Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
CONTENTS
1.
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3
2.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4
3.
SCOPE............................................................................................................ 5
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
1.2
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
4
Apartment Zone subject to a non-notified restricted discretionary
activity assessment;
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
2.2
I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and
that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the
material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the
opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of
5
expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of
another person.
3.
SCOPE
3.1
3.2
3.3
(b)
(c)
THAB zone
Other matters
(d)
Additional zones
(e)
Non-residential activities
(f)
(g)
Safety
(h)
(i)
Density control
(k)
6
(l)
(m)
Minor units
Development controls
(n)
General
(o)
Height
(p)
(q)
(r)
Impervious area
(s)
Outdoor living
(t)
(u)
(v)
Design assessment
(w)
(x)
(z)
Fire Stations
(aa)
(bb)
Offices
(cc)
(dd)
Other matters
3.4
(ee)
ACDC Model
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
Mediation process
The further
4.
4.1
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
4.2
1
2
3
4
5
8
matter for Topics 080 and 081 rather than the Residential Topics, and
issues of scope for rezoning will be addressed at that time.
4.3
4.4
4.5
9
Policy 1: Require minimum site sizes that limit the intensity of
development in areas with:
a. significant environment constraints, or
b. infrastructure constraints that are unlikely to be addressed in the
foreseeable future or which cannot be addressed at a site-specific level,
or
bc. poor accessibility to:
i. the City Centre, Metropolitan, Town or Local Centres, or
ii. the existing or planned public transport network, or
iii. large urban facilities including existing or proposed public open
spaces, community facilities, education facilities, tertiary education
facilities, and healthcare facilities.
Mixed Housing zones
Strategy
4.6
Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd raise fundamental
concerns with the approach taken to the MHS and MHU zones.
Specifically, they consider that the two storey planned built character for
the MHS zone will not facilitate feasible development. In their view, the
MHS zone approach should therefore be deleted, and MHU significantly
expanded (with the remainder of sites zoned SH). They state this
approach would enable greater housing capacity and variety. A key
concern raised in their evidence is that the MHS zone has the same
controls as the SH zone, and as the only difference between the zones is
density and minimum lot size, this will not facilitate a substantial
difference between these zones.
4.7
Having reviewed the evidence for Ockham Holdings Ltd, my view is the
following:
(a)
(b)
10
appropriate. It should therefore be retained as a zoning option
in terms of the overall zoning strategy.
4.8
Further, I note the evidence of Tim Heath and Philip Osborne for Housing
New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) acknowledges that although it is
important that the community has a degree of housing choice, it is also
essential that such choices do not undermine the ability for residential
activity to be developed in and around centres and transport hubs7. The
MHS zone provides a level of flexibility and increased housing capacity
while not undermining the role of MHU and THAB zones to encourage
higher levels of intensification where the greatest gains (for example,
infrastructure and public transport economics of scale, and accessibility
to centres) can be achieved.
4.9
I also note that Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040) specifically supports
the difference in height between MHS and MHU, and states that over
100 community groups represented by Auckland 2040 are generally
accepting of the release of density provided that a two storey suburban
built character is retained8. Although this is not a determining factor, I
consider this indicates that significant expansion of the MHU zone,
enabling three storeys over much of suburbia, is unlikely to be
acceptable to communities. The MHS zone provides a balance between
enabling a suburban character and facilitating housing capacity and
choice, and is therefore an appropriate zoning method to assist in
achieving the RPS policy direction9.
4.10
7
8
9
Refer paragraph 4.3 of the joint statement of Tim Health and Philip Osborn for HNZC.
Paragraph 49 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040.
Including a quality compact city, increased housing capacity and choice, quality living
environments and residential amenity, as summarised in Section 12 of my EIC.
11
Objectives and policies
4.11
Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 inc) considers the MHS objectives
and policies should be amended to recognise existing neighbourhood
character10. Recognition of a sites existing neighbourhood and wider
context is already reflected in General Objective 1 and I consider it is
unnecessary to reflect this specifically in the MHS zone. The planned
character is specified within the zone objectives and policies as this
differs between zones.
