Auckland Development Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held
on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday, 13 August 2015

9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Cr Chris Darby
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Mayor Len Brown, JP
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
Member Liane Ngamane
Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Member David Taipari
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr Penny Webster
Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 11 members)
Tam White
Democracy Advisor
7 August 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: Tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of
economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will
guide 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 these
activities. Key responsibilities include:
Unitary Plan
Plan changes to operative plans
Designation of Special Housing Areas
Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing
Spatial Plans including Area Plans
City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects
Tamaki regeneration projects
Built Heritage
Urban design
Powers
(i)
All powers necessary to perform the 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 explicitly limited to making a recommendation

only
(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 the
next meeting of that other committee.
(iv)
Power to establish subcommittees.
Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution
is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where access to the
information is required in order for a person to perform their role.
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary
for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must
leave the room for any other confidential items.
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a
Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave
the room.
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not
members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Independent Mori Statutory Board
Members of the Independent Mori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the
committee remain.
Independent Mori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for
them to perform their role.
Staff
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their
role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local
Board area.
Council Controlled Organisations
Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for

discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

13 August 2015
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
5.1
Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Reports Pending Status Update
10
Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015
17
11
Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework Consultation Document
19
12
Auckland Councils submission to the Productivity Commissions Using

Land for Housing Draft Report
25
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3): Auckland

Councils Submission
61
13
14
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
15
Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public
63
C1
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update
63
C2
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Hearings Panel - Historic/Special Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition
Control Overlay
64
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Hearings Panel - Viewshafts
64
C3
Page 5

13 August 2015
1
Apologies
Apologies from Cr MP Webster and Cr SL Stewart have been received.
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.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Auckland Development Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 7 July 2015, including
the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Public Input
Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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.
5.1
Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange
Purpose
1.
Ben Ross will address the committee in relation to the Manukau Interchange project.
Recommendation/s
a)
thank Ben Ross for his attendance and presentation.
Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 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 one (1) 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
Page 7

13 August 2015
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)
(b)
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
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.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 8

13 August 2015
Item 9

File No.: CP2015/14971
Purpose
1.
To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions

from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.
Executive Summary
2.
This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with
greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It
updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions
from February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.
3.
This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in the
confidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.
4.
The committees Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information
(Attachment B).
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the reports pending status update.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 13

August 2015
11
Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme

2015/2016 - Augst 2015
13
Signatories
Author
Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
Page 9
Attachment A
Item 9

13 August 2015
Page 11
Attachment B
Item 9

13 August 2015
Page 13
Attachment B
Item 9

13 August 2015
Page 14
Attachment B
Item 9

13 August 2015
Page 15
Attachment B
Item 9

13 August 2015
Page 16

13 August 2015
Item 10

File No.: CP2015/15473
Purpose
1.
To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may
have been distributed to committee members since 7 July 2015.
Executive Summary
2.
This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information
circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are
required.
3.
The following presentations were presented as follows:

5 August 2015 : Development Auckland
5 August 2015 : Britomart Precinct opportunities. The information was not available
when the agenda went to print and will be available prior to the meeting.
4.
These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the
following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
5.
o at the top of the page, select meeting Auckland Development Committee from the
drop-down tab and click View;
o Under Attachments, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled
Extra Attachments
Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about
these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions
to the authors.
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the summary of information memos and briefings 13 August 2015.
Attachments
No.
Title
5 August 2015 : Development Auckland presentation (Under Separate

Cover)
Page
Signatories
Author
Authoriser
Page 17

13 August 2015
Item 11

File No.: CP2015/15462
Purpose
1.
To seek Auckland Development Committee approval for the release of Towards an Aotea
Quarter Framework Consultation Document for public and stakeholder engagement, as
the next step towards adoption of the Framework in late 2015.
Executive Summary
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Since 2005 Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council) has being working with
relevant stakeholders, through the Aotea Quarter Plan 2007, to enhance the foundations of
the Aotea Quarter and thereby its role as the arts, civic and cultural heart of the city centre
and region.
The Aotea Quarter Framework (the Framework) will seek to update and advance the
strategic direction for the area set down in the Aotea Quarter Plan and more recently the
City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) 2012. Reflecting the changing nature of the area and the
transformation yet to occur, the Framework will provide the direction for the Quarter over the
next 20 years.
The geographic coverage of the Framework area reflects the Quarter boundary set down in
the CCMP 2012. This is more expansive than the previous Aotea Quarter Plan, extending
beyond the core centred on Aotea Square to include the wider hinterland (see Attachment C
- Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary).
Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework Consultation Document (see Attachment A Summary Document Text and Attachment B Full Document) builds on the conversation
with many of the key stakeholders and partners that has occurred over the first half of 2015.
It seeks to capture the main issues and opportunities affecting the area, presenting a
strategic vision and set of future state outcomes alongside key ideas to be tested via the
engagement process prior to the release of the final Framework in late 2015. Specifically,
the document reveals the opportunities for development and enhancement related to
underutilised council group owned sites in the Quarter core, most notably the Civic
Administration Building (CAB), 1 Greys Avenue and surrounds.
Consultation from September 2015 will include further specific engagement with key
stakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focus groups with key interests
(residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general public consultation through
Shape Auckland and social media.
The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means of
supporting Auckland Council Property Limiteds (ACPLs) parallel process of seeking private
sector Expressions of Interest to invest in the refurbishment of the CAB and development of
the surrounding land. (Auckland Development Committee Resolution number
AUC/2015/148)
Recommendation/s
a)
approve the release of Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework Consultation
Document for stakeholder and community engagement, subject to amendments or
feedback from the meeting.
b)
authorise the delegation of any editorial changes to the Towards an Aotea Quarter
Framework Consultation Document to the chair and deputy of the Auckland
Development Committee.
Page 19

13 August 2015
Item 11
Comments
8.
Preparation of the Framework is being co-ordinated by the councils City Centre Integration
team, which was established in 2014 as a means of coordinating the council group activity in
the city centre and ensuring engagement with partners, key stakeholders and the public. The
Framework will be a non-statutory plan that presents a 20-year strategic vision and direction
for the Quarter. It is intended to provide the context for council policy and strategy
development, establish priorities for action and will inform future investment and decisionmaking.
9.
The Aotea Quarter Plan 2007 established a strategic vision and set of objectives for the
Aotea Quarter area as geographically defined at that time. The Plan was translated into an
Aotea Quarter Action Plan (2010-15), which established a detailed delivery programme.
Many significant schemes were delivered through the Action Plan, including the new Q
Theatre and the upgrade of the Art Gallery, Aotea Square, Queen Street, Lorne Street,
Khartoum Place and Bledisloe Lane, as well as many soft initiatives aimed at furthering the
identity of the area to reflect the vision and achieve greater place activation.
10.
The CCMP 2012 recognised that ongoing attention and investment was required in the
Aotea Quarter to uplift and rejuvenate the vitality and vibrancy of the mid-city area and
prepare it for the transformation set to occur as a consequence of the CRL Aotea Station.
11.
The purpose of the Framework is to allow the council, its partners and stakeholders to
reaffirm the strategic vision for the Quarter. It is intended that the Framework is holistic in
nature. It will, however, have a particular focus on physical interventions, including
opportunities to further improve the public realm and unlock the development potential of key
development sites within the Quarter (predominantly council owned) that are capable of
contributing to the overall vision.
12.
The CCMP amended the Quarter boundary to extend beyond the Quarter core, reflecting the
emerging importance of the hinterland to the overall vision (see Attachment C - Aotea
Quarter Framework Boundary).
13.
Key factors identified in the CCMP 2012 that the Framework needs to respond to include:
a. Identification of the area as a future development growth node associated with the CRL
Aotea Station to be located in the heart of the Quarter. The station, programmed to
open in 2023, will stimulate an additional 73,000sqm of residential net floor area (1,825
additional residents) and 249,000sqm of commercial net floor area (12,450 additional
workers) in the Quarter;
b. Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA), as owners and managers or the Aotea Centre and
Aotea Square, plans to enhance the arts and performance offer within and around the
Aotea Centre. Plans combine extensive renewals (building upgrade and reskinning) the
existing Aotea Centre with expansion to include new rehearsal and practice spaces in an
activated and accessible building;
c. Continued relocation of commercial office space from the Aotea Quarter to the waterfront
and downtown area;
d.
Consolidation of many council staff in the Quarter in the 135 Albert Street building
and the associated examination of potential future uses of the councils land/property
holdings in the area, most notably the CAB site, the South Town Hall (surface) car park
accessed from Greys Avenue and the West Bledisloe surface car park (behind Bledisloe
House);
e. Ongoing investment by the two universities (University of Auckland and AUT) in the area
in the form of new buildings.
Page 20
14.
Since the release of the CCMP 2012, the following additional factors affecting the Quarter
have emerged:
a. A new regulatory planning framework for the Quarter through the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan which deals with matters such as height limits and noise standards.
b. The need for anchoring and growing the Quarter as the enduring home of the arts,
culture and entertainment activities in light of the Auckland Theatre Companys move to
Wynyard Quarter.
c. Application of the Te Aranga Mori design principles to understand opportunities for
representing our unique and diverse cultural landscape.
d. Rapid expansion of a residential neighbourhood populating repurposed office buildings
on the fringes of the Quarter together with some significant new apartment tower
developments peppered throughout the area.
e. A City Centre Transport Framework which seeks to define the functional role and
character of the primary streets through the city centre i.e. Wellesley Street as a civic
public transport street and Mayoral Drive as an east-west connector.
f.
Significant investment in Myers Park as a vital green public open space, including the
proposed upgrade to the Myers Park underpass (due for completion mid 2016) to
improve safety and links between St Kevins Arcade, Myers Park, Aotea Square and
beyond.
g. Recent proposals for Light Rail Transit up Queen Street, including at least one stop in
the Quarter on Queen Street.
h. The re-opening of the St James Theatre and 300 apartment suites.
i.
The development of a City Centre Place Activation Strategy to inform a programme of

work to be funded from the City Centre Targeted Rate. The programme is intended to
generate activation within the city centre, in order to create meaningful and attractive
places.
15.
The Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework Consultation Document (see Attachment A

