auckland development committee - feb 14

8/13/2019 Auckland Development Committee - Feb 14

1/207

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, 13 February 2014 9.30am Reception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Penny Hulse Deputy Chairperson Chris Darby

Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax Mayor Len Brown, JP Member Josie Smith Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM 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 Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeMember Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam WhiteDemocracy Advisor

7 February 2014

Contact Telephone: 09 307 7253Email : [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/207

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration ofeconomic, 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 n ecessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Except:

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

(b) where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a rec ommendationonly

(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.


3/207

Auckland Development Committee 13 February 2014

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declaration of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of Minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

5.1 Puhinui Proposed Plan Change 35 - Marija Batistich 5

6 Local Board Input 6

7 Extraordinary Business 6

8 Notices of Motion 6

9 Preparation of a Structure Plan for the Puhinui Study Area 7

10 Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation andEmployment (MBIE)s "A Regulatory Framework for Community HousingProviders" 29

11 Local Area Plan for Laingholm/Parau/Waima/Woodlands Park 31

12 Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Proposed PlanChange 13 Hobsonville Airbase to be approved and made operative 69

13 Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 14Hobsonville Village to be approved and made operative 131

14 Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 16 CityForm and Plan Change 17 New Lynn to be approved and made operative 137

15 Private Plan Change 41: Britomart Precinct to be made operative 141

16 Request to make Private Plan Change 353 to 45A Comins Crescent,Mission Bay Operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (AucklandCity Isthmus Section 1999) 145

17 Environment Court decision on (Anns Creek) Plan Change 88 and PrivatePlan Change 233 to the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council DistrictPlan 167

18 Environment Court decision on Plan Change 163 (Residential 1) to theIsthmus section of the Auckland Council District Plan 173

19 Proposed Plan Change 30 (PC30) & Consequential Variation 6 to PlanChange 14 to Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To bemade fully Operative 175

20 Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) to the AucklandCouncil District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative 179

21 Request to make Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council DistrictPlan (Franklin Section) - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Operative 185

22 Request to make Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council DistrictPlan (Franklin Section) - Bombay Motorway and Rural Services SpecialZone operative. 187


4/207


Page 4

23 Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) tothe Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be madeOperative 191

24 Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) to the Auckland Council District Plan(Manukau Section) to be made Operative 197

25 Request to make Plan Change 39, Additions to Group C (Trees) ofSchedule 8a (historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to theAuckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative 201

26 Request to make Plan Change 13 (Review of District Plan RuralProvisions) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section)operative 205

27 Consideration of Extraordinary Items


5/207


Page 5

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr GS Wood has 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, 28 November 2013,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 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion todecline 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.

5.1 Puhinui Proposed Plan Change 35 - Marija Batistich

Purpose1. To address the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Puhinui Proposed

Plan Change 35.

Executive Summary2. Marija Batistich on behalf of the Southern Gateway Consortium will speak regarding

the proposed plan change.

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Marija Batistich for her presentation.


6/207


Page 6

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 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 two (2) days 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 3.9.14 to speak to matters on theagenda.

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

amended) 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.


7/207

I t e m

9


Preparation of a Structure Plan for the Puhinui Study Area Page 7

Preparation of a Structure Plan for the Puhinui Study Area

File No.: CP2014/00925

Purpose1. To set out the need for, and seek approval to prepare a structure plan to in form the councils

position on the future land use and development framework for the Puhinui Study Area,including the location of the Rural Urban Boundary in respect of the submissions to theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Executive Summary2. The Puhinui Study Area consists of approximately 1100 hectares of land, located east of the

Auckland International Airport (AIA) (see Attachments A and B). This area is located outsidethe current Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) and proposed Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) asidentified in the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) and notifiedProposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) respectively. Due to its strategic locationbeside the Auckland International Airport (AIA) and adjacent urban uses, thi s island ruralarea has potential for development and faces significant pressure for urbanisation.However, the area has significant natural and cultural values and is also subject to a rangeof environmental and infrastructure constraints.

3. On 14 March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) ofcouncil considered a Private Plan Change Request (PPC35) from the Southern GatewayConsortium to rezone 150 hectares of land in the Puhinui Study Area from rural zoning tobusiness zoning (see Attachment C). The Southern Gateway Consortium also requestedthat council initiate a change to the ARPS to include the PPC35 area within the MUL.

4. The RDOC resolved to accept PPC35 for public notification. However, the Committee

deferred its decision to promulgate a change to the ARPS to shift the MUL until amasterplanning process for the Puhinui Study Area is undertaken to ensure an integratedplanning approach for the Puhinui area as a whole. The overall intent of the masterplanningprocess was to determine whether the Puhinui Study Area should be included within theRUB in the Unitary Plan.

5. The key findings of the Puhinui masterplanning work was presented to the Unitary PlanCommittee workshop held on 26 November 2013. The presentation highlighted thecomplexity of planning matters affecting this area, including:

Need for further technical information to assess the impact of development on theoperational requirements of the AIA, including aircraft noise notification areas and trafficimpacts.

Significant financial investment required for roading and wastewater infrastructureupgrades.

Need for a comprehensive assessment of cumulative effects of development on threesignificant geological features and ecological areas present within the study area toprotect their multiple values (archaeological, geological, cultural and natural landscape).

Need for a coordinated strategy for the protection of archaeological sites andlandscapes.

Need for clear and robust mechanisms to be in place to manage the effects of futuredevelopment on the cultural heritage values associated with ancestral Maori land and thecoastal environment.