4.12
Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land
Ltd) seeks a four storey height for MHU zone as she states three storey
development is uneconomic, and four storeys with an elevator would
result in better onsite amenity11. I understand from the EIC of Peter
Nunns (for Auckland Council), and from submitters during the workshop
and mediation process, that four storey development is generally an
uneconomic model. I consider three storey development in MHU will
provide for greater intensification and flexibility of housing typologies than
MHS while also providing for a less intensive character than the five
storey development enabled in the THAB zone. I support retaining a
three storey built character objective for MHU.
THAB zone
4.13
Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land
Ltd) seeks six storeys as of right in the THAB zone12. I support retaining
a five storey baseline as a generally economically viable height that also
recognises the need to manage the transition of suburban areas to
higher density development. A five storey height will also enable for a
transition in height between lower scale centres (e.g. the Local Centre
zone with a total building height of 18m), and surrounding residential
areas. Six storey (and seven storey) development will be enabled in
appropriate locations through the additional height control.
10
11
12
12
Other matters
Additional zones
4.14
Benjamin Ross seeks the replacement of SH, MHS, MHU and THAB
zones with seven new zones that will enable much higher intensification
in the higher level zones (up to 60m+ height). I consider that the heights
and level of intensification proposed is not appropriate at this time to
apply to Aucklands existing residential areas. This level of intensification
would not appropriately manage change in existing residential areas, or
provide for reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents adjacent to
new developments, and would therefore not meet the RPS objectives. I
support the zoning strategy as set out in my EIC.
Non-residential activities
4.15
4.16
13
Paragraphs 6.3 6.4 of John Childs evidence for Saint Cuthberts College.
13
agree this would be consistent with the approach taken in the
introduction, as in my EIC I also support the addition of commentary on
non-residential activities. I therefore propose the following additional
wording:
Collectively, these zones provide for a mix of housing types, ranging
from a house in a coastal settlement, to a single detached house on a
suburban section, to an apartment near a metropolitan centre. Specialist
residential activities (including retirement villages, supported residential
care, boarding houses and visitor accommodation) that provide permanent
and temporary accommodation options for those with particular housing
needs may also establish within some zones.
Safety
4.17
Ann Weaver (for SafeKids Aotearoa) seeks that the general objectives
and policies should include reference to safety. General Objective 1 and
Policy 1 includes reference to safety, and support provisions and
assessment criteria relating to the safety of sites, streets and
neighbourhood. I consider no further amendments are required at the
objective and policy level to provide for safety within the residential
zones.
Historic heritage, character and amenity
4.18
14
(b)
(c)
4.20
can
achieve
the
acoustic
insulation
and
ventilation
Similarly, I do not support changes to the Large Lot zone objectives and
policies to recognise potential reverse sensitivity issues in relation to
significant infrastructure. This matter is best addressed through overlays,
14
15
16
15
and through general consideration of the spatial extent of the zones as
set out in the General objectives and policies.
4.22
5.
5.1
5.2
17
18
16
Mixed Housing Suburban
One dwelling per 400 200m net of site area, or
No density limits apply where the site is greater than 1,000m
Minimum lot size Rural and Coastal Settlement zone
5.3
5.4
(b)
David Wren (for North 8 Limited): Seeks that the minimum lot
size in the Isthmus A Overlay be reduced from 600sqm to
400sqm to reflect the existing character.
(c)
Giles Bramwell for The Neil Group: Seeks that the minimum lot
size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is not
reduced;
17
(d)
Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): Seeks that the minimum
lot size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is
not reduced;
(e)
David Hermans (for MBIE): States that the minimum lot size of
600sqm is largely unjustified;
(f)
5.5
5.6
(b)
(c)
19
18
of reducing the minimum lot size from 600sqm to 500sqm would
increase by 95%.
5.7
5.8
5.9
(b)
SH
zone
as
restriction
on
additional
dwellings
in
19
5.10
5.11
Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd consider there
should be only four key controls height, height in relation to boundary,
building coverage and landscaping. In their view, all other design matters
should be addressed through assessment criteria to enable design
flexibility. They also support reducing the design trigger from three
dwellings to two dwellings to enable this approach.