Summary Document Text and Attachment B Full Document) builds on the conversation
with many of the partners and key stakeholders that has occurred over the first half of 2015,
together with an Auckland Development Committee workshop on 30 June 2015.
16.
The Consultation Document and summary version seek to capture the main issues and
opportunities affecting the area and presents a strategic vision and set of future state
outcomes alongside key ideas to be tested prior to the release of the final Framework in late
2015. The strategic vision is as follows:
The Aotea Quarter is the arts, culture and civic heart for the people of Tamaki MakaurauAuckland:
A vibrant, resilient and unique place to indulge the senses, express creativity, and
celebrate our indigenous & diverse cultures.
17.
To give effect to the vision, four key themes or future outcomes have been identified:
a. The Quarter core as the enduring home for the arts, culture, entertainment and civic life,
creating a unique destination experience and brand.
b. Liveable, vibrant and diverse inner-city neighbourhoods engaging with and supporting
the Quarter core.
c. A public transport node that improves accessibility, supports growth and enables high
quality development.
d. Spaces and buildings that lead and showcase Aucklands drive for sustainability and
celebrate its unique cultural identity through the Te Aranga Mori design principles.
Page 21
Item 11

13 August 2015

13 August 2015
These outcomes and many other aspects of the emerging Framework will be tested through
the consultation process scheduled to occur during September 2015. It will include further
specific engagement with key stakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focus
groups with key interests (residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general public
consultation through Shape Auckland and social media.
19.
The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means of
supporting the ACPL-led parallel process of seeking private sector Expressions of Interest
relating to investment in the refurbishment of the CAB and development of the surrounding
land, as supported by the Auckland Development Committee at its July 2015 meeting
(Resolution number AUC/2015/148)
Item 11
18.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
20.
The need for the Framework was flagged by the Waitemat Local Board (WLB) during
2013/14 as a means of capturing their local place-making objectives and the broader context
for change in the area.
21.
The WLB has been involved in the development of the Framework through a series of
workshops and the provision of informal feedback on related discussion papers.
22.
Specific feedback has been given on the relationship to Myers Park and related expectations
on any future development outcomes for the South Town Hall site i.e. minimisation of
shading affects, legibility and visual connection to Myers Park and Aotea Square and
promotion of land-uses that activate the area and support the creative cluster.
23.
More generally, the WLB have registered an expectation the development on identified
opportunity sites, including the CAB, would support the overall outcomes stated for the area
and have a preference for ensuring the Council retain long-term control of the public space
and sites i.e. freehold ownership.
Mori impact statement

24.
Krero with Mana Whenua on the Framework has taken place over the past few months with
three specific CCI City Centre Hui taking place (all 19 iwi are invited with typically between
6-8 represented, including Ngti Tamaoho, Ngti Paoa, Ngti Whtua, Ngti Maru, Ngti Te
Ata and Ngi Tai Ki Tmaki). Through this krero, the vision has been amended to better
reflect the importance of indigenous culture to the Quarter, a future outcome introduced
relating to the Te Aranga Mori Design principles with an associated section on their
application to physical projects and a draft map covering sites of cultural significance
developed. Further krero will continue through the public consultation process.
25.
The draft Consultation Document was presented to the Independent Mori Statutory Board
(IMSB) on 3 August 2015. Feedback from IMSB will be tabled at the meeting.
Implementation
26.
The final Framework, scheduled for adoption late 2015, will include a comprehensive
delivery section to include an implementation programme for identified projects.
Page 22
Attachments
No.
Title
Aotea Quarter Framework Summary (Under Separate Cover)
Aotea Quarter Framework (Under Separate Cover)
Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary (Under Separate Cover)
Page
Signatories
Author
Tim Watts City Centre Design and Delivery Manager
Authorisers
Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Page 23
Item 11

13 August 2015

13 August 2015
Item 12
Auckland Councils submission to the Productivity Commissions

Using Land for Housing Draft Report
File No.: CP2015/12650
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Councils submission to the
Productivity Commission in response to its Using land for housing draft report.
Executive Summary
2.
In June 2015 the Productivity Commission (the commission) released its Draft Report (the
draft report) on the Using land for housing inquiry.
3.
There are many areas of the draft report that the council can support, and is already taking
action on. However there are some propositions that have the potential to undermine the
ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.
4.
Neither the council nor central government can independently resolve the housing issues
Auckland faces. Greater collaboration with central government is essential to addressing
housing supply issues.
5.
A growing city delivers benefits for economic growth and some economies of scale in the
provision of services. However, a larger population also provides service delivery challenges
such as managing transport congestion, and increases the costs of building and operating
assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.
6.
Within this context it is proposed that the following key messages are included in the
councils submission:
a.
b.
c.
a strong partnership with central government is required to solve Aucklands housing

challenges, and central government has existing levers which can be used to good
effect. It is therefore proposed that the council:
i.
supports a more integrated planning framework
ii.
does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development

Authority in Auckland but supports working alongside central government to
achieve the objectives of Development Auckland
iii.
advocates for a full assessment of central and local government levers before
concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.
the planning system needs some changes. It is therefore proposed that the council:
i.
encourages early engagement ahead of notification
ii.
supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in regulatory

policy development
iii.
opposes limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to

local issues.
there are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships. It is

therefore proposed that the council:
i.
7.
supports partnership with private sector including iwi and central government to
finance infrastructure.
The councils response to the commission is due on 14 August 2015 and is set out in the
draft submission (Attachment A).
Auckland Councils submission to the Productivity Commissions Using Land for Housing Draft
Report
Page 25
Item 12

13 August 2015
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse Auckland Councils submission to the Productivity Commissions Using land

for housing draft report, which includes the councils responses to the commissions
findings, recommendations and questions.
b)
authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve the
councils submission on the Productivity Commissions Using land for housing draft
report.
Comments
The Inquiry
8.
The government has asked the Productivity Commission to review the local planning and
development systems of New Zealands fastest-growing urban areas and identify leading
practices that are effective in making land and development capacity available to meet
housing demand. This review is known as the Using land for housing inquiry.
9.
In January 2015 the council made a submission on the issues paper in relation to the
inquiry. In June, the Commission released its draft findings and recommendations in the
Using land for housing draft report. The commission will present its final report to
government by 30 September 2015.
10. The draft report reflects the scope of this inquiry which is to examine the processes and
practices of local planning and development systems. This is to identify leading practices
that enable the timely delivery of housing of the type, location, and quality demanded by
purchasers. The particular focus is on urban growth areas, including any early lessons from
the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
11. The draft report builds on earlier commission reports in the area of housing, land and
regulation such as the Housing affordability report (2012) and the Local government
regulation report (2013).
12. The scope of the inquiry excludes a review of the role and purpose of the RMA, and of the
Building Act and related building consent applications processes. It also excludes changes
to the ownership of local authority infrastructure assets.
13. The inquiry does however include consideration of the funding and governance of local
infrastructure assets and provisions of the RMA and Building Act which could be changed
without fundamentally altering the role or purpose of those Acts. The draft report makes 120
findings, 38 recommendations and asks 37 questions.
Auckland Councils response
14. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop the draft
submission attached at Appendix A. The following section proposes the key messages and
major points to be included in the submission.
A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Aucklands housing challenges,
and central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect.
The draft submission proposes that:
15. The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housing
supply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither the council nor central government
can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiterates
the importance of working and engaging with Mori across this issue.
16. The council agrees with the commissions approach in trying to identify options for local and
central government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that central
government has a range of levers that it can use. The council would advocate for a full
assessment of the combined central and local government levers before concluding that
direct ministerial intervention is required.
Report
Page 26
17.
The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes for
communities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.
18.
The council does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development
Authority in Auckland but supports central government undertaking complementary activities
and working alongside Development Auckland.
19.
The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy
formulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery may have
spatial impacts within Auckland.
The planning system needs some changes.

20.
The council supports the commissions view that land use and infrastructure planning can be
better integrated thereby improving outcomes on the ground.
21.
The council supports a greater focus and capacity in relation to benefit analysis in policy
development, as well as consideration of public benefits and costs, amenity and community
aspirations. While the council agrees that regulation does add cost to the process, it
considers that the draft reports discussion of regulation is narrowly focused on costs.
22.
The councils position is that local authorities and their communities should make land use
decisions. Similarly the council opposes limitations on its ability to tailor planning rules to
local issues. The council is clear that the Local Government Act 2002 and the RMA confer
particular roles and responsibilities to local authorities. One of these roles is land use
planning in the local context.
23.
The council supports front-loading public consultation and changing the phasing of when
consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities ahead of notification.
There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships

24.
The council supports partnership with the private sector including iwi and central government
to finance infrastructure. The council also considers that there is a role for government to
take in directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater,
using some of the additional income generated by growth.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
25.
The implications of the recommendations contained in the draft report apply across the
region and to all local boards. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend
Auckland Development Committee workshops and to provide feedback.
26.
Informal feedback from the Orkei Local Board has been incorporated into the submission
where appropriate. The feedback covered a range of issues including the importance of
community and local government input into local planning decisions. The board opposes the
removal of controls including minimum apartment sizes and opposes a ministerial power to
direct changes to district plans and regional policy statements.
27.
Feedback from the Papakura Local Board was not received in time to be included in the
body of the submission but is attached to this committee report and will be appended to the
councils submission. The points made by the board include the need for the place-making
role of local boards and locally driven engagement to be recognised in planning processes.
The board opposes the minister having the scope to direct changes to district plans and
regional policy statements. It supports the use of targeted rates for growth enabling
infrastructure on the proviso that communities paying the targeted rates are directly
benefiting from the infrastructure.
Report
Page 27
Item 12

