Auckland Development Committee Agenda - March 16

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held
on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday, 10 March 2016

9.30am
Reception Lounge, Level 2
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 March 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: Tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Please note: Any attachments listed within this agenda as Under Separate Cover can be found
at the Auckland Council website http://infocouncil.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.

10 March 2016
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Reports Pending Status Update
10
Summary of information memos and briefings - 10 March 2016
17
11
Submission to the Productivity Commission's Better uban planning

Issues Paper
19
Auckland Council submission on the Residential Tenancies Act

Amendment Bill
39
Auckland Council's Submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment

Bill
53
14
Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2015/2016
57
15
Takapuna High Level Project Plan Unlocking Urban Renewal
71
16
Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds High Level Project Plan Unlocking Urban Redevelopment
111
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - revised zoning maps incorporating the

Governing Body decision of 24 February 2016
163
12
13
17
18
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
19
Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public
173
C1
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update
173
C2
Special Housing Areas: Tranche 10
174
Page 5

10 March 2016
1
Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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 Thursday, 11 February 2016,
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.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
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.
The following requests have been received to speak when the item is taken:
Kay McIntyre Kaipatiki Loca Board for items 15 & 16
Joe Bergins Devonport-Takapuna Local Board for items 15 & 16
David Collings Howick Local Board for item Confidential 2
Julie Fairey Puketapapa Local Board for item Confidential 2
Page 7

10 March 2016
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

10 March 2016
Item 9

File No.: CP2016/02652
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
Reports pending list
11
Forward Work Programme 2015/2016
13
Signatories
Author
Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
Page 9
Attachment A
Item 9

10 March 2016
Page 11
Attachment B
Item 9

10 March 2016
Page 13
Attachment B
Item 9

10 March 2016
Page 14
Attachment B
Item 9

10 March 2016
Page 15
Attachment B
Item 9

10 March 2016
Page 16

10 March 2016
Item 10

File No.: CP2016/02940
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 15 October 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/memos/reports were presented/circulated as follows:
11 February 2016 : Special housing area Tranche 10 (confidential)
17 February 2016:
a.
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill:

i.
Productivity Commission Better Urban Planning Issues
ii.
Resource Management Reform Legislation
b. Housing forward work programme update
4.
c.
Panuku work programme : Unlock development locations : Takapuna and

Northcote (confidential)
d.
Purpose and role of Auckland Investment Office (confidential)
e.
Future Urban Transport Network
These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the
following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
5.
at the top of the page, select meeting Auckland Development Committee from the dropdown tab and click View;
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 12 November 2015.
Attachments
No.
Title
Housing forward work programme update presentation (Under Separate

Cover)
Future Urban Transport Network (Under Separate Cover)
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill memo (Under Separate Cover)
Page
Page 17
Item 10

10 March 2016
D
Productivity Commission Better Urban Planning Issues - presentation

(Under Separate Cover)
Resource Management Reform Legislation - presentation (Under

Separate Cover)
Signatories
Author
Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser
Page 18
Submission to the Productivity Commission's Better uban planning

Issues Paper
File No.: CP2016/03755
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Councils submission to the
Productivity Commission in response to its Better Urban Planning issues paper.
Executive Summary
2.
In December 2015 the Productivity Commission (the commission) released its issues paper
(the issues paper) on the Better Urban Planning inquiry.
3.
The main purpose of the inquiry is to review New Zealands urban planning system and to
identify, from first principles, the most appropriate system for allocating land use to support
desirable social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes. It is not intended to
provide a critique of previous or on-going reforms to the legislation that make up the urban
planning system.
4.
The councils draft submission has taken its cue from the commissions terms of reference
and has focused on identifying principles that should underpin New Zealands future
planning framework. It has also been based on feedback from the Auckland Development
Committee workshop of 17 February 2016.
5.
The draft submission sets out aspects of those principles by which future proposals can be
judged and provides examples of what adhering to those principles would mean in practice.
These aspects are broad ranging and the questions posed in the issues paper are
addressed at a high level. This submission does not attempt to critique previous or ongoing
reforms to the legislative and policy framework that make up the urban planning system.
6.
The draft submission sets out three key themes.

a) Urban planning as a system. Under this theme the draft submission discusses the
importance of certainty while maintaining flexibility of approach; the need for an evidence
base for understanding; and the need for an efficient and effective urban planning
system. As such, it proposes that the principles addressing urban planning as a system
would include the following components:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
achieving certainty of outcomes for all parties

ensuring there is flexibility to respond to a changing environment, circumstances
and new information
flexibility in the process and approach is essential to ongoing innovation in
delivering good planning outcomes
decisions are robust and evidence based
a common set of data across agencies used in policy and plan making
assumptions and limitations of data are explicit
working jointly to achieve good outcomes
information is accessible (obtainable, understandable, and available in a range of
forms)
clarity of roles/functions, responsibilities, and processes
enabling and incentivising good planning outcomes
ensuring that the costs of the system dont outweigh the overall societal benefits
taking a long term view for outcomes to be effective.
Submission to the Productivity Commission's Better uban planning Issues Paper
Page 19
Item 11

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 11
b) planning for future funding challenges. It is proposed that the principles addressing this
theme would address the following components:
i.
phasing and sequencing of infrastructure development needs to be future-focused

to ensure infrastructure remains fit for purpose by the time its delivered
ii. land use/release needs to be coordinated and integrated with infrastructure
provision and funding i.e. one should be timed to match the other
iii. funding tools and mechanisms are available to enable the planning, sequencing
and delivery of infrastructure, and are tied to development of land
iv. a balance between fixing current problems and challenges and anticipating future
needs
v. economic tools that can have a useful role in specific circumstances, such as road
pricing.
c) informed decision making for public engagement. It is proposed that a principle of
informed decision making and public engagement would address the following
components:
i.
ii.
active and early engagement that uses clear evidence that is understandable
clarity on the possible outcomes, impacts and trade-offs of a decision making
process including being explicit about current and future populations and resources
iii. remain cognisant of the potential for imbalance in engagement when having regard
to all the views of all the community
iv. front loading early engagement on high level policy to reduce the need to re-litigate
matters through more detailed plans and avoid consultation fatigue.
7.
Councils response to the commission is due on 9 March 2016 and is set out in the draft
submission (Attachment A).
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse Auckland Councils submission to the commissions Better Urban Planning

inquiry issues paper; and
b)
authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve councils
submission on the commissions Better Urban Planning issues paper.
Comments
Better Urban Planning Inquiry
8.
The government has instructed the commission to review the system of urban planning.
This review is known as the Better Urban Planning inquiry (the inquiry).
9.
The inquiry builds upon the commissions previous Using Land for Housing inquiry in 2015
and picks up on the commissions key message to government arising from that inquiry: if
government wants to see substantial improvements in the land supply system more
fundamental changes than those explored in the Using Land for Housing inquiry would be
required.
10.
In the inquiry terms of reference, the Ministers of Finance, Local Government, Building and
Housing, Environment and Transport identify the following additional drivers for the inquiry:
a)
the costs, complexity and uncertainty associated with the interaction of planning
processes under the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act and Land
Transport Management Act;
b)
differences in purposes, timeframes, processes and criteria within the above law;
c)
the impacts of these laws on the productivity of the wider economy;
Page 20
d)
the piecemeal fashion in which the current urban planning system has evolved;
e)
evolution of international best practice in urban planning; and
f)
findings and recommendations from the commissions previous inquiries including the
2015 Using Land for Housing and 2012 Housing Affordability inquiries.
11.
The purpose of the inquiry is to review New Zealands urban planning system and to identify,
from first principles, the most appropriate system for allocating land use through this system
to support desirable social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes.
12.
At a high level, the scope of the inquiry involves identifying options to align the priorities of
actors and institutions within an urban planning framework, making provision for sufficient
current and future urban development and enabling alignment between national and local
priorities.
13.
The inquirys output will be a report identifying a range of alternative models for the urban
planning system and a framework against which current practices and potential future
reforms in resource management, planning and environmental management in urban areas
will be assessed.
14.
A critique of previous or on-going reforms to the legislation that make up the urban planning
system is specifically excluded from being considered within the inquiry.
15.
The commission will release its draft report in July and its final report will be tabled in
Cabinet by 30 November 2016.
Auckland Councils response

16.
Council and Auckland Transport worked together to develop this response which included
discussion with Watercare Services Limited.
17.
Council supports the commissions blue skies and first principles approach in its review of
New Zealands urban planning system. The current inquiry into Better Urban Planning
follows the commissions previous inquiries. Council has provided the commission with
submissions to both of those inquiries, namely Housing affordability1 and Using land for
housing2. The councils draft submission has taken its cue from the commissions terms of
reference and has focused on identifying the key principles that should underpin New
Zealands future planning framework.
18.
This draft submission does not attempt to address the principles as specific statements, but
rather identifies the key components that a principle of a fit for purpose future urban
planning framework should seek to address.
19.
The draft submission proposes three key themes as follows.

Urban planning as a system
20.
Under this theme it is proposed that there are three sub-themes. For each sub-theme, the
submission proposes key components for each principle:
a) Certainty and flexibility
i.
ii.
achieving certainty of outcomes for all parties

ensuring there is flexibility to respond to a changing environment, circumstances
and new information
iii. flexibility in the process and approach to support achieving the best outcomes, and
allow for ongoing innovation.
Auckland Councils submission on the draft report on Housing Affordability, February 2012.
http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/DR142%20%20Auckland%20Council%20Draft%20Report%20Submission.pdf
2
Auckland Councils submission on the Using Land for Housing draft report, August 2015.
http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/DR142%20-%20Auckland%20Council%20Draft%20Report%20Submission.pdf
Page 21
Item 11

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 11
b) An evidence base for understanding

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
robust evidence base for decision making

a common set of data across agencies used in policy and plan making
assumptions and limitations of data are explicit
working jointly to achieve good outcomes
information that is accessible (obtainable, understandable, and available in a range
of forms).
c) An efficient and effective urban planning system
i.
ii.
iii.
clarity of roles/functions and responsibilities, and processes

enabling and incentivising good planning outcomes
balance to ensure that the costs of the system do not outweigh the overall societal
benefits.
Planning for future funding challenges
21.
It is proposed that principles of a system being able to plan for future funding challenges
would address the following components:
a) phasing and sequencing of infrastructure development needs to be future-focused to
ensure infrastructure remains fit for purpose by the time its delivered
b) land use/release needs to be coordinated and integrated with infrastructure provision
and funding i.e. one should be timed to match the other
c) funding tools and mechanisms are available to enable the planning, sequencing and
delivery of infrastructure, and are tied to development of land
d) the balance between fixing current problems and challenges and anticipating future
needs
e) economic tools that can have a useful role in specific circumstances, such as road
pricing.
Informed decision making for public engagement
22.
It is proposed that a principle of informed decision making and public engagement would
address the following components:
a) active and early engagement on policy that uses clear, easily understood evidence
b) clarity on the possible outcomes, impacts and trade-offs of a policy on current and future
populations and resources
c) cognisance of the potential for imbalance in engagement when having regard to all the
views of all the community
d) front loading early engagement on high level policy to reduce the need to re-litigate
matters through more detailed plans and avoid consultation fatigue.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
23.
The implications of the Better urban planning Issues Paper apply across the region and to all
local boards. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend an Auckland
Development Committee workshop on 17 February 2016 and to provide feedback.
24.
Informal feedback had been received from Kaipatiki Local Board (Attachment B).
25.
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.
Page 22

