Auckland Development Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held
on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday, 12 November 2015

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
6 November 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: Tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of
economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will
guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,
housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these
activities. Key responsibilities include:
Unitary Plan
Plan changes to operative plans
Designation of Special Housing Areas
Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing
Spatial Plans including Area Plans
City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects
Tamaki regeneration projects
Built Heritage
Urban design
Powers
(i)
All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

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

only
(ii)
Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii)
Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the
next meeting of that other committee.
(iv)
Power to establish subcommittees.
Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting

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

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

discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

12 November 2015
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 - 12 November 2015
17
11
Housing for Oplder Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation
19
12
Adoption of the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy
31
Attachments to item 12 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda Under

Separate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will
be available.
13
Three Kings Land Exchange - Consideration Panel Report
14
Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and

Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power Generation
Precinct
41
123
Attachments to item 14 are availble in a separate Attachments Agenda Under

Separate Cover. Due to the volume of the attachments, limited hard copies will
be available.
15
16
Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management

Act Discussion Document
127
Hobsonville Point update and proposed screen precinct
129
The report was not available when the agenda to print and will be circulated
prior to the meeting.
17
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
18
Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public
131
C1
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update
131
C2
Tamaki Regeneration Project
132
C3
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for

mediation and hearings - Tertiary Education Zones and Precincts for
Akoranga 1 (AUT), Albany 9 (Massey University) and Wairaka (UNITEC)
132
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Appointment of Additional

Independant Hearings Panel Members
133
Deferred Special Housing Area Request
133
C4
C5
Page 5

12 November 2015
1
Apologies
Apologies from Cr AJ Anae and Cr LA Cooper have been received.
Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making
when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external
interest they might have.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Auckland Development Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 October 2015,
including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Public Input
Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the
meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion
to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A
maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)
minutes speaking time for each speaker.
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.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
Page 7

12 November 2015
7
Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as
amended) states:
An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a)
The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b)
The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public,(i)
The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii)
The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a
subsequent meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as
amended) states:
Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,(a)
(b)
That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i)
That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local
authority; and
(ii)
the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time

when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;
but
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further
discussion.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 8

12 November 2015
Item 9

File No.: CP2015/23355
Purpose
1.
To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions

from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.
Executive Summary
2.
This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with
greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It
updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions
from February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.
3.
This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in the
confidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.
4.
The committees Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information
(Attachment B).
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the reports pending status update.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 10

September 2015
11
Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme

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

12 November 2015
Page 11
Attachment B
Item 9

12 November 2015
Page 13
Attachment B
Item 9

12 November 2015
Page 14
Attachment B
Item 9

12 November 2015
Page 15

12 November 2015
Item 10

File No.: CP2015/23451
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 were presented/circulated as follows:

Village Town concept : for more information visit : http://villagetowns.nz
4.
These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the
following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
o at the top of the page, select meeting Auckland Development Committee from the dropdown 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 questions
to the authors.
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the summary of information memos and briefings 12 November 2015.
Attachments
No.
Title
Letter from Claude Lewenz re: VillageTowns - a different approach to

making Auckland the world's most liveable city (Extra Attachments)
Page
Signatories
Author
Authoriser
Page 17

12 November 2015
Item 11
Housing for Older Persons (HfOP) Eligibility Criteria Standardisation

File No.: CP2015/22700
Purpose
1.
To approve the standardisation of eligibility criteria for Auckland Councils housing for older
persons service.
Executive Summary
2.
Council currently has 1,412 housing for older persons dwellings, with a waiting list of 386
current applications. There are currently five different sets of eligibility criteria based on
legacy councils policies, and no housing for older persons in the former Auckland City and
Rodney legacy areas. These differences present significant challenges to applicants in
understanding whether and where they might qualify.
3.
In May 2015 Councils Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the Long
Term Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that eligibility would then be standardised.
4.
The proposed standardised criteria require that applicants are eligible for New Zealand
National Superannuation, have assets of less than $40,000, are able to live independently,
receive superannuation as their main source of income, have an identified housing need,
and have lived in Auckland for one year or more in the last five years. Key stakeholder
groups provided input into criteria development.
5.
While the proposal excludes Aucklanders aged between 59 and 65 who are currently
eligible, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the North Shore area, the
overall impact of the revision is better access to HfOP for the services target population.
6.
Staff presented the proposed criteria to local board chairs on the 19th October 2015. Local
Boards Chairs expressed an interest in understanding what the impact of the proposed
change in age criteria would be on future applicants. This information was provided to the
Local Boards and is included in attachment C. Early estimates indicate that approximately
60 people on the waiting list will not be eligible to apply under the new criteria.
7.
Council is currently seeking a partnership for HfOP services with one or many partner
organisations. Staff recommend completing the current standardisation of criteria prior to
this potential change in delivery due to the benefits of creating one council voice regarding
criteria, reducing confusion to customers and potential partners, and readying the portfolio
for a partnership delivery model.
8.
Staff propose the criteria take effect from 1 January 2016 and are applied to the current
waiting list as well as new applications. The Auckland Development Committee has the
delegation to approve the standardised eligibility criteria.
HfOP Eligibility Criteria Standardisation
Page 19
Item 11

12 November 2015
Recommendation/s
a)
approve that from 1 January 2016, one set of eligibility criteria will apply for all
housing for older persons dwellings across Auckland as follows:
i.
Age: Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, including the
same qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person).
ii. Income: Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amount
from their main source of income.
iii. Assets: Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples). These
are both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New Zealand Work and
Income for their Accommodation Supplement.
iv. Live independently: Able to live independently in an intensive housing
environment. Definition: Can engage and/or manage any support services they
might require and contribute constructively to harmonious community life.
v. Housing need: Self-identified housing need at the time of application. This will
ensure the assessment is reflective of housing need at the moment of the
application (not an assumed future need).
vi. Connection to Auckland: Lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last five
years or is currently living there.
b)
note the changes do not apply to existing tenants but include tenants currently on the
waiting list and new applications.
Comments
9.
Auckland Council owns and operates 1,412 housing for older persons dwellings,
concentrated in the south, west and north of Auckland. There is currently no HfOP housing
in the former Auckland City and Rodney areas.
10.
There is a growing waiting list for these dwellings, with 386 current applications and an
additional 70 cases in the process of being assessed.
11.
Currently, there are five different sets of eligibility criteria to access these dwellings, which
are based on the policies of the legacy councils in which the properties are located. All
criteria require applicants to be New Zealand citizens or residents aged 60 or over. Other
criteria are similar and focus on determining need according to the thresholds of age,
financial means, ability to live independently, housing need and connection to a locality. The
additional criteria which differ within each region are outlined in detail in Attachment A.
12.
The most significant issues associated with the current criteria are as follows:
a. different criteria mean applicants are treated inequitably across Auckland
b. navigating five sets of criteria is confusing for applicants
c. loosely worded and disparate criteria allow people to be put on the waiting list who are
unlikely to receive an offer of placement in a unit. This creates longer waiting lists than
necessary and slows down the application process for everyone
d. The current criteria are based on static numbers (for example age 60) rather than
sector policy thresholds (for example the age of entitlement to superannuation). This
means that when central government adjusts its policies, HfOP criteria become less
relevant and discrepancies arise between national and local policies.
13.
In May 2015 the Budget Committee resolved to standardise rental as part of the Long Term
Plan 2015/2025, with the expectation that existing eligibility criteria would then be
standardised.
Page 20
14.
Since that time, council staff, as directed by the Auckland Development Committee, have
begun to procure partner organisation(s) to assist in delivering HfOP accommodation and
associated services. As part of that process, eligibility criteria need to align with central
government (Ministry of Social Development (MSD) eligibility criteria or allocation
frameworks. This is because central government social housing reform dictates that social
housing assigned by private organisations must align with MSD criteria. Housing providers
partnering with Auckland Council would fall under this legislation.
15.
The standardisation of council criteria prior to engagement with MSD regarding delivery of
social housing is a necessary precursor to entering into partnership for HfOP delivery.
Standardised criteria are also expected to achieve significant efficiencies for Council in staff
administration time. The current assessment process includes visiting applicants, obtaining
financial and circumstantial information, discussing and assessing that information. Staff
estimate that a consolidated approach will significantly reduce the time per application due
to the clearer information for applicants and the reduced need for staff time spent explaining
criteria to applicants and requesting additional information.
16.
Council receives approximately 24 applications per month. A consolidated approach will

deliver better value to ratepayers in both the quality of the service provided and the cost in
processing applications.
Development of Criteria
17.
To standardise eligibility criteria, staff considered the current sets of criteria as well as
prevailing policy and practice within New Zealand for similar types of dwellings. Staff then
sought feedback on their initial recommendations and tested their reasoning with following
organisations and groups:
a. New Zealand Housing Foundation and Community Housing Aotearoa for policy
perspectives from the existing community housing sector.
b. Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) on the evolution of the various eligibility
criteria used in state housing, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on the
recent changes to the criteria.
c. Wellington and Christchurch City Councils as the most comparable council providers.
Both of these councils use variants of HNZCs criteria from 2003 and they are currently
also reviewing their approaches.
d. The Seniors Advisory Panel, Age Concern and Grey Power to consider the aged care
sector from a variety of angles.
18.
Stakeholders agreed with the broad eligibility criteria proposed, with varied feedback on the
definitions and thresholds for each criterion. A summary of feedback for each criterion is
outlined in Attachment B. As a result of this feedback, some of the recommendations were
amended to arrive at the draft eligibility criteria thresholds as outlined in table one below.
Page 21
Item 11

12 November 2015
Item 11

12 November 2015
Table One: Recommended standardised HfOP eligibility criteria for the Auckland region
Subject
Criterion
Age
Be fully eligible for New Zealand National Superannuation, including

the same qualifying age (currently 65 years of age for a single person).
Income
Earn no more than the New Zealand National Superannuation amount

from their main source of income
Assets
Own $40,000 or less worth of assets ($60,000 or less for couples).

