BEFORE THE UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of Topic 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

(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 - ...... 7 8. GROUP 2 – WELLSFORD ...... 13 9. GROUP 3 – TE HANA ...... 27 10. GROUP 4 – - ...... 31 11. GROUP 5 – ...... 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)

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

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

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

(c) Attachment D – Assessment of submissions against RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 for each sub-group (where relevant)

(d) Attachment E – Section 32AA where the RUB is proposed to be changed

(e) Attachments F to I – Maps of changes to the RUB

5. REZONING

5.1 As outlined in the Council’s joint sub-regional planning statement (section 6) where the relief sought by submissions is for rezoning of rural zoned land to an urban zone in the vicinity of Rural towns and serviced villages then these submissions will be assessed in this evidence against Regional Policy Statement (RPS) B2.5 Policy 1.

5.2 In the event that submissions are consistent with the RPS policy the evidence will identify the proposed zone to be applied. However, the substantive discussion

Page 6 about the appropriateness of any proposed live urban zone will be discussed in the evidence for Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

6. GROUPING OF SUBMISSIONS

6.1 The settlements of Matakana, Wellsford, Te Hana, Helensville, Parakai, Snells Beach and Point Wells have been grouped together for this evidence. The reasons for this grouping are explained further in paragraph 7.3 of the sub- regional joint statement of evidence by Peter Vari, Eryn Shields and Trevor Watson. However, briefly the rationale for grouping these settlements together is as follows:

(a) The settlements are all remote from metropolitan Auckland and therefore the issues they face are different from areas close to, or on the edge of Auckland (i.e. they have small, local wastewater systems not connected to the bulk Watercare system, they have very minimal or no public transport).

(b) None of the settlements are identified in the Auckland Plan as areas for significant urban growth.

(c) None of the settlements currently have a RUB. However, they are all serviced settlements so will therefore require a RUB (either through the PAUP process or a future plan change).

7. GROUP 1 - MATAKANA

Background to RUB Location

7.1 Matakana is a serviced rural and coastal village 9km east of Warkworth and around 70km by road from central Auckland. Matakana has 123 dwellings and a population of 2881. The village has a primary school and a number of specialty shops, restaurants, and visitor accommodation facilities.

7.2 Matakana does not have a RUB identified around it in the PAUP. Matakana will be part of Stage 4 of the RUB project to determine a RUB for towns and serviced Rural and Coastal Villages outside the ‘greenfields areas of investigation’. The Stage 4 RUB project is further outlined in the evidence of Ian Bayliss. There is insufficient scope within submissions to allow for the addition of a RUB around

1 2013 Census (Matakana Census Area Unit)

Page 7 Matakana through the PAUP process because they do not seek urban zonings of a large enough area to be able to fully consider different options and directions for growth around the town.

7.3 In the absence of a formal RUB, the current edge of the urban zones in the PAUP (as notified in September 2013) is considered to be the urban boundary.

Key issues raised by submitters

7.4 There are six submission points that seek to expand or reduce the urban zoned area of Matakana. The submissions relating to the urban edge of Matakana can be divided into two main areas:

 Sub-group area 1: Urban expansion to the east and south

 Sub-group area 2: Reduction of urban area in the west

7.5 The sub-group areas are shown on Figure 2 below.

Sub-group area 2

Sub-group area 1

Figure 2: Matakana submission sub-group areas

Page 8 7.6 As Matakana does not have a RUB and will not be getting a RUB through the PAUP process, the submissions seeking to expand the urban area of Matakana have been assessed against the criteria in the RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 for the expansion of existing rural and coastal towns that do not yet have a RUB.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 1 (expansion to the east and south)

7.7 There are four submission points that seek urban expansions of Matakana to the east and south. The area sought to be urbanised is shown on Figure 3 below.

Urban expansion

Figure 3: Matakana submission sub-group area 1 (expansion to the east and south)

7.8 I do not support the submissions in sub-group area 1 that seek urban expansion to the east and south of Matakana. This is based on the analysis of this sub-group against RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 in Attachment D for expanding rural and coastal towns that do not yet have a RUB. Most notably the expansion would not be to a rural and coastal town that has safe and efficient transport connections and an efficient and well-performing wastewater network with additional or planned and funded capacity. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

Page 9 7.9 The joint statement of evidence from AT shows that they would not support any expansion of the urban area in Matakana due to its relatively remote location and the inherent inefficiencies in providing infrastructure for small scale development. There is also very limited public transport in the area and this is unlikely to change over the next 30 years. Any expansion in Matakana would also exacerbate the congestion issues at the Hill Street intersection in Warkworth, expedite the need for an additional Mahurangi River crossing, and likely require safety upgrades to Matakana Road.

7.10 The urban expansion under sub-group area 1 would have significant impacts on the wastewater capacity at Matakana as outlined in the joint statement of evidence from Watercare. Matakana is serviced for wastewater by the Jones Road wastewater treatment plant. This plant also services Omaha and Point Wells. There is limited capacity in the treatment plant and it is only designed to accommodate the projected population of Matakana based on the operative plan zonings. Any further additions to the urban zoned area of Matakana will have significant implications for the wastewater system.

7.11 It is also relevant to consider that Matakana recently went through a Plan Change process that considered its urban extent. Plan Change 64 (Matakana Village) implemented the district plan changes required to meet the vision in the Matakana Village Sustainable Development Plan (2006). This did not include the rezoning of the area to the east and south for future urban use. This was mainly due to the wastewater limitations outlined above and that the growth would not be consistent with the Auckland Plan direction. Plan Change 64 was only made operative in September 2014.

Response

7.12 I consider that retaining the edge of the urban zonings identified in the notified PAUP is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives in the RPS as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) The transport system (local roads, public transport, Hill Street intersection) will be negatively impacted through the dispersed urban growth promoted by these submissions.

(b) The wastewater system is unable to accommodate further urban growth in these locations.

Page 10 (c) Plan Change 64 has recently been made operative (September 2014) and this has already considered the urban extent of the village.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (reduction of urban area in the west)

7.13 There are two submission points2 that seek to reduce the urban zoned area of Matakana to the west (i.e. seeking rezoning from Single House to Countryside Living). The area sought to be downzoned is shown on Figure 4 below.

Urban reduction

Figure 4: Matakana submission sub-group area 2 (reduction of urban area to the west)

7.14 I do not support the submissions in sub-group area 2 that seek to downzone an area in the west of Matakana. This is because the subject land has already been developed or consented for urban uses. This is shown on Figure 5 below.

2 5277-315, 5280-317

Page 11 4

3

2

1

Figure 5: Development or consented development within sub-group area 2

7.15 The site labelled 1 (939 Matakana Road) contains the Matakana concrete plant. The site labelled 3 (now Laly Haddon Place) was granted under resource consent (R57104) for 43 lots. The site labelled 4 (Lot 12 DP 478312) was granted a resource consent (51090) for a 36 lot subdivision. While the site labelled 2 (941 Matakana Road) has no urban scale development or consents granted, it is a relatively small site that is surrounded by urban zonings so it would be unreasonable to exclude this one site from the urban zoned area.

7.16 In light of this, I consider that it would be unrealistic and ineffective to downzone this land to Countryside Living as it does not reflect the existing consented environment. The reduction of the urban area requested for sub-group area 2 is not appropriate.

Page 12 Response

7.17 I consider that retaining the edge of the urban zonings identified in the notified PAUP for Matakana is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives in the RPS as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) Urban uses such as subdivision, construction of residential dwellings, and industry have already been undertaken on the land or have been granted consent to be undertaken. Removing the Single House zone from these properties would be ineffective in restricting urban activities in this area.

8. GROUP 2 – WELLSFORD

Background to RUB Location

8.1 Wellsford is a serviced town halfway between Auckland and Whangarei (77km by road to central Auckland and 81km to Whangarei). Wellsford has 726 dwellings and a population of 1,6983. Wellsford’s population has fallen by around 2% since 2001.

8.2 Despite its modest population, Wellsford is a significant centre for northern Auckland and southern Kaipara as it services a wide rural catchment. Along with a concentration of commercial activities in Wellsford, the town also has important facilities to service the wider catchment such as the Centennial Park sports grounds, Rodney College, the Wellsford Community Centre, police and fire stations, a medical centre, and the new Wellsford Library. Wellsford is the third largest employment centre in the area with 619 jobs4. The number of jobs in Wellsford has fallen by around a quarter since 2001.

8.3 Wellsford is located at the intersection of State Highway 1 (SH1) and State Highway 16 (SH16) and also has the Main Trunk railway line travelling through it.

8.4 Wellsford does not have a RUB identified around it in the PAUP. Wellsford is part of Stage 4 of the RUB project to determine a RUB for towns and serviced Rural and Coastal Villages outside the ‘greenfields areas of investigation’.

3 2013 Census (Wellsford Census Area Unit) 4 Rodney economic development overview 2013, Auckland Council

Page 13 8.5 The submissions seeking urban expansion in Wellsford are wide ranging and therefore provide sufficient scope to consider an appropriate RUB around Wellsford through the PAUP process. The submission points request a variety of urban zonings for large new areas around Wellsford.

Key issues raised by submitters

8.6 The key issues that have been raised in submissions on the RUB in Wellsford are

 Sub-group area 1: Urban expansion

 Sub-group area 2: Reduction of urban area in the west

8.7 The sub-group areas are shown on Figure 6 below.

Sub-group area 1

Sub-group area 2

Figure 6: Wellsford submission sub-group areas

Page 14 Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 1 (Urban expansion)

8.8 There are 29 submission points5 in sub-group area 1 that overall seek a large scale expansion of Wellsford as shown on Figure 7 below. The expansion consists of large new areas zoned for Future Urban, Industrial, Local Centre, Large Lot, and Open Space. The area requested in submissions to be rezoned for urban activities is around 1,260ha (the urban zoned area of Wellsford is currently 300ha).

Urban expansion

Figure 7: Wellsford submission sub-group area 1 (urban expansion)

8.9 I support in part the submissions in sub-group area 1 that seek urban expansion of Wellsford. This is based on the analysis of sub-group area 1 against the RUB criteria in Attachment C. While I do not support the large scale urban expansion of Wellsford, in applying a RUB to Wellsford I consider there are some discrete locations where it is appropriate to include land currently zoned rural within the RUB.

5 Seven of these submission points refer to both Wellsford and Te Hana within the same submission points so they are covered under both the Wellsford and Te Hana sections of this evidence.

Page 15 8.10 In terms of the large scale urban expansion (i.e. the whole area outlined in Figure 7 above), I consider that this would not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy, it would not result in a defensible urban boundary, it would encroach into an area with geotechnical hazards, and it would not contribute to the effective and efficient use of infrastructure. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

8.11 The large scale urban expansion would not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as it proposes a potential 20-fold increase in the population of Wellsford to around 34,000 residents6 that would be a major change to the hierarchy of rural settlements in the Auckland Plan. Wellsford is currently a Rural and Coastal Town and sits below Satellite Towns in the hierarchy. By increasing the size of Wellsford to this extent, it would mean that it would be much larger than the Satellite Town of Warkworth, which the Auckland Plan envisages growing to around 20,000 residents. The evidence of Chloe Trenouth explains that the Auckland Plan anticipates 11,000 new dwellings in all the Rural towns across the region out to 2041. The expansion under sub-group area 1 would allocate nearly all of these anticipated dwellings just for Wellsford, which is not consistent with either the Auckland Plan or the growth strategy in the PAUP.

8.12 It should also be noted that applying a RUB (and subsequent urban zonings) to provide capacity for growth to such a large number is unlikely to actually result in this quantum of actual urban growth occurring. This is because Wellsford is not anticipated to be an area of significant growth over the next 30 years.

8.13 The total population of Wellsford has been stagnant for nearly 40 years as can be seen in Figure 8 below. In 1976 Wellsford’s population was 1,687 and in the last census in 2013 it was 1,698. Wellsford’s stagnant population growth is in contrast to most other areas in Auckland which have seen significant growth rates. Since 1976 Wellsford has grown by under 1% but over that same period similar rural towns grew substantially more such as Helensville (100% growth), Warkworth (154%), and Snells Beach (622%). The overall grew around 78% between 1976 and 20137.

6 There are 853 potential dwellings in existing zoned areas and an additional 500 dwellings in the Future Urban zone. Then the proposed additional urban land (1,260ha minus 50% for roads, reserves, flood areas, schools etc at 600m2 sections) adds another 10,500 dwellings. 11,853 additional dwellings at 2.7 people per household is 32,003. Added to the existing population of Wellsford (1,698) this brings a total potential population of 33,701. 7 Statistics Census data

Page 16 1800 Wellsford Population 1976 - 2103 1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Population 600

400

200

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2013 Year

Figure 8: Wellsford’s population between 1976 and 20138

8.14 The future growth rate for Wellsford is not anticipated to be significant. The Council’s growth model actually projects that Wellsford may lose population over the 30 year outlook of the Auckland Plan9.

