059, 060, 062 and 063 _ auckland council _ mediation joint statement _ session 1 _ 11 (27 _ 31 july,...

Mediation sessions on Residential Provisions
including
I.1 Residential zones rules H.5.2.3.1 Residential zones subdivision
controls Released on Wednesday 12 August 2015
Sessions 1 - 11
Date: 27 -31 July 2015, 4-7 August 2015, 10 -11 August 2015
Mediators: David Hill , Richard Knot t and Harry Bhana

2.1 Attendance .............................................................................................................................. 3
3. Conflicts of interest .......................................................................................................................... 3
4. Matters for mediation ...................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Issues subject to mediation ..................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Marked up version of PAUP .................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Site specific matters ................................................................................................................ 7
5. Offline group - matters addressed post residential workshop ......................................................... 7
6. Mediator's summary of outcomes ................................................................................................... 7
7. Session 1 – Monday 27 July 2015 .................................................................................................. 8
7.1 Summary of matters agreed at mediation ............................................................................... 8
7.2 Summary of matters outstanding (narrowed/disagreement) ................................................... 9
7.3 Other matters .......................................................................................................................... 9
8. Session 2 – Tuesday 28 and 29 July 2015 ..................................................................................... 9
8.1 Summary of matters agreed at mediation ............................................................................. 10
8.2 Summary of matters outstanding (narrowed/disagreement) ................................................. 10
8.3 Other matters ........................................................................................................................ 11
9.1 Summary of matters from mediation ..................................................................................... 12
9.2 Other matters ........................................................................................................................ 14
10.1 Summary of mediation .......................................................................................................... 14
11. Session 5 – Wednesday 5 August 2015 ................................................................................... 15
12. Session 6 – Thursday 6 August 2015 (am) ............................................................................... 17
13. Session 7 – Thursday 6 August 2015 (pm) ............................................................................... 17
14. Session 8 – Friday 7 August 2015 (am) .................................................................................... 18
15. Session 8 – Friday 7 August 2015 (pm) .................................................................................... 20

16.1 summary of mediation ........................................................................................................... 21
17. Session 10 - Monday 10 August 2015 ...................................................................................... 22
17.1 Report back from Auckland Council on a number of matters from previous sessions ......... 22
17.1 summary of mediation ............................................................................................................... 23
18. Session 11- Tuesday 11 August 2015 ...................................................................................... 24
18.1 summary of mediation ............................................................................................................... 24
19. Consolidated track changes for residential provisions .............................................................. 26
20. Confirmation of Parties to Mediation record .............................................................................. 26
21. Attachments .............................................................................................................................. 28

1. Introduction
This is a record of the mediation outcome held for this topic. It is prepared in accordance
with section 134(4) and (5) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act
2010.
Hearing Topic 059 Residential objectives and policies / 060 Residential activities / 062 Residential development controls / 063 Residential controls and assessment
Matters for mediation
D.1 Residential Objectives and Policies I.1 Residential Zones rules H.5.2.3.1 Residential subdivision controls
Mediators David Hill Richard Knott Harry Bhana
File Ref: 059, 060, 062 and 063- Joint
MJS-2015-08-11
Where AUPIHP Hearing Room 1 Level 16, 205 Queen Street, Auckland City
When 27 – 31 July 2015 4 – 7 August 2015 10 – 11 August 2015
IHP Staff Vanessa Wilkinson
2.1 Attendance
The mediators confirmed the attendance of submitters and further submitters at each
mediation meetings. Refer to Attachment 1 for the Parties to Mediation record.
2.2 Authority to participate in mediation
The mediators confirmed with the submitters or their representatives that they have full
authority to participate in the mediation sessions and where necessary can reach agreement
on the matters being mediated for and on behalf of the submitters / further submitters that
they represent.
Submitters and further submitters were reminded that they must follow their submissions and cannot act outside the scope of their submissions.
3. Conflic ts of interest
No conflicts were raised in respect of the mediators or support staff for the mediation
session.

4.1 Issues subject to mediation
The Parties and Issues report for hearings topic 059, 060, 062 and 063 provides summary of
the issues and the summary of submission points report provides details of the submissions.
4.2 Marked up version of PAUP
The mediation focused on Auckland Council’s proposed marked-up version of the Residential Provisions dated 17 July 2015 which was uploaded on the AUPIHP website prior to the mediation. This document was broken up into sections for the purpose of mediation at each session. A summary for each session is provided in section 7 – 18 of this joint statement. The following table outlines the mediation schedule:
Session
General Residential Provi sions
General Objectives and Policies for the Residential Zones (D.1.1) Residential Zones Activity Table (I.1.1)
Residential Zones Notification (I.1.2)
Residential Zones Land use Controls (I.1.3)
NB: Density and Minimum Lot Size will be discussed in each of the individual zone mediation sessions.
2 Tuesday, 28 July 2015
and Wednesday
29 July
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone - Objectives, Policies (D.1.7);
Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone - Development Controls (I.1.9) including the Additional Height Overlay
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to THAB zone) ;
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to THAB zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to THAB zone)
NB: Assessment matters and Special Information Requirements will be discussed as they relate to individual zones however, they will also be
discussed in whole in a separate session on Monday, 10 and Tuesday, 11 August 2015
3 Thursday, 30 July
Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.5)

Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to MHS zone) ;
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to MHS zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to MHS zone)
4
continued
Mixed Housing Suburban Objectives, Policies (D.1.5)
Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
Mixed Housing Suburban Development Controls (I.1.8)
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to MHS zone) ;
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to MHS zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to MHS zone)
5 Wednesday, 5 August
Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Single House Zone
Single House Zone Development Controls (I.1.6)
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to Single House zone) ;
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to Single House zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to Single House zone)
6 Thursday, 6 August
Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.3)

Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone
Rural and Coastal Settlement zone Development Controls (I.1.5)
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone);
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone)
7 Thursday, 6 August
Large Lot Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.2)
Density and Minimum Lot size in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone
Large Lot Zone Development Controls (I.1.4)
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (where relevant to Large Lot zone);
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (where relevant to Large Lot zone); and
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (where relevant to Large Lot zone)
8 Friday, 7 August
Subdivision Contro ls for Residential Zones e.g. shape factor (H.5.2.3.1)
This includes the Additional Subdivision Controls (H5.2.3.1.6)
NB: Density and Minimum Lot Size will be discussed in the individual zones and will not be repeated here.
9 Friday, 7 August
Retirement Villages – Objectives and policies relating to retirement villages; activity status of retirement villages; development controls and
assessment criteria applying to retirement villages
Affordable Housing – Rules providing a bonus for affordable housing
10 Monday, 10 August
2015
Assessment Cri ter ia and Special In fo rmation Requ irements – Al l Zones
Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities (I.1.10) (all Zones); and
Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (all Zones)
Special Information Requirements (I.12) (all Zones)
11 Tuesday, 11 August
Site specific matters

4.3 Site specific matters
A number of submitters attended Session 11 on Tuesday 11 August 2015 to discuss site- specific issues with Auckland Council.
5. Off line group - matters addressed post residential workshop
A number of planning experts formed an offline group at the end of the residential workshop
to discuss the density controls and assessment criteria applicable in the residential zones.
At the commencement of the mediation a formal position from this group has not been
confirmed. However, it is noted that the group generally agreed on the following as the basis
upon which a relaxation of density controls in the higher density zones could be supported:
• A set of core development controls, to which infringements should only be permitted
in limited circumstances:
o Building height
o Alternative height in relation to boundary
o Front yards
o Side and rear yards just in large lot zone
• Controls to notify, assess and to determine development for resource consent where
these development controls are infringed.
• Auckland Council reserved its position on how these controls are to be referenced in
the residential provisions.
The group continued their discussion through the mediation sessions and many of their
agreed positions have been incorporated into the mediation track change version, in
particular the assessment for development control infringements (refer to Section 17 –
Session 10 below).
6. Mediator's summary of outcomes
A summary of the main matters agreed and discussed or still outstanding at each session
are provided in sections 7 – 17 below. The matters discussed, agreed, disagreed and
comments made at each session are recorded in the attachments to this joint mediation
statement (refer to section 20). A number of matters were subject to Auckland Council
reporting back on Monday 10 August 2015. However, not all issues were reported and those
would be the subject of Council’s evidence to be circulated in September 2015.

The mediated track changes were uploaded to the AUPIHP website at the end of each
session for parties to review the progressive changes at the end of each session. These
documents are also attached to this statement as a record of the mediation session.
The Panel request that parties do not use the mediated track change version attached to this
document the base provisions for evidence exchange. Please refer to Auckland Council’s
version that will be provided with their evidence in chief by 8 September 2015.
7. Session 1 – Monday 27 July 2015
Mediators: David Hill and Richard Knott (until 12pm)
IHP planner: Kristen Wicks
• General Objectives and Policies for the Residential Zones (D.1.1) Residential Zones
Activity Table (I.1.1)
• Residential Zones Land use Controls (I.1.3)
Refer to attachment 2 for a copy of the mediated track changes for the above provisions.
Note - this document was further updated at subsequent mediation sessions to incorporate
the concerns from parties in relation to Table 1: activity status of dwellings.
7.1 Summary of matters agreed at mediation

