Você está na página 1de 41

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council

cil policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.


I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Unitary Plan Committee will be held on:

Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:

Tuesday, 8 July 2014
1.30 pm
Level 2
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Unitary Plan Committee

OPEN AGENDA



MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Cr Alf Filipaina
Deputy Chairperson Cr Penny Hulse
Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Denise Krum
Member Liane Ngamane
Member Josie Smith
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr Penny Webster

Ex-officio Mayor Len Brown, JP


(Quorum 6 members)

Suad Allie
Democracy Advisor

2 July 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 367 3078
Email: suad.allie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz





TERMS OF REFERENCE


Responsibilities

A committee that will give direction to officers on matters associated with the Unitary Plan including:

Councils submission to the UP (final sign off with parent committee)
Response to matters raised by the submission process
Pre-hearing mediation

Substantive issues of policy require approval by the parent committee.

Powers

All powers necessary to perform the Committees responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body
responsibilities)
(b) where the Committees responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only




Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 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
6 Local Board Input 5
7 Extraordinary Business 6
8 Notices of Motion 6
9 Unitary Plan update 7
10 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model
overview 33
11 Consideration of Extraordinary Items


Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Page 5

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr CM Casey and Cr C Darby have been received.


2 Declaration of Interest

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


3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Unitary Plan Committee:
a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 May 2014, 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 the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting
and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to
decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A
maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)
minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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


6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The
Chairperson 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 the
discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing
Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.

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

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Page 6


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 the
public,-

(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 a
subsequent meeting.

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

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time
when 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 item
except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further
discussion.


8 Notices of Motion

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

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 7

Unitary Plan update

File No.: CP2014/12771

Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to present a suggested work programme for the Unitary Plan
Committee during the course of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) hearings over
the next two or so years. The work programme will enable the committee to confirm the
councils position in respect of the key issues raised in submissions on the PAUP. Once
confirmed, council planning staff and the councils legal team will present the councils case
at the hearings. As discussed in this report, there may however be situations where the
committee will need to delegate its authority to a smaller group of councillors or senior
planning staff to respond to proposals put forward at mediation.
2. The committees work programme will ultimately need to align with the schedule of pre-
hearing meetings and hearings. The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel
(IHP) is working to complete a draft schedule in the coming weeks. The schedule will be
discussed at the next committee meeting.
Executive summary
3. As outlined in the 20 May report to the committee, submissions on the PAUP closed at 5pm
on 28 February 2014. 8946 were received on time and a further 479 were received by 30
April 2014. The Chair of the IHP has agreed to accept all submissions received by 30 April
2014. Fourteen submissions have been received since that date. Schedule 1 to the
Resource Management Act (RMA) requires the council to prepare a summary of the
decisions requested in the submissions. On 11 June 2014 the Summary of Decisions
Requested (SDR) report was notified and the further submission period commenced. Almost
100,000 individual decisions are summarised in the SDR report.
4. As discussed in the May report to the committee, further submissions cannot raise new
issues and only those with an interest greater than the general public or representing a
matter of public interest can make a further submission. The further submission period
closes on 22 July 2014.
5. Council planning staff have carried out a preliminary analysis of the submissions and
identified a range of issues that are likely to be of strong interest to the committee. Given the
sheer number of topics addressed in the PAUP and the wide range of issues raised in the
submissions, a work programme of key issues under a series of topics is presented for the
committee to consider. For topics that sit outside the suggested work programme, it is
proposed that the Manager Regional and Local Planning and the Unitary Plan Manager are
delegated the authority to confirm the councils position at any pre-hearing meetings,
mediation or at the hearings.
Recommendation/s
That the Unitary Plan Committee:
a) agree that the key issues associated with the various themes outlined in the agenda
report will form the basis for the committees work programme during the course of
the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings.
b) delegate to the Manager Regional and Local Planning and Unitary Plan Manager the
authority to confirm the councils position (where generally consistent with the
approach in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) during any pre-hearing processes
and at the hearings in respect of the remaining issues raised in submissions on the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
c) request that the Unitary Plan Manager provides a regular update on progress with all
submission topics throughout the course of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
hearings.
I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 8



