Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 016 RUB North/West AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report JOINT STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RYAN BRADLEY, DAVID HOOKWAY, AUSTIN FOX AND JOE JEFFRIES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (PLANNING - RURAL AND COASTAL SETTLEMENTS NORTH) 15 OCTOBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 3. CODE OF CONDUCT .................................................................................................... 5 4. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... 5 5. REZONING .................................................................................................................... 6 6. GROUPING OF SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................... 7 7. GROUP 1 - MATAKANA ................................................................................................ 7 8. GROUP 2 – WELLSFORD ........................................................................................... 13 9. GROUP 3 – TE HANA ................................................................................................. 27 10. GROUP 4 – HELENSVILLE-PARAKAI ..................................................................... 31 11. GROUP 5 – SNELLS BEACH .................................................................................. 41 12. GROUP 6 – POINT WELLS ..................................................................................... 47 13. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS ............. 57 14. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ................ 57 15. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 58 Page 1 1. SUMMARY 1.1 Our names are Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox and Joe Jeffries and our evidence is summarised below. 1.2 Our evidence covers submissions requesting urban expansions to the Rural Towns and Serviced Villages of Matakana, Wellsford, Te Hana, Helensville, Parakai, Snells Beach and Point Wells. None of these settlements currently has a Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) but a RUB will be applied to all of them, either through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) process or a future plan change. 1.3 The urban expansion requested at Matakana is not supported as the village is not suitable for significant expansion due its relatively remote location and the inherent inefficiencies of providing infrastructure (transport, wastewater) for small scale development. Matakana also recently went through a Plan Change process that considered the urban extent of the village and did not include the sites sought to be included in the urban area (this plan change was only made operative in September 2014). The requests to reduce the urban extent of Matakana are not supported as the specific areas are already consented for urban development. 1.4 The large scale urban expansion of Wellsford is not supported as it does not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy which identifies Wellsford as a Rural and Coastal Town. These settlements are not the focus of significant expansion. The area proposed for expansion also contains geotechnical hazards and the expansion would not result in a defensible urban boundary. A significant investment in infrastructure would be required to service an expanded urban area and based on the low growth rates anticipated in Wellsford, it is not a priority area for investing in infrastructure. 1.5 However, the application of a RUB around Wellsford is supported and there is scope within submissions to do this. While the new RUB generally follows the existing urban zoned boundary, some currently rural zoned land is included within the RUB to provide a more logical and defensible urban boundary. 1.6 The relatively large expansion of Te Hana is not supported as it does not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy which identifies Te Hana as a Serviced Village. These settlements are not a focus for significant growth. The area proposed for expansion also prime soils and the expansion would not result Page 2 in a defensible urban boundary. Like Wellsford, significant investment in infrastructure would be required to service an expanded urban area and based on the low growth rates anticipated in Te Hana, it is not a priority area for investing in infrastructure. The scope of submissions enables the application of a RUB around Te Hana and the addition of a RUB that follows the existing urban zones Te Hana is supported. 1.7 Requests for urban expansion are not supported at Helensville or Parakai. This is because the Auckland Plan does not anticipate these settlements to accommodate large amounts of growth and there are considerable areas of existing capacity within these two townships that have yet to be developed. There are also constraints around the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and water supply. 1.8 There is, however, one site at 726 Inland Road, Helensville which is located at the edge of the urban area and is allied to the existing block of future urban zoning. Bringing this site within the urban zoning of Helensville is supported. 1.9 Urban expansion at Snells Beach is not supported as the village is not suitable for expansion due to infrastructure and landscape quality constraints. The landscape surrounding the existing urban area is considered to be worthy of protection, and there are infrastructure capacity constraints along with a lack of public transport for Snells Beach that means urban expansion should not be supported. Urban expansion at Snells Beach would also counter the compact city approach to development. 1.10 Urban expansion of Point Wells is not supported as there is not adequate wastewater capacity to serve significant growth and the area is not considered a priority for investing in this infrastructure. Expanding the Point Wells urban area would cause further degradation of the Whangateau Harbour and encroach into an area subject to flooding and coastal inundation. An expanded urban area would involve urbanisation of productive soils and would create conflict between residential and agricultural land uses. 1.11 The scope of submissions enables the application of a RUB around Point Wells. In establishing a RUB around the existing urban area of Point Wells, a slight adjustment from the current urban zoning is supported to include existing and consented urban subdivisions. Page 3 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 This evidence is a joint statement prepared by Ryan Bradley (Principal Planner), David Hookway (Principal Planner), Austin Fox (Planner) and Joe Jeffries (Planner) for Topic 016 RUB North/West on the PAUP. This statement relates to the Rural and Coastal Towns (North) and specifically covers Matakana, Wellsford, Te Hana, Helensville, Parakai, Snells Beach and Point Wells. 2.2 These settlements are identified in the Auckland Plan as rural and coastal towns and serviced villages and the grouping is explained further in the sub-regional joint statement of evidence by Peter Vari, Eryn Shields and Trevor Watson. Te Hana Wellsford Point Wells Matakana Snells Beach Parakai Helensville Figure 1: Map of Rural and Coastal Villages covered in this evidence 2.3 Ryan Bradley has prepared the sections on Matakana, Wellsford, and Te Hana. David Hookway has prepared the section on Helensville-Parakai, Austin Fox has prepared the section on Snells Beach, and Joe Jeffries has prepared the section on Point Wells. Our qualifications and experience are provided in Attachment A. Page 4 3. CODE OF CONDUCT 3.1 We confirm that we have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that we agree to comply with it. We confirm that we have considered all the material facts that we are aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that we express, and that this evidence is within our areas of expertise, except where we state that we are relying on the evidence of another person. 4. SCOPE 4.1 We are providing a joint statement of planning evidence in relation to the submissions made on the urban zoned extent of: (a) Matakana (b) Wellsford (c) Te Hana (d) Helensville (e) Parakai (f) Snells Beach (g) Point Wells 4.2 This statement addresses each of the above areas as follows: (a) Background to the RUB location (b) Key issues raised by submitters (c) Assessment of submissions (d) Response 4.3 Any relevant documents considered in preparing this statement are identified under the relevant sub-group. 4.4 In preparing this statement the evidence of the following Council witnesses are relied on where relevant: Page 5 (a) The joint statement of evidence for Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) by David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Stuart (b) The joint statement for Auckland Transport (AT) by Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur (c) Robert Hillier (geotechnical) (d) Stephen Brown (landscape) (e) Philip Jaggard (stormwater) (f) Shona Myers (ecology) (g) Sarah Sinclair (coastal engineering)