8.15 There is currently capacity within the already urban zoned areas of Wellsford to cater for future growth. The recent Auckland Council Development Capacity Model 2015 undertaken by Kyle Balderston10 shows that there is capacity for 853 dwellings in Wellsford, with 129 of those being economically feasible today (as stated earlier, there are currently 726 dwellings in Wellsford).

8.16 I also note that Wellsford currently contains around 80ha of land zoned Future Urban to cater for long term growth, should the vacant ‘live’ zoned land begin to fill up. This Future Urban zoned land could accommodate potentially around a further 500 dwellings and around 16ha (gross) of business land11.

8.17 Part of the submitters’ reasoning for requesting the large scale urban expansion is that it will enable Wellsford to grow and prosper. However, I do not consider that simply enabling further urban zoning will bring this growth to Wellsford. In my

8 Census data 9 Auckland Regional Transport Model: Scenario Mod I9 10 Note that this model is currently being refined but generally it shows that there is existing capacity for a significant number of new dwellings in Wellsford. 11 Based on the land uses identified in the Wellsford Structure Plan(2000)

Page 17 view, Wellsford’s stagnant growth has been despite the significant areas of vacant urban zoned land, not due to any lack of urban zoned land.

8.18 The urban expansion under sub-group area 1 would result in an urban boundary defined largely by local roads and cadastral boundaries. I consider cadastral boundaries alone to be a weak urban edge as there is little to differentiate between neighbouring sites and to justify including or excluding them from the RUB. I similarly consider local roads where they do not also follow a landscape feature to be a relatively weak urban boundary.

8.19 The expansion would encroach into areas with geotechnical hazards. This is largely linked to areas of slope instability potential as outlined in the geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier.

8.20 The urban expansion under sub-group area 1 would not contribute to the effective and efficient use of infrastructure. NZTA have lodged further submissions opposing this expansion based on its impacts on the State Highway network. The joint statement of evidence from AT refers to small rural towns as possibly representing the most inefficient transport investment in that they require costly upgrades of lengthy roads where there is no surplus capacity, for the benefit of relatively few. The evidence of AT states that Wellsford is remote from other urbanised areas, has no regular public transport, and will therefore result in increased long-distance commuting and vehicle kilometres travelled. Furthermore, the new transport infrastructure and upgrades likely to be necessary to support the area are unfunded.

8.21 The joint statement of evidence from Watercare explains how there is no further water supply available at Wellsford and there is no scope to increase the number of connections to the wastewater treatment plant in Wellsford.

8.22 The large scale urban expansion as proposed under sub-group area 1 would require significant investment to upgrade infrastructure. Based on the low growth rates anticipated in Wellsford, it is not a priority area for investing in infrastructure. Generally, financial investment in infrastructure needs to occur prior to growth. Therefore, before investing in infrastructure there has to be some level of certainty that the growth will occur in the area to be served by that infrastructure. Based on the historical growth rates in Wellsford and its current outlook for future growth there is little certainty that significant residential and business growth will follow on from infrastructure investment.

Page 18 8.23 The large scale urban expansion under sub-group area 1 is also not supported as it has the potential to undermine the operation and planning of existing critical infrastructure assets and networks. This is because the land proposed for urbanisation under this option includes the high voltage electricity lines and the gas and petroleum long distance transmission pipes. I note that should the Warkworth to Wellsford section of the Road of National Significance be extended to Wellsford in the future, the land proposed for urbanisation under sub-group area 1 could affect or preclude route options for the motorway in this area.

8.24 As explained in paragraph 8.9, while I do not support the large scale urban expansion sought under sub-group area 1, there are some discrete locations that I consider appropriate to include within a RUB.

8.25 When applying a 30 year RUB to Wellsford, my overall view is that the RUB should generally follow the edge of the existing urban zoned land. This is in light of the discussion in paragraphs 8.10 to 8.23 around Wellsford’s anticipated low growth and the various constraints to significant growth in this location.

8.26 However, based on various factors there are some locations where I consider that rural zoned land should be bought within the RUB that is being applied to Wellsford. These specific areas are discussed below and there is scope to include them within the RUB based on the wide ranging submissions for urban expansion around Wellsford. In total, I support around 27ha12 of land currently zoned rural to be bought within the 30 year RUB.

8.27 The first area relates to some small lots around Centennial Park Road and Matheson Road that are already subdivided into urban sized parcels and have minimal physical constraints. If these sites were included within the RUB and zoned Single House then the maximum potential yield from further subdivision of these sites would result in a total of 9 new lots13.

8.28 The small scale of the urban expansion means that it will not significantly impact on the wastewater and water infrastructure in Wellsford in the long term. There is also very little impact on transport infrastructure due to the small number of lots that could potentially be created. Therefore, I consider that the areas shown on Figure 9 below should logically be included within the RUB.

12 0.8ha (as shown on Figure 9), 3.1ha (as shown on Figure 10), 23ha (as shown on Figure 11). 13 Based on a Single House zoning with a minimum site size of 600m2

Page 19 Supported RUB Rural zoned area to come within the RUB

Figure 9: Rural Production zoned sites around Centennial Park Road and Matheson Road to be included within the RUB

8.29 The second area of rural zoned land that I consider should be included within the RUB is around School Road and Wellsford Valley Road and is shown on Figure 10 below.

Page 20

Supported RUB Rural zoned area to come within the RUB

Figure 10: Rural Production, Countryside Living and Open Space zoned sites around School Road and Wellsford Valley Road to be included within the RUB

Page 21 8.30 I consider that this area is suitable to be included within the RUB because the western part of the area has already been subdivided into five urban sized parcels (of 1,012m2 each) and each site already contains a dwelling. Despite their Rural Production zoning, these are urban sized sections on the edge of Wellsford and I consider that they logically should be included within the RUB and zoned Single House. Given their size, there is no scope for further subdivision of these sites14. As the existing five urban size lots are west of the Wellsford Cemetery, the cemetery would also come within the RUB15.

8.31 I also consider the rest of the area shown in Figure 10 is suitable to be included within the RUB as the existing urban boundary does not appear to follow any coherent course. The edge of the current Future Urban zone at 9 McGillivray Road has a distinct angled pattern but this does not seem to align with any defensible urban boundary (e.g. landscape feature, physical constraint, road). It also does not align with the cadastral boundary. The current urban zoned edge at 72 School Road also does not align with any defensible urban boundary.

8.32 I consider that all of 9 McGillivray Road should be bought into the RUB. The cadastral boundary of this lot lines up with an established area of lifestyle blocks to create a more defensible urban boundary. Similarly, all of 72 School Road could be bought into the RUB as it would be completely surrounded by sites within the RUB.

8.33 I therefore consider that approximately 2.6ha of rural land (at 9 McGillivray Road and 72 School Road) should be bought within the RUB that is being applied to Wellsford and consequentially the sites should be rezoned to Future Urban. The potential yield from the new Future Urban area (based on a potential Single House zoning in the future) would be around 21 new lots.

8.34 The small scale of the urban expansion means that it will not significantly impact on the wastewater and water infrastructure in Wellsford in the long term. There will also be very little impact on transport infrastructure due to the small number of lots that could potentially be created.

8.35 The third and fourth areas where I consider it is appropriate to include rural zoned areas within the RUB being applied to Wellsford are shown on Figure 11 below.

14 Based on a Single House zoning with a minimum site size of 600m2 15 The inclusion of the cemetery within the RUB does not have implications for its zoning. The zoning of the cemetery is currently Public Open Space but there is a submission to change it to Special Purpose – Cemetery. The zoning of the cemetery will be determined in topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

Page 22

Supported RUB Rural zoned area to come within the RUB

Figure 11: Rural Production zoned sites at the Saleyards and adjacent to the Corry Block to be included within the RUB

Page 23

8.36 The saleyards site sits within an area of Light Industry zoning around Centennial Park Road. All land west of Centennial Park Road is zoned for urban uses (industrial or open space) except for the saleyards site which is an anomaly, having a Rural Production zoning. The land is relatively flat and there are no significant physical constraints to urban development in this location.

8.37 In determining the RUB in this location, I consider it is logical to bring the saleyards site (6ha) within the RUB to have Centennial Park Road as the consistent urban boundary. Being included within the RUB and having a Future Urban zoning will not unduly impact on the ability of the saleyards to continue with their operation.

8.38 The area west of the ‘Corry Block’ (17ha) is hemmed in between the Light Industrial zone (Wharehine Contractors site), Centennial Park (netball courts and open space area), the Future Urban zoned Corry Block, and SH1. The Corry Block is a Council owned piece of land that was purchased by the former Council with a view to providing more industrial land and a roading connection (an eastern collector road between SH1 and Centennial Park Road).

8.39 While the area west of the Corry Block is not flat, it is not dissimilar to most of the industrial zoned area in Wellsford and there are no other significant physical constraints to urban development in this location.

8.40 In determining the RUB in this location, I consider it was appropriate to bring the area west of the Corry Block within the RUB. This is because the Future Urban zoned Corry Block is a ‘finger’ of urban zoned land that is largely disconnected from the rest of the urban area. Bringing the land west of the Corry Block within the RUB allows the opportunity for a more efficient and comprehensive urban development with greater connectivity. It could also enable the opportunity to construct an intersection with SH1 in a safer location (away from the SH1 passing lane) than currently is proposed at the Corry Block.

8.41 Once within the RUB, I consider that the Future Urban zone is the most appropriate zoning for the area except for the site at 1644 State Highway 1. I consider that the Light Industry zoning is more suitable for this particular site as it is already being used as part of the industrial land use on the adjacent sites (Warehine Contractors depot).

Page 24 8.42 In total, the saleyards site and the area west of the Corry Block would add around 23ha to the Future Urban zone. This could yield around 70 dwellings and around 14.5ha of business land (gross)16.

8.43 While the additional dwellings would create more demand on infrastructure (water, wastewater, transport) the increase would be only marginal and the application of the Future Urban zone would not necessitate immediate upgrades.

Response

8.44 I consider that applying a RUB to Wellsford in the location shown in Attachment F is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives in the RPS as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) The recommended RUB is consistent with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy.

(b) There is little anticipated growth in Wellsford over the 30 timeframe of the RUB so the RUB largely follows the edge of existing urban zonings.

(c) The recommended RUB deviates from the edge of existing urban zonings only where there is a more logical and defensible boundary that does not add significant development capacity to Wellsford.

(d) The RUB location shown in Attachment F performs best in the s32AA analysis in Attachment D.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (reduction of urban area in the west)

8.45 There are two submission points17 seeking a reduction of the urban area of Wellsford to the west as shown on Figure 12 below. The submissions specifically seek that two areas of Future Urban zoned land (around 8ha in total) be downzoned to Countryside Living.

16 This assumes that the entire saleyards site would be eventually zoned for Light Industry in the future, and 50% of the area west of Corry Block would be used for Light Industry land in the future. This would yield around 14.5ha of business land (gross). The remaining 50% of the land west of the Corry Block (8.5ha) has 50% taken off for roads, reserves, flood areas, schools etc and the balance spilt into 600m2 sections which yields 70 dwellings. 17 5277-284, 5280-286

Page 25

Urban reduction

Figure 12: Wellsford submission sub-group area 2 (reduction of urban area in the west)

8.46 The submitters’ main concerns seem to be around the fragmented zoning pattern in this location and the unclear rationale for the Future Urban zone boundary. The submission does not seem to be generally opposed to future urban areas to the west of Wellsford. This is because the same submitters have also sought various urban expansions around Wellsford. In particular, the submitters have sought an urban expansion to the west in the vicinity of this proposed reduction of the urban area. In fact, the submissions seeking urban expansions and reductions overlap in one area (see submissions 5277-284/5280-286 and 5277-288/5280-290).

8.47 I do not support the submissions in subgroup area 2 that request that the urban area be reduced through the deletion of two areas of Future Urban zoning (downzoning of land from urban to rural). In light of my discussion in paragraphs 8.12 to 8.17 above around the low growth anticipated in Wellsford, I acknowledge that it could be argued that these areas could be removed from the Future Urban zone while still providing enough capacity for anticipated future growth. The two

Page 26 Future Urban zoned areas have the potential for 87 dwellings18 but they may not be required within the 30 year timeframe of the RUB.

8.48 However, I do not see this as enough of a reason to revert an urban zoning to rural. The process of applying an urban zoning to a previously rural zoned piece of land is generally a lengthy and thorough process and I consider that reversing this process should not be done without a specific reason (e.g. if new information showed that the sites were subject to particular natural hazards).

8.49 The subject land was identified as being suitable for urban use in the Wellsford Structure Plan (2000) and this was carried forward into the Auckland District Plan Rodney Section (2011) and now the PAUP. This process has created a community and landowner expectation of the areas for future urban growth in Wellsford.

8.50 The unusual shape of these Future Urban zoned areas is based on the geotechnical constraints considered during the structure plan19. The submitter has not provided any evidence to demonstrate why this land is no longer suitable for urban use.

Response

8.51 I consider that retaining the Future Urban land to the west of Wellsford is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) The subject land was identified as being suitable for urban use in the Wellsford Structure Plan (2000)

(b) No evidence has been provided by the submitter to justify why this land is no longer suitable for urban use.

