059-063 - Residential Workshop Outcomes - Session 1 - 5 (Monday, 22 June _ Friday, 26 June 2015)

8/21/2019 059-063 - Residential Workshop Outcomes - Session 1 - 5 (Monday, 22 June _ Friday, 26 June 2015)

1/40

Workshop Outcomes

For hearing topics 059, 060, 062 & 063

Residential

Dates: Monday, 22 June – Friday, 26 June 2015


2/40

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................... 11. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Workshop Details .................................................................................................... 2

2. Attendance of submitters ............................................................................................... 2

2.1 Attendance ............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Authority to participate in workshops ....................................................................... 2

3. Conflicts of interest ........................................................................................................ 2

4. Questions discussed at Workshop ................................................................................. 3

5. Facilitators summary of workshop outcomes .................................................................. 4

6. Confirmation of Parties to Workshop Outcomes ........................................................... 10

7. Attachments ................................................................................................................. 11

7.1 Attachments 1- 8 Parties to Workshop records ..................................................... 11


3/40

1. Introduction

This is a record of the residential workshops held for this topic. It is prepared in accordance

with section 134(4) and (5) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act

2010.

1.1 Workshop Details

Hearing Topic 059, 060, 062 & 063 Residential

Matters forWorkshops•

Zoning strategy and approach• Methods for managing development in the residential zones

• Density

• Development control infringements

• Notification

• Building height and height in relation to boundary in the MixedHousing Suburban and Urban zones

• Conversion of dwellings / minor household units

• Building height and setbacks in the THAB zones

• On-site amenity

Facilitators Alan Watson

Marlene Oliver

File Ref: 059 – Residential WorkshopsOutcomes – 2015.06.25

Where Quality Hotel

1-20 Gladstone RoadParnell

When Monday, 22 June – Friday 26

June 2015

IHP Staff Crystal Chan

Kristin Wicks

Vanessa Wilkinson

Matthew Gouge

Time: Various

2. Attendance of submitters

2.1 Attendance

The facilitators confirmed the attendance of submitters and further submitters at the


4/40

4. Questions discussed at Workshop

The following questions were outlined in the Parties and Issues Report and discussed at theworkshop:

• Will the PAUP suite of residential zones and their general application be effective inmeeting the RPS objectives with respect to enabling quality urban growth. Consider inparticular:

Within the RUB, does the zoning enable sufficient capacity to meet theprojected demand for housing?

To what extent do constraints (e.g. overlays protecting s6 values) affect thePlan’s ability to realise this capacity?

• The Panel expects that outputs from the expert conferencing on capacity modelling willinform this discussion.

• What is the appropriate pattern and extent of intensification? (e.g. around transport hubsand centres and corridors)

• What is an appropriate transition from high density to low density zones?

• Are the objectives of the residential zones sufficiently distinct?

• Is it appropriate for the zones to give effect to / be complementary to the overlays e.g.special character and the Single House zone?

• Is zoning an appropriate tool to manage the effects of flooding and the effects of industrialareas on residential areas?

• Would quantitative rules or qualitative policies/criteria (or a mix of both) more efficientlyand effectively achieve the quality urban form and growth objectives of the RPS?

• What is the appropriate threshold to trigger a design assessment for new development?

• What are the most appropriate methods to manage building form?

• How does density relate to development controls?

• If density controls are retained, what are the appropriate densities and minimum site sizecontrols across the residential zones?

• Are there circumstances where it may be appropriate to allow minor household units?

• Do the building heights provide for an appropriate form of development in the MixedHousing zones?

• Is the height in relation to boundary and alternative height in relation to boundary controlan efficient and effective method to manage dominance and shading effects onneighbouring properties?


5/40

• Is the building length control an efficient and effective method to ensure new developmentintegrates with the character of the zone set out in the objectives?

• What is an appropriate activity status for development control infringements?

• Is it appropriate to require discretionary activity resource consent for a development thatinfringes three or more development controls?

