4.3 Sub-precinct B, I516.4.4 Sub-precinct C and I516.4.5 Sub- precincts B, C and D must comply with the following permitted standards:
…
I516.6.2. Maximum retail/commercial gross floor area
(1) The total gross floor area of the following activities must not exceed 20,000m2 in the Kumeū Precinct…
(2) Trade suppliers are exempt from this standard.
…
I516.6.4. Yards
(1) A building or parts of a building must be setback from the relevant boundary by the minimum depth as listed below:
(a) riparian yard…
(b) front yard:
(i) 2 metres in Sub-precincts A and B where the front of a site or part of the site frontage is occupied by a car park or car park building …
…
I516.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities
I516.8.1. Matters of discretion
The Council will restrict…
(7) for buildings and external alterations and additions to existing buildings in addition to any matters specified for the activity itself:
(i)…
(ii) the matters of discretion in Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone H5.8.1(2) for dwellings apply to applications for 35 or more dwellings per site in Sub-precinct C; …
…
111 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 829
I516.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider…
(7) for buildings and external alterations and additions to existing buildings in addition to any matters specified for the activity itself:
(a) … (b) the assessment criteria in Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone H5.8.2(2) for dwellings apply to applications for 35 or more dwellings per site in Sub-precinct C;
…
112 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 830
Amend I519 Long Bay Precinct as follows:
I519.6.5. Height in relation to boundary
(1) …
(2) Development that does not comply with Standard I519.6.5(1) above is a restricted discretionary activity where located in Sub-precincts A, B, and D F to I.
…
Amend I530 Ōrewa 2 Precinct as follows:
I530.6.5. Yards
(1)…
(2) In the case of rear sites between 450m2 and 650m2 only one yard of a minimum of 6m will be required. All other yards are deemed to be side yards, only one of which will be required to be a minimum of 3m.
(3) All other yards are deemed to be side yards, only one of which will be required to be a minimum of 3m.
(43) For sites between 450m2 and 650m2 the combined depth of the front and rear yards must be a minimum of 9m.
(54) For sites between 450m2 and 650m2 the minimum depths in Table I530.6.1 are subject to the following: …
113 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 831
Amend I532 Pinewoods Precinct as follows:
I532.4. Activity table
Table I532.4.1 Activity table specifies…
Table 1532.4.1 Activity table
Activity Activity status Use Residential
(A1) Camping Grounds P (A2) Dwellings P Development
(A3) … …
114 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 832
Amend I537 Silverdale 3 Precinct as follows:
I537.4. Activity table
The provisions…
Table I537.4.1 Silverdale 3 Precinct (all of precinct)
…
Note for Vehicle movement in the PM peak:
Activity A2 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that this level of development within this precinct can occur without collectively generating more than 136 vehicle trips from this precinct on to east Coast Road and the Hibiscus Coast Highway in any one hour of the PM Peak (4pm to 6pm week days).
This rule Activity A3 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that this level of development can occur within this precinct without collectively generating more than 227 vehicle trips onto East Coast Road and the Hibiscus Coast Highway from this precinct in any one hour of the PM Peak (4pm to 6pm week days). Hibiscus Coast Bus Station is a public transport interchange on land with legal title: Section 1 SO 469067.
This standard Activity A4 is based on traffic analysis and modelling demonstrating that subject to the above road network improvements greater than 227 vehicle trips in any one hour of the PM Peak (4pm to 6pm week days) but not more than 461 vehicle trips collectively onto East Coast Road and the Hibiscus Coast Highway in any one hour of the PM Peak from this precinct is acceptable in terms of effects on the external road network.
The additional third eastbound lane should be designed to maximise lane utilisation. The purpose of the short exclusive left-turn lane into Brian Smith Road is to avoid left turn vehicles blocking through vehicles.
This rule Activity A5 does not oblige the Council to fund, or Auckland Transport to construct, Penlink in any particular timeframe.
Table I537.4.2 Silverdale 3 Precinct Sub-precinct A – Gateway Business and Sub- precinct C – Work / Live
Activity Activity status Use Accommodation (A10) Visitor accommodation D Commerce (A29) Commercial services P
(A11) Major recreation facility D (A30) Dairies P
(A12) Department stores NC
115 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 833
(A13) Drive through restaurant RD (A31) Food and beverage P (A14) Entertainment Facilities (excluding cinemas) RD (A15) Offices up to 500m2 RD (A16) Retail except as set out in this table NC (A17) Retail for the sale of goods accessory to the main activity on a site RD (A32) Service stations RD (A18) Trade suppliers RD (A19) Industrial activities except waste management RD (A20) Healthcare facilities RD Community (A21) Care centres RD (A33) Emergency services RD (A34) Recreation facility P (A35) Marae complex P
Development (A22) Any development generally in accordance with I537.10.1 RD Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1 (A23) Any development not generally in accordance with I537.10.1 D Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1 (A24) New buildings RD (A25) Additions and external alterations to buildings RD
…
I537.6. Standards The standards applicable to the zone, overlays and Auckland-wide apply in this precinct, except that the following unless as specified below: …
I537.6.2. Indicative Roads
In addition to the Auckland-wide subdivision standards the following apply:
(1)…
(2) With the exception of Standard I537.6.2(1) above the alignment of those indicative roads specifically identified on I537.10.1 Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1 may be varied by more than up to 20m.
…
116 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 834
I537.10. Precinct plans
I537.10.1 Silverdale 3: Precinct plan 1
Proposed change/s: Amend text within the Key as follows:
Indicative Roads (may be varied by more than 20m, see clause standard I537.6.23.3 may be removed) Indicative Roads (see clause standard I537.6.23.3)
…
117 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 835
Amend I541 Te Arai North Precinct as follows:
I541.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the zone, Auckland wide or overlay provisions.
I541.8.2.1. Subdivision for the creation of up to 43 new house sites in addition to the 3 sites existing at 30 September 2013
(1) The adequacy of measures proposed to ban cats and dogs and other inappropriate domestic pets.
(2) The extent to which proposed measures to protect shorebirds, lizards and threatened plant species, during earthworks and the construction period and thereafter are adequate and appropriate.
(3) Note: Where the measures in (1) – (2) are not provided, the subdivision will be considered inappropriate.
(43) Whether the subdivision maintains the special character and amenity of the Rural - Rural Coastal zone including whether the subdivision will avoid adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on the rural character anticipated in the zone.
(54) The extent to which the subdivision, including provision for access and utilities, avoids extensive landform modification and appropriately manages potential adverse effects on the landscape and amenity values of the particular area. Where this is not achievable, the subdivision will be considered to be inappropriate.
(65) The extent to which the subdivision and site development, including provisions for access and utilities, uses the existing landform as far as is practicable so that adverse effects on the landscape and discharge of silt are avoided or appropriately mitigated.
(76) The extent to which the subdivision and associated works avoids adverse effects on the natural quality of any waterbodies, including streams flowing to the sea and the sea itself.
(87) Whether specified building areas identified in the subdivision allow for any house or structure to be built below the brow of any ridge or hill on which it would be sited so that the highest point of any building or structure is below the landform or any existing trees or bush screening the building site, when the site (or sites) is viewed from any public road or public land including any beach or the sea, but excluding any areas of reserve proposed to be vested or regional park.
(98) Whether sites viewed from excluding any areas of reserve proposed to be vested for regional park allow specified building areas for future buildings to be integrated into the landscape as far as practical to avoid adverse visual amenity effects or where avoidance is not practicable, whether effects will be remedied or mitigated.
118 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 836
Where this is not achievable, the specified building area/s will be considered inappropriate.
(109) The extent to which exterior lighting, including any street lighting, is to be provided so as to not be prominent, particularly against a dark background, when viewed from any public place including the coast, and the extent to which such lighting avoids adversely affect nesting shorebirds.
(1110) Whether the subdivision ensures the protection or enhancement of the high landscape values of the area having regard to the local landscape’s ability to absorb change in respect of other factors, including the nature and variability of local terrain, the extent and distribution of vegetation cover, and the location and nature of existing development and structures in it.
(1211) Whether the subdivision, including the location of specified building areas, ensures the protection or enhancement of the natural character of the coastal environment, and avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the natural landforms and vegetation cover that contributes to such character and values having regard to: (a) current levels of naturalness and the integrity of that part of the coastal environment; and, (b) screening and integration potential afforded by natural landforms and vegetation.
(1312) The extent to which the subdivision and development protects and does not adversely affect in a more than minor way the natural functioning of coastal processes.
(1413) The extent to which the subdivision does not have significant adverse effects on wildlife, flora and ecological values and any such effects are avoided or effectively mitigated.
(1514) The extent to which the subdivision and subsequent development does not adversely affect any flora or fauna species including threatened or endangered species on the site or in the surrounding area, including the area of land that extends down to the mean high water springs.
(1615) The extent to which the subdivision avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on: threatened or at risk species; indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened in the Auckland Region or are naturally rare; and areas containing nationally and regionally significant examples of indigenous community types.
(1716) Whether the subdivision avoids significant adverse effects and avoids, remedies or mitigates other adverse effects of activities on: areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment; habitats that are important during the vulnerable life stages of indigenous species; and indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are found only in the coastal environment and which are particularly vulnerable to modification, including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, intertidal zones and saltmarsh, and ecological corridors.
(1817) The extent to which vehicle access to sensitive areas is avoided and walkway access limited to a small number of defined walking paths to ensure that any
119 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 837
adverse effects on the quality and/or remote character of the precinct and beach environment and the adverse effects on the ecological values of the dunes are avoided. This includes measures to prevent vehicle access to the beach from the site except for emergency responses or management purposes.
(1918) Whether the subdivision retains a rural character and does not create an urban character.
(2019) The extent to which measures at the time of subdivision ensure that buildings on the new site created in Area A on I541.10.1 Te Arai North: Precinct plan 1 as “Areas In Which Rural Residential New Sites Can Be Created” are not visible from Te Arai Point Road, Te Arai beach, and existing local and regional reserve land (excluding any new public reserve on land in the Precinct). Where this occurs, buildings will be considered inappropriate.
(21) Note: In circumstances where one or more of the above criteria are not met, the proposal may be considered inappropriate and the Council in its discretion may refuse consent, or grant consent to a lesser number of sites, and/or to a different design of subdivision.
(2220) Whether traffic is to be managed to ensure that the local road network will function safely and efficiently when subjected to the increased traffic movements associated with any subdivision of the site.
(2321) Whether stormwater runoff from roof and paved areas is to be discharged in a manner that is hydrologically neutral by excess flows, volumes and timing of runoff in excess of pre-development runoff, being discharged to ground through suitable storage and soakage systems.
(2422) Whether the measures to be implemented to ban pest plants are adequate and appropriate to achieve the policies of the precinct.
(2523) Whether the density of the proposed subdivision provides for the sustainable land management of the precinct.
(2624) Whether the proposed subdivision includes legally binding mechanisms to ensure adherence of owners and their successors in title to the CSMP
…
120 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 838
Amend I545 Waiwera Precinct as follows:
I545.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities
I545.8.1. Matters of discretion
The Council will restrict …
(5) Conference facilities, food and beverage facilities and healthcare facilities greater than 500m2 in Subprecincts A and B:
…
I545.8.2. Assessment criteria
The Council will …
(5) Conference facilities, food and beverage facilities and healthcare facilities greater than 500m2 in Subprecincts A and B:
…
121 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 839
West
Amend as a consequential change, diagrams in I603 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct as follows:
Diagram I603.10.1 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 1
Proposed change/s: Extend the I603 Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary over the subject sites in diagrams I603.10.1 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 1
Extend the Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary, in accordance with the green line shown below
122 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 840
Diagram I603.10.2 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2 – transport plan
Proposed change/s: Extend the I603 Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary over the subject sites in diagrams I603.10.2 Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2- transport plan
Extend the Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A boundary, in accordance with the green line shown below
123 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 841
Amend I605 Hobsonville Point Precinct provisions as follows:
Table I605.4.1 Activity Table – Sub-precincts A-E (Residential Zones)
Activity Activity status Hobsonville Buckley Sunderland Airfields Catalina Point Sub- Sub-precint Sub- Sub- Village precinct (Sub- precinct precinct Sub- (Sub- precinct C) (Sub- (Sub- precinct precinct precinct precinct (Sub- B) D) E) precinct A) Use Commerce… (A16) Five Three or more P P P P P dwellings per site within the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone …
Table I605.4.2 Activity table – Sub-precinct F (Mixed Use Zone)…
Note 5
‘’Frontage’ has the same meaning as in Rule I605.6.7.2. For the avoidance of doubt, ‘demolition’ does not include the removal and replacement of cladding, roofing, doors, windows, gutters and spouting and the like.