9. GROUP 3 – TE HANA

Background to RUB Location

9.1 Te Hana is a serviced village on SH1 around 5km north of Wellsford and 82km by road from central Auckland. The North Island Main Trunk railway line travels

18 Plan 8 - Proposed Development Units, Wellsford Structure Plan 2000 19 Plan 2 – Geotechnical Land Suitability, Wellsford Structure Plan 2000

Page 27 through Te Hana, parallel to SH1. Te Hana is connected to the water and wastewater system of Wellsford.

9.2 Te Hana has 36 dwellings and a population of around 10020. The village has a handful of facilities including a petrol station, café, community hall, reserve and community garden. Te Hana largely relies on the offerings in Wellsford for shopping, schooling and employment.

9.3 The village also contains the Te Hana Te Ao Marama Maori Cultural Centre. This is a tourism facility which is a replica of a 17th century Maori village and houses a marae, weaving and carving studios and an art gallery.

9.4 Te Hana does not have a RUB identified around it in the PAUP. Te Hana is part of Stage 4 of the RUB project to determine a RUB for towns and serviced Rural and Coastal Villages outside the ‘greenfields areas of investigation’.

9.5 The submissions seeking urban expansion in Te Hana are wide ranging and therefore provide sufficient scope to consider an appropriate RUB around Te Hana through the PAUP process. The submission points request a variety of urban zonings for relatively large areas around Te Hana.

Key issues raised by submitters

9.6 The key issue that has been raised in submissions on the RUB in Te Hana is the relatively large scale expansion of the settlement. The requested expansions include large new areas around Te Hana sought to be zoned for Industrial, Local Centre, and Rural and Coastal Settlement. The area requested in submissions to be rezoned for urban activities is around 112ha (the urban zoned area of Te Hana is currently 26ha).

9.7 The areas sought for urban expansion are shown on Figure 13 below.

20 Census mesh blocks are too large to accurately identify the population of the Te Hana village. Therefore, the number of dwellings in the urban zoned area was manually counted (36) and a household occupancy rate of 2.7 was used to estimate a population of 97.

Page 28

Urban expansion

Figure 13: Te Hana submissions seeking urban expansion

Assessment of submissions

9.8 There are 13 submission points21 seeking a relatively large scale expansion of Te Hana as shown on Figure 14 above.

9.9 I support in part the submissions seeking urban expansion of Te Hana. This is based on the analysis against the RUB Criteria in Attachment C. While I do not support the relatively large scale urban expansion of Te Hana, I do support the addition of a RUB to Te Hana.

9.10 In terms of the relatively large scale urban expansion, I consider that this would be inconsistent with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy, it would not result in a defensible urban boundary, it does not avoid productive land, and it would not contribute to the effective and efficient use of infrastructure. These matters are considered further in the following paragraphs.

21 Seven of these submission points refer to both Wellsford and Te Hana within the same submission points so they are covered under both the Wellsford and Te Hana sections of this evidence.

Page 29 9.11 The urban expansion would not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as it proposes a 15-fold increase in the population of Te Hana to around 1,600 residents22 (with an additional 562 dwellings). As outlined in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth, the Auckland Plan anticipates only 6,000 additional dwellings across the more than 50 Rural villages in Auckland and such a large increase in Te Hana would use up a sizable proportion of this for such a small settlement.

9.12 It should also be noted that the future growth rate for Te Hana is not anticipated to be significant. The Council’s growth model actually projects that Te Hana may lose population over the 30 year outlook of the Auckland Plan23. There is currently capacity within the already urban zoned areas of Te Hana to cater for future growth24.

9.13 The urban expansion would result in an urban boundary defined largely by local roads and cadastral boundaries. I consider the cadastral boundaries to be a weak urban edge as there is little to differentiate between neighbouring sites and to justify including or excluding them from the RUB. I similarly consider local roads where they do not also follow a landscape feature to be a relatively weak urban boundary.

9.14 The proposed expansion of Te Hana encompasses a relatively large area of prime soils which the RPS seeks to protect in B.8.2. While it is noted that the land already within the urban area is also on prime soils, this expansion would result in the further loss of this resource.

9.15 The urban expansion of Te Hana would not contribute to the effective and efficient use of infrastructure. As Te Hana is just north of Wellsford on State Highway 1 and it is connected to the Wellsford water and wastewater system, the discussion on infrastructure in paragraphs 8.20 to 8.22 above cover this issue.

9.16 The submissions give sufficient scope to add a RUB to Te Hana. When applying a 30 year RUB to Wellsford, my overall view is that the RUB should follow the edge

22 There are currently 36 existing dwellings in Te Hana and there is the potential for 95 further dwellings (CfGS 2013). At 2.7 persons per household this gives a total of 354 residents. The additional land of 112ha has 50% taken off for roads, reserves, flood areas, schools etc leaving 56ha. This assessment assumes that 50% of the net land is used for residential and 50% business. Using the Single House zone (min 600m2) there would be an additional 467 dwellings resulting in a further 1,261 residents.

23 Auckland Regional Transport Model: Scenario Mod I9

24 While the Auckland Council Development Capacity Model 2015 shows capacity for only 14 further dwellings in the Rural and Coastal Settlement zone in Te Hana, this is based on an incorrect zoning . Should that zoning change to Single House then the capacity would increase to around 95 dwellings. The zoning of Te Hana will be fully considered in Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

Page 30 of the existing urban zoned land25. While there are some physical constraints to urban growth around Te Hana, the basis of the RUB following the existing urban zone boundary is Te Hana’s anticipated low growth and the Auckland Plan Development Strategy not identifying Te Hana as a focus for significant growth.

Response

9.17 I consider that applying a RUB to Te Hana in the location shown in Attachment G is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives in the RPS as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) The recommended RUB is consistent with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy.

(b) There is little anticipated growth in Te Hana over the 30 timeframe of the RUB so the RUB follows the edge of existing urban zonings.

(c) The RUB location shown in Attachment G performs best in the s32AA analysis in Attachment D.

10. GROUP 4 – HELENSVILLE-PARAKAI

Background to RUB Locations

10.1 Helensville–Parakai lies to the north of Auckland and is situated just south of the and adjacent to the . The Helensville–Parakai structure plan was adopted in October 1998 and the former council implemented significant parts of the plan over subsequent years. There has been substantial but not complete take-up of that development capacity especially in the east of Helensville and in Parakai west.

10.2 Helensville and Parakai are identified in the Auckland Plan as serviced rural and coastal towns and as a consequence are not identified in the Auckland Plan as being an area for growth.

10.3 The present Helensville township comprises of about 980 dwellings with a population of about 2,600 (2013 census). There is still unused capacity within the

25 Te Hana is currently zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement which is a zone for unserviced settlements. Settlements with this zoning are not intended to have a RUB. However, this zoning in Te Hana is an error as Te Hana is a serviced settlement (connected to the Wellsford water and wastewater systems). Therefore, it is correct for Te Hana to have a RUB and the zoning within Te Hana will be assessed in Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

Page 31 existing urban area of Helensville equivalent to 147 dwelling units. The PAUP (refer Figure 14 below) has provided additional live single house zoned land equating to a development capacity of 530 dwelling units or about 1,400 people in the south of Helensville.

Parakai

Helensville East Helensville

Helensville South

Figure 14: Helensville and Parakai location map

10.4 The newly zoned land in the PAUP, in the south of Helensville is subject to the Greenfields Urban Precinct overlay which requires that water and wastewater infrastructure is available before subdivision and development can take place. A small part of this area has been accepted as a special housing area (SHA). The remaining Future Urban zoned land in Helensville south will provide an additional capacity for 500 household units.

10.5 Growth in Helensville–Parakai has been constrained by the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant serving the two settlements. Only in recent years has a moratorium on new development been lifted to allow development within the existing urban settlements of Helensville and Parakai. However, while Watercare’s

Page 32 remedial works have relieved capacity constraints somewhat, the ultimate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant has set a ceiling on the ability to release all the Future Urban zoning identified in the Helensville-Parakai structure plan, and this limitation has been carried through into the PAUP by the continued provision of Future Urban zoning and the placement of a Greenfields Urban Precinct over otherwise "live" zoned areas in Helensville South (refer to the joint statement of evidence from Watercare).

10.6 Watercare has also identified water supply constraints to the future growth potential of both Helensville and Parakai and this will need to be addressed by the sourcing and consenting of a new water supply either locally or by connection to the metropolitan water supply in future years.

10.7 The operative district plan provides for a large tranche of Future Urban land to the south of the existing township, which was identified in the structure plan. The Council has not completed the Stage 4 Edge work to formally establish a RUB for Helensville–Parakai and therefore has set an urban boundary in line with what has earlier been planned through the structure plan.

10.8 I have assessed the submission areas against the RUB criteria where submitters have asked to be included within the RUB and assessed their proposals against the Policy B2.5 of the PAUP where they have requested rezoning at the edge of the settlements. Where they have asked for both, I have assessed them under both sets of criteria in Attachments C and D.

10.9 Watercare have been progressively working to refurbish and expand the wastewater treatment plant's capacity to serve this area. In August 2013 Watercare advised the Council that they intended to bring forward plans to upgrade and expand the plant to provide for a total population equivalent of 5,800. This would provide treatment capacity for approximately 530 additional dwellings. On this basis the Council, with some reference to the sequencing strategy of the structure plan, released operative district plan areas of Future Urban zoned land in Parakai (now Single House zone in the PAUP) and part of the Helensville South area (now Single House zone and large lot zone, subject to a Greenfields Precinct overlay control in the PAUP).

10.10 Parakai is located on the Kaipara River floodplain and is regionally notable for is thermal water resource which is used to provide hot pool facilities. Parakai comprises about 370 dwellings and has an existing population of about 1,000

Page 33 people. In the PAUP, Single House zoning has been applied to sufficient greenfields land to accommodate about 320 houses which equates to about 850 people. As Parakai is served from the same system that supplies Helensville with water and wastewater all of the limitations faced there apply in Parakai too. Additionally all of Parakai sits on the Kaipara River floodplain and so is potentially subject to a range of flooding and inundation challenges that climate change will exacerbate.

Key issues raised by submitters

10.11 The submissions are focused on the following areas :

 Sub-group area 1: Helensville South

 Sub-group area 2: Helensville East

 Sub-group area 3: Parakai

10.12 These sub-group options are shown on Figure 15 below.

Page 34 Sub-group area 2

Sub-group area 3

Sub-group area 1

Figure 15 Helensville-Parakai sub-group areas

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 1 (Helensville South)

10.13 There are two submissions relating to the south of Helensville as shown in Figure 16 below.

10.14 The submitter in respect to the land at 5 Audrey Luckens Lane seeks that this land either be entirely zoned Single House residential or entirely zoned Countryside Living. The PAUP has essentially reflected the operative district plan zoning, providing a split zone across the subject site; Single House zoning for the eastern portion and a Countryside Living zone for the remainder. This has the consequence of locating the urban edge through the site.

Page 35 5 Audrey Luckens Lane

726 Inland Road

Figure 16 Submissions in Helensville South

10.15 The site of 2.6ha covers a ridgeline promontory where the existing house is located and its southern portion being extremely steep and essentially undevelopable. The eastern residentially zoned portion sits at an elevation some 20 metres lower and relates well with other undeveloped residential land that has access from Rautawhiri Road. The remainder of the site (0.95ha) is located at the high level and while moderately steep, has good north easterly aspect and could be suitable for either large lot or medium density residential development. No information however is supplied in the submission to address any of the potential

Page 36 effects that need to be considered to determine the land's suitability for urban development. Also, within the Helensville context , servicing of any additional land is problematical even for existing zoned land. I consider the best course would be to leave the land zoned as it is in the PAUP.

10.16 Submission 3560 seeks to add the property at 726 Inland Road to the RUB.

10.17 The non-inclusion of this land in the urban area appears to be an anomaly created by historic ownership issues. While the land presently sits at the edge of a large block of Countryside Living development the land is strongly related to the Helensville South block of land subject to the Future Urban zone. This land was earlier subdivided out of the land now zoned Future Urban so it is definitely allied to this future urban land and in my opinion it is sensible to include this within the urban area. At just over 1 hectare and with two street frontages the site will have a less than a minor effect on the overall servicing or amenities of this area if developed eventually at an urban density and will rationalise the urban zoning pattern of this area.

Response

10.18 I do not support any change in the urban boundary at 5 Audrey Luckens Lane.

10.19 I support the inclusion of 726 Inland Road within the Urban boundary of Helensville south and the Future Urban zoning of this land.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 2 (Helensville East)

10.20 The submitter (submission 5697 -2 and 3) seeks that the present 64 hectare block of rural land be placed within the RUB and given a Single House residential zoning with a precinct overlay allowing interim lower density development to occur ahead of reticulated services to the land becoming available to the land.