These are both cash and non-cash assets, as defined by New Zealand
Work and Income for their Accommodation Supplement
Ability to live
independently
Is able to live independently in an intensive housing environment, can

engage and/or manage any support services they might require and
contribute constructively to harmonious community life. This definition
allows for applicants who may require assistance and who are able to
manage this assistance
Housing need
Has a self-identified housing need at the time of application
Connection to
Auckland
Has lived in Auckland for at least one year in the last five years or is
currently living there
19.
This proposal removes criteria requiring residency in a legacy area. This will reduce the
waiting list by around 25%, and make Councils eligibility process more compatible with
potential community housing partners.
20.
In addition, linking eligibility to National Superannuation age and amount will automatically
adjust eligibility to any central government pension policy changes. The criteria also require
National Super to be the main source of income, which allows applicants to earn a modest
supplementary income.
21.
The proposal excludes people aged between 59 and 65 when compared with the current
criteria, as well as single people with assets over $40,000 living in the legacy North Shore.
However overall, the revised criteria will provide better access to HfOP to the Aucklanders in
most need of the service.
Page 22

12 November 2015
Commentary on the criteria by subject area is outlined in table two below.
Item 11
22.
Table two: commentary on eligibility criteria by subject

Subject of
criterion
Commentary
Age
Matching the age threshold and income thresholds set by the Ministry of
Social Development for New Zealand National Superannuation eligibility
means that the age threshold
is not fixed at an arbitrary age, which may not endure as central
government superannuation policy changes and
reflects the proportion of the population to whom council seeks to
provide a service
People over the age of 60 are eligible under the existing five sets of legacy
council criteria. Linking the age eligibility criteria to central government
entitlement for New Zealand National Superannuation would mean that
people who are over 59 but under 65 will no longer be eligible.
Although the highest proportion of 59-65 year olds in Auckland are on the
North Shore (Attachment C) we anticipate that matching the age threshold
to that set by the Ministry will have the biggest impact on applicants in the
South. This is because the South has the highest population of Maori and
Pacific Islanders in Auckland and data indicates that due to a lower life
expectancy, Maori and Pacific Islanders access social housing earlier than
other ethnic populations.
Income
Basing the income criteria on the main source of income means that the
applicant is able to earn a supplementary income without this affecting
their eligibility.
Assets
The proposed asset threshold does not discriminate against applicants
who may own modest assets.
Ability to live
The criteria regarding independent living means that the factors which
independently contribute to a harmonious village life are incorporated into the process
from the first step.
Housing need The criteria regarding self-identified housing need now ensures the
application is based on the current point in time. This increases the
fairness of the assessment because all applicants are assessed on current
state, not future state.
Connection to
Auckland
Removing legacy connection criteria allows access to applications for the

HfOP service across Auckland, including those areas without a legacy
HfOP service.
Rolling out standardised criteria

23.
If approved, these criteria will standardise who is eligible for the waiting list. Once eligibility
is determined, staff will assess need within that list from a social housing perspective, using
an objective evidence-based weighting tool.
24.
If the committee approve the proposed standardised eligibility criteria for HfOP services,
staff recommend the criteria are applied to the existing waitlist and any new applications
from 1 January 2016.
25.
This will provide equity and fairness among existing and new applicants when their need is
assessed and their priority on the list assigned.
26.
When applied to the existing waiting list early estimates indicate that approximately 60
people will no longer be eligible under the new criteria.
Page 23
Item 11

12 November 2015
27.
If the new criteria where not applied to existing waiting list applicants these 60 people would
stay on the list but the may not be allocated housing in the foreseeable future due to their
need being assessed as lower than new applicants. For this reason staff do not recommend
exempting current waiting list applicants.
28.
Staff do not recommend reviewing current tenancies under the revised criteria.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
29.
Council staff presented the proposed eligibility to criteria to the Local Boards Chairs Forum
on the 19th October 2015. Local Board Chairs indicated an interest in further understanding
the impact of the change in age criteria from 60 years to 65 years.
30.
Council staff provided the requested information via memo to Local Boards. That information
is based on data gathered from the 2013 census and is in Attachment C.
Mori impact statement

31.
According to the 2015 survey of social housing tenants (Auckland Council/Gravitas)

residents of housing for older person dwellings are more likely to identify as Maori or with a
Pacific Peoples ethnic group.
32.
As Auckland Council investigates partnership options for delivery of HfOP, staff are
developing an engagement plan that will ensure mana whenua and mataawaka are fully
aware of the opportunities and are encouraged to participate to enable the recognition of
koroua and kuia.
33.
The partnership approach will also allow mana whenua and mataawaka to grow their role in
provision of housing solutions. This may be through partnerships with existing community
housing providers who can supplement and complement the respective skills of both parties
in a partnership proposal.
Implementation
34.
Pending approval of the standardised criteria, staff will implement the revised criteria from 1
January 2016.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Differing legacy eligibility criteria
25
Stakeholder feedback summary
27
Age and demographic data of Aucklands 60-65 population
29
Signatories
Author
Kat Teirney - Team Leader Community Facilities, South
Authorisers
Graham Bodman - General Manager - Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
Page 24
Attachment A
Item 11

12 November 2015
Page 25
Attachment B
Item 11

12 November 2015
Page 27
Attachment C
Item 11

12 November 2015
Page 29

12 November 2015
Item 12

File No.: CP2015/23239
Purpose
1.
To consider the feedback received during public consultation on the draft Future Urban Land
Supply Strategy (the draft Strategy), to approve the Auckland Development Committee
Deliberations Panels recommended changes to this draft Strategy as a result of this
feedback and to adopt the final Strategy.
Executive Summary
2.
The Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public
consultation on 7 July 2015 in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in
section 83 of the Local Government Act (2002).
3.
Public consultation on the draft Strategy took place from 17 July to 17 August 2015. A total
of 237 pieces of written feedback was received. This feedback, together with the feedback
from 270 people who attended the four Have Your Say public meetings, was considered by
the deliberations panel on 23 September and 7 October 2015. Overall, the feedback
strongly supported the intent and purpose of the draft Strategy in terms of providing a
region-wide approach to integrating and sequencing land use and infrastructure in the future
urban zone (FUZ) areas.
4.
The main changes proposed to the draft Strategy as a result of the feedback are the
following amendments to the initially proposed sequencing of the FUZ areas:
a. that Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two
b. that Drury West (formerly called Karaka in the draft Strategy) be brought forward to the
first half of decade two
c. that Opaheke Drury be sequenced in the first half of decade three (previously the
second half of decade two)
d. that Puhinui be included in the second half of decade two (though not included in the
draft Strategy nor specifically raised in the feedback, it is included to align with recent
planning undertaken for the area).
5.
Other proposed changes in response to the feedback received include matters related to:
a. scale and context of growth
b. structure planning
c. costs, funding and financing solutions
d. importance of monitoring
e. collaboration.
6.
A monitoring and review programme is an integral part of implementing the Strategy. It will
ensure that the Strategy is responsive to changes in the future to deliver land for
development at the right time and in the right locations. The monitoring programme will be
part of a wider monitoring framework undertaken for the Auckland Plan.
7.
As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructure
providers will work together to ensure more detailed land use and infrastructure planning
and delivery is aligned.
8.
Future urban zones identified as standalone areas (with the exception of Hingaia) are not
included in the Strategy. They will be addressed through future work on the stage four (rural
and coastal towns) Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) process.
Page 31
Item 12

12 November 2015
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the summary of public feedback obtained during the draft Future Urban Land
Supply Strategy consultation process
b)
approve the changes to the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy proposed by
the Auckland Development Committee Deliberations Panel
c)
adopt the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy as proposed by the Auckland
Development Committee Deliberations Panel and inclusive of additional changes
approved by the Committee
d)
delegate through the Chief Executive to the General Manager,Auckland Plan,