8/207

Item 9



6. The masterplanning process confirms that the location of the RUB in Puhinui Study Areacannot be determined until a detailed structure plan is prepared. A proposal by council tomove the MUL/RUB (in part or whole), at this stage creates the potential for a piecemealdevelopment approach, thereby, introducing the risk of compromising the important natural,environmental and cultural values associated with this area. The piecemeal approach wouldalso fail to address matters relating to funding and sequencing of infrastructure.

7. In view of the economic potential for urbanisation and the complexity of planning issuesassociated with managing the effects of development on the environmental and culturalvalues of the Puhinui Study Area, the Unitary Plan Committee supported the preparation of astructure plan to identify the future land uses and a development framework for the PuhinuiStudy Area. The structure plan will inform councils position and provide a robust basis torespond to submissions to the Unitary Plan on the location of the RUB in this area.


a) approve the preparation of a structure plan for the Puhinui Study Area (see

Attachment B) to inform the council position on the future land use and developmentframework for this area, including the location of the Rural Urban Boundary inrespect of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

b) confirm that council will not initiate a change to the Metropolitan Urban Limits asidentified in the Operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement in response to PrivatePlan Change 35 (Puhinui Gateway) to the Auckland Council District Plan (ManukauSection) and that the matter of the urban expansion is to be addressed through thesubmissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Discussion8. The Puhinui rural area consists of approximately 1100 hectares of land located east of the

AIA on the eastern coast of the Manukau Harbour (see Attachment A). The specific areadiscussed in this report is referred to as the Puhinui Study Area, the extent of which isshown in Attachment B. The Puhinui Study Area is located outside both the MUL asidentified in the ARPS; and the RUB as identified in the Unitary Plan. The study area is ruralin character.

9. The Auckland Plan has not identified the Puhinui Study Area for urban growth up to 2040.The Puhinui Study Area is zoned Rural Production under the Unitary Plan. A MangerePuhinui Precinct is applied to this area to recognise its special qualities, including theprotection of rural character, high quality soils, areas of high landscape values andsignificant natural and/or cultural values. The study area also contains large parcels of openspace zoned areas which contribute to the open space character of this area, includingPukaki Crater, Portage Road Reserve, Colin Dale Park and Puhinui Reserve.

10. The Puhinui Study Area faces significant pressure for urbanisation due to its close proximityto the AIA and adjoining urban uses. On 14 March 2013, the RDOC considered a PrivatePlan Change Request (PPC35) from Southern Gateway Consortium to rezone 150 hectaresof land in the Puhinui Study Area from rural zoning to business zoning. The area subject toPPC35 is shown in Attachment C. The Southern Gateway Consortium also requested thatcouncil initiate a change to the ARPS to include the PPC35 area within the MUL. TheCommittee resolved to accept PPC35 for public notification. However, recognising thecomplexity of the issues associated with the Puhinui Study Area, the Committee deferred its

decision to shift the MUL until a masterplanning process for the Puhinui Study Area wasundertaken to ensure an integrated planning approach for the Puhinui area as a whole.


9/207

I t e m

9



The Puhinui Masterplanning Process

11. The Puhinui masterplanning process was initiated in April 2013. The purpose of themasterplanning process was to identify broad land use options, areas for protection,development constraints and infrastructure requirements for the Puhinui Study Area. Theoverall intent of this exercise was to determine whether the Puhinui Study Area should beincluded within the RUB in the notified Unitary Plan (which was in a draft form at that stage).

12. The masterplanning process involved desktop investigations and completion of reports toidentify high level strategic issues of relevance for the study area and critical informationgaps. Mana Whenua and key stakeholders were consulted to understand their concerns andaspirations for the future development of the study area.

13. The Puhinui masterplanning process has highlighted the complexity of the planning mattersaffecting this area (discussed below). In particular, there is a need to address in detailtechnical planning matters and resolve conflicting outcomes prior to any decision on themovement of the RUB. On 9 August 2013, the Auckland Plan Committee considered thismatter, and agreed that the Puhinui Study Area has complex issues, and that it should notbe included within the RUB in the notified Unitary Plan.

Key Findings of the Puhinui Masterplanning Process14. In summary, the Puhinui masterplanning process has identified that due to the complexity of

planning issues associated with managing the effects of development on the importantenvironmental and cultural values present in this area, it is not feasible to confirm thelocation of the RUB until a detailed structure plan is prepared. The key findings of thePuhinui masterplanning process are discussed below.

Auc kland Internat ional Airport (AIA)

15. The Puhinui Study Area contains part of the AIA designation. AIA is a nationally andregionally significant infrastructure. Almost all of the Puhinui Study Area (excluding PuhinuiReserve and Colin Dale Park) is within the aircraft noise notification areas (see AttachmentD). Other key provisions relating to the aircraft approach paths (e.g. Obstacle LimitationSurfaces, Specifications to Discharges to Air within the Approach Path, Runway Protection

Areas) are also located within the Puhinui Study Area.

16. Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) has recently released a masterplan conceptwhich envisages significant growth in airport infrastructure and activity over the next 30years. Representatives for AIAL have advised council staff that the future access to theairport from the east and south (i.e. through the Puhinui Structure Planning Area) is likely tobecome increasingly important as capacity for urban growth is provided in the south and aspassenger and tourist numbers grow. AIAL has also advised that that the northern runwaywhen constructed will be longer in length to cater for jet operations.

17. Whilst there are existing provisions in place to ensure the protection of the current

operational requirements of the AIA, no assessment has been undertaken to understand theimpacts of future development (including change in land use) on the operationalrequirements of AIA. The expansion of the northern runway has implications for the noisenotification areas applying to the Puhinui Study Area. AIAL is currently undertaking technicalwork to determine the new noise contours (informing the aircraft noise notification areas) toinform its submission to the Unitary Plan. This technical information is critical in determiningthe future land uses within the Puhinui Study Area. In particular there is a need to managethe effects of sensitive land uses including restricting residential, on the operation andcapacity of this infrastructure to avoid reverse sensitivity issues in the future.