5.12
Compared
with
relying
on
assessment
criteria
alone,
20
21
Paragraphs 18.28 18.29 (General), 21.10-21.13 (Large Lot zone), 22.9-22.1 (RCS zone)
and 23.10-23.13 (SH zone).
Paragraph 23.11.
20
5.13
Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) considers that the provisions
should make specific reference to core development controls22. In my
view, this would add no value. The key approach to recognising the
importance of the core controls (as set out in paragraph 20.3 of my EIC)
is through the notification provisions and directive assessment criteria. I
also consider that referencing core controls in the provisions would
weaken the other controls, which also serve an important purpose in
achieving the objectives and policies of the residential zones. I therefore
do not propose any amendments to explicitly recognise core controls
within the provisions.
5.14
development
controls,
refer
Rule
11.2.1(a)(i))23.
This
Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC consider that the roof
height flexibility should be for up to 100% of the roof from (not 50%) as
this would enable better design outcomes24. As set out in Graeme
McIndoes rebuttal evidence (at Section 7), this approach is inappropriate
as it would potentially enable an additional storey (with low floor to ceiling
heights) which would not achieve the built character and quality living
environment objectives of the residential zones. Further, Mr McIndoe
considers that the proposed heights provide sufficiently flexibility for roof
form design and floor to ceiling heights for the number of storeys
envisaged in each zone. No changes are therefore proposed to the roof
height flexibility allowances.
22
23
24
21
Mixed Housing Urban
5.16
5.17
Vijay Lala notes that the wording for notification of development controls
(Rule 2.1) should clarify that the standard tests will be applied to any
height infringements over 2m in the THAB zone (rather than any building
over 2m as it currently reads)25. I accept this change. He further suggests
the standard tests should apply to any infringement of height in the
additional height control areas. I disagree with this approach, as I
consider the 2m flexibility as a non-notified activity to encourage
improved roof forms is also appropriate in the additional height control
areas. I therefore propose the following amended wording for Rule
2.1(b):
1. An application to infringe the following development controls will be
subject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of
the RMA:
5.18
Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Limited, seeks additional height
at Stonefields to reflect the legacy plan provisions, where they enabled 56 storey residential development under the Isthmus Structure Plan (E1403)26. I agree with the submitter that the PAUP should not, as a principle,
down-zone residential areas, given the RPS and Residential zone policy
direction
to
increase
housing
capacity
and
choice.
Six
storey
22
5.19
This is with the exception of the area at the south-eastern end of Korere
Terrace, which is defined as terraced and duplex in the Stonefields
masterplan and not subject to a six storey height limit under the
Operative District Plan. The eastern most part of this area is located
beneath the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft, which restricts height to
below six storeys. The other part of this area adjoins the MHS zone and
five storey development is considered to provide an appropriate
transition. Consistent with the Stonefields Masterplan, to ensure
consistency with the height enabled under the Mt Wellington Volcanic
Viewshaft and to provide an appropriate transition to the MHS zone land
to the south, I do not support additional height in this particular location.
5.20
23
Figure 1: Proposed Additional Zone Height Control at Stonefields
5.21
David Wren and Tony Koia, for Domain Student Accommodation, seek
that the additional building height control of 20.5m (or alternatively
19.5m) should apply to 1 Domain Drive. The control is sought only over
part of the site, to enable some transition to adjacent sites. I support
providing for an Additional Height Control of 19.5m on part of the site at 1
Domain Drive for the reasons outlined by the submitters planning and
architectural evidence. The additional height will provide for increased
housing capacity and choice in a highly accessible and high amenity
location. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Mixed Use zone,
which has a proposed height limit of 18m. Nevertheless, the Mixed Use
and Local Centre zone fronting Parnell Road is located on a ridge and
therefore a transition in height will be achieved from the centre to the
surrounding residential area consistent with Policy 3 of the THAB zone.
Refer to Figure 2 below and Attachment C for a map showing the
proposed amendments to the Additional Zone Height Control at 1
Domain Crescent.