…
I605.6. Standards…
All subdivision that is a controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity must comply with the standards I605.6.3, I605.6.5.8, I605.6.8, and I605.6.9.1., I605.6.9.2, I605.6.10 and I605.6.10.1.
…
Table I605.6.4.5.1 Outdoor living space
(sitting under the table)
* Refer to definition of 'small house' in Note 1 for Table I605.6.4.7.1 Outlook space and building separation
…
Table H1.6.4.9.2 I605.6.4.9.2 Apartments
…
124 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 842
I605.6.9. Subdivision - Landing Sub-precinct (Sub-precinct F)
(1) The subdivision standards for the Landing Sub-precinct (Sub-precinct F) are those applying to the underlying residential Business - Mixed use zones and listed...
...
I605.8.2.9. Infrastructure …
(8) Catchment wide stormwater management facilities such as wetlands and treatment ponds should only be used as a final form of treatment, not the primary form.
(8) (9) Stormwater retention and treatment facilities are to be designed to retain in-stream ecological values and added additional habitat where possible.
(9) (10) Development should retain, enhance and provide protection for riparian margins, coastal edges and esplanade reserves.
(10) (11) Public open spaces should be provided and developed so that they are:
(a) readily visible and accessible by adopting methods such as a generous street frontages or bordering onto yards of sites and front faces of buildings that are clear of visual obstructions; (b) located to provide visual relief, particularly in intensively developed areas; (c) integrated with surrounding development; (d) sized and developed according to community and neighbourhood needs; (e) consistent with any current and/or proposed council parks strategy; and (f) easy to maintain.
(11) (12) The coastal walkway and all other walkways should be designed to be:
(a) suitable and safe for regular pedestrian use; (b) easily visible and accessible; (c) located seaward of adjoining development; and (d) linked to the public walkway and cycleway network.
…
125 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 843
Amend I610 Redhills Precinct provisions as follows:
I610.4. Activity table
The activity status in the overlay, zone and Auckland-wide provisions apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below.
Note: the activity status for subdivision in E38 Subdivision – Urban apply to subdivision in this precinct and the specific provisions of Standards I610.6.4 below also apply. Where there is any conflict between the Auckland-wide and zone standards, and standards I610.6.3 and I610.6.4, then standards I610.6.3 and I610.6.4 take precedence.
Table I610.4.1 specifies the activity status of land use, development and the provision of wastewater disposal and water supply associated with subdivision activities in the Redhills Precinct. Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone adjacent to Fred Taylor Drive between Dunlop Road and the Don Buck Road roundabout pursuant to sections 9(3) and 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Activities (A1) to (A8) inclusive apply to the Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone adjacent to Fred Taylor Drive.
…
I610.8.2. Assessment criteria
The council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlay, Auckland wide or zone provisions:
(1) Offices greater than …
(8) Subdivision and development which does not comply with Standard I610.6.1 Infrastructure Upgrades and Timing of Development - Transport or Standard I610.6.2 Infrastructure Upgrades and Location of Development - Transport but proposes alternative measures to achieve required transport access, capacity and safety, shall: (a) demonstrate that all necessary transport infrastructure services external to the precinct are available, including bulk water, wastewater and road infrastructure, and can be connected in a timely and co-ordinated manner to service the precinct; (b) demonstrate that sufficient evidence of capacity in the wastewater, water and roading networks exists; (c) ensure that networks to the subdivision area can be supplied with (and connected to public system for) water and wastewater services and roading external to the precinct; (c) (d) demonstrate the extent to which any staging of subdivision will be required due to the co-ordination of the provision of infrastructure; and (d) (e) where public roading infrastructure is required to be upgraded extended, undertake the preparation of an infrastructure funding agreement or other such measure that must be agreed with all relevant service providers to ensure that the infrastructure required to service the subdivision can be funded and provided in a timely manner.
…
126 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 844
Amend I615 Westgate Precinct provisions as follows:
I615.4 Activity table The provisions … Table I615.4.3 Development - Sub-precinct G
Activity Activity status Development (A18) Any vehicle access to Fred Taylor Drive, other than through the D strategic access points identified in Precinct plan 2, or left in left out access points on Fred Taylor Drive. (A19) Roads and pedestrian linkages RD
… I615.8. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities I615.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities, in addition to the assessment criteria specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the zone, Auckland-wide or overlay provisions… (2) Integrated development: … (k) Whether community facilities are located in a place positions shown on the Westgate Precinct: Precinct plan 1 or a location nearby that offers visual prominence and is easily accessible for pedestrians and public transport users; …
127 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 845
I615.10. Precinct plans I615.10.1. Westgate Precinct plan 1 Proposed change/s: Delete ‘community facility’ from the key and corresponding blue hatched map annotation on Precinct plan 1.
128 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 846
Special Housing Areas
Amend Hingaia 1 Precinct provisions as follows:
4. Development controls The development controls in the Mixed Housing Urban zone…
4.5 On-site Stormwater Management – new impervious surfaces
1. In the catchments on Precinct plan 2 (catchments draining to intermittent or permanent streams (as indicated on Hingaia 1 – Precinct Map) all new impervious surfaces of 50m² and over are to be designed to achieve the following:
a. Provide retention (volume reduction) of at least 5mm of run-off depth for the impervious area for which hydrology mitigation is required; …
Amend Huapai Triangle Precinct provisions as follows:
Precinct Description The Huapai Triangle precinct… … The Mixed Housing Suburban zone, with appropriate modifications for the Huapai Triangle precinct, is applied to the majority of the precinct to enable the development of a new neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Centre zone provisions are applied to the central neighbourhood centre. The Green Corridor zone, with appropriate modifications for the Huapai Triangle precinct, is applied to the majority of the precinct to enable the development of a new neighbourhood. The Green Corridor zone Infrastructure Corridor Zone, with appropriate modifications is applied to the northern and eastern periphery of the precinct containing stormwater management areas, susceptible to flooding, green linkages, and potential car parking close to Huapai station for future rail passenger services.
…
129 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 847
Chapter J Definitions
Amend J1 Definitions as follows:
J1.4. Definitions
… Building
Any permanent or temporary structure.
On land for the purposes of district plan provisions, “building” includes the following types of structures listed in Table J1.4.1, only where they meet the qualifying dimensions or standards:
Table J1.4.1: Buildings
Table J1.4.1: Buildings Type of structure Qualifying dimension or standard … Stacks or heaps of materials Over 2m high. Do not exist In existence for more than one month …
…
Gross floor area
(1) ……
(2) For the purposes of calculating gross floor area (FAR): (GFA): the sum of the total floor area of all buildings on a site as measured:
…
Height
Height is the vertical distance between the highest part of a building and structure and a reference point. The reference point outside the coastal marine area is ground level unless otherwise stated in a rule. The reference point inside the coastal marine area is mean sea level. Height rules or standards are always a maximum unless otherwise stated in a rule or standard.
The exclusions below apply both outside and inside the coastal marine area.
Any reference in the exclusions below to ‘zones’ includes a reference to any precinct that applies to relevant parts of those zones. The exclusions apply to any such precinct, unless a specific exclusion is varied by the precinct.
Excludes: (1) In all zones, projections (other than those listed in (2)-(4) below) that are up to:
130 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 848
a) 2m in width on any elevation; and b) 1.5m above the maximum permitted activity height or the daylighting height in relation to boundary standard for the site, whichever is the lesser; (2) In all zones: a) Steeples… b) Chimneys that do not exceed 1.1m width on any elevation or that do not exceed 1.5m above the permitted activity for the site; c) Flagpoles…
…
Site
Any area of land which meets one of the descriptions set out below:
(a) …
(b) an area of land which is composed of two or more contiguous lots held in two or more certificates of title where such titles are:
(i) subject to a condition imposed under section 37 75 of the Building Act 2004 or section 643 of the Local Government Act 1974; or
…
Yard
The part of a site that must be kept clear and unobstructed by buildings from the ground upwards. Yards are always measured in a horizontal plane and at right angles to the site boundary or other line that substitutes for the site boundary. A yard control is always a minimum dimension unless otherwise stated.
Excludes:
eaves of any building and any roof, gutter or downpipe that projects over any yard by not more than 750mm; and fire escapes required under the NZ Building Act 1991. ; and any crop support structures, artificial crop protection structures, hedges, or shelter belts.
See also: Front yard, Side yard, Rear yard, Lakeside yard and Riparian yard
Amend with immediate legal effect,J1 Definitions as follows:
J1.4. Definitions
…
Pest plant removal
The alteration or removal of any tree or vegetation listed as a plant pest within the Auckland Regional Plant Pest Management Strategy, Department of Conservation Pest Plants List or
131 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 849
the National Pest Plant Accord (excluding research organisms) under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Excludes: the removal of notable trees. ….
Vegetation alteration or removal
Damaging, cutting, destroying or removing any part of vegetation including roots.
Includes: tree alteration. tree removal. works within the protected root zone.
Excludes: the alteration or removal of vegetation planted as crop, garden or pasture.
…
132 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 850
Chapter L Schedules
Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule
Remove with immediate legal effect, Outstanding Natural Feature Overlay ID 80 from Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay schedule as follows:
Schedule 6: Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule [rcp/dp]
ID Name Location Site Type Description Unitary Plan Criteria
…
80 Lunn Avenue Mount E At the western foot of Mt a,b,d baked Wellington Wellington scoria cone, sediments, Mt sediments are baked beneath Wellington and within the thick accumulation of basalt lava. Lenses of natural brick are visible in the dark, jointed, quarry face.
…
Council will not renumber subsequent schedule items.
133 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 851
Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule
Amend with immediate legal effect, Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule as follows:
#1 Proposed Macrons are missing from some of the words within Schedule 12. change/s: Amend Ngati to Ngāti Amend Pa to Pā Amend Urupa to Urupā Amend Mangere to Māngere Amend Papakainga to Papakāinga Amend Ngati Whatua o Orakei to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Amend Tamaki to Tāmaki Amend Kokota to Kōkota Amend Te To to Te Tō Amend Poutukeha to Poutūkeha
The inclusion of macrons does not change the intent of the Schedule or Overlay.
Affected Schedule 003, 011, 020, 021, 030, 031, 032, 033, 047, 048, 052, 054, 057, ID(s) 058, 059, 064, 065, 072, 073, 074
#2 Proposed The site name and/or location description for 37 sites within change/s: Schedule 12 are incorrect or unclear. Technical error (clarification or explanation and/or inconsistency of references, terms or formatting).
The recommended amendments do not change the intent of the Schedule or associated Overlay. It corrects and/or provides greater clarity about, the location of the sites.
Affected Schedule 001, 005, 007, 009, 010, 011, 013, 014, 015, 018, 019, 021, 022, ID(s) 023, 024, 029, 030, 034, 035, 036, 037, 043, 044, 048, 049, 050, 052, 053, 054, 055, 058, 059, 060, 061, 072, 074, 075
134 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 852
#3 Proposed The nominating Iwi is missing for many of the sites. This information change/s: was confirmed and collated during the hearings process but not reflected the decisions version of the Unitary Plan. Technical error (clear mistake between different versions of the Plan).
The recommended amendments do not change the intent of the Schedule or associated Overlay. It corrects and/or provides greater clarity about, the location of the sites.