13 August 2015
Item 12

13 August 2015
28.
Other local boards that wish to provide any subsequent views on the draft report have the
opportunity to append their views to the final submission.
Mori impact statement

29.
It is considered that the draft reports implications for Mori affect three key groups: Mori
residents and ratepayers as home owners and renters; Mori as owners of Mori land; and
mana whenua as kaitiaki.
30.
The median personal income for Mori in Auckland is 18% lower than the median annual
personal income for the general regional population. This means that Mori households will
tend to find it harder than many other households to access suitable housing and that they
have a disproportionate need for access to social and affordable housing options. The draft
report proposes inclusionary zoning as a tool that may positively impact on Mori. The
approach taken by the council in its draft submission is that a suite of tools is required to
address the affordability gap.
31.
There may be opportunities for owners of Mori and Treaty settlement land to partner in
investing in infrastructure as noted in the councils draft submission.
32.
The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Mori land
through an Urban Development Agency would face sensitive Treaty issues and the draft
submission proposes that the council agrees with this finding.
33.
The draft report discusses options for achieving a balance between national and local
interests. If this results in greater central government involvement in local planning
decisions, this could potentially impact on the kaitiaki role of mana whenua and the
provisions that the council has sought to put in place to enable mana whenua input into
planning processes. This could also potentially impact on the councils relationships with
mana whenua.
34.
Changes to the planning system and the extent of regulations may have particular impacts
on Mori. For example, a potential reduction in protections for cultural values and cultural
significance, set backs and view shafts, and potential exclusion of Mori interests by limiting
notification along the lines of provisions in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas
Act.
35.
The draft report and summary was distributed to mana whenua and mataawaka for
feedback. At the time of writing no feedback had been received, however the council has
reviewed the submissions that Te Rnanga o Ngti Whtua and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki
Forum have made directly to the commission and the content has been considered in the
preparation of the councils draft submission and this Committee report.
36.
Council staff met with the Independent Mori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff to discuss the
draft report. Feedback from IMSB staff has been considered in the preparation of the
councils draft submission and this Committee report.
Implementation
37.
No implementation issues have been identified.
Report
Page 28
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Auckland Council's submission to the Productivity Commission's Using

land for housing draft report
31
Papakura Local Board formal feedback
59
Signatories
Author
Denise OShaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice
Authorisers
Jacques Victor General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Report
Page 29
Item 12

13 August 2015

13 August 2015
Title: Submission to New Zealand Productivity Commission Draft Report Using land for
housing June 2015
Item 12
Auckland Council Draft Submission 13 August 2015
1.
Auckland Council (the council) welcomes the New Zealand Productivity Commissions
(the commission) timely draft report on Using land for housing.
2.
The council made a submission to the commissions Issues paper for this inquiry in
January 2015.
3.
Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in
Auckland. The council welcomes the broader approach taken by the commission in the
draft report which recognises the critical role of infrastructure and infrastructure
investment, from both a housing pipeline and an affordability perspective. The council
reiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of a range of
solutions needed to address housing affordability.
4.
The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the countrys longterm economic growth and that Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of
national population growth. Auckland will need to build the infrastructure for an urban
area equivalent to one and a half times that of Hamilton to support the additional
greenfield growth provided through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
5.
However, a councils revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic
growth. Therefore the infrastructure investment required to support growth has major
implications for the council with significant consequences for general rates.
6.
There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already
taking action on. For the first time since the Auckland Plan was adopted, Auckland now
has a ready-to-go (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supply of just under 6 years.
Through the Auckland Housing Accord the council and government are committed to
accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable homes.
7.
There are some propositions canvassed in the draft report that the council opposes as
they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.
8.
The council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop this submission.
The councils main messages in response to the inquiry are:
Report
Page 31
Attachment A
1.0 Executive Summary
Item 12

13 August 2015
A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Aucklands housing

challenges, central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect
9.
The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy
formulation and analysis, particularly where there may be spatial impacts within
Auckland.
Attachment A
10. Overall, the council supports the commissions view that a more integrated planning
framework is required. The council has previously provided feedback to government on
the consideration of urban matters in legislative amendments and national policy
proposals and reiterates those positions. The council does not support the establishment
of a central government UDA in Auckland but supports central government undertaking
complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland.
11. The council advocates for a full assessment of the combined central and local
government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required in
local planning matters.
The planning system needs some changes
12. The council has previously provided feedback to government on legislative amendments
to speed up and improve the consenting and plan making processes and reiterates those
positions. This includes the councils support for front-loading public consultation and
changing the phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagement
opportunities ahead of notification. In relation to the impact of regulations, the council
supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in policy
development.
13. The Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 confer on
local authorities the role of land use planning in the local context and it is the councils
overall position that local authorities and their communities should make land use
decisions. The council also confirms its role of tailoring planning rules to local issues and
opposes limitations on its ability to do so.
There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships
14. A growing city delivers agglomeration benefits for economic growth and some economies
of scale in the provision of services. However, a larger population also leads to negative
externalities in service delivery such as transport congestion, and increases the costs of
building and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.
15. The council is looking for financing partners to share some of the risk of infrastructure
investment. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take in
directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using
some of the additional income generated by growth.
16. The council reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commissions issues
paper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to engaging
Mori in the provision of housing.
17. Auckland Council is pleased to submit its response to the Productivity Commissions
Using land for housing draft report for consideration.
Report
Page 32
2.0 Introduction
18. The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the countrys longterm economic growth. Auckland is New Zealands largest city and commercial centre,
with a scale and ethnic diversity that supports critical international connections. It is home
to over a third of New Zealands population, accounts for a third of all national
employment, and contributes 35 per cent of national GDP. The population of Auckland is
expected to exceed 2 million by 2040.
Item 12

13 August 2015
20. It is essential that the right infrastructure is in place to support projected growth. Auckland
will need to build the infrastructure for an urban area equivalent to one and a half times
that of Hamilton to support the additional greenfield growth provided through the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This will require significant investment in infrastructure
(see Appendix A). Bulk infrastructure takes time to plan, design and deliver with long lead
in times and even longer asset lives. This has implications for ongoing operational costs.
21. A councils revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth in
the same way as income taxes and GST. The infrastructure investment required to
support growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for
general rates. Development contributions and targeted rates cannot manage all the
funding impacts.
22. The commission has identified democratic deficits which it believes create a wedge
between local and national interests. The council agrees there is a careful balancing act
required between supporting both national and regional objectives and building alignment
between those objectives. The council continues to engage in different ways with its
communities to ensure there are opportunities for all sectors of the community to
participate more effectively.
23. Councils are best placed to understand their communities and local needs within the
context of land use and infrastructure challenges. This is why it is critical that the council
works in partnership with central government to find solutions to issues of national and
local importance.
24. Accommodating Aucklands growing population and enabling the delivery of more
affordable housing is a priority for the council and Aucklanders. The council shares the
commissions objective of unlocking the potential of Auckland to achieve a strong
economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New
Zealanders. Ensuring an adequate supply of land for housing and enabling multiple
housing options1 to address needs across all income segments is a crucial step in
capturing the significant productivity gains that large cities can generate.
Including apartments, terrace housing, duplexes, townhouses, and stand-alone dwellings
Report
Page 33
Attachment A
19. Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of national growth. The last census
showed that half of New Zealands growth since the previous census was in Auckland
which is projected to account for 70 per cent of growth in the North Island in the next 20
years.
Item 12

13 August 2015
25. Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in
Auckland. These are challenges that many successful international cities continue to
grapple with, and that require action across multiple areas. The council welcomes the
broader approach taken by the commission in the draft report which recognises the
critical role of infrastructure and infrastructure investment, from both a housing pipeline
and affordability perspective.
Attachment A
26. The council reiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of a
range of solutions needed to address housing affordability. Fundamental elements of a
robust long-term housing programme include: making the right decisions about
development location and development sequencing, lowering house build and operating
costs, improving access to finance, raising the capacity and capability of the building
industry to deliver an appropriate range of housing types and supply, and providing
additional support for low-income households. Managing unrealistic expectations and
resistance to change add further complexity to the housing challenges.
27. The council also reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commissions
issues paper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to
engaging Mori in the provision of housing. The councils submission recognises the
critical importance of affordable housing as one of the issues in the The Schedule of
issues of significance to Mori in Tmaki Makaurau.
28. Auckland is already focused on ensuring there is an adequate supply for housing through
releasing land and increasing development capacity. The Auckland Plan sets a target of
an average of 7 years supply (minimum 5 years and maximum 10 years supply) of
ready-to-go (zoned and serviced land). For the first time since the Auckland Plan was
adopted, Auckland now has a ready-to-go (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supply
of just under 6 years, with a further 3.85 years in the pipeline. This brings the total
greenfield supply to 9.34 years.
29. In addition, as part of the Auckland Housing Accord, the council and government are
committed to accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable
homes. This work is happening now and at pace.
This submission
30. There are many areas of the commissions draft report the council supports and is
already taking action on. There are also some propositions canvassed that the council
opposes as they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decisionmaking. It is important to understand any potential cost implications of such proposals.
31. This submission provides a number of recommendations and responses which support
the three key messages outlined in paragraphs 9 - 15. These recommendations are
supported by further information in the body of the submission.
32. The council has considered all the questions, findings and recommendations contained in
the commissions draft report but comments only on the most substantive issues in this
submission document.
Report
Page 34
Recommendations
33. There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already
taking action on. The councils submission has been informed by its experience and
lessons learned post-amalgamation in a way that can constructively support this inquiry.
This experience is of a scale and complexity not otherwise experienced in New Zealand
and includes:
Auckland Plan a fully integrated spatial plan that sets the strategic direction for
Auckland for the next 30 years.
ii. Auckland Unitary Plan a single planning rule-book that incorporated extensive
early pre-notification engagement and use of an independent hearings panel. This
plan will provide for greater intensification and the growth of Auckland.
iii. Auckland Housing Accord including establishment of 86 Special Housing Areas
under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.
iv. Auckland 30 year Infrastructure Strategy.
v. Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy setting the direction on sequencing and
timing of greenfield land development over 30 years. This strategy is currently out for
public consultation.
vi. Forward Land and Infrastructure Programme better intelligence on infrastructure
capacity and integration across infrastructure platforms.
vii. consent approval process (Consenting Made Easy) to speed up and deliver a
consistent quality of consents using customer-centric processes.
viii. Development Auckland establishment of a regional urban development agency.
ix. integrated infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.
x. establishment of spatial priority areas and subsequent targeting of investment.
Item 12