18. This projected growth in airport infrastructure has implications for the capacity of the roadingnetwork servicing the airport, in particular Puhinui Road. A comprehensive transportassessment is also required to understand the impacts on the roading infrastructure of futureland use scenarios.


10/207

Item 9



19. AIAL seeks that council prepare a structure plan to comprehensively assess all the inter-related opportunities and constraints present in the Puhinui Study Area, prior to anydecisions on the movement of the RUB. AIAL considers that to proceed with the RUBrelocation without a precise idea of the land use and transportation implications of such amove poses significant risks for AIAL. AIAL raises the concern that if the RUB is moved first(i.e. without the required technical information), and it is determined subsequently that the

area is not able to be urbanised due to the airport constraints, it would not be possible toreverse the decision on the RUB as the expectation for urbanisation would have alreadybeen created.

Infrastructure Transport Network

20. The only road access to the southern half of the Puhinui Study Area (south of WaokauriCreek), is via State Highway 20B (Puhinui Road), which serves as a key strategic access to

AIA from the east. Auckland Transport (AT), New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and AIAL have indicated that there are significant capacity issues associated with Puhinui Road,which is proposed to be upgraded to four lanes after 2020.

21. AT and NZTA have indicated that any urban development within the Puhinui Study Area willrequire significant investment in roading infrastructure, including the establishment of a localroading network and a new interchange off Puhinui Road. The initial cost estimates includeapproximately $200 million to establish the local roading network and in excess of $120million for a new interchange close to Prices Road. These figures are indicative estimatesonly. AT, NZTA and AIAL consider that a comprehensive integrated transport assessment isrequired to determine the impacts of future development on the roading network prior to adecision on the RUB. AT and NZTA highlight the issue that the estuary creates a physicalbarrier to the widening of Puhinui Road. The expansion of Pukaki Bridge is a highly sensitivematter to Te Akitai Waiohua, given the cultural values associated with the Pukaki-WaokauriCreek in the coastal environment and ancestral land in adjacent areas.

22. AT, NZTA and AIAL seek that council comprehensively consider these infrastructure mattersprior to any decision to urbanise this area. Given the significant financial investment

required, matters relating to funding and staging should be considered holistically. In order toprepare a comprehensive integrated transport assessment, details relating to land usepatterns and projected growth are required to support the technical analysis.

Infrastructure Wastewater

23. Wastewater in the southern area is serviced by the Southern Interceptor and the SouthWestern Interceptor. This wastewater servicing strategy is based the current policyframework that the Puhinui Study Area remains rural. The Southern Western Interceptor,which runs within the Puhinui Study Area, is at capacity and is unable to accommodate anyadditional growth. The Southern Interceptor has very limited capacity.

24. Watercare has advised that the urbanisation of the Puhinui Study Area has significant

implications for wastewater infrastructure. Any change in the existing policy direction willnecessitate major upgrades to the network infrastructure (Southern Interceptor), as well aschanges to the operation of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. In order to servePPC35 area alone, an estimated $18 million is required to establish a new pump station andapproximately $90 million for upgrading the Southern Interceptor. Including all of the PuhinuiStudy Area within the RUB would require in excess of $120 million in infrastructureupgrades.

25. To ensure timely and efficient servicing of the area, Watercare needs to plan and implementa strategy for funding the significant costs involved, as well as sequencing and timing ofupgrades. The level of detail required by Watercare to inform their servicing and fundingstrategy can only be achieved at a structure plan level. Watercare seeks that council preparea structure plan prior to any decision on the RUB.


11/207

I t e m

9



Geological Values

26. The Puhinui Study Area contains three large areas of geological features which form part ofthe Auckland volcanic field: Pukaki Crater, Crater Hill and Puhinui Craters (see AttachmentE). Pukaki Crater and Crater Hill area are ancestral Maori land and of particular spiritualvalue to Te Akitai Waiohua. Crater Hill is listed as being of national significance in the NewZealand Geopreservation Inventory. Crater Hill also contains the Selfs and UndergroundPress lava caves, which are of national significance.

27. The Unitary Plan identifies these craters as Outstanding Natural Features (ONF). Thesecraters cumulatively produce an open and high natural value landscape within the PuhinuiStudy Area. The protection of their physical and visual integrity, along with the integratedmanagement of their multiple values (such as archaeological and cultural) is important.There is a need to comprehensively assess the cumulative effects of future development onthese natural features, in particular the need to retain their naturalness, as once destroyedthis value is lost forever. Development on sites immediately adjacent to these ONF need tobe managed to ensure that the built environment remains subservient to the naturalcharacter of these craters. Given the close proximity of these ONFs within the Puhinui Study

Area, another factor to consider is the retention of the physical and visual linkages between

these features prior to the urbanisation of this area.Arch aeological Values

28. All of the land within the Puhinui Study Area is ancestral Maori land, with a long occupationalhistory. Council commissioned an archaeological survey of the entire study area todocument the full extent of the archaeological sites present within this area. Thearchaeological survey identified a large number of archaeological sites, most of which arelocated close to the coast or within the Crater Hill area (see Attachment F).

29. The archaeological survey also identifies archaeological landscapes where there is a highprobability of further archaeological sites being present, given past known occupation. TheCrater Hill area is identified as an archaeological landscape of exceptional significance,containing 56 individual archaeological sites.

30. A strategy for the coordinated protection of these archaeological sites and landscapes is animportant consideration in the future planning for the Puhinui Study Area.