Affected Schedule 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 012, 013, 014, ID(s) 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046
135 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 853
Amend with immediate legal effect, Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule as follows:
Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule [The regional coastal plan [rcp] provisions (for activities or resources in the coastal marine area) are not operative until the Minister of Conservation has formally approved the regional coastal plan part of the Auckland Unitary Plan.] All provisions in this schedule are regional coastal plan and district plan [rcp/dp]
* Denotes that the site exception rule applies.
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua 001 Tukituki TukiTuki Cox's Creek Walkway Muka adjoining adjoins rear boundaries of 47 and 49 Webber Street, Grey Lynn 002 Te Tokaroa Coyle Park, Point Rock outcrop Ngāti Whātua o headland and Te Chevalier Ōrākei Ara Whakapekapeka a Ruarangi 003 Rangimatarau 16 Joan Street and cliff Ngāti Ngati Paoa top properties extending northwards along Point Chevalier Road to, and including a portion of Coyle Park 004 Nga Kauaewhati Old Mill Road extending from old zoo entrance westerly to toe of bank 005 One-Maru Point Erin base of cliff Point Erin Park, between 117-121 Shelley Beach Road and Northern Motorway 006 Te Koraenga Oka Point Erin Park 007 Ko Takerehaea Point Erin Park, end of St Marys Bay Road (reserve at foot of road) 008 Wai Orea Western Springs main lake 009 Nga Wharau a 87-89 Albert Street, North eastern Tako 4 and 6-12 Kingston corner of land Street, and 60, 65- bordered by 71 Federal Street Kingston Street and Federal
136 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 854
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua Albert Street 87-89, Street (one Kingston Street property only), 4,12-14 and 16, and plus adjacent Federal Street portion of Federal Street; plus portion of land enclosed by Kingston Street, Albert Street, Victoria Street West and Federal Street; plus Kingston Street between Federal Street and Albert Street 010 * Te Horo Roa Road reserve at Former intersection of Anzac position of a Avenue and Beach Road Pā, part of which slipped Anzac Avenue/Beach away, killing Road (intersection) Road many people. reserve at bottom of Anzac Ave Site of significant event – controversial encounter with Governor Grey 011 * A) Wai Kōkota Victoria Park, Wai Kokota Ngāti Ngati Paoa Kokota Beaumont Street, A) Shell fish B) Te Tō To Fanshawe Street gathering area Victoria Park bordered during low tide by Victoria Street B) Headland West, Halsey Street, canoe hauling Fanshawe Street and area below site Beaumont Street; plus of significant Fanshawe Street event between Daldy Street and Halsey Street; plus
137 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 855
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua Beaumont Street beneath Viaduct over-pass 012 * Pari Tuhu Federal Street and Ancient Pā site Wolfe Street (intersection) 013 * Te Paneiriiri Fanshawe Ceremony of Street/Hardinge Street conquest North-eastern corner of land bordered by Fanshawe Street and Hardinge Street (includes four properties); plus Hardinge Street between Fanshawe Street and Graham Street 014 * Te Hika a Rama Hobson/Fanshawe Gathering place Street intersection & Sturdee Street (Hobson Street and Fanshawe Street intersection; plus the immediately adjacent portion of Sturdee Street) 015 * Ngahu Wera Albert Street bordering Site of significant Customs Street West event. Exercise A small portion of of traditional Albert Street tribal justice southward and bordering Customs Street West 016 * Horotiu Queen Street 301-303 Pā site located (Town Hall Site); plus above Waihorotiu Aotea Square; plus the foot of Greys Avenue adjacent 017 * Te Whatu Shortland Canoe mooring Street/Queen site Street/Swanson Street (intersection)
138 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 856
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua 018 * Te Toangaroa Stanley Street/Churchill Site of significant Street/Parnell Rise event - scene of Majority on land early battle enclosed by Stanley Street, Churchill Street and Parnell Rise; plus the adjacent portion of the Stanley Street road reserve; plus intersection of Stanley Street and Parnell Rise; plus the adjacent portion of Parnell Rise 019 * Te Tara Karaehe Swanson Street , Canoe landing Hobson Street, Federal site Street Swanson Street between Hobson Street and Federal Street; plus property adjacent to, and south of, Swanson Street; plus intersection of Federal Street and Swanson Street, and a portion of Federal Street south of Swanson Street; plus intersection of Hobson Street and Swanson Street 020 * Te Koranga Victoria Street/Halsey Fish drying area Street (intersection) 021 * Te ReuroaPa Waterloo Quadrant, Major Pā site Ngāti Whātua o Te Reuroa Pā Anzac Avenue, Beach and Papakāinga Ōrākei Road area; Old Government House; plus majority of land enclosed by Parliament Street, Symonds Street and Waterloo Quadrant; plus eastern corner of land bordered by Parliament Street and Eden Crescent
139 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 857
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua 022 Urupā 189R Burswood Drive, Urupā East Tamaki Pakuranga Creek 252R Ti Rakau Drive, East Tamaki 023 Urupā 15 Blackburn Road, East Urupā Tamaki 43 Crooks Road (located on Blackburn Road), East Tamaki 024 Urupā 83 Greenmount Drive, Urupā East Tamaki 333 Botany Road (located on Greenmount Drive), East Tamaki 025 Te Naupata 20 Musick Point Road, Musick Point Bucklands Beach 026 Urupā 27 Church Road, Urupā Mangere Bridge 027 Urupā 22 Waipouri Road, Urupā Mangere 028 Urupā Pukaki Marae 98 Pukaki Urupā Road, Mangere 029 Otuataua/Puke 14R Quarry Road, 56 Taapapa Ihumatao Quarry Road (Pukeiti) and 303 Ihumatao Road 545 Oruarangi Road, 14R Quarry Road, 53 and 56 Ihumatao Quarry Road 367, 325 and 303 Ihumatao Road 030 Māngere Mountain Māngere Domain, 17R Māngere Domain Road, Māngere Mountain 031 Ambury Park 66 Wellesley Road, Ambury Park Stonefields Māngere Bridge Stonefields 032 Puketutu Island 600 Island Road, Māngere Bridge 033 Maunga Taketake 290, 292 & 296 Ihumatao Ellett's Mountain Road, Māngere 034 Matukuturua 58 McLaughlins Road, Matukuturua stonefields 5R Wilco Place & 20 Stonefields Hautu Drive, Manukau
140 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 858
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua 215 Roscommon Road, Wiri 035 Wiri South 166 and 172 Waahi Tapu Area Stonefields and Roscommon Road Wiri South Lava Cave 172 Roscommon Road Stonefields and LavaCave and 220, 244 & 266 Wiri Lava Cave Staton Road, Wiri LavaCave 036 Maunga McLaughlins Road, Wilco McLaughlins Matukutureia Place, Stonehill Drive & Mountain 20 Hautu Drive, Manukau 189 & 215 Roscommon Road 48 McLaughlins Road, Wiri 037 Wiri North 149 & 220 Wiri Staton Wiri North Stonefields Road, Wiri 114 Stonefields Roscommon Road, Wiri 038 Urupā 37 Kawakawa Bay Coast Urupā Road, Kawakawa Bay 039 Urupā 33 Kawakawa Bay Coast Urupā Road, Kawakawa Bay 040 Urupā 29 Kawakawa Bay Coast Urupā Road, Kawakawa Bay 041 Urupā 1415 Clevedon – Urupā Kawakawa Road, Kawakawa Bay 042 Urupā 172R Maraetai Coast Urupā Road, Umupuia 043 Urupā 600 666R Orere - Urupā Matingarahi Road 044 Whakakaiwhara 933R North Road, Clevedon Proposed Regional Park 045 Oue Pā 829 North Road, Pā Clevedon 046 Tauwhare Pā 80 Davidson Road, Pā Kiwitahi Pt Mblk Tauwhare ML 3424 047 Wai Ariki Between 16 Waterloo Waiora – A water Ngāti Whātua o Quadrant and 15 Eden supply having the Ōrākei / Ngāti Crescent); Auckland status of Ngati Paoa University Law Library untainted life Carpark blood. Historic
141 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 859
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua natural spring that fed surrounding Papakāinga and Pā Papakainga and pa such as Rangi Puke (Albert Park) and Te Reuroa (High Court area). 048 Onehunga Bottom of Princes Street Waahi Ngāti Whātua o (especially the whakahirahira. Ōrākei location of a 19th 55, 57-60 Princes Street, Historic Te Taou, Century village at 120 Onehunga Mall, 126 Nga Oho, Te the foot of Princes Onehunga Mall, and Uringutu (Ngāti St) including a portion of Whātua o Ōrākei Onehunga Mall and Ngati Whatua o Princes Street, Orakei) village Onehunga. site. Village was in extensive use by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Ngati Whatua o Orakei and their allies in early Auckland. John Logan Campbell is recorded as visiting Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei NWoO chief, Te Kawau here to negotiate the purchase of land. 049 Te Pūpū o Tāhuna Tōrea Reserve, Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Kawau including sandspit, 338 & whakahirahira Ōrākei (Tāhuna 340 West Tamaki Road, Tōrea); Glendowie 050 Te Wai o Valonia Reserve, 1, 25 Wetlands Ngāti Whātua o Rakataura & 25A Valonia Street, wetlands to Ōrākei New Windsor south of Valonia Street, Ōwairaka / Mt UnderwoodPark, Albert
142 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 860
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua Walmsley Park, Alan Wood Reserve 051 Mataharehare Bottom of Brighton Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Road, Parnell whakahirahira Ōrākei 052 Kohimaramara / Tāmaki Tamaki Yacht Waahi tapu, Wai Ngāti Whātua o Bastion Rock Club, Tāmaki Drive, tapu Ōrākei Takaparawha Point Ōrākei 053 Tokiwhatinui Auckland Hospital, 2 Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Park Road, Grafton whakahirahira. Ōrākei Battle site in the grounds of the present day Auckland Hospital 054 Ōpoutūkeha Cox's Bay Reserve, Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Westmere whakahirahira. Ōrākei Named after the ancestor Poutūkeha Poutukeha. The creek is an ancient boundary line between Ngāti Ngati Huarere and Ngāti Ngati Pou. 055 Te Tō Waka Head of Tāmaki River at Ōtāhuhu portage Ngāti Whātua o Ōtāhuhu portage Ōtāhuhu, near Canal Waahi tapu, Wai Ōrākei Ōtāhuhu portage Reserve and Portage tapu. Head of Road, Ōtāhuhu TamakiRiver at Ōtāhuhu. May be nationally Significant portage for waka including ancestral waka. 056 Pou Hawaiki - Mt Eden, Auckland Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Owhatihue College of Education whakahirahira Ōrākei carpark building 057 Urupā Urupa 5 Woodside Road, Mt Urupā Urupa, Ngāti Whātua o Eden burial site Ōrākei 058 Urupā Urupa 209 St Andrews Urupā. Urupa, Ngāti Whātua o Road, Three Kings burial site Ōrākei
143 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 861
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua Historic burial site related to the use and occupation of Te Tātua Taua a Riukiuta - the 3 Kings Pā pa complex. 059 Waahi Emily Place Reserve Waahi Ngāti Whātua o whakahirahira whakahirahira. Ōrākei The birth of Auckland on September 18, 1840 occurred in this area. Involved the signing of a land deed by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Ngati Whatua o Orakei chiefs gifting 3,500 acres of the modern CBD to establish Auckland City.
060 Te Ana Rua a Melville Park grounds, Waahi Ngāti Whātua o Rangimarie between the cricket whakahirahira Ōrākei pavilion and 22 St Andrews Road
King George Avenue, Epsom 061 Waitaramoa Waitaramoa Reserve - Ngāti Whātua o Beach Road and Ōrākei Portland Road, Hobson Bay, Remuera
062 Te Rōutu o Ureia Point Erin, Auckland Wāhi tapu. Ureia Ngāti Paoa Harbour Bridge is the renowned taniwha of the Marutuahu tribes of Hauraki.