13 August 2015
34. Within this context, the council makes the following recommendations on the questions,
findings and recommendations in the commissions draft report:
Strong partnership with government using levers effectively
xi. Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should be undertaken in the
context of a wider review of the RMA.
xii. Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issues provided it
takes a broader focus than housing/land supply.
xiii. Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable the
Minister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements that
provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.
xiv. Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some aspects of
the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.
xv. Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland; but
support central government undertaking complementary activities and working
alongside Development Auckland to enable the councils agency to achieve its
objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.
xvi. Support improving information quality and sharing between central and local
government.
xvii. Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.
Report
Page 35
Attachment A
i.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Planning system needs some changes

xviii.
Support front-loading public consultation and change in phasing of when

consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities (prenotification) support consultation ahead of notification.
xix.
Support robust cost and benefit analysis of regulation. Much greater focus
needs to be given to building capacity to undertake quantification of benefits
and robust benefit analysis.
Oppose limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules
to local issues, e.g. including rules relating to mandatory apartment
balcony/private open space, and minimum apartment sizes.
Attachment A
xx.
xxi.
Support evaluation of independent hearings panel and independent

commissioners without predetermining the results of that evaluation.
xxii.
Support inclusionary zoning as an important and valid tool to use in

conjunction with other measures to improve retained affordable housing (for
the life of the dwelling).
Generally support intensification where infrastructure capacity is available
but note that infrastructure is only one of a number of considerations.
xxiii.
xxiv.
Agree there is no need for planning controls that duplicate standards

already set by the Building Act. Planning controls do not duplicate those
standards and are only imposed where there are amenity or environmental
protection issues not covered under the Building Act.
xxv.
Oppose the recommendation to review zoning rules for rural land as the
rationale for such a review fails to take into account the full range of reasons
for zoning rural land.
xxvi.
Support alignment of Auckland Transport and Watercare statements of

intent with the Auckland Plan.
Address infrastructure financing through partnerships
xxvii.
Propose partnership with private sector and government to share burden
and risk of financing additional infrastructure.
xxviii.
Direct government funding of some water and wastewater infrastructure
from revenue arising from growth.
xxix.
Provide councils with ability to use value capture rating through targeted
rates mechanism implement by allowing rates to be set on basis of a
change in land value.
xxx.
Support use of motorway pricing and further discussion on road pricing.
xxxi.
Oppose proposal to require councils to consider requests by developers to

build infrastructure funded by targeted rates.
xxxii.
Remove exemption from rates for crown entities, hospitals, schools, ports,
railways, airports.
xxxiii.
Oppose a requirement to shift the basis of general rates from capital value
to land value.
xxxiv.
xxxv.
Oppose price control on Watercare.

Oppose need to include additional information in Development
Contributions policy relating to dwelling floor areas and cost of providing
infrastructure services.
Report
Page 36
Recommendations
Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should be
undertaken in the context of a wider review of the RMA.
Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issues
provided it takes a broader focus than housing/land supply.
Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable the
Minister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements
that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.
Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some
aspects of the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.
Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland;
but support central government undertaking complementary activities and
working alongside Development Auckland to enable the councils agency to
achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.
Support improving information quality and sharing between central and local
government.
Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.
35. The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housing
supply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither council nor central government
can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiterates
the importance of working and engaging with Mori across this issue.
36. The council agrees with the commissions approach in trying to identify options for local
and central government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that
central government has a range of levers that it can use. These include sharing of its
expertise, use of its resources, ability to direct or incentivise crown agencies, and ability
to align funding cycles of key crown agencies to local government funding cycles. The
council would advocate for a full assessment of the combined central and local
government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.
37. The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy
formulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery may
have spatial impacts within Auckland. This engagement could be supported by increasing
levels of central government capability in Auckland as recommended by the McKay
report.2
McKay D, Review of Central Government Policy, Implementation, Strategy and Leadership Effectiveness
in Auckland: Report for Chief Executives Governance Group (August 2014)
Report
Page 37
Attachment A
3.0 Strong partnership with central government using levers effectively
Item 12

13 August 2015
Item 12

13 August 2015
Amend Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to include urban matters

38. The draft report includes a recommendation to clarify the role and importance of housing
and urban environments in the RMA (Recommendation 5.6).
39. The council supports the addition of management of cities and urban matters to the RMA
to better reflect that the majority of New Zealanders live in cities and towns. The council
seeks to work with government to develop appropriate provisions that reflect Aucklands
scope and scale and its diverse range of communities.
40. Any change of this nature to the RMA is best undertaken within the context of a wider,
formal review of the entire RMA, rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. The
government has signalled that this will be part of the future package of resource
management reforms.
Attachment A
41. The council welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with central government on
resource management reforms.
National Policy Statement on urban issues
42. The council would support the development of a National Policy Statement (NPS) on
urban issues provided that it is not narrowly focused on housing/land supply (Question
9.3).
43. The key benefit of clear national direction could be in reducing possible inefficiencies and
duplication that may arise from all high-growth councils addressing similar urban issues
and policy options with their communities.
44. A NPS on urban matters should provide guidance, leaving local authorities to decide
what development occurs at a regional or local level. In Aucklands case, this happens
through the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan.
45. The NPS would be best developed through local and central government working
collaboratively.
46. The council understands there is a concern about the varied approaches taken by local
authorities in relation to papakinga and marae development on Treaty settlement land.
Some national level guidance would be useful and it is suggested that a National Policy
Statement for Mori land use and papakinga development would help to ensure
consistency across local authorities. This could form part of the NPS on urban issues or
be a stand-alone document.
Ministerial powers to direct plan changes
47. The draft report asks whether there would be merit in expanding the existing powers in
the RMA to enable Ministers to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy
Statements that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth
(Question 9.4).
48. The council opposes direct ministerial intervention in this situation. Giving ministers
further powers to intervene in or control aspects of local planning functions could
undermine local autonomy and the accountability of local authorities to their communities.
Report
Page 38
49. Market participants, including developers, organisations and individuals, already have the
option through the private plan change process to test or challenge local government
planning decisions. If the market demands additional housing supply in a particular area,
i.e. development is commercially viable, private plan changes can be used to enable the
market.
Item 12

13 August 2015
50. The ministerial veto power is only one option of many that could be used to address
differences in national and local interests. The council would rather work with central
government to carry out a robust cost and benefit assessment of the wide range of
possible approaches such as developing a NPS before a policy response is selected.
51. Local and central government can and do work collaboratively, avoiding the need for
ministerial intervention. Examples of such collaborative work between Auckland Council
and government include the Auckland Housing Accord and Tamaki Redevelopment
Company activities.
a. greater flexibility
b. greater buy-in
c. increased responsiveness and timeliness
d. more scope to leverage capability and resources
e. the ability to tailor localised solutions to meet local needs and national objectives.
Voluntary legislative avenue for spatial plan

53. The proposed new voluntary legislative avenue to enable more effective planning in high
growth cities contains a number of features set out across four recommendations in the
draft report (Recommendations 3.53.8).
54. The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes
for communities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.
55. The draft report does not comment on how the voluntary legislative avenue discussed in
Recommendations 3.5 to 3.8 might intersect with existing statutory spatial planning
requirements such as those under which Auckland Council operates. The Local
Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to prepare a spatial
plan that contributes to Aucklands social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing through a comprehensive and effective long term (20 30 year) strategy for
Aucklands growth and development. The council consulted extensively with Aucklanders
and stakeholders, including government, during the development of its spatial plan, the
Auckland Plan, and the Plan reflects Auckland community aspirations. The council has
previously advocated for a more integrated planning framework and to give the Auckland
Plan greater statutory weight in relation to the Unitary Plan.
56. The council supports the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue:
a. Better integration of Local Government Act, Land Transport Management Act and
Resource Management Act objectives (spatial planning and water and transport
infrastructure planning, prioritisation, phasing and delivery).
Report
Page 39
Attachment A
52. A collaborative approach between local and central government provides for:
Item 12