10 March 2016
26.
The Issues Paper and summary report was distributed to mana whenua and mataawaka for
feedback.
27.
A workshop with mana whenua representatives was held on 1 March 2016 at which staff
gave a summary of the background to the inquiry and of the key points. Iwi representatives
were invited to engage further in the process.
Implementation
28.
No implementation issues have been identified at this stage of the inquiry.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
AC submission to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Issues Paper

- Better Urban Planning March 2016
25
Kaipatiki Local Board comment on 'Better Urban Planning' issues

discussion
35
Signatories
Authors
Vanessa Blakelock - Principal Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor
Authorisers
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Page 23
Item 11
Mori impact statement
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 26
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 28
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 29
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 30
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 31
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 32
Attachment A
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 33
Attachment B
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 35
Attachment B
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 36
Attachment B
Item 11

10 March 2016
Page 37

10 March 2016
Item 12
Auckland Council submission on the Residential Tenancies Act

Amendment Bill
File No.: CP2016/01720
Purpose
1.
To retrospectively approve Auckland Councils submission to the Social Services Select

Committee on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill.
Executive Summary
2.
This report enables retrospective approval of a submission made by Auckland Council to the
Social Services Committee on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill.
3.
The submission strongly supports the intent of the amendment to make rental homes
warmer, drier and safer for New Zealanders, but questions the ability of the bill to meet that
goal without further strengthening.
4.
The submission recommended that the government:

legislate a wider range of minimum standards
add random auditing to ensure compliance proactively with the regulations
require that all insulation, including upgrades to existing insulation, meet current Building
Code standards
explore a wider range of alternatives to raise internal temperatures in hard-to-retrofit
properties
extend Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes beyond June 2016 to June 2019.
Recommendation
a)
retrospectively approve the submission made to the Social Services Select Committee in
Attachment A.
Comments
Background
5.
The Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill proposes to enable the minister to develop
regulations to require, where practical, that:
landlords install insulation in the ceiling and floor of all private rental properties in New
Zealand by 1 July 2019
social housing providers install ceiling and floor insulation in their properties by 1 July
2016
private and social housing providers install smoke alarms by 1 July 2016.
6.
The Social Services Select Committee invited submissions on the bill over the Christmas
period, with submissions closing 27 January 2016.
Auckland Council submission on the Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill
Page 39
Item 12

10 March 2016
7.
In developing the submission, council staff:
consulted with the chair and deputy chair of Auckland Development Committee, and the
chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee
referred to Auckland Councils formal policy positions on housing quality
included input from Infrastructure and Environmental Services, the Chief Sustainability
Office, the Southern Initiative, Community Occupancy, Community Places, and the
Independent Mori Statutory Board.
Auckland Council Submission

8.
The submission strongly supports the intent of the amendment to make rental homes
warmer, drier and safer for New Zealanders, but questions the ability of the bill to meet that
goal without further strengthening.
9.
The submission recommended that the government:

legislate a wider range of minimum standards to bring all rental housing up to modern
standards, as the Social Services Committee has recommended for boarding houses
add random auditing to ensure compliance proactively with the regulations
require that all insulation, including upgrades to existing insulation, meet current Building
Code standards
explore a wider range of alternatives to raise internal temperatures in hard-to-retrofit
properties, rather than simply exempting 100,000 homes
extend Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes beyond June 2016 to June 2019 to
enable more uptake.
Next steps
10.
The Select Committee heard oral submissions on 25 February. Councillor Wood, Chair of
the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, presented on behalf of the council.
11.
The Social Services Select Committee is expected to report back to Parliament in June on
the outcome of its public consultation.
12.
The proposed changes are intended to come into effect from 1 July 2016. To achieve this
date, the related regulations are being consulted on at the same time by the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment.
13.
The ministry released a technical consultation document on the related regulations for
comment by 11 February 2016. Staff provided comments that align with the submission in
Attachment A. Those technical comments are available upon request.
Consideration
14.
Local board views were obtained through feedback on previous formal policy positions on
housing quality.
15.
Eleven of 21 local boards referred to housing quality in their local board plans, and four
boards have undertaken their own projects with landlords. For example, Whau Local Board
supported a research project on home heating and air quality which provided valuable
insights into landlord and tenant attitudes to heating and retrofitting, cited in the submission.
Page 40

10 March 2016
16.
Mori are over represented in areas of Auckland that have the highest rates of people who
use no form of heating. The Productivity Commission found that Mori as a group
experience disproportionately worse housing. They are also less likely than non-Mori to
own their own house (43.3 per cent of Mori were owner occupiers, compared to 69.7 per
cent of Europeans) based on the 2006 Census.
17.
Staff from the Independent Mori Statutory Board provided input on the submission. In
addition feedback received from iwi on the Auckland Plan and the long-term plan related to
housing issues was analysed and considered. This indicated that quality affordable homes
with minimum standards for energy and water efficiency are critical for Mori wellbeing.
Implementation
18.
There are no implementation requirements as a result of the decision in this report.
Attachments
No.
Title
Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill final submission - Auckland

Council
Page
43
Signatories
Author
Caroline Lonsdale - Principal Policy Analyst
Authorisers
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Page 41
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 44
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 46
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 47
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 48
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 49
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 50
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 51
Attachment A
Item 12

10 March 2016
Page 52

10 March 2016
Item 13
Auckland Council's Submission to the Resource Legislation

Amendment Bill
File No.: CP2016/02539
Purpose
1.
This report seeks endorsement of Auckland Councils submission to the Resource

Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill). This submission is being finalised and will be circulated
as an addendum to the agenda prior to the meeting.
Executive Summary
2.
The Bill was read for the first time in December 2015 and the period for submissions closes
on 14 March 2016. The Bill is large and complex, proposing amendments to the:
3.
Resource Management Act 1991 (most of the Bill is focused on this Act)
Reserves Act 1977
Public Works Act 1981
Conservation Act 1987
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.
Auckland Councils submission is structured around the following themes:

a.
Coordination of central government wider reform programme - A number of

initiatives exploring potential changes to resource management, urban planning and
infrastructure legislation are being progressed as part of a wider reform programme.
The draft submission proposes that coordinated, coherent solutions are required to
integrate reforms rather than ad hoc changes to the Resource Management Act 1991
now.
b.
Greater centralised planning control - A number of amendments expand Ministerial

powers such that they enable plan content to be determined or give decision making
powers. These will diminish local decision making. The draft submission proposes that
they are not supported.
c.
Simplification The Bill also proposes amendments that seek greater efficiency by
simplifying processes and providing certainty, saving time and money. The draft
submission proposes that these are not supported where this effect is not achieved.
d.
Role of iwi - Provisions seek to introduce new legislated processes for making
arrangements with iwi meeting certain requirements. The draft submission emphasises
that iwi arrangements are better based on strong relationships and good practice,
instead of legislative requirement.
e.
Collaborative and streamlined planning processes - Local authorities may choose

to use new processes introduced as alternatives to the existing schedule 1 process
under the RMA. The draft submission supports modifications to these processes.
f.
Costs - The draft submission makes the point that many of amendments proposed by
the Bill will impose additional costs on local authorities.
4.
The draft submission supports amendments proposed to the Reserves Act 1977 and the
Public Works Act 1981. No matters have been identified that merit comment in the
amendments proposed to the Conservation 1987 nor the Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.
5.
Auckland Councils draft submission will be circulated separately and include further
comment on individual clauses in a table.
Auckland Council's Submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill
Page 53
Item 13

10 March 2016
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the draft Auckland Council submission to the Resource Legislation

Amendment Bill
b)
authorise the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Auckland Development Committee to
work with officers to finalise and approve the submission.
Comments
Resource Management Act 1991
6.
The majority of the Bill is directed towards amendments to the RMA and is the focus of
Auckland Councils submission.
7.
The amendments to the RMA emerge from significant concern at national, regional and local
levels in regard to housing. Auckland Council acknowledges that they are complex matters
that evolve over time and for which there are no silver bullets or quick-fix solutions.
8.
Auckland Council has identified a number of themes that emerge from the amendments
proposed to the RMA which inform this submission.
Coordination of central government wider reform programme
9.
There are a number of inter-related planning and urban management initiatives amongst the
governments wider reform programme. Foremost, the government has instructed the
Productivity Commission to enquire into the system of urban planning which could result in a
fundamental review of the RMA. In addition, work is proceeding to develop a National Policy
Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which will include content addressing
development capacity.
10.
Auckland Council is concerned that amendments to the RMA at this time amount to tinkering
in the face of significant issues being considered in the governments wider reform
programme. The proposed amendments may enact new RMA provisions before the issues
are fully understood and resolved in a coordinated manner with implications for the
coherency of the planning framework and the wider reform programme.
11.
The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support a wider review of New
Zealands planning system that looks at how best to achieve integrated outcomes (including
funding) as opposed to ongoing ad-hoc amendments to the Resource Management Act
1991.
Greater centralised planning control
12.
The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support guidance being provided
under the RMA through instruments such as National Policy Statements (NPS) and National
Environmental Standards (NES). At issue however, is the extent to which the proposed
amendments extend beyond the provision of guidance and enable methods, rules and plan
content, such as the zoning of particular land to be determined by the Minister.
13.
The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support a Ministerial oversight role
that focuses Ministerial attention on the operation of the overall planning system and the
provision of guidance. Auckland Council opposes provisions that erode local decision
making and provide for Ministerial decision making power on plans.
Simplification
14.
The Bills aim of achieving faster, simpler consenting is supported and actively pursued in
the Councils approach to practice improvements. Many of the amendments proposed seek
to clarify the steps to be observed in the notification of consents, and to provide greater
certainty. At issue is the extent to which these goals will be achievable in practice.
Page 54
15.
The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support the aim of making processes
under the RMA more efficient. This can be achieved by making processes more
proportionate or by supporting established, good practice. Auckland Council contends,
however, that the proposed amendments will increase processing and cost. The draft
submission proposes that the District Plan could clarify the kinds of circumstances that
would require notification of resource consents as an alternative to the Bills proposed
amendments. An amendment in the Bill would require that submissions to resource
consents and plan changes are struck-out, if they do not pass prescribed tests. The draft
submission proposes that this amendment is opposed.
Role of iwi
16.
The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council support the development of
arrangements for the participation of iwi in RMA processes. The draft submission proposes
that effective iwi engagement is more the result of strong relationships supported by good
practice than legislative requirements. The draft submission proposes that Auckland Council
maintain the relationship based approach it has established with the Independent Mori
Statutory Board and Aucklands 19 iwi. Any legislative requirements must be practicable for
the 19 iwi of Auckland and for Auckland Council.
17.
Auckland Council supports the appointment of hearings commissioners with expertise in