144 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 862
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua 063 Urupā 16 George Bourke Drive, Urupā for the Ngāti Paoa Mt Wellington fallen from a battle. 064 Ō Peretu Vauxhall Road, Former Pā pā, Ngāti Paoa Takapuna kāinga, urupā, battle site. 065 Te Pane o Horoiwi Foreshore behind Former Pā pā. Ngāti Paoa properties at 665-697 Above above Riddell Road, Glendowie Karaka Bay (Ōrohe) 066 Urupā Fraser Road Northern portion of 5-7 Settlement, Ngāti Paoa Fraser Road and the land terracing and on the western and urupā south-western corners of the intersection of Fraser Road and Morrin Road including both grass berm and footpath 067 Karaka Taupo Within road reserve in Traditional urupā Ngāti Paoa front of 42 Kawakawa near Ngāti Paoa Bay Coast Road settlement 068 Karaka Taupo 42 Kawakawa Bay Coast Traditional grave Ngāti Paoa Road. North East portion of Karaka Taupo block extending toward the Karaka stream. 069 Urupā at Karaka On foreshore opposite 29 Urupā Ngāti Paoa Taupo on Kawakawa Bay Coast foreshore Road, Kawakawa Bay 070 Urupā at Karaka Rautawa Stream Urupā Ngāti Paoa Taupo, Kawakawa entrance and foreshore Bay 071 Te Ana o Cave inlet at north Location where Ngāti Paoa Kahumauroa eastern foreshore of Kahumauroa was Maungauika, North held. Battle site Head. Section 1 SO 454837 072 Te Tauoma Maunga known as Te Former Pā pā Ngāti Paoa Purchas Hill Tauoma or Purchas Hill, 84 & 100 Morrin Road, St Johns 073 Karaka Bay Foreshore area below Located below the Ngāti Paoa (Ōrohe) Peacock Street, Pā pā Te Pane o
145 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 863
Schedule Name Location Description Nominated by ID Mana Whenua Glendowie Horoiwi. Site of several battles. Location of signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 074 Te Reuroa Albert Park, Auckland Part of extent of Ngāti Paoa Central Te Reuroa Pā pā 075 Waiatarua Reserve Abbotts Way, Remuera Key cultural Ngāti Paoa marker within the landscape landcape of Te Tauoma
146 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 864
Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage
Amend with immediate legal effect, Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage as follows:
Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage [rcp/dp] Introduction The factors…
Table 1 Places
Additional Place of Rules for Heritage Maori ID Place Name and/or Description Verified Location Verified Legal Description Category Primary Feature Extent of Place Exclusions Archaeological Values Interest or Sites or Significance Features
…
43 and 45 LOT 1 DP 201335; LOT 5 Interior of building(s); all Refer to planning 00255 Railway workers' residences Newington Road, DP 201335; LOT 6 DP B Residences A,B,F,H buildings that are not the maps Henderson 201335 primary feature(s)
… Section 3 SO 69845; Sec 1 Fort Takapuna (Operetu) Military R 170 Vauxhall SO355498, Sec 2 Refer to planning 00830 A A,D Yes fortification (historic) R11_1723 Road, Narrow Neck SO355498, Sec 3 SO maps 355498 …
All military associated installations including: 1. Main Fort Takapuna cComplex and gGun pits; Fort Takapuna Fort Takapuna (Operetu)/Fort SEC 1 SO 355498; SEC 2 2. Observation Reserve, R170 Refer to planning 01117 Cautley military complex SO 355498; SEC 3 SO A pPosts; A,B,D,E,F,G,H Yes Vauxhall Road, maps R11_1723 355498; SEC 3 SO 69845 3. Gun bBatteries; Narrow Neck 4. Engine/ gGenerator rRoom; 5. Tunnel sSystems; 6. Officers Mess; 7. Two bBarracks; 8. Guard house/ hut; 9. Pillboxes
…
147 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 865
Additional Place of Rules for Heritage Maori ID Place Name and/or Description Verified Location Verified Legal Description Category Primary Feature Extent of Place Exclusions Archaeological Values Interest or Sites or Significance Features
LOT 30 DEEDS 1332; LOT 31 DEEDS 1332; LOT 32 5 Alex Evans Street DEEDS 1332; LOT 33 Interior of presbytery; St Benedict's Catholic Church (also known as 1 St DEEDS 1332; LOT 34 Refer to planning accessory buildings; car 01596 A Church; presbytery A,B,F,G,H and Presbytery Benedicts Street), DEEDS 1332; PART LOT 35 maps parking areas and Newton DEEDS 1332; LOT 36 gardens DEEDS 1332; LOT 37 DEEDS 1332; road reserve
…
26 Clive Road, Refer to planning 01625 Whare Tane LOT 2 DP 18407 A Residence; garage A,F Mount Eden maps
…
Interior glass partitions of Engineer's House; 805 Great North bBuildings and structures Refer to planning 01679 Engineer's House Road, Western Lot 1 DP 88398 B Engineer's House A,F that are not the primary maps Springs feature;, including interior glass partitions and vegetation
…
Adjacent to 130 Remuera Railway Station and Railway station; Refer to planning 01684 Great South Road, Railway reserve A A,B,F,G signal box signal box maps Remuera
…
2-10 Burleigh Street, PART ALLOT 2 SEC 6 Refer to planning 01709 Holy Sepulchre Church and hall A Church; hall A,B,F,G,H Grafton SBRS OF AUCKLAND maps
…
Stoneways/William Henry 46 Mountain Road, Refer to planning 01730 LOT 2 DP 60602 A Residence A,F,G,H Gummer's House (former) Epsom maps
…
24 Normanby Road, Refer to planning 01770 Shot tower Lot 3 DP 312430 A Tower A,B,D,F,G,H Yes Mount Eden maps
…
148 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 866
Additional Place of Rules for Heritage Maori ID Place Name and/or Description Verified Location Verified Legal Description Category Primary Feature Extent of Place Exclusions Archaeological Values Interest or Sites or Significance Features
60 Ranfurly Road, Refer to planning 01823 Marivare LOT 1 DP 193674 A Residence A,H Interior of building(s) Epsom maps
…
Chapel; Dining St John's College historic 188-226 St Johns Refer to planning 01857 LOT 1 DP 487854 A Hall/Waitoa Room A,B,D,F,G,H Yes campus Road, Meadowbank maps and Kinder Wing
…
10 Titoki Street, LOT 7 DP 362696; LOT 8 Refer to planning 01892 Pearson House A Building A,F,G Interior of building(s) Parnell DP 362696 maps
…
233-237 Queen Refer to planning 02038 Strand Arcade Street, Auckland LOT 1 DP 317828 A Building A,F,G,H maps Central
…
LOT 9 DP 16124; LOT 2 DP 326131; LOT 1 DP 44754; LOT 16 DP 2816; PART LOT 15 DP 2816; LOT 2 DP 9036; LOT 3 DP 84867; PART ALLOTS 8, 10, 11, Myers Park historic landscape, 381 Queen Street 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, including trees and caretaker's and 72 Greys 19, 20, 21, 22, 39, 40, 41, Kindergarten Refer to planning 02048 A A,D,F,G,H Interior of cottage Yes cottage R11_2195 and Avenue, Auckland 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, building; landscape maps R11_2669 Central 49, 50, 51, 52 SEC 29 AUCKLAND CITY; ALLOT 15 SEC 29 AUCKLAND CITY; ALLOT 15A SEC 29 AUCKLAND CITY; ALLOT 68 SEC 29 AUCKLAND CITY
… ALLOT 33 SEC 18 AUCKLAND CITY; ALLOT 1 St Patricks 34 SEC 18 AUCKLAND Refer to planning 02054 St Patricks Cathedral complex Square, Auckland CITY; ALLOT 35 SEC 18 A Cathedral A,F,G,H Liston House maps Central AUCKLAND CITY; SEC 1 SO 352517; St Patricks Square; road reserve …
149 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 867
Additional Place of Rules for Heritage Maori ID Place Name and/or Description Verified Location Verified Legal Description Category Primary Feature Extent of Place Exclusions Archaeological Values Interest or Sites or Significance Features
LOT 23 DEEDS CITY 37; PART FREEMANS BAY RECLAMATION DEEDS PLAN CITY 37; PART Interior of building(s), 203-271 Victoria AUCKLAND HARBOUR Kindergarten Refer to planning except the front room and 02073 Campbell Free Kindergarten Street West, A A,F,H BOARD GRANT SURVEY building maps Arts and Craft staircase; Auckland Central OFFICE PLAN 46845; viaduct PART LOT 24 DEEDS CITY 37; PART LOT 25 DEEDS CITY 37
…
City Destructor Buildings (former), including boiler room, 210-218 Victoria Interior of building(s), depot perimeter buildings, Destructor building; Refer to planning 02074 Street West, Lot 1 DP 440201 A A,F,G,H except destructor building generator room, battery house, chimney maps Auckland Central and stables chimney, stables, and destructor building …
1. Fendering 2. Cast iron bollards 3. Any works associated with repair and maintenance to ensure the integrity of the wharf structure for port Substructure and purposes. deck including shed The repair and platforms; Shed G maintenance (also known as Quay Street, Refer to planning methodology for piles 02735 Queens Wharf Pt Lot 37 DP 131568 B Shed 10); ferry A,B,D,E,F,H Auckland Central maps includes the removal of shelter; electricity defective concrete either substation building; by mechanical means or railway tracks; crane hydrodemolition, rails; weighbridge replacement of corroded reinforcement, coating of reinforcement and reinstatement with new concrete either by spraying or recasting with concrete or mortar.
…
…
150 DRAFT PLAN CHANGE - 7/12/2017 868
Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance
Amend with immediate legal effect, Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance section as follows:
Map 14.2.12.1 Historic Heritage Area: Karangahape Road Proposed change/s: Amend Map 14.2.12.1 to show 19 Beresford Square, containing St James Church (former), as a contributing site to the Karangahape Road Historic Heritage Area.
151 869
Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps
Amend with immediate legal effect, Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps section as follows: 15.1.7 Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential: Helensville 15.1.7.1 Extent of area Special Character Area Map: Proposed change/s: Amend the Special Character Area Map legend as follows:
Sites with identified historic character buildings Sites subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules.
152 870
Amend diagrams in Schedule 15 Special Character Schedule, Statements and Maps as follows:
15.1.7.5 Special Character Areas Overlay- General: North Shore Birkenhead Point Figure 15.1.7.5.1: Extent of area: Special Character Area Map Proposed change/s: Remove differentiation between Area A, B and C and recolour properties subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules. Draw a black boundary to show extent of Special Character Area
153 871
154 872
15.1.7.6 Special Character Areas Overlay- General: North Shore- Devonport and Stanley Point Figure 15.1.7.6.1: Extent of area: Special Character Area Map
Proposed change/s: For maps (1) and (2) below, remove the differentiation between Area A, B and C and recolour properties subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules. Draw a black boundary to show extent of Special Character Area
(1) Special Character Area Overlay- General: North Shore- Devonport
155 873
Draw black boundary to show extent of Special Character Area
Add to legend – black outline on special character area
Replace Areas A, B and C are
subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules with Refer to E38.8.2.6 for rules relating to Area A, Area B and Area C
156 874
(2) Special Character Area Overlay- General: North Shore- Stanley Point
157 875
Draw black boundary to show extent of Special Character Area
Add to legend – black outline on special character area
Replace Areas A, B and C are
subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules with Refer to E38.8.2.6 for rules relating to Area A, Area B and Area C
158 876
15.1.7.7 Special Character Areas Overlay- General: North Shore- Northcote Point
Proposed change/s: Remove differentiation between Area A, B and C and recolour properties subject to demolition, removal or relocation rules. Draw a black boundary to show extent of Special Character Area
Figure 15.1.7.7.1: Extent of area: Special Character Area Map
159 877
160 878 ATTACHMENT ELEVEN
NOTIFIED - SPATIAL CHANGES IN THE AUP GIS VIEWER
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Appendix 11 – Notified PC4
Proposed amendments to the maps in AUP GIS viewer (PC4)
Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part
PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 4 (PC4)
Administrative Plan Change
Public notification: 28 September 2017
Close of submissions: 27 October 2017
This is a Council initiated plan change
1 879
Explanatory Noted – Not part of Proposed Plan Change
PC4 is the proposed plan change on corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).