Strategy and Research the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the
Future Urban Land Supply Strategy to correct any identified errors or typographical
edits or to reflect decisions made by the Auckland Development Committee.
Comments
Background
9.
The Auckland Plan identified greenfield areas for investigation to provide for future growth
outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The PAUP formalised this concept
through the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as FUZ. The RUB has
been subject to substantial public consultation: during the development of the Auckland Plan
in 2011, the Auckland Unitary Plan discussion document consultation from late 2012 to mid2013 and the subsequent notification of the PAUP in September 2013. It is noted that the
precise boundaries of the RUB have not yet been finalised through the PAUP process.
10.
The purpose of the Strategy is to provide a robust and logical 30-year sequence for when
the 11,000 hectares of FUZ land is proposed to be development ready. This will enable
coordination of timely structure planning, live zoning and bulk infrastructure provision to
these areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructure
providers. The future urban areas are predominantly rural and have not been previously
identified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided prior to their
development.
11.
The areas included in the Strategy are located outside the 2010 MUL but exclude future
urban zones identified as standalone areas (with the exception of Hingaia). These areas
will be addressed through future work on the stage four (rural and coastal towns) RUB
process.
12.
The Strategy leverages off existing legacy planning and approved Special Housing Areas
(SHAs) for the first 5-10 years. Subsequently, the Strategy transitions to a more proactive
approach that aims to ensure that the necessary underpinning network infrastructure will be
available at the time of future live zoning of FUZ land.
13.
The Strategy deals with the future urban areas located in the:
a. North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat
b. North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead
c. South: Puhinui, Takanini, Hingaia, Opaheke-Drury, Drury West, Paerata and Pukekohe.
14.
The PAUP Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) has requested further information to
understand how the council will manage the planning and development of future urban land.
The Strategy forms part of the councils overall integrated planning approach which includes
the use of the RUB and the FUZ.
Page 32
15.
Structure planning and associated plan changes to create live zonings will be done prior to
the FUZ areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the council (or in
partnership with others) in line with the sequencing outlined in the Strategy. Structure
planning will be the stage of the process where local boards, mana whenua and
communities will be most heavily involved in the planning of these areas.
Sequencing future urban zoned land

16.
The approach undertaken to identify the sequencing of the likely structure

planning/development readiness for the future urban areas was primarily a technical
exercise that consisted of the following key stages:
a. work initially focussed on building a greater understanding of each future urban area by
consolidating the planning information held across council and undertaking high level
technical analysis. This exercise provided a clearer picture regarding the potential land
uses, development capacities, development opportunities and constraints and the bulk
infrastructure projects that would be required to urbanise these areas
b. a suite of principles was established to guide the development of the Strategy and to
allow the overall prioritisation of the FUZ areas within the short, medium and long-term
timeframes of the Strategy
c. a series of technical workshops were held with key infrastructure providers including
Auckland Transport, Watercare, Veolia and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
The workshops looked at each geographic location separately to understand the likely
localised infrastructure requirements
d. the resulting information was then used to develop an overall regional picture and
develop recommendations for when a future urban area should be live zoned. This
required all areas to be compared and then sequenced. The regional analysis also
compared the development capacities that were likely to occur and the necessary key
enabling infrastructure projects (and their timelines and potential costs where known)
with the aim that development capacities could be delivered, and that infrastructure costs
could be spread, over the period of the Strategy
e. the outputs from all of these stages were then consolidated into a table that sets out the
sequence order in terms of the councils intentions of when these areas would be ready
for urban development.
Public consultation
17.
On 7 July 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to:

a)
approve the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for public consultation in
accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local
Government Act (2002).
b)
approve the statement of proposal for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for
consultation.
c)
appoint Cr WB Cashmore, Deputy Chairperson C Darby, Cr D Quax and Cr MP

Webster of the Auckland Development Committee and one member of the
Independent Mori Statutory Board to form a hearing panel, and delegate authority
to this panel to attend public consultation events and consider the consultation
feedback received, and make recommendations to the Auckland Development
Committee.
d)
delegate to the chairperson of the Auckland Development Committee the power to

make additional or replacement appointments to the hearings panel if required.
e)
delegate to the General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research the ability
to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal, to correct
any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the
Auckland Development Committee.
Page 33
Item 12

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 12
Resolution: AUC/2015/147
18.
Independent Mori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox was subsequently appointed to
the Strategy hearings panel. This panel was renamed the deliberations panel given that
formal hearings were not required in this process which was undertaken under the
provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. Public consultation on the Strategy took
place from 17 July to 17 August 2015 and commenced with a media release from the council
and the launch of an interactive webpage, followed by public notices in the New Zealand
Herald and within targeted local papers. These notices informed the public that the draft
Strategy and a statement of proposal were publicly available for comment and also
advertised the upcoming Have Your Say public meetings.
19.
Four Have Your Say events were held during the consultation period in Warkworth (3
August), Kumeu (5 August), Dairy Flat (10 August) and Drury (11 August). These locations
were chosen with input from local board services staff. Each event was attended by four of
the five appointed hearing panel members; as well as local board members, relevant council
staff (including Auckland Transport) and representatives from the NZTA. The primary
means to obtain feedback were small group facilitated table discussions, where members of
the public could provide feedback on the draft Strategy in the presence of a hearing panel
and/or elected member. Attendee comments were captured in writing and a report back
from each table occurred. A good cross section of the public (270 people) attended these
four events and the summary of feedback (see Attachment A) from each event was provided
on the councils website.
Feedback summary
20.
A total of 237 pieces of written feedback were received on the draft Strategy (see summary
in Attachment B). This feedback, together with the feedback received at the Have Your Say
events, was considered by the deliberations panel at two sessions that occurred on 23
September and 7 October 2015.
21.
The majority of written feedback was received from those located in the Rodney Local Board
(45 per cent), followed by the Upper Harbour Local Board (19 per cent) and Franklin Local
Board area (6 per cent). Overall, there was strong support for taking a region- wide
approach to integrating land use and infrastructure, as was the draft Strategys intent and
purpose.
22.
Feedback has been grouped into 14 main themes, discussed below, which provides a
summary of feedback received and the responses proposed. The amended version of the
Strategy incorporating these responses is provided in Attachment C.
Theme one: the scale of growth and type of development envisioned
23.
In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the lack of appreciation by the
public about the scale of growth that is proposed by the Strategy, what this would mean in
terms of urban development/form (e.g. the likely housing typology) envisaged and the
amount of infrastructure that would be needed to allow urbanisation of the FUZ areas. In
order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a new section (section two: scale and context) with further explanation be added to
clarify the scale of proposed FUZ area development and the type of development that
is envisioned. As illustrative measures, the total FUZ area is compared to the size of
the City of Hamilton and examples of likely housing types and urban form are included.
Theme two: the priority of brownfield versus greenfield development
24.
In summary, the feedback received on this theme is defined by a perception that the council
is prioritising greenfield area development without sufficiently examining options to
accelerate brownfield area development. A small number of submitters suggested that a
complementary brownfield strategy be developed. In order to address this feedback it is
proposed that:
Page 34
a. a new diagram be added to the introduction (section one) to better illustrate what
proportion of the anticipated future growth within Auckland over the next 30 years will
occur within the FUZ areas
b. additional wording be added in the second paragraph of the introduction to clarify the
importance of providing a pipeline of land supply in both brownfields and greenfields
areas and that, as recognised by the Auckland Plan, both brownfields and greenfields
land supply are needed
c. a revised monitoring section is added that highlights the importance of monitoring the ongoing development capacity of both existing urban land and future urban land.
25.
Theme three: the need for mixed land use

In summary, the feedback received on this theme outlined the importance many submitters
put on ensuring that a balanced mix of residential and employment land would be achieved
by the Strategy, so as to allow the development of well-functioning communities. In order to
address this feedback it is proposed that:
an illustrative diagram of a mock structure plan be included in a new section on
structure planning (section 3). This diagram visually illustrates that obtaining a balanced
mix of business and residential land is anticipated by the Strategy, and the optimal mix of
land use will be identified through the forthcoming structure planning processes.
26.
Theme four: the importance of monitoring and implementation

In summary, the feedback received on this theme showed that there was significant public
interest about how, and when, the Strategy would be monitored and reviewed. It was
considered the monitoring of the Strategy should have the ability to alter the sequence and
timeframes set out in the Strategy. However, there were significantly differing opinions over
how flexible the review process should be in terms of responding to unforeseen changes
that the monitoring could potentially identify. In order to address this feedback it is proposed
that:
a revised monitoring and review section (section six) be added within the Strategy to
make clear that:
27.
the Strategy will track and report on the progress of delivering land for new
communities. This will include the identification of future urban zoning, structure
planning, rezoning, servicing with bulk infrastructure, subdivision and the building
consent process
the Strategy will be monitored annually as part of a comprehensive and broader

Auckland Plan Development Strategy monitoring framework
the Strategy may be amended following a review, should the monitoring identify clear
changes from the expected growth patterns, increased funding availability for bulk
infrastructure, or a significant change in strategic direction (due to factors such as
economic situations, or the regulatory planning context).
Theme five: the interrelationship between forecast infrastructure costs and dwelling
numbers
In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to the cost table (page 13 of the
draft Strategy) and the incorrect perception that the forecast infrastructure costs could be
directly apportioned to the forecast dwelling numbers. In order to address this feedback it is
proposed:
that additional text be added within the Strategy to clarify that costs do not directly
correlate to the number of dwellings forecast within each decade and that a proportion
of these costs will be incurred in preceding decades to allow development in the
subsequent decade.
Page 35
Item 12

12 November 2015
Item 12

12 November 2015
28.
Theme six: the sequencing of special housing areas

In summary, the feedback received on this theme reflected public concern that some of the
recently approved SHAs have been omitted from the proposed sequencing in the draft
Strategy and that it appeared that some SHAs may leapfrog the proposed sequencing, with
the consequence that either no infrastructure, or only heavily constrained infrastructure,
would be in place to service these SHAs. In order to address this feedback it is proposed
that:
a. the Hingaia SHA be included in the sequencing table
b. section four (the programme) more fully explains that approved SHAs have a significant
role in the first decade of the Strategy and are a part of the transition to longer-term,
more proactive planning
c. the Strategy makes reference to the fact that the Housing Accord and Special Housing
Act 2013 has a set expiry date
d. additional text be added to explain that SHAs that are within the MUL or in standalone
areas (with the exception of Hingaia) have not been included (e.g. Flat Bush, Kingseat)
as the development of these areas will be or have been addressed through other
processes (e.g. standalone areas will be addressed through a future process that looks
at the RUB location in rural and coastal towns). FUZ areas inside the MUL have already
had significant planning undertaken through SHAs and structure planning processes and
is not the focus of this Strategy.
29.
Theme seven: the relationship with other strategic and planning documents
In summary, the feedback received on this theme showed that many submitters wanted the
Strategy to complement and connect to other major strategic and planning documents. In
order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a new paragraph and diagram be added to the introduction (section one) shows how
the Strategy is interrelated and connects to major strategic and planning documents
including the: Auckland Plan, 30-year Infrastructure Strategy, PAUP and Long-term
Plan. Acknowledgement is also made to strategic transport documents (Regional Land
Transport Plan and the National Land Transport Plan).
30.
Theme eight: Mori

In summary, the feedback received on this theme reflected concern about whether the
structure planning process would identify sufficient employment land and whether adequate
consideration would be given to the development plans of Mori. In order to address this
feedback it is proposed that:
a. a new section on structure planning (section 3) be added, including an illustrative
structure plan to show that a balanced mix of land uses is envisioned
b. additional text be included to acknowledge the aspirations for Mori land development,
particularly on the periphery of Tamki Makaurau, including an expanded Mori principle
in Appendix one
c. there will be on-going dialogue between Mori and the council to ensure that Mori
aspirations are being realised as the Strategy is implemented and that the wider
monitoring framework will monitor how the council is addressing Mori land development
aspirations.
31.
Theme nine: the role of structure planning

In summary, the feedback received on this theme emphasised the importance of including
the community in forthcoming structure planning. There were also requests for additional
detail on the role of structure planning, when it would be undertaken, and who would lead.
In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a new section on structure planning (section 3) be added that includes an illustrative
structure plan. This section clarifies the role of structure planning and what it entails. It
also outlines who could lead a structure plan and clarifies the role of the community in
this process.
Page 36
32.
Theme ten: the funding/financing of infrastructure

In summary, the feedback received on this theme related to queries about the magnitude of
the infrastructure costs outlined in the Strategy, how such costs would be funded/financed
and who would pay for this infrastructure. It became apparent from analysing the feedback
that additional clarification on what could be funded by development contributions was
needed as some submitters misunderstood how this policy could be applied by the council.
There were also a number of queries about whether alternative funding/financing tools could
be applied. In order to address this feedback:
a. council staff have worked with key infrastructure providers to obtain the best cost
estimates possible, which will be shown as inflated costs including contingency
estimates
b. further text be added is proposed to recognise that the council is working within a
constrained financial environment and that development contributions will not cover the
full amount of the bulk infrastructure costs proposed
c. the council will continue to examine how alternative funding/financing tools could be
applied to fund new infrastructure needs generated by Aucklands growth.
33.
34.
Theme eleven: the timing and importance of infrastructure

In summary, the feedback received on this theme stressed the need to ensure that key
network infrastructure is in place before any development starts. There were also requests
that public transport be central to the sequencing with the view to having well-functioning
transport links in place at the time of development. There were a number of requests for
various transport projects to be planned and constructed earlier than anticipated by the draft
Strategy to alleviate or avoid perceived future congestion. In order to address this feedback
it is proposed that a new section be added as section two (scale and content) which includes
reference to infrastructure, in particular public transport.
Theme twelve: the sequencing and timing of live zoning
In summary, the feedback received on this theme was defined by requests to amend the
sequencing and timing of live zoning, and in particular to bring the live zoning of certain
future urban areas forward (e.g. bring Wainui/Silverdale/Dairy Flat forward before
Warkworth). In addition, requests were received to include Warkworth North East within the
sequencing, confirm that Dairy Flat is included in the Strategy and that Warkworth should
not be split in a north/south orientation but occur as one concentrated development from the
centre outwards. In order to address this feedback it is proposed that:
a. Warkworth North East be included in the first half of decade two to enable prudent
planning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements.
b. Drury West be brought forward to the first half of decade two to leverage off the
approved SHA in that area and maximise its market attractiveness
c. Opaheke Drury be pushed out to the firstt half of decade three to enable stormwater
and bulk wastewater solutions to be planned, funded and constructed and also to allow
time for the area to benefit from development occurring earlier in Drury West (it is
considered that the market attractiveness of Drury West will have a positive spin off for
Opaheke - Drury).
d. Dairy Flat (south of Bawden Road and west of Postman Road) be included to enable
prudent planning and consideration of the wider infrastructure network requirements. A
caveat stating that its final inclusion be determined through the PAUP process be added
e. additional rationale be included to explain the order of the sequencing table (within
Appendix one)
Page 37
Item 12

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 12
f.
more explanation be provided in section three (structure planning) of the Strategy to

clarify that structure panning will identify smaller, more nuanced areas for staging of
development to ensure a logical rollout of local infrastructure and land use
g. the sequencing table be updated in section four and shown as table one below.
35.
While Puhinui was not specifically raised in the feedback, it is included in the Strategy
sequencing in the second half of decade two to align with recent planning undertaken for the
area.
Table one: Revised sequencing for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy
36.
Theme thirteen: the importance of collaboration

In summary, the feedback received on this theme highlighted the importance of ensuring
that all relevant parties collaborated on cross boundary infrastructure networks and funding
issues - particularly for Auckland/Waikato. In order to address this feedback it is proposed
that:
an additional principle on collaboration be added to Appendix one (principles) that
includes reference to adjoining councils, central government, developers, KiwiRail and
other infrastructure providers
the Mori social and economic wellbeing principle be amended to include Treaty of
Waitangi settlement responsibilities.
Page 38
37.
Theme fourteen: process applied to develop the Strategy

In summary, the feedback received on this topic was defined by submitters who wanted
more information about the process that was applied to develop the Strategy. In order to
address this feedback, an explanation on the process and how this links to work undertaken
to define the RUB is included in this Committee report.
Consideration
38.
This Strategy has significant implications for local boards, particularly Rodney, Upper
Harbour, Henderson-Massey, tara-Papatotoe, Papakura, Manurewa and Franklin Local
Boards, as they contain areas of future urban land sequenced by the Strategy.
39.
Prior to the start of public consultation, a briefing was held for all local board members on 15
July 2015. Local board members most affected by the Strategy were invited to the four
Have Your Say public meetings, with 23 members attending. A number of local board
members took active roles at the Have Your Say events by hearing feedback from the public
at the facilitated table discussions.
40.
Feedback on the draft Strategy was received from 18 local boards. In general, local boards
supported the overall purpose and intent of the Strategy. A common theme in the local
board feedback was that infrastructure needed to be provided in a timely manner,
particularly public transport. Clarity was also sought on how infrastructure was to be funded
and by whom. The importance of monitoring and links to the Auckland Plan were raised, as
well as the need to acquire land for open space and recreation as early as possible.
Existing urban local boards raised the need for a focus on brownfield land supply to
complement the Strategys focus on greenfields and that there is a need to balance business
land supply with residential (and particularly affordable housing) provision. Many local
boards also expressed the need to ensure that they and their communities have the
opportunity to be fully involved in forthcoming structure planning processes.
41.
Attachment D summarises local board feedback by board and Attachment E provides the
complete record of the local board feedback received to the Strategy. The amended
Strategy has responded to this feedback.

42.
This Strategy has significant implications for Mori and has the capacity to contribute to
Mori well-being and development of Mori capacity. It is acknowledged that Mori have a
special relationship with Aucklands physical and cultural environment.
43.
Post -Treaty settlement, Mori may be looking to invest settlement monies in long-term
investments and this may have a number of significant implications for infrastructure
planning. Mori also have the potential to be significant urban landowners that could be
looking to actively participate in urban development and to promote specific outcomes for
Auckland, the environment and for Mori. This would be achieved through partnerships,
investments and greater involvement in decision making. The Strategy has been amended
to acknowledge the councils responsibilities under The Treaty of Waitangi.
44.
Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite of
principles which sit behind it. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015,
prior to public consultation.
45.
Written feedback was received from Te Rnanga o Ngti Whtua and Ngti Te Ata. Te
Rnanga o Ngti Whtua supported the intent and development of the Strategy and are
seeking recognition of the need for business areas at the edge of/beyond Auckland as a
potential way to mitigate the affordable housing issue faced by Auckland through creating
new housing outside of Aucklands boundary. Feedback from Ngti Te Ata outlines a desire
for alignment between the Strategy and their long-term aspirations in infrastructure,
Page 39
Item 12

12 November 2015
Item 12

12 November 2015
industrial, commercial, business and residential development. Members of Waikato-Tainui
attended the Drury Have your Say event and their feedback was captured within the
summary of feedback document for this event. There was also some support in the general
feedback for principle three of the Strategy Supporting lifting Maori social and economic
wellbeing.
46.
The Mori Plan for Tmaki Makaurau refers to the four pou of social, cultural, economic and
environmental wellbeing areas. To better articulate the link with the four pou, principle three
of the Strategy has been expanded to include a reference to cultural and environmental
wellbeing given the role of the Strategy in contributing to the Mori Plans key direction of
developing vibrant communities.
Implementation
47.
A monitoring programme will be an integral and important part of implementing the Strategy
and making it a document that can be responsive to changes in the future. This will ensure
that the proposed sequencing remains relevant and effective and is able to respond to
change. As part of consultation on the draft Strategy, feedback was received on the
importance of monitoring and review. In response the section on monitoring and review of
the Strategy was revised to provide more detail.
48.
As part of the ongoing implementation of the Strategy, the council and infrastructure
providers will work together to ensure land use and infrastructure planning is aligned.
Further detailed planning for large areas of future urban land will occur at the structure
planning stage prior to live zoning and provision of bulk infrastructure.
49.
Council is investigating alternative mechanisms to fund, finance and deliver infrastructure.

This includes options such as public-private partnerships; private sector funding or provision;
alternative funding mechanisms such as regional fuel taxes; congestion charging; tax
incremental financing; user charges; sponsorship opportunities and partnership or
collaborative approaches.
50.
Benefits to individual infrastructure projects may vary, depending on the mechanism used.
These will be considered on a case-by-case basis and could include targeting funding for
infrastructure investment to an area or community which receives the benefit; improved
environmental performance; improved resilience and greater equity in funding contributions.
There is also potential for more collaborative approaches to infrastructure investment
Attachments
No.
Title
Have Your Say events summary of feedback on the Draft Future Urban
Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
Summary of written feedback on the Draft Future Urban Land Supply

Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
Amended Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
Summary of local board feedback received on the Draft Future Urban

Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
Complete record of local board feedback received on the Draft Future

Urban Land Supply Strategy (Under Separate Cover)
Page
Signatories
Author
Amanda Harland Principal Growth & Infrastructure Advisor
Authorisers
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Page 40

12 November 2015
Item 13

File No.: CP2015/20461
Purpose
1.
To receive the report of the independent Consideration Panel on the proposed land
exchange for the Three Kings Reserve, and confirm acceptance of the Panels
recommendation to proceed with the exchange, subject to the Chief Executive entering into
a land exchange agreement setting out the terms of that exchange.
Executive Summary
2.
Fletcher Residential Limited (Developer) is planning a residential property development on

its Three Kings quarry land. As part of its development, it has proposed exchanging fully
developed sports fields, and other land and improvements, in return for some adjacent
Council-administered reserves land to be developed for housing.
3.
The Reserves Act 1977 permits land exchanges if, broadly, the exchange results in a similar
or better reserves amenity outcome for the public (i.e. improved benefit for the purpose of
the reserve). Public and iwi consultation is required, and Ministerial approval is also required
since some of the land is Crown-derived.
4.
To assess the merits of the proposed exchange:

a. Council issued a s.15 Reserves Act notice of an intention to exchange reserve land, and
also appointed an independent panel to consider any submissions and make a
recommendation to Council. The Consideration Panels report (attached) recommends
that Council proceeds with the exchange on certain conditions, and on the assumption
that the exchange is in Councils favour financially.
b. Staff have identified, assessed and reported on other options and these are referenced
in a section of Attachment C.
5.
If Council accepts the Panels recommendation and resolves to request the exchange,
Council will then enter into a land exchange agreement with the Developer, covering the
essential terms of the exchange including:
a. Specifications for the reserve improvement works, including new sports fields, and other
Developer undertakings.
b. Project phasing and step-plan for implementing the exchange.
c. Any pre-conditions and deadlines for performance of the exchange (including the
Developers planning approvals for the development).
6.
The Panels recommendation, in light of the Developers representations during public

consultation and the hearings process, represents the baseline requirements for the land
exchange which will be reflected in the exchange agreement.
7.
Councils decision to enter into any land exchange agreement is as a land-owner (subject to
Reserves Act requirements). Planning and consenting decisions relating to the Developers
project are distinct regulatory issues, and the planning process is separate from the
Reserves Act process. The outcome of the Reserves Act process will give certainty to the
ability of any plan change to be implemented.
8.
Councils Chief Executive, in conjunction with Panuku Development Auckland, would

complete the negotiations with the Developer to implement the Panels recommendations
prior to forwarding a request to the Minister, and attend to the execution and implementation
of the land exchange agreement and performance of any Council obligations if the Minister
were to approve the request. The final apportionment and proportional ownership of the
parcels of the reconfigured reserve will be agreed with the Department of Conservation in
this process.
Page 41

12 November 2015
Item 13
9.
The Panels recommendation should be considered as a whole. The Committee can accept
or reject it, but cannot propose any changes to its terms without restarting the hearing
process or referring the matter back to the Panel for further consideration.
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Development Committee, as a Committee of the Whole and as the
Committee responsible for the related Plan Change PM372:
a)
accept the report and recommendations of the Consideration Panel relating to the
proposed exchange
b)
accept that the fiscal evaluation of the exchange land and the value of the benefits to
accrue to the reserve land supports the disposal of part of the existing reserve and
the acquisition of new reserve by way of exchange under s.15 of the Reserves Act
c)
request the Minister of Conservations approval to the exchange under s.15 of the
Reserves Act in accordance with the Panels recommendation.
d)
delegate to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council (acting in consultation with

Panuku Development Auckland) authority to:
i)
negotiate and enter into the land exchange agreement in accordance with the
Panels recommendations;
ii)
agree the final apportionment and proportional ownership of the parcels of the
reconfigured reserve with the Department of Conservation;
ii)
to forward the resolution requesting approval of the exchange to the Minister of

Conversation (with all required attachments) on completion of the exchange
agreement; and
iii)
exercise Auckland Councils rights and obligations under the exchange

agreement, and attend to all technical matters and processes required, to give
effect to completing the land exchange and related matters in an orderly
manner.
Comments
Statutory process and the Consideration Panel
10. On the 11 June the Committee resolved (AUC/2015/118) to issue a notice of intention to
exchange reserve land under s.15 of the Reserves Act relating to the rehabilitation and
development of the Three Kings Quarry subject to PM372. Before making that decision,
officers had considered and reported on other reasonable practicable options to the
proposed exchange. These options are described in Attachment C.
11.
The notice of intention to request an exchange of reserve land was published in the New
Zealand Herald on 22 June, with two further notices in the Central Leader on 24 June and 3
July. The notice was posted on Auckland Councils website, and information relating to the
proposed exchange, including survey plans, previous reports to the Local Board and the
illustrative exchange plans were made available on councils engagement website,
www.shapeauckland.co.nz.
12.
The consultation period ran from 22 June to the 24 July and 233 submissions were received
during that period. 222 of these submissions were received following a public meeting held
on 21 July. Two submissions were received from iwi, one from Nagti Maru and the other on
behalf of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and representative entities.
13.
On the 22 July the Hearings Committee (HEA/2015/72) appointed a panel of four

independent commissioners to consider the submissions arising from the notification period.
Page 42
14.
On 25, 26 and 31 August public hearings were held and submitters were able to address
their submissions. The Consideration Panel held deliberations in public on 6 October and
issued their consideration of objections report and recommendations on 15 October 2015
(see Attachment A).
15.
The Panel has also prepared a Submissions Schedule where it records whether the Panel
accepted, in part or in whole, an issue raised by the submitter, or where it rejected the
submission, or found it to be not relevant (see Attachment B).
16.
The report recommends the exchange, but on the basis that part of the reserve land
identified for exchange be retained in Council ownership. The land recommended to be
withdrawn comprises 6,262m on the northern side of the western reserve (superlot F). The
commissioners also agreed with Housing New Zealands submission that 770m of land on
the southern part of the Western Reserve be withheld (part of superlot G). The Developer
advised the Panel that 13 terraced houses were planned for superlot F, but that the final
typology was undetermined. Please refer to Attachment E for a plan illustrating the areas
recommended for retention.
17.
Though satisfied with the original notified exchange outcome, Parks and Recreation Policy
staff support the Panels recommendation and note the exclusion of land on the northern
side of Western Park will protect views of the maunga and improve connections to open
space and the surrounding area. The additional 6,262m2 will increase the overall amount of
open space available for the local community and enable the development of a more diverse
range of open space experiences in that area.
18.
Though the area of 770m adjacent to Housing New Zealands ownership will be difficult to
manage as reserve, the longer term use for the land is likely to be for residential purposes,
and provide opportunities to work with Housing New Zealand to further improve the amenity
of the open space in the surrounding area.
19.
The Developer has commented that the reduction in the quantum of land it would receive in
the recommended exchange, compared to the notified exchange, will have a substantial
financial impact on the proposed development. CBRE assesses the impact to be a reduction
in the value of land to have been received by the Developer to be circa $2.65m. The fiscal
impact of retaining this area of reserve to Council will be marginally increased management
costs for its ongoing maintenance.
20.
While no formal request has been raised, it is useful to note that a proposal to change the
terms of the recommendation made by the Panel should be referred to the Panel. ADCs
options are to accept (or reject) the Panels recommendations as a whole; refer the matter
back to the panel; or to restart the hearing process.
Consideration of key issues
21.
A wide range of issues where raised by submitters, being principally: a perceived inequality
in the exchange proposal; a lack of effective public consultation; the impact of the exchange
on Te Tatua a Riukiuta; the location and use of the sports fields; the connections with the
surrounding environment; the consideration of alternative development options; the impact
on community facilities; statutory and process concerns; and the fill level of the rehabilitated
quarry.
22.
The panel considered the submissions in the context of the Reserves Act 1977, and
recognised that its decisions should be made in such a way as to give effect to the principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Panel recognised that the active
protection of taonga, in this case Te Ttua a Ruikiuta, is a requirement and that the Crown
and Council are obligated to do everything they can to protect the maunga or, at the very
least, not do anything that will further compromise this taonga.
23.
The Panel was satisfied that there had been considerable effort by Council to consult with
iwi, but expressed disappointment in not being able to hear and discuss matters with iwi
representatives at the hearing.
Page 43
Item 13

12 November 2015
Item 13

12 November 2015
24.
A brief summary of the key findings of the panel is attached in Attachment C to this report.
25.
On pages 24 - 25 and pages 31- 32 the report discusses open space provision and on page
32 notes a concern about the quantum of open space. Councils Parks and Recreation
Policy have commented in response to this concern that the primary focus of the councils
open space guidelines is to ensure that residents have access to a range of open space
experiences. The outcome of the exchange will provide a 2.7ha central park for organised
sport and informal recreational use, a public plaza with adjacent shared space, a
recreational area on the western reserve and improved pathways, landscaping and
connections.
26.
Apart from the open space provision in the proposed development, there is an extensive
open space network in the immediate vicinity including Te Tatua a Riukiuta/Big King
Reserve, Three Kings Reserve (east) and Robinson Reserve, which collectively amount to
some 11ha of existing open space. Within a 1.3km radius, other parks and reserves provide
additional open space experiences. The officers confirm that the total overall quantum of
open space in the vicinity would be more than adequate to meet the needs of both the
existing and future community.
27.
The Panel also identified issues raised in submissions that, though not directly relevant to
their decision making, warranted identification for consideration by Council. These related to
improving processes to increase the flow of feedback in iwi consultation, the entrenchment
of public access to the reserve, housing affordability at Three Kings, the scope of any future
development on Fyvie Avenue to enhance the maunga, and the investigation of the
enhancement of east-west links with adjoining owners Housing New Zealand and
Antipodean Properties ltd, as illustrated in the Richard Reid plan.
Exchange Agreement matters noted by the Panel
28.
In its decision the Panel noted several matters relating to the proposed exchange; that the
delivery of a quality environment is more properly a matter to be assessed under the
Resource Management Act; that the terms of the exchange agreement must ensure the
delivery of intended open space access and recreational facilities, and that clear stages of
development will provide for the land title transfers to occur once those aspects of the
development had been completed.
29.
The exchange agreement will address these issues and will seek to balance the delivery of
the outcomes with the practicalities of undertaking a complex development of this magnitude
over a period of years. Reserve improvement works will be specified as part of the
agreement and the local board views will be sought on those.
30.
This report seeks delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of Auckland Council to finalise
and enter into the exchange agreement.
Valuation Considerations
Reserves Act
31.
The Reserves Act focuses on the benefit gained via exchange for the purpose of the
reserve, in this case recreation. However, a valuation can help support the decisionmaking as a check against the values-based assessment of the amenity outcomes, and to
help inform Councils position in negotiations with the exchange counterparty.
32.
In addition, the Public Finance Act prevents the Department of Conservation from accepting
an area of lesser market value in exchange for an area of greater market value unless the
other party pays the equality or there is an appropriation to cover the Crown loss.
33.
S.25 of the Reserves Act states that a reserve can only be disposed of after its reservation is
revoked. Therefore any valuation of reserve land on the basis of willing buyer/willing seller
is somewhat hypothetical, but the key point is that both parcels of land being exchanged are
valued on comparable criteria (i.e., apples with apples).
Page 44
34.
For exchange purposes, it is the relativity of values that is important, not the absolute values.
Therefore the valuer has some flexibility in deciding what assumptions to apply, provided
these are applied consistently.
35.
The valuation figures prepared by CBRE are set out below to enable the Committee to
understand the relative values of the exchange. The full valuation can be made available to
councillors and other council stakeholders, and should be withheld from public distribution
on grounds of commercial sensitivity. The full valuation will also be provided to the
Department of Conservation if the recommended exchange is requested.
Summary of cost/benefit or fiscal equality of the exchange
36.
Overall, under the Panels recommendation, the Developer will receive land with a potential
value of $17.33m, but is likely to incur development costs in the region of $14.76m in order
to release this development value. Accordingly, CBRE advise the value of the land in its
current state is worth in vicinity of $2.57m. The Developer will also pay for reserve
improvements that Panuku estimate will cost in the region of $3.38m.
37.
Crown and Council will receive land hypothetically worth $19.775m, on the assumption it is
zoned for high density residential activities. However, due to its reserve status, an
allowance or a discount for a chance of change from open space to residential use (which
would require the revocation of its reserve status) tempers its value to circa $4.94m.
38.
Therefore the Developer will obtain land with a net value of $2.57m and will spend $3.38m
on the sportsfields, pathways, staircases and landscaping etc. The new reserve land has a
value in the region of $5.0m and represents a saving on land acquisition costs to council of
about $20.0m. Council will also have the benefit of improvements to the local park assessed
at $3.38m.
39.
The apparent imbalance of the exchange from the Developers standpoint is explained by
the knowledge that the exchange will unlock and enhance the development opportunity of
the whole quarry and reserve area, which is subject to the outcome of PM372. To this end,
it is conceivable that the Developer will benefit from a greater gross realisation for their
project through having the potential to sell residential units in an integrated scheme
benefitting from the surrounding high quality open space amenity, compared to a standalone scheme on 985 Mt Eden Road.
Value of land to the Developer
40.
In the notified exchange proposal in June, four parcels of reserve land totaling 2.26ha were
proposed to transfer to the developer, freehold, not subject to reserve status. In assessing
the value of the land two assumptions were made. One, the land had consent for high
density residential development and two, that the land was level, fully serviced by roading,
and that it was connected to essential infrastructure such as wastewater, water, telecoms
and stormwater. On these assumptions the value of the land was assessed by Councils
independent valuers, CBRE, at $20.25m.
41.
However, under the exchange, the Developer would receive the 2.26ha of land in its current
state, land locked, with no roading access and no infrastructure. In addition, substantial civil
engineering works are required to create level building platforms and roading.
42.
Further to a high level review by Riley Consultants Ltd of the major civil engineering works,
and using infrastructure costings prepared for the Developer by Aurecon Ltd, it is estimated
that development costs of c.$15.0m is required to prepare the four land parcels for
development. Accordingly, the As Is development value of the land under the notified
exchange proposal would have been in the region of $5.2m.
43.
Following the Panels report and recommendation, the amount of land recommended for
transfer reduces to 1.56ha. This is likely to have only a small impact in reducing the
development costs as most of the costs relate to the land that would still transfer to the
developer. CBRE are of the opinion that the current development value of the three parcels
of land totalling 1.56ha is in the order of $2.57m, after deduction of development costs.
Page 45
Item 13

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 13
Value of land to Council/Crown

44.
The amount of land proposed to be transferred to Crown and Council totals 2.666ha. The
land will be prepared and delivered to council ready for the addition of reserve
improvements, such as the sand carpeted playing fields which will be done by the
Developer. The amount of land to transfer to crown and council is unaffected by the
Consideration Panels report, though more land is retained in the existing reserve.
45.
On the assumption that this land has a high density residential zoning, CBRE are of the
opinion that the two parcels have a current market value of $19.775m. The parcels are
contiguous with the existing reserve land, and are fully accessible from the current reserve.
Though the intention is to use the land for sportsfields, and also for a stormwater retention
area on infrequent occasions, this new reserve land could be capable of supporting
residential development and its hypothetical value reflects that use. The new reserve land
will be delivered to an As Complete specification and no costs in its rehabilitation will be
incurred by council.
Value of Reserve Improvement Works
46.
In addition to providing new reserve land under the exchange agreement, the Developer will
undertake to carry out reserve improvement works that include the provision of sand
carpeted playing fields to the central reserve, provision of adequate parking for users of the
facilities, a public plaza and adjoining shared space roading, staircases, paths, cycle lanes,
landscaping and planting to the reserve areas. A serviced building platform will be provided
adjacent to the playing fields and a play space for children in a location to be agreed.
47.
At the submission hearings, the developer committed to providing adequate changing rooms
and toilet facilities on the serviced building platform and this, together will the provision of
lighting to the sports fields, was recognised by the Panel as being important considerations
to be agreed with the Developer in the exchange agreement.
48.
From a high level review of the Reserve Improvement Works, Panuku is of the opinion that
the value of these improvement works is in the order of $3.38m
49.
On 23 September 2015, the Board of Panuku Development Auckland resolved that it was
satisfied the notified exchange met the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989 and that
the exchange could be recommended to the Auckland Development Committee (subject to
the recommendations of the Consideration Panel) as the value of the land being received in
the exchange exceeded the value of the land to transfer to the Developer.
50.
The Panuku management has reviewed the revised valuation and development cost advice,
and the Panuku Board has been updated on the Consideration Panels recommendation at
its meeting on 28 October. The Board is of the opinion that its resolution of 23 September
stands.
Apportionment of new reserve land
51.
Under the Panels recommendation, three parcels of reserve land totaling 1.56ha would be
transferred to the Developer. A further 1.36ha of reserve land will be used for the
construction of public roads to provide access to the whole development area and to the
new sportsfields.
52.
In exchange, 2.66ha of 985 Mount Eden Road would become vested as new reserve land
under the Reserves Act 1977.
53.
As a result of the recommended exchange, land classified as reserve will reduce from 6.4ha
to 6.3ha, but the plaza will add over 1,000m of public space. Land used for roads,
footpaths, cycle ways and car parks will increase from 0.85ha to 1.71ha.
54.
Following completion of the exchange, a true-up will be required between Crown and
Council on their underlying landholdings in the reserve. Council will remain the
administering body for the entire reserve and the reserve will be a local park.
Page 46
55.
The land exchange is proceeding on the basis of equal contributions of Council-derived and
Crown-derived land. However, the land actually being exchanged is split to between
crown and council so the parties will need to true up their respective landholdings to reflect
the proportional contribution to the exchange.
56.
Although this could be achieved by dividing up interests in the new land that would cut
through the central park and the playing fields. This is unsatisfactory to both Crown and
Council, so it is better that the true-up is achieved with other land in the reserve.
57.
It is possible that Iwi will be in discussions with Crown concerning the Crown-derived land in
the reserve, and subject to any statutory requirements (including the Reserves Act), it makes
sense to achieve the true-up in a manner convenient for Crown and Iwi to progress their own
discussions, as this does not prejudice Councils overall interest. This Report recommends
that the Chief Executive deal with this issue if and when it arises.
Other Options
58.
Since 2008, and through to 2015, a wide range of options have been considered for the
integration and rehabilitation of the reserve land as part of a comprehensive redevelopment
of the quarry area. This has been conducted in the context of workshops and public
consultations for the development of local planning strategies, particularly the Three Kings
Plan with the Local Board, and has included adjoining owner engagement, iwi consultation,
public consultation and engagement with stakeholders. Through this process the notified
exchange was developed as the best option for the reasons reported to the committee on 11
June this year.
59.
This process is described in more detail in Attachment C and also refers to the Richard Reid
Plan that was published close to the end of the public submission period on the exchange.
Though prepared on the request of the Local Board, this plan has not been subject to any
consultation with stakeholders, or council officers. The Plan is not regarded by officers as a
practical or reasonable alternative to the recommended exchange.
Other Matters
60.
The other matters referred to in the Panels report will be considered in the implementation
of the exchange where relevant, and the comments on more general issues such as the
provision of affordable housing and the processes around iwi engagement will be raised with
appropriate council officers and the IMSB for further consideration.
Consideration
61.
There has been engagement with the Puketapapa Local Board at all stages of the land
exchange process. The Local Board separately provided its views on the proposed
exchange by way of a submission, and the Panel considered and addressed those matters
in its report. Due to timing issues, Local Board comment on the Panel recommendations was
not available for this report. The Local Board will provide its comments separately to the
Committee.

62.
Objections were received from Ngati Maru and from Paul Majurey on behalf of Nga Mana
Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau. Both objections addressed a view that the exchange did not
address extant Treaty issues and did not put anything back into the Tupuna Maunga.
63.
The Panel considered in depth the protection and enhancement of the maunga, the
proposed development on the western reserve, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Panels
decision to recommend the retention of the 6,032m on the western reserve was to protect
and enhance the recreational amenity of this area, and to actively protect of the taonga, Te
Ttua a Riukiuta. As the Panel commented We do not believe the building of units on the
northern side of this space is appropriate, given its importance to the neighbouring
community in social, cultural and recreational terms.
Page 47
Item 13

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 13
64.
For the avoidance of doubt, land exchanges under section 15 of the Reserves Act do not
trigger rights of first refusal under Treaty settlements.
Implementation
65.
Following a resolution by the Committee to request the exchange, the draft exchange
agreement will be completed under delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of Auckland
Council.
66.
The request to the Department of Conservation will be prepared by council staff and
submitted to the Department following completion of the exchange agreement.
67.
A diagram is attached in Attachment D illustrating the next steps and the alignment of the
Reserves Act process with the Resource Management process.
68.
While the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee ordinarily makes decisions on the
acquisition and disposal of park land, ADC is considering this recommendation here
because PM372 is predicated on the land exchange.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Consideration Panel Recommendation Report
49
Submission Schedule - Three Kings Exchange
89
Summary of issues and findings.
115
Flow chart of RMA and Reserves Act processes
119
Areas recommended for exclusion
121
Signatories
Author
Nigel Hewitson - Team Leader Disposals
Authorisers
Clive Fuhr - Manager Acquisitions & Disposals

Page 48
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 49
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 50
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 51
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 52
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 53
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 54
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 55
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 56
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 57
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 58
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 59
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 60
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 61
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 62
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 63
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 64
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 65
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 66
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 67
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 68
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 69
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 70
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 71
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 72
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 73
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 74
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 75
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 76
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 77
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 78
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 79
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 80
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 82
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 84
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 85
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 86
Attachment A
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 87
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 89
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 90
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 91
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 92
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 93
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 94
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 95
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 96
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 97
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 98
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 99
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 100
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 101
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 102
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 103
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 104
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 105
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 106
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 107
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 108
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 109
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 110
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 111
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 112
Attachment B
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 113
Attachment C
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 115
Attachment C
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 116
Attachment C
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 117
Attachment C
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 118
Attachment D
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 119
Attachment E
Item 13

12 November 2015
Page 121
Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and

Places of Value to Mana Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power
Generation Precinct
File No.: CP2015/22890
Purpose
1.
To seek agreement to withdraw text and maps of the following parts of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP):
(a) 1373 locations from the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay (Sites of
Value)
(b) the Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct.
Executive Summary
2.
Council has the ability to withdraw all or part of the PAUP. Withdrawing means that text and
maps are removed immediately by the council rather than waiting for the councils decision
on the PAUP. It is proposed to withdraw two parts of the PAUP at this time.
3.
Councils evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel is to remove 1373 Sites of Value
from the PAUP. This was not opposed by submitters. Given that the Sites of Value have
immediate legal effect, it is prudent to lessen the degree of regulatory impact imposed on
land owners as soon as possible, where the sites are no longer supported by council due to
insufficient evidence.
4.
Genesis Energy Limited who proposed the development of a power plant and own the
subject land, wish to remove the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct from the
PAUP. The removal of the precinct is supported as this is a more efficient way of dealing
with the matter than progressing the removal of the precinct through the PAUP Hearings
process.
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the withdrawal of two parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan:
i)
1373 Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua which were proposed to be
deleted in the Councils evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel in hearing
topic 037 Mana Whenua sites (refer to Attachment A in the agenda report).
ii)
The Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct at the request of the

landowner, Genesis Energy Limited.
Comments
Legal ability for withdrawal
5.
The ability to withdraw all or part of the PAUP is provided for in Clause 8D of Schedule 1 to
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) as modified by section 124 of the Local
Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA). Section 124 of the
LGATPA enables the council to amend the PAUP before it publically notifies its decisions on
the recommendations of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the
Panel). Clause 8D of Schedule 1 to the RMA allows local authorities to withdraw a proposed
policy statement or plan at any time before the approval of a policy statement or plan, or
before any appeal hearing commences.
Withdrawal of part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Sites and Places of Value to Mana
Whenua and Rodney Thermal Power Generation Precinct
Page 123
Item 14

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 14
6.
In amending the PAUP under section 124 of the LGATPA, and Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of
the RMA, the council is required to:
(a) Give notice of the amendments to the Panel;
(b) Provide copies of the amendments to the PAUP to the Panel;
(c) Make the amendments available for inspection on the council website and at council
offices; and
(d) Provide public notice of any withdrawals including the reasons for those withdrawals.
Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua

7.
The Auckland Development Committee on 24 March 2015 endorsed the removal of

approximately 750 Sites of Value where an accurate location has not been confirmed, 70
Sites of Value that are not of Maori origin or duplicates, and any sites that were to be
identified by Mana Whenua as not being of value.
8.
Subsequently, a desktop archaeology data audit by council and a values screening

assessment by Mana Whenua found that 1373 Sites of Value had insufficient information to
support their retention. Specifically, the reasons for deletion were:
(a) 752 sites did not have values assigned by Mana Whenua;
(b) 73 sites were non-Mori or duplicates;
(c) 552 sites did not have a confirmed location; and
(d) 10 sites where it was unknown if the object of value was a natural or
archaeological feature.
9.
There is some urgency on council's part to consider removing these Sites of Value from the
PAUP as the overlay rules took immediate legal effect on notification of the PAUP (30
September 2013). Given that council has presented evidence to support the removal of 1373
Sites of Value, requiring resource consents for earthworks within the vicinity of the sites is
placing an unnecessary impact on affected land owners.
10.
An updated schedule for the Sites of Value to Mana Whenua which indicates the locations
proposed to be removed from the PAUP and the corresponding Appendix 4.2 of the PAUP
are contained in Attachment A.
Rodney Thermal Power Generation precinct

11.
The PAUP was notified with the inclusion of the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation
precinct which was a rollover of provisions within the Auckland Council District Plan,
(Rodney Section). The precinct allows for the construction and operation of a 480 Mega
Watt combined cycle gas turbine electricity generating facility.
12.
Genesis Power Limited, who is the landowner and the original proponent of the proposed
plant, no longer intends to proceed with construction. The Company wishes to sell the
property. A letter from Genesis Power confirming this is contained in Attachment B. The
letter also seeks the revocation of the corresponding approved resource consents which is
being progressed separately.
13.
It is not considered that removing the precinct from the PAUP will create any issues given
that the proposal is unimplemented. Withdrawing the precinct will give greater certainty for
the current rural and residential land uses. The underlying notified zone is Rural Production,
bisected by road and rail strategic transport corridors, an electricity transmission corridor and
a gas transmission pipeline designation.
14.
Ten submission points from five submitters were received with respect to the Rodney
Thermal Energy Generation precinct. Except for two submission points from Genesis Energy
to retain the precinct, all other submissions relate to electricity connections and operating
standards within the precinct.
15.
The objectives and policies (F5.41) and rules (K5.41) and GIS planning map for the Rodney
Thermal Energy Generation precinct is contained in Attachment C.
Page 124

12 November 2015

Consultation
16.
Councils Heritage Unit and Area Planning North Unit both support the withdrawal of the
Sites of Value and the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct respectively.
Significance of decision
17.
The decision to remove 1373 Sites of Value from the PAUP will mean that land owners who
propose work within 50 meters of a site will no longer have to apply for resource consent.
Withdrawing 1373 Sites of Value now, rather than waiting until the PAUP becomes
operative, means that a level of regulatory burden will be removed.
18.
The significance of withdrawing the Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct is low as
the development of the power plant is no longer a reality. In other words, removing the
precinct does not have a bearing on the outcome of the plant, but provides the opportunity
for Genesis Energy to sell the land so that it may be used for another purpose, or give
greater certainty for the current rural and residential activities on the site.
Decision making
19.
The Auckland Development Committee has delegation to withdraw part of the PAUP.
Local board views

20.
Local board chairs attended an information workshop on 18 September 2015 where they
were given an update on the councils position on the PAUP at the hearings, including the
position to remove 1373 Sites of Value. Some local board Chairs also attended previous
Auckland Development Committee meetings where Sites of Value were discussed. The
Rodney Local Board Chair had been informed of Genesis Energys request to remove the
Rodney Thermal Energy Generation precinct.
Financial and resourcing implications

21.
The withdrawal is within the ongoing operational budgets for the PAUP.
Legal and legislative implications

22.
Legal staff have given advice on the legal process for the withdrawal process as stated in
paragraphs 5 and 6 above.

23.
Mana Whenua have been involved in the values screening assessment and the PAUP
hearing for the Sites of Value (Topic 037 Mana Whenua sites) as described in paragraph 8
above.
24.
Mana Whenua ascribed value in the screening assessment to Sites of Value which are
proposed to be removed by council. However, council did not support the retention of these
sites as there is not an accurate location recorded, the location is a duplicate, or there is
uncertainty of the origin of the site.
25.
Mana Whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board position has been to maintain the
Sites of Value overlay and retain the number of locations as notified.
26.
The council presented and tabled evidence at the hearing which detailed the proposal to
remove 1373 locations. Given time limitations, written evidence did not stipulate the number
to be removed, except to detail the review process. The number of sites proposed to be
removed by council was provided at the hearing.
Page 125
Item 14
Consideration
Item 14

12 November 2015
27.
Removing 1373 Sites of Value, due to a lack of sufficient evidence will improve the overall
robustness of the remaining 2227 sites. The Maori heritage team has a programme to
review Mori cultural heritage in Auckland to ensure that it is appropriately recognised,
protected and enhanced in a comprehensive manner.
28.
No submitter, including Mana Whenua or the Independent Maori Statutory Board provided
any written closing statement which responded to the proposal to remove 1373 Sites of
Value.
Implementation
29.
The withdrawal of the 1373 Sites of Value and Rodney Thermal precinct requires various
steps to be undertaken as outlines in paragraph 6 above. The costs associated with this are
minor and can be implemented within the existing Unitary Plan budget.
Attachments
No.
Title
Updated Schedule Sites of Value to Mana Whenua (Under Separate

Cover)
Letter from Genesis Energy (Under Separate Cover)
Rodney Thermal Precinct (Under Separate Cover)
Page
Signatories
Author
Jym Clark Planner
Authorisers
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Page 126
Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management

Act Discussion Document
File No.: CP2015/23681
The report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be circulated separately prior
to the meeting.
Author
Tam White Democracy Advisor
Local Government New Zealand - Response to Resource Management Act Discussion Document
Page 127
Item 15

12 November 2015

12 November 2015
Item 16

File No.: CP2015/23812
Purpose
1.
To update the Committee following the July meeting in relation to Hobsonville Point 20
hectare block: Future Land Use.
2.
The report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be circulated prior to the
meeting.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author
Page 129

12 November 2015
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information

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

in relation to each matter
Particular interest(s) protected

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

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

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

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

commercially sensitive information
regarding development proposals.
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the
information 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.
Public Excluded
Page 131

12 November 2015
C2
Tamaki Regeneration Project


(where applicable)



s48(1)(a)
In particular, the report is to be kept

confidential until such time as
Cabinet approves proceeding with
Stage 2 and Council and Crown
jointly make a media release
reflecting this. Releasing this
information prior would prejudice
the commercial position of Panuku
Development Auckland or Auckland
Council.
s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the
information is necessary to enable
the local authority to carry out,
without prejudice or disadvantage,
commercial activities.
In particular, the report is to be kept
confidential until such time as
Cabinet approves proceeding with
Stage 2 and Council and Crown
jointly make a media release
reflecting this. Releasing this
information prior would prejudice
the commercial position of Panuku
Development Auckland or Auckland
Council.
C3
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for mediation and
hearings - Tertiary Education Zones and Precincts for Akoranga 1 (AUT), Albany 9
(Massey University) and Wairaka (UNITEC)


(where applicable)


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

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

legal advice.

Page 132

12 November 2015
C4
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Appointment of Additional Independant Hearings

Panel Members


(where applicable)


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

the privacy of natural persons,
including that of a deceased
person.
s48(1)(a)

information regarding the
experience and qualifications of
private individuals..
C5

Deferred Special Housing Area Request


(where applicable)



s48(1)(a)

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.
Public Excluded
Page 133

Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auckland Development Committee - Agenda November 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

Tamaki regeneration projects

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation

Approval of a submission to an external body

Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the meeting

Independent Mori Statutory Board

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

Local Board members

Council Controlled Organisations

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