Page 37 Helensville East (submission 5697)

Figure 17 Submission in Helensville East

10.21 The submission has asked for the land to be within the RUB and rezoned and therefore I have assessed this request against both the RUB criteria and the RPS criteria as set out in Attachments C and D. This land has not been earlier envisaged or required to be urbanised and as a serviced rural and coastal town Helensville has not been identified as a location for substantial growth over the planning period. There are likely environmental effects of this proposal including the proposition of allowing incremental development at a lower density ahead of

Page 38 the ability to service this land by reticulated systems. The development of this land is also likely to result in stormwater effects both onsite and upon downstream and upstream properties impacted by the Awaroa Stream as discussed in Sarah Sinclair's evidence on coastal hazards. The effect on urban form in stepping beyond the defensible boundary of the Awaroa Stream has not been addressed in the wider Helensville context. The evidence of Stephen Brown discusses these landscape issues. Also the PAUP has overlays affecting the land which identify inundation issues and cultural heritage sites. There are also geotechnical constraints as discussed in the evidence of Robert Hillier.

10.22 The joint statement of evidence of AT has looked at the road access and layout as proposed and raises reservations on access to the land solely from Awaroa Road. There are also concerns that the steep topography dictates a road layout which is not considered permeable for active modes and public transport.

Response

10.23 For the reasons discussed above, I do not support any change to be made to the PAUP in relation to the Helensville East area.

Assessment of submissions – Sub-group area 3 (Parakai)

10.24 Submission 5616 from Paradise Kaipara Ltd relates to a 40ha rural production block on the north-western edge of Parakai (as shown in Figure 18) seeking a variety of urban zones to provide for residential, tourist stay, arts and community, accessory retail, workshop uses, potentially rolled into a precinct provision. The particular PAUP zonings requested are Mixed Use and Single House residential zonings along with a Parakai North precinct overlay with two sub precincts. Mention is made in the body of the submission of bringing the land within the RUB.

Page 39 Paradise Kaipara submission

Figure 18: Submission in Parakai

10.25 I have assessed the submission request against the RUB criteria and the RPS criteria as set out in Attachments C and D. The general assessment is negative in respect to many of these criteria. The submission is a bare outline of the proposal and does not address any of the strategic need, servicing/ flooding, inundation, liquefaction challenges of this site, and the urban integration and urban form effects in any detail (refer to Figure 18 in respect to the non-statutory overlays that apply to this area). The coastal hazard evidence of Sarah Sinclair and the geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier discusses this issue in relation to urbanisation of this land. The servicing limitations previously mentioned remain. Northern expansion of Parakai has been noted as a risk for the geothermal

Page 40 resource of this area and this has not been addressed in any way. Further, it can be observed that this amount of land would provide for more development potential than exists in the vacant residential land already provided for in the settlement. As Parakai is not seen to be a growth centre in the Auckland Plan the amount of land subject of this submission is unlikely to ever be needed for the growth of Parakai in the next 30 year planning period.

Response

10.26 I do not support any change being made to the urban boundary at Parakai or to the PAUP zoning provision in respect of this land.

11. GROUP 5 – SNELLS BEACH

Background to RUB Location

11.1 Snells Beach is an established coastal community with an easterly aspect to the Hauraki Gulf. Snells Beach is located approximately 50km north of central Auckland and approximately 6km east of Warkworth.

11.2 Snells Beach was the subject of a Structure Plan adopted by former Rodney District Council in October 1999. The Structure Plan was undertaken at that point because the former Rodney Council considered that following improved accessibility to the area with the upgrading of State Highway 1 the attraction of a commuter based lifestyle would place increasing growth pressures on the locality.

11.3 The Structure Plan identified areas surrounding the urban area as being within a Landscape Protection Policy Area and it is this Structure Plan which informed the operative District Plan (Rodney section) and formed the basis of the provisions for Snells Beach within the PAUP.

11.4 Chapter B, Objective 2.1.1 (providing for growth in a quality compact urban form) of the PAUP states ‘a quality urban form with clear defensible limit (Rural Urban Boundary – RUB) to the urban expansion of the metropolitan area, satellite towns, rural and coastal towns and serviced villages.’

11.5 The PAUP has not applied a RUB around Snells Beach so for the purpose of this report the extent of the settlement is taken as being at the boundary between urban and rural zonings.

Page 41 11.6 Snells Beach is part of Stage 4 of the RUB project to determine a RUB for towns and serviced Rural and Coastal Villages outside the ‘greenfields areas of investigation’.

11.7 There is insufficient scope within submissions to allow for the addition of a RUB around Snells Beach through the PAUP process because they do not seek urban zonings of a large enough area to be able to fully consider different options and directions for growth around the town.

Key issues raised by submitters

11.8 The submissions have been grouped into the following:

(a) Sub-group area 1 - Significant requests for more urban zoned land

(b) Sub-group area 2 - Significant requests for less urban zoned land

(c) Sub-group area 3 – Minor requests for more urban zoned land

11.9 Below is a summary of the key issues raised by submissions:

(a) Sub-group area 1 - Significant requests for more urban zoned land

(i) The submitters' (5277-307, 5277-309, 5280-309, 5280-311) reasoning for seeking urban zoning in both the Dawson Road and Goodall Road areas outlined in Figure 19 is that:

 this would provide for future urban residential options utilizing the moderate sloping of minor headland landforms;

 the area has high liveability/amenity;

 there is a diversity of living options;

 the sites have access to the coastal environment;

 the area has a northerly aspect; and

 such a change would result in open space and environmental enhancement opportunities.

(b) Sub-group area 2 - Significant requests for less urban zoned land

(i) The submitter’s (5277-311, 5280-313) reasoning for seeking the removal of Future Urban zoning to the southern edge of Snells Beach (and therefore a reduction in the urban edge) as outlined in Figure 19

Page 42 is that steep terrain in inappropriate for Future Urban zoning, that the site contains Significant Ecological Area (SEA) bush gullies and that a Countryside Living zone may be more appropriate dependent upon environmental enhancement.

(ii) The submitters' (5277-310, 5280-312) reasoning for seeking a Rural Coastal zoning for Waimana Point (and therefore a reduction in the urban edge) as outlined in Figure 19 is that:

(1) the area is a key defining headland of Algies Bay;

(2) Large Lot is an inappropriate zoning that would likely result in development patterns with adverse natural character and effects; and

(3) Large Lot is an inappropriate zoning that would likely result in development patterns with adverse amenity effects.

(c) Sub-group area 3 – Minor requests for more urban zoned land

(i) The submitter’s (4212-1) reasoning for seeking to extend the extent of urban zoning to the west of the existing centre at 254-268 Mahurangi Road, as outlined in Figure 19, is that this ‘split’ zoning divides the property into three distinct development areas which does not represent an efficient development pattern for the site. A site specific zoning or other planning mechanism is requested for this site that allows for all the activities provided for in the three zonings without detailing specifically where on the site these activities could be undertaken.

(ii) The submitters' (5277-306, 5280-308) reasoning for seeking to rezone land on Grange Street, as outlined in Figure 19 from Single House and Rural Coastal to Light Industry and Local Centre is that this would provide additional employment opportunities for future growth and would consolidate the existing commercial centre.

(iii) The submitter’s (3520-4) reasoning for seeking to extend the extent of urban zoning at 124 Mahurangi East Road, as outlined in Figure 19, by rezoning from Countryside Living to Single House are that the property no longer fits with the objectives and policies of the

Page 43 Countryside Living zone as the amenity level has eroded over the last 12 years, where priority should be given to maintain a lifestyle level of amenity. In particular the submitter states that the lifestyle level of amenity as expected in a Countryside Living zone has been impacted by:

 Increase in traffic, including Heavy Vehicle Traffic;

 Noise, traffic, people and rubbish/litter pollution; and

 Being surrounded on two boundaries by residential subdivision.

(iv) The submitter’s (2197-1) reasoning for seeking to extend the extent of urban zoning to the north of Snells Beach (Part of Lot 2 DP 203304), as outlined in Figure 19, by rezoning part as medium intensity residential, part as open space and the remained unaltered, is that this would promote the most efficient use of the land compared to the uses possible under the current zoning, the land at present is short of a productive farm area and it would constitute a natural extension of an existing residentially zoned area.

(v) The submitter’s (6915-1) reasoning for seeking to extend the extent of urban zoning to the north of Snells Beach (Lot 3 DP 203304), as outlined in Figure 19, by rezoning the northern part of the site from Rural Coastal to Mixed Housing Suburban is that the site is suitable for higher intensity residential development, it would be complementary to the general development pattern of the area, and the area is fully reticulated for stormwater, wastewater and domestic water.

(d) There is a submission (7328-11) which seeks the retention of green space and open views to the west of Snells Beach, with no reasoning given.

Page 44

Figure 19: Map of submissions in Snells Beach

Page 45

Assessment of submissions

11.10 As set out in the assessment criteria in Attachment C, I consider that on balance the changes sought in the submissions to the urban edge of Snells Beach are not supported for the following reasons:

(a) The submissions relate to land that was not identified in the greenfield areas for investigation in the Auckland Plan;

(b) There is more suitable land that could be zoned for urban uses that does not suffer from the constraints at Snells Beach, including those related to:

i. water supply reticulation and wastewater capacity (see joint evidence of David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Stuart of Watercare) which states that local water supply reticulation will need significant upgrading to service future growth in the Snells-Algies area, but that this area is not identified as a priority area for future growth; and that at present Watercare has limited ability to accept new connections in this area until a new outfall pipe is in place (expected in 2018);

ii. transportation capacity (see Auckland Transport’s Joint Statement of Theunis van Schalkwyk, Evan Keating, Alastair Lovell and Scott MacArthur), including intersection capacity constraints at Hill Street/Elizabeth Street/SH1 in Warkworth through which the majority of traffic accessing Snells Beach would use, and that further urbanisation within the settlement would expedite the need for an additional Mahurangi River crossing and safety upgrades to Matakana Road and Sandspit Road;

iii. landscape quality (see Structure Plan and Statement of Evidence of Stephen Brown (Landscape) which outlines that it would be preferable to consolidate development within that part of the landscape already shaped and modified by existing development, to retain the distinctive ridge / hill country ‘bookends’ north of Snells Beach and south of Algies Bay, and limit further intrusion into the coastal landscapes of the Mahurangi Harbour (i.e. retain the existing urban edge); and

Page 46 (c) the land is not required to support growth to 2040. There are other areas in the north that are more suitable for future urban development.

Response

11.11 I consider that retaining the current extent of urban zoned land in Snells Beach is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives and policies of the RPS as set out in the evidence of Chloe Trenouth as the present extent of urban zoning reflects constraints at Snells Beach relating to landscape quality, capacity constraints in relation to water supply reticulation and waste water infrastructure, and constraints in the transportation network.

11.12 This gives effect to submission (7328-11) which seeks the retention of green space and open views to the west of Snells Beach.

12. GROUP 6 – POINT WELLS

Background to RUB Location

12.1 Point Wells is a coastal settlement of approximately 400 residents located approximately 70km north of central Auckland. Point Wells occupies the end of a peninsula which juts out into the Whangateau Harbour. It lies to the north east of Matakana and Warkworth.

12.2 The PAUP does not include a RUB around Point Wells. However, the scope of the submissions lodged has enabled consideration of the location of a RUB around Point Wells (see Figure 20 below).

12.3 The Point Wells Omaha Flats Sustainable Development Plan was adopted in June 2006 by the former Rodney District Council. This was the conclusion of extensive community consultation. The consultation process and hearing of submissions identified the community’s desire for the following outcomes for Point Wells and Omaha Flats:

 Create a unique character for Point Wells as a garden village with clear boundaries.  Preserve prime agricultural and horticultural land at Omaha Flats.

Page 47  Protect the harbour and manage coastal access.  Foster local community involvement in the decision about the future of Point Wells/Omaha Flats.  Strive for sustainable development at Point Wells/Omaha Flats.

12.4 The SDP included a proposed Special Zone intended to be implemented by way of a plan change. This Special Zone was implemented by Plan Change 63 in 2010. The decision report for Plan Change 63 considered the SDP “a reliable guide to the community’s desires in terms of future land use”.

12.5 Approved Plan Change 63 was incorporated into the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) as the Special 22 zone. The Special 22 zone applies three separate policy areas to the Point Wells Omaha Flats area – the Point Wells Garden Seaside Settlement Policy Area, the Point Wells Omaha Flats Lifestyle Policy Area, and the Omaha Flats Rural Policy Area (see Figure 21 below).

12.6 Resource consent was granted in December 2011 to subdivide 89 residential lots in 5 stages in Point Wells (see Figure 22 below). Some of these residential lots go slightly outside the urban area of Point Wells established by the Point Wells Garden Seaside Settlement Policy Area in the Operative Plan, and carried over into the PAUP (see Figure 26).