13 August 2015
b. Better integration of central government and local government infrastructure
planning and the inclusion of key central government actors whose services matter
for the functioning of cities (Recommendation 3.7). This may help to address the
ongoing challenges of aligning cities longer term development and infrastructure
needs, and central governments shorter term planning and fiscal cycles.
c. Processes being included in the proposed new legislative avenue which encourage
robust regulatory analysis and development similar to those in section 32 of the
Resource Management Act (Recommendation 3.8).
d. Councils undertaking peer review of regulatory proposals within spatial plans
(Finding 3.19). Councils should be able to exercise discretion to determine when
and if peer review could add value and when the costs of peer review are likely to
outweigh the benefits.
Attachment A
e. Allowing councils to opt into the new legislative framework or elect to use the
existing legislative pathways for land development (Recommendation 3.6) to
enable councils to tailor their approach to that which best suits local circumstances.
57. The council does not support the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue
proposal:
a. Narrowing of the scope of spatial plans developed under this option
(Recommendation 3.5 and Finding 3.15) to include the 30 year infrastructure
strategy, longer term transport planning, and longer-term thinking about the growth of
the city and land-use rules.
b. The Auckland Plan is required to integrate broad outcomes across a 30 year
timeframe which enables decision makers to understand impacts at both a temporal
and spatial level. This leads to more informed decision making and risk
management, as trade-off decisions are understood within the wider planning
context. As the only city of international scale in New Zealand, Auckland must
consider and plan for itself in both the global and national context. Aucklands ability
to attract and retain international talent and investment may require a different
approach to that of attracting and retaining talent from within New Zealand. The
Auckland Plan provides a framework by which international, national, regional and
local interests can be considered and balanced in a holistic manner and then
integrated across a wide range of the councils operations and with other
stakeholders.
c. The requirement for spatial plan approval by both Cabinet and the council
(Recommendation 3.7). This could significantly reduce the ability of a council to
make decisions in accordance with the aspirations of its communities. Section 80 of
the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to involve
central government amongst others throughout the preparation and development of
the Plan. Working in partnership would help to ensure the implications of spatial
planning on the financing of central government infrastructure are fully understood.
d. The inclusion of land-use rules in a spatial plan (Finding 3.15). A spatial plan is a
strategy. Adding land-use rules to a spatial plan would significantly increase the
complexity of the proposed spatial plan (even if the scope of the plan was
significantly narrowed) and reduce its accessibility for the community. It would also
duplicate what sits in a district or unitary plan.
Report
Page 40
Urban development agency

58. The council agrees with the commission that there can be high value in urban
development agency models (Recommendation 10.2). During Aucklands Long Term
Plan 2015-2025 process, the establishment of an urban redevelopment agency was one
of four key issues highlighted for feedback. As a result of the Long Term Plan decisions,
Auckland Councils regional urban redevelopment agency, Development Auckland, will
be operational from 1 September 2015.
Item 12

13 August 2015
59. The council does not support the establishment of a central government urban
development agency (UDA) in Auckland. The council does support and believes there is
scope for central government to undertake complementary development activities and to
work alongside Development Auckland. Working together in this way will enable the
councils agency to achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for
Auckland.
a. assembling public landholdings with private landholdings to allow development on

the required scale
b. coordinating and integrating the delivery of infrastructure
c. spatially master planning large-scale residential development projects. This would
involve the removal of planning powers from councils for a limited duration, be
subject to a streamlined planning process and more enabling land use rules
d. partnering with private sector developers to deliver these projects
e. operating under a streamlined planning and consent process
f.
using compulsory land acquisition powers to effect development as necessary.
61. While the council can support some of those activities, it would not support the proposed
removal of planning powers from local government to a UDA as local government is
better placed to undertake local planning. Auckland is currently working through its
Unitary Plan process, an integrated and co-ordinated regional planning mechanism. The
council has a number of other workstreams to support increased re/development
capacity, i.e. the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, the Long Term Plan and the 30
year Infrastructure Strategy. These mechanisms have been developed as part of the
comprehensive planning and funding framework. Transfer of planning powers could
undermine this framework and adversely impact the effort the council has expended to
enable development in a planned, sustainable and phased way across the region.
62. The council also would not support central government independently constructing its
own infrastructure or obliging council infrastructure providers to accept privately provided
assets. Even with significant co-ordination and collaboration this could impact on the
councils planning for and management of its infrastructure networks, and undermine the
councils ability to optimise its operational costs. The council would also be concerned if
this resulted in the reprioritisation of trunk infrastructure spend or programming in
Auckland. This could result in inefficient use of resources, unintended consequences
and risk undermining the goals of the urban development agencies operating in
Auckland, the Unitary Plan and the Auckland Plan.
Report
Page 41
Attachment A
60. The draft report proposes that activities of a UDA would involve:
Item 12

13 August 2015
63. The intention for Development Auckland is to focus on redevelopment opportunities,
specifically brownfields redevelopment. Development Auckland intends to:
a. manage the councils non-service property portfolio and provide strategic advice on
the councils other property portfolios
b. recycle or redevelop sub-optimal or under-utilised council assets and aim to achieve
an overall balance of commercial and strategic outcomes
c. facilitate private sector, third sector, iwi and government investment and
collaboration into the sustainable redevelopment of brownfield urban locations
d. coordinate the provision of the councils infrastructure and other investment in these
locations
e. continue to lead the development of the waterfront and deliver the Waterfront Plan
2012
Attachment A
f.
accommodate residential and commercial growth in urban locations with good public
infrastructure and services. These redevelopments will offer a range of residential
choices and price points to cater for diverse households.
64. At this stage Development Auckland does not intend to focus on greenfield urban
development. Feedback from Auckland developers on whether a development agency
should be involved in greenfield development was negative. The Property Council, for
example, submitted that the proposed agency should not seek to deliver in those areas
where the private sector could. The Property Council was supportive of the council
establishing an agency to support brownfield redevelopment.
65. The council welcomes discussions with central government on an approach to using
existing levers to support the councils activities via Development Auckland and
exploring options for how central government can best add and derive value in
Auckland.
66. Some options for central government to support and complement Development
Aucklands activities could include:
a. working with the council to identify public land to be developed (Recommendation
4.4)
b. providing funding or enabling necessary funding options
c. improving, clarifying or introducing legislative settings to support Development
Aucklands activities
d. exploring other options for leveraging existing redevelopment opportunities.
67. It would be useful for central government to undertake an evaluation of existing urban
development initiatives it has been involved with in Auckland region, (i.e. Tamaki
Redevelopment Company Limited and Hobsonville Point Company Limited) to identify
key lessons from those experiences. The council would be interested in partnering with
central government to evaluate the Auckland based UDA initiatives.
68. The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Mori
land would face sensitive Treaty issues (Finding 10.6) and the council agrees with this
finding.
Report
Page 42
Opportunities for information sharing

69. The council is supportive of the recommendations to provide commercially viable
development capacity and to explore the development of an Urban Feasibility Model
(Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2). A group of experts, including economists, developers
and the councils land use modellers, have worked together to model such capacity as
part of the Unitary Plan process. The council suggests that the Ministry for the
Environment review this model in addition to looking at overseas examples. There are
costs in developing and running these models. One practical way central government
could assist would be in providing expertise and/or funding to enable regular updates of
this information.
Item 12

13 August 2015
71. The council also supports developing and maintaining an inventory of public land
holdings in high-growth cities to identify sites that could be used for housing
(Recommendation 4.4).
72. The council understands the importance of land readiness through its Auckland Plan,
Forward Land and Infrastructure Programme, Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and
the Unitary Plan. It has a target to have an average of 7 years (minimum 5 years and
maximum 10 years) of ready-to-go land supply. This means operative zoning and bulk
services infrastructure are in place.
73. The council therefore supports expressing land supply targets as zoned and serviced
land and publicly reporting on performance (Recommendation 4.1, 6.1). The council
currently reports on land supply through a number of different tools. Under the
Auckland Housing Accord, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and
the council present joint quarterly monitoring reports which provide an up-to-date picture
of the land and housing supply situation. The report monitors progress against the
Accord targets for new dwellings and new sections as well as provides information on
forward land supply and special housing area (consenting) activity. The council also
reports on zoned and serviced land through its Auckland Plan Implementation Update
and intends to report on un-zoned but planned-for future zoning; zoned; zoned and
serviced; zoned, serviced and consented land and dwellings within the Future Urban
Land Supply Strategy and the Development Strategy Annual Monitoring Report.
74. The draft report recommends the feeding of information from council asset management
systems into decision making about optimal infrastructure standards
(Recommendation 6.6). In Auckland, relevant aspects of this information are shared
with the development community via reporting on the Future Urban Land Supply
Strategy and the Forward Land Infrastructure Programme (FLIP), the 30 year
Infrastructure Strategy and the Long Term Plan. The councils Infrastructure and
Developer Forum provides opportunities for information sharing amongst the sectors.
Report
Page 43
Attachment A
70. The council does not currently report on dwelling completions but sees the value in doing
so as it would provide an improved picture of housing delivered across Auckland. The
council welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with central government to progress this
work (Recommendation 4.2).
Item 12

13 August 2015
75. Auckland Transport has participated in the Transport Analytics Governance Group
(TAGG) since its inception. The TAGG was set up to drive improvements to asset
management practice without the formal structure or process of established industry
groups. Considerable progress was made on the development of meta-data standards
for transport. This is now a national project with the scope expanded to three waters and
buildings.
Attachment A
76. Housing growth areas are unavoidably increasing maintenance and operational costs
for the Auckland transport network. Preliminary work indicates that for each dwelling
built, the maintenance and operational costs (excluding public transport service
provision) increase by $600 per dwelling per year. Therefore investigations into how
infrastructure is provided need to focus on both capital expenditure and operational
expenditure.
77. The council also notes the comments in submissions by Te Rnanga o Ngti Whtua
and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum proposing an option for councils to make public
information about the demand for and supply of social and affordable housing. In
principle, the council supports greater information sharing but has a limited role in
providing housing. This would need to be a multi-party initiative to be effective.
78. 4.0 Planning system needs some changes
Recommendations
Support front-loading public consultation and change in phasing of when
consultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities (prenotification) support consultation ahead of notification.
Support robust cost and benefit analysis of regulation. Much greater focus
needs to be given to building capacity to undertake quantification of benefits
and robust benefit analysis.
Oppose limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to
local issues, e.g. including rules relating to mandatory apartment
balcony/private open space, and minimum apartment sizes.
Support evaluation of independent hearings panel and independent
commissioners without predetermining the results of that evaluation.
Support inclusionary zoning as an important and valid tool to use in
conjunction with other measures to improve retained affordable housing (for
the life of the dwelling).
Generally support intensification where infrastructure capacity is available but
note that infrastructure is only one of a number of considerations.
Agree there is no need for planning controls that duplicate standards already
set by the Building Act. Planning controls do not duplicate those standards
and are only imposed where there are amenity or environmental protection
issues not covered under the Building Act.
Oppose the recommendation to review zoning rules for rural land as the
rationale for such a review fails to take into account the full range of reasons
for zoning rural land.
Support alignment of Auckland Transport and Watercare statements of intent
with the Auckland Plan.
Report
Page 44
79. Overall, the council supports the commissions view that land use and infrastructure
planning can be better integrated thereby improving outcomes on the ground. While the
RMA is not, in itself, within scope of this inquiry, the commission makes some
recommendations which would be given effect through the RMA. Auckland Council has
previously provided feedback to government on RMA amendments to speed up and
improve the consenting and plan making processes. Some of these points are included
in addition to specific responses to the commissions draft report.
Item 12

13 August 2015
80. While the council agrees that regulation does add cost to the process, it considers that
the draft reports discussion of regulation is too narrowly focussed on costs (or
equivalently, on the benefits of regulating less). The council considers that:
b. It is also important to strike a balance between land for housing and land for
employment use. Compact urban form, a key principle driving the development
strategy within the Auckland Plan, recognises the need to provide a range of
employment opportunities across the urban area.
c. Regulation can also have benefits and these must be weighed up against the costs.
Local government needs to consider public benefits and costs as well as individual
benefits and costs. Protection of the environment is one example where regulation
can occur to ensure that the overall public benefit of clean water, undeveloped
maunga, forest and significant ecological environments are considered where such
consideration may not be given by individuals or the market.
d. Consideration of amenity in resource management processes is critical.
e. There is a lack of robust benefit analysis by both local and central government. At
the policy development stage, the majority of resources are put towards identifying
costs with comparatively little put towards quantification of the benefits. The council
supports a greater focus and capacity in relation to benefit analysis in policy
development.
f.
Community aspirations are a valid consideration when weighing up the costs and
benefits of regulation.
81. The council is clear that the Local Government Act 2002 and RMA confer particular roles
and responsibilities to local authorities. One of these roles is land use planning in the
local context.
82. If the balance between national and local interests shifts, this could potentially impact on
the kaitiaki role of mana whenua and the provisions that Auckland Council has sought to
put in place to better enable mana whenua input into the planning process.
83. The councils overall position is that local authorities and their communities should make
land use decisions.
Report
Page 45
Attachment A
a. Land use planning is not all about the provision of land for housing. Land is required
for business and industry, activities such as tourism and recreation, and services
such as education and health. A narrow focus on housing means that the other
important elements of successful cities and economies may be forgotten.

13 August 2015
Item 12
Front-load public consultation requirements

84. The commission makes a number of findings around the issues of consultation and
notification but few recommendations. Overall, the council supports more streamlined,
timely and less costly processes that still enable a high degree of public participation and
quality decision-making.
Attachment A
85. The council adopted a Significance and Engagement Policy in 2014 as required by the
Local Government Act 2002. Aucklands scope and scale means that the council is
regularly consulting with the public across a range of issues. The councils position is
that Aucklanders engage with consultation processes where those issues being
consulted on are most relevant for them. This may relate to wider regional issues, for
example the Unitary Plan or Auckland Plan development, or it may relate to local issues,
for example consents and local board activities.
86. As discussed in the councils response to the commissions issues paper, the council
considers there are a range of options in relation to RMA reform which could improve the
efficiency of the planning system without significantly compromising public engagement
and consultation. The council notes the commissions findings in relation to timeliness
impacts of public consultation and engagement on the plan-making processes (Findings
4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13). The councils previous submissions on these points do not
involve a reduction of consultation and engagement opportunities, rather they are
directed at front-loading the consultation and changing the phasing of when consultation
occurs, i.e. greater levels of consultation occur at the initial stages of the plan-making
process and engagement opportunities progressively decrease during the process. The
council requests the commission reconsider the impact of changing (not reducing) the
phasing of RMA consultation processes.
87. The council supports the commissions recommendation that local authorities should set
policies for publishing and consulting on draft plan reviews or plan changes of interest to
the wider community ahead of notification, unless compelling reasons exist for not doing
so (Recommendation 4.5).
88. The council considers that it is still appropriate to impose a legislative requirement on
local authorities to consult on draft plan changes prior to notification. This legislative
requirement should relate only to council-promulgated plan changes to avoid
unnecessary public consultation on private, site-specific plan changes.
89. In the councils view, Schedule 1 does not prevent pre-notification consultation. It does,
however, prescribe certain requirements like public notices in newspapers which are
very costly (at least $5000 per application in the New Zealand Herald). Using public
notices in a newspaper is an outdated way of communicating and the Schedule 1
requirements should be reviewed to see if the benefits outweigh the costs.
90. The council undertook a comprehensive pre-notification public consultation on the draft
Unitary Plan. This commenced with the release of a very early draft of key sections of
the Unitary Plan to key stakeholders, and was followed by an extensive 11 week
communications and engagement campaign. Almost 25,000 individual pieces of written
feedback were received on the full draft Unitary Plan. This process resulted in significant
improvements being made to the Unitary Plan prior to public notification. Summaries of
the main changes to the Unitary Plan were made available on the councils website.
Report
Page 46
91. The council notes that there is nothing preventing this approach in any of the current
legislation. The amendments to the Local Government Act to provide for more flexible
consultation processes will also encourage councils to think differently about the way in
which they engage.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Statutory notification Schedule 1 or HASHA

92. The council does support narrowing the eligibility of further submitters to those who are
directly affected by a proposal, e.g. the owner of a site where a tree is proposed to be
scheduled. In the councils experience, the current process adds significant costs and
time for very little benefit.
93. The commission asks how eligibility for notification and consultation and site-specific
proposed plan changes should be defined, and whether the definition used in the
HASHA Act or the 2009 RMA amendments would be preferable (Question 4.4).
a. The Schedule 1 process has been amended over the years and the presumption is
no longer public notification. However, the Schedule 1 process provides for councils
to publicly notify applications where appropriate. It is also the process that most
communities are familiar with.
b. The HASHA process limits notification to directly adjoining sites and there is no
option of public notification. Disadvantages of the HASHA process include the fact
that it is a one size fits all approach which does not have the flexibility to take
account of different circumstances.
95. The definition of eligibility of involvement is key in determining notification provisions.
Issues like the materiality of the change/proposal and the function of the proposed activity
are important factors. It will be critical to ensure that Mori interests are not excluded.
Cost-benefit analysis
96. The commission recommends that local authorities should undertake robust cost-benefit
analyses before considering the introduction of building height limits, and should lift
current limits where it cannot be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs
97. The council supports the need for robust cost-benefit analyses for all policy, including
building height limits. However, the council also considers that not all environments are
the same and therefore there will be a need for building height limits in some areas.
98. While robust cost benefit analysis is needed, the majority of resources are put towards
identifying the costs with relatively little put towards benefits.
99. The council and central government could investigate options for funding a research
programme to test and assess the non-market benefit values from managing urban
issues. This research could have a focus on quantitative impacts that can be incorporated
into cost-benefit analyses as well as qualitative findings that can be generalised.
Report
Page 47
Attachment A
94. The council has experience of working under both the RMA Schedule 1 and HASHA
processes. There are benefits and costs to both options.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules to local issues
100. There are a number of recommendations in the draft report aimed at reducing regulatory
costs:
a. Urban territorial authorities should remove District Plan minimum parking
requirements, and make more use of traffic demand management techniques
b. Urban territorial authorities should remove District Plan balcony/private open space
requirements for apartments (Recommendation 5.1).
Attachment A
c. Once the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has completed planned
work on updating Building Code rules and guidance related to air quality, lighting,
acoustics and access in multi-unit dwellings, local authorities should review minimum
apartment size rules in their District Plans with a view to removing them
101. Overall, the council opposes limitations on local governments ability to tailor planning
rules to local issues. In the following paragraphs, the council comments on the specific
rules identified in the above recommendations.
102. In the Auckland context, in areas which are well served by public transport, the council
agrees that minimum parking provisions can add unnecessary costs and send the wrong
signals to the market. The council, in conjunction with Auckland Transport, is already
focussing on traffic demand management techniques instead of minimum parking
provisions in appropriate areas well serviced by public transport. However, the council
does not support a national, blanket rule disallowing minimum parking requirements.
103. Similarly, the council does not support national, blanket rules disallowing minimum
balcony/private open space requirements for apartments or minimum apartment sizes.
The council considers that the costs of requiring balconies have been overstated,
particularly in light of the fact that the market will pay a premium for an apartment with a
balcony as opposed to one without. The council is aware of the Grimes and Mitchell and
MRCagney reports on these related matters referenced by the commission. As
acknowledged by the commission, the Grimes and Mitchell report explicitly did not look at
benefits.
104. As previously stated, policy matters such as minimum apartment sizes and private open
space provisions need to have an equally robust benefit analysis undertaken. The
councils current position is that it considers regulation such as minimum apartment sizes
and private open space provisions are necessary to ensure long-term liveability and
quality of buildings and spaces.
Independent Hearings Panel and independent commissioners
105. The council supports the commissions recommendation that the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for the Environment should, once the work of
the Auckland and Christchurch Independent Hearings Panels (IHPs) is complete, evaluate
the IHP processes, with a view to deciding whether IHPs will become a permanent feature
of the planning system (Recommendation 4.6).
Report
Page 48
106. The evaluation should focus on the role of IHPs in the plan making process. It is important
that the results of the evaluation are not predetermined and that key lessons from both
Auckland and Christchurch processes are fully considered as part of the proposed review.
107. Feedback from Auckland communities on the experience of the IHP process has been
mixed some are positive around the expertise and robustness of process, others are
negative around the complexity and difficulty of navigating through it.
Item 12

13 August 2015
108. Given the experience that the council has had with the IHP for the Unitary Plan, the
council welcomes the opportunity to work together with central government on both the
review and any subsequent implementation.
109. The council uses independent commissioners for the majority of its RMA hearing
functions. Decision-making authority is generally delegated to independent commissioners
for resource consents.
Inclusionary Zoning
111. The council is addressing the supply of affordable housing through tools such as the
Auckland Housing Bond Guarantee. The Special Housing Area process has shown that,
without affordability requirements, developers would not actually have produced the
affordable product. Therefore, increasing land supply is not enough to guarantee the
supply of affordable housing. In the Unitary Plan, the council is proposing a mandatory
requirement for affordable housing in greenfield developments as developers can factor it
into the land prices. This is a way of utilising the value uplift from land rezoning for public
good.
112. However, the Unitary Plan cannot generate supply of houses. Removal of supply
constraints may help to stimulate more supply, but there are other barriers and issues at
play, particularly for housing for low to moderate income households. Hence, the
approach taken by the council is that a suite of tools is required to address the affordability
gap. Inclusionary zoning is an important and valid tool to use (with strong international
precedent producing effective outcomes) in conjunction with other measures to improve
affordability.
Intensification where there is existing infrastructure capacity

113. The commission recommends that councils ensure planning rules do not prevent
intensification in areas where there is existing infrastructure capacity (Recommendation
6.2)
114. While the council supports the premise that areas with infrastructure capacity should be
intensified, the local context is very important when considering intensification. As stated
throughout this submission, local government needs to consider public benefits and costs
and community aspirations. Intensification is not always appropriate in all areas with
infrastructure capacity.
Report
Page 49
Attachment A
110. The council recognises that independent commissioners are an additional cost which is
borne by the applicant. However, there have been very few concerns raised by applicants
on the use of independent commissioners.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Exceeding Building Act standards

115. The draft report proposes that local authorities should review District Plan controls on the
design and construction of buildings or dwellings that exceed standards set under the
Building Act, with a view to removing them (Recommendation 5.5).
Attachment A
116. While the council supports any recommendations to reduce legislative overlap, it is
important to note that the Building Act and RMA have two very different purposes:
a. The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing.
b. The purpose of the Building Act is to provide for the regulation of building work,
establishment of a licensing regime for building practitioners and the setting of
performance standards for buildings. This purpose includes having attributes that
contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and wellbeing of the
people who use [buildings] and buildings are designed, constructed, and able to be
used in ways that promote sustainable development.
117. It is not the practice of the council to develop planning rules in isolation from the Building
Act. The starting point for planning rules is the standards set under the Building Act.
Further rules are only added by the council where there are amenity or environmental
protection issues which are not covered or adequately addressed under the Building Act.
118. As a result, the council considers that regulation such as minimum apartment sizes are
appropriate under the RMA and do not undermine the Building Act. Certain amenity
issues are of particular importance in the management of cities and urban matters.
119. Alternatively, if it is considered that RMA plans cannot address issues such as avoiding
flood hazards, universal access in residential developments, sustainable design, etc., then
the Building Act needs to be reviewed to ensure these current shortcomings are rectified.
Zoning rules for rural land

120. The report includes findings on the tensions between the growth of cities and
agricultural/rural land on the edges. In particular, the report links zoning of large minimum
lot sizes with the purpose of protecting elite or high-class agricultural land. The report
proposes a review of zoning rules for rural land (Recommendation 3.3)
121. The council does not agree that such zoning is primarily for the purposes of protecting
agricultural land. The purpose of such zoning is multi-faceted and also includes:
a. avoiding ad hoc development in rural areas and the high costs of servicing this with
infrastructure
b. avoiding reverse sensitivity impacts on existing rural activities and maintaining a
strong rural economy.
Report
Page 50
Alignment of SOIs with Auckland Plan

122. Council supports the recommendation that Auckland Transport and Watercare should
amend their statements of intent (SOI) so that they are aligned with the Auckland Plan
and its target for new dwellings (Recommendation 8.1)
Item 12

13 August 2015
123. This work is already underway. The recent Auckland Transport SOI for 2015 includes
strategic themes developed to align with the Auckland Plan strategic direction and
recognises the need for participation in a targeted and integrated approach to
development as part of the councils spatial priority areas and special housing areas.
124. All CCOs are already required to give effect to the Long Term Plan.
Recommendations
Propose partnership with private sector and government to share burden and
risk of financing additional infrastructure.
Direct government funding of some water and wastewater infrastructure from
revenue arising from growth
Provide councils with ability to use value capture rating through targeted rates
mechanism implement by allowing rates to be set on basis of a change in
land value.
Support use of motorway pricing and further discussion on road pricing.
Oppose proposal to require councils to consider requests by developers to
build infrastructure funded by targeted rates.
Remove exemption from rates for crown entities, hospitals, schools, ports,
railways, airports.
Oppose a requirement to shift the basis of general rates from capital value to
land value.
Oppose price control on Watercare.
Oppose need to include additional information in Development Contributions
policy relating to dwelling floor areas and cost of providing infrastructure
services.
Introduction
125. A growing city delivers agglomeration benefits for economic growth and some economies
of scale in the provision of services. Councils, hence ratepayers, incur additional
infrastructure costs as populations grow. These increased costs go beyond the additional
local infrastructure required to service growth areas. A larger population leads to negative
externalities in service delivery (transport congestion) and diseconomies of scale in the
construction and provision of assets (higher land prices). This raises the costs of building
and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers3.
Development contributions can require developers to make a contribution towards some of the cost of maintaining
service levels but not all of them.
Report
Page 51
Attachment A
5.0 Address infrastructure financing through partnerships
Item 12

13 August 2015
126. Councils revenues do not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth in the
same way as income taxes and GST. The infrastructure investment required to support
growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for general
rates. Development contributions and targeted rates cannot manage all the funding
impacts.
127. The council is looking for financing partners to share some of the risk of infrastructure
investment. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take in
directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using
some of the additional income generated by growth.
Financing infrastructure investment
Attachment A
128. The council agrees that debt is an appropriate means of financing investment in
infrastructure. The costs of this debt should be met by the beneficiaries of the investments
(land owners, developers and future property owners) because:
a. it ensures they take account of all the costs of development in their decision making
b. developers and other beneficiaries are paying for the benefits they receive rather than
existing ratepayers.
129. Setting charges on land that will be serviced by additional infrastructure in the form of
development contributions or other charges is the best means to achieve this.
130. As a result of its power to set rates and sound fiscal management the council has
excellent access to capital markets. The councils access to debt is not unconstrained.
The ultimate constraints are economic ones:
a. what is the appropriate size of council
b. what is the appropriate risk profile of our investments in infrastructure
c. are long term funding mechanisms through charges, rates or various types and
development contributions affordable for our community.
131. Fiscal prudence drivers dictate a long term sustainable balance must be struck between
debt and revenue.
132. To enable additional investment in infrastructure the council is looking to partner with the
private sector including iwi, through development agreements, and central government.
This will enable more infrastructure investment to be financed without imposing additional
risk on existing ratepayers or putting undue pressure on the councils balance sheet
ratios. The proposals in the draft report that support land aggregation through
development agencies will provide the potential for more partners of scale with whom
financing arrangements can be entered into.
Report
Page 52
Central government role in financing infrastructure

133. Central government receives benefits in terms of income and consumption taxes from
additional growth, and from housing constructed to serve the additional population.4 The
council considers the government could partner with the council to take a more direct role
in the financing of infrastructure. The council could then use its funding tools,
development contributions and targeted rates, to refund this investment
Item 12

13 August 2015
135. The commission found (Finding 8.1) that The Government Policy Statement on Land
Transport includes relatively weak reference to land supply for housing. A stronger focus
on how transport infrastructure can support land supply for housing would change NZTAs
investment priorities and might help to free up land supply in high-growth cities. However,
shifting the priorities for land transport funding could have implications for existing
priorities. The council broadly agrees with this finding. NZTA funding criteria focuses
largely on level of service investment, often at the expense of supporting forward
investment in growth. The majority of investment goes towards remedying existing levels
of service problems. Therefore most growth-related projects fall below the funding line.
136. In addition, the council is concerned that NZTA does not fund rail improvements. This gap
should be addressed to enable metro rail developments to be considered as part of public
transport solutions for Auckland.
137. The council and Auckland Transport have established the Local Residential Growth Fund
as a new measure a ring-fenced fund dedicated to Special Housing Area/plan change
related projects which have a high (75%) growth component and a well-documented
need. This fund will not deliver on all growth needs.
Funding infrastructure investment
138. The tools that council has available to fund the costs of infrastructure to serve growth are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
general rates used to fund infrastructure that cant be funded from contributions
development contributions primary funding source
targeted rates not presently used but offers advantages in some circumstances
government grants for transport.
139. Development contributions currently allow the council to secure most of the funding
required to meet the costs of development, i.e. water, wastewater, roading or transport
infrastructure. However, contributions do not cover all the costs of infrastructure and
specifically as a result of legislative changes, contributions no longer cover all the costs of
infrastructure expected by ratepayers, e.g. swimming pools and libraries. These costs now
have to be met by existing ratepayers rather than the beneficiaries of the investment.
GST on the average new house ($300,000) constructed in Auckland is $45,000 whereas the average
development contribution is $19,055.
Report
Page 53
Attachment A
134. In addition the government should consider sharing in the funding of long lived water and
wastewater assets from some of the additional income it expects to receive from growth in
the Auckland economy. While this doesnt link directly to the users of the service it would
support acceleration of infrastructure investment, land release, housing construction and
economic growth.
Item 12

13 August 2015
140. In addition to the above, the council, along with Local Government New Zealand, supports
broadening the funding tools available to improve economic efficiency and better support
partnerships with government, private sector and others. Key areas where the council
seeks change are discussed in the following sections and are included in response to the
proposals within the commissions report.
User charges
141. The commission recommends that councils should pursue opportunities to make more
efficient use of existing infrastructure assets including through greater use of user charges
where this can reduce demands on infrastructure (Recommendation 6.4)
Attachment A
142. The commission also recommends that Government should adopt the Local Government
Infrastructure Advisory Groups recommendation to amend the Land Transport
Management Act to allow pricing on existing roads where there is a business case that
enables effective network optimisation (Recommendation 6.5)
143. The council already funds water and wastewater through user charges via its subsidiary
Watercare Services Limited.
144. The commission also asks whether there is a case for introducing access, quality and
price regulation for water services (Question 8.4). There would be little benefit from the
price regulation as Watercare cannot make a profit, unlike other utilities. The council is
not aware of any evidence on the cost efficiency of Watercare's investment programme
and operations that would justify the costs of regulation.
145. The Auckland Plan identifies the need to implement new transport funding mechanisms to
raise revenue and manage demand. Our analysis shows these charges provide three
times the economic benefits of alternatives such as petrol taxes and rates.
146. The council has led the road pricing discussion in Auckland and has established
community support for a motorway user charge. A Colmar Brunton survey of 5000
Aucklanders identified that 57 per cent preferred a motorway user charge.
147. The council is continuing to work with the government to eventually implement a new
transport funding mechanism.
Targeted rates
148. The council does not currently use targeted rates to fund growth infrastructure but is
considering making greater use of this tool. Targeted rates offer some advantages over
development contributions as they:
a.
b.
c.
d.
are payable whether or not development proceeds

providing a more secure revenue stream
encourage development and discourage land banking
can be levied on existing property owners where they benefit from infrastructure
investment (development contributions can only be levied on new developments and
for the benefits they receive)
e. spread the cost of infrastructure over a longer time period thus reducing upfront capital
requirements.
Report
Page 54
149. The council could apply a targeted rate to recover the cost of some, or all, of the
infrastructure to meet the demands of growth in a particular area. This would apply to
both new and existing properties. The share of the cost of infrastructure to be met by
different properties could be based on similar characteristics to those used to allocate cost
under the development contributions policy.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Value capture rating

151. The council agrees with the draft reports conclusion that there is a strong case for the
public to capture unearned land value increases resulting from public action. The council
also agrees with the views on the role that participation in the market via an urban
development agency and the use of targeted rates as a form of betterment levy can take.
The use of more direct methods such as an ongoing land value increment should be
considered as part of a wider discussion on local government funding and the tax base in
general.
Developer requests for targeted rate to fund growth-infrastructure
152. The commission recommends that councils be required to consider a request from
developers to construct growth-enabling infrastructure, to be repaid through targeted rates
on the properties that benefit from the infrastructure connections (Recommendation 7.3).
The possible purposes of this recommendation are to:
a. allow for additional land to be made available for development beyond that which
council plans to service and release
b. spread the cost of infrastructure over a longer time period and away from the
developers to the new property owner.
153. Pursuing all such opportunities outside the councils planned growth approach would lead
to the council taking on more debt. A blanket requirement to formally consider all such
proposals would incur more administrative cost and divert key staff from focusing on
issues that would have a real impact on land supply. In so far as it reduces capital
pressure on developers it is noted that the council already allows developers to defer
payment of contributions until the sale of a property.
154. The council considers it has sufficient flexibility to adequately assess the impacts of
developer proposals and exercise its discretion if the benefits of such proposals outweigh
the costs. Further, the council considers a mandatory requirement to include developer
proposals outside priority areas would not be cost effective. Agreeing to these proposals
would require the council to divert spending from higher priority infrastructure
programming. The council does not support this proposal.
Report
Page 55
Attachment A
150. A targeted rate is payable by a property owner whether or not they develop. It is therefore
likely that some property owners would oppose this form of funding. One alternative that
may make a targeted rate more palatable and to better align the cost allocation with
benefit would be to apportion the cost on the basis of change in land value, a form of
value capture rate. In this way a property owner would pay a share based on the benefit
they were receiving in terms of land value uplift. In order to be able to employ this tool the
council recommends that the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 be amended to allow
rates to be set on the basis of change in land value.
Item 12

13 August 2015
Removal of rating exemptions for crown entities and other land
155. The council supports removing the exemption from rates not just from Crown entities but
also from ports, railways, airports, hospitals and schools.
156. Rates are a tax that fund a wide variety of council services including roading, water supply
and waste water, storm water, governance, regulatory functions, and community facilities
such as libraries, parks and swimming pools.
157. All land owners benefit from the public good services that councils provide. Most also
benefit from direct private benefit services such as refuse collection, water and waste
water services. As all land receives some benefit then all land should be liable for rates.
Legislation allows councils to charge rates to land classified as non-rateable for water,
sewerage and refuse so long as the service is being provided to the land.
Attachment A
158. Rating exemptions initially covered crown land, land used for religion, and land covered by
native title. Over time these exemptions have been expanded and developed to reflect
changes to how the land is used, specifically:
a. the devolution of functions to entities that are legally separate from the crown
b. commercial activities being undertaken on some crown land.
159. Reasons for providing rating exemptions include:
a. land provides a public good
b. land has no or limited economic use
c. land receives limited benefit from council services.
160. The impacts of continuing to provide these rating exemptions are:
a. ratepayers bear the costs of services that are delivered to exempt land
b. the crown benefits from subsidised council services
c. dilution of the available rates base resulting in either reduced service levels or higher
rates bills.
161. Many rating exemptions have been derived from a broad policy of exempting crown lands.
The rationale for providing ongoing exemptions for ports, railways, airports, hospitals and
schools is based almost exclusively on national interest. The council believe that these
exemptions are no longer appropriate because:
a. the public good provided from the land accrues to a wider community (i.e. the country
as a whole) and it is inappropriate that only local communities fund them
b. the value of the rating exemption for an individual property is out of proportion from the
value of the public benefit provided
c. although local communities benefit from the activities undertaken on non-rateable land,
similar benefits can be obtained from land that is rateable
d. continuing exemptions reduces incentives for efficient investment5
e. other utilities such as gas and electricity networks pay rates
f. all the currently exempted activities are subject to GST and income tax to fund central
government activities so they should also be subject to local government rates.
The council charges rates internally and central government entities should also meet these costs.
Report
Page 56
162. Councils see investment in infrastructure as necessary if the governments goal of

growing an inclusive innovative economy for the benefit of all is to be achieved. The
main impact that of continuing rates exemptions for crown land is that there will be less
funding available for investment in infrastructure.
Capital Value and Land Value rating
Item 12

13 August 2015
164. One criticism of rating systems is that they are regressive in relation to incomes. The
commission finding that land value has a better relationship to incomes than capital value
is contrary to the findings of the Local Government Rates Inquiry. The councils view is
that rates based on property values (both land and capital value) have a very good
correlation with household incomes, although the closeness of this fit is influenced by the
choice of differentials and the use of fixed charges. The council also considers that
although land value rating does provide a stronger incentive to develop land, this
difference is small and will not have a material impact on development decisions.
165. In Auckland key benefits of continuing to use capital value as the basis for rating include:
a. capital values are more accurate as there is significantly more information available on
market transactions for developed land as opposed to vacant land
b. capital values have a better correlation to benefits received from council services and
require fewer differentials.
166. Having just completed a three year process of standardising rates for the Auckland region
to be based on capital value, changing to land value would create significant short term
swings in the incidence of rates. Particularly, significant reductions for utility companies
and significant increases for the rural sector.
Development Contributions policy detail
167. The council does not support the recommendation that councils should include
information in their development contributions policy about the relationship between
dwelling floor area and the cost of providing infrastructure services (Recommendation
7.2). The council already sets development contributions based on dwelling floor area and
will provide on request the information on which this decision was reached. There is little
value in adding more text to already lengthy contributions policy documentation.
Report
Page 57
Attachment A
163. The adoption of an integrated rating system in Auckland has led to large increases for
many ratepayers. A move now to land value rating would lead to further significant
changes in rates.
Appendix A
Attachment A
Item 12

13 August 2015
Report
Page 58
Attachment B
Item 12

13 August 2015
Report
Page 59

13 August 2015
Item 13
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3):

Auckland Councils Submission
File No.: CP2015/15702
Purpose
1.
To seek approval for the Auckland Councils submission to the Local Government (Auckland
Council) Amendment Bill (no 3).
2.
The report was not available when the agenda went to print for the reason that local boards
have been given an opportunity to provide informal comment on the draft submission prior to
reporting to the Committee. Local Boards have been given until 5 August to provide their
input.
3.
The report will be circulated prior to the meeting.
Recommendation/s
a)
consider the report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author
Authoriser
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3): Auckland Councils Submission
Page 61

13 August 2015
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information

and Meetings Act 1987
a)
exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for
passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution
follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or
section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the
proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update
Reason for passing this resolution

in relation to each matter
Particular interest(s) protected

(where applicable)
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for

the passing of this resolution
The public conduct of the part of

the meeting would be likely to result
in the disclosure of information for
which good reason for withholding
exists under section 7.
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to protect
information where the making
available of the information would
be likely unreasonably to prejudice
the commercial position of the
person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information.
s48(1)(a)
In particular, the report contains

commercially sensitive information
regarding development proposals.
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the
information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an
obligation of confidence or which
any person has been or could be
compelled to provide under the
authority of any enactment, where
the making available of the
information would be likely to
prejudice the supply of similar
information or information from the
same source and it is in the public
interest that such information
should continue to be supplied.
commercially sensitive information
regarding development proposals.
Public Excluded
Page 63

13 August 2015
C2
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings
Panel - Historic/Special Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay


(where applicable)


s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to
maintain legal professional
privilege.
s48(1)(a)
C3

legal advice..

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings
Panel - Viewshafts


(where applicable)


s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to
maintain legal professional
privilege.
s48(1)(a)
Public Excluded

legal advice..

Page 64

Auckland Development Committee - August 15 - Agenda

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Auckland Development Committee - August 15 - Agenda

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

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

Thursday, 13 August 2015

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

Tamaki regeneration projects

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation

Approval of a submission to an external body

Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the meeting

Independent Mori Statutory Board

All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Local Board members

Council Controlled Organisations

Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for