tikanga Mori but suggests Councils own approach of appointing, with IMSB involvement, a
pool of independent planning commissioners (including those with tikanga Mori expertise)
is more appropriate than consulting with iwi on planning commissioners every time a hearing
is held. Auckland Council would like to see the governments intention matched with
investment to build capacity in tikanga Mori.
Collaborative and Streamlined planning processes
18.
The amendments introduce two new processes which local authorities can request for
making, changing or reviewing policy statements and plans as alternatives to the Schedule 1
process under the RMA: the collaborative and the streamlined planning process. The draft
submission proposes that Auckland Council:
i.
support the collaborative process in principle with a number of modifications
ii.
could support an amended proposal, although it opposes the proposed streamlined

process due to the extent of the Ministers role in determining the content of plans.
Costs
19.
Many of the amendments outlined above will impose additional cost on local authorities.
There is no analysis of the likely costs of the proposals in the Bill and their impact on local
authorities. A welcome exception to increasing costs is the greater use of electronic means
to implement requirements under the RMA.
Individual clauses
20.
Natural Hazards - Part 2 of the RMA is amended to recognise the management of the risk of
natural hazards as a matter of national importance. This amendment has been signaled for
some time. The draft submission proposes that it is supported.
21.
Hazardous Substances - amendments to sections 30 and 31 and Schedule 4 remove the

need to consider hazardous substances in resource consents and private plan changes
processes under the RMA. The draft submission proposes that this is not supported
although it recognises that decision making for some hazardous substances is appropriately
made at the national level.
22.
Subdivision - proposed amendments would make subdivision a permitted activity where

allowed by a resource consent or where it does not contravene an NES, or a rule in a district
plan or proposed district plan. This amendment does not introduce any change in practice,
as existing district plans and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan contain rules that require
resource consents to be sought for subdivision.
Page 55
Item 13

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 13
Reserves Act 1977

23.
The Bill introduces new processes for land exchanges and consequential amendments
which align with RMA processes which the draft submission proposes are supported.
Public Works Act 1981

24.
Amendments are made to the Public Works Act to update provisions for payments of
compensation and to align the objection process with that of the RMA. The draft submission
proposes that the amendments are supported subject to clarification of the drafting.
Conservation Act 1987 and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf
(Environmental Effects) Act 2012.
25.
No matters have been identified that merit comment on the amendments proposed to these
acts.
Consideration
26.
Local board Chairs were invited to attend the workshop with the Auckland Development
Committee. Copies of the materials circulated in preparation for the workshop were also
circulated to all local board members.
27.
Several local boards have indicated they will formally respond. Local Board resolutions
received will be appended to Auckland Councils submission.

28.
At the time of writing a hui with mana whenua representatives has been scheduled for 1
March 2016. The views of the hui will be presented to the Auckland Development
Committee.
29.
The Independent Mori Statutory Boards submission to the Bill will be integrated into the
draft Auckland Council submission where they are in agreement. Any comment that is not
able to be integrated in this manner will be appended to Auckland Councils submission as
the submission of the Independent Mori Statutory Board.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors
Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Mike Moddie - Senior Solicitor Litigation & Regulatory
Megan Tyler - Manager Planning - Central/Islands
Authorisers
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Page 56

10 March 2016
Item 14

File No.: CP2016/02737
Purpose
1.
To present the Auckland Development Committee with the Regional Historic Heritage
Grants Programme framework for adoption and provide the committee with an update on the
implementation of the Community Grants Policy following the policy adoption in December
2014.
Executive Summary
2.
The new Auckland Council Community Grants Policy (CGP) was adopted in December
2014. This policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to
individuals, groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit
Aucklanders.
3.
The CGP covers grants for community development, arts and culture, events, sport and
recreation, environment and heritage, and includes:
a local component (21 local grants programmes and a multi-board grants programme,
governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans), and
a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in
the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).
4.
The regional component of the CGP includes provision for six regional grant programmes
targeting key activity areas aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan. One
of these regional grants programmes is the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme,
with decision-making over this grants programme delegated to this committee.
5.
This report seeks to set the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework for the
2015/2016 financial year. This framework sets out funding priorities, any additional criteria or
exclusions that will apply, timing of funding rounds, planned approach to promotion,
assessment, support for decision-making, evaluation and reporting.
Recommendation/s
a)
adopt the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme framework for the
2015/2016 financial year as set out in Attachment B.
Comments
6.
The Community Grants Policy (CGP), adopted in December 2014, covers grants for
community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and
heritage, and includes:
a local component (21 local grants programmes and a multi-board grants programme,
governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans),
a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in

the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).
Page 57
Item 14

10 March 2016
7.
The local component of the CGP has been implemented by staff which supports individual
local boards to develop and adopt individual Local Grants Programme schedules which will
guide community groups and individuals when making applications. Each Local Grants
Programme schedule specifies the outcomes the board wishes to support through their
grants programme, local board funding priorities, budget allocated to the grants programme,
which grant types will operate locally, the number of funding rounds, funding round dates,
any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply and other factors the local board consider
to be significant to their decision-making.
8.
The regional component of the CGP recognises community grants as a key tool the
governing body can use to implement their vision for the region as a whole, as set out in the
Auckland Plan and other regional strategic documents. Grants provide a direct and tangible
way of supporting Aucklanders aspirations for their city and responding to regional needs
and opportunities.
9.
The CGP established six regional grants programmes targeting six key activity areas aligned
to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan and allocated decision making over
these programmes to the relevant governing body committees. The regional grant
programmes and associated committees are
Regional Arts and Culture Grants Programme (Arts Culture and Events Committee)
Regional Community Development Grants Programme (Community Development and
Safety Committee)
Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme (Environment Climate
Change and Natural Heritage Committee)
Regional Events Grants Programme (Arts Culture and Events Committee)
Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme (Auckland Development Committee)
Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme (Parks Sport and Recreation
Committee)
Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme

10.
The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is described in Schedule 5 of the CGP
(Attachment A). The schedule establishes the purpose of Regional Historic Heritage Grants
Programme as being to incentivise best practice, increase understanding and encourage
community involvement in the care of our regionally significant heritage sites and places.
11.
The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is intended to help deliver the outcomes
set out in the relevant Council strategies and plans. The Programme outcomes have been
refined from broad outcomes referenced in the Regional Historic Heritage Grants
Programme schedule of the CGP to provide greater clarity for applicants. Outcomes we are
seeking to support through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme are:
12.
Regulations in the Unitary Plan are supported by incentives to protect and conserve
significant historic heritage places
Auckland Council, Mana Whenua, community organizations, and property owners work
together to support kaitiakitanga and stewardship of historic heritage
Aucklanders see Council investment in historic heritage
Historic heritage grants unlock private and community investment in heritage

conservation
Budget allocation for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme was confirmed as
part of the final decision making on the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025. The annual
funding budget for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is $86,981.
Page 58
13.
For the 2015/2016 funding round this report sets out the proposed Regional Historic
Heritage funding priorities, additional criteria, exclusions that will apply, investment
approach, timing of funding rounds, planned approach to promotion, assessment, support
for decision-making, evaluation and reporting.
14.
Details are set out in the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Framework
2015/2016 (Attachment B). This Framework will be reviewed annually prior to the Regional
Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round.
Consideration
Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme Priorities
15.
Priorities for the 2015/2016 Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme funding round are
recommended based on the Funds purpose and outcomes. The proposed priorities are:
Conservation of regionally significant historic heritage places
At-risk historic heritage places

Supporting kaitiakitanga of Maori cultural heritage
Heritage and character in Town Centres.
Eligibility Criteria
16.
The CGP sets out qualifying criteria for regional funding as:
17.
For the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme, regionally significant projects can
involve the following types of heritage:
18.
services, projects or activities that primarily address regionally determined priorities and
are regional in terms of scale or significance and/or
are regional in terms of their impact or reach.
Historic Heritage places that are included in one of the schedules of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan, including the Historic Heritage Schedule, Sites of Significance to
Mana Whenua, Sites of Value to Mana Whenua and contributing buildings within a
Historic Heritage Area or Historic Character Area.
Historic Heritage places that are unscheduled but demonstrated to be of regional
significance, subject to evidence that the site has interim protection through heritage
covenants as well as a letter from the applicants confirming support for scheduling the
site under the relevant heritage overlay.
Movable heritage items subject to evidence that the object would be stored and
exhibited within the Auckland region in a manner that will ensure its long-term
protection.
The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme is open to applications from individuals,
groups and other organisations who meet the general CGP eligibility criteria, qualify for
regional funding, and are delivering projects or activities that will deliver (or contribute to)
one or more of the outcomes listed above. Projects can take place on public, private or
Maori land however restoration of historic heritage places which are owned by Council are
not eligible for funding
Additional exclusions
19.
The CGP states that the following activities will not be funded through any Auckland Council
grants programmes:
Debt servicing or repayment

Legal expenses
Activities that promote religious ministry or political purposes

Medical expenses
Page 59
Item 14

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 14
20.
Public services that are the responsibility of central government (e.g. core education,
primary health care)
Physical works e.g. improvements to community buildings that require consents or
permits, prior to the necessary consents or permits being obtained (grants may be
awarded in principle, but funds will not be released until all conditions are satisfied)
Purchase of alcohol
Governing body committees administering regional grants programmes can choose to

specify additional exclusions. Based on a review of legacy council and other local authority
historic heritage funding schemes, the following additional exclusions are proposed:
Salaries; and
Projects which are incompatible with the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) NZ Charter (2010) and/or tikanga Mori.
Investment approach
21. Based on available budget and a review of legacy council and other local authority historic
funding schemes it is recommended that the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme
offer grants with a maximum annual value of $20,000.
22.
It is recommended in the inaugural funding round that support be offered through one-off
project grants and multi-year project grants (i.e. providing funding annually for a maximum of
3 years, without the applicant needing to re-submit their application each year). To be
eligible for multi-year project grants it is recommended that applicants be required to provide
a project plan covering the entire period of funding. Multi-year grants would be subject to
additional accountability requirements with an expectation that projects will include detailed
monitoring and evaluation.
23.
Legacy council heritage funding schemes applied a 50% match of total project costs with the
applicants contribution able to be comprised of a combination of financial resources, costed
in-kind support, volunteer labour or funding from other organisations.
24.
It is recommended that applications with some form of matched funding (applicant

contribution) be prioritised through the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme to
ensure that Council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other
providers. While it is desirable for applicants to provide a 50% match for Regional Historic
Heritage grants, consideration would be given to allocating grants of up to 100% of the total
project costs in exceptional circumstances, where the significance of heritage outcomes
supported by the project and applicant circumstances warrant this level of support.