This document contains all the proposed spatial amendments in PC4 to the AUP GIS viewer that do not have legal effect until after the conclusion of the PC4 process.
In the AUP GIS Viewer, proposed spatial changes are annotated with a black diagonal key. When you are in the AUP GIS Viewer, click on ‘Unitary Plan Appeals and Plan Modifications’ under legend, then click on Modifications and then Plan Changes (see image on next page) – this will turn on the layer so you can view which properties are subject to the plan change.
When you specifically click on a property – results of the property will pop up that will tell you which plan change does it relate too.
The operative regional and district provisions within the AUP remain to apply until the proposed rules are operative (e.g. decisions released and any appeals resolved).
2 880
Plan Change Provisions
Note:
1. The words in italics indicate the proposed action sought. 2. The proposed spatial change to the viewer (maps) has not been made. 3. The map is shown to place the changes in context.
Contents of this document
AUP Table of Contents ...... 4 AUP GIS Viewer ...... 4 Unitary Plan Management Layers – Controls ...... 5 Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage ...... 5 Height Variation Control ...... 7 Subdivision Variation Control ...... 12 Unitary Plan Management Layers – Precincts ...... 14 Unitary Plan Management Layers – Overlays ...... 19 Historic Heritage Overlay ...... 19 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay ...... 27 Natural Stream Management Areas Overlay ...... 52 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay ...... 53 Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay ...... 56 Unitary Plan Zones...... 57 Central ...... 57 South ...... 59 North ...... 67 West ...... 68 Public Open Space (not part of recently vested land) ...... 72
3 881
AUP Table of Contents
Amend as a consequential change, B5 title as follows:
Chapter B Regional policy statement
B1 Ngā take matua ā-rohe - Issues of regional significance…
B5 Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua – Built Historic heritage and character
B6 Mana Whenua …
AUP GIS Viewer
Amend as a consequential change, the title in the AUP GIS Viewer Legend as follows:
Built Historic heritage and character
4 882
Unitary Plan Management Layers – Controls
Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage
Geographic area: West Affected site(s) 1/595 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula (Lot 6 DP 68646; Sec 2 SO 70577) Proposed change Remove Key Retail Frontage Control from the parcel zoned Open Space- Community Zone
Change:
Remove Key Retail Frontage Control from this site
5 883
Geographic area: West Affected site(s) 2 Memorial Drive, New Lynn Proposed change Remove Key Retail Frontage Control from the parcel zoned Open Space- Civic Space Zone
Change:
Remove Key Retail Frontage Control from this site
6 884
Height Variation Control
Geographic area: North Affected site(s) 31 Curley Avenue, Silverdale (Lot 1 DP 168568) Proposed change Apply Height Variation Control of 18m to 31 Curley Avenue, Silverdale
Change: Add ‘Height Variation Control’ area to this part of the parcel zoned Town Centre
7 885
Geographic area: South Affected site(s) Howick Town Centre (i.e. Picton Street, Fencible Drive, Cook street) Proposed change Adjust Height Variation Control for Howick Town Centre- Business Town Centre Zone and Business Mixed Use Zones
Change: Extend the ‘Height Variation Control’ to the red boundary in this map. Apply the 8m heights outlined in the map
7m 9m
9m 9m
9m
9m
Site Address Legal Description 36,38 Waterloo Street LOT 24 DP 37567; LOT 25 DP 37567 LOT 2 DP 60843; LOT 28 DP 37567; LOT 27 DP 37567LOT 1 DP 32766; LOT 1 DP 60843; LOT 2 DP 204322; LOT 1 DP 9-37 Wellington Street 204322; LOT 30 DP 37567; LOT 1 DP 33192; LOT 32 DP (approx.) 37567; LOT 1 DP 34945 LOT 2 DP 34945; LOT 31 DP 37567; PT ALLOT 25 VILL OF HOWICK; PT ALLOT 25 VILL OF HOWICK 4,12 Picton Street LOT 3 DP 43673; LOT 1 DP 350750; LOT 1 DP 48322 10R Picton Street LOT 3 DP 27084; LOT 4 DP 27084 2 Walter Macdonald Street LOT 2 DP 48322 1 Walter Macdonald Street LOT 3 DP 48322 22 Picton Street LOT 4 DP 48322 46,48 Fencible Drive LOT 1 DP 99226; LOT 2 DP 99226 LOT 3 DP 91111; LOT 4 DP 91111;LOT 1 DP 198171; LOT 2 34; 37, 41, 43 Moore Street DP 114771; LOT 1 DP 114771; LOT 5 DP 35221
8 886
Site Address Legal Description LOT 11 DP 21419; LOT 6 DP 21419; LOT 10 DP 21419; LOT 7 30,34,40,44,50,54 Cook DP 21419; LOT 8 DP 21419; LOT 5 DP 21419; LOT 9 DP Street 21419; LOT 1 DP 93313
LOT 1 DP 320581; LOT 1 DP 124659; SEC 1 SO 64003; PT 25, 26,28 Uxbridge Road LOT 19 DP 3121;PT LOT 18 DP 3121
LOT 1 DP 46829; LOT 2 DP 320581; PT ALLOT 31 SEC 2 TN 12,16 Selwyn Road OF HOWICK
9 887
Geographic area: South Affected site(s) 71, 75 and 128 Hingaia Road ; and 17 Pararekau Road, Hingaia Proposed change Amend Height Variation Control to 13m
Change: Amend permitted height to 13m
Site Address Legal Description 71, 75 and 128 Hingaia PT Allot 4 DP 11824; PT Allot 2 DP 424718; Lot 66 DP 479708 Road 17 Pararekau Road, Lot 1 DP 424718 Hingaia
10 888
Subject property: 30 Walters Road, Takanini, Auckland Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 329052 Current zone: Business – Town Centre Proposed change: The height variation control of is 18m was missing. The property at 30 Walters Road, Takanini is part of the Town Centre zone, the maximum building height applied to Town Centre zone at Takanini is not displayed on the GIS viewer in the Height Variation Control Overlay for the AUP. Propose a 18 metres height variation control is added to the property.
Change: Add ‘Height Variation Control’ area to this part of the 30 Walters Road, Takanini. parcel zoned Town Centre
11 889
Subdivision Variation Control
Geographic area: North Affected site(s) Warkworth (for specific sites, see table below) Proposed change Add Subdivision Variation Control for areas zoned Rural Countryside Living
A
B
Change:
Add ‘Rural Countryside Living- Subdivision Variation Control’ to these parcels C
Affected sites: Area Site Address Legal Description A 66; 82;106 Goatley Road Lot 2 DP 204148; Lot 1 DP 204148;Lot 1 DP 171811 A 120 Goatley Road Lot 1 DP 199755 126 and 126A Goatley A Lot 4 DP 430497; Lot 3 DP 199755 Road A 134 Goatley Road Lot 1 DP 460559
A 162 Goatley Road Lot 2 DP 209842
A 178A-178C Goatley Road Lot 1 DP 350408; Lot 10 DP 430497;Lot 11 DP 430497
A 184 Goatley Road Lot 1 DP 205957 126 and 126A Claydon A Lot 5 DP 430497; Lot 1 DP 430497 Road A 148 Clayden Road Lot 2 DP 194468 Parcel adjacent to 50 and B Lot 2 DP 426537 180 Golf Road
12 890
Area Site Address Legal Description 3 and 5 Kowhai View C Lot 10 DP 342650; Lot 11 DP 342650 Road 6 and 8 Kowhai View C Lot 20 DP 342650; Lot 19 DP 342650 Road C 10 and 12 Kowhai View Lot 18 DP 342650; Lot 17 DP 342650 Road C 14 and 16 Kowhai View Lot 16 DP 342650; Lot 15 DP 342650 Road C 18, 20 and 22 Kowhai Lot 14 DP 342650; Lot 13 DP 342650; Lot 12 DP 342650 View Road PT ALLOT 70 PSH OF MAHURANGI SO 1110; LOT 1 DP C 48A-48C,50,70 and 108 14312; LOT 2 DP 201503; LOT 1 DP 201503; LOT 2 DP Wilson Road 178676; LOT 2 DP 54387 C 63 Wilson Road and Lot 29 DP 333937, 1/7 SH Lot 42 DP 333937, 1/4 SH Lot 44 adjacent parcel DP 333937 and Lot 39 DP 333937 C 67 to 69F Wilson Road Lot 38 DP 333937; C Lot 34 DP 333937; Lot 33 DP 333937; Lot 30 DP 333937; Lot 69A to 69F Wilson Road 31 DP 333937; Lot 32 DP 333937; Lot 35 DP 340235 C 133 Wilson Road Lot 37 DP 340235 Lot 21 DP 342650; Lot 41 DP 333937; Pt ALLOT 69 PSH of C 91,93,95,97,101,115 Mahurangi SO 1110; Lot 25 DP 333937; Lot 27 DP 333937; Pulham Road Lot 28 DP 333937; Lot 26 DP 333937 LOT 2 DP 393796; LOT 1 DP 171576; LOT 2 DP 456602; C 17,19,21,23,25,31,33 LOT 1 DP 456602; LOT 1 DP 393796; LOT 1 DP 196417; Hepburn Creek Road LOT 1 DP 345381; LOT 2 DP 171576
13 891
Unitary Plan Management Layers – Precincts
Geographic area: South Affected site(s) Approximately 152 Maketu Road, Drury Proposed change The area highlighted in the map (which is part of 152 Maketu Road, Drury) should be changed to Drury South Industrial sub-precinct C from Drury South Industrial sub-precinct A. Alter sub-precinct boundaries for sub-precinct A and sub-precinct C.
Change:
Extend boundary of Drury South Industrial sub-precinct C to include this area
14 892
Subject property: 285 Murphys Road, Flat Bush Legal Description: Sec 1 SO 470839 Current zone: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) and Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone Proposed change: The property boundary, zone boundary and sub-precinct boundary should coincide with each other to form a common boundary. The proposed change is: - The Flat Bush Sub-Precinct F boundary ‘should coincide with the Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone and the Open Space Zone boundary - The boundary of the Flat Bush Sub-Precinct D should include a small triangle portion of Terrace Housing and Apartment building zone (currently excluded)
Change: Flat Bush Sub-precinct F boundary should coincide with the property boundary and Open Space Zone boundary.
Change: The boundary of the Flat Bush Sub- Precinct D should include a small triangle portion of Terrace Housing and Apartment building zone (currently excluded)
15 893
Subject property: 317 Te Irirangi Drive, Clover Park, Auckland Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 345321 Current zone: Special Purpose – School Zone Proposed change: Remove sub-precinct A, D, and E over the subject site in the GIS viewer.