Comments

6. As outlined in the 20 May 2014 report to the committee, submissions on the PAUP closed at
5pm on 28 February 2014. 8946 were received on time and a further 479 were received by
30 April 2014. The Chair of the IHP has agreed to accept all submissions received by 30
April 2014. Fourteen submissions have been received since that date. Schedule 1 to the
Resource Management Act (RMA) requires the council to prepare a summary of the
decisions requested in the submissions. On 11 June 2013 the Summary of Decisions
Requested (SDR) report was notified and the further submission period commenced. Almost
100,000 individual decisions are summarised in the SDR report.
7. As discussed in the May report to the committee, further submissions cannot raise new
issues and only those with an interest greater than the general public or representing a
matter of public interest can make a further submission. The further submission period
closes on 22 July 2014.
8. Council planning staff have carried out a preliminary analysis of the submissions and
identified a range of issues that are likely to be of strong interest to the committee. Given the
sheer number of topics addressed in the PAUP and the wide range of issues raised in the
submissions, a work programme of key issues under a series of topics is presented for the
committee to consider. For topics that sit outside the suggested work programme, it is
proposed that the Manager Regional and Local Planning and the Unitary Plan Manager are
delegated the authority to confirm the councils position at any pre-hearing meetings,
mediation or at the hearings.

Pre-hearing meetings, mediation and hearings

9. The IHP is developing a schedule for pre-hearing meetings and hearings based on the
coding framework used by the council to categorise the decisions requested in the
submissions. The schedule has yet to be released. To give some indication of the scale of
the task ahead however, there are over 700 topics and sub-topics in the submissions coding
framework, many of which will require at least one pre-hearing meeting and a hearing. Some
hearings may last for several days.
10. A summary of the pre-hearing meetings, mediation and hearings processes is given below.
A more detailed description is provided in the IHP Procedures Manual included as
Attachment A.

Pre-hearing meetings

11. The IHP intends to prepare a report known as a parties and issues report for each topic.
These reports will identify all of the submitters and further submitters for each topic, the
range of issues raised in the submissions and confirm whether the IHP believes the topic will
benefit from expert witness conferencing (experts meeting to document areas of agreement
and disagreement) and/or formal mediation, or whether the topic should proceed straight to
a hearing. The purpose of pre-hearing meetings is essentially to confirm whether the council
or submitters agree with the parties and issues report. Pre-hearing meetings may also be
used to seek clarification from submitters on issues raised in submissions.
I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 9


Mediation

12. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act contains specific provisions
relating to the PAUP process and places an emphasis on setting up processes to resolve
issues prior to formal hearings. Consistent with the legislation, the IHP has signaled that
some topics will be identified for mediation prior to a hearing. While mediation is traditionally
used to explore options for resolving an issue without a hearing, or narrowing the issues that
require a hearing, it can also be used to bring parties with similar views to agree to present a
combined case at a hearing. The council is required to attend all mediation sessions
arranged by the IHP, unless the IHP agrees this is unnecessary.
13. It is essential that the council is able to confirm whether or not it agrees to a suggestion that
arises during any mediation session. Given that the delegated authority to confirm the
councils position in response to the submissions rests with the Unitary Plan Committee, it is
likely there will be occasions where it is necessary for the committee to delegate this
authority to a smaller group, or potentially senior council planning staff. Reports to the
committee will address this issue as the need arises.

Hearings

14. The purpose of hearings is to enable submitters who have indicated they wish to be heard to
speak to their submission and present any supporting evidence from experts such as
planners, ecologists, archaeologists and traffic engineers. The IHP will also allow some
cross-examination of experts and will no doubt ask questions of submitters and experts to
assist it in making recommendations back to the council.
Confirming the councils position at mediation and hearings