25.
The CGP enables local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. They may
choose to fund local environmental projects and activities, some of which may complement
the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa.
26.
In formal feedback on the CGP some local boards expressed concern that the difference
between local and regional was difficult to establish in the heritage area. Providing
reference to scheduled classification seeks to add clarity to this distinction. The need for the
project to reflect regional impact will be considered as part of the application assessment
and will need to be considered part of the committee role in decision making.
27.
While decision-making for the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme sits with the
Auckland Development Committee as part of the application assessment process, it is
intended that local boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on applications and
alignment of projects with Local Board priorities.
Page 60

10 March 2016
28.
All grant programmes should respond to Auckland Councils commitment to improving Maori
wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Maori.
29.
Kaitiakitanga of Maori cultural heritage is identified as a priority for the RHH Grants
Programme and scheduled Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua and Sites of Value to
Mana Whenua meet regional eligibility criteria.
30.
The Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme will be promoted to Maori and iwi
organisations through existing networks and staff with subject matter expertise regarding
Maori cultural heritage and tikanga Maori would be involved in the application assessment
process.
Implementation
31.
An implementation plan is underway and the Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme
will be regionally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted
advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including Maori and iwi
organisations.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Community Grants Policy Schedule Five: Regional Historic Heritage

Grants Programme
63
Regional Historic Heritage Grant Programme Framework
67
Signatories
Authors
Fran Hayton - Environmental Grants and Investives Manager

Mary Kienholz - Senior Specialist: Community Heritage
Tanya Sorrell - Team Leader Built & Cultural Heritage Policy
Authorisers
Noel Reardon - Manager Heritage

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Page 61
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 63
Attachment A
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 64
Attachment A
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 65
Attachment B
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 67
Attachment B
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 68
Attachment B
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 69
Attachment B
Item 14

10 March 2016
Page 70

10 March 2016
Item 15

File No.: CP2016/03456
Purpose
1.
To seek the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of

selected Council sites within the central Takapuna area that have been identified as
opportunities to unlock strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.
Executive Summary
2.
Takapuna represents an urban renewal opportunity as a desirable residential location,

framed by a wonderful and well frequented beachfront and unique lake that could contribute
to Aucklands ambition to become the worlds most liveable city.
3.
Takapuna is a metropolitan centre that has been subject to a number of plans and strategies
and stakeholder engagement with considerable community and political support for urban
renewal.
4.
These plans have considered the role a number of at grade commuter parking areas can
play in revitalising the centre, as well as properties acquired by the legacy council for that
purpose, introducing additional residential development within a mixed-use context as well
as delivering on a range of other objectives for the centre including improved public realm
and connections to the beach.
5.
The Takapuna High Level Project Plan (HLPP) completed by Panuku establishes the
context, an approach to engagement and framework planning and the realisation strategy,
including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of the
Anzac Street and Gasometer properties.
6.
The facilitation by Panuku will ensure that development outcomes are consistent with the
framework plans and Local Board/Council aspirations for the area, including housing and
mixed-use along with amenity improvements.
7.
The aim is to unlock the strategic, community and commercial value of the sites, potentially
serving as a catalyst for further development within and on the fringe of the centre.
8.
Enabling development of these sites needs to deliver car parking solutions that are important
to sustain the economic vibrancy of the commercial and retail centre as well as any other
transport requirements prescribed by Auckland Transport such as managing public transport
provision.
9.
The redevelopment will be enabled through the sale of land to developers, with outcome
controls in place, along with the possible use of existing Council LTP funding for projects in
the area that support the development outcomes. Further funds could potentially be sourced
from existing council budgets e.g. the parking contributions fund.
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the Takapuna High Level Project Plan and the proposed outcomes including
the framework planning and development process that underpins the approach set
out in that plan.
b)
endorse Panuku Development Auckland as Auckland Councils lead delivery agency

in Takapuna, noting that the framework planning phase will be a key interface for
Auckland Council to enable the delivery of the High Level Project Plan.
Page 71
Item 15

10 March 2016
c)
grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to dispose of any of the properties

listed below that are required to achieve the outcomes in the plan:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
d)
e)
40 Anzac Street (Including adjacent service lane)

72A Hurstmere Road
38 Hurstmere Road
34 Hurstmere Road
78R Hurstmere Road
14 Huron Street
15 Northcroft Street
note that recommendation c) above is subject to the following conditions as shown in

Attachment B and more fully described in Attachment C of the agenda:
i)
satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes
ii)
Auckland Transport confirming prior to the disposal of any of the sites

described in Attachment B that transport arrangements will be accommodated
to its satisfaction following the disposal
iii)
disposal of the properties will be with the objective of achieving urban renewal
and housing. The mechanisms to achieve this include contractual
arrangements, such as reference briefs and development agreements.
note that Panuku will undertake a framework planning exercise to achieve quality
urban design and other community outcomes, along with community objectives and
will involve the Local Board and mana whenua in this planning process.
Comments
10.
In October 2015, ADC formally endorsed Takapuna as one of nine locations for further
investigation and consideration by Panuku.
11.
In December 2015, ADC was presented with the priority development location process and
emerging development work programme that included Takapuna as an unlock location.
12.
A HLPP for Takapuna (refer Attachment A) was approved by the Panuku Board in
November 2015.
13.
A workshop was held with the Devonport -Takapuna Local Board on 2 February 2016 where
the HLPP was presented. . Feedback was supportive of the work to date and appreciative
of the fact that the substantial issues have been identified early on.
14.
Following the Local Board workshop the HLPP was fully discussed with the Auckland
Development Committee on the 17 February 2016
15.
The purpose of the HLPP is to establish the context, engagement plans, framework planning
approach and realisation strategy, including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to
facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the central Takapuna area
consistent with Panuku and Council strategic objectives. The key deliverables of the HLPP
are:
Principles and approach to stakeholder engagement and the communication plan

Scoping of opportunities that can be taken to the market to deliver developments that
give effect to the plans and strategic objectives for the revitalisation of Takapuna
The vision, principles and approach that will enable refreshed framework planning for
the area and a reference brief for each site under consideration for development
Development approach and realisation plan for each site under consideration
Page 72
Strategic context
16.
Takapuna is a metropolitan centre and the desire to revitalise the centre has been the
subject of a number of plans and strategies, stakeholder engagement and considerable
community and political support. Key plans and strategies include:
Takapuna Strategic Framework (October 2010, North Shore City Council)

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Area Plan (2014)
Takapuna Centre Plan (2014, Takapuna-Devonport Local Board)
Anzac Street Car Park: Options Study (Draft, Auckland Council).
17.
These plans set out a series of strategic principles as well as key projects and initiatives that
will deliver on the vision for a vibrant and revitalised centre. This includes consideration of
the role a number of at-grade commuter parking areas can play in revitalising the centre as
well as properties acquired by the legacy council for that purpose, introducing additional
residential within a mixed-use context as well as delivering on a range of other objectives for
the centre.
18.
The outcomes articulated in these plans are consistent with the strategic goals and
objectives in Panukus SOI and include:
Takapuna metropolitan centre is recognised as the primary commercial and community

hub for Devonport-Takapuna that is contemporary, vibrant, pleasant, inviting and with a
relaxed beach-side atmosphere
Strong pedestrian connections and orientation to Takapuna Beach
Quality future mixed use development and public space improvement
Increased opportunities for new local businesses and economic growth
More intensive housing options with easy access to local community infrastructure and
amenities
A more pedestrian focused and cycle friendly environment with a network of open
space, laneways and urban plazas
19.
Car parking that supports the retail and entertainment identity of Hurstmere Road and
the centres heart
High quality transformational projects including, the Gasometer and Anzac Street car
parks
Greater Takapuna is also one of the identified Spatial Priority Areas (SPA) which have been
selected in order to achieve multiple outcomes in support of the Auckland Plan. While the
focus of Panuku is within the town centre, the SPA designation provides a solid platform to
enable the cross-Council focus and approach that is necessary to achieve the outcomes for
Takapuna identified in the HLPP.
Project Scope
20.
Previous planning and strategic framework documents provide a platform for the
revitalisation of the town centre and the HLPP has identified two precincts of Council land
holdings (refer map in Attachment B) that are suitable to further these strategic aims and
objectives. Panuku has selected the sites within these precincts as opportunities to unlock
strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.
21.
Some of the sites within these precincts are currently on the Auckland Transport Fixed Asset
Register as at grade parking for short and long-stay commuter parking, while others are
properties purchased by the legacy Council for strategic development purposes.
22.
The precincts and sites along with their current ownership and usage as well as likely nature
of future redevelopment are summarised below. Further details are contained in
Attachment C.
Page 73
Item 15

10 March 2016
Item 15

10 March 2016
Precinct
Sites
Business
Owner
Current use
Planned redevelopment
Gasometer Site
14 Huron St
15 Northcroft St
AT available in
principle subject
to parking
requirements
being resolved
At grade public
car parking
Mixed use, likely including

some long-term parking
Anzac Street
Car Park &
Surrounds
40 Anzac St
AT available in
principle subject
to parking
requirements
being resolved
At grade public
car parking
R78 Hurstmere Rd
AT available in
principle subject
to parking
requirements
being resolved
At grade public
car parking
Mixed use (retail &

residential) including active
street frontages, laneways
and public realm, and
connections to Hurstmere
Green and the beach.
72A Hurstmere Rd
Panuku
Retail / access
34&38 Hurstmere Rd
Panuku
Retail
23.
In terms of the implementation phase consideration will also be given to opportunities to

achieve enhanced strategic objectives beyond these sites through acquisition of additional
properties, such consideration limited to be consistent with the unlock category.
24.
Two further sites were identified within The Strand precinct, summarised below, however
due to unresolved transport issues the future use or development of these sites were
deferred at this stage and will be subject to further investigation.
Precinct
Sites
Ownership
Current use
Planned redevelopment
The Strand /
Channel View
Road
12 Channel View Rd
85 Hurstmere Rd
AT not
approved for
release
At grade public
car parking
Potential redevelopment
opportunities subject to
further investigation and
transport needs
assessment. Out of scope
for the purposes of this
HLPP
Project outcomes
25.
It is anticipated that once executed the project will deliver the following benefits:
Revitalisation of town centre: residential and mixed-use development on the Anzac St

site and Gasometer sites in accordance with requirements to deliver urban renewal
consistent with established reference briefs and contractual requirements such as
development agreements.
An appropriate level of car parking to service the town centre.
Active edges to Hurstmere Green
Improved connections from the town centre to the beach
Improved public realm spaces in the town centre
An increased variety of dwelling typologies and price points
A catalyst to further development
Project considerations
Statutory
Page 74
26.
The subject sites are classified as Metropolitan Centre Zone and Takapuna 1 Precinct, subprecincts A, C and E under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) which are enabling
zonings supportive of intensive residential and commercial development.
27.
Statutory clearance procedures to enable realisation of the development opportunities are

currently underway, including upliftment of designations for public parking and these will be
resolved through the execution phase.
28.
Requirements under the PAUP for no car parking on sites subject to key retail frontage
overlay, requirement for active frontages, provision of public space for the market, providing
necessary linkages to the beach, interface with other neighbouring sites and the Lake Road
frontage potential streetscape improvements and public transport infrastructure need to be
considered.
29.
Parking and public transport