Cultural Heri tage Values and Views o f Mana Whenua

31. The rohe of Puhinui is a place of deep cultural and spiritual significance to Te AkitaiWaiohua. The Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority has prepared a Cultural Heritage Report forthe Puhinui Study Area. The report identifies 20 sites of significance to Te Akitai Waiohua,most of which are located either within the study area or in close proximity to it.

32. As noted in the Auckland Plan, the Puhinui area is subject to the Eastern Access Agreement(EAA), dated 17 October 1991. This is an agreement signed by the former Manukau City

Council (with other signatories) to enable the development of the eastern access route to the AIA, including the current road and bridge access across Pukaki Creek. The EAA was basedon the understanding that the Puhinui Peninsula area was recognised as a culturallysignificant area to Maori. It recognised that providing this new access would create pressurefor urban development of the Puhinui Peninsula, and therefore, parties agreed on actions toensure that the area remains rural in the future. While the EAA is not binding to landowners,it commits council to consult with the other signatories and take account of cultural valueswhen considering land use matters in the Puhinui area.

33. The policy framework of the Unitary Plan seeks to enable Mana Whenua to identify,articulate and integrate their values in the resource management processes affectingancestral lands. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with Te Akitai Waiohua tounderstand their position on the matter of the RUB movement as it applies to the PuhinuiStudy Area.


12/207

Item 9



34. While Te Akitai Waiohua is appreciative of the growth pressures facing the Puhinui area, it isstrongly opposed to any RUB movement, without understanding the impacts of the futuredevelopment on their cultural heritage values associated with this area. Te Akitai Waiohuaseeks certainty of outcome which ensures that the cultural heritage values associated withthis ancestral land and the coastal receiving environment will be maintained and/orenhanced.

35. Te Akitai Waiohua is concerned that if the RUB is moved first, and the subsequent planningprocess determines that the future urbanisation of this area will result in significant negativeimpacts on cultural heritage values and the coastal receiving environment, then there is noprocess for the reversal of the RUB in the future. The expectation for urbanisation wouldalready have been given to the landowners, who will then be opposed to any subsequentremoval or adjustment of the RUB. In order to comprehensively address cultural heritagematters, and achieve a certainty of outcome, Te Akitai Waiohua supports council preparing astructure plan for the Puhinui Study Area prior to any decision on the RUB.

36. Consultation has also been undertaken with other iwi who have an interest in the PuhinuiStudy Area. Ngati Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Ahiwaru, Ngati Paoa and Waikato Tainui wereall informed of the masterplanning process and were invited to a workshop held on

15 November 2013 to enable information sharing relating to the Puhinui Study Area.Representatives from Te Akitai, Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Paoa attended the workshop.

37. Ngati Tamaoho stressed the need for sustainable environmental outcomes, and supportedthe need for appropriate structure planning first. Ngati Te Ata supports PPC35, and hasplans for a National Marae on Colin Dale Park. Ngati Te Ata is supportive of Te AkitaiWaiohuas position as it relates to the remainder of the area within the Puhinui Study Area.In its submission to PPC35, Huakina Development Trust (who represented 22 northernmarae of Tainui at the time of signing the EAA), recommends that a masterplanning processfor the entire area be completed prior to PPC35 being approved.

Signif icant Ecological Areas

38. The Puhinui Study area adjoins the Manukau Harbour with Pukaki, Waokauri and PuhinuiCreeks flowing into it. Manukau Harbour and these creeks are identified as SignificantEcological Areas (SEA) in the Unitary Plan in recognition of its high habitat values. The partof the Manukau Harbour adjoining Puhinui Reserve and Puhinui Creek support thousands ofinternational migratory birds and NZ endemic wading birds (including threatened species).Part of the area is a wildlife refuge. Pukaki Waokauri Creek is a Tangata WhenuaManagement Area.

39. Given the presence of SEAs in the Puhinui Study Area, it is important that there is a highlevel of certainty that the future development of this area will not adversely affect waterquality, and ecological and cultural values associated with this area. Te Akitai Waiohua hasidentified this as a critical matter for consideration, especially in light of the Tangata WhenuaManagement Area and the waterways being identified as sites of significance to iwi in theCultural Heritage Report. Te Akitai Waiohua seeks to understand the impacts of futuredevelopment on this sensitive receiving environment prior to council decision relating to theRUB.

40. The Puhinui Study Area falls within the Puhinui catchment and the Pukaki/Waokauricatchment. Neither of these catchments have a current Catchment Management Plan. Nostormwater or contaminant load modelling has been undertaken to determine theimplications of future land uses on this highly sensitive receiving environment. In order toprovide inputs into these types of modelling work, a high level of certainty is required interms of the final land use types and development scenarios, which can only be feasiblydetermined by undertaking a structure plan for this area.


13/207

I t e m

9



The Way Forward Options and Evaluation

41. The key issue for consideration is whether the Puhinui Study Area should be included in theRUB with the area being identified as Future Urban Zone in the Unitary Plan. Five optionsfor the RUB location were considered. The table below identifies the likely zoning provisionsunder each of the options:

Option Land use typeOption 1(RUBto includePPC35 areaonly)

Interim zoning of Future Urban for the PPC35 area only in the UnitaryPlan.

Should PPC35 be approved, this would provide for business uses onthis land. The remainder of the area would retain the existing rural andpublic open space zones.

Option 2 (RUBalong PuhinuiRoad)

Interim zoning of Future Urban for all of the land south of Puhinui Roadin the Unitary Plan.

Should PPC35 be approved, this would provide for business uses onthe PPC35 land. A structure planning process would need to beundertaken to determine the appropriate land use and developmentframework for the parts located south of Puhinui Road but outsidePPC35 area. The existing public open space zones will be retained.