Remove sub- Remove sub- Remove sub- precinct E precinct D precinct A
16 894
Geographic area: South – Flat Bush Precinct Subject property/ies: See legal descriptions Legal Description/s: LOT 4 DP 138638 LOT 1 DP 138638 LOT 3 DP 98087 LOT 6 DP 98087 LOT 2 DP 98087 LOT 4 DP 98087 LOT 5 DP 98087 LOT 3 DP 419859 LOT 2 DP 419859 LOT 1 DP 419859 LOT 6 DP 419859 LOT 5 DP 419859 LOT 4 DP 419859 LOT 7 DP 105187 LOT 4 DP 501965 LOT 3 DP 501965 LOT 1 DP 501965 LOT 2 DP 501965 LOT 5 DP 501965 LOT 6 DP 501965 LOT 7 DP 501965 LOT 8 DP 501965 LOT 9 DP 501965 LOT 10 DP 501965 LOT 11 DP 501965 LOT 12 DP 501965 LOT 13 DP 501965 LOT 14 DP 501965 LOT 15 DP 501965 LOT 16 DP 501965 LOT 18 DP 501965 LOT 19 DP 501965 LOT 20 DP 501965 LOT 17 DP 501965 LOT 21 DP 501965 LOT 3 DP 453745 LOT 2 DP 453745 LOT 1 DP 453745 LOT 4 DP 453745 LOT 5 DP 453745 LOT 6 DP 453745 LOT 7 DP 453745 LOT 2 DP 479102 LOT 4 DP 479102 LOT 5 DP 479102 LOT 3 DP 479102 LOT 1 DP 479102 LOT 1 DP 488765 LOT 2 DP 488765 LOT 3 DP 488765 Current zone/s: Single House, Residential - Large Lot Zone with Flat Bush Sub-precinct I Proposed change/s: Remove sub-precinct I from sites zoned as Single House. Leave sub-precinct I over part of site zoned Residential Large lot – 76 Browns Lane (LOT 4 DP 138638)
17 895
Change:
Remove sub-precinct I from sites zoned as Single House. Leave sub- precinct I over part of site zoned Residential Large lot – 76 Browns Lane (LOT 4 DP 138638)
18 896
Unitary Plan Management Layers – Overlays
Historic Heritage Overlay
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: Central ID: 01678 Place Name Pumphouse Subject property: 805 Great North Road, Western Springs Legal Description/s: Lot 1 DP 88398 Proposed changes: Enlarge the extent of place to area shown in blue. The existing extent of place is shown in purple cross-hatching.
19 897
20 898
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: Central ID: 01679 Place Name Engineer's House Subject property: 805 Great North Road, Western Springs Legal Description/s: Lot 1 DP 88398 Proposed changes: Enlarge extent of place to area shown in blue. The existing extent of place is shown in purple cross-hatching.
21 899
22 900
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: Central ID: 01727 Place Name St Barnabas's Chapel Subject property: Diocesan School for Girls, 44 Margot Street, Epsom Legal Description/s: LOT 1 DP 393716 Proposed changes: Reduce extent of place to area shown in blue. The existing extent of place is shown in purple cross-hatching.
23 901
24 902
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: Central ID: 02779 Place Name Ngahere Subject property: 74 Mountain Road, Epsom Legal Description/s: Lot 1 DP 46839; Lot 2 DP 366826 Proposed changes: Reduce extent of place to area shown in blue. The existing extent of place is shown in purple cross-hatching.
25 903
26 904
Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 003 Place Name: Rangimatarau Address or Location: 16 Joan Street and cliff top properties extending northwards along Point Chevalier Road to, and including a portion of Coyle Park Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan – Add six land parcels to extend southern boundary down to 16 Joan Street.
Land parcels not currently reflected in Unitary Plan Overlay 003
Add the following land parcels (in blue) to Site 003
LEGACY PLAN
UNITARY PLAN
27 905
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 005 Place Name: One-Maru Address or Location: Point Erin Park, between 117-121 Shelley Beach Road and Northern Motorway Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to to match legacy plan - remove overlap with 117 Shelly Beach Road.
Southern extent of overlay, in relation to property boundary
Remove area with red shading
UNITARY PLAN LEGACY PLAN
28 906
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 009 Place Name: Nga Wharau a Tako Address or Location: 87-89 Albert Street, 4 and 6-12 Kingston Street, and 60, 65-71 Federal Street Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan as follows: ► Move southern boundary away from 67 & 75 Victoria Street West. ► Add land parcels at 4 and 6-12 Kingston Street (property ID 338022). ► Straighten boundaries, particularly the northern and western boundaries.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
LEGACY PLAN 29
907
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 010 Place Name: Te Horo Roa Address or Location: Road reserve at intersection of Anzac Avenue and Beach Road Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan - remove marginal overlap with 2-8 Anzac Ave.
UNITARY PLAN
LEGACY PLAN
30 908
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 012 Place Name: Pari Tuhu Address or Location: Federal Street and Wolfe Street (intersection) Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area) LEGACY PLAN
31 909
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 013 Place Name: Te Paneiriiri Address or Location: Fanshawe Street/Hardinge Street Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan – Add one land parcel to the east (128-130 Fanshawe Street)
Add the following land parcels (in blue) to Site 013
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
Land parcel not currently reflected in Unitary Plan LEGACY PLAN Overlay site 013
32 910
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 015 Place Name: Ngahu Wera Address or Location: Albert Street bordering Customs Street West Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
LEGACY PLAN
33 911
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 016 Place Name: Horotiu Address or Location: Queen Street 301-303 (Town Hall Site) including Aotea Square and the foot of Greys Avenue Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan, as outlined below.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
34 LEGACY PLAN 912
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 017 Place Name: Te Whatu Address or Location: Shortland Street/Queen Street/Swanson Street (intersection) Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
LEGACY PLAN
35 913
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 020 Place Name: Te Koranga Address or Location: Victoria Street/Halsey Street (intersection) Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan.
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
UNITARY PLAN LEGACY PLAN
36 914
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 021 Place Name: Te Reuroa Pā Address or Location: Waterloo Quadrant, Anzac Avenue, Beach Road area Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match legacy plan – Add property at 7 Parliament St (property ID 650879) & whole of 12-30 Parliament St (property ID 390834).
UNITARY PLAN Add property at 7 Parliament St (property ID 650879)
Add whole of 12-30 Parliament St (property ID 390834)
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
Correct extent (teal outline and filled area)
LEGACY PLAN
37 915
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 022 Place Name: Urupā Address or Location: 189R Burswood Drive, East Tamaki Proposed changes: Amend extent of Mana Whenua overlay to match legacy plan. In this case, change the location from Lot 4 DP 114548 to Lot 302 DP 151291.
Amend Schedule 12 location from “Pakuranga Creek 252R Ti Rakau Drive, East Tamaki” to “189R Burswood Drive, East Tamaki”.
Correct location of Site 022 Urupa
Current location of Site 022 Urupa
UNITARY PLAN
Correct extent (marked in black)
LEGACY PLAN
38 916
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 023 Place Name: Urupā Address or Location: 15 Blackburn Road, East Tamaki Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to reflect the correct extent of place as outlined in the legacy plan. The mapped extent currently excludes part of the road reserve.
LEGACY PLAN
UNITARY PLAN
39 917
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 024 Place Name: Urupā Address or Location: 83 Greenmount Drive, East Tamaki Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to reflect the correct extent of place as outlined in the legacy plan.
UNITARY PLAN
LEGACY PLAN
40 918
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 029 Place Name: Otuataua/Puke Taapapa (Pukeiti) Address or Location: 14R Quarry Road, 56 Ihumatao Quarry Road and 303 Ihumatao Road Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to reflect map from legacy plan. In this case, correct the southeastern boundary.
move pink dashed line back to green dashed line
area)
UNITARY PLAN
Legacy plan map for comparison
LEGACY PLAN
41 919
UNITARY PLAN
42 920
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 030 Place Name: Māngere Mountain Address or Location: Māngere Domain, 17R Domain Road, Mangere Proposed changes: Remap the entire extent of Site 030 to match the legacy plan. To reflect the correct extent of place: ► Some legacy plan areas have been excluded, which means they are not protected by the Unitary Plan in relation to Schedule 12. ► Some parts of the boundary overlap with adjacent properties. This means those properties are now affected by the Unitary Plan provisions associated with Schedule 12. This is not what was intended or reflected in the legacy plan. LEGACY PLAN
43 921
UNITARY PLAN
44 922
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 044 Place Name: Whakakaiwhara Address or Location: 933R North Road, Clevedon Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent (southern boundary) to reflect the correct extent of place as outlined in the legacy plan.
UNITARY PLAN
45 923
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 052 Place Name: Kohimaramara / Bastion Rock Takaparawha Point Address or Location: Tāmaki Yacht Club, Tāmaki Drive, Ōrākei Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match location description and reflect the correct extent of place. The current mapped extent means that the site is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12. It also means that another land parcel (where the Auckland Sailing Club and Royal Akarana Yacht Club are located) are affected by the Schedule 12 provisions. This is not what was intended.
UNITARY PLAN
Correct location and extent of Site 052
Current extent of Site 052
46 924
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 055 Place Name: Te Tō Waka Ōtāhuhu portage Address or Location: Head of Tāmaki River at Ōtāhuhu, near Canal Reserve and Portage Road, Ōtāhuhu Proposed changes: The site is not currently mapped within the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay. This means that the site is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12.
UNITARY PLAN
Recommended location and extent of Site 055
47 925
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 056 Place Name: Pou Hawaiki - Owhatihue Address or Location: Auckland College of Education carpark building, Mt Eden Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match location description and reflect the correct extent of place. The current mapped extent means that the site is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12. It also means that another part of the same land parcel (where Auckland Normal Intermediate is located) are affected by the Schedule 12 provisions. This is not what was intended.
UNITARY PLAN
Recommended location of Site 056 (based on extent of quarry within 1940’s aerial photo)
Current extent of Site 056
48 926
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 058 Place Name: Urupā Address or Location: 209 St Andrews Road, Three Kings Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match location description and reflect the correct extent of place. The current mapped extent means that 209 St Andrews Road is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12. It also means that another land parcel (1/209 St Andrews Road) is affected by the Schedule 12 provisions. This is not what was intended.
Current extent of Site 058
Correct location and extent of Site 058
UNITARY PLAN
49 927
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 060 Place Name: Te Ana a Rangimarie Address or Location: Melville Park grounds, between the cricket pavilion and 22 St Andrews Road Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match location description and reflect the correct extent of place. It does not match the site information record provided by Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei in 2010.
The current mapped extent means that Te Ana a Rangimarie is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12. It also means that the land parcel at 24 King George Avenue is affected by the Schedule 12 provisions. This is not what was intended.
Recommended amendment to location
Current extent of Site 060
UNITARY PLAN
50 928
Amend with immediate legal effect Part of Unitary Plan Schedule 12 Schedule ID: 061 Place Name: Waitaramoa Address or Location: Waitaramoa Reserve, Portland Road, Hobson Bay Proposed changes: Amend mapped extent to match location description and reflect the correct extent of place. The current mapped extent means that Waitaramoa Reserve is not currently protected by the Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12. It also means that other land parcels (within Thomas Bloodworth Park and Shore Road Reserve) are affected by the Schedule 12 provisions. This is not what was intended.
UNITARY PLAN
Current extent of Site 061
Location of Waitaramoa Reserve
51 929
Natural Stream Management Areas Overlay
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: South Affected site(s) 63, Morrison Road (Lot 1 DP 12036); 178-190 Orua Bay Road (Lot 1 DP 181803); and adjacent lots (ALLOT WM11 Parish and Lot 2 DP 341909), Waiuku Proposed change Remove Natural Stream Management Areas Overlay from these sites.
Change: Remove this overlay
52 930
Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: West Affected site(s) 5 sites outlined below Unitary Plan Overlays – Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay Management Layer Proposed change Adjust the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay to five areas outlined below.
The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay is to be extended or removed in the following areas (5 maps)
(1) Address is approximately 95 Jonkers Road, Waitākere Ranges
Affected sites: Lot 1 DP 127456; Lot 4 DP 81825; Pt Allot 1A PSH Waitākere SO 842A; Lot 2 DP 119923; Lot 2 DP 127456; Pt Allot 36 PSH of Waitākere SO 842
Extend Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay boundary to the red line shown in this map
53 931
2) Northwestern coastal edge of Waitākere Ranges
Affected sites: Lot 3 DP 190087; Lot 1 DP 116242; Lot 1 DP 103778
Extend Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay boundary to the area in red outline shown in this map
3) Coastal edge of Karekare to Beacon Point, Waitākere Ranges (AREA A SO 64997)
Karekare Remove the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay from the red hatched area shown here
Extend Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay boundary to the area in red outline shown in this map
Beacon Point
Whatipu
54 932
4) Area adjacent to 150 Bethells Road, Waitākere Ranges
Affected Sites: Lot 1 DP 206105
Remove the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay from the red hatched area shown here
5) Address is approximately 199 Bethells Road, Waitākere
Affected sites: Waitākere 1B 2C 1 BLOCK ML 12243
Remove the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay for the red hatched area shown here
55 933
Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay
Amend with immediate legal effect Geographic area: Central Affected site(s) See table below. Proposed change Introduce a Height Sensitive Area of 9 metres over the subject properties (marked on the map in a red outline).