12.7 The intention of the PAUP zoning in Point Wells was to carry over the zoning provisions of the Special 22 (Point Wells Omaha Flats) Zone. The PAUP zoning aligns with the zoning in the Operative Plan. A Single House zone is applied to the area of the Point Wells Garden Seaside Settlement Policy Area in the operative plan, Countryside living zoning is applied to the area of the Point Wells Omaha Flats Lifestyle Policy Area, and a Mixed Rural zone is applied to the area of the Omaha Flats Rural Policy Area (see Figure 21 below). The PAUP applies an additional subdivision control overlay which restricts subdivision in the Single House zone to a minimum of 1,000m2, and allows subdivision to a minimum of 5,000m2 in the Countryside Living zone. This subdivision control ensures consistency with the subdivision rules of the Special 22 zone.

Page 48

Figure 20: Submissions seeking an urban expansion in Point Wells

Page 49

Figure 21 – Point Wells Omaha Flats Outline Plan. Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section)

Page 50

Figure 22 – Consented subdivision plan for 228 Point Wells Road

Key issues raised by submitters

12.8 A total of four submission points were received seeking an enlarged Point Wells urban area (see Figure 20 above) with a mixture of Future Urban and Live Urban zones. Though these submission points explicitly seek rezoning, they have provided scope to consider the location of the Point Wells RUB.

12.9 The reasons given by submitters for the expansion of Point Wells are:

 The area requested for urban expansion sits within the logical boundary of Point Wells Village.

 The area requested for urban expansion has access to urban infrastructure such as reticulated wastewater.

 The visual effects of a small expansion of the urban area of Point Wells will be minor.

Page 51  The effect on the road network of a small expansion of the urban area of Point Wells will be minor.

 The character of the sites immediately adjacent to the existing urban area are more residential in nature than they are rural.

 A countryside living zone will introduce reverse sensitivity effects for adjacent residential sites.

12.10 The submission points shown in Figure 20 above provide scope to consider the location of a RUB around Point Wells.

12.11 I have considered the submission points seeking an extension of the urban area of Point Wells as one group.

Assessment of submissions

12.12 I consider that establishing a RUB around an expanded urban area of Point Wells, as sought in submissions, does not meet the RUB criteria as set out in

Attachment C.

12.13 Expanding the urban area of Point Wells, as sought in submissions, would encroach into areas subject to the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain and the 1 per cent coastal storm inundation (CSI) event (see Figures 23, 24 and 25 below). While the existing Point Wells urban area includes land subject to flooding and coastal storm inundation this land has already been identified and zoned for further development. When considering the expansion of urban areas, Policy 25 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS), Objective 1 and Policy 12(a) of the Council’s preferred version of Chapter B6.7 (Natural hazards) of the RPS require the reduction of risk posed by natural hazards or at least require no increase in exposure to them. Extending the RUB into this area would increase exposure to flood hazards and coastal storm inundation. The nature of flood hazards is addressed in detail in the evidence of Nick Brown on behalf of Auckland Council for Topics 006 and 022, and the nature and extent of coastal hazards is discussed in the evidence of Sarah Sinclair and Dr Scott Stephens for topic 022. Coastal storm inundation in Point Wells is addressed Sarah Sinclair’s evidence for this topic on coastal hazards.

Page 52

Figure 23: Point Wells 1% AEP flood plain

Figure 24: Point Wells coastal storm inundation 1% AEP

Page 53

Figure 25: Point Wells coastal storm inundation 1% AEP + 1 metre seal level rise (shown in green)

Figure 26: Consented urban lots which go outside the urban zoned area of Point Wells in the Operative Plan and PAUP (shown in blue)

Page 54

12.14 While Point Wells is connected to a reticulated wastewater system, capacity in this system is required to service growth in the existing urban areas. Urban expansion as proposed by the submitters would require significant investment to upgrade wastewater and possibly water infrastructure. Under the Auckland Plan, Point Wells is not considered a priority area for investing in this infrastructure. The joint statement of evidence from Watercare deals specifically with the issue of wastewater capacity.

12.15 The operative zoning for Point Wells, which is carried over into the PAUP, was informed by the 2006 Sustainable Development Plan. That plan was based on a local consensus to preserve the character of Point Wells as a garden village with clear boundaries, to preserve prime agricultural and horticultural land, and to protect the Whangateau Harbour. One of the intentions of the plan was to provide a buffer between the rural and urban zonings. This buffer is achieved in the Special 22 (Point Wells Omaha Flats) Zone in the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) through the application of the Point Wells Omaha Flats Lifestyle Policy Area. This buffer is translated into the PAUP as a Countryside Living zone with a minimum sit size for subdivision of 5,000m2. I consider that significant urban expansion, as requested by the submitters, would remove this buffer and would conflict with the objectives of the Sustainable Development Plan.

12.16 Submitter Hurt (submission 2528) claims that a Countryside Living zone will introduce reverse sensitivity effects for adjacent residential sites. However the existing character of the area is of a countryside living nature so these uses may be discounted as existing uses. In this sense the Countryside Living zoning does not introduce new effects. The intention of the zoning in the PAUP is to carry over the zoning of the operative plan. It does this by applying an Additional Subdivision Overlay to allow subdivision down to 5,000m2, the same as the operative plan. The provisions of the PAUP in Point Wells are largely a continuation of the status quo, rather than a change that would introduce significant new effects. While the Countryside Living zone does permit some activities that were not permitted in the operative plan, I do not consider that these would be likely to introduce significant reverse sensitivity effects.

12.17 Expansion of the urban area of Point Wells is likely to compromise some of the important environmental values outlined in the Auckland Plan including “the

Page 55 natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins” and “significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna”. Point Wells is a high quality estuarine environment that contains a regionally rare mix of habitats. The area supports a variety of coastal birds including a number of nationally vulnerable species. Expanding the urban area of Point Wells will lead to increased sedimentation into the SEA of the Whangaetau Harbour. Further development and population growth will also increase threats to coastal birds. These threats include direct disturbance, habitat loss, impacts on food availability and an increase in mammalian predators. The evidence of Ms Shona Myers addresses the potential impact of development on the environmental values and ecology of Point Wells.

Response

12.18 I do not support establishing a RUB around a significant expansion of the urban area of Point Wells. I consider that establishing a RUB around the existing urban area of Point Wells, with a slight adjustment to include existing and consented urban subdivisions as shown in Attachment I, is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives and policies of the RPS as set out in the evidence of Ms Chloe Trenouth for the following reasons:

(a) The area to the south of the existing urban area of Point Wells is not identified as an area for growth in the Auckland Plan and is not considered a priority for infrastructure investment.

(b) There is insufficient wastewater capacity for expanding Point Wells as capacity in the wastewater system is required to serve growth in existing urban areas.

(c) Expanding the Point Wells urban area would cause further degradation of the Significant Ecological Area of the Whangateau Harbour.

(d) Establishing a RUB around the existing urban area, with a slight adjustment to include existing and consented subdivisions, avoids urbanisation of productive soils, and avoids conflict between residential and agricultural land uses.

Page 56 (e) Establishing a RUB around the existing urban area, with a slight adjustment to include existing and consented subdivisions, avoids urbanisation of an area subject to flooding and coastal storm inundation. This is in accordance with Policy 25 of the NZCPS which states that development should not increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards.

13. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS

13.1 There are no proposed amendments outside the scope of submissions.

14. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP

14.1 There are consequential amendments to other parts of the PAUP as a result of the sections of this evidence that support the application or movement of the RUB. As all urban zoned land should be contained within the RUB, where a RUB shift is supported, any rural land to be included within the RUB is to receive an urban zoning. In these circumstances the default urban zoning is Future Urban. However, there are some specific cases where a ‘live’ urban zoning of Single House is supported. These are explicitly identified in the section of this evidence on Wellsford and Point Wells.

14.2 As well as the application of an urban zone, some urban overlays will be required to be added and some rural overlays will also need to be removed.

14.3 In Wellsford, the area of Countryside Living zone at 9 McGillivray Road to be included within the RUB (as shown in Figure 10) also requires the removal of the “Built Environment: Additional Subdivision Controls – Wellsford Countryside Living 2ha” overlay.

14.4 In Point Wells, the addition of the area of Single House (as shown in Figure 26) requires the removal of the “Built Environment: Additional Subdivision Controls – Point Wells-Omaha Flats Countryside Living 5000m2” overlay and the addition of the “Built Environment: Additional Subdivision Controls – Point Wells 1000m2” overlay.

Page 57 15. CONCLUSION

15.1 Below is a brief summary of the council’s position on the RUB in the Rural and Coastal settlements:

(a) Retain the edge of the urban zonings as notified in Matakana, Snells Beach and Parakai.

(b) Move the urban edge in Helensville to incorporate one site at 726 Inland Road as shown in Attachment H.

(c) Add a RUB to Te Hana and Point Wells that follows the edge of the urban zonings as shown in Attachments G and I.

(d) Add a RUB to Wellsford that generally follows the edge of the urban zonings except for some particular areas where a new urban boundary is more logical and defensible as shown in Attachment F.

Ryan Bradley, David Hookway, Austin Fox, Joe Jeffries

15 October 2015

Page 58

ATTACHMENT A

Qualifications and relevant past experience of RYAN BRADLEY

Career Summary

2013 – 2015 Planner Auckland Council

2011 – 2012 Planning Enforcement Officer London Borough of Newham

2005 – 2010 Senior Policy Planner Rodney District Council

2002 – 2005 Resource Management Planner Opus International Consultants

2001 Planning Assistant Jenny Hudson Planning

Qualifications

2002 Auckland University Bachelor of Planning (Hons)

Affiliations

Grad plus member of NZPI

Qualifications and relevant past experience of DAVID HOOKWAY

Career Summary

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

Qualifications

I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Geography, (University of Auckland 1974) and a Diploma of Town Planning (University of Auckland 1979).

Affiliations

I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.

Qualifications and relevant past experience of AUSTIN FOX

Career Summary

2013 – Present Planner Auckland Council

2004 – 2011 Planning Officer Newcastle City Council

2003 – 2004 Area Planning Officer Castle Morpeth Borough Council

2001 – 2003 Planning Officer South Norfolk Council

Qualifications

2003 University of Newcastle upon Tyne Diploma, Town Planning

2001 University of Newcastle upon Tyne BA(Hons), Town and Country Planning

Qualifications and relevant past experience of JOE JEFFRIES

Career Summary

2012 to present Planner Auckland Council

Qualifications

2011 University of Auckland Master of Planning Practice (Hons)

2002 University of Otago Bachelor of Arts

ATTACHMENT B

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence - Matakana

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Matakana Road, Leigh Road and Tongue Farm North – rural and Rural and Matakana 1 Do not 313 Forum New Waiheke Island Road, Matakana as shown in the submission [refer to page 75/104] from coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand Mixed Rural to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Matakana Road, Matakana as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Matakana 2 Do not 315 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 75/104] from Single House to Countryside Living. coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Matakana Road, Leigh Road and Tongue Farm North – rural and Rural and Matakana 1 Do not 315 Institute of Waiheke Island Road, Matakana as shown in the submission [refer to page 75/104] from coastal settlement Coastal support Architects Mixed Rural to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Matakana Road, Matakana as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Matakana 2 Do not 317 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 75/104] from Single House to Countryside Living. coastal settlement Coastal support Architects areas Towns/Villages

5285-8 Warkworth Area North and Rezone land in Matakana from Mixed Rural, so it can be used for through North – rural and Rural and Matakana 1 Do not Business Waiheke Island traffic, parking and a school expansion scheme. Refer to submission on coastal settlement Coastal support Association et al p 7/7 vol 3 for suggested proposal. areas Towns/Villages

5285-9 Warkworth Area North and Rezone the remainder of the slim peninsula of land behind Matakana North – rural and Rural and Matakana 1 Do not Business Waiheke Island school [see submission point 8] from Mixed Rural to medium density coastal settlement Coastal support Association et al housing. areas Towns/Villages

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Wellsford/Te Hana

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 3145-3 Robert Richards North and Amend the RUB boundary to include the satelite town of Wellsford. North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana areas Towns/Villages

3582-1 Vision Wellsford North and Rezone parts of Wellsford and Te Hana. See submission for details [p. 3- North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island 5/5]. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

3582-2 Vision Wellsford North and Amend the RUB for parts of Wellsford and Te Hana. See submission for North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island details [p. 3-5/5]. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

4369-1 Brenten Walton North and Retain the RUB as it applies to Wellsford. North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

4369-2 Brenten Walton North and Rezone land in Wellsford to enable business growth and support job North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island creation. Refer to map on page 3-4/5 of submission. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

4369-3 Brenten Walton North and Rezone land in Te Hana to enable business growth and support job North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island creation. Refer to map on page 5/5 of submission. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support areas Towns/Villages

5022-1 Ian L Stewart North and Rezone Wellsford as indicated in map attached to submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