Option 3 (RUBto follow thecoastline)

Interim zoning of Future Urban for all of the land within the PuhinuiStudy Area, except for the areas zoned public open space. Asubsequent structure plan will determine the appropriate land uses anddevelopment framework.

Option 4(structure planprior to RUBmovement)

Retain the existing rural and open space zones until the completion ofthe structure plan, which will identify the appropriate future zoningsand development framework prior to the RUB movement.

Option 5 (noRUBmovement)

Retain existing rural and open space zones.

42. Option 1 (RUB to include PPC35 area only) presents a risk to council in terms of defendingthe location of the RUB. While Puhinui Road as a strategic roading link would provide arelatively stronger defensible boundary argument under Option 2 (RUB along Puhinui Road),both Options 1 and 2 will result in an island of rural surrounded by strong urban uses. Asignificant portion of the Puhinui Study Area will remain rural within an urban setting (furtherstrengthened by PPC35 uses). The remaining rural area will continue to face growthpressures, especially in light of the movement of the RUB to accommodate PPC35.

43. The piecemeal approach of Options 1 and 2 present the risk of compromising the importantnatural, environmental and cultural values associated with this area. It also can lead tocouncil investing a significant amount of money in roading and wastewater infrastructurewithout the corresponding public benefits and formal agreements for funding in place. Thereis also the risk that the design of infrastructure would preclude the future development of theremaining rural area, therefore, any subsequent urbanisation would require furtherinvestments in infrastructure to cater for the additional growth.


14/207

Item 9



44. Option 3 (RUB to follow the coastline) sets the expectation that the area will be urbanised inthe future, without having regard to constraints applying in this area. There is significant riskthat if the future structure planning process identifies that some of the land is unable to beurbanised, then there is no process to reverse the decision on the RUB and the expectationfor urbanisation would have already been created. This report highlights that importanttechnical information is missing at this stage to determine the impacts of the constraints

applying to the study area.45. Option 3 provides the opportunity for the structure plan under PPC35 area to proceed should

it be approved. This means that the structure planning for the whole of the Puhinui Studyarea would not be undertaken in a holistic and integrated manner, thereby continuing thefragmented approach of Options 1 and 2, and compromising the important natural,environmental and cultural values associated with this area.

46. While Option 3 provides an opportunity to address infrastructure matters for the PuhinuiStudy Area comprehensively, there is a risk that infrastructure funding and staging may notbe in place at the time of the development (e.g. PPC35 area).

47. Option 4 (structure plan prior to RUB movement) enables all environmental, cultural,infrastructural, economic and social matters to be considered holistically. The structure planwill establish the spatial development pattern of land use, transport and services network,and a development framework through precinct provisions relating to matters such as bulkand location of buildings, set-backs, areas for protection, open space network andconnections for the Puhinui Study Area. It provides certainty to all stakeholders of the visionand outcomes for the study area prior to the identification of land for urban purposes.

48. Option 4 further enables council to develop strategies relating to infrastructure funding andstaging prior to the release of the land for urban uses, thereby, setting a clear expectation forthe timing of the development. This option is strongly supported by the majority of the keystakeholders, except PPC35 applicant and two of the landowners. It also enables council torobustly consider submissions to the Unitary Plan as they relate to the issue of the RUB inthe study area.

49. Option 5 (no RUB movement) is not a feasible option at this stage, as it fails to give regardto councils obligations to assess PPC35. Council is obliged to consider the issue of urbanexpansion into a rural area. It is highly likely that council will receive submissions on theUnitary Plan seeking amendments to the location of the RUB. It is not feasible at this stageto disregard the issue of the location of the RUB.

50. On 15 November 2013, a workshop was organised to enable sharing of information relatingto the Puhinui Study Area and consider the above options as part of the masterplanningprocess. In addition to the key stakeholders, all of the landowners within the study area werealso invited. The majority of the attendees strongly supported Option 4 (structure plan priorto decision on the RUB).

51. Based on the findings of the Puhinui materplanning process, it is recommended that councilprepare a structure plan for the Puhinui Study Area prior to its decision on the RUB. This isnecessary to ensure that important natural, environmental and cultural values associatedwith this area are not compromised and that matters relating to funding and sequencing ofinfrastructure are considered holistically.

Consideration

Local Board Views52. The Puhinui Study Area is within the boundaries of the Otara Papatoetoe Local Board and

the Mangere Otahuhu Local Board. These Local Boards have been consulted as part of the

masterplanning process and are supportive of the recommended structure planningapproach.


15/207

I t e m

9



Maori Impact Statement53. See paragraphs 31 to 37 of this report.

Implementation Issues54. The structure plan work is currently unbudgeted. Due to time constraints, council staff have

not had the opportunity to quantify the costs associated with the preparation of the structureplan at the time of the writing of this report. Preliminary discussions have occurred withrelevant council departments and CCO study partners regarding how to resource this work(staff time and costs). Re-prioritisation of work programmes and budgets will be necessary.

55. The Puhinui masterplanning work has confirmed that there is no clear justification fordetermining the RUB location in this area at this stage, and that preparation of a structureplan is a pre-requisite for determining the RUB. The structure plan work will need to becompleted in time to inform the hearing of submissions on the Unitary Plan. Hearing ofmatters relating to the RUB is likely to occur during 2015.