from community representatives.
Community representatives particularly
in existing suburban zones as there is as yet
no certainty regarding where the physical
edges of the new higher density zones will be.
Specific zone-related matters to be mediated in the
respective zone sessions.
parties needed to repeat their attendance –
which is difficult for lay and unpaid participants.
Acknowledged.
character.
might be disregarded in favour of intended
change and, on the other hand, that existing
character might be used to frustrate intended
change. The use of the single term is proposed
to indicate that both are relevant to a

referring to neighbourhoods were made to
accommodate this concern – as was an explicit
cross-reference to the purpose of individual
zones.
interface of different density zones was stressed.
Tension remains regarding the ability of plan
provisions to adequately control this interface.
Emphasis to be placed on quality design etc for
multiple-unit residential developments
Growth and associated density to be explicitly
recognised.
Summary point Reasons
appropriate residential zones.
centre. Council to consider further.
Enable the expansion of existing educational and
community facilities in residential zones
Not clearly enabled. Council to consider
further.
development controls in the absence of density
controls are infringed.
minor household units
conversion of dwellings into two dwellings.
7.3 Other matters
• Agreed that matters taken away for further Council consideration would be
reported back on the final mediation session on Tuesday 11 August or earlier.
• A sub-group of planners worked conjunctively on the development controls
that would satisfy them if density controls in the MHS (particularly) are
removed. That group met on the morning of 28 July and is to meet again to
finalise their recommendations on Monday 4 August.
8. Session 2 – Tuesday 28 and 29 July 2015
Mediator: David Hill
• Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone - Objectives, Policies (D.1.7);

• Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone
• Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone - Development Controls (I.1.9)
including the Additional Height Overlay
Matters of discretion and assessment criteria relating to THAB zone were only lightly
touched upon – this discussion was deferred until later in the residential mediation sessions
to allow Council time to consider some key issues further and report back.
A summary of the main matters agreed at mediation or still outstanding is provided below.
8.1 Summary of matters agreed at mediation

development control, such as daylight and height in
relation to boundary angles, should be imposed at
the zone interface.
and effective immediate transition – without
unduly inhibiting the move to higher density
development.
concerns would be (further) mediated in each
specific zone session.
might be lost sight of or overlooked as the
process moves forward because of the way the
mediation is structured (i.e. by zone rather than
by issue).
impervious surface controls with respect to
basement carparks whose footprint extends beyond
the building.
and report back.
around the term “principal living room” were
potentially problematic and should be considered
further.
Summary point Reasons
building typologies with different height, bulk,
setback and location requirements (i.e. terrace
houses versus apartments) by a single set of
development controls was problematic, there was no
The main concerns are twofold: a) interface
issues with lower density zones or with existing
lawful dwellings; and b) the risk of sub-
standard, minimum apartment size buildings in
close proximity to single dwellings.

proposed the need to either separate the zone into
subzones for each typology (dominantly) or generate
separate sets of controls for each.
Notification (at least limited) to be mandated where
development controls in the absence of density
controls are infringed.
the THAB zone. Parties noted that a 5-storey
building is not practicable because of dead
floorspace requirements for lifts etc – and the
associated economics - so a 15m ceiling probably
indicated a 3/4-storey walk-up maximum. Those
parties considered the range of c.21-24m as more
appropriate since 6-storeys was the minimum
practicable above 3-storeys. Community group
representatives agreed in principle provided the
zone is appropriately located (about which they are
nervous).
feedback a response on 11 August 2015. In
that response Council proposes to lift the
maximum heights.
parties, and will seek redefinition or deletion of the
term.
the definition.
a number of development controls was explained but
community group representatives remained
developments and/or create problems for existing
neighbours with lower dwelling. Some development
parties countered that this control was inappropriate
for residences on east-west orientated streets and
reference to sunlight deleted altogether.
The general issue is being considered by
Council (including that of offset outlook areas
and outdoor living spaces) and will be reported
back. The relationship of this matter with the
Building Act was indicated.
always be possible due to site width etc. This
will be further discussed in the specific zones
as appropriate.
8.3 Other matters

Mediator: Richard Knott
• Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.5)
• Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Mixed Housing Urban Zone
• Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Development Controls (I.1.7);
Do not use this version as your base provisions for evidence exchange. Please refer to
Auckland Council’s version provided with their evidence in chief to be circulated by 8
September 2015.