AT has advised that there is a requirement to secure the continued and future provision of
commuter parking within the centre and also that any development planning needs to have
regard to meeting future public transport needs.
30.
AT has developed the Takapuna comprehensive parking management plan which estimates
that the current supply of short stay / visitor parking in Takapuna exceeds the demand by
about 300 spaces. Projected economic growth is expected to absorb this surplus over the
next 10 years, with demand for an additional 580 visitor parking spaces anticipated in 30
years time. As the development of the Anzac and Gasometer sites will result in the removal
car parking, anticipated demand will need to be accommodated within the centre in some
way that is acceptable to AT.
31.
To progress any initiatives to facilitate the development of these sites it is essential to

confirm and test the AT requirements and the degree of flexibility as to where this car
parking is located in order to optimise development opportunities and design outcomes. In
addition, the provision for and management of public transport through the centre is also
critica. At this stage it is assumed to be catered for within the existing public streets and
does not have a direct impact on any of the sites.
32.
The final details of AT requirements will be worked through as part of the framework
planning which will directly inform the opportunities for each site. Furthermore, as the main
areas of Council land are so significant in meeting the off street parking provision within
Takapuna, the sequencing and timing of development of each site needs to be planned to
ensure that the commercial functionality of the centre is not undermined by the loss of
parking for a significant period of time.
33.
Market demand
Takapuna Centre has a high level of market attractiveness and relatively high land values
due to quality amenity and transport connectivity, a shortage of developable land parcels
and a medium growth profile.
34.
The town centre is a highly attractive and premier residential location; with high forecast
population growth requiring an estimated additional 1,563 dwellings over the next 15 years.
Currently a number of consented apartment proposals in Takapuna are being marketed and
these will be investigated as part of the execution phase.
35.
Increased residential development is likely to revitalise retail activity, with commercial office
demand expected to continue at the current level, largely serving local demand.
Realisation Strategy
36.
Land / opportunity aggregation

In terms of optimising both the strategic and commercial gains from the realisation of the
identified precincts and sites, the following options have been considered:
Opportunities to selectively acquire/aggregate land within each precinct to improve the

commercial and strategic gain within and between the precincts.
Page 75
Item 15

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 15
The benefits, or not, of aggregating the development opportunities when taking them
to the market.
37.
The option for Panuku to significantly acquire further property, prior to the market process, to
drive a more comprehensive outcome requires time and additional commercial risks in this
unlock location, with marginal strategic benefits.
38.
In any event, the opportunity exists to provide for this possibility through the subsequent
market engagement process. This will offer the opportunity for adjoining landowners to either
be part of the process or for astute market players to recognise these opportunities and seek
to deliver them through the EOI process.
39.
This is the recommended approach, with the exception of further investigating some more
modest acquisitions, should the strategic/commercial benefit balanced with risk be
acceptable.
40.
There seems little benefit in seeking a market response in only a single aggregated
opportunity as each precinct is significant in its own right and collectively will increase the
entry cost and will likely increase the development risk.
41.
As outlined below, it is premature to consider the options for the Strand / Channel View
precinct at this stage due to unresolved parking requirements and the fact that these sites
are still not identified by AT as suitable for disposal.
42.
The Anzac and Gasometer sites will therefore be offered collectively and singularly in one
approach to the market.
Precinct realisation strategies
43.
44.
45.
Gasometer Site - Northcroft and Huron Streets

The site currently provides some 140 car parks and is suitable to take to the market for
development proposals through a conventional EOI/RFP process. Part of the site is already
excavated below street level and the Burns and Auburn Street frontage has excellent
outlook to the south and west.
The key to taking this development opportunity to the market will be confirming the extent of
Council controlled off-street car parking to be provided in this location.
Anzac Street Site
This site currently provides 240 car parks. The site was purchased with the assistance of a
separate rate levied on adjacent properties and many of the long established businesses
have a strong sense of ownership. Any development proposal needs to be attuned to the
need to ensure that any disruption to car parking availability does not undermine the
commercial performance of the centre.
46.
The Council owns the adjacent Hurstmere Green Reserve as well as 30/34 Hurstmere
Road, two adjoining properties specifically purchased to enable a stronger pedestrian
connection between the car park, Hurstmere Road and the beach.
47.
Previous considerations of development opportunities of the site have considered providing

either basement parking or a multi-level car parking building to create an opportunity to
achieve the required car parking spaces and attractive commercial / mixed use space to
strengthen the commercial centre of Takapuna. The viability of such options will be tested
particularly the commercial implications of any proposed basement car parking.
48.
The private sector can bring opportunities to improve the viability of this development
opportunity through the control of adjacent properties that could be included within a broader
development scheme.
49.
It is noted that in respect of the properties indicated for disposal this will be done with the
objective of achieving urban renewal, including housing. The mechanisms to achieve this
may include contractual arrangements, such as reference briefs and development
agreements.
Page 76
The Strand / Channel View Road

50.
Council owns an area of parking at 85 Hurstmere Road, adjacent to The Strand is likely to
continue to be required for parking to service the beach area. The other key piece of land
close to the beachfront is at 12 Channel View Road. This property is bisected by a right of
way in favour of a property 51 Hurstmere Road.
51.
In order to determine the future of this site there needs to be further work to identify its
potential as proposed development sites and this should not delay bringing the other sites to
the market.
Financial Implications
52.
Redevelopment will be undertaken by the private sector, through an EOI/RFP process,

which will unlock the commercial value of the sites. The CV of the combined sites equates to
approximately $25 million.
53.
Redevelopment will be considered alongside the possible use of supportive council projects
approved in the LTP to improve the return.
54.
There is approximately $3.6m in the car parking development contributions fund that could
be available to offset the costs of providing car parking. These funds will be considered as
part of the execution phase and business case development.
55.
Development funding, if required, will be sourced by Panuku through the Strategic

Development Fund and repaid from realisation proceeds.
Value Creation
56.
As part of the implementation phase Panuku will assess the current financial benchmark for
the sites under consideration and will report additional value creation through the planning
and realisation process as well as the ultimate completed built value of the development
projects undertaken by the private sector on the subject sites.
Consideration
Stakeholder views and engagement
57.
There are a number of stakeholders within the area including Auckland Transport, the
Takapuna-Devonport Local Board, wider Council, Mana Whenua, community and special
interest groups and land owners of neighbouring properties.
58.
While the stakeholders may hold different perspectives and interests, the community
feedback on the Takapuna Strategic Framework together with the Local Board Plan,
demonstrates a number of shared outcomes and objectives for the revitalisation of
Takapuna, consistent with this project. Issues identified are the need to resolve the transport
requirements with Auckland Transport and the requirements to relocate the weekend
markets.
59.
No other specific proposals or options involving partnerships have been explored to date as
this will form part of the implementation of strategy market process.

60.
The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board strongly supports Takapuna for restorative urban
renewal within the Panuku work programme and more broadly as a Strategic Priority Area. It
considers the development Panuku will stimulate is essential if Takapuna is to unlock its
unique economic and social potential and play its part as one of Aucklands metropolitan
centres.
Page 77
Item 15

10 March 2016
Item 15

10 March 2016
61.
The Local Board has a vision to transform Hurstmere Road into a shared space and perhaps
eventually a pedestrian only space, and would like to see this ambition achieved as part of
any town centre development. The Local Board have also requested that any
redevelopment should also host quality urban open spaces, including green open spaces
that are sufficient for the needs of future residents, workforce and visitors.
62.
The Local Board is aware that car parking will be an issue with any Anzac Street car park
development. It requests that any redevelopment provides enough car parking for an
increased resident and employee population. Coming up with a creative relocation solution
for the Takapuna Sunday Markets is another matter that needs careful consideration.
63.
Panuku has engaged early and communicated regularly with the Local Board during the
location selection process and the preparation of the HLPP, which was work-shopped with
the Local Board in February. Feedback was supportive of the work to date and is
appreciative of the fact that the substantial issues have been identified early on.
64.
The Local Board has been proactive in establishing a Community Reference Group to act as
a key advisory body. Panuku will work closely with this group in the coming months to
ensure the wider community is accessible, informed and involved.
65.
Collaboration of the kind Panuku is aiming for will require a close partnership between the
public, private and community sectors across key platforms to achieve an integrated
strategy. To this end a number of base-line engagement measures are already in place
between Panuku and the Local Board to ensure a close working relationship develops in the
critical early stages of the planning phase.