5022-2 Ian L Stewart North and Rezone Te Hana as indicated in map attached to submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana support areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on School Road and Worker Road, Wellsford, as shown in North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 2 Do not 284 Forum New Waiheke Island the submission [refer to page 64/104] from Future Urban to Countryside coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Zealand Living. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land to the south eastern side of Wellsford, as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in 285 Forum New Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 64/104] from Rural Production, Public Open coastal settlement Coastal Hana part Zealand Space, Light Industrial and Future Urban to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Worker Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 288 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 65/104] from Rural. Large Lot and Countryside Living to a coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Zealand higher density zone [zone not specified]. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Davies Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 289 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 65/104] from Countryside Living to Future Urban. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Zealand areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on McGillivray Road and State Highway 1, Wellsford, as North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 291 Forum New Waiheke Island shown in the submission [refer to page 66/104] from Countryside Living coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Zealand and Rural Production to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on School Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in 293 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 67/104] to Future Urban. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part Zealand areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on School Road and Worker Road, Wellsford, as shown in North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 2 Do not 286 Institute of Waiheke Island the submission [refer to page 64/104] from Future Urban to Countryside coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Architects Living. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land to the south eastern side of Wellsford, as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in 287 Institute of Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 64/104] from Rural Production, Public Open coastal settlement Coastal Hana part Architects Space, Light Industrial and Future Urban to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Worker Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 290 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 65/104] from Rural. Large Lot and Countryside Living to a coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Architects higher density zone [zone not specified]. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Davies Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 291 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 65/104] from Countryside Living to Future Urban. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Architects areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on McGillivray Road and State Highway 1, Wellsford, as North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not 293 Institute of Waiheke Island shown in the submission [refer to page 66/104] from Countryside Living coastal settlement Coastal Hana support Architects and Rural Production to Future Urban. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on School Road, Wellsford, as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in 295 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 67/104] to Future Urban. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part Architects areas Towns/Villages

5332-1 David Person North and Rezone sites in Wellsford and Te Hana, to provide for their North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island expansion. Refer to page 3-5/5 of the submission for details. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

5332-2 David Person North and Amend the RUB for Wellsford and Te Hana, to provide for their North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island expansion. Refer to page 3-5/5 of the submission for details. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

6091-2 Lionel A Don North and Rezone area identified on map in Wellsford [refer submission page 3/5] North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island Future Urban. coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

6091-4 Lionel A Don North and Rezone area identified on map in Wellsford [refer submission page 3/5] North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island Large Lot. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support areas Towns/Villages

6091-6 Lionel A Don North and Rezone area identified on map in Te Hana [refer submission page 5/5] North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island Industrial. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support areas Towns/Villages

6091-7 Lionel A Don North and Rezone area identified on map in Te Hana [refer submission page 5/5] North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island Rural Settlement. coastal settlement Coastal Hana support areas Towns/Villages

6275-1 Russell Don North and Extend the Rural Urban Boundary to Wellsford and Te Hana. North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

6275-2 Russell Don North and Rezone land in Te Hana from Rural Production zone to Rural Settlement, North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island Local Centre and Industrial zones as shown on the map on page 3/5 of coastal settlement Coastal Hana support the submission. areas Towns/Villages

6275-3 Russell Don North and Major rezoning of land around Wellsford as shown on the maps on pages North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island 4/5 and 5/5 of the submission, including the Future Urban, Large Lot, coastal settlement Coastal Hana part Countryside Living, Single House zone. areas Towns/Villages

7040-1 Phill Wallace North and Rezone all of 17 and part of 19 Matheson Road, Wellsford, from the Rural North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support Waiheke Island Production zone to the Single House zone [refer to figure 3 on pg 5/11 of coastal settlement Coastal Hana the submission]. areas Towns/Villages

7411-1 Joshua Don North and Rezone Wellsford to allow for additional growth [as per maps provided on North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island pages 3&5 of the submission. The maps include additional Future Urban coastal settlement Coastal Hana part zoning]. areas Towns/Villages

7411-2 Joshua Don North and Rezone Te Hana to allow for additional growth [as per the maps provided North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Do not Waiheke Island on pages 4/5 of the submission. The map includes additional industrial coastal settlement Coastal Hana support zoned]. areas Towns/Villages

4358-1 Jared Person North and Retain the current zoning for Wellsford and Te Hana. North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support in Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal Hana part areas Towns/Villages

2565-2 Wharehine Group North and Rezone Lot 1 DP 40454 Centennial Park Road from Rural Production to North – rural and Rural and Wellsford/Te 1 Support Waiheke Island Light Industry. coastal settlement Coastal Hana areas Towns/Villages

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Helensville/Parakai

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 119-1 Phillip and Patricia North and Rezone 5 Audrey Luckens Lane, Helensville from Countryside Living to North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 1 Do not Maskell Waiheke Island Single House coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

119-2 Phillip and Patricia North and Rezone part of 5 Audrey Luckens Lane, Helensville, from Residential to North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 1 Do not Maskell Waiheke Island Countryside Living. coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

3560-1 Les Coste North and Rezone 726 Inland Road, Helensville from Countryside Living to Future North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 1 Support Waiheke Island Urban. coastal settlement Coastal areas Towns/Villages

5616-1 Paradise Kaipara North and Rezone 249 Parkhurst Road, Parakai from Rural Production to Single West - rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 3 Do not Limited Waiheke Island House and Mixed Use. coastal settlement Coastal support aeras Towns/Villages

5697-2 Mike and Leda North and Amend the RUB at Helensville to include site described in submission North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 2 Do not Daniel Waiheke Island [page 4/23 of submission]. coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

5697-3 Mike and Leda North and Rezone land in Helensville identified in submission to Single House North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 2 Do not Daniel Waiheke Island [page 4/23 of submission]. coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

5720-2 Alan A Hargreaves North and Retain the expansion of residential land in Helensville and Parakai. North – rural and Rural and Helensville/Parakai 1, 2 and 3 Support Waiheke Island coastal settlement Coastal areas Towns/Villages

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Snells Beach

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 2197-1 Brick Bay Trustee North and Rezone a portion of the property at 55 Arabela Lane, Snells Beach North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not Limited Waiheke Island from Rural Coastal to Single House (1.04ha) and Public Open Space - coastal settlement Coastal support Informal Recreation (1.29ha). Retain Rural Coastal zone for the balance areas Towns/Villages (1.65ha). Include the proposed Single House area within the RUB - refer Attachment 1, Vol 1 of submission.

3520-4 Karen Bartett North and Rezone 124 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach from Countryside Living North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not Waiheke Island to Single House. coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

4212-1 Vinko Holdings North and Rezone 254-268 Mahurangi East Road (Lot 3 DP347005 CT193207), North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not Limited Waiheke Island Snells Beach from Rural-Coastal, Light Industry and Local Centre-Snells coastal settlement Coastal support Beach to a site specific zone. [The submitter requests the zone includes areas Towns/Villages a mixture of activities from the 3 current zones, without detailing specifically where on the site these activities can be undertaken].

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Dawson Road, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 1 Do not 307 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 74/104] from Rural Coastal to Single House or Mixed coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand Housing. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Goodall Road, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 1 Do not 309 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 73/104] from Countryside Living and Rural Coastal to coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand Future Urban, Single House and Mixed Housing. areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Algies Bay headland, Snells Beach as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 2 Do not 310 Forum New Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 74/104] from Large lot to Rural Coastal. coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 2 Do not 311 Forum New Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 74/104] from Future Urban to Countryside coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand Living areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Grange Street, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not 308 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 73/104] from Single House and Rural Coastal to Light coastal settlement Coastal support Architects Industry and Local Centre. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Dawson Road, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 1 Do not 309 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 74/104] from Rural Coastal to Single House or Mixed coastal settlement Coastal support Architects Housing areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Goodall Road, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 1 Do not 311 Institute of Waiheke Island [refer to page 73/104] from Countryside Living and Rural Coastal to coastal settlement Coastal support Architects Future Urban, Single House and Mixed Housing. areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Algies Bay headland, Snells Beach as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 2 Do not 312 Institute of Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 74/104] from Large Lot to Rural Coastal. coastal settlement Coastal support Architects areas Towns/Villages

5280- The New Zealand North and Rezone land on Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach as shown in the North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 2 Do not 313 Institute of Waiheke Island submission [refer to page 74/104] from Future Urban to Countryside coastal settlement Coastal support Architects Living areas Towns/Villages

7328- T G Bridge North and Retain green space and open views to the west of Snells Beach Coastal North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 1 Support 11 Waiheke Island Town. coastal settlement Coastal areas Towns/Villages

5277- The Urban Design North and Rezone land on Grange Street, Snells Beach as shown in the submission North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not 306 Forum New Waiheke Island [refer to page 73/104] from Single House and Rural Coastal to Light coastal settlement Coastal support Zealand Industry and Local Centre. areas Towns/Villages

6915-1 Mortre Holdings North and Rezone 59 Arabella Lane, Snells Beach to Mixed Housing Suburban North – rural and Rural and Snells Beach 3 Do not Limited (Attn: Waiheke Island zone. coastal settlement Coastal support Graeme Smith) areas Towns/Villages

IHP Pathway report showing topics used in this evidence – Point Wells

Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Auckland Council Submission Point Pathway Report Evidence Structure Sub #/ Name Subtopic Summary Sub-issue Grouping Sub-group Sub-group Council Point area position 2528-1 Alderwasley Trust North and Rezone 228 Point Wells Road, Point Wells, from Countryside Living to North – rural and Rural and Point Wells 1 Support in Waiheke Island the Single House. coastal settlement Coastal part areas Towns/Villages

275-1 Kevin Glucina North and Rezone Pt of Lot 1 DP 58425 and Lot 4 DP 162394 being 238 and 248 North – rural and Rural and Point Wells 1 Do not Waiheke Island Point Wells Road, Point Wells from Countryside Living to Single House. coastal settlement Coastal support Refer to submission for further details. areas Towns/Villages

2801-1 NH Trust North and Rezone 21 Wrybill Way, Point Wells (Lot 40 DP 460881) from North – rural and Rural and Point Wells 1 Support Waiheke Island Countryside Living to Single House. coastal settlement Coastal areas Towns/Villages

3323-1 W F and S M North and Rezone 288 Point Wells Road, Point Wells, and the wider Point Wells North – rural and Rural and Point Wells 1 Do not Abraham Waiheke Island area from Countryside Living to Single House. coastal settlement Coastal support areas Towns/Villages

ATTACHMENT C

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Wellsford

RUB criteria Sub-group option 1 (urban expansion) Sub-group option 2 (reduction of urban area in the west)

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

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Development Strategy No, the large scale expansion does not align with the Auckland Plan Yes, the small scale reduction would still be aligned with the Auckland Plan. (reflected in RPS policies / planning principles for the Development Strategy as it proposes to make Wellsford much larger that the RUB) Satellite Town of Warkworth.

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based on water No, the expansion relies heavily on small local roads and cadastral boundaries No, the reduction would not result in a more defensible boundary as the catchment boundaries, visual catchment boundaries, to define its limits. amended boundary would be linked to cadastral boundaries. major roads or transport routes, land protected from development / public reserves)

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

5. Consistent with the protection of important Yes, the expansion is clear of any identified area of important environmental Yes, the reduction is consistent with the protection of important environmental values and avoids scheduled areas (i.e. values. environmental values. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, heritage sites)

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture No, the expansion covers a very large area and no iwi consultation has taken Yes, it is noted that there are no identified sites of significance and value to and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi place. It is noted that there are no identified sites of significance and value to Mana Whenua in this area. tapu Mana Whenua in this area.

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard areas where No, the underlying soil formation in Wellsford is Onerahi Chaos. This is well Yes, the reduction avoids areas subject to natural hazards. possible (flooding, instability, liquefaction) known for its potential to be subject to land instability. As identified in the geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier, there are a number of areas that have geotechnical issues around slope stability potential.

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime soils), significant Yes, there are no identified aquifers and recharge areas, significant mineral Yes, the reduction avoids productive land, aquifers and recharge areas, and mineral resources, aquifers and recharge areas resources adjacent to Wellsford. There are only very minimal areas of LUC significant mineral resources. (particularly where required for rural production) Class III soils in the vicinity. However, it is noted that the option does cover significant areas that while not classified as elite or prime soils, are used for productive farming. 9. Contributes to the effective and efficient provision and No, NZTA have lodged further submissions opposing this expansion based on Yes, the reduction would reduce the impacts on infrastructure. use of infrastructure (transport, social infrastructure, its impacts on the State Highway network. The joint statement of evidence for water and wastewater) AT states that expansions of small rural towns can represent the most inefficient transport investment in that they require costly upgrades of lengthy roads where there is no surplus capacity, for the benefit of relatively few. Wellsford is remote from other urbanised areas, has no regular public transport, and will therefore result in increased long-distance commuting and vehicle kilometres travelled. Furthermore, the new transport infrastructure and upgrades likely to be necessary to support the area are unfunded.

The joint statement of evidence for Watercare shows that the water supply in Wellsford currently has limited capacity, and is contingent on Watercare

developing the next water source to accommodate future growth. There is also only limited wastewater capacity and the wastewater treatment plant is operating under an expired consent.

The land sought to be urbanised under this option has the potential to compromise the high voltage electricity lines and the gas and petroleum long distance transmission pipes. It is also noted that should the Warkworth to Wellsford section of the RONS be extended to Wellsford in the future, this option could affect or preclude route options for the motorway in this area.