flexibility in the rules and development controls for
large greenfield areas. Auckland Council
confirmed that they believe there is because these
areas are subject to structure plans and precincts.
Auckland Council will review whether a provision
stating there is flexibility for greenfield areas to
depart from zone provisions should be introduced
into the Plan.
provisions currently.
an objective and policy for infrastructure is
necessary in the specific zones.
Auckland Council and other parties disagreed and
consider that the objective and policy are important
in the zone to highlighting the importance of
servicing the land.
infrastructure matters should be dealt with
in the infrastructure section of the Plan.
Discussion regarding maximum height in Mixed
Housing Urban zone and whether wording
“generally three storeys” allows taller buildings.
However, Auckland Council confirmed that there
were physical height limits in place
Submitters were concerned about the
impact of taller buildings in the Mixed
Housing Urban zone.
criteria, Auckland Council proposed changes to
policies 2 and 3 to “require” rather than to
In line with the move away from
development controls (including density)
and an increased reliance on assessment

criteria.
the deletion of provisions which was resulting from
the move from development controls (including
density) and an increased reliance on assessment
criteria. However, this session did not discuss
assessment criteria which may have addressed
some of his concerns.
development controls (including density)
criteria.
submitters that the maximum height in the track
changes would not allow a well-designed, high
quality three storey apartment building (where 2.7
floor to ceiling height would be the minimum).
Auckland Council to consider height limit
further.
strip” in calculation of height in relation to boundary.
Auckland Council to consider further.
Other similar accessways are included but
an entrance strip is not.
Auckland Council clarified that the alternative
height to boundary control would be a non-notified
restricted discretionary activity. However, they are
to confirm with their integration team whether
reference to non-notification should be included
here or in Chapter G.
Clarification of notification requirements.
Significant discussion regarding maximum
landscaping controls. Some parties felt that these
control were too restrictive and in particular would
limit the ability to deliver terrace housing. Ockham,
Fletcher Residential and New Zealand Institute of
Architects are going to provide examples of various
outcomes to Auckland Council.
impervious area, building coverage and
landscaping.
considering the controls for outlook space and
separation between buildings within a site.
Auckland Council will report back to the
session on Tuesday, 4 August 2015.
Track changes currently require that an outdoor
living space is directly accessible from a principal
living room. Auckland Council agreed with
submitters that is was also acceptable that an
outdoor living space be accessible from a kitchen
or dining space.
layout of buildings.

dwellings to have an outdoor living space and there
is no corresponding requirement for communal
outdoor space. Auckland Council to consider this
further.
Auckland Council to amend rule wording and
diagrams for southern side outdoor living areas to
make them clearer.
of garage door control would mean that some
narrow terrace unit could not have garages on the
front elevation. Discussion around altering the
provisions to ensure this wouldn’t be the case.
Auckland Council to consider.
there are similar requirements in the Building Act.
To ensure the legality of the daylight to
dwellings control.
9.2 Other matters
It was agreed that matters taken away for further Council consideration would be reported
back at the mediation session on Tuesday, 11 August 2015.
10. Session 4 – Tuesday 4 August 2015
Mediator: Harry Bhana
• Mixed Housing Suburban Objectives, Policies (D.1.5)
• Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
• Mixed Housing Suburban Development Controls (I.1.8)
September 2015.
10.1 Summary of mediation
Auckland Council confirmed that the matters due to be report back at this session have been
deferred until Tuesday 11 August 2015.

The objectives and policies for the Mixed Housing Suburban zone mirror those of the Mixed Housing Urban zone. Table 1: Activity status of dwellings for the MHS zone is subject to reporting back on Monday 10 August 2015.
Objective 4 requires that development is adequately serviced by network infrastructure. There were concerns that this objective may influence zoning of land on the basis of that services were not immediately available even though on a longer term basis the land might be entirely suitable for more intensive development. There were also concerns that the provision of infrastructure should be based on PAUP provisions rather than vice versa. Auckland Council to report on this matter.

reflect the height requirement in the MHS zone.
Policy 3 the use of the word ‘avoid’ adverse dominance effects on immediate neighbours creates some concerns for parties. This issue is pending Auckland Council to report back on Monday 10 August 2015.
Other policies were amended to generally reflect changes made to the MHU zone provisions.
The following development controls are pending Council’s report back:
• Height
• Front yard
• Maximum impervious
• Building coverage
• Minimum dwelling size
The following development controls are amended to mirror those in the MHU zone:
• Outdoor living space
Parties are concerned with the front fence height control of 1.6m on the basis of difficulty for enforcement and issues relating to existing non-complying fences.
11. Session 5 – Wednesday 5 August 2015
• Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Single House Zone
• Single House Zone Development Controls (I.1.6)