66.
There are 13 Iwi authorities with registered interest in the broader Takapuna-Devonport
Local Board area. Panuku has been engaging with mana whenua through a regular monthly
Forum throughout development of the Panuku work programme. Early conversations on the
Takapuna project have been part of this work.
67.
Through this process Panuku has established particular cultural and commercial interest
from Ngti Paoa, who would like to undertake a Cultural Values Assessment over Takapuna.
This will be commissioned in the near future.
68.
It is noted that an adjoining property to the Anzac precinct, 19 Anzac Street, is likely to form
part of a future Treaty Settlement package.
69.
More detailed conversations about planning for development at Takapuna were held at the
16 February Panuku Mana Whenua Forum. A site visit will take place in March/April to
discuss specific cultural and environmental considerations.
70.
It is expected that the following activities may be undertaken during the Framework Planning
phase for Takapuna:
71.
Work in partnership with mana whenua kaitiaki officers towards best care for land and
people in the development planning and implementation at Takapuna. This work is
understood to enable protection of waahi tapu and the optimum health of the mauri (life
force) of the natural environment.
Environmental management recommendations will be incorporated into development

planning.
Application of the Te Aranga Design Principles in collaboration with mana whenua to

capture and express broader interests through the built form and possible place-making
activities as the project develops.
Cultural Values Assessments if appropriate / requested.
Exploration of development partnership opportunities.
Panuku will engage with the broader local Mori population within the scope of our
collaborative community engagement processes.
Page 78
Item 15

10 March 2016
Implementation
Project Phasing and Timing
72.
The project has the following substantive phases:
Phase
Tasks
Estimated timing
Phase 1
SPA and HLPP - Context and current state analysis that will
provide the foundation for the next phase
Completed
November 2015
Phase 2
ADC and Local Board Reporting Workshops undertaken

during February 2016 with formal report to ADC in March
2016
April 2016
Phase 3
Engagement and Communications Continuation of

engagement commenced during the HLPP preparation
process.
Ongoing until
project
completion
Phase 3
Investigation - Based on the context, an identification of the

opportunities / constraints that will inform a clear project
vision, objectives and design brief that will drive the
framework planning phase. Investigation of any property
acquisitions.
April 2016
Phase 4
Framework Plan - including reference brief and

implementation strategy that will deliver on the agreed
objectives.
June 2016
Phase 5
Business Case(s) to Panuku Board - will provide a sound

basis for the rationale and implementation of the project.
June 2016
Phase 6
Implementation of Realisation Strategy
July 2016
onwards
73.
The attachments have been prepared as a detailed summary of Panukus plans. This
information will be reformatted into a booklet with images and graphics to assist with
communications and engagement with local communities.
Framework Planning Approach

74.
A considerable amount of planning work has already been undertaken for the wider
Takapuna town centre. Therefore the approach being taken by Panuku is to review the
existing context and planning work and consider and incorporate the principles elaborated
within the legacy documents as relevant in refining the framework plan for the area. It is not
anticipated that there will be any substantive amendments to what has already being
significantly consulted on and workshopped with the community.
75.
Panuku has commenced engagement with the Local Board and has established a baseline
approach to engagement which will form part of a formal engagement plan.
76.
The Framework Plan for the area will include:
Design Statement guiding vision

Development Principles what is prescribed/what is flexible
Responsiveness to context, market, site conditions etc.
3D Spatial representation of uses, movement and relationships
Feasibility testing and sensitivities to optimise the commercial and design outcome
Design principles / controls
Reference / design brief that will inform any disposal
Implementation strategy and plan
Page 79
Item 15

10 March 2016
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
High Level Project Plan - Takapuna
Project Area
107
Schedule of Council Properties within Takapuna High Level Project Plan

boundary
109
81
Signatories
Author
Allan McGregor Manager Strategic Planning
Authorisers
David Rankin Director of Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development

Page 80
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 82
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 84
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 85
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 86
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 87
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 88
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 89
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 90
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 91
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 92
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 93
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 94
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 95
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 96
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 97
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 98
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 99
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 100
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 101
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 102
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 103
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 104
Attachment A
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 105
Attachment B
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 107
Attachment C
Item 15

10 March 2016
Page 109

10 March 2016
Item 16
Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds High Level Project Plan Unlocking Urban Redevelopment
File No.: CP2016/03756
Purpose
1.
To seek the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to facilitate the redevelopment of

selected Council sites within the Northcote Centre area that have been identified as
opportunities to unlock strategic, community and commercial value through urban renewal.
Executive Summary
2.
Northcote has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a Town Centre which requires
renewal. The immediate project area has an old town centre at its heart with established
community facilities and a neighbourhood retail centre, including a supermarket, surrounded
generally by low density residential, two schools and a high concentration of Housing New
Zealand (HNZ) social housing.
3.
The current urban fabric is largely in a poor condition mainly attributed to the ground lease
structure of the Centre, some reluctance to freehold Councils leasehold interests to facilitate
private investment and a less than optimum approach to centre and place management.
4.
Changing circumstances will enable Panuku to leverage and materialise previous planning
efforts in Northcote by capitalising on a number of current and evolving opportunities, albeit
over a period of time and subject to unlocking the complexities of the fragmented tenure and
ground lease situation.
5.
Current market conditions, that whilst improving, still needs to be influenced by

comprehensive renewal in the wider area. Opportunities for unlocking Northcote rest on the
platform of:
Panuku leadership
Opportunities granted by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
Strategic Special Housing Area (SHA) designation

Growing relationship with HNZ
Improving local market conditions
Housing for Older People initiative that will offer opportunities to improve the services to
older people in the adjacent villages.
The current rent review cycle
6.
Leaseholders on some of the larger properties desire to contribute to comprehensive

development outcomes.
Based on existing planning documents a vision for the project is: Northcote is a growing
community with a lively and welcoming heart that celebrates culture and where business
thrives and everyones needs are met.
7.
The project scope consists of:
An area of control (5 ha) - the Town Centre where Panuku has direct control of the
development due to Council's ownership of the sites.
An area of influence (83 ha) - the wider neighbourhood where Panuku can influence
framework planning, alongside HNZ which owns some 15ha and approx. 300 homes, to
promote wider renewal benefits in partnership with other landowners.
Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds High Level Project Plan - Unlocking Urban Redevelopment
Page 111
Item 16

10 March 2016
8.
Panuku is proposing four key strategic moves that will unlock the opportunities at Northcote:
9.
Partnering Approach
Revitalising the Town Centre
Reconnecting the Town Centre
Developing the Town Centre
Regeneration of a local commercial and community hub that will benefit the community
Improved economic performance of the centre as it responds to renewal and market
perception
Provision of additional housing choice
Improved investment performance and capital value of an existing asset, maximising the
community and commercial outcomes from the investment.
Reconnecting the centre with its wider community.
10.
Redevelopment will be enabled through the sale of land to developers along with the
potential use of existing Council LTP funding for projects in the area that support the
development outcomes.
11.
It is noted that any redevelopment activity that may directly affect existing Council
community facilities or services will be subject to liaison with the affected business owners
and Local Board that may require further approval by Council as required.
12.
Initial project budget for planning and place-making activities will be funded from Panuku
budgets as well as additional income from planned rent reviews.
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the Northcote High Level Project Plan and the proposed outcomes including
the planning and development process that underpins the approach set out in that
plan.
b)
endorse Panuku Development Auckland as Auckland Councils lead delivery agency

in Northcote, noting that the framework planning phase will be a key interface for
Auckland Council to enable the delivery of the High Level Project Plan.
c)
grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to dispose of any of the properties

listed below that are required to achieve the outcomes in the plan:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
d)
1, 3-5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 35, 47, 49, 51Pearn Cr
1, 3-11, 13, 15, 16-30, 17, 21, 23-25, 27-35, 32-44, 43-47, 50-52 Pearn Pl
16-18, 30, 32 College Rd
2, 6-10, 16-26 Kilham Av
111, 115, 123-127 Lake Rd
note that recommendation c) above is subject to the following conditions and

described in more detail in Attachment C and D of the agenda:
i)
satisfactory conclusion of the required statutory processes
ii)
disposal of the properties will be with the objective of achieving urban renewal
and housing. The mechanisms to achieve this may include contractual
arrangements, such as reference briefs and development agreements.
Page 112
e)
f)
grant authority to Panuku Development Auckland to consider the service properties

listed below that may contribute, in whole in part, to achieve the outcomes in the
plan:
i)
1, 5 Ernie Mays St
ii)
6-8 Cadness St
iii)
65 Pearn Cr
note that recommendation e) above is subject to the following condition and

described in more detail in Attachment C and E, of the report:
i)
g)
Item 16

10 March 2016
liaison with council business owners and the Local Board and the granting of
further approval from council if the proposed contribution of these properties to
the High Level Project Plan outcomes, either in whole or in part, directly affects
existing or proposed community facilities/service properties.
note that Panuku will undertake a framework planning exercise to achieve quality
urban design and other community outcomes, along with community objectives and
will involve the Local Board and mana whenua in this planning process.
Comments
Background
13.
In October 2015, ADC formally endorsed Northcote as one of nine locations for further
investigation and consideration by Panuku.
14.
In December 2015, ADC was presented with the priority development location process and
emerging development work programme that included Northcote as an unlock location.
15.
A High Level project Plan (HLPP) for Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds (refer
Attachment A) was approved by the Panuku Board in February 2016.
16.
The purpose of the HLPP is to establish the context, engagement plans, framework planning
approach and realisation strategy, including the necessary mandate, to enable Panuku to
facilitate the redevelopment of selected Council sites within the central Northcote area
consistent with Panuku and Council strategic objectives. The key deliverables of the HLPP
are:
Project description including vision, identification of project area and scope, objectives
and key benefits / outcomes
Principles and approach to stakeholder engagement and the communication plan
The vision, principles and approach that will enable refreshed framework planning for
the area and a reference brief for each site under consideration for development
Scoping of opportunities that can be taken to the market to deliver developments that
give effect to the plans and strategic objectives for the revitalisation of Northcote
Overall implementation strategy and realisation plan for each site under consideration
Project phasing and timing including process, milestones and resourcing
Indicative project budget and proposed funding
Key decisions and approvals required in order to proceed to execution phase
Strategic context
17.
Northcote has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a town centre which requires renewal.
Page 113
Item 16

10 March 2016
18.
Northcote has a high level of planning in place from 2002 through the Northcote Central
Project (a partnership between the community, North Shore City Council and HNZ) through
to 2014 when Council's City Transformation unit proposed a staged approach to
redeveloping the town centre. The only masterplan of the town centre that is active to date is
the Northcote Town Centre Plan that was adopted by the North Shore City Council in 2010
and endorsed by the Kaipatiki Local Board in 2013.
19.
The vision for the project (which follows from the Northcote Town Centre Plan) is: Northcote
is a growing community with a lively and welcoming heart that celebrates culture and where
business thrives and everyones needs are met.
20.
Northcote centre falls within the Northcote Strategic Special Housing Area (SHA), which
provides the opportunity to access the enabling PAUP provisions.
21.
The PAUP will enable intensification and redevelopment of Northcote. The maximum
building height in the Town Centre is being increased to 24.5m. Initial analysis shows future
capacity of 220 apartments and 8,500m2 of additional commercial floor space.
22.
Council is investing in a number of infrastructure projects in the area, which when delivered
in collaboration with the HNZ development of the SHA and redevelopment of the town
centre, can bring wider regeneration outcomes for Northcote.
Market context
23.
There is a lack of local apartment product largely due to the current District Plan provisions
and the ability to source land suitable for such use.
24.
There is an opportunity for future intensive development in the town centre considering
improved market conditions and buyer appetite for well-priced apartment product,
gentrification in the fringes driven by Auckland's growing demand for housing and capacity
to increase residential and commercial space due to new intensification provision in the
PAUP.
25.
The current leasehold tenure is a major impediment to renewal and the ability to offer
freehold is a critical precursor to enabling development activity by the private sector.
Project Scope
26.
The geographical scope of the project covers an 88 ha neighbourhood inclusive of the

