Auckland Development Committee - August 15 - Agenda

8/20/2019 Auckland Development Committee - August 15 - Agenda

1/64

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

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

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 13 August 2015 9.30am Reception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Deputy Chairperson Cr Chris Darby Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose

Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Dr Cathy Casey Member David Taipari Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Ross Clow Cr Wayne Walker Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr John Watson Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Penny Webster Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeMember Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam WhiteDemocracy Advisor

7 August 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/64


3/64

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 willguide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with theseactivities. Key responsibilities include:

Unitary Plan

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

Tamaki regeneration projects

Built Heritage

Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

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

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendationonly

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


4/64

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 resolutionis 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 theinformation 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 necessaryfor 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 mustleave 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 aGoverning 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 leavethe room.

All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are notmembers of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of thecommittee remain.

Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order forthem 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 theirrole may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular LocalBoard area.

Council Controlled Organisations

Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to fordiscussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.


5/64


13 August 2015

Page 5

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange 7

6 Local Board Input 7

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 8

9 Reports Pending Status Update 9

10 Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015 17

11 Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document 19

12 Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using

Land for Housing Draft Report 25

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

Council’s Submission 61

14 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 63

C1 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update 63

C2 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Hearings Panel - Historic/Special Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition

Control Overlay 64

C3 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Hearings Panel - Viewshafts 64


6/64


7/64


13 August 2015

Page 7

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr MP Webster and Cr SL Stewart have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 7 July 2015, includingthe confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theDemocracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to themeeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretionto decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 Ben Ross : Manukau Interchange

Purpose

1. Ben Ross will address the committee in relation to the Manukau Interchange project.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Ben Ross for his attendance and presentation.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on theagenda.

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


8/64


13 August 2015

Page 8

7 Extraordinary Business

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

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if -

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to thepublic,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until asubsequent meeting.”

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

amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the localauthority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for furtherdiscussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

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


9/64

I t e m 9


13 August 2015

Reports Pending Status Update Page 9

Reports Pending Status Update

File No.: CP2015/14971

Purpose

1. To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutionsfrom February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary2. This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with

greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). Itupdates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutionsfrom February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3. This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in theconfidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.

4. The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached f or information(Attachment B).

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the reports pending status update.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 13 August 2015

11

B Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme2015/2016 - Augst 2015

13

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


10/64


11/64

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 9


13 August 2015



12/64


13/64

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 9


13 August 2015



14/64

AttachmentB

Item 9


13 August 2015



15/64

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 9


13 August 2015



16/64

AttachmentB

Item 9


13 August 2015



17/64

I t e m 1

0


13 August 2015

Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015 Page 17

Summary of information memos and briefings - 13 August 2015

File No.: CP2015/15473

Purpose

1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that mayhave been distributed to committee members since 7 July 2015.

Executive Summary2. 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 arerequired.

3. The following presentations were presented as follows:

5 August 2015 : Development Auckland

5 August 2015 : Britomart Precinct opportunities. The information was not availablewhen the agenda went to print and will be available prior to the meeting.

4. These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at thefollowing link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from thedrop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled

‘Extra Attachments’

5. 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 questionsto the authors.


a) receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 13 August 2015.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A 5 August 2015 : Development Auckland presentation (Under SeparateCover)

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/


18/64


19/64

I t e m 1

1


13 August 2015

Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document Page 19

Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document

File No.: CP2015/15462

Purpose1. To seek Auckland Development Committee approval for the release of Towards an Aotea

Quarter Framework – Consultation Document for public and stakeholder engagement, asthe next step towards adoption of the Framework in late 2015.

Executive Summary2. Since 2005 Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council) has being working with

relevant stakeholders, through the Aotea Quarter Plan 2007, to enhance the foundations ofthe Aotea Quarter and thereby its role as the arts, civic and cultural heart of the city centreand region.

3. The Aotea Quarter Framework (the Framework) will seek to update and advance thestrategic direction for the area set down in the Aotea Quarter Plan and more recently theCity Centre Masterplan (CCMP) 2012. Reflecting the changing nature of the area and the

transformation yet to occur, the Framework will provide the direction for the Quarter over thenext 20 years.

4. The geographic coverage of the Framework area reflects the Quarter boundary set down inthe CCMP 2012. This is more expansive than the previous Aotea Quarter Plan, extendingbeyond the core centred on Aotea Square to include the wider hinterland (see Attachment C- Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary).

5. Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document (see Attachment A -Summary Document Text and Attachment B – Full Document) builds on the conversationwith many of the key stakeholders and partners that has occurred over the first half of 2015.It seeks to capture the main issues and opportunities affecting the area, presenting astrategic vision and set of future state outcomes alongside key ideas to be tested via the

engagement process prior to the release of the final Framework in late 2015. Specifically,the document reveals the opportunities for development and enhancement related tounderutilised council group owned sites in the Quarter core, most notably the Civic Administration Building (CAB), 1 Greys Avenue and surrounds.

6. Consultation from September 2015 will include further specific engagement with keystakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focus groups with key interests(residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general public consultation throughShape Auckland and social media.

7. The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means ofsupporting Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL’s) parallel process of seeking privatesector Expressions of Interest to invest in the refurbishment of the CAB and development ofthe surrounding land. (Auckland Development Committee Resolution number AUC/2015/148)


a) approve the release of Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – ConsultationDocument for stakeholder and community engagement, subject to amendments orfeedback from the meeting.

b) authorise the delegation of any editorial changes to the Towards an Aotea QuarterFramework – Consultation Document to the chair and deputy of the AucklandDevelopment Committee.


20/64

Item 11


13 August 2015


Comments8. Preparation of the Framework is being co-ordinated by the council’s City Centre Integration

team, which was established in 2014 as a means of coordinating the council group activity inthe city centre and ensuring engagement with partners, key stakeholders and the public. TheFramework will be a non-statutory plan that presents a 20-year strategic vision and directionfor the Quarter. It is intended to provide the context for council policy and strategy

development, establish priorities for action and will inform future investment and decision-making.

9. The Aotea Quarter Plan 2007 established a strategic vision and set of objectives for the Aotea Quarter area as geographically defined at that time. The Plan was translated into an Aotea Quarter Action Plan (2010-15), which established a detailed delivery programme.Many significant schemes were delivered through the Action Plan, including the new QTheatre and the upgrade of the Art Gallery, Aotea Square, Queen Street, Lorne Street,Khartoum Place and Bledisloe Lane, as well as many ‘soft’ initiatives aimed at furthering theidentity of the area to reflect the vision and achieve greater place activation.

10. The CCMP 2012 recognised that ongoing attention and investment was required in the

Aotea Quarter to uplift and rejuvenate the vitality and vibrancy of the mid-city area andprepare it for the transformation set to occur as a consequence of the CRL Aotea Station.

11. The purpose of the Framework is to allow the council, its partners and stakeholders toreaffirm the strategic vision for the Quarter. It is intended that the Framework is holistic innature. It will, however, have a particular focus on physical interventions, includingopportunities to further improve the public realm and unlock the development potential of keydevelopment sites within the Quarter (predominantly council owned) that are capable ofcontributing to the overall vision.

12. The CCMP amended the Quarter boundary to extend beyond the Quarter core, reflecting theemerging importance of the hinterland to the overall vision (see Attachment C - AoteaQuarter Framework Boundary).

13. Key factors identified in the CCMP 2012 that the Framework needs to respond to include:

a. Identification of the area as a future development growth node associated with the CRL Aotea Station to be located in the heart of the Quarter. The station, programmed toopen in 2023, will stimulate an additional 73,000sqm of residential net floor area (1,825additional residents) and 249,000sqm of commercial net floor area (12,450 additionalworkers) in the Quarter;

b. Regional Facilities Auckland (‘RFA’), as owners and managers or the Aotea Centre and Aotea Square, plans to enhance the ‘arts and performance’ offer within and around the

Aotea Centre. Plans combine extensive renewals (building upgrade and ‘reskinning’) theexisting Aotea Centre with expansion to include new rehearsal and practice spaces in anactivated and accessible building;

c. Continued relocation of commercial office space from the Aotea Quarter to the waterfrontand downtown area;

d. Consolidation of many council staff in the Quarter in the 135 Albert Street buildingand the associated examination of potential future uses of the council’s land/propertyholdings in the area, most notably the CAB site, the South Town Hall (surface) car parkaccessed from Greys Avenue and the West Bledisloe surface car park (behind BledisloeHouse);

e. Ongoing investment by the two universities (University of Auckland and AUT) in the area

in the form of new buildings.


21/64

I t e m 1

1


13 August 2015


14. Since the release of the CCMP 2012, the following additional factors affecting the Quarterhave emerged:

a. A new regulatory planning framework for the Quarter through the Proposed AucklandUnitary Plan which deals with matters such as height limits and noise standards.

b. The need for anchoring and growing the Quarter as the enduring home of the arts,

culture and entertainment activities in light of the Auckland Theatre Company’s move toWynyard Quarter.

c. Application of the Te Aranga Māori design principles to understand opportunities forrepresenting our unique and diverse cultural landscape.

d. Rapid expansion of a residential neighbourhood populating repurposed office buildingson the fringes of the Quarter together with some significant new apartment towerdevelopments peppered throughout the area.

e. A City Centre Transport Framework which seeks to define the functional role andcharacter of the primary streets through the city centre i.e. Wellesley Street as a civicpublic transport street and Mayoral Drive as an east-west connector.

f. Significant investment in Myers Park as a vital green public open space, including theproposed upgrade to the Myers Park underpass (due for completion mid 2016) toimprove safety and links between St Kevins Arcade, Myers Park, Aotea Square andbeyond.

g. Recent proposals for Light Rail Transit up Queen Street, including at least one stop inthe Quarter on Queen Street.

h. The re-opening of the St James Theatre and 300 apartment suites.

i. The development of a City Centre Place Activation Strategy to inform a programme ofwork to be funded from the City Centre Targeted Rate. The programme is intended togenerate activation within the city centre, in order to create meaningful and attractiveplaces.

15. The Towards an Aotea Quarter Framework – Consultation Document (see Attachment A – Summary Document Text and Attachment B – Full Document) builds on the conversationwith many of the partners and key stakeholders that has occurred over the first half of 2015,together with an Auckland Development Committee workshop on 30 June 2015.

16. The Consultation Document and summary version seek to capture the main issues andopportunities affecting the area and presents a strategic vision and set of future stateoutcomes alongside key ideas to be tested prior to the release of the final Framework in late2015. The strategic vision is as follows:

“The Aotea Quarter is the arts, culture and civic heart for the people of Tamaki Makaurau-

Auckland:

A vibrant, resilient and unique place to indulge the senses, express creativity, andcelebrate our indigenous & diverse cultures”.

17. To give effect to the vision, four key themes or future outcomes have been identified:

a. The Quarter core as the enduring home for the arts, culture, entertainment and civic life,creating a unique destination experience and brand.

b. Liveable, vibrant and diverse inner-city neighbourhoods engaging with and supportingthe Quarter core.

c. A public transport node that improves accessibility, supports growth and enables high

quality development.d. Spaces and buildings that lead and showcase Auckland’s drive for sustainability and

celebrate its unique cultural identity through the Te Aranga M āori design principles.


22/64

Item 11


13 August 2015


18. These outcomes and many other aspects of the emerging Framework will be tested throughthe consultation process scheduled to occur during September 2015. It will include furtherspecific engagement with key stakeholders and partners including Mana Whenua, focusgroups with key interests (residents, businesses, arts organisations, etc) and general publicconsultation through Shape Auckland and social media.

19. The consultation will include discussion around the future of the CAB as a means ofsupporting the ACPL-led parallel process of seeking private sector Expressions of Interestrelating to investment in the refurbishment of the CAB and development of the surroundingland, as supported by the Auckland Development Committee at its July 2015 meeting(Resolution number AUC/2015/148)

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. The need for the Framework was flagged by the Waitematā Local Board (WLB) during2013/14 as a means of capturing their local place-making objectives and the broader contextfor change in the area.

21. The WLB has been involved in the development of the Framework through a series ofworkshops and the provision of informal feedback on related discussion papers.

22. Specific feedback has been given on the relationship to Myers Park and related expectationson any future development outcomes for the South Town Hall site i.e. minimisation ofshading affects, legibility and visual connection to Myers Park and Aotea Square andpromotion of land-uses that activate the area and support the creative cluster.

23. More generally, the WLB have registered an expectation the development on identifiedopportunity sites, including the CAB, would support the overall outcomes stated for the area

and have a preference for ensuring the Council retain long-term control of the public spaceand sites i.e. freehold ownership.

Māori impact statement

24. Kōrero with Mana Whenua on the Framework has taken place over the past few months withthree specific CCI City Centre Hui taking place (all 19 iwi are invited with typically between6-8 represented, including Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki). Through this kōrero, the vision has been amended to betterreflect the importance of indigenous culture to the Quarter, a future outcome introducedrelating to the Te Aranga Māori Design principles with an associated section on theirapplication to physical projects and a draft map covering sites of cultural significancedeveloped. Further kōrero will continue through the public consultation process.

25. The draft Consultation Document was presented to the Independent Māori Statutory Board(IMSB) on 3 August 2015. Feedback from IMSB will be tabled at the meeting.

Implementation26. The final Framework, scheduled for adoption late 2015, will include a comprehensive

delivery section to include an implementation programme for identified projects.


23/64

I t e m 1

1


13 August 2015


Attachments

No. Title Page

A Aotea Quarter Framework Summary (Under Separate Cover)

B Aotea Quarter Framework (Under Separate Cover) C Aotea Quarter Framework Boundary (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author Tim Watts – City Centre Design and Delivery Manager

Authorisers Ludo Campbell-Reid - GM - Auckland Design Office

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


24/64


25/64

I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015

Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using Land for Housing DraftReport

Page 25

Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’sUsing Land for Housing Draft Report

File No.: CP2015/12650

Purpose1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the

Productivity Commission in response to its Using land for housing draft report.

Executive Summary2. In June 2015 the Productivity Commission (the commission) released its Draft Report (the

draft report) on the Using land for housing inquiry.

3. There are many areas of the draft report that the council can support, and is already takingaction on. However there are some propositions that have the potential to undermine theability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.

4. Neither the council nor central government can independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. Greater collaboration with central government is essential to addressinghousing supply issues.

5. A growing city delivers benefits for economic growth and some economies of scale in theprovision of services. However, a larger population also provides service delivery challengessuch as managing transport congestion, and increases the costs of building and operatingassets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.

6. Within this context it is proposed that the following key messages are included in thecouncil’s submission:

a. a strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing

challenges, and central government has existing levers which can be used to goodeffect. It is therefore proposed that the council:

i. supports a more integrated planning framework

ii. does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development Authority in Auckland but supports working alongside central government toachieve the objectives of Development Auckland

iii. advocates for a full assessment of central and local government levers beforeconcluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.

b. the planning system needs some changes. It is therefore proposed that the council:

i. encourages early engagement ahead of notification

ii. supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in regulatorypolicy development

iii. opposes limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules tolocal issues.

c. there are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships. It istherefore proposed that the council:

i. supports partnership with private sector including iwi and central government tofinance infrastructure.

7. The council’s response to the commission is due on 14 August 2015 and is set out in the

draft submission (Attachment A).


26/64

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 26


a) endorse Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Using landfor housing draft report, which includes the council’s responses to the commission’sfindings, recommendations and questions.

b) authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve thecouncil’s submission on the Productivity Commission’s Using land for housing draftreport.

CommentsThe Inquiry

8. The government has asked the Productivity Commission to review the local planning anddevelopment systems of New Zealand’s fastest-growing urban areas and identify leadingpractices that are effective in making land and development capacity available to meethousing demand. This review is known as the Using land for housing inquiry.

9. In January 2015 the council made a submission on the issues paper in relation to theinquiry. In June, the Commission released its draft findings and recommendations in theUsing land for housing draft report. The commission will present its final report togovernment by 30 September 2015.

10. The draft report reflects the scope of this inquiry which is to examine the processes andpractices of local planning and development systems. This is to identify leading practicesthat enable the timely delivery of housing of the type, location, and quality demanded bypurchasers. The particular focus is on urban growth areas, including any early lessons fromthe Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

11. The draft report builds on earlier commission reports in the area of housing, land andregulation such as the Housing affordability report (2012) and the Local governmentregulation report (2013).

12. The scope of the inquiry excludes a review of the role and purpose of the RMA, and of theBuilding Act and related building consent applications processes. It also excludes changesto the ownership of local authority infrastructure assets.

13. The inquiry does however include consideration of the funding and governance of localinfrastructure assets and provisions of the RMA and Building Act which could be changedwithout fundamentally altering the role or purpose of those Acts. The draft report makes 120findings, 38 recommendations and asks 37 questions.

Auckland Council’s response

14. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop the draftsubmission attached at Appendix A. The following section proposes the key messages andmajor points to be included in the submission.

A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing challenges,and central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect.

The draft submission proposes that:

15. The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housingsupply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither the council nor central governmentcan independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiteratesthe importance of working and engaging with Māori across this issue.

16. The council agrees with the commission’s approach in trying to identify options for local andcentral government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that centralgovernment has a range of levers that it can use. The council would advocate for a full

assessment of the combined central and local government levers before concluding thatdirect ministerial intervention is required.


27/64

I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 27

17. The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes forcommunities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.

18. The council does not support the establishment of a central government Urban Development Authority in Auckland but supports central government undertaking complementary activitiesand working alongside Development Auckland.

19. The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policyformulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery may havespatial impacts within Auckland.

The planning system needs some changes.


20. The council supports the commission’s view that land use and infrastructure planning can bebetter integrated thereby improving outcomes on the ground.

21. The council supports a greater focus and capacity in relation to benefit analysis in policydevelopment, as well as consideration of public benefits and costs, amenity and communityaspirations. While the council agrees that regulation does add cost to the process, it

considers that the draft report’s discussion of regulation is narrowly focused on costs.22. The council’s position is that local authorities and their communities should make land use

decisions. Similarly the council opposes limitations on its ability to tailor planning rules tolocal issues. The council is clear that the Local Government Act 2002 and the RMA conferparticular roles and responsibilities to local authorities. One of these roles is land useplanning in the local context.

23. The council supports front-loading public consultation and changing the phasing of whenconsultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities ahead of notification.

There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships


24. The council supports partnership with the private sector including iwi and central governmentto finance infrastructure. The council also considers that there is a role for government totake in directly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater,using some of the additional income generated by growth.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25. The implications of the recommendations contained in the draft report apply across theregion and to all local boards. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend Auckland Development Committee workshops and to provide feedback.

26. Informal feedback from the Or ākei Local Board has been incorporated into the submissionwhere appropriate. The feedback covered a range of issues including the importance ofcommunity and local government input into local planning decisions. The board opposes theremoval of controls including minimum apartment sizes and opposes a ministerial power todirect changes to district plans and regional policy statements.

27. Feedback from the Papakura Local Board was not received in time to be included in thebody of the submission but is attached to this committee report and will be appended to thecouncil’s submission. The points made by the board include the need for the place-makingrole of local boards and locally driven engagement to be recognised in planning processes.The board opposes the minister having the scope to direct changes to district plans andregional policy statements. It supports the use of targeted rates for growth enablinginfrastructure on the proviso that communities paying the targeted rates are directlybenefiting from the infrastructure.


28/64

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 28

28. Other local boards that wish to provide any subsequent views on the draft report have theopportunity to append their views to the final submission.

Māori impact statement 29. It is considered that the draft report’s implications for Māori affect three key groups: Māoriresidents and ratepayers – as home owners and renters; Māori as owners of Māori land; andmana whenua as kaitiaki.

30. The median per sonal income for Māori in Auckland is 18% lower than the median annualpersonal income for the general regional population. This means that Māori households willtend to find it harder than many other households to access suitable housing and that theyhave a disproportionate need for access to social and affordable housing options. The draftreport proposes inclusionary zoning as a tool that may positively impact on Māori. Theapproach taken by the council in its draft submission is that a suite of tools is required toaddress the affordability gap.

31. There may be opportunities for owners of Māori and Treaty settlement land to partner ininvesting in infrastructure as noted in the council’s draft submission.

32. The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Māori landthrough an Urban Development Agency would face sensitive Treaty issues and the draftsubmission proposes that the council agrees with this finding.

33. The draft report discusses options for achieving a balance between national and localinterests. If this results in greater central government involvement in local planningdecisions, this could potentially impact on the kaitiaki role of mana whenua and theprovisions that the council has sought to put in place to enable mana whenua input intoplanning processes. This could also potentially impact on the council’s relationships withmana whenua.

34. Changes to the planning system and the extent of regulations may have particular impactson Māori. For example, a potential reduction in protections for cultural values and culturalsignificance, set backs and view shafts, and potential exclusion of Māori interests by limitingnotification along the lines of provisions in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.

35. The draft report and summary was distributed to mana whenua and mataawaka forfeedback. At the time of writing no feedback had been received, however the council hasreviewed the submissions that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and the Mana Whenua KaitiakiForum have made directly to the commission and the content has been considered in thepreparation of the council’s draft submission and this Committee report.

36. Council staff met with the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) staff to discuss thedraft report. Feedback from IMSB staff has been considered in the preparation of thecouncil’s draft submission and this Committee report.

Implementation37. No implementation issues have been identified.


29/64

I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 29

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Auckland Council's submission to the Productivity Commission's Usingland for housing draft report

31

B Papakura Local Board formal feedback 59

Signatories

Author Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


30/64


31/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 31

Auckland Council Draft Submission 13 August 2015

Title: Submission to New Zealand Productivity Commission Draft Report – Using land forhousing June 2015

1.0 Executive Summary

1. Auckland Council (the “council”) welcomes the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s(the “commission”) timely draft report on Using land for housing .

2. The council made a submission to the commission’s Issues paper for this inquiry inJanuary 2015.

3. Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in

Auckland. The council welcomes the broader approach taken by the commission in the

draft report which recognises the critical role of infrastructure and infrastructureinvestment, from both a housing pipeline and an affordability perspective. The councilreiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of a range ofsolutions needed to address housing affordability.

4. The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the country’s long -term economic growth and that Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of

national population growth. Auckland will need to build the infrastructure for an urban

area equivalent to one and a half times that of Hamilton to support the additionalgreenfield growth provided through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

5. However, a council’s revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic

growth. Therefore the infrastructure investment required to support growth has majorimplications for the council with significant consequences for general rates.

6. There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already

taking action on. For the first time since the Auckland Plan was adopted, Auckland nowhas a ‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supply of just under 6 years.

Through the Auckland Housing Accord the council and government are committed to

accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable homes.

7. There are some propositions canvassed in the draft report that the council opposes as

they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-making.

8. The council and Auckland Transport have worked together to develop this submission.The council’s main messages in response to the inquiry are:


32/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 32

A strong partnership with central government is required to solve Auckland’s housing

challenges, central government has existing levers which can be used to good effect

9. The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy

formulation and analysis, particularly where there may be spatial impacts within Auckland.

10. Overall, the council supports the commission’s view that a more integrated planningframework is required. The council has previously provided feedback to government onthe consideration of urban matters in legislative amendments and national policy

proposals and reiterates those positions. The council does not support the establishmentof a central government UDA in Auckland but supports central government undertaking

complementary activities and working alongside Development Auckland.

11. The council advocates for a full assessment of the combined central and localgovernment levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required inlocal planning matters.

The planning system needs some changes

12. The council has previously provided feedback to government on legislative amendments

to speed up and improve the consenting and plan making processes and reiterates those

positions. This includes the council’s suppor t for front-loading public consultation andchanging the phasing of when consultation occurs to encourage early engagementopportunities ahead of notification. In relation to the impact of regulations, the council

supports a greater focus on robust benefit quantification and analysis in policydevelopment.

13. The Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 confer on

local authorities the role of land use planning in the local context and it is the council’s

overall position that local authorities and their communities should make land use

decisions. The council also confirms its role of tailoring planning rules to local issues andopposes limitations on its ability to do so.

There are opportunities to address infrastructure financing through partnerships

14. A growing city delivers agglomeration benefits for economic growth and some economies

of scale in the provision of services. However, a larger population also leads to negative

externalities in service delivery such as transport congestion, and increases the costs ofbuilding and operating assets to maintain existing service levels for all ratepayers.

15. The council is looking for financing partners to share some of the risk of infrastructureinvestment. The council also considers that there is a role for government to take indirectly financing infrastructure investment, particularly in water and wastewater, using

some of the additional income generated by growth.

16. The council reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commission’s issuespaper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to engaging

Māori in the provision of housing.

17. Auckland Council is pleased to submit its response to the Productivity Commission’sUsing land for housing draft report for consideration.


33/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 33

2.0 Introduction

18. The council recognises that Auckland has an important role to play in the country’s long-term economic growth. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city and commercial centre,

with a scale and ethnic diversity that supports critical international connections. It is hometo over a third of New Zealand’s population, accounts for a third of all national

employment, and contributes 35 per cent of national GDP. The population of Auckland isexpected to exceed 2 million by 2040.

19. Auckland is responsible for an increasing proportion of national growth. The last census

showed that half of New Zealand’s growth since the previous census was in Auckland

which is projected to account for 70 per cent of growth in the North Island in the next 20

years.

20. It is essential that the right infrastructure is in place to support projected growth. Aucklandwill need to build the infrastructure for an urban area equivalent to one and a half times

that of Hamilton to support the additional greenfield growth provided through theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This will require significant investment in infrastructure(see Appendix A). Bulk infrastructure takes time to plan, design and deliver with long leadin times and even longer asset lives. This has implications for ongoing operational costs.

21. A council’s revenue does not increase in proportion to the scale of economic growth inthe same way as income taxes and GST. The infrastructure investment required to

support growth has major implications for the council with significant consequences for

general rates. Development contributions and targeted rates cannot manage all thefunding impacts.

22. The commission has identified democratic deficits which it believes create “a wedge

between local and national interests”. The council agrees there is a careful balancing actrequired between supporting both national and regional objectives and building alignmentbetween those objectives. The council continues to engage in different ways with its

communities to ensure there are opportunities for all sectors of the community toparticipate more effectively.

23. Councils are best placed to understand their communities and local needs within the

context of land use and infrastructure challenges. This is why it is critical that the councilworks in partnership with central government to find solutions to issues of national and

local importance.

24. Accommodating Auckland’s growing population and enabling the delivery of moreaffordable housing is a priority for the council and Aucklanders. The council shares thecommission’s objective of unlocking the potential of Auckland to achieve a strong

economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and NewZealanders. Ensuring an adequate supply of land for housing and enabling multiple

housing options1 to address needs across all income segments is a crucial step incapturing the significant productivity gains that large cities can generate.

1 Including apartments, terrace housing, duplexes, townhouses, and stand-alone dwellings


34/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 34

25. Housing affordability and ensuring an adequate supply of housing are not new issues in

Auckland. These are challenges that many successful international cities continue tograpple with, and that require action across multiple areas. The council welcomes the

broader approach taken by the commission in the draft report which recognises thecritical role of infrastructure and infrastructure investment, from both a housing pipelineand affordability perspective.

26. The council reiterates its previous position that the supply of land is only one part of arange of solutions needed to address housing affordability. Fundamental elements of arobust long-term housing programme include: making the right decisions about

development location and development sequencing, lowering house build and operating

costs, improving access to finance, raising the capacity and capability of the buildingindustry to deliver an appropriate range of housing types and supply, and providing

additional support for low-income households. Managing unrealistic expectations and

resistance to change add further complexity to the housing challenges.

27. The council also reiterates its recommendation from its response to the commission’sissues paper that central government undertake a coordinated and timely approach to

engaging Māori in the provision of housing. The council’s submission recognises thecritical importance of affordable housing as one of the issues in the The Schedule of

issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

28. Auckland is already focused on ensuring there is an adequate supply for housing throughreleasing land and increasing development capacity. The Auckland Plan sets a target of

an average of 7 years supply (minimum 5 years and maximum 10 years supply) of

‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced land). For the first time since the Auckland Plan was

adopted, Auckland now has a ‘ready-to-go’ (zoned and serviced) greenfield land supplyof just under 6 years, with a further 3.85 years in the pipeline. This brings the total

greenfield supply to 9.34 years.

29. In addition, as part of the Auckland Housing Accord, the council and government arecommitted to accelerating an increased supply and improving the delivery of affordable

homes. This work is happening now and at pace.

This submission

30. There are many areas of the commission’s draft report the council supports and isalready taking action on. There are also some propositions canvassed that the councilopposes as they undermine the ability of councils to support local democratic decision-

making. It is important to understand any potential cost implications of such proposals.

31. This submission provides a number of recommendations and responses which supportthe three key messages outlined in paragraphs 9 - 15. These recommendations are

supported by further information in the body of the submission.

32. The council has considered all the questions, findings and recommendations contained inthe commission’s draft report but comments only on the most substantive issues in this

submission document.


35/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 35

Recommendations

33. There are many areas of the draft report that the council supports, and indeed is already

taking action on. The council’s submission has been informed by its experience and

lessons learned post-amalgamation in a way that can constructively support this inquiry.This experience is of a scale and complexity not otherwise experienced in New Zealandand includes:

i. Auckland Plan — a fully integrated spatial plan that sets the strategic direction for Auckland for the next 30 years.

ii. Auckland Unitary Plan — a single planning rule-book that incorporated extensiveearly pre-notification engagement and use of an independent hearings panel. Thisplan will provide for greater intensification and the growth of Auckland.

iii. Auckland Housing Accord — including establishment of 86 Special Housing Areasunder the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act.

iv. Auckland 30 year Infrastructure Strategy.v. Draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy — setting the direction on sequencing and

timing of greenfield land development over 30 years. This strategy is currently out forpublic consultation.

vi. Forward Land and Infrastructure Programme — better intelligence on infrastructurecapacity and integration across infrastructure platforms.

vii. consent approval process (Consenting Made Easy) to speed up and deliver aconsistent quality of consents using customer-centric processes.

viii. Development Auckland — establishment of a regional urban development agency.

ix. integrated infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.

x. establishment of spatial priority areas and subsequent targeting of investment.34. Within this context, the council makes the following recommendations on the questions,

findings and recommendations in the commission’s draft report:

Strong partnership with government — using levers effectively

xi. Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the ResourceManagement Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should be undertaken in the

context of a wider review of the RMA.

xii. Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issues provided it

takes a broader focus than housing/land supply.

xiii. Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable the

Minister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statements thatprovide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.

xiv. Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some aspects of

the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.

xv. Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland; butsupport central government undertaking complementary activities and working

alongside Development Auckland to enable the council’s agency to achieve its

objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

xvi. Support improving information quality and sharing between central and localgovernment.

xvii. Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.


36/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 36

Planning system needs some changes

xviii. Support front-loading public consultation and change in phasing of whenconsultation occurs to encourage early engagement opportunities (pre-

notification) – support consultation ahead of notification.xix. Support robust cost and benefit analysis of regulation. Much greater focus

needs to be given to building capacity to undertake quantification of benefits

and robust benefit analysis.

xx. Oppose limitations on the ability of local government to tailor planning rules

to local issues, e.g. including rules relating to mandatory apartment

balcony/private open space, and minimum apartment sizes.

xxi. Support evaluation of independent hearings panel and independentcommissioners without predetermining the results of that evaluation.

xxii. Support inclusionary zoning as an important and valid tool to use in

conjunction with other measures to improve retained affordable housing (forthe life of the dwelling).

xxiii. Generally support intensification where infrastructure capacity is available

but note that infrastructure is only one of a number of considerations.

xxiv. Agree there is no need for planning controls that duplicate standards

already set by the Building Act. Planning controls do not duplicate thosestandards and are only imposed where there are amenity or environmental

protection issues not covered under the Building Act.

xxv. Oppose the recommendation to review zoning rules for rural land as the

rationale for such a review fails to take into account the full range of reasons

for zoning rural land.xxvi. Support alignment of Auckland Transport and Watercare statements of

intent with the Auckland Plan.

Address infrastructure financing through partnershipsxxvii. Propose partnership with private sector and government to share burden

and risk of financing additional infrastructure.

xxviii. Direct government funding of some water and wastewater infrastructurefrom revenue arising from growth.

xxix. Provide councils with ability to use value capture rating through targetedrates mechanism – implement by allowing rates to be set on basis of a

change in land value.xxx. Support use of motorway pricing and further discussion on road pricing.

xxxi. Oppose proposal to require councils to consider requests by developers to

build infrastructure funded by targeted rates.

xxxii. Remove exemption from rates for crown entities, hospitals, schools, ports,railways, airports.

xxxiii. Oppose a requirement to shift the basis of general rates from capital value

to land value.

xxxiv. Oppose price control on Watercare.

xxxv. Oppose need to include additional information in Development

Contributions policy relating to dwelling floor areas and cost of providinginfrastructure services.


37/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 37

3.0 Strong partnership with central government – using levers effectively

35. The council supports greater collaboration with central government to address housingsupply issues. It is strongly acknowledged that neither council nor central governmentcan independently resolve the housing issues Auckland faces. The council also reiterates

the importance of working and engaging with Māori across this issue.

36. The council agrees with the commission’s approach in trying to identify options for localand central government to work together more effectively. The council also notes that

central government has a range of levers that it can use. These include sharing of its

expertise, use of its resources, ability to direct or incentivise crown agencies, and abilityto align funding cycles of key crown agencies to local government funding cycles. The

council would advocate for a full assessment of the combined central and local

government levers before concluding that direct ministerial intervention is required.

37. The council supports engaging with central government at the early stages of policy

formulation and analysis, and where government policies, planning and delivery mayhave spatial impacts within Auckland. This engagement could be supported by increasinglevels of central government capability in Auckland as recommended by the McKay

report.2

2 McKay D, Review of Central Government Policy, Implementation, Strategy and Leadership Effectivenessin Auckland: Report for Chief Executives Governance Group (August 2014)

Recommendations Support addition of the management of cities and urban matters to the

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) but note that any change should beundertaken in the context of a wider review of the RMA.

Support development of a National Policy Statement on urban issuesprovided it takes a broader focus than housing/land supply.

Oppose expansion of Ministerial powers of intervention that would enable theMinister to direct changes to District Plans and Regional Policy Statementsthat provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth.

Support in principle an integrated planning framework and support some

aspects of the proposed voluntary legislative avenue.

Do not support the establishment of a central government UDA in Auckland;but support central government undertaking complementary activities andworking alongside Development Auckland to enable the council’s agency toachieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

Support improving information quality and sharing between central and localgovernment.

Support joint monitoring and reporting of land supply targets.


38/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 38

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

38. The draft report includes a recommendation to clarify the role and importance of housingand urban environments in the RMA (Recommendation 5.6).

39. The council supports the addition of management of cities and urban matters to the RMAto better reflect that the majority of New Zealanders live in cities and towns. The council

seeks to work with government to develop appropriate provisions that reflect Auckland’s

scope and scale and its diverse range of communities.

40. Any change of this nature to the RMA is best undertaken within the context of a wider,formal review of the entire RMA, rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. Thegovernment has signalled that this will be part of the future package of resource

management reforms.

41. The council welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with central government onresource management reforms.

National Policy Statement on urban issues

42. The council would support the development of a National Policy Statement (NPS) onurban issues provided that it is not narrowly focused on housing/land supply (Question9.3).

43. The key benefit of clear national direction could be in reducing possible inefficiencies andduplication that may arise from all high-growth councils addressing similar urban issues

and policy options with their communities.

44. A NPS on urban matters should provide guidance, leaving local authorities to decide

what development occurs at a regional or local level. In Auckland’s case, this happens

through the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan.

45. The NPS would be best developed through local and central government workingcollaboratively.

46. The council understands there is a concern about the varied approaches taken by local

authorities in relation to papakāinga and marae development on Treaty settlement land.Some national level guidance would be useful and it is suggested that a National PolicyStatement for Māori land use and papakāinga development would help to ensure

consistency across local authorities. This could form part of the NPS on urban issues or

be a stand-alone document.

Ministerial powers to direct plan changes

47. The draft report asks whether there would be merit in expanding the existing powers in

the RMA to enable Ministers to direct changes to District Plans and Regional PolicyStatements that provide insufficient development capacity to meet population growth(Question 9.4).

48. The council opposes direct ministerial intervention in this situation. Giving ministers

further powers to intervene in or control aspects of local planning functions could

undermine local autonomy and the accountability of local authorities to their communities.


39/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 39

49. Market participants, including developers, organisations and individuals, already have theoption through the private plan change process to test or challenge local government

planning decisions. If the market demands additional housing supply in a particular area,

i.e. development is commercially viable, private plan changes can be used to enable themarket.

50. The ministerial veto power is only one option of many that could be used to addressdifferences in national and local interests. The council would rather work with centralgovernment to carry out a robust cost and benefit assessment of the wide range ofpossible approaches such as developing a NPS before a policy response is selected.

51. Local and central government can and do work collaboratively, avoiding the need for

ministerial intervention. Examples of such collaborative work between Auckland Council

and government include the Auckland Housing Accord and Tamaki RedevelopmentCompany activities.

52. A collaborative approach between local and central government provides for:a. greater flexibility

b. greater buy-in

c. increased responsiveness and timeliness

d. more scope to leverage capability and resources

e. the ability to tailor localised solutions to meet local needs and national objectives.

Voluntary legislative avenue for spatial plan

53. The proposed new voluntary legislative avenue to enable more effective planning in highgrowth cities contains a number of features set out across four recommendations in thedraft report (Recommendations 3.5 –3.8).

54. The council supports an integrated planning framework that will drive positive outcomes

for communities, and supports some aspects of the proposed new legislative avenue.

55. The draft report does not comment on how the voluntary legislative avenue discussed inRecommendations 3.5 to 3.8 might intersect with existing statutory spatial planning

requirements such as those under which Auckland Council operates. The LocalGovernment (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to prepare a spatial

plan that contributes to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental and cultural well-

being through a comprehensive and effective long term (20 – 30 year) strategy for

Auckland’s growth and development. The council consulted extensively with Aucklanders

and stakeholders, including government, during the development of its spatial plan, the Auckland Plan, and the Plan reflects Auckland community aspirations. The council haspreviously advocated for a more integrated planning framework and to give the Auckland

Plan greater statutory weight in relation to the Unitary Plan.

56. The council supports the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue:

a. Better integration of Local Government Act, Land Transport Management Act andResource Management Act objectives (spatial planning and water and transport

infrastructure planning, prioritisation, phasing and delivery).


40/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 40

b. Better integration of central government and local government infrastructure

planning and the inclusion of key central government actors whose services matterfor the functioning of cities (Recommendation 3.7). This may help to address the

ongoing challenges of aligning cities’ longer term development and infrastructure

needs, and central government’s shorter term planning and fiscal cycles.

c. Processes being included in the proposed new legislative avenue which encouragerobust regulatory analysis and development similar to those in section 32 of theResource Management Act (Recommendation 3.8).

d. Councils undertaking peer review of regulatory proposals within spatial plans(Finding 3.19). Councils should be able to exercise discretion to determine when

and if peer review could add value and when the costs of peer review are likely to

outweigh the benefits.

e. Allowing councils to opt into the new legislative framework or elect to use theexisting legislative pathways for land development (Recommendation 3.6) to

enable councils to tailor their approach to that which best suits local circumstances.

57. The council does not support the following aspects of the voluntary legislative avenue

proposal:

a. Narrowing of the scope of spatial plans developed under this option(Recommendation 3.5 and Finding 3.15) to include the 30 year infrastructure

strategy, longer term transport planning, and longer-term thinking about the growth ofthe city and land-use rules.

b. The Auckland Plan is required to integrate broad outcomes across a 30 yeartimeframe which enables decision makers to understand impacts at both a temporal

and spatial level. This leads to more informed decision making and riskmanagement, as trade-off decisions are understood within the wider planning

context. As the only city of international scale in New Zealand, Auckland mustconsider and plan for itself in both the global and national context. Auckland’s ability

to attract and retain international talent and investment may require a different

approach to that of attracting and retaining talent from within New Zealand. The

Auckland Plan provides a framework by which international, national, regional andlocal interests can be considered and balanced in a holistic manner and thenintegrated across a wide range of the council’s operations and with other

stakeholders.

c. The requirement for spatial plan approval by both Cabinet and the council(Recommendation 3.7). This could significantly reduce the ability of a council to

make decisions in accordance with the aspirations of its communities. Section 80 of

the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to involvecentral government amongst others throughout the preparation and development of

the Plan. Working in partnership would help to ensure the implications of spatialplanning on the financing of central government infrastructure are fully understood.

d. The inclusion of land-use rules in a spatial plan (Finding 3.15). A spatial plan is a

strategy. Adding land-use rules to a spatial plan would significantly increase thecomplexity of the proposed spatial plan (even if the scope of the plan was

significantly narrowed) and reduce its accessibility for the community. It would also

duplicate what sits in a district or unitary plan.


41/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 41

Urban development agency

58. The council agrees with the commission that there can be high value in urbandevelopment agency models (Recommendation 10.2). During Auckland’s Long Term

Plan 2015-2025 process, the establishment of an urban redevelopment agency was oneof four key issues highlighted for feedback. As a result of the Long Term Plan decisions,

Auckland Council’s regional urban redevelopment agency, Development Auckland , will

be operational from 1 September 2015.

59. The council does not support the establishment of a central government urbandevelopment agency (UDA) in Auckland. The council does support and believes there isscope for central government to undertake complementary development activities and to

work alongside Development Auckland. Working together in this way will enable the

council’s agency to achieve its objectives more quickly and deliver better outcomes for

Auckland.

60. The draft report proposes that activities of a UDA would involve:

a. assembling public landholdings with private landholdings to allow development onthe required scale

b. coordinating and integrating the delivery of infrastructure

c. spatially master planning large-scale residential development projects. This would

involve the removal of planning powers from councils for a limited duration, besubject to a streamlined planning process and more enabling land use rules

d. partnering with private sector developers to deliver these projects

e. operating under a streamlined planning and consent process

f. using compulsory land acquisition powers to effect development as necessary.

61. While the council can support some of those activities, it would not support the proposed

removal of planning powers from local government to a UDA as local government isbetter placed to undertake local planning. Auckland is currently working through its

Unitary Plan process, an integrated and co-ordinated regional planning mechanism. Thecouncil has a number of other workstreams to support increased re/developmentcapacity, i.e. the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, the Long Term Plan and the 30

year Infrastructure Strategy. These mechanisms have been developed as part of the

comprehensive planning and funding framework. Transfer of planning powers couldundermine this framework and adversely impact the effort the council has expended to

enable development in a planned, sustainable and phased way across the region.

62. The council also would not support central government independently constructing itsown infrastructure or obliging council infrastructure providers to accept privately provided

assets. Even with significant co-ordination and collaboration this could impact on the

council’s planning for and management of its infrastructure networks, and undermine the

council’s ability to optimise its operational costs. The council would also be concerned ifthis resulted in the reprioritisation of trunk infrastructure spend or programming in

Auckland. This could result in inefficient use of resources, unintended consequences

and risk undermining the goals of the urban development agencies operating in Auckland, the Unitary Plan and the Auckland Plan.


42/64

AttachmentA

Item 12


13 August 2015


Page 42

63. The intention for Development Auckland is to focus on redevelopment opportunities,

specifically brownfields redevelopment. Development Auckland intends to:

a. manage the council’s non-service property portfolio and provide strategic advice on

the council’s other property portfolios

b. recycle or redevelop sub-optimal or under-utilised council assets and aim to achievean overall balance of commercial and strategic outcomes

c. facilitate private sector, third sector, iwi and government investment and

collaboration into the sustainable redevelopment of brownfield urban locations

d. coordinate the provision of the council’s infrastructure and other investment in theselocations

e. continue to lead the development of the waterfront and deliver the Waterfront Plan2012

f. accommodate residential and commercial growth in urban locations with good public

infrastructure and services. These redevelopments will offer a range of residentialchoices and price points to cater for diverse households.

64. At this stage Development Auckland does not intend to focus on greenfield urban

development. Feedback from Auckland developers on whether a development agencyshould be involved in greenfield development was negative. The Property Council, forexample, submitted that the proposed agency should not seek to deliver in those areas

where the private sector could. The Property Council was supportive of the councilestablishing an agency to support brownfield redevelopment.

65. The council welcomes discussions with central government on an approach to using

existing levers to support the council’s activities via Development Auckland andexploring options for how central government can best add and derive value in

Auckland.

66. Some options for central government to support and complement Development

Auckland’s activities could include:

a. working with the council to identify public land to be developed (Recommendation4.4)

b. providing funding or enabling necessary funding options

c. improving, clarifying or introducing legislative settings to support Development

Auckland’s activities

d. exploring other options for leveraging existing redevelopment opportunities.

67. It would be useful for central government to undertake an evaluation of existing urbandevelopment initiatives it has been involved with in Auckland region, (i.e. Tamaki

Redevelopment Company Limited and Hobsonville Point Company Limited) to identify

key lessons from those experiences. The council would be interested in partnering withcentral government to evaluate the Auckland based UDA initiatives.

68. The draft report includes a finding that any proposal for compulsory acquisition of Māoriland would face sensitive Treaty issues (Finding 10.6) and the council agrees with this

finding.


43/64


I t e m 1

2


13 August 2015


Page 43

Opportunities for information sharing

69. The council is supportive of the recommendations to provide commercially viable

development capacity and to explore the development of an Urban Feasibility Model

(Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2). A group of experts, including economists, developersand the council’s land use modellers, have worked together to model such capacity as

part of the Unitary Plan process. The council suggests that the Ministry for theEnvironment review this model in addition to looking at overseas examples. There arecosts in developing and running these models. One practical way central government

could assist would be in providing expertise and/or funding to enable regular updates ofthis information.

70. The council does not currently report on dwelling completions but sees the value in doing

so as it would provide an improved picture of housing delivered across Auckland. Thecouncil welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with central government to progress this

work (Recommendation 4.2).

71. The council also supports developing and maintaining an inventory of public landholdings in high-growth cities to identify sites that could be used for housing(Recommen

Documents

Auckland Development Committee - August 15 - Agenda