Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015

8/20/2019 Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015

1/133

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be heldon:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 12 November 2015 9.30am Reception Lounge, Level 2Auckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Deputy Chairperson Cr Chris Darby

Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Dr Cathy Casey Member David Taipari Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Ross Clow Cr Wayne Walker Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr John Watson Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Penny Webster Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeMember Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam WhiteDemocracy Advisor

6 November 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/133


3/133

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of

economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It willguide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with theseactivities. Key responsibilities include:

Unitary Plan

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

Tamaki regeneration projects

Built Heritage

Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (seeGoverning Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendationonly

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


4/133


5/133


12 November 2015

Page 5

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

6 Local Board Input 7

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 8

9 Reports Pending Status Update 9

10 Summary of information memos and briefings - 12 November 2015 17

11 Housing for Oplder Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation 19

12 Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 31

Attachments to item 12 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda Under

Separate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will

be available.

13 Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report 41

14 Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and

Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power Generation

Precinct 123

Attachments to item 14 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda UnderSeparate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will

be available.

15 Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management

Act Discussion Document 127

16 Hobsonville Point update and proposed screen precinct 129

The report was not available when the agenda to print and will be circulated

prior to the meeting.

17 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 131

C1 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update 131

C2 Tamaki Regeneration Project 132

C3 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for

mediation and hearings - Tertiary Education Zones and Precincts for

Akoranga 1 (AUT), Albany 9 (Massey University) and Wairaka (UNITEC) 132

C4 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Appointment of Additional

Independant Hearings Panel Members 133C5 Deferred Special Housing Area Request 133


6/133


7/133


12 November 2015

Page 7

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr AJ Anae and Cr LA Cooper have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision makingwhen a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other externalinterest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 October 2015,including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theDemocracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to themeeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion

to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,

give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on theagenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


8/133


12 November 2015

Page 8

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if -

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to thepublic,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until asubsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the localauthority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;

but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for furtherdiscussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.


9/133

I t e m 9


12 November 2015

Reports Pending Status Update Page 9

Reports Pending Status Update

File No.: CP2015/23355

Purpose

1. To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutionsfrom February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary2. This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with

greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). Itupdates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutionsfrom February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3. This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in theconfidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.

4. The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information(Attachment B).

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the reports pending status update.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 10September 2015

11

B Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme2015/2016

13

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


10/133


11/133

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 9


12 November 2015



12/133


13/133

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 9


12 November 2015



14/133

AttachmentB

Item 9


12 November 2015



15/133


I t e m 9


12 November 2015



16/133


17/133

I t e m 1

0


12 November 2015

Summary of information memos and briefings - 12 November 2015 Page 17

Summary of information memos and briefings - 12 November 2015

File No.: CP2015/23451

Purpose

1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that mayhave been distributed to committee members since 15 October 2015.

Executive Summary2. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information

circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions arerequired.

3. The following presentations/memos were presented/circulated as follows:

Village Town concept : for more information visit : http://villagetowns.nz

4. These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at thefollowing link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

5. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions aboutthese items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questionsto the authors.


a) receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 12 November 2015.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Letter from Claude Lewenz re: VillageTowns - a different approach tomaking Auckland the world's most liveable city (Extra Attachments)

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

http://villagetowns.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://villagetowns.nz/


18/133


19/133

I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015

HfOP Eligibility Criteria Standardisation Page 19

Housing for Older Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation

File No.: CP2015/22700

Purpose

1. To approve the standardisation of eligibility criteria for Auckland Council’s housing for olderpersons service.

Executive Summary2. Council currently has 1,412 housing for older persons dwellings, with a waiting list of 386

current applications. There are currently five different sets of eligibility criteria based onlegacy councils’ policies, and nohousing for older persons in the former Auckland City andRodney legacy areas. These differences present significant challenges to applicants inunderstanding whether and where they might qualify.

3. In May 2015 Council’s Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the LongTerm Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that eligibility would then be standardised.

4. The proposed standardised criteria require that applicants are eligible for New ZealandNational Superannuation, have assets of less than $40,000, are able to live independently,receive superannuation as their main source of income, have an identified housing need,and have lived in Auckland for one year or more in the last five years. Key stakeholdergroups provided input into criteria development.

5. While the proposal excludes Aucklanders aged between 59 and 65 who are currentlyeligible, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the North Shore area, theoverall impact of the revision is better access to HfOP for the service’s target population.

6. Staff presented the proposed criteria to local board chairs on the 19th October 2015. LocalBoards Chairs expressed an interest in understanding what the impact of the proposed

change in age criteria would be on future applicants. This information was provided to theLocal Boards and is included in attachment C. Early estimates indicate that approximately60 people on the waiting list will not be eligible to apply under the new criteria.

7. Council is currently seeking a partnership for HfOP services with one or many partnerorganisations. Staff recommend completing the current standardisation of criteria prior tothis potential change in delivery due to the benefits of creating ‘one council voice’ regardingcriteria, reducing confusion to customers and potential partners, and readying the portfoliofor a partnership delivery model.

8. Staff propose the criteria take effect from 1 January 2016 and are applied to the currentwaiting list as well as new applications. The Auckland Development Committee has thedelegation to approve the standardised eligibility criteria.


20/133

Item 11


12 November 2015



a) approve that from 1 January 2016, one set of eligibility criteria will apply for allhousing for older persons dwellings across Auckland as follows:

i. Age: Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, including thesame qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person).

ii. Income: Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amountfrom their main source of income.

iii. Assets: Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples). Theseare both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New Zealand Work andIncome for their Accommodation Supplement.

iv. Live independently: Able to live independently in an intensive housingenvironment. Definition: Can engage and/or manage any support services theymight require and contribute constructively to harmonious community life.

v. Housing need: Self-identified housing need at the time of application. This willensure the assessment is reflective of housing need at the moment of theapplication (not an assumed future need).

vi. Connection to Auckland: Lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last fiveyears or is currently living there.

b) note the changes do not apply to existing tenants but include tenants currently on thewaiting list and new applications.

Comments

9. Auckland Council owns and operates 1,412 ‘housing for older persons’ dwellings,concentrated in the south, west and north of Auckland. There is currently no HfOP housingin the former Auckland City and Rodney areas.

10. There is a growing waiting list for these dwellings, with 386 current applications and anadditional 70 cases in the process of being assessed.

11. Currently, there are five different sets of eligibility criteria to access these dwellings, whichare based on the policies of the legacy councils in which the properties are located. Allcriteria require applicants to be New Zealand citizens or residents aged 60 or over. Othercriteria are similar and focus on determining need according to the thresholds of age,financial means, ability to live independently, housing need and connection to a locality. Theadditional criteria which differ within each region are outlined in detail in Attachment A.

12. The most significant issues associated with the current criteria are as follows:

a. different criteria mean applicants are treated inequitably across Auckland

b. navigating five sets of criteria is confusing for applicants

c. loosely worded and disparate criteria allow people to be put on the waiting list who areunlikely to receive an offer of placement in a unit. This creates longer waiting lists thannecessary and slows down the application process for everyone

d. The current criteria are based on static numbers (for example ‘age 60’) rather thansector policy thresholds (for example ‘the age of entitlement to superannuation’). Thismeans that when central government adjusts its policies, HfOP criteria become less

relevant and discrepancies arise between national and local policies.13. In May 2015 the Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the Long Term

Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that existing eligibility criteria would then bestandardised.


21/133

I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015


14. Since that time, council staff, as directed by the Auckland Development Committee, havebegun to procure partner organisation(s) to assist in delivering HfOP accommodation andassociated services. As part of that process, eligibility criteria need to align with centralgovernment (Ministry of Social Development (MSD) eligibility criteria or allocationframeworks. This is because central government social housing reform dictates that socialhousing assigned by private organisations must align with MSD criteria. Housing providers

partnering with Auckland Council would fall under this legislation.15. The standardisation of council criteria prior to engagement with MSD regarding delivery of

social housing is a necessary precursor to entering into partnership for HfOP delivery.Standardised criteria are also expected to achieve significant efficiencies for Council in staffadministration time. The current assessment process includes visiting applicants, obtainingfinancial and circumstantial information, discussing and assessing that information. Staffestimate that a consolidated approach will significantly reduce the time per application dueto the clearer information for applicants and the reduced need for staff time spent explainingcriteria to applicants and requesting additional information.

16. Council receives approximately 24 applications per month. A consolidated approach willdeliver better value to ratepayers in both the quality of the service provided and the cost in

processing applications.

Development of Criteria17. To standardise eligibility criteria, staff considered the current sets of criteria as well as

prevailing policy and practice within New Zealand for similar types of dwellings. Staff thensought feedback on their initial recommendations and tested their reasoning with followingorganisations and groups:

a. New Zealand Housing Foundation and Community Housing Aotearoa – for policyperspectives from the existing community housing sector.

b. Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) on the evolution of the various eligibility

criteria used in state housing, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on therecent changes to the criteria.

c. Wellington and Christchurch City Councils as the most comparable council providers.Both of these councils use variants of HNZC’s criteria from 2003 and they are currentlyalso reviewing their approaches.

d. The Seniors Advisory Panel, Age Concern and Grey Power – to consider the aged caresector from a variety of angles.

18. Stakeholders agreed with the broad eligibility criteria proposed, with varied feedback on thedefinitions and thresholds for each criterion. A summary of feedback for each criterion isoutlined in Attachment B. As a result of this feedback, some of the recommendations wereamended to arrive at the draft eligibility criteria thresholds as outlined in table one below.


22/133

Item 11


12 November 2015


Table One: Recommended standardised HfOP eligibility criteria for the Auckland region

Subject Criterion

Age Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, includingthe same qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person).

Income Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amountfrom their main source of income

Assets Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples).These are both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New ZealandWork and Income for their Accommodation Supplement

Ability to liveindependently

Is able to live independently in an intensive housing environment, canengage and/or manage any support services they might require andcontribute constructively to harmonious community life. This definitionallows for applicants who may require assistance and who are able tomanage this assistance

Housing need Has a self-identified housing need at the time of application

Connection to Auckland

Has lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last five years or iscurrently living there

19. This proposal removes criteria requiring residency in a legacy area. This will reduce thewaiting list by around 25%, and make Council’s eligibility process more compatible withpotential community housing partners.

20. In addition, linking eligibility to National Superannuation age and amount will automaticallyadjust eligibility to any central government pension policy changes. The criteria also require

National Super to be the main source of income, which allows applicants to earn a modestsupplementary income.

21. The proposal excludes people aged between 59 and 65 when compared with the currentcriteria, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the legacy North Shore.However overall, the revised criteria will provide better access to HfOP to the Aucklanders inmost need of the service.


23/133

I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015


22. Commentary on the criteria by subject area is outlined in table two below.

Table two: commentary on eligibility criteria by subject

Subject ofcriterion

Commentary

Age Matching the age threshold and income thresholds set by the Ministry of

Social Development for New Zealand National Superannuation eligibilitymeans that the age threshold

is not fixed at an arbitrary age, which may not endure as centralgovernment superannuation policy changes and

reflects the proportion of the population to whom council seeks toprovide a service

People over the age of 60 are eligible under the existing five sets of legacycouncil criteria. Linking the age eligibility criteria to central governmententitlement for New Zealand National Superannuation would mean thatpeople who are over 59 but under 65 will no longer be eligible.

Although the highest proportion of 59-65 year olds in Auckland are on the

North Shore (Attachment C) we anticipate that matching the age thresholdto that set by the Ministry will have the biggest impact on applicants in theSouth. This is because the South has the highest population of Maori andPacific Islanders in Auckland and data indicates that due to a lower lifeexpectancy, Maori and Pacific Islanders access social housing earlier thanother ethnic populations.

Income Basing the income criteria on the main source of income means that theapplicant is able to earn a supplementary income without this affectingtheir eligibility.

Assets The proposed asset threshold does not discriminate against applicantswho may own modest assets.

Ability to liveindependently The criteria regarding independent living means that the factors whichcontribute to a harmonious village life are incorporated into the processfrom the first step.

Housing need The criteria regarding self-identified housing need now ensures theapplication is based on the current point in time. This increases thefairness of the assessment because all applicants are assessed on currentstate, not future state.

Connection to Auckland

Removing legacy connection criteria allows access to applications for theHfOP service across Auckland, including those areas without a legacyHfOP service.

Rolling out standardised criteria23. If approved, these criteria will standardise who is eligible for the waiting list. Once eligibility

is determined, staff will assess need within that list from a social housing perspective, usingan objective evidence-based weighting tool.

24. If the committee approve the proposed standardised eligibility criteria for HfOP services,staff recommend the criteria are applied to the existing waitlist and any new applicationsfrom 1 January 2016.

25. This will provide equity and fairness among existing and new applicants when their need isassessed and their priority on the list assigned.

26. When applied to the existing waiting list early estimates indicate that approximately 60

people will no longer be eligible under the new criteria.


24/133

Item 11


12 November 2015


27. If the new criteria where not applied to existing waiting list applicants these 60 people wouldstay on the list but the may not be allocated housing in the foreseeable future due to theirneed being assessed as lower than new applicants. For this reason staff do not recommendexempting current waiting list applicants.

28. Staff do not recommend reviewing current tenancies under the revised criteria.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

29. Council staff presented the proposed eligibility to criteria to the Local Boards Chairs Forumon the 19th October 2015. Local Board Chairs indicated an interest in further understandingthe impact of the change in age criteria from 60 years to 65 years.

30. Council staff provided the requested information via memo to Local Boards. That informationis based on data gathered from the 2013 census and is in Attachment C.

Māori impact statement

31. According to the 2015 survey of social housing tenants (Auckland Council/Gravitas)residents of housing for older person dwellings are more likely to identify as Maori or with aPacific People’s ethnic group.

32. As Auckland Council investigates partnership options for delivery of HfOP, staff aredeveloping an engagement plan that will ensure mana whenua and mataawaka are fullyaware of the opportunities and are encouraged to participate to enable the recognition ofkoroua and kuia.

33. The partnership approach will also allow mana whenua and mataawaka to grow their role inprovision of housing solutions. This may be through partnerships with existing communityhousing providers who can supplement and complement the respective skills of both partiesin a partnership proposal.

Implementation34. Pending approval of the standardised criteria, staff will implement the revised criteria from 1

January 2016.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Differing legacy eligibility criteria 25

B Stakeholder feedback summary 27

C Age and demographic data of Auckland’s 60-65 population 29

Signatories

Author Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers Graham Bodman - General Manager - Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


25/133

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015



26/133


27/133


I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015



28/133


29/133

A t t a c h m e n t C

I t e m 1

1


12 November 2015



30/133


31/133

I t e m 1

2


12 November 2015

Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy Page 31

Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/23239

Purpose

1. To consider the feedback received during public consultation on the draft Future Urban LandSupply Strategy (the draft Strategy), to approve the Auckland Development CommitteeDeliberations Panel’s recommended changes to this draft Strategy as a result of thisfeedback and to adopt the final Strategy.

Executive Summary2. The Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public

consultation on 7 July 2015 in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out insection 83 of the Local Government Act (2002).

3. Public consultation on the draft Strategy took place from 17 July to 17 August 2015. A totalof 237 pieces of written feedback was received. This feedback, together with the feedbackfrom 270 people who attended the four Have Your Say public meetings, was considered bythe deliberations panel on 23 September and 7 October 2015. Overall, the feedbackstrongly supported the intent and purpose of the draft Strategy in terms of providing aregion-wide approach to integrating and sequencing land use and infrastructure in the futureurban zone (FUZ) areas.

4. The main changes proposed to the draft Strategy as a result of the feedback are thefollowing amendments to the initially proposed sequencing of the FUZ areas:

a. that Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two

b. that Drury West (formerly called Karaka in the draft Strategy) be brought forward to thefirst half of decade two

c. that Opaheke – Drury be sequenced in the first half of decade three (previously thesecond half of decade two)

d. that Puhinui be included in the second half of decade two (though not included in thedraft Strategy nor specifically raised in the feedback, it is included to align with recentplanning undertaken for the area).

5. Other proposed changes in response to the feedback received include matters related to:

a. scale and context of growth

b. structure planning

c. costs, funding and financing solutions

d. importance of monitoring

e. collaboration.

6. A monitoring and review programme is an integral part of implementing the Strategy. It willensure that the Strategy is responsive to changes in the future to deliver land fordevelopment at the right time and in the right locations. The monitoring programme will bepart of a wider monitoring framework undertaken for the Auckland Plan.

7. As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructureproviders will work together to ensure more detailed land use and infrastructure planningand delivery is aligned.

8. Future urban zones identified as ‘standalone areas’ (with the exception of Hingaia) are notincluded in the Strategy. They will be addressed through future work on the stage four (ruraland coastal towns) Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) process.


32/133

Item 12


12 November 2015



a) receive the summary of public feedback obtained during the draft Future Urban LandSupply Strategy consultation process

b) approve the changes to the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy proposed bythe Auckland Development Committee Deliberations Panel

c) adopt the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy as proposed by the AucklandDevelopment Committee Deliberations Panel and inclusive of additional changesapproved by the Committee

d) delegate through the Chief Executive to the General Manager,Auckland Plan,Strategy and Research the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to theFuture Urban Land Supply Strategy to correct any identified errors or typographicaledits or to reflect decisions made by the Auckland Development Committee.

CommentsBackground

9. The Auckland Plan identified ‘greenfield areas for investigation’ to provide for future growthoutside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The PAUP formalised this conceptthrough the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as FUZ. The RUB hasbeen subject to substantial public consultation: during the development of the Auckland Planin 2011, the Auckland Unitary Plan discussion document consultation from late 2012 to mid-2013 and the subsequent notification of the PAUP in September 2013. It is noted that theprecise boundaries of the RUB have not yet been finalised through the PAUP process.

10. The purpose of the Strategy is to provide a robust and logical 30-year sequence for whenthe 11,000 hectares of FUZ land is proposed to be ‘development ready’. This will enablecoordination of timely structure planning, live zoning and bulk infrastructure provision tothese areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructureproviders. The future urban areas are predominantly rural and have not been previouslyidentified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided prior to theirdevelopment.

11. The areas included in the Strategy are located outside the 2010 MUL but exclude futureurban zones identified as ‘standalone areas’ (with the exception of Hingaia). These areaswill be addressed through future work on the stage four (rural and coastal towns) RUBprocess.

12. The Strategy leverages off existing legacy planning and approved Special Housing Areas

(SHAs) for the first 5-10 years. Subsequently, the Strategy transitions to a more proactiveapproach that aims to ensure that the necessary underpinning network infrastructure will beavailable at the time of future live zoning of FUZ land.

13. The Strategy deals with the future urban areas located in the:

a. North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

b. North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

c. South: Puhinui, Takanini, Hingaia, Opaheke-Drury, Drury West, Paerata and Pukekohe.

14. The PAUP Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) has requested further information tounderstand how the council will manage the planning and development of future urban land.The Strategy forms part of the council’s overall integrated planning approach which includes

the use of the RUB and the FUZ.


33/133

I t e m 1

2


12 November 2015


15. Structure planning and associated plan changes to create ‘live’ zonings will be done prior tothe FUZ areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the council (or inpartnership with others) in line with the sequencing outlined in the Strategy. Structureplanning will be the stage of the process where local boards, mana whenua andcommunities will be most heavily involved in the planning of these areas.

Sequencing future urban zoned land

16. The approach undertaken to identify the sequencing of the likely structureplanning/development readiness for the future urban areas was primarily a technicalexercise that consisted of the following key stages:

a. work initially focussed on building a greater understanding of each future urban area byconsolidating the planning information held across council and undertaking high leveltechnical analysis. This exercise provided a clearer picture regarding the potential landuses, development capacities, development opportunities and constraints and the bulkinfrastructure projects that would be required to urbanise these areas

b. a suite of principles was established to guide the development of the Strategy and toallow the overall prioritisation of the FUZ areas within the short, medium and long-term

timeframes of the Strategyc. a series of technical workshops were held with key infrastructure providers including

Auckland Transport, Watercare, Veolia and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).The workshops looked at each geographic location separately to understand the likelylocalised infrastructure requirements

d. the resulting information was then used to develop an overall regional picture anddevelop recommendations for when a future urban area should be live zoned. Thisrequired all areas to be compared and then sequenced. The regional analysis alsocompared the development capacities that were likely to occur and the necessary keyenabling infrastructure projects (and their timelines and potential costs where known)with the aim that development capacities could be delivered, and that infrastructure costs

could be spread, over the period of the Strategye. the outputs from all of these stages were then consolidated into a table that sets out the

sequence order in terms of the council’s intentions of when these areas would be readyfor urban development.

Public consultation

17. On 7 July 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to:

a) approve the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for public consultation inaccordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the LocalGovernment Act (2002).

b) approve the statement of proposal for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy forconsultation.

c) appoint Cr WB Cashmore, Deputy Chairperson C Darby, Cr D Quax and Cr MPWebster of the Auckland Development Committee and one member of theIndependent Māori Statutory Board to form a hearing panel, and delegate authorityto this panel to attend public consultation events and consider the consultationfeedback received, and make recommendations to the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee.

d) delegate to the chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee the power tomake additional or replacement appointments to the hearings panel if required.

e) delegate to the General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research the ability

to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal, to correctany identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Auckland Development Committee.


34/133

Item 12


12 November 2015


Resolution: AUC/2015/147

18. Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox was subsequently appointed tothe Strategy hearings panel. This panel was renamed the deliberations panel given thatformal hearings were not required in this process which was undertaken under theprovisions of the Local Government Act 2002. Public consultation on the Strategy tookplace from 17 July to 17 August 2015 and commenced with a media release from the council

and the launch of an interactive webpage, followed by public notices in the New ZealandHerald and within targeted local papers. These notices informed the public that the draftStrategy and a statement of proposal were publicly available for comment and alsoadvertised the upcoming Have Your Say public meetings.

19. Four Have Your Say events were held during the consultation period in Warkworth (3 August), Kumeu (5 August), Dairy Flat (10 August) and Drury (11 August). These locationswere chosen with input from local board services staff. Each event was attended by four ofthe five appointed hearing panel members; as well as local board members, relevant councilstaff (including Auckland Transport) and representatives from the NZTA. The primarymeans to obtain feedback were small group facilitated table discussions, where members ofthe public could provide feedback on the draft Strategy in the presence of a hearing panel

and/or elected member. Attendee comments were captured in writing and a report backfrom each table occurred. A good cross section of the public (270 people) attended thesefour events and the summary of feedback (see Attachment A) from each event was providedon the council’s website.

Feedback summary

20. A total of 237 pieces of written feedback were received on the draft Strategy (see summaryin Attachment B). This feedback, together with the feedback received at the Have Your Sayevents, was considered by the deliberations panel at two sessions that occurred on 23September and 7 October 2015.

21. The majority of written feedback was received from those located in the Rodney Local Board(45 per cent), followed by the Upper Harbour Local Board (19 per cent) and Franklin LocalBoard area (6 per cent). Overall, there was strong support for taking a region- wideapproach to integrating land use and infrastructure, as was the draft Strategy’s intent andpurpose.

22. Feedback has been grouped into 14 main themes, discussed below, which provides asummary of feedback received and the responses proposed. The amended version of theStrategy incorporating these responses is provided in Attachment C.

Theme one: the scale of growth and type of development envisioned

23. In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the lack of appreciation by thepublic about the scale of growth that is proposed by the Strategy, what this would mean interms of urban development/form (e.g. the likely housing typology) envisaged and the

amount of infrastructure that would be needed to allow urbanisation of the FUZ areas. Inorder to address this feedback it is proposed that:

a new section (section two: scale and context) with further explanation be added toclarify the scale of proposed FUZ area development and the type of development thatis envisioned. As illustrative measures, the total FUZ area is compared to the size ofthe City of Hamilton and examples of likely housing types and urban form are included.

Theme two: the priority of brownfield versus greenfield development

24. In summary, the feedback received on this theme is defined by a perception that the councilis prioritising greenfield area development without sufficiently examining options toaccelerate brownfield area development. A small number of submitters suggested that acomplementary brownfield strategy be developed. In order to address this feedback it isproposed that:


35/133

I t e m 1

2


12 November 2015


a. a new diagram be added to the introduction (section one) to better illustrate whatproportion of the anticipated future growth within Auckland over the next 30 years willoccur within the FUZ areas

b. additional wording be added in the second paragraph of the introduction to clarify theimportance of providing a pipeline of land supply in both brownfields and greenfieldsareas and that, as recognised by the Auckland Plan, both brownfields and greenfields

land supply are needed

c. a revised monitoring section is added that highlights the importance of monitoring the on-going development capacity of both existing urban land and future urban land.

Theme three: the need for mixed land use25. In summary, the feedback received on this theme outlined the importance many submitters

put on ensuring that a balanced mix of residential and employment land would be achievedby the Strategy, so as to allow the development of well-functioning communities. In order toaddress this feedback it is proposed that:

an illustrative diagram of a “mock” structure plan be included in a new section onstructure planning (section 3). This diagram visually illustrates that obtaining a balancedmix of business and residential land is anticipated by the Strategy, and the optimal mix ofland use will be identified through the forthcoming structure planning processes.

Theme four: the importance of monitoring and implementation26. In summary, the feedback received on this theme showed that there was significant public

interest about how, and when, the Strategy would be monitored and reviewed. It wasconsidered the monitoring of the Strategy should have the ability to alter the sequence andtimeframes set out in the Strategy. However, there were significantly differing opinions overhow flexible the review process should be in terms of responding to unforeseen changesthat the monitoring could potentially identify. In order to address this feedback it is proposedthat:

a revised monitoring and review section (section six) be added within the Strategy tomake clear that:

o the Strategy will track and report on the progress of delivering land for newcommunities. This will include the identification of future urban zoning, structureplanning, rezoning, servicing with bulk infrastructure, subdivision and the buildingconsent process

o the Strategy will be monitored annually as part of a comprehensive and broader Auckland Plan Development Strategy monitoring framework

o the Strategy may be amended following a review, should the monitoring identify clearchanges from the expected growth patterns, increased funding availability for bulk

infrastructure, or a significant change in strategic direction (due to factors such aseconomic situations, or the regulatory planning context).

Theme five: the interrelationship between forecast infrastructure costs and dwelling

numbers

27. In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to the cost table (page 13 of thedraft Strategy) and the incorrect perception that the forecast infrastructure costs could bedirectly apportioned to the forecast dwelling numbers. In order to address this feedback it isproposed:

that additional text be added within the Strategy to clarify that costs do not directly

correlate to the number of dwellings forecast within each decade and that a proportionof these costs will be incurred in preceding decades to allow development in the

subsequent decade.


36/133


37/133

I t e m 1

2


12 November 2015


Theme ten: the funding/financing of infrastructure32. In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to queries about the magnitude of

the infrastructure costs outlined in the Strategy, how such costs would be funded/financedand who would pay for this infrastructure. It became apparent from analysing the feedbackthat additional clarification on what could be funded by development contributions was

needed as some submitters misunderstood how this policy could be applied by the council.There were also a number of queries about whether alternative funding/financing tools couldbe applied. In order to address this feedback:

a. council staff have worked with key infrastructure providers to obtain the best costestimates possible, which will be shown as ‘inflated costs’ including contingencyestimates

b. further text be added is proposed to recognise that the council is working within aconstrained financial environment and that development contributions will not cover thefull amount of the bulk infrastructure costs proposed

c. the council will continue to examine how alternative funding/financing tools could beapplied to fund new infrastructure needs generated by Auckland’s growth.

Theme eleven: the timing and importance of infrastructure33. In summary, the feedback received on this theme stressed the need to ensure that key

network infrastructure is in place before any development starts. There were also requeststhat public transport be central to the sequencing with the view to having well-functioningtransport links in place at the time of development. There were a number of requests forvarious transport projects to be planned and constructed earlier than anticipated by the draftStrategy to alleviate or avoid perceived future congestion. In order to address this feedbackit is proposed that a new section be added as section two (scale and content) which includesreference to infrastructure, in particular public transport.

Theme twelve: the sequencing and timing of live zoning34. In summary, the feedback received on this theme was defined by requests to amend the

sequencing and timing of live zoning, and in particular to bring the live zoning of certainfuture urban areas forward (e.g. bring Wainui/Silverdale/Dairy Flat forward beforeWarkworth). In addition, requests were received to include Warkworth North East within thesequencing, confirm that Dairy Flat is included in the Strategy and that Warkworth shouldnot be split in a north/south orientation but occur as one concentrated development from thecentre outwards. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:

a. Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two to enable prudentplanning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements.

b. Drury West be brought forward to the first half of decade two to leverage off the

approved SHA in that area and maximise its market attractiveness

c. Opaheke – Drury be pushed out to the first t half of decade three to enable stormwaterand bulk wastewater solutions to be planned, funded and constructed and also to allowtime for the area to benefit from development occurring earlier in Drury West (it isconsidered that the market attractiveness of Drury West will have a positive spin off forOpaheke - Drury).

d. Dairy Flat (south of Bawden Road and west of Postman Road) be included to enableprudent planning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements. Acaveat stating that its final inclusion be determined through the PAUP process be added

e. additional rationale be included to explain the order of the sequencing table (within

Appendix one)


38/133

Item 12


12 November 2015


f. more explanation be provided in section three (structure planning) of the Strategy toclarify that structure panning will identify smaller, more nuanced areas for staging ofdevelopment to ensure a logical rollout of local infrastructure and land use

g. the sequencing table be updated in section four and shown as table one below.

35. While Puhinui was not specifically raised in the feedback, it is included in the Strategy

sequencing in the second half of decade two to align with recent planning undertaken for thearea.

Table one: Revised sequencing for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

Theme thirteen: the importance of collaboration36. In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the importance of ensuring

that all relevant parties collaborated on cross boundary infrastructure networks and fundingissues - particularly for Auckland/Waikato. In order to address this feedback it is proposedthat:

an additional principle on collaboration be added to Appendix one (principles) that

includes reference to adjoining councils, central government, developers, KiwiRail andother infrastructure providers

the Māori social and economic wellbeing principle be amended to include Treaty ofWaitangi settlement responsibilities.


39/133

I t e m 1

2


12 November 2015


Theme fourteen: process applied to develop the Strategy37. In summary, the feedback received on this topic was defined by submitters who wanted

more information about the process that was applied to develop the Strategy. In order toaddress this feedback, an explanation on the process and how this links to work undertakento define the RUB is included in this Committee report.

Consideration


38. This Strategy has significant implications for local boards, particularly Rodney, UpperHarbour, Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatotoe, Papakura, Manurewa and Franklin LocalBoards, as they contain areas of future urban land sequenced by the Strategy.

39. Prior to the start of public consultation, a briefing was held for all local board members on 15July 2015. Local board members most affected by the Strategy were invited to the fourHave Your Say public meetings, with 23 members attending. A number of local boardmembers took active roles at the Have Your Say events by hearing feedback from the public

at the facilitated table discussions.40. Feedback on the draft Strategy was received from 18 local boards. In general, local boards

supported the overall purpose and intent of the Strategy. A common theme in the localboard feedback was that infrastructure needed to be provided in a timely manner,particularly public transport. Clarity was also sought on how infrastructure was to be fundedand by whom. The importance of monitoring and links to the Auckland Plan were raised, aswell as the need to acquire land for open space and recreation as early as possible.Existing urban local boards raised the need for a focus on brownfield land supply tocomplement the Strategy’s focus on greenfields and that there is a need to balance businessland supply with residential (and particularly affordable housing) provision. Many localboards also expressed the need to ensure that they and their communities have the

opportunity to be fully involved in forthcoming structure planning processes.41. Attachment D summarises local board feedback by board and Attachment E provides the

complete record of the local board feedback received to the Strategy. The amendedStrategy has responded to this feedback.

Māori impact statement

42. This Strategy has significant implications for Māori and has the capacity to contribute toMāori well-being and development of Māori capacity. It is acknowledged that Māori have aspecial relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment.

43. Post -Treaty settlement, Māori may be looking to invest settlement monies in long-terminvestments and this may have a number of significant implications for infrastructure

planning. Māori also have the potential to be signif icant urban landowners that could belooking to actively participate in urban development and to promote specific outcomes for Auckland, the environment and for Māori. This would be achieved through partnerships,investments and greater involvement in decision making. The Strategy has been amendedto acknowledge the council’s responsibilities under The Treaty of Waitangi.

44. Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite ofprinciples which sit behind it. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015,prior to public consultation.

45. Written feedback was received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Te Ata. TeRūnanga o Ngāti Whātua supported the intent and development of the Strategy and areseeking recognition of the need for business areas at the edge of/beyond Auckland as apotential way to mitigate the affordable housing issue faced by Auckland through creatingnew housing outside of Auckland’s boundary. Feedback from Ngāti Te Ata outlines a desirefor alignment between the Strategy and their long-term aspirations in infrastructure,


40/133

Item 12


12 November 2015


industrial, commercial, business and residential development. Members of Waikato-Tainuiattended the Drury Have your Say event and their feedback was captured within thesummary of feedback document for this event. There was also some support in the generalfeedback for principle three of the Strategy ‘Supporting lifting Maori social and economicwellbeing’.

46. The Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau refers to the four pou of social, cultural, economic and

environmental wellbeing areas. To better articulate the link with the four pou, principle threeof the Strategy has been expanded to include a reference to cultural and environmentalwellbeing given the role of the Strategy in contributing to the Māori Plan’s key direction ofdeveloping vibrant communities.

Implementation47. A monitoring programme will be an integral and important part of implementing the Strategy

and making it a document that can be responsive to changes in the future. This will ensurethat the proposed sequencing remains relevant and effective and is able to respond tochange. As part of consultation on the draft Strategy, feedback was received on theimportance of monitoring and review. In response the section on monitoring and review of

the Strategy was revised to provide more detail.48. As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructure

providers will work together to ensure land use and infrastructure planning is aligned.Further detailed planning for large areas of future urban land will occur at the structureplanning stage prior to live zoning and provision of bulk infrastructure.

49. Council is investigating alternative mechanisms to fund, finance and deliver infrastructure.This includes options such as public-private partnerships; private sector funding or provision;alternative funding mechanisms such as regional fuel taxes; congestion charging; taxincremental financing; user charges; sponsorship opportunities and partnership orcollaborative approaches.

50. Benefits to individual infrastructure projects may vary, depending on the mechanism used.These will be considered on a case-by-case basis and could include targeting funding forinfrastructure investment to an area or community which receives the benefit; improvedenvironmental performance; improved resilience and greater equity in funding contributions.There is also potential for more collaborative approaches to infrastructure investment

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Have Your Say events summary of feedback on the Draft Future UrbanLand Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

B Summary of written feedback on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply

Strategy (Under Separate Cover) C Amended Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

D Summary of local board feedback received on the Draft Future UrbanLand Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

E Complete record of local board feedback received on the Draft FutureUrban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author Amanda Harland – Principal Growth & Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


41/133

I t e m 1

3


12 November 2015

Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report Page 41

Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report

File No.: CP2015/20461

Purpose

1. To receive the report of the independent Consideration Panel on the proposed landexchange for the Three Kings Reserve, and confirm acceptance of the Panel’srecommendation to proceed with the exchange, subject to the Chief Executive entering intoa land exchange agreement setting out the terms of that exchange.

Executive Summary2. Fletcher Residential Limited (Developer) is planning a residential property development on

its Three Kings quarry land. As part of its development, it has proposed exchanging fullydeveloped sports fields, and other land and improvements, in return for some adjacentCouncil-administered reserves land to be developed for housing.

3. The Reserves Act 1977 permits land exchanges if, broadly, the exchange results in a similaror better reserves “amenity” outcome for the public (i.e. improved benefit for the purpose ofthe reserve). Public and iwi consultation is required, and Ministerial approval is also requiredsince some of the land is Crown-derived.

4. To assess the merits of the proposed exchange:

a. Council issued a s.15 Reserves Act notice of an intention to exchange reserve land, andalso appointed an independent panel to consider any submissions and make arecommendation to Council. The Consideration Panel’s report (attached) recommendsthat Council proceeds with the exchange on certain conditions, and on the assumptionthat the exchange is in Council’s favour financially.

b. Staff have identified, assessed and reported on other options and these are referenced

in a section of Attachment C.

5. If Council accepts the Panel’s recommendation and resolves to request the exchange,Council will then enter into a land exchange agreement with the Developer, covering theessential terms of the exchange including:

a. Specifications for the reserve improvement works, including new sports fields, and otherDeveloper undertakings.

b. Project phasing and step-plan for implementing the exchange.

c. Any pre-conditions and deadlines for performance of the exchange (including theDeveloper’s planning approvals for the development).

6. The Panel’s recommendation, in light of the Developer’s representations during publicconsultation and the hearings process, represents the baseline requirements for the landexchange which will be reflected in the exchange agreement.

7. Council’s decision to enter into any land exchange agreement is as a land-owner (subject toReserves Act requirements). Planning and consenting decisions relating to the Developer’sproject are distinct regulatory issues, and the planning process is separate from theReserves Act process. The outcome of the Reserves Act process will give certainty to theability of any plan change to be implemented.

8. Council’s Chief Executive, in conjunction with Panuku Development Auckland, wouldcomplete the negotiations with the Developer to implement the Panel’s recommendationsprior to forwarding a request to the Minister, and attend to the execution and implementation

of the land exchange agreement and performance of any Council obligations if the Ministerwere to approve the request. The final apportionment and proportional ownership of theparcels of the reconfigured reserve will be agreed with the Department of Conservation inthis process.


42/133

Item 13


12 November 2015


9. The Panel’s recommendation should be considered as a whole. The Committee can acceptor reject it, but cannot propose any changes to its terms without restarting the hearingprocess or referring the matter back to the Panel for further consideration.

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee, as a Committee of the Whole and as the

Committee responsible for the related Plan Change PM372:a) accept the report and recommendations of the Consideration Panel relating to the

proposed exchange

b) accept that the fiscal evaluation of the exchange land and the value of the benefits toaccrue to the reserve land supports the disposal of part of the existing reserve andthe acquisition of new reserve by way of exchange under s.15 of the Reserves Act

c) request the Minister of Conservation’s approval to the exchange under s.15 of theReserves Act in accordance with the Panel’s recommendation.

d) delegate to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council (acting in consultation withPanuku Development Auckland) authority to:

i) negotiate and enter into the land exchange agreement in accordance with thePanel’s recommendations;

ii) agree the final apportionment and proportional ownership of the parcels of thereconfigured reserve with the Department of Conservation;

ii) to forward the resolution requesting approval of the exchange to the Minister ofConversation (with all required attachments) on completion of the exchangeagreement; and

iii) exercise Auckland Council’s rights and obligations under the exchangeagreement, and attend to all technical matters and processes required, to giveeffect to completing the land exchange and related matters in an orderly

manner.

Comments

Statutory process and the Consideration Panel

10. On the 11 June the Committee resolved (AUC/2015/118) to issue a notice of intention toexchange reserve land under s.15 of the Reserves Act relating to the rehabilitation anddevelopment of the Three Kings Quarry subject to PM372. Before making that decision,officers had considered and reported on other reasonable practicable options to theproposed exchange. These options are described in Attachment C.

11. The notice of intention to request an exchange of reserve land was published in the NewZealand Herald on 22 June, with two further notices in the Central Leader on 24 June and 3July. The notice was posted on Auckland Council’s website, and information relating to theproposed exchange, including survey plans, previous reports to the Local Board and theillustrative exchange plans were made available on council’s engagement website,www.shapeauckland.co.nz.

12. The consultation period ran from 22 June to the 24 July and 233 submissions were receivedduring that period. 222 of these submissions were received following a public meeting heldon 21 July. Two submissions were received from iwi, one from Nagti Maru and the other onbehalf of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and representative entities.

13. On the 22 July the Hearings Committee (HEA/2015/72) appointed a panel of fourindependent commissioners to consider the submissions arising from the notification period.


43/133

I t e m 1

3


12 November 2015


14. On 25, 26 and 31 August public hearings were held and submitters were able to addresstheir submissions. The Consideration Panel held deliberations in public on 6 October andissued their consideration of objections report and recommendations on 15 October 2015(see Attachment A).

15. The Panel has also prepared a Submissions Schedule where it records whether the Panelaccepted, in part or in whole, an issue raised by the submitter, or where it rejected the

submission, or found it to be ‘not relevant’ (see Attachment B). 16. The report recommends the exchange, but on the basis that part of the reserve land

identified for exchange be retained in Council ownership. The land recommended to bewithdrawn comprises 6,262m² on the northern side of the western reserve (superlot F). Thecommissioners also agreed with Housing New Zealand’s submission that 770m² of land onthe southern part of the Western Reserve be withheld (part of superlot G). The Developeradvised the Panel that 13 terraced houses were planned for superlot F, but that the finaltypology was undetermined. Please refer to Attachment E for a plan illustrating the areasrecommended for retention.

17. Though satisfied with the original notified exchange outcome, Parks and Recreation Policystaff support the Panel’s recommendation and note the exclusion of land on the northernside of Western Park will protect views of the maunga and improve connections to openspace and the surrounding area. The additional 6,262m2 will increase the overall amount ofopen space available for the local community and enable the development of a more diverserange of open space experiences in that area.

18. Though the area of 770m² adjacent to Housing New Zealand’s ownership will be difficult tomanage as reserve, the longer term use for the land is likely to be for residential purposes,and provide opportunities to work with Housing New Zealand to further improve the amenityof the open space in the surrounding area.

19. The Developer has commented that the reduction in the quantum of land it would receive inthe recommended exchange, compared to the notified exchange, will have a substantialfinancial impact on the proposed development. CBRE assesses the impact to be a reductionin the value of land to have been received by the Developer to be circa $2.65m. The fiscalimpact of retaining this area of reserve to Council will be marginally increased managementcosts for its ongoing maintenance.

20. While no formal request has been raised, it is useful to note that a proposal to change theterms of the recommendation made by the Panel should be referred to the Panel. ADC’soptions are to accept (or reject) the Panel’s recommendations as a whole; refer the matterback to the panel; or to restart the hearing process.

Consideration of key issues

21. A wide range of issues where raised by submitters, being principally: a perceived inequalityin the exchange proposal; a lack of effective public consultation; the impact of the exchange

on Te Tatua a Riukiuta; the location and use of the sports fields; the connections with thesurrounding environment; the consideration of alternative development options; the impacton community facilities; statutory and process concerns; and the fill level of the rehabilitatedquarry.

22. The panel considered the submissions in the context of the Reserves Act 1977, andrecognised that its decisions should be made in such a way as to give effect to the principlesof the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Panel recognised that the activeprotection of taonga, in this case Te Tātua a Ruikiuta, is a requirement and that ‘the Crownand Council are obligated to do everything they can to protect the maunga or, at the veryleast, not do anything that will further compromise this taonga’.

23. The Panel was satisfied that there had been considerable effort by Council to consult withiwi, but expressed disappointment in not being able to hear and discuss matters with iwirepresentatives at the hearing.


44/133


45/133

I t e m 1

3


12 November 2015


34. For exchange purposes, it is the relativity of values that is important, not the absolute values.Therefore the valuer has some flexibility in deciding what assumptions to apply, providedthese are applied consistently.

35. The valuation figures prepared by CBRE are set out below to enable the Committee tounderstand the relative values of the exchange. The full valuation can be made available tocouncillors and other council stakeholders, and should be withheld from public distribution

on grounds of commercial sensitivity. The full valuation will also be provided to theDepartment of Conservation if the recommended exchange is requested.

Summary of cost/benefit or fiscal equality of the exchange

36. Overall, under the Panel’s recommendation, the Developer will receive land with a potentialvalue of $17.33m, but is likely to incur development costs in the region of $14.76m in orderto release this development value. Accordingly, CBRE advise the value of the land in itscurrent state is worth in vicinity of $2.57m. The Developer will also pay for reserveimprovements that Panuku estimate will cost in the region of $3.38m.

37. Crown and Council will receive land hypothetically worth $19.775m, on the assumption it iszoned for high density residential activities. However, due to its reserve status, an

allowance or a discount for a ‘chance of change’ from open space to residential use (whichwould require the revocation of its reserve status) tempers its value to circa $4.94m.

38. Therefore the Developer will obtain land with a net value of $2.57m and will spend $3.38mon the sportsfields, pathways, staircases and landscaping etc. The new reserve land has avalue in the region of $5.0m and represents a saving on land acquisition costs to council ofabout $20.0m. Council will also have the benefit of improvements to the local park assessedat $3.38m.

39. The apparent imbalance of the exchange from the Developer’s standpoint is explained bythe knowledge that the exchange will unlock and enhance the development opportunity ofthe whole quarry and reserve area, which is subject to the outcome of PM372. To this end,it is conceivable that the Developer will benefit from a greater gross realisation for their

project through having the potential to sell residential units in an integrated schemebenefitting from the surrounding high quality open space amenity, compared to a stand-alone scheme on 985 Mt Eden Road.

Value of land to the Developer

40. In the notified exchange proposal in June, four parcels of reserve land totaling 2.26ha wereproposed to transfer to the developer, freehold, not subject to reserve status. In assessingthe value of the land two assumptions were made. One, the land had consent for highdensity residential development and two, that the land was level, fully serviced by roading,and that it was connected to essential infrastructure such as wastewater, water, telecomsand stormwater. On these assumptions the value of the land was assessed by Council’sindependent valuers, CBRE, at $20.25m.

41. However, under the exchange, the Developer would receive the 2.26ha of land in its currentstate, land locked, with no roading access and no infrastructure. In addition, substantial civilengineering works are required to create level building platforms and roading.

42. Further to a high level review by Riley Consultants Ltd of the major civil engineering works,and using infrastructure costings prepared for the Developer by Aurecon Ltd, it is estimatedthat development costs of c.$15.0m is required to prepare the four land parcels fordevelopment. Accordingly, the ‘As Is’ development value of the land under the notifiedexchange proposal would have been in the region of $5.2m.

43. Following the Panel’s report and recommendation, the amount of land recommended fortransfer reduces to 1.56ha. This is likely to have only a small impact in reducing the

development costs as most of the costs relate to the land that would still transfer to thedeveloper. CBRE are of the opinion that the current development value of the three parcelsof land totalling 1.56ha is in the order of $2.57m , after deduction of development costs.


46/133

Item 13


12 November 2015


Value of land to Council/Crown

44. The amount of land proposed to be transferred to Crown and Council totals 2.666ha. Theland will be prepared and delivered to council ready for the addition of reserveimprovements, such as the sand carpeted playing fields which will be done by theDeveloper. The amount of land to transfer to crown and council is unaffected by theConsideration Panel’s report, though more land is retained in the existing reserve.

45. On the assumption that this land has a high density residential zoning, CBRE are of theopinion that the two parcels have a current market value of $19.775m. The parcels arecontiguous with the existing reserve land, and are fully accessible from the current reserve.Though the intention is to use the land for sportsfields, and also for a stormwater retentionarea on infrequent occasions, this new reserve land could be capable of supportingresidential development and its hypothetical value reflects that use. The new reserve landwill be delivered to an ‘As Complete’ specification and no costs in its rehabilitation will beincurred by council.

Value of Reserve Improvement Works

46. In addition to providing new reserve land under the exchange agreement, the Developer will

undertake to carry out reserve improvement works that include the provision of sandcarpeted playing fields to the central reserve, provision of adequate parking for users of thefacilities, a public plaza and adjoining shared space roading, staircases, paths, cycle lanes,landscaping and planting to the reserve areas. A serviced building platform will be providedadjacent to the playing fields and a play space for children in a location to be agreed.

47. At the submission hearings, the developer committed to providing adequate changing roomsand toilet facilities on the serviced building platform and this, together will the provision oflighting to the sports fields, was recognised by the Panel as being important considerationsto be agreed with the Developer in the exchange agreement.

48. From a high level review of the Reserve Improvement Works, Panuku is of the opinion thatthe value of these improvement works is in the order of $3.38m

49. On 23 September 2015, the Board of Panuku Development Auckland resolved that it wassatisfied the notified exchange met the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989 and thatthe exchange could be recommended to the Auckland Development Committee (subject tothe recommendations of the Consideration Panel) as the value of the land being received inthe exchange exceeded the value of the land to transfer to the Developer.

50. The Panuku management has reviewed the revised valuation and development cost advice,and the Panuku Board has been updated on the Consideration Panel’s recommendation atits meeting on 28 October. The Board is of the opinion that its resolution of 23 Septemberstands.

Apportionment of new reserve land

51. Under the Panel’s recommendation, three parcels of reserve land totaling 1.56ha would betransferred to the Developer. A further 1.36ha of reserve land will be used for theconstruction of public roads to provide access to the whole development area and to thenew sportsfields.

52. In exchange, 2.66ha of 985 Mount Eden Road would become vested as new reserve landunder the Reserves Act 1977.

53. As a result of the recommended exchange, land classified as reserve will reduce from 6.4hato 6.3ha, but the plaza will add over 1,000m² of public space. Land used for roads,footpaths, cycle ways and car parks will increase from 0.85ha to 1.71ha.

54. Following completion of the exchange, a true-up will be required between Crown and

Council on their underlying landholdings in the reserve. Council will remain theadministering body for the entire reserve and the reserve will be a local park.


47/133

I t e m 1

3


12 November 2015


55. The land exchange is proceeding on the basis of equal contributions of Council-derived andCrown-derived land. However, the land actually being exchanged is split ⅔ to ⅓ betweencrown and council so the parties will need to “true up” their respective landholdings to reflectthe proportional contribution to the exchange.

56. Although this could be achieved by dividing up interests in the new land that would cutthrough the central park and the playing fields. This is unsatisfactory to both Crown and

Council, so it is better that the true-up is achieved with other land in the reserve.

57. It is possible that Iwi will be in discussions with Crown concerning the Crown-derived land inthe reserve, and subject to any statutory requirements (including the Reserves Act), it makessense to achieve the true-up in a manner convenient for Crown and Iwi to progress their owndiscussions, as this does not prejudice Council’s overall interest. This Report recommendsthat the Chief Executive deal with this issue if and when it arises.

Other Options

58. Since 2008, and through to 2015, a wide range of options have been considered for theintegration and rehabilitation of the reserve land as part of a comprehensive redevelopmentof the quarry area. This has been conducted in the context of workshops and public

consultations for the development of local planning strategies, particularly the Three KingsPlan with the Local Board, and has included adjoining owner engagement, iwi consultation,public consultation and engagement with stakeholders. Through this process the notifiedexchange was developed as the best option for the reasons reported to the committee on 11June this year.

59. This process is described in more detail in Attachment C and also refers to the Richard ReidPlan that was published close to the end of the public submission period on the exchange.Though prepared on the request of the Local Board, this plan has not been subject to anyconsultation with stakeholders, or council officers. The Plan is not regarded by officers as apractical or reasonable alternative to the recommended exchange.

Other Matters

60. The other matters referred to in the Panel’s report will be considered in the implementationof the exchange where relevant, and the comments on more general issues such as theprovision of affordable housing and the processes around iwi engagement will be raised withappropriate council officers and the IMSB for further consideration.

Consideration


61. There has been engagement with the Puketapapa Local Board at all stages of the landexchange process. The Local Board separately provided its views on the proposedexchange by way of a submission, and the Panel considered and addressed those matters

in its report. Due to timing issues, Local Board comment on the Panel recommendations wasnot available for this report. The Local Board will provide its comments separat

Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015

Documents

Transcript of Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015