15. In a normal hearing process (for example a hearing on a plan change to one of the operative
district plans), council staff or consultants would typically present their professional advice
directly to the hearings panel. The Auckland Unitary Plan process is very different to a
normal hearing process however, and as a result, it is entirely appropriate that the Unitary
Plan Committee directs the councils position during any pre-hearing processes or at the
hearings. This presents two key challenges that will need to be carefully managed.
16. Firstly, with such a large number of submission points (almost 100,000) and potentially as
many as 700 topics requiring a hearing, the committee will need to meet frequently and
consider its position swiftly enough to ensure the council is able to meet the IHPs timetable
and present a strong case.
17. Secondly, there may be situations where council staff are unable to support the councils
position (as directed by the Unitary Plan Committee). Should this occur, attempts will be
made to find a consultant who is able to support the councils position. The committee does,
however, need to be aware that such a situation could result in the councils position being
set out at the hearings without any supporting expert evidence.
I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 10



Key Issues

18. For many topics, a very wide range of issues are raised in the submissions. For others, only
a handful of issues are raised. The table below summarises the key issues raised under
groups of topics referred to in the submissions coding framework as themes.

Theme Key Issues
Airport
Airport zone provisions relating to changes in airport operations
and flight paths
Activities and activity status in the Airport zone (e.g. providing for
emergency services, businesses directly associated with aviation,
manufacture of aircraft or aircraft components as permitted
activities)
Activities in the High Aircraft Noise Area and Moderate Aircraft
Noise Area
Business (except the
City Centre)
Emphasis on public transport
Retail and office controls
Design controls
Height controls
Air quality overlays around and within the Heavy Industry zone
Industrial activities in the Light Industry zone
City Centre
Height (mainly in the waterfront precincts e.g. Wynyard, Viaduct,
Britomart, Port and Quay Park), including Auckland Councils
submission relating to the Waterfront Building Height and Form
Strategy
Changes to the Port precinct provisions
Contaminated land Contaminated land controls
Designations
Various issues depending on the nature and location of the notice
of requirement or designation
Earthworks Earthworks controls
General Lighting Lighting controls, especially those that affect active recreation
General - Noise and
Vibration Noise controls and associated policies
General - Temporary
Activities
Temporary activity rules and their relationship to stadiums and
showgrounds
Temporary activities on private land
Historic Heritage
Overall policy approach
New scheduled items and removal of existing scheduled
items
Infrastructure
Sustainable management of significant infrastructure
Alignment between the policy framework and the provisions
for managing significant infrastructure
Recognition of significant infrastructure in policies and rules
Mana Whenua
Cultural Impact Assessments
Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua
Development of Maori and Treaty Settlement land
Natural Hazards and
Flooding
Overall policy approach to natural hazards and flooding
Rules relating to natural hazards and flooding
Natural Heritage
Landscapes
Overall policy approach
Submissions seeking identification of new types of landscapes

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 11

Public Open Space
Zones
Development of public open space (e.g. buildings and structures)
and issues of consultation and public notification
Activity status of different activities (e.g. commercial activities such
as cafes)
Acquisition of additional public open space, the timing and
sequencing of acquiring public open space
Development of additional recreation facilities
Impervious area and site coverage controls
Lighting controls
Special Purpose - Major
Recreation Facilities
Multi-purpose use of major recreation facilities
Activities and activity status

RPS Managing
Growth
Timing of release of land for growth which greenfield areas will be
released first and when?
Provision of infrastructure
Location of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) including proposals
for major new areas within the RUB
Residential zones
Retained affordable housing provisions
Density and minimum lot size
Minor household units
Intensification and character
Development controls
Notification
Design related rules (e.g. universal design, sustainable design,
services and waste, minimum room dimensions, dwelling size)
Social infrastructure
(Special Purpose)
Requirement for new social infrastructure as Auckland grows and
intensifies, especially schools
Activities and activity status especially in the Tertiary Education
zone
Precinct versus zone approach for schools and tertiary education
institutes
Tertiarty education facilities within high noise areas
Dwellings in the School zone
Places of worship new precinct or zone
Height in the Healthcare Facility zone
Activity status of new buildings in the Healthcare Facility zone
Residential development in the Healthcare Facility zone
Concept plans for various healthcare facility sites (e.g. Auckland
Hospital)
Special Character
Overlays
Location of the Special Character overlay including requests to
delete areas and add new areas (e.g. Hill Park Manurewa, Point
Chevalier, Howick, Devonport (new areas), St Heliers, City Centre,
Tamaki Drive)
Rules relating to significant infrastructure
Activity status for demolition, alterations and new buildings
Notification
Pre-1944 Building
Demolition
Overall policy approach
Location of the Pre-1944 Building Demolition overlay
Notification
Precincts
Removal of precincts
Amendments to precincts
New precincts


I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 12

Subdivision
Minimum site size for subdivision in the residential zones -
particularly Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed
Housing Urban
Rear site/access to rear site rules
Rural subdivision
Overall policy approach
Activity status
Minimum lot size
Transferable rural site subdivision provisions
Stormwater
Overall policy approach
Activity status for development in flood plains and Stormwater
Management (Flow) areas
Sustainable
development Sustainable design controls
Transport
Emphasis on public and alternative forms of transport
High Land Transport Noise overlay
Integrated Transport Assessments
Parking maximum/minimum approach
Cycle parking and end of trip facilities
Vehicle access
Traffic Generation Control
Use of designations within the road corridor
Strategic Transport Corridor zone
Trees
Controls on pruning and removal
New notable trees and removal of trees from the schedule
Vegetation Management
and Significant
Ecological Areas
Overall policy approach including rules
Site-specific submissions
Volcanic Viewshafts and
Height Sensitive Areas
rules Height controls within the viewshafts and height sensitive areas
Waitakere Ranges Various provisions
Water Policy approach and rules
Zoning
Various - largest volume of submission points across all themes
and topics

19. In order to respond to the sheer volume of issues raised in the submissions and the required
pace of the hearings process, it is recommended that the committee confirms this initial list
of key issues as its work programme. As long as the general approach in the PAUP is
maintained, it is also recommended that the committee authorises senior planning staff to
work with the councils legal team to present the councils case in respect of the remaining
issues raised in the submissions. Where additional matters become of interest during the
course of the hearings, the committee can clearly call in those matters for political
direction. Similarly, where senior planning staff believe the council should depart from the
general approach contained in the PAUP, a workshop would need to be held with the
Unitary Plan Committee and a report prepared outlining the recommended change in
approach.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
20. The views of local boards are able to be represented by the invitation extended to all local
board chairs to attend the Unitary Plan Committee.
I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 13

Maori impact statement
21. If the Unitary Plan Committee accepts the recommended work programme discussed in this
report, then many of the key issues of interest to Maori raised in submissions on the PAUP
will be considered by the committee at the appropriate time in the overall hearings schedule.
It is considered that there are no other impacts on Maori arising from the recommendations
made in this report.
Implementation
22. The recommendations made in this report can be implemented within the existing Unitary
Plan budget and staff resources.


Attachments
No. Title Page
A IHP Procedures Manual 15

Signatories
Authors John Duguid - Manager Plan Development
Authorisers Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 15


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 16


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 17


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 18


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 19


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 20


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 21


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 22


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 23


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 24


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 25


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 26


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 27


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 28


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 29


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 30


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 31


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Unitary Plan update Page 32


I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 33

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and
model overview

File No.: CP2014/13879

Purpose
1. To update the Unitary Plan Committee on the capacity modelling undertaken using the
provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The report outlines the modelling
results, discusses the model itself and outlines how it can be used to inform decision-
making.
Executive summary
2. Auckland Councils Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) developed a
computer model that calculates the number and location of possible additional residential
dwellings and business floor space enabled by the PAUP zoning framework. The analysis
concluded that the PAUP enables between an additional 258,518 and 417,045 dwellings
and in business areas an additional 22 million square metres of floor space.
3. The model allows for key PAUP planning rules and development controls, such as lot sizes,
yard/boundary set-backs and driveway widths, to be evaluated.

Recommendations
That the Unitary Plan Committee:
a) receive the report
b) note that the model is a useful decision support tool, and that it has, and will be, used
to support decision-making
c) note that results and methodology and assumptions technical reports will be
published soon
d) note that work is underway to refine and improve understanding of enabled growth
potential by utilising and refining the model outputs.