24
additional height zone control of 22.5m for this site will achieve a
transition between the Metropolitan zone, and the THAB zone (with no
height control) along Hurstmere Road, and then to the SH zone, and is
therefore consistent with Policy 3 for the THAB zone. Based on the
currently proposed zonings, I consider that the additional height control is
appropriate for the Emerald Inn site. Should the sites be rezoned as part
of Topic 081, then the appropriate height for the site may need to be
reconsidered.
5.23
5.24
5.25
Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) and Graeme Scott (for Urban Design
NZ and NZIA) seek reinstatement of the alternative height in relation to
boundary control (AHIRB) in the MHS zone as per the PAUP to facilitate
two storey dwellings facing the street on narrow sites. I have reviewed
the rebuttal evidence of Graeme McIndoe, and acknowledge that
reinstatement of this control in MHS as a non-notified RDA would provide
for greater flexibility in providing for duplex houses facing the street.
25
From a s32AA perspective, an evaluation is required as to whether the
alternative height in relation to boundary control would be an appropriate
method of achieving the relevant objectives for the MHS zone. In this
respect, I consider the following costs and benefits apply (when
compared to relying on the standard 2.5m + 45 degrees height in relation
to boundary control alone):
Cost
of
the
Alternative
Increased
capacity
housing
and
HIRTB
Benefit
of
Alternative
Control
Control
Will
choice
HIRTB
enhance
feasibility
(Objective 1)
the
of
the
duplex
development on sites
of typical widths in
suburban areas.
Development engages
development to face
street (Objective 2)
by
enabling
street-facing
duplex
development.
Development positively
Would
result
and
intensively
its
(Objective 2)
context
potentially
in
more
built
streetscape
that
established
in
area.
is
the
Will
encourage
development
to
respond positively to
the
street.
The
this
control
requires consideration
of
the
potential
dominance
effects
on
neighbouring
One
two
the
sites.
unit
development
complying
with
the
26
not
require
specific
consideration
and
Would
complements
the
neighbourhoods
result
potentially
in
more
intensively
of
would
otherwise
provide
variety
of
for
one-two
built
than
by
be
predominantly one-two
storey buildings, in a
perceived
spaciousness of the
generally
street.
spacious
Will
enabling
street-
facing
duplex
development.
setting (Objective 2)
Development provides
Would
high-quality
result in an increase
improved functionality
in
of living environments
dominance effects on
at
a reasonable standard
neighbouring
dwellings.
of residential amenity
compared
for
permitted HIRTB.
adjoining
(Objective 3).
on-site
sites
potentially
shading
with
and
sites
Will
provide
first
for
level
of
the
The
assessment
requires
consideration
of
potential
daylight
access
and
the
visual
dominance effects on
the neighbouring sites.
One
two
unit
development
complying
with
the
require
consideration
specific
and
27
5.26
5.27
5.28
For sites that adjoin other sites in the THAB zone, the notified PAUP
requires buildings to be setback from both side and rear boundaries
depending on the number of storey, as shown in the following diagrams:
5.29
These setbacks provide for space between buildings but will result in
buildings that fail to address the street and will encourage outlook to be
provided to side boundaries instead of over the street, which may
compromise privacy on adjoining sites. Further, these setbacks would
severely restrict development potential on small and narrow sites, where
terrace housing development would be a more viable housing form.
28
5.30
5.31
The AHIRB control as shown is proposed to apply with the first 20m of
the site frontage with the standard 3m and 45 degree recession plane
from the MHU zone applying thereafter. While this better provides for two
storey terrace housing close to side boundaries, upon further review, I
consider that this approach results in an overly complex (therefore likely
more expensive) and unattractive building form if maximised. The
approach would also prevent three storey terraces close to side
boundaries, which is a desirable building form on smaller or narrow sites
given that the THAB zone seeks to provide for the efficient use of land in
highly accessible locations close to centres, the rapid and frequent
service network and large urban facilities (THAB zone Objective 1).
5.32
5.33
29
MHU zone. This would provide for owners of existing properties to
undertake additions and alterations to existing dwellings as a permitted
activity, which is appropriate in a zone, which will slowly transition to
more intensive residential development over time.
5.34
is
proposed, which
would
be
non-notified, restricted
frontage
5.35
The assessment criteria for the use of this control would ensure that
development is orientated towards the street or towards the rear of the
site and not towards side boundaries. This would avoid three storey
terraces with long frontages along side boundaries, which may
compromise the privacy of adjoining sites. This desired orientation is
shown below:
30
5.36
5.37
5.38
Ian Craigs evidence (for Fletcher Residential Ltd) states that the
assessment criteria for infringing building coverage and landscaping
should include reference to landscaping27. Brian Putt (for Herne Bay
Residents Association & Auckland 2040) also considers that the
assessment criteria for building coverage infringements should focus on
the ratio of impermeable to permeable surface area28. I have further
reviewed the criteria for infringing these controls and agree that
27
28
31
amendments are required to reflect infringements to the landscaping
control. I also consider that provision of a landscaping plan which
includes specimen trees can assist in mitigating the effects of infringing
these controls. These considerations should apply whether the
infringements is within the flexibility enabled as a non-notified restricted
discretionary activity, or for additional infringements. I therefore propose
the following amendments to the criteria at Rule 11.2(d) (new
amendments shown in red text):
d. Building coverage and landscaping in the Mixed Housing Suburban
and Mixed Housing Urban zones
i. When considering applications to infringe building coverage or
landscaping control by up to 5 per cent in the Mixed Housing Suburban
and Mixed Housing Urban zones, the Council will consider whether:
- the development provides for terrace housing or other more
intensive housing types that necessitate greater building coverage
or lesser landscaping area; and
- the site is of a size sufficient or the development is designed and
located in a manner that mitigates the visual dominance effects of
increased building coverage to the street, public open space and
neighbouring sites, while achieving the planned built character of
the zone.
- landscape areas are designed and located where they are readily
perceived from the street, public open space or neighbouring sites
and will mitigate visual dominance effects, including through the
proposed planting and maintenance of specimen trees.
29
32
Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) and
Graeme Scott (for Urban Design NZ and NZIA) support
removing the RDA flexibility for an additional 5%, and instead,
increasing the permitted thresholds by 5%, to 40% in MHS and
45% in MHU.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
33
(g)
5.41
Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential) and Amelia Linzey and Matt
Lindenberg (for HNZC) seek the 5% flexibility in the MHS zone
as well as the MHU zone;
(b)
Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) seek 40%
with no flexibility in the MHS zone, and an increase in the
minimum landscaped area to 45% in the MHU zone;
(c)
5.42
34
assessment, may result in large blank facades and consequentially bulky
buildings within a suburban area.
5.43
5.44
With regard to the minimum landscaped area in the MHS zone, I do not
consider it appropriate to enable 5% reduction as a non-notified activity.
Retaining a suburban, spacious character is one of the objectives of the
zone, and landscaped areas will be a significant contributor to achieving
this objective. Infringements, if appropriate, will be assessed on their
merits having regard to the assessment criteria (which have been
refined, as discussed above).
5.45
I note that any further infringements beyond the flexibility provided for as
a non-notified activity may be appropriate and will be assessed on their
merits, having regard to the stated purpose of the controls.
5.46
5.47
Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd seek 55% building
coverage in the THAB zone (compared with 50% as proposed in my EIC)
35
and a minimum 40% landscaped area. Based on the modelling
undertaken by Auckland Council, I support retention of the 50% building
coverage in the THAB zone. This will enable terraced housing and
apartment building typologies, while also recognising that these areas
are in transition from more traditional suburban to higher density built
environments. Again, infringements may be appropriate subject to design
and assessment in accordance with the stated purpose of the control.
Large Lot zone
5.48
5.49
5.50
Karen Blair (for Z Energy, BP and Mobil) opposes the impervious area
controls within the Residential zones on the basis that they effectively
30
36
duplicate the regional stormwater rules. In my view, it is appropriate to
have all controls relating to site layout and coverage within the residential
zones as this will facilitate ease of plan use. Further, the impervious area
thresholds differ depending on the zone, therefore it is appropriate to
locate them within the residential zone provisions.
Outdoor living
5.51
5.52
Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) seeks an amendment to the outdoor
living court control to require 5 hours of solar access31. As addressed in
Section 13 of Graeme McIndoes rebuttal evidence, the outdoor living
court control does have sufficient regard to solar access while also
providing clarity to designers. In my view, demonstrating that 5 hours of
solar access can be provided would require specialised information for
every development, and would therefore not be an efficient method of
providing a reasonable level of sunlight access. I retain the position on
this control as per my EIC.
Outlook and daylight
5.53
31
37
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): States that the daylight
control is confusing and requires more justification. Also
suggests that it could discourage developers from providing
windows.
(e)
(f)
(g)
38
bedrooms; opposes the daylight control in principle as a
combination of common sense, marketability, the New Zealand
Building Act: Clause G7: Natural Light, and height in relation to
boundary controls have, in my opinion, ensured that habitable
rooms enjoy an appropriate minimum level of access to
daylight;
(h)
5.54
(b)
(c)
39
proposed control provides for flexibility in design responses,
while also providing clarity to applicants about what is
acceptable. The alternatives either a simplified control or
reliance on assessment criteria would either reduce flexibility
(in the case of a simplified control) or reduce certainty to
applicants (in the case of relying on assessment criteria), both of
which would have implications in terms of development
feasibility. In my view, and having regard to the position of Mr
McIndoe, I consider the proposed control is the most appropriate
method in achieving the objectives of the residential zones in
relation to daylight access and also development feasibility.
Minor amendments to the wording of the control are proposed to
increase clarity of application. I consider that the ongoing
education of architects, draughtsman and planners will increase
understanding of the application of the control over time.
Minimum dwelling size
5.55
(b)
(c)
(d)
40
(e)
(f)
5.56
5.57
Vijay Lala (for multiple parties) seeks to delete clause 2 of the water and
wastewater control, as he states this is not a RMA matter32. I agree that
the method and legal arrangements regarding connection to the
Watercare network is a matter to be addressed through Watercares
processes, rather than a development control. I therefore propose to
delete clause 2 of this control where it applies (MHS, MHU and THAB
zones).
5.58
Christine Coste (for Auckland Utility Operators Group and others) seeks
that this rule be extended to apply to all network utilities. The purpose of
the control is to recognise an existing significant issue with regards to
potential intensification in areas with current capacity constraints from
water or wastewater, and to restrict growth where these services cannot
be adequately provided. This will prevent land use consents being
provided for developments that cannot be serviced. I am not aware of
any
similar
significant
constraints
to
network
utilities
such
as
41
Design assessment
Design assessment criteria
5.59
5.60
Sarah Gambitsis considers that the placement of the THAB zone should
respect heritage buildings. I note that design assessment criteria require
consideration to be given to site context, including the relationship of a
site with adjacent heritage buildings (refer assessment criteria 10.2.3(a)
Neighbourhood character, subclause (ii)).
42
5.62
Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Ltd, makes the following points in
relation to the design assessment criteria:
(a)
(b)
5.63
In addition, Neil Donnelly for Todd Property Group Ltd, as well as Amelia
Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC, oppose the use of directive words
such as should and maximise in the design assessment criteria. I note
that these are criteria only, however where these terms have been used,
43
this indicates the criteria is of importance. I further note this is the style
utilised throughout the PAUP and therefore I have adopted this
terminology for consistency.
5.64
5.65
5.66
5.67
33
34
44
10.2.3(a)(i). In areas of change, retaining the existing character will not
always be feasible. I consider the criteria provide an appropriate balance
between recognising existing and planned character.
5.68
5.69
5.70
6.
45
6.1
I would
6.3
Richard Blakeys evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust states that
there is no planning justification for tertiary education to be a noncomplying activity in the Large Lot zone, and that it should be
discretionary.
6.4
46
received specifically in relation to education facilities in the Large Lot
zone, I consider a consistent approach would be appropriate and
therefore propose amending the activity status of education facilities in
Large Lot zone from non-complying to discretionary. Although this is not
specifically requested by any submitter (and is therefore out of scope), I
consider this would be appropriate having regard to the objectives and
policies of the Large Lot zone.
Care Centres and Community Facilities on sites designated by the
Minister of Education
6.5
6.6
35
Refer paragraph 10.40 of Trevor Mackies evidence for Auckland Council on Topic 055:
Social Infrastructure.
47
6.7
Activities that do not comply with the above controls (including if they
involve a new building) will default back to the discretionary activity status
for these activities in residential zones. Alternatively, the Ministry could
seek to construct a new building through the Outline Plan of Works
process under their designation if it will also be for educational purposes.
Offices
6.8
(b)
6.9
6.10
6.11
The primary submission of Philip and Janice Harland states that not
providing for offices in the THAB zone removes current development
48
rights which enable residential scale offices on the south side of Byron
Street and the north side of Bracken Avenue to the east of Burns
Avenue. The right to undertake office activities on these sites was
established through an Environment Court decision (RMA 1449/95), and
are provided for through a Controlled Activity status within the Residential
7 (Office) zone of the legacy North Shore District Plan. The matters for
assessment
relate
to
residential
amenity.
Having
reviewed
the
6.13
Glen Ogilvie, for Akarana Golf Club Limited, seeks a further row in the
activity table making all development within 30 metres of the boundaries
of the Akarana Golf Course a controlled activity, enabling Council to be
able to impose conditions to enhance safety and reduce potential
damage to the proposed development from golf balls. In my view, this is
a specific property related issue that should be addressed between the
owners of the golf club and the adjacent residents, rather than through
planning regulation. I therefore do not propose any amendments in
response to this statement of evidence.
49
7.
OTHER MATTERS
ACDC Model
7.1
7.2
Although the ACDC model outputs provide a useful check that the
residential zoning strategy and provisions will assist in meeting the RPS
housing capacity objectives, they are not fundamental to my position as
comprehensively set out in my EIC. The zoning strategy and provisions
(including development controls) are based on providing a balanced
approach in achieving the key policy directions, including providing for a
quality compact city; increasing housing capacity and choice; quality
living environments and residential amenity.
7.3
7.4
controls)
from
feasibility
perspective.
The
main
50
this evidence. I note that the statements of evidence of Vijay Lala (for
multiple parties) and David Hermans (for MBIE) also acknowledge that
the ACDC Model will be a useful tool for the rezoning topics (more so
than for determining the controls within the residential zones). Having
reviewed the concerns raised in respect of the ACDC15 model, there is
currently no issue identified that would cause me to substantially review
my position on the Residential provisions, which work together as a
whole to provide a balanced approach to achieving the relevant
objectives.
Site or area specific requests
7.5
(b)
(c)
Sarah
Gambitsis
and
Hartwig
Clasen:
Raises
concerns
(e)
David Wren (for Alice and David Wren): Seeks the additional
height provided for Selwyn Village should transition from 11m to
8m adjacent to the SH zoned sites.
(f)
51
(g)
7.6
I consider that these matters are outside the scope of the residential
provisions themselves, and relate more to the spatial extent of zones
which is a matter for Topics 080 and 081.
7.7
For clarity, I note that other submitter requests regarding site or area
specific matters (such as a higher minimum site size for Epsom or larger
yards in Howick) do form part of my analysis. For the reasons generally
set out in Part B of my EIC, I do not support area-specific variation in the
Residential controls. Where there are significant infrastructure, historic
character or site/place specific values that justify a diversion from the
standard residential approach, these should be analysed through a s32
process and tailored controls applied through an overlay or a precinct.
Where an overlay or precinct does not apply (as addressed through other
topics by Auckland Council), I support the residential controls as set out
in Attachment A of this rebuttal evidence.
Infrastructure related terminology
7.8
Christine Coste (for Auckland Utility Operators Group and others) seeks
changes to provisions to ensure consistency of terminology including
infrastructure, network utilities, community infrastructure/social facilities,
throughout the PAUP. I have sought clarification from Auckland Council
and a number of minor amendments are proposed to ensure consistency
with Auckland Councils position on previous topics, as detailed in
Attachment A.
Mediation process
7.9
52
sought
to
achieve
an
appropriate
balance
between
enabling