September 2015.
Council’s interim posit ion on Single House Zone
The Single House Zone should be applied to areas which have either historic character
values , identified natural character or areas with significant environmental or infrastructure
constraints. HNZ and Fletcher Residential generally support the intent of the interim
position.
Auckland 2040 and other residents groups including Herne Bays Residents and submitters
represented by Dirk Hudig, Pete Sinton Kumeu Residents and ratepayers are concerned
with Auckland Council’s interim position as they felt this is a significant policy shift.
Potentially it will exclude areas with high residential character that are currently not mapped
as special character and potentially coastal fringe areas currently zoned single house.
Because of the number of people this potential change could impact these parties felt there
is a natural justice issue to be addressed.
Purpose of the single house zone
Some submitters considered that the Single House Zone is too diverse and suggests that
two zones could be proposed to address the diverse characters of residential
neighbourhood.
Conversion of existing dwelling into two dwellings and minor household units
Generally submitters accept that existing houses can be converted into two dwellings.
However some submitters seek minor household units be provided for in the Single House
Zone as similar to the legacy provisions e.g. North Shore District Plan and Rodney District
Plan. There are submitters that do not support the establishment of minor household units
as detached dwellings in this zone.
Yards
Discussions regarding side and rear yards in this zone need to provide for 1) green corridor
space and 2) enable the maintenance of buildings and services on the site and for adjoining
sites.
There are other development controls subject to reporting back on Monday 10 August 2015.
Minimum lot s ize
Discussion regarding the minimum lot size applying to the Single House Zone and also
whether a net site area minimum and an average site area should apply rather than just the
minimum site area. It was suggested that the minimum net site area as notified in Table 1
and 3 should be the average and the minimum net site area should be 100m 2 less than what
is notified.

• Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.3)
• Density and Minimum Lot Size in the Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone
• Rural and Coastal Settlement zone Development Controls (I.1.5)
September 2015.
Matters of discretion and assessment criteria relating to the Rural and Coastal Settlement
Zone were not discussed. Discussions have been deferred until later in the residential
mediation sessions.
A summary of the main matters agreed at mediation or still outstanding is provided below.
• Submitters were concerned about the appropriateness of the rural and coastal
settlement zone minimum lot size. Auckland Council confirmed that the size is
directly related to the provision of on-site wastewater treatment. Submitters felt that
this could be achieved within a smaller lot size and greater account should be taken
of existing lot sizes within the rural and coastal settlement areas i.e. Leigh.
• Auckland Council suggested various wording amendments to achieve consistency
with amendments made to development controls in other residential zones.
• The NZ Fire Service sought consideration of an additional development control to
require adequate water supply for fire-fighting purposes. Discussion occurred
regarding whether there needed to be a specific zone based development control or
a general control in an Auckland-wide chapter.
13. Session 7 – Thursday 6 August 2015 (pm)
• Large Lot Zone Objectives, Policies (D.1.2)
• Density and Minimum Lot size in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone

• Large Lot Zone Development Controls (I.1.4)
September 2015.
Matters of discretion and assessment criteria relating to the Rural and Coastal Settlement
Zone were not discussed. Discussions have been deferred until later in the residential
mediation sessions.
A summary of the main matters agreed at mediation or still outstanding is provided below:
• North Shore Areo Club sought that the provisions of the large lot zone reference
existing regional infrastructure such as the airfield and have corresponding objectives
and policies regarding reverse sensitivity impacts.
• Concerns were raised that large lot areas in Greenhithe are fully reticulated and the
zone description is not an accurate reflection of this. Auckland Council noted that a
large portion of Greenhithe is covered by precincts which vary the large lot
provisions.
• Auckland Council suggested a wording amendment to the building height roof control
to achieve consistency with amendments made to the same development control in
other residential zones. Concern that the front yard control of 10m is too large and
unnecessary. Auckland Council considered this control was appropriate to retain the
spaciousness sought in the zone.
• Concern was raised regarding the definitions of building coverage and impervious
area and how these work together and would be applied to an area such as Titirangi /
Langholm. It was noted that legacy provisions in these areas are not subject to
decks being included in building coverage. It was also noted that the PAUP precinct
requirement for development control infringements is a Discretionary activity.
• Flexibility was sought for the minimum lot size i.e. using an average with an
associated minimum and controls. Concern was also raised that the smaller sites
may be able to accommodate on-site wastewater. Auckland Council is to consider
whether the activity status for subdivision should be Discretionary rather than Non-
complying, subject to servicing.
Provisions mediated:

• This includes the Additional Subdivision Controls (H5.2.3.1.6)
Note – this document was updated at previous sessions to incorporate the comments to the
site size provisions under Rule H.2.3.1.1 – Table 1: Minimum net site area.
September 2015.
• Fletchers Residential (FRL) and The Neil Group (TNG) predominantly proposed
changes to clarify the provisions.
• The parties discussed the subdivision requirements of the Single House Zone and
they raised concern that average net lot area restrictions would not achieve Council’s
intention to intensify housing. This is based on testing that had been undertaken by
NZIA and will be provided to Council. FRL and TNG also sought a lot size reduction
whilst Mr. Sinton from Kumeu was opposed to this. Parties agreed that clarification of
the intent of the zone was still required from Council to underpin size discussions.
• Rear sites provisions - parties were keen to avoid unintended consequences for
larger development – refer to the mediated track changes. Parties sought clarification
of ‘rear site’ definition and not to limit to provide the number of vacant rear sites that
can be established. Alternatively the addition of a ‘service lane’ definition was sought.
All parties agreed to remove reference to greenfield sites in the rule.
• Concern was raised by Mr. Sinton about the layout of Table 2 (Access to Rear Sites),
suggesting that further segmentation of the middle column (2-5) was required. Other
parties challenged the numbers within the table, concerned that they did not ‘add up’,
and requested clarification on the wording for pedestrian access. On this latter point,
FRL, TNG and NZIA sought flexibility of provisions for shared accessway designs.
• FRL and TNG raised the prospect of having ‘average net site areas’ with an
appropriate minimum applied. This would generally equate to areas 100m 2 less than
currently listed. Council will consider this with respect to Howick.
• Some site specific matters were raised (Healy – Kawakawa Bay) which were
discussed briefly with offline discussion to with Council (and Watercare – with respect
to plant capacity and discharge limitations).
• The North Shore Aero Club sought a site shape factor performance standard with
respect to the 65dBA aircraft noise contour. Council considered this is already
provided for elsewhere in the plan.

• The affordable housing bonus provisions are new to the residential section. These
provisions are subject to hearings topic 061 – retirement and affordability.
September 2015.
• Auckland 2040 and Mr. Clasen questioned whether there is scope for Council to
amend the affordable housing provisions and whether there would be any natural
justice issues. Council was of the view that submissions provided scope and this was
supported by Housing NZ.
• Some parties questioned the necessity for bonus provisions in the Residential Zones
in light of the fact that density restrictions have been relaxed/ removed in a number of
areas. These parties were concerned about linking the bonus provisions to building
height.
• Both Auckland 2040 and Mr. Clasen were strongly opposed to height enablement in
the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone – stating this is contrary to the objectives and
policies of the zone. Auckland 2040 conceded that increased height might be
appropriate on large sites (over 10,000m 2).
• Most parties considered that an increase in supply generated by relaxed density and
height controls in the zones would provide more affordable housing which will
increase overall housing supply. Housing NZ was of a similar view as a first
preference, however is prepared to work with Council on bonus provisions.
• The point was raised by Auckland 2040 that Council’s mechanism of requiring
affordable housing when establishing new developments through a plan change
might result in developers pursing a resource consent process instead.
• Concern was raised that the proposed provisions will clearly identify which are the
affordable houses within a development. This may create issues with community
integration.
• Housing NZ states that one of the methods is to use rentals to set affordable
housing. The rental structure of HNZ is such that the application of a rental based
measure may be inappropriate.

• Overall, the parties reached little agreement on the appropriateness of the bonus
provisions on average sized lots, particularly in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
and to a lesser extent the THAB Zone.
16. Session 9 – Friday 7 August 2015 (pm)
• The retirement village provisions are new to the residential section of the plan.
In the notified PAUP retirement village is a special purpose zone and has its own provisions.
However, Auckland Council has since amended its policy for retirement villages. Provisions
for retirement villages are now provided for in the Business and Residential sections of the
PAUP.
Note – parties at the mediation did not mediate on the provisions and a track change to the
provisions was not produced. Parties that were part of the hearings topic 061 – Retirement
and affordable housing were invited to this mediation to ensure their interests are
appropriately addressed.
• Debate was held around the definition of Retirement Villages. Parties were
supportive of a definition that includes reference to section 6 of the Retirement
Village Act 2003. Submitters were either supportive of, or neutral to expanding the
definition to include ‘rest homes’ defined under the Health and Disability Services
(Safety) Act 2001. Council reserves its position on this latter inclusion.
• The need to protect consented concept plans through precinct provisions was raised
and Council is not supportive of this currently.
• Another area of debate was the policy support being provided to retirement villages
in the Plan. Ryman Healthcare felt there is a “policy vacuum”, particularly within the
general objectives and policies for the residential zones. Ryman preferred the
provisions mediated under the Topic 061 workshop on retirement villages and sought
recognition that retirement villages do look different from the tradition residential built
form. Suggested policy wording was proposed which the parties agreed to. Some
parties sought similar policy wording in the Mixed Urban and THAB zones although
this was not supported universally by the submitters. Some submitters requested
policies to enable ‘supported residential care’.
• Submitters raised the point that an application for resource consent should balance
social well-beings with the effects of the built form. This is frustrated where restricted
discretionary activities apply which do not require the consideration Part II of the
RMA.

• Assessment – Development Control Infringements (I.1.11) (all Zones)
• Special Information Requirements (I.12) (all Zones)
Note – special information requirement provisions were not discussed at this session as
these are subject to hearings topic 077 – Sustainable Design.
September 2015.
17.1 Report back from Auckland Council on a number of matters from previous
sessions
Prior to the commencement of the session, Auckland Council reported on a number of
outstanding matters from previous sessions. The key changes include:
• Building height in Mixed Housing Urban Zone – now 11m +1m for roof form.
• Building height in THAB – now 16m to better provide for five storeys. Provide for
building height to be infringed up to 2m as a non-notified activity.
• Increase the additional height overlay control from 18.5m to 19m, and 21m to 21.5m
to better provide for 6 and 7 storey buildings.
• Deleted the 2m building separation requirement.
• New daylight rules.
• Increased the maximum garage width from 40% to 45%
• Amend the rule to state that apartments must have an outdoor living space in the
form of a balcony, patio or roof terrace that is at least 5m 2 for studio and 1-bed
apartments and 8m2 for 2+ beds.
• Include a definition of apartments for clarity.
• Reduced the front yard requirements to 3m in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone.
• Generally no changes to the maximum impervious area, building coverage and
landscaping controls except that building coverage can be infringed by 5% as a non-
notified activity.

• Activity status of dwellings in THAB, Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing
Suburban for three or more dwellings as Restricted Discretionary.
Refer to attachment 11 for the Auckland Council report back matters PowerPoint
presentation.
17.1 summary of mediation
• Deleted reference to alterations and additions to dwellings in the assessment as
these no longer require consent.
• Safekids Aotearoa requested changes to the assessment matters and criteria to
provide for pedestrian safety when assessing multi-units development. Provisions
were amended to reflect the request.
• A number of minor amendments were made by Fletcher Residential to the
assessment criteria for clarification.
• Amendment made in relation to the criterion for universal access.
• Assessment criterion added to ensure dwellings have adequate floor-to-ceiling height
to provide for sunlight and daylight access.
• New assessment for alternative height in relation to boundary control.
• Amendment to purpose statements for development controls:
o Building Height – amend to include ‘minimise visual dominance effects’ in all
zones.
o Yards – amend to include ‘provide sufficient space for landscaping within the
front yard’ in all zones.
o Garages – amend to include ‘provide opportunities for passive surveillance of
the street’ where applies.
o Minimum dwelling size – amend to include ‘provide a good standard of
amenity for the number of occupants the dwelling is designed to
accommodate’ where applies.
o The amended purpose statement will be reflected in the Auckland Council’s
track changes for the residential provisions when it is circulated with its
evidence.
• Rule 11 Assessment – Development control infringements have been amended to
reflect the discussion held between the planning experts. Refer to section 5 for
further details. The key changes include criteria which form the basis for
determining when consent can be granted should development infringe, in
particularly, the following core development controls:
a. Building height;
b. height in relation to boundary;

c. alternative height in relation to boundary in the Mixed Housing Urban zones;
d. building setbacks within the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone;
e. building setbacks in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone where it
adjoins lower density zones;
h. outlook space;
i. side and rear yards in the Large Lot zone; and
j. front yard.
• Assessment criterion for outdoor living space was amended to reflect sunlight access
during winter months – and a suggestion made that the equinox rather that the
solstice be adopted because many smaller sections facing south are otherwise
technically in breach.
18.1 summary of mediation
Parties met with Auckland Council’s officers and discussed their concerns. Summary of their
discussion is recorded below.
Akarana Golf Course represented by Russel Baikie
• Sought a 6m yard setback for residential properties adjoining the golf course to
protect buildings from damage by golf balls.
• Auckland Council disagreed.
Todd Sylvester and Bronwyn Dickison
• Seeking a review of the Greenhithe Precinct boundary to be aligned with the legacy
North Shore District Plan.
• Auckland Council cannot address this today because this is subject to the precinct
hearings topic.
059 060 062 and 063-Joint MJS - 2015-08-11 Page 24 of 40
Point Chevalier Residents against THABs Incorporated represented by Jim Rendell
• Notwithstanding the outcomes of the pre-1944 overlay, Jim Rendell considers there
should not be as much THAB in Point Chevalier as shown on the notified PAUP
planning maps. In particular THAB should be removed or sites should be downzoned
from either side of Moa Road and on the eastern side of Walmer Road.
• Auckland Council will address these matters at the hearings for topic 081 rezoning
and 079 pre-1944 and special character overlays.
Geoff Bennett
• Minor household units need to be considered within the single house zone as a
permitted activity whether they be new or existing dwellings.
• To provide a maximum of two dwellings in the single house zone as permitted activity
and it is to be one owner with one infrastructure e.g. having a combined drainage and
power etc.
Auckland Kindergarten Association
• The primary submission is to retain the notified PAUP provisions for early childhood
learning services i.e. 200 – 400m 2 but in all zones as a Restricted Discretionary
activity and considered there is scope for the proposed alternative.
• Seek that early childhood learning services between 10 – 60 children as a ‘new’
activity in the activity table as a Restricted Discretionary activity and considered
under the standard chapter G provisions for notification. Early childhood learning
services not provided for would be subject to the normal test for notification.
• Alternatively seek restricted discretionary activity status to provide for the expansion
of existing childhood learning services e.g. providing for additions and alterations and
minor expansion in number of children.
• Auckland Council to consider.
Graham Pearce
• Submission relates to a block of land in St Heliers bounded by St Heliers Bay Road
and Tuhimata Street and Benbow Street. Proposed to be zoned THAB and is
concerned with the development within the THAB zone will result in dominating
buildings and will significantly impact on the character of St Heliers. This is an area
already intensively developed with a volcanic viewshaft truncating it. The request is
to rezone this block of land to Mixed Housing Urban.
• Consideration of this issue is best addressed through the rezoning hearings topic 081
rather than changing the height of the THAB zone.

• Supported residential care - would prefer to apply Restricted Discretionary and non-
notified activity status to supported residential care not otherwise provided for in the
Large Lot, Rural and Coastal Settlement and Single House zones. However the
submitter is comfortable with Council’s approach in track changes if his requests are
not adopted.
NZ Fire Services Commission
• Sought that ‘fire stations’ to be Restricted Discretionary in all zones and additions of
assessment criterion for functional requirements for emergency services.
• Auckland Council position - Maintain discretionary status in all zones.
• Insertion of new development controls in the residential zones – where no reticulated
water supply provisions to be made for water supply and access consistent with
Code Of Practice. Auckland Council to review the proposed control.
Domain Drive Student Accommodation, Parnell – David Wren
• Request specific height overlay.
• Auckland Council to consider
– David Wren
• Request offices in the residential zones as discretionary activity on College Hill in
Single House Zone.
Samson Corporation Limited and Sterling Nominees Limited
• Council’s proposed changes to THAB additional height overlay satisfied concerns in
Onehunga and Grey Lynn. Will not be pursuing further amendments.
19. Consol idated track changes for residential provisions
At the end of the mediation session on Monday 10 August 2015, Auckland Council
confirmed that a consolidated track changes of the residential provisions will be circulated
with its evidence in chief. This is to be provided to the IHP by 8 September 2015.
Parties are to refer to Council’s evidence for the latest version of the residential provisions.
The agreements made during the mediations and documented in this joint statement should
be referenced when preparing your evidence and any further amendments (where
applicable).
20. Confirmation of Parties to Mediation record
The parties to mediation have signed the Parties to Mediation record (see attachment 1)
as confirmation of the outcome of mediation as recorded in the Mediation Joint Statement

and confirmation that the mediators will summarise the outcome of mediation on behalf of
the parties in sections 7 -18 of the Mediation Joint Statement.
The mediators have reviewed the content of this Mediation Joint Statement and the
Attachments and confirmed that they are a true and accurate record of the 11 mediation
sessions held between Monday 27 July and Tuesday 12 August 2015.
This Mediation Joint Statement will be available to all parties on the hearings page of the
website within 3 days after the completion of all mediation sessions.
The Parties and Issues report will be updated before the hearing with the outcome of pre-
hearing processes, including mediations. The updated Parties and Issues report will be
available to all parties on the hearings page of the website before the hearing.
Mediator’s Name David Hill, Richard Knott and Harry Bhana
Mediator’s
Date Wednesday 12 August 2015

21.1 Attachment 1 Parties to Mediation record

21.2 Attachment 2 General provisions mediated track changes

(
recognition of non-residential activities,
childhood learning centres
Navigate and fire service would support additional reference.
Jim Rendell does not support additional
references to non-residential activities.
Comment [Med_20072]: Ben Ross comments on need for transition between
higher density and lower density zones. By
way of alternative, suggests replacing the 4 zones with 5 new ones (objectives and
policies do not change).
character.
Comment [Med_20074]: Housing NZ
reserve their position in relation to reference to minor household units.
Comment [Med_20075]: Property Council seek that threshold for THAB is
increased to match that for MHU (one to three).
Ian McManus supports Property Council.
Comment [Med_20076]: Auckland Kindergarten Association generally support,
but seek clarification on ‘scale’, whether it
is scale of built form, or scale of
development. Also seek additional reference to ‘early childhood learning
centres’, as separate to ‘care centres’
(depending on outcome of definitions hearing).

059, 060, 062 and 063 _ auckland council _ mediation joint statement _ session 1 _ 11 (27 _ 31 july,...

Documents