Background
4. The Capacity for Growth Studies (CfGS) are snapshots that seek to measure the amount of
additional residential and business development that the operative plans enable at a given
point in time.
5. The 2012 (operative legacy district plans) study involved the development of a model which
combines corporate geospatial information (for example, building footprints and planning
rules such as subdivision and some bulk and location provisions), in order to determine the
amount of additional residential and business development enabled under those operative
planning provisions. The 2012 results report and methodology and assumptions report were
published in April 2013 as Auckland Council technical reports, TR2013/010 and TR2013/009
respectively.
6. Following the completion of the 2012 work, a new model was commissioned to reflect the
PAUP. Model building commenced in September 2013 and final data outputs were
completed in May 2014. Staff involved in developing the Unitary Plan assisted in the
interpretation of rules which inform how the model works.
7. The results of the PAUP model are a measure of what the PAUP enables; it produces a
census of all land and its development potential. The results are not a measure of whether
development will or might happen in a given location; rather they indicate what has been
enabled by the relevant plan rules (i.e, what the council has allowed to happen).
I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 34

8. Two reports are currently being peer reviewed (including internal and external review), and
will shortly be published as Auckland Council technical reports. The first report will outline
the results, and the second will detail the methodology and modelling assumptions.
Capacity model overview
9. The model works by taking spatial data, such as building footprints, and applying the PAUP
sub-division and development control rules to each property, using zone, precincts and
selected overlays. Analysis is largely undertaken at the parcel level within the urban area
and at the title scale for the rural area (exceptions apply for various structure plans and
special areas), meaning that results can be aggregated into other larger spatial units such as
local board areas.
10. The model calculates development capacity in either a residential, business, rural or special
area (i.e, locations that are not modelled and are a combination of the previous three types)
category. Each of these categories is further assessed based on the individual rules that
apply, the nature of the site (vacant or otherwise), and/or the type of development approach
(infill or redevelopment).
11. The rules used for modelling are the highest consent category in the plan where clear
parameters are outlined. In the PAUP this is almost always the rule text as written. The
development consent category ranges from Permitted to Discretionary, although most are
Controlled or Limited Discretionary Activities. Open ended parameters have been modelled
assuming an assumed proxy limit. For example, sites in the Mixed Housing unlimited
density zone have an average density of 110 square metres per dwelling, based on design
led worked examples from Jasmax and Auckland Councils Built Environment Unit. Almost
all of these rule parameter values can be varied if required.
12. Residential capacity is reported as the number of additional dwelling units that could be built
under the PAUP planning rules. Business land capacity is measured by area of business
zoned land free of buildings (as hectares, split into vacant and vacant potential). Business
redevelopment capacity measures capacity for additional floor space on business zoned
parcels (converted to capacity for employees and/or dwellings). Rural capacity is reported as
additional dwellings (and a new PAUP provision, potential TRSS donor or receiver status).
Special areas are reported based on the nature of their intended final land use (residential,
business, rural or a mix of all of them) based on a review of the relevant documentation
rather than modelled outputs.
13. Residential development capacity is reported as two totals, based on the net potential
increase in dwellings depending on the development approach taken:
Infill development is where existing development (if any) on a site remains in place and
new dwellings fit around it.
Redevelopment is where existing development is removed and the site developed in
accordance with the development controls.
This range reflects the fact that some sites may have many possible (re)development
outcomes.
14. The model uses the cadastral pattern as at 30 September 2013. This is significant, as some
of the widespread development outcomes encouraged by the Mixed Housing and THAB
(Terraced Housing and Apartment Building) zones are premised on changes to the
underlying parcel configuration, through site amalgamation, to achieve the minimum site
frontage and area requirements necessary to enable the higher density provisions in these
zones to be utilised.
15. Details of how the model is constructed, its underlying assumptions and operations are
included in the forthcoming technical reports.
I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 35


Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan capacity results
16. The model suggests that the PAUP provides residential capacity for between 258,518 and
417,045 additional dwellings, with the opportunities for :
207,795 to 359,018 additional dwellings within the urban area (inside the
Metropolitan Urban Limits as at 1 November 2010).
34,323 to 41,627 additional dwellings within rural towns.
16,400 additional dwellings within the rural area.
17. In addition to this capacity there may also be opportunities to yield further dwellings through
other means, including:
The amalgamation of parcels in order to create sites that would allow the yielding of
a greater number of dwellings.
The residential conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings could yield an additional
214,868 dwellings (only from those parcels/dwellings where no other development
opportunity exists).
18. The following points should be noted:
The results include residential capacity in town centres and relevant business areas,
but use a modified or more 'realistic' capacity measure and not the maximum capacity
allowed under the PAUP.
The above results do not include future capacity that will eventually be provided for in
Future Urban Zoned areas. These areas are collectively expected to accommodate
approximately 90,000 dwellings (Auckland Plan, 2013).
19. The PAUP provides for a total of 7884 hectares of business zoned land:
Of this business land, 1312 hectares was assessed as being currently vacant.
If all modelled land was redeveloped in business areas and centres (under a modified,
'realistic' scenario) it could provide an additional 22,519,499 square metres of floor
space.
Model uses: scenario testing

20. The model can be used to show the potential effects of variations in various modelled rules
on growth and development potential. For example, between the draft and the proposed
versions of the Unitary Plan, the minimum net site area for new vacant sites in the Single
House Zone (SHZ) changed from 500 to 600 square metres. Looking at the effect of this
change in a selected set of parcels (see Appendix A), where the SHZ rules are applied
(unmodified by Precincts or Overlays under both plans), shows that in this area, a 20 per
cent increase in site size resulted in a 60 per cent reduction.
21. While this is a small example, it illustrates the models ability to show the effects of PAUP
rules. It represents a significant improvement on more generalised or rule of thumb
approaches. It also shows that the key to releasing (or controlling) plan enabled capacity for
development is the relative fit between the rules applied and the existing development and
cadastral pattern.
22. A wide variety of rule based parameters can be varied, depending on the zone for modelling
purposes. For standard residential zones, this includes minimum site area, setbacks and
driveway widths, for more intensive zones, minimum frontage, site area and expected
density/dwelling gross floor area, and in business areas, height limits, setback and other
bulk and location controls can be easily varied. Other spatial features can also be changed
such as the extent of a zone or overlay.
I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 36

23. This models capability has wide monitoring and research application; being able to show
what the potential impacts of different rules at a site, neighbourhood, or for the region, is of
considerable use.
Intended uses of the study results
24. The CfGS is a key input into a range of councils land use, transport and infrastructure
planning and financial decision-making processes. These include satisfying Resource
Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002 statutory requirements for land use
monitoring, updates and forecasts; Watercare Services Limited have used the outputs for
their Demand Model and Local Upgrades and Project Planning work and the data is used a
key input for Auckland Councils transport modelling work. Work is also underway with
private sector agencies to develop and refine the overall analysis.
Key modelling considerations and future work
25. The outputs of the model are not growth projections. The outputs are a measurement of
what the planning system allows to happen, but this is only one (albeit major) factor
influencing what might actually happen. Total plan-enabled capacity is highly unlikely to be
taken up for a wide variety of reasons, including various physical or spatial constraints not
considered in the modelling, personal land owner preferences, and wider economic and
market factors.
26. A better understanding of these various reasons and factors, and how they will influence
what is realistically likely to happen, is a key part of ongoing work.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
27. Results from the CfGS are available at a local board level and can be communicated on
request. Once approved for publication, the CfGS technical reports will be publicly available
in hard copy or from Auckland Councils website.
Maori impact statement
28. It is considered that there are no specific impacts on Maori arising from any decisions made
by the Unitary Plan Committee in response to this report.
Implementation
29. The recommendations contained in this report can be implemented within the existing RIMU
budget and staff resources.