• What are the appropriate notification requirements for residential activities?

5. Facilitators summary of workshop outcomes

A summary of the main discussion and any outcomes from the workshops is provided below.

Discussion and outcomes

Monday, 22 June 2015

Residential Zoning Strategy and Approach

1. Update on revised capacity modelling work – some submitters asked if this will be discussed

during mediation sessions.

2. Amalgamation of sites – doubts expressed about the likelihood of this happening due to price

of properties. Some parties doubt that the 1200m2 site threshold will be effective in increasing

the number of dwellings as it is unlikely to be achieved.

3. Concerns expressed that higher intensity areas do not have infrastructure capacity to service

new development. Council representative maintains that Watercare has indicated that thegrowth provided for in the PAUP is able to be serviced. Council noted there is a Rule in the

Plan relating to wastewater capacity and this would apply to all development.

4. Considerable support for the overall strategy expressed in the objectives and policies but

considerable doubt that the zonings and other methods actually implemented the strategy. Not

enough variety of housing size or increase in the number of households was provided for.

5. Most parties maintain that density is not correlated to amenity. Better to regulate amenity, notnumber of dwellings or number of people per site or per land area.

6. Considerable support for more housing choice within all areas so that people do not have to

move away from their local neighbourhood when they want a different size and style of

housing.


6/40

10. Some concern that main roads cannot cope with more traffic from higher intensity

development. Others consider this will encourage better public transport service and usage.

11. Concern that the zones did not adequately provide for social facilities (e.g. school, pre-schools)

particularly if existing areas did intensify.

12. Considerable support for less Single House Zone (SHZ) land. Many people questioned why

there was an emphasis on single house development.

13. Character coalition groups would like to see community consultation, preparation of area plans

and fine grain analysis before intensification or redevelopment occurs.

14. Considerable concern that all the overlays have the effect of suppressing any increase in

capacity.

15. Flooding – SHZ considered too crude a tool to manage for flooding. Sometimes only part of a

property is affected. No account taken of topography. Other housing typologies (e.g. THAB)

could also manage flood risk. Other controls (e.g. overlay) should be used to manage flooding,

not down zoning (e.g. SHZ). Floodplain data not considered to be accurate.

16. Heritage/Special Character – Tension between PAUP strategy to increase housing numbers

and housing range and the heritage overlays, to the point where the underlying zones are

meaningless. Question whether there were development controls that could be used rather

than a crude downzoning to SHZ. It was noted that many streets in character areas have a

variety of housing and considerable redevelopment could occur without altering the overall

character. Concern that the Council will replace the Pre-1944 control with new specialcharacter areas.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Development Control Infr ingements

1. It is the extent and the size of the infringements that should be the key consideration rather

than any particular number of infringements.

2. There should be a “cumulative” consideration of the infringements involved in any application.

3. All applications for infringements should be notified to receive wider comments upon them.

4 There is a need for greater clarity in the way that the Auckland Council (AC) considers relaxing


7/40

boundary, setbacks and privacy.

8. Consideration could include quantitative versus qualitative effects on the neighbourhood /environment.

9. Restri cted discretionary activity is fine for the consideration of all infringements of

development controls so long as there are explicit criteria to consider in deciding on

consent, particularly for AC’s processing planners.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Notification

There was some discussion around exactly what the question meant which concluded that it sought to

address the notification requirements for activities listed in the zone provisions.

1. Permitted activities and restricted discretionary activities should all be non-notified.

2. There is a presumption that infringements of development controls will be restricteddiscretionary activities. That could apply irrespective of the number of infringements involved

in any one application.

3. AC could give consideration to notifying restricted discretionary activity applications when there

are more than three infringements involved rather than the current approach of making the

application a discretionary activity.

4. Each application for a residential activi ty needs to be considered as to notification whenit is received rather than trying to categorise it at an earlier stage.

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Residential Density

1. To achieve good quality residential environment - density is a crude method. Instead of density

use development controls and assessment criteria and ensure that they are clearly written andthat there is consistent administration of these methods by the Council.

2. Density is not a good amenity control. Amenity is better managed through controls on built form

not on the number of units.


8/40

7. Need to analyse development controls to determine which ones are the most important to

achieving good amenity outcomes. For example building coverage and height may be

important controls.

8. The PAUP controls requiring minimum street frontages and limiting shared ROWs are

restricting redevelopment, particularly of rear lots. These requirements appear to reflect the

past trend to develop terrace housing. Future developments will be more diverse than just

terrace housing. For example communal garaging and communal open spaces.

9. PAUP requirement for 1200m2 before enabling multiple units has the perverse effect of

providing for a large number of units in one location, whereas if smaller areas, of say 800m 2,

could be developed then some smaller clusters of units could be dispersed through a

neighbourhood and be better absorbed into the existing amenity.

10. In existing urban areas amalgamation to achieve 1200m2 is not likely to be achieved.

11. A group of planners/building specialists propose to meet to discuss a range of development

controls and assessment criteria which might better manage amenity instead of using density

as a control.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Build ing height and height in relation to boundary in the

Mixed Housing Suburban and Urban zones

Discussion occurred regarding the height provisions for the two zones. The former has a maximumheight limit of 8m and the latter a height of 10m with both providing for height above that limit, and forinfringements of the height in relation to boundary (HIRTB), to be considered as restricteddiscretionary activities. There is also an alternative HIRTB control in both zones which requires arestricted discretionary activity to use and a discretionary activity to infringe.

The main points to emerge from the discussion included:

• There are different views, some seeking certainty whilst other seek greater flexibility in theapplication of the controls.

• Some parties were of the view that everything should be notified in some form, even if it was alesser form of advertising to the local community.


9/40

• There was a view that greater discretion is needed in considering development proposals asopposed to the current regime which appears to favour greater certainty.

• There is merit in listening to the experience of developers who can provide guidance on howwe could proceed in the future.

• A site specific concern was raised regarding the Akarana Golf Club which is zoned as publicopen space and needs to be zoned or notated to show that it is privately owned land.

• The formation of an interest group to consider some of these matters further, convened by

Richard Burton, is supported by participants at the meeting and that was agreed as somethingthat should proceed.

The questions sought to be answered by the Hearing Panel were:

1. Do the building heights provide for an appropriate form of development in the Mixed Housingzones?

2. Is the height in relation to boundary and alternative height in relation to boundary control anefficient and effective method to manage dominance and shading effects on neighbouringproperties.

For the first question, the responses were yes, building heights do provide for an appropriate form ofdevelopment in the Mixed Housing zones. The point was made that there should be a heightdifferential between the zones whereby there is no sudden jump in height at the zone boundary butrather some transition to occur at 1m intervals. Further, that height is not sufficient in itself to controlthe form of development.

Also, that the maximum heights in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone and the Mixed Housing Urbanzone seek to provide for two-storey and three-storey development but that does not work when studheights of 2.7m instead of 2.4m are sought to be achieved, which is an option finding favour in currentdevelopment.

For the second question there were varying views relating from simply “no” through to the set backcontrols being an important control on development which limits the dominance and shading effects on

neighbouring properties. The view was expressed that the administration of this control is toodiscretionary and departures from it should be made tougher to give people greater certainty. Thedistrict plan should include the limits to discretion. A view was advanced that everything should benotified, at least in some limited form, so that folk in a neighbourhood know what is being proposed.


10/40

the nature of the associated controls. That was seen to be a helpful outcome from themeeting. The comments were recorded as being as follows:

• There should be express provision for MHUs in the district plan.

• MHUs should be a permitted activity in various zones.

• There should be more liberal controls applying to provide for MHUs, for example thecoverage control could be relaxed.

• MHUs can be independent and “stand alone” with no provisions requiring them to beattached to existing structures on a residential lot.

• MHUs should be able to be part of new building development and not only apply, or be

restricted, to being attached or being part of an existing household unit.• The legacy rules for MHUs are workable except the maximum size of 60m2 was

considered by some to be too small.

3. The question was posed, in support of MHUs, as to how does preventing MHUs beingdeveloped give effect to the district plan, especially when we are seeking to intensify residentialdevelopment.

4. The consensus appeared to be that there are areas of the City where the existing or similarcontrols are relevant in maintaining the form of building development that currently exists, butthere are importantly other areas where intensification needs to be provided for and where amore innovative form of development and associated controls can apply.

Friday, 26 June 2015

Building height and setbacks in the THAB zones

1. Concern was raised about the interface between the THABs and other zones and how the

controls would ensure appropriate levels of amenity are maintained in the adjacent lower

intensity zoned areas. It was suggested that :

• More assessment criteria be added and that additional considerations include sunlight

and daylight controls that take into account compass directions (e.g. differentiate N – W

– E – S). Noting that the orientation of sites affect amenity on neighbouring sites andthat a simple control is not sufficient to address amenity effects. Criteria will need to be

developed. It was suggested the legacy controls be considered and then assessed on

a case by case basis.

• More zones should be created and these could be more finely tuned to particular


11/40

Friday, 26 June 2015

On-site amenity

1. Notification - Some support for notifying all applications for development control infringements,particularly to adjacent sites. Support for notification signs to be on the sites.

2. Recession planes on cross lease sites - Concern was raised about the lack of height in relationto boundary controls between buildings on the same site (i.e. on single title or cross leasesites). Council noted that there are other controls that apply (e.g. building separation andoutlook controls) within a site to maintain privacy and light to bedrooms of dwelling on the samesite.

3. Street Frontage Requirements - Discussion regarding the 7.5m building / street frontagerequirements and the form of subdivision that might be required to achieve this. On traditionalshaped sites in existing areas it precludes rear lot development.

4. Fence height on front boundary - Very little support for general controls on fences for streetsurveillance reasons. Concern was raised about the 1.2m fence height requirement on a front

boundary and the implications of this for providing privacy to street front houses. Partiesgenerally preferred a higher fence height (e.g. 1.8m). It was also noted that as sites becomesmaller then need to use a front yard as the primary living space increases the need for higherfencing and privacy. Also on busy roads a higher and solid fence may provide better amenityon sites.

5. Front façade glazing - Very little support for requiring levels of street front glazing. Partiesquestioned why Council is controlling glazing? Council noted the purpose was to ensure

passive surveillance of the street and increase safety. Parties noted that window dressing i.e.curtains and blinds defeat this purpose.

6. Need for Rules vs Assessment Criteria - Support for key amenity controls and particularlythose relating to between site amenity. It would be better to go through a “design leadapproach” to assess development. There was a suggestion to include some of the rules asassessment criteria (things to consider) rather than fixed dimensions.

7. If density control removed is there a need for minimum apartment size rules? Answer – Some said yes and some said no.

8. Car parking - A general discussion regarding the need for car parking. Most prefer that at leastone car park be provided on site per unit.


12/40

Facilitator’sNames

Alan Watson

Marlene Oliver

Facilitator’sSignatures

Date 26 June 2015

7. Attachments

7.1 Attachments 1- 8 Parties to Workshop attendance records


13/40


14/40


15/40


16/40


17/40


18/40


19/40


20/40


21/40


22/40


23/40


24/40


25/40


26/40


27/40


28/40


29/40


30/40


31/40


32/40


33/40


34/40


35/40


36/40


37/40


38/40


39/40


40/40

059-063 - Residential Workshop Outcomes - Session 1 - 5 (Monday, 22 June _ Friday, 26 June 2015)

Documents

Transcript of 059-063 - Residential Workshop Outcomes - Session 1 - 5 (Monday, 22 June _ Friday, 26 June 2015)