Affected sites: Site address Legal Description 94 Mountain Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 1 DP 372460 3 Gilgit Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 2 DP 22728 11 Gilgit Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 6 DP 22728 90 Mountain Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 1 Deeds Reg 149 15-17 Gilgit Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 9 Deeds Reg 149, Lot 10 Deeds Reg 149 ALLOT 68 SEC 6 Suburbs AUCKLAND, ALLOT 69 SEC 6 Suburbs AUCKLAND, PT ALLOT 70 SEC 6 Suburbs AUCKLAND, ALLOT 88 SEC 6 98 Mountain Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Suburbs AUCKLAND 1 Gilgit Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Lot 1 DP 23279
56 934
Unitary Plan Zones
Central
Subject property: 10 and 12 Kitenui Avenue, Mount Albert Legal Description: PTS Lot 5 DP 4375 and LOT 1 DP 35364 Current zone: Mixed Housing Urban Proposed change: Rezone 10-12 Kitenui Avenue, Mount Albert from Mixed Housing Urban to Special Purpose: School zone
Proposed zone: Special Purpose: School zone
57 935
Subject property: 46 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier Legal Description: Lot 106 Pt lots 107-108 DP 348 Current zone: Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) Proposed change: Rezone 46 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier from THAB zone to Special Purpose: School zone.
Proposed zone: Special Purpose: School
58 936
South
Subject property: Some properties located at Browns Road, Adams Road, Lyndon Place, Martin Road, and Clark Street, Manurewa (Property addresses are given in the table below). Legal Description: Current zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Proposed change: Change the zoning of those properties listed in table below from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Proposed zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban.
Change zoning of the areas outlined in blue from residential – Mixed Housing Urban to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban.
59 937
Affected sites:
Property Address Legal Description 30 Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 5 DP 37029 32 Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 2 and 3 DP 37617 34 Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 4 DP 37029 36 Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 3 DP 37029 36A Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 3 DP 37029 38 Browns Road, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 71329 18 Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 10 DP 47742 19 Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 9 DP 50875 20Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 5 DP 36688 20A Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 5 DP 36688 21 Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 10 DP 50875 22 Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 17 DP 50875 24 Adams Road, Manurewa Lot 16 DP 50875 6 Lyndon Place, Manurewa Lot 6 DP 50875 1/13 Martin Road, Manurewa Flat 1 DP 118003 2/13 Martin Road, Manurewa Flat 2 DP 118003 26 Martin Road, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 482978 26A Martin Road, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 482978 28 Martin Road, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 479263 28A Martin Road, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 479263 6 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 499878 6B Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 499878 8 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 4 DP 46451 10 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 467064 10A Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 467064 12 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 6 DP 46451 14 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 47853 16 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 2 DP 47853 18 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 3 DP 47853 20 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 4 DP 47853 22 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 5 DP 47853 26 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 7 DP 47853 28 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 8 DP 47853 30 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 9 DP 47853 32 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 10 DP 47853 34 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 11 DP 47853 36 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 1 DP 58900 13 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 20 DP 47853 15 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 19 DP 47853 17 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 18 DP 47853 19 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 17 DP 47853 21 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 16 DP 47853 23 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 15 DP 47853 25 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 14 DP 47853 29 Clark Street, Manurewa Lot 12 DP 47853
60 938
Subject property: 184 Papakura-Clevedon Road, Clevedon, Auckland Legal Description: Part Allot 2 PSH of Wairoa Current zone: Rural – Mixed Rural Proposed change: This property is zoned ‘Rural - Mixed Rural’ under the IHP recommendation but should be ‘Rural - Countryside Living’. The land use being a single unit (detached dwelling) is aligned with the Rural – Countryside Living Zone, not the Rural – Mixed Rural Zone. The surrounding land is also zoned Rural – Countryside Living. Hence change of zone is required. Proposed zone: Rural – Countryside Living.
61 939
Subject property: 37 Miller Road, Mangere Bridge Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 419590 and Lot 2 DP 482073 Current zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Proposed change: Westmount School campus located at 37 Miller Road, Mangere Bridge. The campus property has been zoned Mixed Housing Suburban zone in the decision version of the Unitary Plan. Westmount School is a private/independent school and in accordance with the approach taken in the Unitary Plan, this should be zoned Special Purpose: School which is applied to all independent and integrated schools. Proposed zone: Special Purpose – School Zone.
62 940
Subject property: 164 Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 201552 Current zone: Special Purpose – School Zone Proposed change: The property at 164 Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge (approximately 265m from 37 Miller Road) is zoned Special Purpose - School zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part). The Planning Consultant representing the School has confirmed that the site is not part of a school complex and is a residential building. The property is owned by Westmount Education Trust Incorporated. The Auckland Council District Plan ( Manukau Section) has the property zoned Main Residential. The change of zone is required. Proposed zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone.
63 941
Subject property: 68 Hutton Street, Otahuhu, Auckland Legal Description: ALLOT 7 SEC 11 OTAHUHU VILLAGE Current zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Proposed change: 68 Hutton Street Otahuhu, has been incorrectly zoned Mixed Housing Suburban, where it should be Special Purpose – Cemetery to reflect the current land use as the Hutton Street Cemetery. To correct this error, the above property should be rezoned to Special Purpose – Cemetery to reflect its current use. Council evidence in Topic 081 supported rezoning the cemetery from MHS to Cemetery zone as sought by submitter. However this was never rezoned in the Case team version of the GIS Viewer, and therefore this is a clear mistake. Proposed zone: Special Purpose – Cemetery.
68 Hutton Street, Otahuhu.
64 942
Subject property: 211 Kitchener Road, Waiuku, Auckland Legal Description: ALL DP 11414 Current zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Proposed change: This property is zoned Mixed housing Suburban whereas all the surrounding properties are zoned Residential Large Lot. The spot zoning was overlooked in different versions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). This is a mistake. Accordingly, this property at 171 Hingaia Road should be zoned Mixed Housing Urban which is the zoning of surrounding properties. Proposed zone: Residential – Large Lot
211 Kitchener Road, Waiuku
65 943
Subject property: 171 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, Auckland Legal Description: SEC 1 SO 480175 Current zone: Future Urban Zone Proposed change: This property and the surrounding properties were zoned Future Urban in the Draft version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The zoning was changed to Special Purpose – School zone in the notified version of the PAUP. In the Case Team version, only the zoning of this property was changed back to Future Urban whilst surrounding properties remained in Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone. This is a mistake. When the Special Purpose – School zone was removed from the school properties owned by the Ministry of Education, those properties were rezoned back to the previous zoning which is generally the zoning of the surrounding properties as well. Accordingly, this property at 171 Hingaia Road should be zoned Mixed Housing Urban which is the zoning of surrounding properties. Proposed zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Urban
171 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, Auckland – Hingaia Peninsula School
66 944
North
Subject property/ies: 16-20 Dominion Street, Takapuna Legal Description/s: 16-18 Dominion Street = Lot 1 DP 156416 & Pt lot 2 DP 32746 20 Dominion Street = Pt lot 6 DP 4553 Current zone/s: Special Purpose - School Zone Proposed change/s: Re-zone 16-18 Dominion Street from Special Purpose School Zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone. Proposed zone: Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone
67 945
West
Subject property/ies: 490B Don Buck Road, Massey Legal Description/s: Lot 2 DP 62338 Current zone/s: Special Purpose - School Zone Proposed change/s: Re-zone 490B Don Buck Road, Massey from Special Purpose School Zone to Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone. Proposed zone: Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone
68 946
Subject property/ies: 122-134 Lincoln Road, Henderson Legal Description/s: LOT 1 DP 505338 Current zone/s: Business - Mixed Use Zone and Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone Proposed change/s: Extend the Business – Mixed Use zone to apply to the entire site at 122-134 Lincoln Road, Henderson. Proposed zone: Business - Mixed Use Zone
69 947
Current zone/s: Strategic Transport Corridor Zone Legal Description/s: See Table below. Proposed change/s: Extend the Business – Mixed Use Zone to apply to all properties listed below (shown annotated on the map below with a blue outline) Proposed zone: Business – Mixed Use Zone
70 948
Affected sites:
Subject properties Legal Descriptions 19 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 54 DP 487569 5 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 35 DP 487569 17 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 55 DP 487569 36 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville LOT 44 DP 487569 33 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 47 DP 487569 29 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 49 DP 487569 31 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 48 DP 487569 15 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 56 DP 487569 23 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 52 DP 487569 7 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 36 DP 487569 44 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville LOT 40 DP 487569 11 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 38 DP 487569 21 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 53 DP 487569 2 Falcon Crescent Hobsonville 0618 LOT 5 DP 505331 27 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 50 DP 487569 13 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 39 DP 487569 42 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville LOT 41 DP 487569 25 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 51 DP 487569 38 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville LOT 43 DP 487569 9 Carder Court Hobsonville LOT 37 DP 487569 40 Memorial Park Lane Hobsonville LOT 42 DP 487569 Carder Court Hobsonville 0618 LOT 105 DP 487569 Carder Court Hobsonville 0618 LOT 104 DP 487569
71 949
Public Open Space (not part of recently vested land)
Geographic area: North Subject property: 60A Stanley Point Road, Devonport Legal Description/s: Pt Lot 9 DP 3651 Current zone/s: Residential – Single House Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone
72 950
Geographic area: North Subject property: Witten Road, Pakiri Legal Description/s: Lot 1 DP 185887 Current zone/s: Rural - Rural Coastal Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone
73 951
Geographic area: North Subject property: 2 Brickworks Bay Road & esplanade reserve off Bannings Way, Hobsonville Legal Description/s: Lot 101 DP 468595, Lot 102 DP 468595, Lot 101 DP 378286, Lot 9 DP 58018 & Lot 3 DP 100813 Current zone/s: Residential – Single House Zone & Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Conservation Zone
74 952
Geographic area: North Subject property: 8 Paul Mathews Drive, Rosedale & Rosedale Park (involves a land swap) Legal Description/s: Pt Lot 2 DP 171142 & part of Rosedale Park (Lot 4 DP 180979, Sec 1 SO 444799, Sec 4 SO 444799 & Lot 3 DP 180979) Current zone/s: Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Zone & Business – Light Industry Zone Proposed zone: Business – Light Industry Zone & Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Zone (as per map below)
75 953
Geographic area: North Subject property: Aturoa Road, Puhoi Legal Description/s: Lot 3 DP 493324 Current zone/s: Water Proposed zone: Open Space – Conservation Zone
76 954
Geographic area: Central Subject property: St Patricks Square (between Wyndam & Swanson Streets) Legal Description/s: Road Current zone/s: Open Space – Community Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Civic Spaces Zone
77 955
Geographic area: Central Subject property: 20, 22 & 24 Buddock Road, Hillsborough Legal Description/s: Lot 1 DP 98350, Lot 1 DP 177671 & Lot 2 DP 177671 Current zone/s: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Conservation Zone
78 956
Geographic area: Central Subject property: 21A Fearon Avenue, Three Kings (part of) Legal Description/s: Lot 52 DP 16446 Current zone/s: Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Zone
79 957
Geographic area: Central Subject property: 5 Paisley Place, Mount Wellington Legal Description/s: Lot 4 DP 466684 Current zone/s: Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone Proposed zone: Business – Light Industry Zone Proposed consequential Add the subject property into I315 Gabador Place Precinct on amendment: the AUP GIS Viewer
80 958
Geographic area: South Subject property: 34 Wiri Station Road & 30 Barrowcliffe Place, Manukau Central Legal Description/s: Lot 4 DP 474772 & Lot 3 DP 474772 Current zone/s: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone
81 959
Geographic area: South Subject property: 27 Retreat Drive, Mangere Legal Description/s: Lot 98 DP 334903 Current zone/s: Open Space – Conversation Zone Proposed zone: Residential – Large Lot Zone
82 960
Geographic area: South Subject property: 227, 229 & 245 Great South Road, Papatoetoe Legal Description/s: Lot 2 DP 127542, Pt Lot 4 DP 38778, Pt Lot 5 DP 38778 & Pt Lot 16 DP 4493 Current zone/s: Business – Town Centre Zone Proposed zone: Open Space – Sport & Active Recreation Zone
83 961 962 ATTACHMENT TWELVE
NOTIFIED - ATTACHMENT 35 DRURY SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT APPENDIX
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
Drury South Industrial Precinct Stream and Wetland Rehabilitation Guidelines
June 2013
963 Table of Contents
,QWURGXFWLRQ 3DJH
3XUSRVHRIWKH'RFXPHQW 3DJH 3URSRVHG6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ:RUNV 3DJH
6WUHDPVRIWKH3URMHFW$UHD 3DJH
([LVWLQJ6WUHDPVDQG3URSRVHG0LWLJDWLRQ 3DJH ([LVWLQJ6WUHDPEDQN(URVLRQ 3DJH ([LVWLQJ$TXDWLF(FRORJ\ 3DJH
6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 3DJH
5HKDELOLWDWLRQ3ULQFLSOHV 3DJH 2SHQ6SDFH)UDPHZRUN 3DJH 6WUHDP5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 3DJH 5LSDULDQ5HYHJHWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHV 3DJH 6WRUPZDWHU0DQDJHPHQW 3DJH
6XPPDU\ 3DJH
5HIHUHQFHV 3DJH
'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW 6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHV U:\Auckland\2008\A08177D_RdL_DSBP_NOR\Graphics\A08177D_DSBP_Doc.indd 964 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Document
7KH'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW '6,3 6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHVSURYLGHD VXPPDU\RISURSRVHGVWUHDPDQGZHWODQGZRUNVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH'6,3SURMHFW7KLVLQFOXGHV DOOVWUHDPFRUULGRUVWREHUHPRYHGUHDOLJQHGRUUHVWRUHGDQGZHWODQGVFUHDWHGDVVRFLDWHGZLWK VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVGRFXPHQWLVWRDFKLHYHWKHIROORZLQJ
7RSURYLGHWHFKQLFDOLQSXWWRWKHSODQQLQJSURFHVV WREHUHDGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKH (FRORJLFDODQG/DQGVFDSH$VVHVVPHQWV$VVHVVPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO(IIHFWV $(( DQG ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH$VVHVVPHQWUHSRUW ,$5 7RSURYLGHWKHSURMHFWWHDPZLWKDVHWRISULQFLSOHVIRUWUHDWPHQWRIULSDULDQ VWUHDPDQG ZHWODQG DUHDVZLWKLQWKH'6,3DUHD
1.2 Proposed Stream and Wetland Rehabilitation Works
,QOLQHZLWKWKHSURSRVHG'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFWWKHH[LVWLQJ+LQJDLDDQG0DNHWXVWUHDPVZLOO EHSURWHFWHGDQGHQKDQFHGE\FRUULGRUVRIULSDULDQUHVWRUDWLRQPHWUHVLQZLGWK PRQHDFKEDQN 'HQVHULSDULDQSODQWLQJZLOODOVRRFFXUDORQJ6+LQDVVRFLDWLRQZLWKWKH5RVO\Q6WUHDPUHDOLJQPHQW DQGDORQJWKHQRUWKHUQERXQGDU\RIWKHVLWHLQDVVRFLDWLRQZLWKDQHZO\IRUPHGQRUWKHUQVWUHDP UHDOLJQPHQW
OOHG3LSHGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHRUYHJHWDWHGۋ6RPHVWUHDPVDQGIDUPGUDLQVZLWKLQWKH'6,3DUHDZLOOEH HGFDWFKPHQWVWRWKH+LQJDLD6WUHDP7KHVHV\VWHPVDVZHOODVۋVZDOHVZLOOGLUHFWWKHVHPRGL VWRUPZDWHUUXQRIIIURPEXVLQHVVDFWLYLWLHVZLOOEHWUHDWHGIRUZDWHUTXDOLW\LQH[WHQVLYHZHWODQGDUHDV DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH+LQJDLDVWUHDPFRUULGRU7KHVHZHWODQGDUHDVZLOOIXQFWLRQIRUVWRUPZDWHUTXDOLW\ DQGTXDQWLW\HFRV\VWHPIXQFWLRQDQGYDOXHVODQGVFDSHDPHQLW\QDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUDQGUHFUHDWLRQ
'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW 6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHV 1 of 23 U:\Auckland\2008\A08177D_RdL_DSBP_NOR\Graphics\A08177D_DSBP_Doc.indd 965
127(
3XEOLF2SHQ6SDFH6WRUPZDWHU0DQDJHPHQW$UHDVLQ6XE3UHFLQFW' DUHWRKDYHDPLQLPXPZLGWKRIPHWUHVZKHUHWKH\DGMRLQWKHVWUXFWXUH SODQERXQGDULHV
*,6#EHFDFRP 3XEOLF2SHQ6SDFH6WRUPZDWHU0DQDJHPHQW$UHDVLQ6XE3UHFLQFW' DUHWRKDYHDPLQLPXPZLGWKRIPHWUHVHLWKHUVLGHRIWKHVWUHDPHGJH ZKHUHWKH\DGMRLQWKH+LQJDLDRU0DNHWX6WUHDPV
'
'585<
48$55< =21(
/(*(1'
'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW
1DWLRQDO*ULG7UDQVPLVVLRQ/LQH
9HFWRU*DV/LQH'HVLJQDWLRQ
'UXU\4XDUU\=RQH
6XE3UHFLQFW( +HDY\,QGXVWU\
6XE3UHFLQFW$ /LJKW,QGXVWU\
6XE3UHFLQFW% 0RWRUZD\(GJH3UHFLQFW /LJKW,QGXVWU\ 6XE3UHFLQFW& &RPPHUFLDO6HUYLFHV3UHFLQFW /LJKW,QGXVWU\
6XE3UHFLQFW' 3XEOLF2SHQ6SDFH6WRUPZDWHU0DQDJHPHQW /LJKW,QGXVWU\
6SLQH5RDG
,QGLFDWLYH3URSRVHG5RDGV
3HGHVWULDQDQG%LF\FOH&LUFXODWLRQ
5HFUHDWLRQDO&LUFXODWLRQ
&DGDVWUDO%RXQGDU\
0DSLQWHQGHGIRUGLVWULEXWLRQDVD3')GRFXPHQW 6FDOHPD\EHLQFRUUHFWZKHQSULQWHG
&RQWDLQV&URZQ&RS\ULJKW'DWD&URZQ&RS\ULJKW5HVHUYHG
)LOH3DWK 3 ? ? ?$GGLWLRQDO5HTXHVWV?7*,?B:RUNVSDFHV?BP[G?*,6 B6WUXFWXUH3ODQB2FWREHUB7LWOHVB$PHQGHGB/RJRB5HPRYHGP[G
),*85( '6,3&RQFHSW3ODQ'HFHPEHU 6RXUFH %(&$/WG
'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW 6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHV 2 of 23 U:\Auckland\2008\A08177D_RdL_DSBP_NOR\Graphics\A08177D_DSBP_Doc.indd 966 2.0 Streams of the Project Area
2.1 Existing Streams and Proposed Mitigation
RZVWKURXJKWKH'6,3DUHDIURPVRXWKWRQRUWKEHIRUHFRQWLQXLQJWKURXJKWKHی7KH+LQJDLD6WUHDP 'UXU\7RZQVKLSWRGLVFKDUJHWR'UXU\&UHHNDQGHYHQWXDOO\WKH3DKXUHKXUH,QOHWWRWKH0DQXNDX RZVLQWRWKHVLWHDWWKHVRXWKHDVWHUQFRUQHURIWKH'6,3DUHDDQGMRLQVیDUERXU7KH0DNHWX6WUHDP+ RZVIURPWKHZHVWXQGHUWKH6WDWH+LJKZD\DQGMRLQVیZLWKWKH+LQJDLD6WUHDP7KH5RVO\Q6WUHDP DIXUWKHUWULEXWRU\WRWKH+LQJDLD6WUHDP7KHUHPDLQGHURIVWUHDPVWUDYHUVLQJWKHVLWHGRQRWKDYH HGDQGLQVRPHFDVHVKDYHEHHQSLSHGۋFLDOO\UHFRUGHGQDPHVDUHVPDOOHUKLJKO\PRGLۋRI
$QDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHH[LVWLQJVXUIDFHZDWHUQHWZRUNDQGUHFHLYLQJHQYLURQPHQWKDVEHHQFDUULHGRXW DVSDUWRIWKH+LQJDLD6WUHDP,&037KLVLQFOXGHGDVWUHDPHFRORJ\VWXG\´7KH+LQJDLD&DWFKPHQW HOGVXUYH\RIۋµ7KLVVWXG\LQFOXGHG QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW*ROGHU$VVRFLDWHV$XJXVW) RUDDQGIDXQD(DFKVWUHDPیVWUHDPVZLWKLQWKH'6,3DUHDZLWKUHVSHFWWRZDWHUTXDOLW\DQGDTXDWLF SRWHQWLDOO\DIIHFWHGE\WKH'6,3KDVEHHQHYDOXDWHGE\WKH¶VWUHDPHFRORJLFDOYDOXDWLRQ·PHWKRG 6(9 LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHWHFKQLFDOSXEOLFDWLRQ$5&73
HGIDUPGUDLQVEHWZHHQ6WHYHQVRQV4XDUU\DQG6+ZLOOQHHGWRۋLVWLQJZDWHUFRXUVHVDQGPRGL]) OOHGRUUHDOLJQHGWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKH'6,3HDUWKZRUNVIRRWSULQW7KLVLQFOXGHVLQWHUPLWWHQWۋEH RZSDWKVDUHIDUPGUDLQVیUHIHU)LJXUH 0DQ\RIWKHH[LVWLQJRYHUODQG DQGSHUPDQHQWVWUHDPV FRQVWUXFWHGIRUDFWLYHGUDLQDJH$OOVWUHDPVWREHDIIHFWHGE\WKHSURSRVHG'6,3KDYHEHHQKHDYLO\ HGE\IDUPLQJRUURDGLQJRSHUDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJGUHGJLQJVSUD\LQJVWUDLJKWHQLQJDQGRQJRLQJۋPRGL LPSDFWE\VWRFN,QJHQHUDODOORIWKHVHVWUHDPVKDYHORZWRPRGHUDWHIXQFWLRQDOYDOXHVIRUVWUHDP HFRORJ\
3URSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQIRUVWUHDPORVVLQFOXGHVWKHUHVWRUDWLRQRIULSDULDQ]RQHVDORQJWKHOHQJWKRIWKH +LQJDLDDQG0DNHWX6WUHDPVZLWKLQWKH'6,3$UHD7KLVLQFOXGHVDPZLGHSODQWHGULSDULDQEXIIHU OHDQGۋDORQJDOOVWUHDPV,QDGGLWLRQVWUHDPVWREHUHDOLJQHGZLOOKDYHDQDSSURSULDWHVWUHDPSUR ULSDULDQSODQWLQJWRSURYLGHIRUVXVWDLQDEOHVWUHDPIXQFWLRQ
2QHRIPDQ\H[LVWLQJLQWHUPLWWHQWIDUPGUDLQVVKRZLQJ /2&$7,21$ ),*85( 7KHQRUWKHUQVWUHDPLVGLUHFWHG HYLGHQFHRIHDUWKZRUNVVSUD\LQJDQGDFFHVVE\VWRFN DORQJ4XDUU\5RDGLQDKLJKO\FRQVWUDLQHGDQGPRGL¿HG HQYLURQPHQWZLWKORZHFRORJLFDOYDOXHV
'UXU\6RXWK,QGXVWULDO3UHFLQFW 6WUHDPDQG:HWODQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHV 3 of 23 U:\Auckland\2008\A08177D_RdL_DSBP_NOR\Graphics\A08177D_DSBP_Doc.indd 967