Attachments
No. Title Page
A Indicative Example -Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development
capacity results. Scenario testing example
37

Signatories
Authors Regan Solomon- Manager, Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit.
Authorisers Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 37

Attachment
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Development Capacity Results
Scenario testing example: Impact of a change in minimum net site area from 500 square metres to
600 square metres in the Single House Zone (SHZ), on residential redevelopment capacity.
The following is a worked example of the models capability to investigate variation in rule
parameters on development potential.

Figure 1 below shows an overview of the example area (Glendowie around Churchill Park). This
area was chosen as it is a relatively contiguous area of SHZ with notable development potential
under both the Draft and Proposed Unitary Plans (UP). Care should be taken before conflating
results from this specific location to other similarly zoned locations.

Figure 1: Study Area, valid model developable input parcels and PAUP base zoning

Some variation between the spatial extent of Zones, Precincts and Overlays between the Draft
and Proposed UP means only a subset of sites in the study area are directly comparable.

Figure 2 below shows the extent of the parcels in the study area fitting this SHZ zoning criteria.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 38


Figure 2: Parcels modelled as unmodified SHZ in both the Draft and Proposed UP (n = 1069
parcels, existing dwelling count = 1141)


In this example, the variation investigated is a change from a 500 square metres minimum net site
area (as per the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan) to 600 square metre minimum net site area (as per
the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan). In this instance the results are compared between the Draft
AUP Model outputs and the PAUP Model outputs for sites that were modelled as unmodified
Single House Zone (no precincts or overlays) in both plans. Figure 3 below shows the lot size
distribution of parcels in this sample set.

Figure 3: Parcel size distribution


@ 500m2, Number of
sufficiently size d candidates =
143
@ 600m2, Number of
sufficiently sized Candidates =
69
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 39

While the physical arrangement of the parcel size and number of existing dwellings will actually
determine the yield resulting from the models analysis, the probable effect on potential candidate
population from change in minimum net site area is discernable from this graph. The histogram
also reveals that the area is dominated by sites between 800 square metres and 900 square
metres (the mode (and median) is 809 square metres, or one fifth of an acre) reflecting the age
the area was originally laid out, and contributing to its character.

This suggests that if widespread infill development was to be facilitated in this area, that a
minimum site size around half or less of this common size would create considerable capacity.
Equally, a site size larger than this will tend to reduce infill opportunities, but not at a linear rate
relative to minimum site size, as larger site sizes are increasingly rare, as our analysis will show.

Figures 4 and 5 below show parcels that are modelled redevelopment candidates (with a net
dwelling yield equal to or greater than one) at a minimum net site area of 500 square metres and
600 square metres respectively.

Figure 4: Modelled redevelopment parcels at 500 square metres (n = 109, Dwelling Yield =
121)

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 40


Figure 5: Modelled redevelopment Sites at 600 square metres (n = 45, Yield = 49)

Figure 6 Shows both analyses, with one per 660 square metres (1:600) (red) on top, with those
remaining blue sites that are visible being those developable at one per 550 square metres
(1:500) that are no longer developable at one per 600 square metres (1:600).

Figure 6: Comparative analysis 500 square metres (blue) versus 600 square metres (red)

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Unitary Plan Committee
08 July 2014



Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development capacity results and model overview Page 41


Figure 7 below shows the effect on redevelopment candidates, dropping by from 109 of 1069 (or
around 10 per cent of parcels) to 49 of 1069 (or less than 5 per cent).
The impact on potential development opportunities also reduces from an additional 121 dwellings
to 49, a reduction of nearly 60 per cent, from a site size increase of 20 per cent.
Figure 7: Effect on redevelopment yield
960
Non Redev
1024
Non Redev
1141
Existing
Dwellings
1141
Existing
Dwellings
109
Redev
Candidates
45
Redev
Candidates
121
Addtional
Dwellings
49
Addtional
Dwellings
800
1000
1200
1400
Potential Candidate
Parcels @500m2
(Draft)
Potential Candidate
Parcels @600m2
(PAUP)
Modelled Addtional
Dwellings @500m2
(Draft)
Modelled Additional
Dwellings @600m2
(PAUP)
Effect on Redevelopment Potential
Minimum Lot Size Change: 500m to 600m
(Potential Candidate Parcels and Net dwelling yeild)