56. The outstanding issue relating to the location of the MUL/RUB in the Puhinui Study Areamay be seen to delay the processing of PPC35, which has completed the submissions

phase. A hearing report is being prepared to assess the PPC35 provisions and addressmatters raised in submissions. Hearing could potentially occur around April 2014. However,there are outstanding matters raised through submissions which require further technicalassessment by the applicant e.g. transportation and wastewater infrastructure. A stormwaterdischarge consent for the PPC35 area was lodged by the applicant on 20 December 2013.This is being assessed and may require further information and/or public notification. If ahearing on PPC35 were to proceed based on currently available information, there is a riskthat the hearing may be adjourned until all the further technical assessment is available. Thiscould delay the hearing until the latter part of 2014 at the earliest. It would be more efficient ifthe PPC35 rezoning request is considered through the Unitary Plan submission/hearingprocess and not through a separate process. However, only the applicant of PPC35(Southern Consortium) can make that decision. Staff have initiated discussions with the

applicant and dialogue is continuing.

AttachmentsNo. Title Page

A Locality Plan 17 B Map of the Puhinui Study Area 19 C Map of PPC35 Area 21 D Map of the Auckland International Airport Aircraft Noise Areas 23 E Map of Geological Features 25 F Map of Archaeological Sites 27

Signatories Authors Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner Authorisers Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


16/207


17/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

9




18/207


19/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

9




20/207


21/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

9




22/207


23/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t D

I t e m

9




24/207


25/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t E

I t e m

9




26/207


27/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t F

I t e m

9




28/207


29/207

I t e m

1 0


Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)s "A RegulatoryFramework for Community Housing Providers"

Page 29

Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation andEmployment (MBIE)s "A Regulatory Framework for CommunityHousing Providers"

File No.: CP2014/01472

Purpose1. To seek approval on a Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment (MBIE)s consultation paper A Regulatory Framework for Community HousingProviders.

Executive Summary2. MBIE is proposing a regulatory framework for Community Housing Providers (CHPs) as part

of the governments broader Social Housing Reform Programme that commenced in

December 2010. The most recent of these reforms was the Social Housing Reform (HousingRestructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Act 2013) which allows for theestablishment of the Regulatory Authority within Government to oversee CHPs in receipt ofgovernment funding and investment.

3. MBIE launched a consultation on the regulatory framework for CHPs on 20 December 2013which closes on 7 February 2014. The tight deadline for the development of this regulatoryframework is owing to the fact that Community Housing Providers will compete with HousingNew Zealand for the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) for their new clients as of April2014. The purpose of the proposed regulatory framework for CHPs is to:

protect crown investmentensure tenants are appropriately housed

enable the growth of the CHP sectorencourage non-government investment in social housing. The development of aregulatory framework for CHPs is desirable; however the definition of CommunityHousing Provider used in the Consultation Paper is very limiting and potentially couldconstrict the growth of the CHP sector. In addition, Local Authorities are currentlyexcluded, as are some CHPs in the housing continuum that provide assisted homeownership schemes.

Strategic Context

4. The Housing Action Plan, Priority Area 1, provides for council to drive housing opportunitieson council owned land which includes the potential for partnerships with the CommunityHousing Sector and for council to assist in growing the sector. There is concern that theexclusion of local authorities and other community housing organisations from the definitionmay limit councils activities in Priority Area 1.

Submission

5. A draft submission to address the above concerns has been drafted and submitted to meetthe deadline with the proviso that it may be subject to amendment subject to the finaldetermination of the Committee.

6. The draft submission will be circulated prior to the meeting for review andamendment/ratification of the committee as required.


30/207

Item 1

0


Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)s "A RegulatoryFramework for Community Housing Providers"

Page 30


a) approve or amend the draft submission to Ministry of Business, Innovation andEmployment (MBIE)s consultation paper A Regulatory Framework for CommunityHousing Providers, noting that the primary focus of the draft submission is on thedefinition of Community Housing Provider.

AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.

Signatories Authors Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing Authorisers Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer



31/207

I t e m

1 1


Local Area Plan for Laingholm/Parau/Waima/Woodlands Park Page 31

Local Area Plan for Laingholm/Parau/Waima/Woodlands Park

File No.: CP2013/26028

Purpose1. This report seeks a resolution from the Auckland Development Committee to approve the

Muddy Creeks Plan - Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Laingholm/Parau/Waim /WoodlandsPark area.

Executive Summary1. On 26 September 2012, the Waitkere Ranges Local Board approved the preparation of a

Local Area Plan for the Laingholm/Parau/Woodlands Park/Waim area.

2. A Local Area Plan is prepared under the provisions of the Waitkere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. It sets out a long term vision for an area, and objectives and actions to realise thatvision. It enables the Council to determine with local communities and iwi, how the purpose

and objectives of the Waitkere R anges Heritage Area Act 2008 may be achieved at thelocal level, recognising that each community has a distinct identity and character.

3. A collaborative process of community and iwi engagement was undertaken during thedrafting of the Local Area Plan between December 2012 and May 2013. The draft Local

Area Plan was publicly notified from 1 July to 16 August 2013. The Waitkere Ranges LocalBoard adopted the final draft Local Area Plan at their meeting on 9 October 2013. The textof the amended Local Area Plan proposed for adoption is included in Attachment 1.

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:a) approve the Muddy Creeks Plan - Local Area Plan for Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park

and Waim. b) request officers to report as part of the six- monthly report on the Waitkere Ranges

Heritage Area programme on the progress made to implement actions in the Muddy CreeksPlan - Local Area Plan for Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park and Waim.

Discussion4. Local Area Plans are part of the Waitkere Ranges Heritage Area programme. Under the

Waitkere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, the Auckland Council may pr epare and adopt a

Local Area Plan (LAP). LAPs establish a process that is designed to reach a wideconsensus among the community, tangata whenua and stakeholders on the valued featuresof the locality and its future character. They outline objectives and actions to maintain orimprove the distinctive and valued qualities of local areas over time.

5. At its meeting on 20 September 2012, the Waitkere Ranges Local Board resolved(Resolution number WTK/2012/147):

a) That the Waitkere Ranges Local Board approve the preparation of a Local AreaPlan in the Laingholm/Parau/Waim/Woodlands Park area.

b) That the Waitkere Ranges Local Board genera lly endorse the proposed boundaryfor the Local Area Plan, but agree that the Local Area Plan should reflect thedistinct communities of the area, and postpone a decision on the precise boundaryof the Local Area Plan on its eastern (Titirangi) side until affected residents havebeen consulted.


32/207

Item 1

1



Research and background information

6. A series of background and research papers were undertaken or commissioned by theproject team to document the heritage features and characteristics of the area. These weremade available to the public electronically on the LAP Discussion Forum on the AucklandCouncil web-site and distributed at community workshops in March 2013. This information

was collated and summarised into a background report in time for the notification of the draftLAP.

Engagement activities during drafting process

7. The LAP and its associated research papers were informed by the feedback received fromthe community and iwi at a number of engagement events and activities:

Initial consultation in August 2012: preliminary assessment of local issues that residentswanted to see addressed in the LAP, during open days and through written feedbackLaunch workshop in December 2012: collation of feedback on a future vision for the LAParea, discussion around valued features and available information sourcesCommunity planning workshops in March 2013: presentation of background researchfindings and community initiatives, refinement and prioritisation of collated issues,objectives and actionsDiscussion Forum for January to August 2013: on-line discussion hosted by the

Auckland Council web-site and moderated by the North-West Planning teamSurvey of land owners along eastern boundary in March 2013: this survey asked localresidents whether properties along Huia Road between Scenic Drive and Landing Roadshould be included in the LAP for Laingholm, Parau, Waim and Woodlands Park. Youth Survey: this online survey hosted by the Auckland Council web-site soughtfeedback from young people on what they liked/disliked about the area and how they feltit could be improved to make it a better place for young people to live.

Meetings and communications with resident associations to update on progress, seekfeedback on the engagement process and seek feedback on draft provisionsMeetings and discussions with Sustainable Neighbourhoods facilitators and coordinatorsin March-May 2013 to gather information on ecological features in the area, existinginitiatives and to seek feedback on draft provisions relating to ecological restorationMeetings and discussions with Te Kawerau a Maki and Ng ti Wh tua to agree on theprocess for engagement, identify matters of significance and sources of information, seekfeedback on background research material and draft LAP provisions. Te Kaweraudeveloped a Cultural Values Assessment for the LAP area.Internal meetings and workshops with relevant Auckland Council and Auckland TransportUnits to gather information, seek updates on emerging strategies and programmes and

seek feedback on the draft LAP provisions.

Public notification process

8. The draft Muddy Creeks Plan was publicly notified from 1 July to 16 August 2013. Duringthis period, a series of engagement events and activities were organised, including:

Three open days/public drop-in sessions at Titirangi Library and VillagePlanting event at Laingholm Primary SchoolMeeting with several Sustainable Neighbourhood coordinatorsWeb-based discussion forum and on-line survey on the Auckland Council web-site

Flyer drop to local residents, articles in local media and Facebook noticesE-mails to residents on the LAP list, e-mails and letters to external stakeholderorganisations and iwi.


33/207

I t e m

1 1



9. Feedback was received from 23 respondents, including individual residents, local residentsassociations, iwi and external stakeholder organisations. The feedback was analysed andconsidered in the finalisation of the LAP provisions. Follow-up meetings were alsoorganised with Watercare and with Te Kawerau a Maki to clarify and discuss points offeedback.

Content of the Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan

10. The text of the Muddy Creeks Plan is provided in Attachment A. There are four keycomponents to the LAP:

the boundary which defines the area that this LAP applies tothe identification of features important to and valued by the communitythe descriptions of existing and future character and amenitythe objectives and actions proposed to achieve the desired future character and amenity.

11. Three maps are attached to the LAP, which will be incorporated into the final designedlayout. These include:

Map 1: Local Area Plan Boundary (refer to Attachment 2)Sketch of amended Map 2: Ecological Corridors (refer to Attachment 3)Sketch of amended Map 3: Indicative improvements around community hubs andpotential walkway connections (refer to Attachment 4).

12. The Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan was adopted by the Waitkere Ranges Local Board atits meeting on 9 October 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views13. The Waitkere Ranges Local Board instigated the preparation of this LAP. The Local Board

was updated and consulted throughout the engagement and drafting process, andparticipated in community workshops. The Local Board adopted this LAP through a formalresolution on 9 October 2013.

Maori Impact Statement14. Te Kawerau a Maki contributed to the preparation of this LAP through the preparation of a

Cultural Impact Assessment for the area. The iwi also provided feedback on emergingprovisions during the drafting process, and on the notified version of the LAP.

15. Ng ti Whtua rkei provided information on areas of historical and cultural significance,particularly the site of the battle of Paruroa near the Lower Nihotupu dam. Their aspirationfor partnership between iwi and Council in the management of these important sites hasbeen considered in the drafting of the LAP.

General16. This LAP has been the subject of a comprehensive, collaborative process of public

engagement as outlined in this report over a 12 month period. The outcomes of thisengagement have been used to inform the content of this LAP.

Implementation Issues17. Following approval by the Auckland Development Committee, the final LAP will be

promulgated. The implementation of the LAP actions will be integrated into the work plan forthe Waitkere Ranges Heritage Area programme and relevant Council units. The progressof the LAP implementation will be reported to the Local Board and the Auckland


34/207

Item 1

1



Development Committee on a six- monthly basis as part of the report on the WaitkereRanges Heritage Area programme.


A Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan 35 B Map 1: Local Area Plan Boundary 63 C Sketch of amended Map 2: Ecological Corridors 65 D Sketch of amended Map 3: Indicative improvements around community

hubs and potential walkway connections67

Signatories

Authors Claire Liousse - Planner Authorisers Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager



35/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




36/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




37/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




38/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




39/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




40/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




41/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




42/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




43/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




44/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




45/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




46/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




47/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




48/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




49/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




50/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




51/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




52/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




53/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




54/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




55/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




56/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




57/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




58/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




59/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




60/207

AttachmentA

Item 1

1




61/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 1




62/207


63/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 1




64/207


65/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 1




66/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

1




67/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t D

I t e m

1 1




68/207


69/207

I t e m

1 2


Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbaseto be approved and made operative

Page 69

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Proposed PlanChange 13 Hobsonville Airbase to be approved and made operative

File No.: CP2014/00011

Purpose1. To obtain approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan

Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) operative inaccordance with Clause 17 and 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act1991. Plan Change 13 relates to development at the former Hobsonville Airbase.

Executive Summary2. Plan Change 13 enables the re-development of the former Hobsonville Airbase. The Plan

Change divides the Airbase into eight Precincts (identified as A H). Precincts A G weremade operative on 9 September 2011. Precinct H remained subject to appeal by two

appellants, the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited (NTC), and ProgressiveEnterprises Limited (Progressive). Precinct H is located at the eastern end of the formerHobsonville Airbase (see Attachment A ).

3. These two appeals to Precinct H challenged the retail policies and rules that applied toPrecinct H. These appeals were also associated with appeals by NTC and Progressive toPlan Change 14, which is located in close proximity to Precinct H. The appeals to PlanChange 14 were resolved by consent order by the Environment Court on 11 November2013. As part of resolving Plan Change 14, NTC and Progressive agreed to withdraw theirappeals to Precinct H. The appeals to Precinct H were withdrawn on 15 November 2013(NTC) and 18 November 2013 (Progressive) (see Attachment B ). These two withdrawalsmean that Precinct H remains unaltered from the decisions issued by the former WaitakereCity Council on 31 July 2007. This part of Plan Change 13 is now beyond challenge, and isable to be made operative (see Attachment C ).


a) approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the former Waitakere CityCouncil on 31 July 2007, the policies and rules that apply to Precinct H of ProposedPlan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

b) direct that the policies and rules that apply to Precinct H of Proposed Plan Change13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) be made operative

pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.c) authorise the Manager, Planning - North/West to complete the statutory processes

required to make Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (WaitakereSection) fully operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the ResourceManagement Act 1991, including the determination of the operative and notificationdate.

Discussion4. Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) introduces a

policy and rule framework to guide the development of the former Hobsonville Airbase. Fourappeals were lodged following notification of the plan change decision on 31 July 2007. Twoof these appeals were resolved by consent order, prior to 1 November 2010. Precincts A -G were consequently made operative on 9 September 2011.


70/207

Item 1

2



Page 70

5. The two remaining appeals from NTC and Progressive related to the policies and rules thatmanage retail space in Precinct H. Given that Precinct H is in close proximity to the towncentre at Hobsonville Village, it was agreed by the parties to the appeal that the appeals toPrecinct H would be resolved in conjunction with retail appeals by NTC and Progressive toProposed Plan Change 14, Hobsonville Village.

6. The appeals to Plan Change 14 were resolved by consent order on 11 November 2013. Noamendments to the policies and rules for Precinct H were made as a result of the consentorder for Plan Change 14. The withdrawal of the appeals by NTC and Progressive toPrecinct H means that all of the appeals to Plan Change 13 are completed. The policies andrules that are not operative can now be made operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views7. This report seeks approval to make operative the policies and rules of Precinct H of Plan

Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section). This is not a matterthat is within the delegated authority of the Upper Harbour Local Board. Consequently the

view of the Local Board has not been sought. The Local Board will be notified once thepolicies and rules of Precinct H of Plan Change 13 become operative.

Maori Impact Statement8. Making Precinct H of Plan Change 13 operative is a procedural matter that does not require

iwi consideration. All the decision making steps in the plan change process are nowcompleted and the plan change is beyond challenge. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatuawere consulted during the preparation of Plan Change 13. Neither iwi made a submissionon Plan Change 13.

General

9. Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act, a local authoritymust approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. UnderClause 20 of the Act, the approved plan change will be publicly notified as becomingoperative at least 5 working days before the actual date that it will become operative.

10. The recommendation to approve and make Precinct H of Plan Change 13 operative in full isconsistent with the councils policies and strategies and does not trigger the significancepolicy.

Implementation Issues11. There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative

and the consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).These costs are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Departmentbudget.


A Hobsonville Airbase Precinct H Location 73 B Title National Trading Company and Progressive Enterprises Withdrawal

Notices75

C Title PLan Change 13 Decisions Version To Be Made Operative 79


71/207

I t e m

1 2



Page 71

Signatories Authors Eryn Shields - Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West Authorisers Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager



72/207


73/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t A

I t e m

1 2



Page 73


74/207


75/207


76/207

AttachmentB

Item 1

2



Page 76


77/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t B

I t e m

1 2



Page 77


78/207

AttachmentB

Item 1

2



Page 78


79/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 79


80/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 80


81/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 81


82/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 82


83/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 83


84/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 84


85/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 85


86/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 86


87/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 87


88/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 88


89/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 89


90/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 90


91/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 91


92/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 92


93/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 93


94/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 94


95/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 95


96/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 96


97/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 97


98/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 98


99/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 99


100/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 100


101/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 101


102/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 102


103/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 103


104/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 104


105/207

A t t a c

h m e n

t C

I t e m

1 2



Page 105


106/207

AttachmentC

Item 1

2



Page 106

8/13/2019 Auckland Developmen

auckland development committee - feb 14

Documents