Northcote Strategic SHA, Hato Petera College and the Fox Outlet Centre (refer Attachment
B).
27.
To clarify the role of Panuku in the project, the scope consists of:
An area of control (5 ha) - the Town Centre where Panuku has direct control of the
development due to Council's ownership of the sites. Council owns 36 of the 37
commercial and service sites in the Town Centre and manages through Panuku 32
ground leases, a commercial lease, and five service properties over those sites.
Auckland Transport manages the car park on 115 Lake Road and has recently
transferred the car park on 32 College Road to the Panuku portfolio of managed assets.
An area of influence (83 ha) - the wider neighbourhood where Panuku can influence
framework planning, alongside HNZ which owns some 15ha and approx. 300 homes, to
promote wider regeneration benefits in partnership with other landowners.
Current state
28.
The project area has an old town centre at its heart with established community facilities and
a neighbourhood retail centre, including a supermarket, surrounded generally by two
schools, low density residential and a high concentration of HNZ social housing.
Page 114
29.
Some improvements to the Town Centre began in 2006, largely focusing on car parking,
public space and community facilities. However, the current urban fabric is largely in a
neglected condition. The key issues that have previously constrained regeneration of the
area are:
Reluctance to freehold Councils leasehold interests to facilitate private investment. The

retail area, almost exclusively owned by Council, is subject to perpetually renewable
ground leases, a tenure structure that has resulted in a lower quality built form and poor
maintenance standards.
Redevelopment is financially challenging as it is complicated by the economic

implications of the ground lease arrangements, fragmented ground leases (33), multiple
sub-lessees and the costs of replacing existing centre parking in any future
development that has been a "free asset" supplied by Council.
General market conditions, negative perceptions of the concentrated social housing and
the absence of local apartment product as a viable housing option.
HNZ has advocated redevelopment over more than 20 years with limited results and
has invoked the concern of local residents in the process.
Lack of a proactive strategic asset management approach, coherent and sustained

leadership to achieve wider regeneration outcomes, and governance structure to control
and direct the many public landholdings.
Current District Plan zonings limit heights to 9 metres.
Platform to unlock opportunities

30.
Changing circumstances have given renewed confidence for Panuku to leverage and finally
materialise previous planning efforts in Northcote. Capitalising on a number of current and
evolving opportunities, albeit over a period of time and subject to unlocking the complexities
of the fragmented tenure and ground lease situation. Current market conditions, that whilst
improving, are still needing to be influenced by comprehensive renewal in the wider area.
31.
Opportunities for unlocking Northcote rest on the platform of:

Panuku leadership - will ensure broader regeneration, including Council and
surrounding crown assets, and will proactively and strategically manage the assets within
the context of an overall framework plan built on an agreed vision and community
consensus.
Wider scope - including town centre as Councils area of control and wider Northcote as
area of influence
PAUP - allows for greater intensification.
Northcote Strategic SHA designation - the Centre sits within the boundary of the
Northcote Strategic Area SHA, with HNZ leading the development of its land north of the
Centre. This will provide Panuku the impetus for regenerating the wider Northcote Central
neighbourhood.
Growing relationship with HNZ HNZ is committed to see early development of the
social housing area into a more balanced community, replacing social housing stock
where appropriate and adding additional houses, largely priced to the market.
Improving local market conditions including a growing demand for apartment product
in an area that has some fundamental market attractiveness derived from relative close
proximity and views to the CBD and an established community / commercial hub.
Preliminary feasibilities indicate that proposed mixed-use, 6 level apartment buildings are
commercially viable subject to the need to replace the loss of existing parking currently
provided free by the council. Coordinated development of the area with HNZ is expected
to improve residential values.
Page 115
Item 16

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 16
Housing for Older People (HfOP) initiative - the adjoining HfOP villages are now
subject to a wider partnership arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation to provide older
people housing across Auckland and these villages have development potential within
that arrangement.
Rent reviews - the seven-yearly rent review cycle, which commenced in January 2014,
will determine the market potential of ground leases and provide opportunities to
assemble strategic land and review the current ownership model.
Leaseholders of larger sites desire to be involved in comprehensive renewal - will
help increase the marketability of the Centre and potentially provide early development
opportunities.
Key strategic moves

32.
The four proposed key strategic moves that will unlock the opportunities that Northcote
presents are:
Strategic Move 1 - Partnering Approach:
A clear engagement strategy engagement and communications plan that builds on

previous plans and community consensus.
Seek early development opportunities - in partnership with significant commercial

interests / initiatives such as the larger leaseholders.
Partnering to achieve desired outcomes - including capitalising on the relationship

and commitment of HNZ to deliver more comprehensive regeneration within the wider
area of influence, working collaboratively with local interests such as the Business
Improvement District and with the Local Board who are committed to seeing the centre
regenerated consistent with agreed plans.
Strategic Move 2 - Revitalising the Town Centre:
A strategic asset management approach proactive and comprehensive

management that builds on the current rent review process to determine the market
potential of ground leases, provide opportunities to assemble strategic land and review
the current ownership model.
Facilitate place making activity via funding sourced from increased rents including revitalising the existing public realm, in partnership with Council, local
businesses & community interests, the business association, Business Improvement
District and Local Board. Public realm improvements will include green space linkages
and pedestrian linkages as well as opportunities to link to other communities through
proposed initiatives such as SeaPath and SkyPath.
Strategic Move 3 - Reconnecting the Town Centre:
Refresh existing plans and preparing a Framework Plan for the wider area of
influence in partnership with HNZ and consistent with previously approved Local Board
Plans and community consensus. This will ensure future renewal of the area occurs in a
pragmatic way and in response to current market, property and policy conditions, wider
scope of the project, and new design parameters of Panuku.
Use approved Council projects such as the Greenways project and storm-water
improvements, to enhance amenity and local connections.
Strategic Move 4 - Developing the Town Centre:
Seek approval and delegated authority to transact on all Council properties in the
centre, allowing the ability to aggregate and strategically release freehold sites
consistent with approved business cases and an established framework plan. Freeholding will facilitate private-sector investment in the development of the commercial
sites and future sale of residential apartments on the upper floors of new developments.
Page 116
Unlock opportunities from PAUP - Capitalise on the additional development bulk

accorded by the PAUP and if necessary using the SHA in this context.
Improve local infrastructure - consistent with approved Council projects and

supportive of the strategic framework. Opportunities to coordinate the number of Council
infrastructure projects will be explored and authority sought for Panuku to coordinate
this activity alongside the current Council business owners.
Refine feasibility of development options - that will support future business case
proposals to the Panuku Board. In the first instance focus on the larger leaseholder sites
and the rear car park site on College Road already released by Auckland Transport.
Note: Framework Planning will include the existing community facilities as part of a
comprehensive assessment of opportunities. The feasibility of redevelopment of the
community facilities sites will be assessed in liaison with the business owners and the Local
Board. Such development outcomes will look to improve the current community facility
provision, consistent with the needs of the community, while potentially unlocking
opportunities for residential development at upper levels.
33.
Panuku will investigate and undertake some quick wins to create immediate value add such
as continuing to revitalise the public realm, monitoring of leaseholders to improve their
performance and investigating the viability of developing available Council land holdings
such the carparks and the community hub as catalyst mixed-use developments.
34.
Free-holding may commence with those sites that will affect the least number of ground
leaseholders and occupiers.
Project Outcomes
35.
Regeneration of a local commercial and community hub that will benefit the community
Improved economic performance of the centre as it responds to renewal and market

perception
Provision of additional housing choice
36.
Improved investment performance and capital value of an existing asset, maximising the
community and commercial outcomes from the investment.
Reconnecting the centre with its wider community.
The expected community outcomes are:
Housing - Appropriate, functional and well-built with a range of housing types that meet
different and changing needs
Environment - A clean, safe and visually attractive environment with more useable
open spaces, native trees and birds
Community - A strong sense of community, ownership and pride in the area with better
access to well managed existing or purpose-built facilities
Access - An accessible place for everyone with improved facilities for public transport
and walking/cycling
Town centre - A busy, pleasant town centre with a variety of shops/services, easy
parking and where people feel safe
Financial Implications
37.
Redevelopment will be undertaken progressively through the private sector.
38.
In principle, development funding, if required, will be sourced by Panuku through the

Strategic Development Fund and repaid from realisation proceeds.
39.
Redevelopment will be considered alongside the possible use of supportive council projects
approved in the LTP to improve the return and wider benefits.
Page 117
Item 16

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 16
40.
the sites under consideration and will report additional value creation through the process as
well as the ultimate completed built value of the development projects undertaken by the
private sector.
Value Creation
41.
the properties under consideration and will report additional value creation through the
planning and realisation process as well as the ultimate completed built value of the
development projects undertaken by the private sector on the properties.
Consideration
Stakeholder views and engagement
42.
The key stakeholders of the project include the Kaipatiki Local Board, Auckland Transport,
Development Programme Office, Council's Stormwater Unit, HNZ, the Northcote Mainstreet
Business Association, the Ministry of Education and Progressive Enterprises (Countdown),
which is the centre's anchor store.
43.
There are partnership opportunities with the Northcote Mainstreet Business Association in
regards to branding, HNZ in framework planning and major ground-lease holders and Iwi in
commercial development.
44.
Panuku is committed to working collaboratively with the Local Board and the strong network
of existing stakeholders in Northcote during the Framework Planning phase. Collaboration
of the kind Panuku is aiming for will require a close partnership between the public, private
and community sectors across key platforms to achieve an integrated strategy. To this end a
number of base-line engagement activities are already in place between Panuku and the
Local Board to ensure a close working relationship develops in the critical early stages of the
planning phase.