10. Offers opportunities for particular types or mix of types Yes, the large scale expansion offers enough land to undertake a mix of types Yes, the reduction would not limit the opportunities for a particular type of of residential / business development of development. development as the land was only identified in the Wellsford Structure Plan as being for residential use.

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - does not conflict Yes, there no particularly sensitive environments to urban activities nearby. Yes, the reduction would not create and land use continuity and compatibility with adjoining land uses, scale enables integrated issues. planning

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Te Hana

RUB criteria Relatively large scale expansion of Te Hana

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

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Development Strategy (reflected in RPS policies / planning principles No, the expansion does not align with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as it would be a large increase to a for the RUB) rural and coastal village that is not anticipated for growth.

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based on water catchment boundaries, visual catchment No, the expansion relies on cadastral boundaries and local roads to define its limits. boundaries, major roads or transport routes, land protected from development / public reserves)

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

5. Consistent with the protection of important environmental values and avoids scheduled areas Yes, the expansion is clear of any identified area of important environmental values. (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, heritage sites)

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, Yes, it is noted that there are no identified sites of significance and value to Mana Whenua in this area. water, sites, waahi tapu

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard areas where possible (flooding, instability, liquefaction) Yes, the land is largely free of areas subject to natural hazards.

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime soils), significant mineral resources, aquifers and No, the land covers areas of prime soils (LUC Class III). recharge areas (particularly where required for rural production)

9. Contributes to the effective and efficient provision and use of infrastructure (transport, social No, the joint statement of evidence for AT states that expansions of small rural towns can represent the most infrastructure, water and wastewater) inefficient transport investment in that they require costly upgrades of lengthy roads where there is no surplus capacity, for the benefit of relatively few. Te Hana is remote from other urbanised areas, has no regular public transport, and will therefore result in increased long-distance commuting and vehicle kilometres travelled. Furthermore, the new transport infrastructure and upgrades likely to be necessary to support the area are unfunded.

The joint statement of evidence for Watercare shows that the water supply in Te Hana currently has limited capacity, and is contingent on Watercare developing the next water source to accommodate future growth. There is also only limited wastewater capacity and the wastewater treatment plant is operating under an expired consent.

It is noted that the land proposed for urban expansion would avoid the high voltage electricity lines and the gas and petroleum long distance transmission pipes. 10. Offers opportunities for particular types or mix of types of residential / business development Yes, the relatively large scale expansion offers enough land to undertake a mix of types of development.

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - does not conflict with adjoining land uses, scale enables Yes, there no particularly sensitive environments to urban activities nearby. integrated planning

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Helensville-Parakai

RUB criteria Sub-group option 1 (Helensville South) Sub-group area 2 (Helensville East) Sub-group option area 3 (Parakai)

1. Change is contiguous with existing urban Yes No, land across the Awaroa stream and flood plain. This Yes area or Future Urban Zone as notified in constitutes a substantial natural boundary between the PAUP existing Helensville and the adjacent rural area.

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Yes .Reflects existing urban boundary but land not able No, seeks to add development land to a town that is No, adds additional land to Parakai which has sufficient Development Strategy (reflected in RPS to be serviced yet already has some growth areas provided yet as a greenfields land already zoned. Additional development policies / planning principles for the serviced coastal settlement is not seen as needing to land not required for this rural and coastal settlement RUB) grow to the extent that this would promote with and will have consequences for the provision of consequences for infrastructure provision as a result. additional public infrastructure.

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based Yes, contained within valley and ridgeline spur No, proposal to extend to the east steps over an No, aggravates the present issue of Parakai which is on water catchment boundaries, visual established defensible urban boundary. already susceptible to flooding, inundation and catchment boundaries, major roads or liquefaction. transport routes, land protected from development / public reserves)

4. Consistent with relevant legislation, Yes Maybe, some iwi heritage sites identified on this land. Maybe Development north of Parakai may have plans and policies (i.e. Waitakere Ranges consequences for the thermal resource that Maori have Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf Marine interest and give value to. Park, NZCPS, Treaty settlements)

5. Consistent with the protection of No Yes, heritage sites would be impacted by urban No important environmental values and development avoids scheduled areas (i.e. SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, heritage sites)

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori No Yes, undetermined heritage sites and water resources of No and their culture and traditions with the Awaroa Stream may be impacted ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard Yes No, flooding and potential instability of steep No, area of flooding, coastal inundation and potential areas where possible (flooding, topography of area with urban development for liquefaction instability, liquefaction)

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime No, productive land for pastoral and forestry purposes. No, used for pastoral purposes No, used for rural purposes. soils), significant mineral resources, Some land used for orcharding. aquifers and recharge areas (particularly where required for rural production)

9. Contributes to the effective and efficient Yes, once wastewater and water servicing expanded to No, has implications for how Helensville –Parakai are No, has implications for how Helensville –Parakai are provision and use of infrastructure this area serviced as systems stretched already serviced as systems stretched already (transport, social infrastructure, water and wastewater)

10. Offers opportunities for particular types No, residential only due to topography and location No, residential only due to topography and location Request for mixed use and residential development. or mix of types of residential / business Unlikely in this peripheral location. No ability to service development land with water and wastewater.

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - No, land to south is established countryside living No, proposal not well integrated with existing urban No, would not maintain land use continuity and support does not conflict with adjoining land area. Would adjoin rural land to north, east and south Parakai as a cohesive settlement. Potential conflict with uses, scale enables integrated planning which may give rise to issues adjoining land uses (residential and rural). However scale could enable integrated planning.

Assessment of submissions against RUB Criteria – Point Wells

Edge criteria Sub-group option 1

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

2. Aligned with Auckland Plan Development Strategy No - The Auckland Plan does not envisage significant expansion to the urban extent of Point Wells, and the area is not considered a priority area for (reflected in RPS policies / planning principles for the infrastructure investment. RUB)

3. Provides a defensible boundary (based on water No – relies on cadastral boundaries. However the boundary of the urbanised area in the notified PAUP is also based on cadastral boundaries. catchment boundaries, visual catchment boundaries, major roads or transport routes, land protected from development / public reserves)

4. Consistent with relevant legislation, plans and policies Yes (i.e. Waitakere Ranges Heritage Areas, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, NZCPS, Treaty settlements)

5. Consistent with the protection of important No - An extension to the urbanised area is likely to compromise the coastal and marine environment of the Whangateau Harbour. The harbour is a Significant environmental values and avoids scheduled areas (i.e. Ecological Area (SEA) under the PAUP. This high quality estuarine environment contains a regionally rare mix of habitats. These habitats support shellfish beds, SEA, ONL, HNC, ONF, significant indigenous vegetation, fish, and a number of nationally vulnerable coastal birds. heritage sites) Further development is likely to increase sediment run off and accumulation in the Whangateau Harbour. Further development and population growth will also increase threats to coastal birds. These threats include direct disturbance, habitat loss, impacts on food availability and an increase in mammalian predators.

6. Provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture Yes – Degradation of the coast and Whangateau Harbour from an expanded urban area could compromise the relationship of Maori with their lands and and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi water. tapu

7. Avoids areas subject to natural hazard areas where No – the area is subject to flooding and coastal storm inundation. possible (flooding, instability, liquefaction)

8. Avoids productive land (elite and prime soils), significant No – the land considered for the extension of the Point Wells RUB is LUC Class 2 Prime land. While much of this land is used for lifestyle blocks it is still put to mineral resources, aquifers and recharge areas productive horticultural use and expanding the RUB here would displace these productive uses. (particularly where required for rural production)

9. Contributes to the effective and efficient provision and No - The Jones Road wastewater treatment plant which services Point Wells has limited capacity and is only designed to accommodate the projected use of infrastructure (transport, social infrastructure, population of the existing urban area. Any expansion to the urban area would have a significant impact on wastewater capacity. water and wastewater) Auckland Transport is opposed to an extension of the urban area of Point Wells, because of downstream effects on the wider roading network.

10. Offers opportunities for particular types or mix of types No – Point Wells is a small urban area and there is little scope to develop a mix of land uses. of residential / business development

11. Land use continuity and compatibility - does not conflict No - The Countryside Living zone, between the urban area of Point Wells and the mixed rural area of Omaha Flats, provides a buffer between urban and rural with adjoining land uses, scale enables integrated uses. Extending the urban area of Point Wells would erode this buffer and would put urban uses directly alongside rural production creating reverse sensitivity planning issues.

ATTACHMENT D

Assessment of submissions against RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 – Matakana

RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 Sub-group option 1 (expansion to the east and south)

1. Safe and efficient transport connections No, the joint statement of evidence for AT does not support expansion of the urban area in Matakana due to its relatively remote location and the inherent inefficiencies in providing infrastructure for small scale development. Expansion in Matakana would increase traffic flows back to the Hill Street intersection which is already heavily congested, and could expedite the need for an additional Mahurangi River crossing, as well as safety upgrades to Matakana Road.

2. Efficient and well-performing wastewater networks with additional or planned and funded capacity No, the joint statement of evidence for Watercare shows that there is limited capacity in the wastewater treatment plant and it is only designed to accommodate the projected population of Matakana based on the operative plan zonings. Any further additions to the urban zoned area of Matakana will have significant implications for the wastewater system.

3. Achieves an orderly and contiguous connection with the existing settlement Yes, the expansion is contiguous with the urban zoned area of Matakana.

4. Achieves a clear break between other nearby towns and villages Yes, the expansions are relatively small (around 25 ha) and would still enable a clear break between Matakana and the nearest town to the east (Point Wells) and the nearest settlement to the south (Rainbows End).

5. Incorporates affordable, feasible, sequenced and funded infrastructure, including significant infrastructure No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this.

6. Provides high resilience to future risks, avoiding locations with significant natural hazard risks for urban No, there are some localised areas of flooding within the area proposed for urban expansion to the east development while the peninsula in the south is largely free from flooding constraints.

7. Avoids urbanisation of elite and prime land, and maintains adequate separation between incompatible land uses No, the expansion covers an area of prime soil (LUC Class III).

8. Achieves high environmental performance and a high quality built environment No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this.

9. Reinforces and enhances natural and physical characteristics, including the coastal environment No, the option seeks to urbanise the coastal edge.

10. Has good accessibility and improves transport options, including walking and cycling No, there are existing inefficiencies in the village’s road network and additional growth in this location without new connections elsewhere would not be supported. There is also very limited public transport in the area and this is unlikely to change over the next 30 years.

11. Enables papakāinga, marae developments, customary use, cultural activities and appropriate commercial The proposal does not cover Maori land. activities on Māori land and on other land where Mana Whenua have collective ownership interest

12. Is in accordance with the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1.1 No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this.

13. Avoids where practicable urban development within: Yes, this option largely avoids areas of ecological and natural character. In the east there is a site of value  Areas with significant environmental, heritage, natural character or landscape values, including areas to mana whenua in the vicinity but it is not clear whether the site is on the subject land. Also, only very identified in Appendices 3.1 (Outstanding Natural Features), 3.2 (Outstanding Natural Landscapes), 5.1 small area of the land is impacted by projected coastal inundation. (Significant Ecological Areas), 6.2 (Natural Character - Coastal), and 9.1 (Significant Historic Heritage), and land governed by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act In the south there are two sites of value to mana whenua on the subject land but these could be protected  Scheduled sites and places of significance and value to Mana Whenua through structure planning. Also, only very small area of the land is impacted by projected coastal  Areas prone to natural hazards inundation.  Land affected by coastal inundation and projected sea level rise  With significant mineral resources  Within an electricity transmission corridor

Assessment of submissions against RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 – Helensville-Parakai

RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 Sub-group options 1 and 2 (expansion to the south and east) Sub-group option 3 (Parakai)

1. Safe and efficient transport connections Helensville South is subject to an indicative roading network which is planned to No, AT’s evidence does not support any expansion of the urban area in Parakai due serve the development of this residential area. There is also very limited public to its relatively remote location and the inherent inefficiencies in providing transport in the area and this is unlikely to change over the next 30 years. infrastructure for small scale development. There is also very limited public transport in the area and this is unlikely to change over the next 30 years. Helensville East proposal has only one access road across a stream prone to flooding and a roading network that appears not to accord with urban design principles is planned by the submitter. No public transport is available for the area.

2. Efficient and well-performing wastewater networks No, Watercare’s evidence shows that there is limited capacity in the wastewater No, Watercare’s evidence shows that there is limited capacity in the wastewater with additional or planned and funded capacity treatment plant and it is only designed to accommodate the projected population of treatment plant and it is only designed to accommodate the projected population of Helensville based on the operative plan zonings. Any further additions to the urban Helensville –Parakai based on the operative plan zonings. Any further additions to zoned area of Helensville will have significant implications for the wastewater the urban zoned area of Parakai will have significant implications for the system. The potable water supply to the town needs to be extended and a new wastewater system. Potable water is an issue for the town. Additional growth will water source identified. This has not yet occurred. require a new water source and this has not yet been identified

3. Achieves an orderly and contiguous connection with Yes, the expansion is contiguous with the urban zoned area of Helensville south, but Yes, the expansion is contiguous with the urban zoned area of Parakai. the existing settlement the Helensville East area is across a stream and its flood plain from the existing settlement so not contiguous with the existing settlement.

4. Achieves a clear break between other nearby towns Yes, the expansions are relatively small and would still enable a clear break. Yes. and villages

5. Incorporates affordable, feasible, sequenced and Yes, Helensville South is planned within the Helensville –Parakai Structure Plan and No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. funded infrastructure, including significant land is being released according to its implementation plan. infrastructure No Helensville east is unplanned in relation to the existing town and no significant infrastructure is planned in the proposal.

6. Provides high resilience to future risks, avoiding Yes, in Helensville south the land is relatively elevated and no obvious risks appear No, there are a combination of flooding, inundation and liquefaction risks applying locations with significant natural hazard risks for to exist. Dual road access. to this land which raise a considerable question as to the wisdom, practicality and urban development economics of developing this land for existing and future generations. No, in Helensville East there is only a single road access which raises its risk to hazards. Part of the land is steep so geotechnical risks unquantified. The Awaroa stream provides a hazard risk for parts of the site, for downstream land and access to the site at times of flooding.

7. Avoids urbanisation of elite and prime land, and Yes the expansions cover areas of moderate to low quality land soil (LUC Class III-v). No, the expansion covers an area of moderate soil. maintains adequate separation between incompatible land uses

8. Achieves high environmental performance and a high Yes, in Helensville South there is a connected roading network planned and variety No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. quality built environment of residential zones indicated in structure plan to respond to differences of landform.

No, in Helensville East there is little evidence of proposal achieving this outcome in terms of evidence to date.

9. Reinforces and enhances natural and physical Yes, in Helensville South there is a connected roading network planned and variety No, the option seeks to urbanise low lying rural land in a coastal location. of residential zones indicated in structure plan to respond to differences of

characteristics, including the coastal environment landform.

No, in Helensville East there is little evidence of proposal achieving this outcome in terms of evidence to date.

10. Has good accessibility and improves transport No, for both areas there are existing inefficiencies in the towns road network and No, there are existing inefficiencies in the village’s road network and additional options, including walking and cycling additional growth in this location without new connections elsewhere would not be growth in this location without new connections elsewhere would not be supported. There is also very limited public transport in the area and this is unlikely supported. There is also very limited public transport in the area and this is unlikely to change over the next 30 years. to change over the next 30 years.

11. Enables papakāinga, marae developments, customary The proposals do not cover Maori land. However maori archaeological sites are The proposal does not cover Maori land. use, cultural activities and appropriate commercial located on the Helensville East land but no detailed consultation has determined activities on Māori land and on other land their importance or otherwise. where Mana Whenua have collective ownership interest

12. Is in accordance with the structure plan guidelines Yes, in Helensville south is being developed in general accordance with the No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. in Appendix 1.1 Structure plan for the area. No, in Helensville East the submissions do not provide any evidence of this.

13. Avoids where practicable urban development within: Yes, in Helensville South this option largely avoids areas of ecological and natural Yes, as this option largely avoids areas of ecological and natural character. In the  Areas with significant environmental, character. east there is a site of value to mana whenua in the vicinity but it is not clear heritage, natural character or landscape whether the site is on the subject land. Also, only very small area of the land is values, including areas identified in No, in Helensville East there are sites possibly of value to mana whenua in the impacted by projected coastal inundation. Appendices 3.1 (Outstanding Natural vicinity. Also land is impacted by projected coastal inundation and flooding risks. Features), 3.2 (Outstanding Natural Steep land may have geotechnical issues but this is yet to be determined. Structure plan indicates geothermal resource sensitive to development north of Landscapes), 5.1 (Significant Ecological Areas), Springs Road.

6.2 (Natural Character - Coastal), and 9.1 In the south there are two sites of value to mana whenua on the subject land but (Significant Historic Heritage), and land these could be protected through structure planning. Also, only very small area of governed by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage the land is impacted by projected coastal inundation. Area Act  Scheduled sites and places of significance and value to Mana Whenua  Areas prone to natural hazards  Land affected by coastal inundation and projected sea level rise  With significant mineral resources  Within an electricity transmission corridor

Assessment of submissions against RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 – Snells Beach

RPS B.2.5 Policy 1 Sub-group area 1 - Significant requests for more urban Sub-group area 2 - Significant requests for less urban zoned Sub-group area 3 – Minor requests for more urban zoned zoned land land land 1. Safe and efficient transport No, AT have advised that the sites are unlikely to be service Yes – AT have advised that the sites are unlikely to be service No, AT have advised that the sites are unlikely to be service connections with efficient PT. with efficient PT. with efficient PT. 2. Efficient and well-performing No, Watercare have advised that these sites are outside of No, Watercare have advised that Snells Beach currently has No, Watercare have advised that these sites are outside of wastewater networks with additional the existing water supply and wastewater networks, and in a wastewater capacity limitation so a reduction in urban the existing water supply and wastewater networks, and in or planned and funded capacity addition that Snells Beach more widely currently has a zoning could contribute to the effective and efficient use of addition that Snells Beach more widely currently has a wastewater capacity limitation. infrastructure. wastewater capacity limitation. 3. Achieves an orderly and contiguous Yes, contiguous with an existing urban area - large lot zoning N/A Yes, contiguous with the existing urban area of Snells Beach connection with the existing at the Dawson Road site and contiguous with (over a road) settlement Single House zoning at the Goodall Road site. 4. Achieves a clear break between other Yes, the expansions would enable a clear break between Yes, the reductions would enable a clear break between Yes, the expansions would enable a clear break between nearby towns and villages Snells Beach and surrounding settlements. Snells Beach and surrounding settlements. Snells Beach and surrounding settlements. 5. Incorporates affordable, feasible, No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. sequenced and funded infrastructure, including significant infrastructure 6. Provides high resilience to future risks, Yes, as structure planning could refine development to avoid Yes, as a reduction in urban zoning is sought this would Yes, sites avoid areas subject to natural hazard areas. avoiding locations with significant identified areas of flooding. avoid areas subject to natural hazard areas. natural hazard risks for urban development 7. Avoids urbanisation of elite and prime Yes, land is not identified as either elite or prime land. Yes, as a reduction in urban zoning is sought this would Yes, land is not identified as elite soils. land, and maintains adequate avoid productive land. separation between incompatible land uses 8. Achieves high environmental No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. performance and a high quality built environment 9. Reinforces and enhances natural and No, the options seek to urbanise areas of landscape value Yes, reducing levels of urbanisation would lead to higher No, the options seek to urbanise areas of landscape value. physical characteristics, including the and close to the edge of the coast. levels of protection for environmental values. coastal environment 10. Has good accessibility and improves No, there are existing inefficiencies in the road network and N/A No, there are existing inefficiencies in the road network and transport options, including walking additional growth in this location without new connections additional growth in this location without new connections and cycling elsewhere would not be supported. There is also very elsewhere would not be supported. There is also very limited public transport in the area. limited public transport in the area. 11. Enables papakāinga, marae developme The proposal does not cover Maori land. The proposal does not cover Maori land. The proposal does not cover Maori land. nts, customary use, cultural activities and appropriate commercial activities on Māori land and on other land where Mana Whenua have collective ownership interest 12. Is in accordance with the structure No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this. N/A No, the submissions do not provide any evidence of this.

plan guidelines in Appendix 1.1 13. Avoids where practicable urban No, taking account of site topography urbanisation could Yes, reducing levels of urbanisation would lead to higher No, taking account of site topography urbanisation of the development within: impact on Marine 1 and 2 SEA’s, and the land has landscape levels of protection for environmental values. area adjacent to the centre could impact on a Marine 1 SEA. quality. Also, there is an absence of evidence within the There is an absence of evidence within the submissions of  Areas with significant environmental, submission of site specific engagement with iwi to site specific engagement with iwi to determine cultural heritage, natural character or determine cultural values. However there are a number of values. For the site at part of Lot 2 DP 203304 engagement landscape values, including areas Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua identified within was however carried out by the applicant as part of a identified in Appendices 3.1 the PAUP with these sites. withdrawn Private Plan Change. (Outstanding Natural Features), 3.2 (Outstanding Natural Landscapes), 5.1 (Significant Ecological Areas), 6.2 (Natural Character - Coastal), and 9.1 (Significant Historic Heritage), and land governed by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act  Scheduled sites and places of significance and value to Mana Whenua  Areas prone to natural hazards  Land affected by coastal inundation and projected sea level rise  With significant mineral resources  Within an electricity transmission corridor

ATTACHMENT E

Section 32AA Assessment for Wellsford RUB

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Description / Map

Existing edge of urban zone used for the RUB Minor extensions to urban edge Large scale urban expansion

Costs (environmental,  The RUB does not align with a defensible boundary in  Some impacts on infrastructure provision (water,  Significant impacts on infrastructure provision (water, social, cultural, economic) many locations. wastewater, transport) in a location that is not wastewater, transport) in a location that is not considered a priority for infrastructure investment. considered a priority for infrastructure investment.

However, this impact is not immediate because of the  The RUB does not follow defensible boundaries. use of the Future Urban zone.  Could undermine the operation of significant infrastructure in the area (transmission lines, petroleum

pipeline)

Benefits (environmental,  No increased impacts on infrastructure provision  The RUB aligns with more defensible boundaries.  Provides for a very large area for urban growth which social, cultural, economic) (water, wastewater, transport) in a location that is not  Provides a more efficient urban form. has the potential to support further economic

considered a priority for infrastructure investment.  Provides a relatively small additional area for future development of the town.

growth over the next 30 years (on top of the current zoned capacity and existing Future Urban zoned areas) Efficiency and This option creates a compact urban form and but the RUB This option creates a compact urban form and provides a This option does not achieve the objective of a compact effectiveness of is not logical or defensible in a number of locations. clearer defensible limit to the growth by the inclusion of urban form as it enables a significant additional level of achieving the objective some logical areas within the RUB. urban development outside the MUL (therefore stating to impact on the 70:40 spilt). Risks (if there is uncertain N/a N/a There are risks around the lack of information around or insufficient information) geotechnical issues, iwi views and the views of the wider public for such a significant increase in the urban footprint of Wellsford.

Section 32AA Assessment for Te Hana RUB

Option 1 Option 3 Description / Existing edge of urban zone used for the RUB Relatively large scale urban expansion Map

Costs  Does not provide for any urban expansion (although infill intensification could occur within  Requires significant infrastructure upgrades (water, wastewater, transport) (environmental, the existing zoned area).  Urbanises productive rural land social, cultural, economic)

Benefits  Retains the small village character  Provides for a relatively large area for urban growth which has the potential to support further (environmental,  Avoids urbanising prime soils economic development of the village. social, cultural,  Allows limited infrastructure spending to be prioritised in other locations with more anticipated economic) growth.

Efficiency and This option is the most efficient and effective method to achieve the objective as it supports the This option does not achieve the objective as it does not align with a compact urban form as it effectiveness quality compact urban form of Auckland by not expanding this serviced village that is not enables further urban development outside the MUL in a serviced village that is not anticipated of achieving anticipated for significant growth. for growth. the objective Using the existing urban zoned edge for the RUB is efficient. It would also not provide a clear and defensible limit to urban expansion. Risks (if there N/a N/a is uncertain or insufficient information)

Section 32AA Assessment for Point Wells RUB

Option 1 – Establish RUB around the existing urban area with a slight adjustment Option 2 – Large urban expansion to include consented subdivisions

Description / Map

Costs (environmental,  Less housing provision in the area.  Degradation of the Whangateau Harbour. social, cultural, economic)  Threats to coastal birds.

 High infrastructure costs to expand the wastewater system and to potentially add

water supply.  Urban encroachment into land subject to flooding and coastal storm inundation increases exposure to natural hazards.  Urbanisation of productive soils, and additional conflict between residential and agricultural land uses.

Benefits (environmental,  No increased impacts on infrastructure provision (water, wastewater, transport) in a  Increased housing supply. social, cultural, economic) location that is not considered a priority for infrastructure investment.  No additional impact on the significant ecological area of the Whangateau Harbour.

 No increased threats to coastal birds.  Avoids urbanisation of productive soils.  A buffer is maintained between rural and urban areas reducing conflict between these land uses. Efficiency and Achieves the objective of a quality compact urban form as it would avoid a significant This option does not achieve the objective of a quality compact urban form as it would effectiveness of urban expansion in a remote part of Auckland that has not been identified as a priority for involve a significant urban expansion in a remote part of Auckland that has not been achieving the objective infrastructure investment. identified as a priority for infrastructure investment.

Risks (if there is uncertain N/a Increased exposure to flooding and coastal storm inundation. or insufficient information)

ATTACHMENT F

Map of proposed change to RUB in Wellsford

ATTACHMENT G

Map of proposed change to RUB in Te Hana

ATTACHMENT H

Map of proposed change to urban edge in Helensville

Rezone 726 Inland Road to Future Urban

ATTACHMENT I

Map of proposed change to RUB in Point Wells