BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081e Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY ROSS EDWARD COOPER FOR SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT 26 JANUARY 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 3 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 6 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ........................................................................... 6 4. SCOPE ................................................................................................. 6 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL ............................................ 7 6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS .................................................... 8 PART B: OVERVIEW OF SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ....................................................... 9 7. CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 9 8. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT .......................................................................................... 11 9. PAUP FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 12 PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS .......................................................................... 12 10. SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT .............................................................. 12 11. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................... 15 12. INCORRECTLY CODED SUBMISSION POINTS ............................... 16 PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................ 16 13. PRECINCT ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 16 14. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS ........................................... 18 15. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ............................................................................................................ 30 16. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 30 ATTACHMENT A: CV OF REPORT WRITER ATTACHMENT B: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ATTACHMENT C: PAUP PLANNING MAPS AS NOTIFIED ATTACHMENT D: AREA COVERED BY THE SAINT HELIERS VILLAGE CENTRE PLAN IN THE OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN ATTACHMENT E: PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY ATTACHMENT F: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS CHARACTER STATEMENT 1. SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this Evidence Report (Report) is to consider submissions and further submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographical Areas (Topic 081). This Report considers submissions and further submissions received by Auckland Council (the Council) in relation to Saint Heliers precinct. 1.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in submissions. 1.3 The purpose of the precinct is to identify and enhance the key characteristics of Saint Heliers Village, and to encourage high quality development that reinforces the Village’s unique qualities. The provisions of Plan Changes (145 and subsequently 145A) to the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section) were subject to an Environment Court hearing and were subsequently approved by the Environment Court on 26 February 2009. The Environment Court decision1 confirmed a local character or ‘sense of place’ present within Saint Heliers Village that is worthy of protection and enhancement through the Saint Heliers Centre Plan. 1.4 The Centre Plan of the legacy plan defines the character of Saint Heliers Village under the headings “History”, “Landscape”, “Urban Structure”, “Streetscape” and “Built Environment”. It introduces activities incentivising the consideration of replacement buildings as part of applications to demolish existing buildings, and provides assessment criteria specific to the assessment of new buildings and additions or alterations to existing buildings. As a means of strengthening the built form characteristics of Saint Heliers, two key development controls are included, as follows: . “Frontage setback control” Requires a building setback of 2.5m depth at a height of 8.5m on the site boundary. “Access and parking” o No new vehicle crossings to sites fronting certain roads 1 Kennedy v Auckland City Council, A110/2008 (Interim Decision) and A016/09, (Final Decision). The final decision approved PC 145 and attached the relevant provisions. Page 3 o On-site parking and loading on sites fronting certain streets not to front those street o Required car parking for non-residential activities on sites fronting certain streets not required. 1.5 To provide for the ongoing development of Saint Heliers, I consider that a precinct is the most appropriate method to provide for these site specific matters as the precinct specifically defines the existing local characteristics that contribute to the ‘sense of place’ within Saint Heliers. These characteristics have been reflected throughout the precinct description, objectives and policies, development controls and assessment criteria. The proposed provisions complement those of the underlying Local Centre zone and therefore the precinct approach avoids the need to repeat those provisions within a separate zone. 1.6 For the reason set out in the discussion at paragraphs 14.2 to 14.6 below, I propose that the precinct boundary be amended to exclude that land zoned Mixed Housing Urban, so that the precinct only includes that land within the Local Centre zone. 1.7 In my view, the outcomes anticipated under the proposed precinct provisions cannot be satisfactorily achieved through reliance on overlays or the underlying Local Centre zone. The Council’s position in evidence to date has concluded that there are no buildings or areas warranting protection or management under either the Special (Historic) Character or Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control overlays. While the Additional Zone Height Control overlay may be able to assign an overall height limit, the mechanism does not possess the subtlety of a development control to provide for building setbacks from street boundaries. With regard to the underlying Local Centre zone, while there are similar setback provisions across the business provisions, they do not provide specific outcomes sought for Saint Heliers, and are applied broadly across the region. 1.8 The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland-wide provisions are set out in Table 1 below: Table 1: Main precinct provision or group of Difference from PAUP provisions changes Description, objectives, policies, More restrictive than the underlying Page 4 development controls, assessment Local Centre zone as it provides a more criteria and character statement local / bespoke planning response than is possible if relying on the broadly applied Local Centre zone, or overlays. The precinct provides a detailed, Saint Heliers specific context, and define those physical qualities within Saint Heliers that warrant protection (through the precinct description, rules and criteria). The ‘Saint Heliers Character Statement’ (Part 5: Appendix 11.2.1) contributes to this outcome also. Activities and notification Identical. No activity table or specific notification requirements proposed through the precinct. Development controls More restrictive than the Local Centre zone: . Maximum height reduced from 18m to 12.5m (Council’s position in evidence on Topic 051-054) . Building setback requirement from 8.5m (no setback requirements within the Local Centre zone) . Buildings required to be built to the street edge . Restrictions on vehicle access across street frontages and the location of on-site car parking Page 5 1.9 Overall, it is my view that the use of a precinct as a method to implement the Saint Heliers Centre Plan provisions from the legacy plan is the most appropriate and efficient planning approach for the PAUP. The precinct provides an appropriate balance between regional consistency and local variation and includes a suite of provisions that build on the provisions of the underlying zone. Further, the use of precincts avoids introducing a new zone that repeats much of the same content of existing zones. In my view, the Saint Heliers precinct achieves these outcomes and is appropriate for inclusion within the PAUP as a precinct. PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Although I was not involved in the preparation of the sections of the PAUP concerning the Saint Heliers precinct, I have been engaged by the Auckland Council (Council) to provide evidence on submissions received in relation to this precinct for the Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081) hearing. The purpose of this Report is to consider submissions and further submissions received by the Council in relation to Saint Heliers precinct. 2.2 The Report includes proposals