45.
There is broad support from the Kaiptiki Local Board for Northcote to be a focus for
transformative urban regeneration within Panukus work programme. The Board has high
aspirations for Northcote and revitalisation of the Town Centre is a key outcome of the
Kaiptiki Local Board Plan.
46.
Panuku has engaged early and communicated regularly with the Local Board during the
location selection process and the preparation of the HLPP. The opportunities, focus and
approach that have been identified in the draft HLPP were work-shopped with the Local
Board in February. Feedback during the workshop revealed enthusiastic support for the
proposals.
47.
The Board supports redevelopment that enables Northcote to grow, develop and thrive,
while protecting its unique personality and heritage character through quality design. The
Board would like to see the Northcote town centre build on its identity as a vibrant
multicultural hub and connect to adjoining suburbs through the greenway concept. The
Board considers the provision of integrated and affordable housing options in the town
centre and adjoining strategic special housing area as key components for the
redevelopment of Northcote.
48.
The Local Board highlights that Northcote has excellent social infrastructure, with an
established network of stakeholders already working collaboratively. The commercial
development opportunity in Northcote is significant. Key anchor tenants, an increasingly
cohesive migrant business network and an established Business Improvement District
programme will help Northcote regenerate itself as Panuku executes its regeneration
strategy.
Page 118

10 March 2016
49.
There are 13 Iwi authorities with registered interest in the broader Kaipatiki Local Board
area. We have been engaging with mana whenua through our regular monthly Forum
throughout development of the Panuku work programme and early conversations on the
Northcote project have been part of this work.
50.
Through this process we have already established particular cultural and commercial
interest from Ngti Paoa, who would like to be closely involved in future planning for this
area.
51.
We note there may be opportunity for development partnerships arising through Iwi Right of
First Refusal options on potential HNZ land sale, or Treaty Settlements on Hato Petera
College.
52.
More detailed conversations about planning for development at Northcote were held at the
February Panuku Mana Whenua forum. A site visit will take place in March/April to discuss
specific cultural and environmental considerations. It is expected that the following activities
may be undertaken during the Framework Planning phase for Northcote:
53.
Work in partnership with mana whenua kaitiaki officers towards best care for land and
people in our development planning and implementation at Northcote. This work is
understood to enable protection of waahi tapu and the optimum health of the mauri (life
force) of the natural environment.
Environmental management recommendations will be incorporated into development
planning.
Application of the Te Aranga Design Principles in collaboration with mana whenua to
capture and express broader interests through the built form and possible place-making
activities as the project develops.
Cultural Values Assessments if appropriate / requested.
Exploration of development partnership opportunities.
Further noted is approximately 13% Mori / Pacific representation in the local resident
population and the proximity of Awataha Marae to the area of influence. The Framework
Plan will consider the integration of Awataha Marae in the community and we will engage
with the local Mori population within the scope of our collaborative community engagement
processes.
Implementation
Project Phasing and Timing
54.
Key milestones for the project are set out below.

Tasks
Timing
Local Board Workshop
3 February 2016
Auckland Development Committee workshop
17 February 2016
Panuku Board approval of HLPP
24 February 2016
Auckland Development Committee approval of HLPP
April 2016
Engagement and Communication Plan
September 2016
Northcote Framework Plan (in conjunction with HNZ)
September 2016
Implementation Plan: Strategic Asset Management and

Development / Realisation Strategy
June/July 2016 - onwards
Implementation Plan: Town Centre improvements and place

making activity.
Approach - February 2016

Implementation - October 2016
onwards
Continuing implementation of all projects beyond Town Centre
Present 2025
Page 119
Item 16
Item 16

10 March 2016
55.
The attachments have been prepared as a detailed summary of Panukus plans. This
information will be reformatted into a booklet with images and graphics to assist with
communications and engagement with local communities.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
High Level project Plan - Northcote Town Centre and Surrounds
121
Project Area
155
Property Plan
157
Propoert Disposal List
159
Property Influence List
161
Signatories
Author
Alan McGregor - Manager Strategic Planning
Authorisers
David Rankin - Director Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Auckland

Page 120
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 121
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 122
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 123
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 124
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 125
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 126
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 127
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 128
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 129
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 130
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 131
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 132
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 133
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 134
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 135
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 136
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 137
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 138
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 139
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 140
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 141
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 142
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 143
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 144
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 145
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 146
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 147
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 148
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 149
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 150
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 151
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 152
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 153
Attachment A
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 154
Attachment B
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 155
Attachment C
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 157
Attachment D
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 159
Attachment D
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 160
Attachment E
Item 16

10 March 2016
Page 161
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - revised zoning maps incorporating

the Governing Body decision of 24 February 2016
File No.: CP2016/03386
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to provide the committee with a full set of the revised zoning
maps that represent the councils position for hearing Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts
(Geographical Areas). The Topic 081 hearing started on 3 March 2016 and will run through
until the end of April 2016. The councils case on the zoning maps will be presented to the
Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) on 8 March 2016. The
revised zoning maps will be circulated on Tuesday 8 March via email and later
followed by hard copy.
2.
The report also discusses the implications of a recent memorandum from the Panel that
clarifies the Panel will not limit the questions it asks the councils expert witnesses to
business and rural zoning issues and the Future Urban zone. The memorandum from the
Panel also re-confirms the Panels expectation that expert witnesses will comply with the
Environment Court Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses.
Executive Summary
3.
Topic 081 - Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) is the last major hearing that will
be conducted by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel. The councils
evidence was lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January 2016. At the Governing
Body meeting on 24 February 2016, a change in approach was endorsed relating to
changes to the zoning maps that are not within the scope of submissions (i.e. out of scope).
4.
Revised maps have been prepared that reflect the decision of the Governing Body. The
maps will be provided to the Panel on 8 March 2016. As discussed at the Governing Body
meeting, a consequence of the resolution is that most of the councils expert witnesses can
no longer present their expert evidence on zoning issues at the hearings. If they were to do
so, they would be put in a position where their professional opinion (which they are required
to give under the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses) would potentially undermine the
decision of the Governing Body.
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the revised zoning maps that reflect the decision made by the Governing
Body on 24 February 2016 and note that these maps will form the councils position
at the Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) hearing.
Comments
5.
Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) is the last major hearing that will
be conducted by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel. The councils
evidence was lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January 2016. A change in
approach to that supported in the councils evidence was agreed to by the Governing Body
on 24 February 2016. In particular, it was resolved:
That the Governing Body:
a)
remove from the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan maps the out of scope zoning changes
made on 10 November 2015, which were not directly supported by any submission, and
that this now be confirmed as Auckland Councils position.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - revised zoning maps incorporating the Governing Body decision
of 24 February 2016
Page 163
Item 17

10 March 2016

10 March 2016
Item 17
b)
c)
d)
e)
remove from the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan maps the out of scope zoning
changes made on 24 November 2015, which were not directly supported by any
submission, and that this now be confirmed as Auckland Councils position.
note that the proposed out of scope zoning changes (other than minor changes
correcting errors and anomalies) seek to modify the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in
a substantial way.
note that the timing of the proposed out of scope zoning changes impacts the
rights of those potentially affected, where neither submitter or further submitter, and for
whom the opportunity to participate in the process is restricted to Environment Court
appeal.
in the interests of upholding the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness,
withdraw that part of its evidence relating to out of scope zoning changes (other than
minor changes correcting errors and anomalies).
6.
Revised maps have been prepared that reflect this resolution, and the Panel has been
advised that the councils evidence on rezoning is withdrawn to the extent it proposed out of
scope changes. The memo advising the Panel of the councils revised position is included as
Attachment A. The revised zoning maps are based on the maps lodged with the Panel
during the week of 25 January 2016. However, the residential zoning of sites that were
identified as out of scope has been changed back to the zoning on the maps in the 30
September 2013 notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
7.
With respect to the revised maps, the following points are important to note:
the changes only affect the residential zones; and
in some cases the change back to the notified version of the maps results in a more
intensive proposed residential zone (e.g. a change from Mixed Housing Suburban in the
maps originally lodged with the Panel during the week of 25 January to Terrace Housing
and Apartment Buildings).
8.
The memo sent to the Panel also requested that the Panel agrees to confine its questions
(and any cross-examination from submitters) of the councils expert witnesses to matters
relating to business and rural zones and the Future Urban zone. The response from the
Chairperson of the Panel is included as Attachment B. The Chairperson did not agree to the
councils request, and as a result, the majority of the councils witnesses will not be called by
the councils lawyers to answer questions from the Panel (or be cross-examined by other
submitters). If they were to be called, they would be put in a position where their professional
opinion, which they are required to give under the Environment Court Code of Conduct for
Expert Witnesses, would potentially undermine the decision of the Governing Body. The
response from the Chairperson of the Panel reconfirmed the Panels expectation that expert
witnesses will comply with the Code of Conduct.
9.
A consequence that arises from this issue is that few, if any of the councils expert witnesses
will be called to answer questions from the Panel (or be cross-examined by other submitters)
on business and rural zoning issues, or the Future Urban zone. The only exception to this
would be if the Panel itself calls them, or if the Panel agrees to requests from submitters to
cross-examine the councils expert witnesses. Housing New Zealand Corporation has
recently made a formal request to the Panel to cross-examine the councils expert witnesses
on zoning issues. The Panel has yet to respond.
10.
The following clauses from the Code of Conduct are of particular relevance to this issue:
An expert witness has an overriding duty to impartially assist the Court on matters within
the expert's area of expertise.
An expert witness is not, and must not behave as, an advocate for the party who
engages the witness. Expert witnesses must declare any relationship with the parties
calling them or any interest they may have in the outcome of the proceeding.
of 24 February 2016
Page 164

10 March 2016
Item 17
Consideration
11.
Local Board representatives have been invited to all Unitary Plan committee meetings.

12.
IMSB representatives are members of the Unitary Plan Committee.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Memo advising Panel of Council's revised position
167
Response from Chairperson of Independant Hearings Panel
171
Signatories
Author
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Authoriser
of 24 February 2016
Page 165
Attachment A
Item 17

10 March 2016
of 24 February 2016
Page 167
Attachment A
Item 17

10 March 2016
of 24 February 2016
Page 168
Attachment A
Item 17

10 March 2016
of 24 February 2016
Page 169
Attachment A
Item 17

10 March 2016
of 24 February 2016
Page 170
Attachment B
Item 17

10 March 2016
of 24 February 2016
Page 171

10 March 2016
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 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.
regarding development proposals.
Public Excluded
Page 173

10 March 2016
C2
Special Housing Areas: Tranche 10
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

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the

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)

and information that could
potentially give parties a
commercial advantage if released..
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the
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.
and information that could
potentially give parties a
commercial advantage if released.
Public Excluded
Page 174

Auckland Development Committee Agenda - March 16

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 Agenda - March 16

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

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

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Auckland Development Committee

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

Auckland Development Committee

Local Board Input

Reports Pending Status Update

Summary of information memos and briefings - 10 March 2016

Submission to the Productivity Commission's Better uban planning

Auckland Council submission on the Residential Tenancies Act

Auckland Council's Submission to the Resource Legislation Amendment

Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme 2015/2016

Takapuna High Level Project Plan Unlocking Urban Renewal

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - revised zoning maps incorporating the

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public

Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

Special Housing Areas: Tranche 10

Auckland Development Committee

Local Board Input

Auckland Development Committee

The local authority by resolution so decides; and

The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i)

the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time

no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions

receive the reports pending status update.

Reports pending list

Forward Work Programme 2015/2016

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

Summary of information memos and briefings - 10 March 2016

The following presentations/memos/reports were presented/circulated as follows: