BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the
Local Government (Auckland Transitional
Provisions) Act 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER
of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP),
Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical
Areas)
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL IN RELATION TO TOPIC
081 REZONING AND PRECINCTS (GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS):
REZONING ONLY
Hearing dates: 3 March 2016 to 29 April 2016
BROOKFIELDS
LAWYERS
M J L Dickey
Telephone No. 09 379 9350
Fax No. 09 379 3224
P O Box 240
DX CP24134
AUCKLAND
31560772:631364
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 PART A: OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE TOPIC 081 EVIDENCE .......................................... 3 3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................. 7 4. BACKGROUND TO TOPIC 081 – REZONING...................................................................... 7 5. INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 10 6. KEY MATTERS ARISING IN RELATION TO TOPIC 081 REZONING ............................... 12 7. REQUESTS TO “LIVE” URBAN ZONE FUTURE URBAN ZONED LAND ........................ 14 8. REQUESTS TO REZONE RURAL LAND TO COUNTRYSIDE LIVING ZONE .................. 18 9. REQUESTS TO REZONE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRY TO OTHER BUSINESS ZONES ..... 21 PART B – REZONING GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS .................................................................... 24 10. TOPIC 081a – REZONING (GENERAL) .............................................................................. 24 11. TOPIC 081b – REZONING (RODNEY) ................................................................................ 24 12. TOPIC 081c – REZONING (WEST) ..................................................................................... 24 13. TOPIC 081d – REZONING (NORTH SHORE) ..................................................................... 24 14. TOPIC 081e – REZONING (SOUTH) ................................................................................... 24 15. TOPIC 081f – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (CENTRAL)................................................. 24 16. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25 31560772:631364
Page 3
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This is a hearing of submissions and further submissions on PAUP hearing Topic
081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081): Rezoning only.
1.2
Topic 081 concerns the submission points on rezoning and precincts that relate to
specific geographical areas.
1.3
The submissions on Topic 081 have been grouped and addressed according to the
following geographical areas:
1.4
(a)
General (Topic 081a);
(b)
Rodney (Topic 081b);
(c)
North Shore (Topic 081c);
(d)
West (Topic 081d);
(e)
Central (Topic 081e); and
(f)
South (Topic 081f).
This opening statement only relates to Topic 081 Rezoning.
Topic 081 Precinct
matters were addressed in a separate opening statement filed on 3 March 2016.
1.5
The focus of these legal submissions is on highlighting the key issues arising in
relation to rezoning, and the Council’s approach to rezoning.
Part A of these
submissions will discuss key issues regarding rezoning in general, and Part B will
discuss and summarise rezoning matters according to the geographical areas set out
at paragraph 1.3 above.
PART A: OVERVIEW
2.
THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO THE TOPIC 081 EVIDENCE
2.1
The Council refers to its memorandum to the Panel dated 29 February 2016
regarding the Council Resolution of 24 February 2016 on out of scope residential
31560772:631364
Page 4
zoning changes. As a result of the Council’s Resolution, the Council sought leave to
withdraw parts of its rezoning evidence for Topic 081:1
On the basis of the Council’s Resolution, the Council seeks leave from the Panel to
withdraw all those parts of the evidence filed on its behalf that relate to the
Residential Out of Scope Changes. The main parts of the Evidence Reports that are
impacted by this request are those noted as Attachment F to the Evidence Reports and
the Attachment E maps which show revised zones for each of the Region’s
geographical areas, with the properties impacted by Residential Out of Scope
Changes identified by blue outlining. Attachment C to the Evidence Reports is also
impacted in so far as it contains cross-references to Residential Out of Scope Changes
in Attachment F. Therefore the evidence in respect of which leave is sought to
withdraw is as follows for each geographical area specific Evidence Report:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Attachment C, only insofar as it contains cross-references to Residential Out of
Scope Changes in Attachment F;
Attachment E, only insofar as the proposed Residential Out of Scope Changes
are shown as a blue outline on the Council map for each sub area; and
Attachment F as relates to the Residential Out of Scope Changes only.
For the avoidance of doubt this request does not include evidence containing
proposals for out of scope changes that respond to errors/anomalies and evidence
relating to in or out of scope changes relating to Business, Rural, and Future Urban
zones.
2.2
For the avoidance of doubt, we reiterate that the evidence referred to above (in the
excerpt from the Council's memorandum) is withdrawn.
As set out above, the
Council did not withdraw the following Council evidence on zoning (referred to in
these submissions as the "Remaining Evidence"):
(a)
Council in scope residential zoning changes;
(b)
Council out of scope residential zoning changes addressing minor changes
covering technical errors and/or anomalies; and
(c)
Council in-scope and out of scope zoning changes in Business, Rural and
Future Urban Zone (FUZ) areas.
2.3
At this point, it is appropriate to record that a number of statements of evidence were
filed on the Council's behalf on or after 26 January 2016. The Council's decision to
withdraw those parts of the evidence as they relate to the out of scope residential
zoning changes, except evidence addressing minor changes covering technical
errors and anomalies (Out of Scope Residential Changes) has meant that the
1
Auckland Council Memorandum to the Panel dated 29 February 2016, ‘Auckland Council Resolution
dated 24 February 2016 on out of Scope Residential Zoning Changes’, at paragraph 10.
31560772:631364
Page 5
authors of those evidence reports have had to carefully consider whether they can
appear in support of the Remaining Evidence.
They have determined that they
cannot. They will accordingly not be called to confirm that evidence.
2.4
We acknowledge therefore that the weight the Panel can give to that evidence is a
matter for it to determine. We do however note that the Local Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 2 enables the Panel, inter alia, to receive any
information and advice that is relevant and reasonably necessary to make its
recommendations under s144. As such, it would be open to the Panel to consider
the Remaining Evidence as such information or advice for several reasons:
(a)
First, it is submitted that the Remaining Evidence provides a thorough
summary of the themes raised in submissions and an analysis of those
themes and submission points against the rezoning principles developed by
the Council and addressed in Mr Duguid's rezoning evidence. To the extent
that that analysis is not challenged in the evidence of submitters, we submit
that it is information on which the Panel may decide to place some reliance.
We acknowledge that this is a matter for the Panel.
(b)
Secondly, we are instructed to confirm that the Council itself continues to
support the changes described at paragraph 2.2(a) to (c) above.
The
Remaining Evidence provides details of the zoning proposals for the
Business, Rural and FUZ zones, and in scope proposals for the Residential
zones, which the Council continues to support (even if the zoning witnesses
are not being called).
(c)
Thirdly, the evidence may be seen by the Panel procedurally as an important
reference point, keeping in mind that many submitters may have referred to
aspects of it in their subsequent evidence filed in response.
2.5
As set out in the Council’s Memorandum of 29 February 2016, referred to above, the
Council has sought leave to withdraw its maps contained in Attachment E of its
zoning Evidence Reports, insofar as the maps show proposed Residential Out of
Scope zoning changes as a blue outline. The Council has redrawn its maps to only
show the matters referred to at paragraph 2.2 above. The revised maps are provided
to the Panel separately.
2
Section 138(5).
31560772:631364
Page 6
2.6
It should be noted that there are some instances where the revised maps do not
reflect the following:
(a)
Sites previously zoned Residential in the PAUP and are shown in the revised
zoning map as Business zone (out of scope) have not been downzoned to
PAUP zoning (a list of these sites will be provided in a separate Attachment
entitled "Business/Residential Corrections");
(b)
Sites zoned Residential in the PAUP and changed to a non-residential zone
as an out of scope change have not been withdrawn from the revised zoning
map (such as Large Lot to Future Urban zone). These need to be corrected
to revert back to the notified PAUP zone. Presently, we do not have a list of
these. It is respectfully proposed that sites falling within this category will be
corrected through any final plan provided to the Panel in Counsel’s closing
legal submissions;
(c)
The revised maps do not show changes identified in legal submissions as
being in response to submitter evidence. Again, it is respectfully proposed
that sites falling within this category will be corrected through any final plan
provided to the Panel in Counsel’s closing legal submissions; and
(d)
The maps do not show errors/anomalies in relation to the underlying zone for
the Mill Road precinct where the underlying zone should be shown as Single
House zone and not Mixed Housing Suburban zone.
2.7
It is noted that other amendments to the maps have been identified by Council
officers when reading submitters’ evidence and to respond fully to the Council's
resolution on out of scope residential changes.
A list of those matters will be
provided in a separate Attachment entitled " Corrections: errors and anomalies".
While some of the errors have been mapped, not all have been. Final maps will be
provided in closing.
2.8
A brief power point presentation has been prepared for the benefit of the Panel and
the submitters which summarises the Council's position on the key zone
characteristics and controls for each of the zones.
31560772:631364
Page 7
3.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
3.1
The legal framework applying to the PAUP under the Local Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) will be very familiar to the Panel. The
PAUP must be prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the LGATPA and the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA), except the provisions of the RMA that are excluded
from applying by, or correspond to, provisions of Part 4 of the LGATPA.3
3.2
In the notified version of the PAUP, depending on the location of the zone, zoning
and precincts are either a regional plan or a district plan method. The statutory
framework for assessing the merits of the special application of the zones and
precincts is set out in sections 30 to 32, 63 to 68 and 72 to 76 of the RMA. These
tests are discussed in the strategic planning overview evidence in chief (EIC) of John
Duguid on Zoning for Topics 080 and 081,4 and are therefore not repeated here.
John Duguid’s EIC on Zoning also sets out the key policies of the New Zealand
Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) that are relevant to zoning,5 relevant provisions
within the Auckland Plan,6 and key sections of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS).7
3.3
The Panel has also released Interim Guidance on Best Practice Approaches to ReZoning and Precincts, dated 31 July 2015, which is relevant to rezoning.
3.4
In terms of the underlying rationale for developing a “zoning technique” or principled
approach to zoning, the Environment Court in Keystone Watch Group v The
Auckland City Council and Keystone Ridge Limited8 observed that:9
The use of a “zoning technique” is to allow the district plan to create bundles of activities
considered generally appropriate in each zone or area, in recognising the constraints of
the environment and that some activities may not be appropriate in every location.
4.
BACKGROUND TO TOPIC 081 – REZONING
4.1
The overarching rationale and approach towards zoning in the PAUP is discussed in
the evidence in chief of John Duguid on Zoning for Topic 080 and 081,10 and in the
Council’s legal submissions for Topic 080.11
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Section 121 of LGATPA.
John Duguid, EIC on Zoning, at paragraphs 5.2 to 5.11.
At paragraph 5.12.
At paragraphs 5.13 to 5.23.
At paragraph 6.2.
RMA 771/99, Decision No. A 7/2001, 11 January 2001.
At paragraph 30.
John Duguid, EIC on Zoning, at paragraphs 10.1 to 10.12.
31560772:631364
Page 8
4.2
The development of the PAUP provided an opportunity to reduce the size and
complexity of Auckland’s zoning framework and ensure greater alignment with the
strategic direction of the Auckland Plan and the RPS, in particular, while ensuring
that higher density urban growth was accommodated primarily within the existing
metropolitan area, within existing centres and on or near frequent transportation
routes and stations. Outside the metropolitan area, growth is focussed in greenfield
areas that are contiguous with the urban area and satellite towns.12
4.3
In order to facilitate this approach, the notified PAUP establishes regionally
consistent zone provisions through the six residential zones, ten business zones, five
rural zones, five public open space zones, eleven special purpose zones, seven
coastal zones, the Strategic Transport Corridor zone and the Future Urban Zone.
Important local characteristics or values are provided for in the PAUP through the
application of overlays and precincts. A complete list of the zones proposed in the
PAUP is set out in Attachment B of the EIC of John Duguid on Zoning.
4.4
The key elements of the Council’s overarching considerations that have influenced
the proposed application of zones have been summarised by John Duguid in his EIC
on Zoning as follows:13
(a)
Providing for increased housing capacity through the application of the
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone and Mixed Housing
Urban (MHU) zone within moderate walking distance from centres, the
frequent transport network, the rapid transport network or major community
facilities and open space;
(b)
Ensuring that methods included within the PAUP to manage historic character
and areas of ecological significance (e.g. overlays) are complemented by the
application of a zone (e.g. the Single House Zone (SHZ)) that minimises the
potential for a mis-match between the zone and those other methods;
(c)
Ensuring that the methods included within the PAUP to manage regionally
significant views to and between the maunga (e.g. overlays) are
11
12
13
Legal submissions on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts
(General) at paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5.
John Duguid, EIC on Zoning at paragraph 12.1.
At paragraph 12.2.
31560772:631364
Page 9
complemented by the application of a zone that minimises the potential for a
mis-match between the zone and those other methods;
(d)
Limiting growth in unserviced settlements in rural and coastal areas through
the application of the Rural Coastal Settlement Zone;
(e)
Limiting growth in serviced settlements through the application of a zone that
will not create undue development pressure such as the SHZ;
(f)
Recognising and providing for a hierarchy of centres that stems from the
Auckland Plan and following the proposed criteria set out in Chapter B3.1 of
the RPS when considering the outward expansion of centres;
(g)
Enabling a sufficient supply of land for industrial activities, particularly land
extensive industrial activities and heavy industry, where the scale and
intensity of effects anticipated in those zones can be accommodated and
managed;
(h)
Managing reverse sensitivity by considering the interface between the Heavy
Industry zone and more intensive residential zones, and generally not
‘upzoning’ within 500m of the Heavy Industry Zone and within the Sensitive
Activity Restriction overlay;
(i)
Managing the impacts on regionally and nationally significant infrastructure,
such as the national grid, to ensure they are appropriately protected from
incompatible development and reverse sensitivity effects through the
application of the SHZ or Mixed Housing zones;
(j)
In areas subject to significant natural hazard risks, applying a zone that limits
the potential for increases in adverse consequences, taking into account the
nature of the risks present, development opportunities and the vulnerability of
activities;
(k)
Limiting growth in areas with poor accessibility to the City Centre,
Metropolitan, Town and Local Centres, the existing or planned public
transport network or large urban facilities, or in areas with significant
infrastructure constraints, to ensure there is alignment between land use and
31560772:631364
Page 10
infrastructure provision (e.g. through the application of the SHZ, Large Lot
zone or Rural and Coastal Settlement zone);
(l)
Retaining the Special Purpose School zone for independent and integrated
schools and applying a residential or business zone to state schools
consistent with the zone applied adjoining or adjacent to the school;
(m)
Generally applying a Residential or Business zone consistent with the zones
applied adjoining or adjacent to the subject site for tertiary education facilities
and retirement villages; and
(n)
Rezoning within the Future Urban zone should generally only occur where
necessary to reflect a Special Housing Area variation that has reached the
decision stage, or to correct an error (i.e. the land already has a “live” zone in
the Council’s operative district plan).
4.5
To ensure that the spatial application of zones gives effect to the RPS and achieves
the relevant objectives and policies, a zoning principles matrix was developed and
progressively updated. 14 A full list of the proposed PAUP rezoning principles is
attached to Mr Duguid’s EIC on zoning at Attachment C.
These principles also
incorporate the Panel’s best practice approaches to zoning and precincts set out in
the Interim Guidance dated 31 July 2015.
We also note the Panel’s Interim
Guidance dated 1 March 2016 ‘Approach to rezoning and precincts in greenfield
areas proposed to come inside the Rural Urban Boundary’.
5.
INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1
During the hearing on 3 March 2016, there were several exchanges with the Panel
concerning the extent to which decisions as to the appropriate zoning to apply to land
can / should be driven by infrastructural considerations, both in terms of:
14
(a)
Feasibility; and
(b)
Considerations of timing and funding.
John Duguid, EIC on Zoning, at paragraph 13.1.
31560772:631364
Page 11
5.2
This arose in the context of discussion of the implications of the Panel's interim
guidance dated 1 March 2016.
5.3
Our notes record Douglas Allan suggesting that an appropriate approach would be to
determine the appropriate zone and that, provided that it was "feasible",
infrastructure should essentially be regarded as a secondary consideration –
infrastructure would follow zoning. We recall from those exchanges that there was
acceptance by the Panel that the feasibility of provision of infrastructure is clearly a
factor of relevance. Furthermore, Your Honour agreed that infrastructure must be
presently feasible, which would involve some funding and timing matters as well.
5.4
The Panel may be assisted by brief legal submissions on the relevance to zoning
decisions of infrastructure, including funding / timing considerations. These are vital
matters from the perspective of the Council, representing the community.
We
provide an overview of the relevant principles below.15
Case Law Principles
5.19
A number of legal principles can be gleaned from existing case law:
(a)
The provision of services and the existence of infrastructural constraints are
clearly relevant considerations in making zoning decisions 16 .
Setting
feasibility to one side, matters concerning the funding and timing of
infrastructure are directly relevant to decisions on the appropriate zoning (and
are not secondary considerations)17;
(b)
It is bad resource management practice and contrary to the purpose of the
RMA to zone land for an activity when the infrastructure necessary to allow
that activity to occur without adverse effects on the environment does not
exist, and there is no commitment to provide it18;
(c)
15
16
17
18
19
There is no duty on the Council to commit funds to works / infrastructure19;
The issue of the integration of land use and infrastructure has also been addressed in the Council’s
legal submissions for Topic 016 RUB North/West and Topic 017 RUB South at paras 5.13 to 5.20, and
in the Council’s closing comments for Topic 016 and 017 at paras 15 to 20.
McIntyre v Tasman District Council W83/94.
Bell v Central Otago District Council C4/97 and cited in Prospectus Nominees v Queenstown
Lakes District Council C74/97 at page 6.
Foreworld Developments Limited v Napier City Council W8/2005.
Coleman v Tasman District Council [1999] NZRMA 39.
31560772:631364
Page 12
(d)
Furthermore, the Court (and in this case the Panel) cannot dictate to the
Council when infrastructural improvements should be made20;
(e)
Infrastructure works are physical resources in terms of the RMA.
The
provision of such services / physical resources (e.g. sewerage systems,
stormwater systems and roading), must be achieved at a rate with which the
Council representing the community can physically and economically cope21;
and
(f)
The matters recorded above directly engage section 5 of the RMA. They also
arise as an issue in terms of section 7(b) of the RMA (the efficient use and
development of natural and physical resources).
6.
KEY MATTERS ARISING IN RELATION TO TOPIC 081 REZONING
Housing New Zealand Evidence
6.1
We refer to the evidence submitted on behalf of Housing New Zealand (HNZ) on
rezoning, and note that no rebuttal has been filed by the Council in response to that
evidence. The reasons for that are twofold. First, there are fundamental differences
between the Council and HNZ in relation to the application of zoning principles, as
addressed in the Council’s legal submissions for Topic 080.22 As such, it is not
considered that the Panel would be assisted by rebuttal planning evidence on the
subject. Secondly, those who would have prepared rebuttal are no longer being
called by the Council as witnesses in respect of their primary evidence reports.
6.2
However we observe that two statements of evidence have been filed on HNZ's
behalf by Messrs Osborne and Heath addressing economic matters and capacity
issues. The second statement was received on 2 March 2016 and there has not
been time, given Dr Fairgray's commitments, to providing further evidence on
capacity issues for him to fully consider and respond to the evidence. It is likely that
rebuttal evidence will be filed and we respectfully seek the Panel's indulgence to file
that rebuttal at a later time.
20
21
22
National Investment Trust v Christchurch City Council C41/2005.
Bell v Central Otago District Council C4/97.
At paragraphs 7.3 to 7.15.
31560772:631364
Page 13
6.3
Despite seeking and obtaining an extension from the Panel to file their evidence on
15 February (rather than 10 February), evidence continued to be received from HNZ
up until 4 March, which has made it extremely difficult to consider that evidence and
determine whether the Council could assist the Panel in advising on key areas of
difference. That work has been occurring as these submissions have been prepared
and out of necessity has been undertaken at a high level.
We provide the
observations of Council officers later in these submissions.
Out of Scope Zoning Changes for Business, Rural and FUZ Areas
6.4
As discussed at paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4(b) above, the Council continues to support
the out of scope zoning proposals for the Business, Rural and FUZ zones. The
Panel may make recommendations to the Council on matters which are outside the
scope of the submissions received.23 It has however indicated that the exercise of
this power is also subject to a general requirement to act in accordance with the
principles of natural justice (and in particular the principle of hearing both sides of an
issue).24
6.5
We record that there are rights of appeal to the Environment Court in respect of
provisions or matters relating to the PAUP in certain limited circumstances.
Submitters may appeal in relation to a matter addressed in their submission, but only
where, and to the extent that, the Council rejected the Panel's recommendation.25
However, any person (not necessarily a submitter) may appeal in relation to a
recommendation which the Panel had identified as beyond the scope of submissions,
if the Council accepted the recommendation (by either excluding or including it in the
plan) and the person "is, was, or will be unduly prejudiced by the inclusion of the
provision or exclusion of the matter."26
6.6
In addition to these appeal rights, the normal right of judicial review is expressly
preserved, subject to section 296 of the RMA which requires any appeal rights to be
exercised first.27
23
24
25
26
27
Section 144(5) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2020 (the LGATPA).
In directions of the Chairperson dated 4 January 2016 and 18 February 2016.
Section 156(1) of the LGATPA.
Section 156(3) of the LGATPA.
Section 159 of the LGATPA.
31560772:631364
Page 14
7.
REQUESTS TO “LIVE” URBAN ZONE FUTURE URBAN ZONED LAND
7.1
During the hearing on 3 March 2016, Richard Brabant raised what he termed a
"fundamental issue" in relation to the Panel's Interim Guidance of 1 March 2016
about the "Approach to rezoning and precincts in greenfields areas proposed to
come inside the Rural Urban Boundary."
7.2
Mr Brabant did not accept that there is a need for submitters who are seeking to
rezone Future Urban land to a 'live' urban zone through the PAUP submissions
process to undertake a separate and subsequent structure planning and plan change
exercise. In support of this, Mr Brabant referred to the Environment Court's decision
in Omaha Park Limited v Rodney District Council.28
7.3
Our notes record that Judge Kirkpatrick stated that he accepted the core of what Mr
Brabant was saying. Judge Kirkpatrick also noted that the matters in RPS Appendix
1.1, which provide the structure plan requirements for future urban zoned greenfield
land, set out the types of things (to the extent they are relevant) that need to be
considered when considering whether Future Urban zoned land should be rezoned.
7.4
The issue arises in this case because of the proposed provisions of the PAUP RPS
Chapter 2.3 Development capacity and supply for urban development. These RPS
provisions envisage that the rezoning of Future Urban land will occur via the
preparation of a structure plan and plan change (see for example B2.3 Policies 2, 3,
and 4).
7.5
The Council has considered the implications of the Omaha Park Limited decision.
One of the matters at issue in that case was whether an appeal to the then proposed
Rodney District Plan constituted "a similar mechanism" to the structure planning
process. A structure plan or similar mechanism was anticipated by Method 2.6.2(8)
of the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) in circumstances
where significant new areas were proposed for urban development.
7.6
The Environment Court agreed with the submissions of counsel for Omaha Park
Limited that the RMA specifically provides for parties to promote changes to a plan
during the submissions process.
28
The Court noted that that clearly includes the
Decision No. [2010] NZEnvC265.
31560772:631364
Page 15
power to seek re-zoning, and in fact privately promoted plan changes are explicitly
provided for in addition to those rights of submission.29
7.7
The Environment Court in Omaha Park Limited concluded that the right to promote
an urban area as part of a plan change, even on a privately promoted plan change,
must be preserved. Accordingly, it considered that an appeal on plan provisions
such as it was addressing must constitute a 'similar mechanism' for the purpose of
the ARPS 2.6.2 Method 8.30
7.8
The issue before the Environment Court in Omaha Park Limited was slightly
different to the issue of whether Future Urban zoned land in the PAUP, can be
rezoned to a PAUP urban zone through the PAUP submissions process as
requested by submitters. In this regard, the PAUP RPS provisions are arguably
more directive about the use of a structure plan and plan change process to rezone
Future Urban zoned land.
7.9
That said, the PAUP RPS provisions also recognise the principle that land should be
rezoned following the preparation of a structure plan by either the Council, the private
sector, or public private sector partnership in accordance with Appendix 1.1 (see
B2.3 Policy 4 a). Of relevance to this, it has always been the Council's position that
private plan changes to rezone Future Urban zoned land can be advanced where the
provisions of B2.3 are given effect to and the other statutory criteria of the RMA for
plan changes are met31.
7.10
Against this background, the Council considers that the principle discussed by the
Environment Court Omaha Park Limited decision that the RMA specifically provides
for parties to promote changes to a plan including rezoning changes during the
submission process, is pertinent to the issue of submissions seeking to rezone
Future Urban zone land to a PAUP urban zone.
7.11
In the circumstances, the Council agrees with Mr Brabant that submitter requests to
'live' zone can be determined by the Panel during the hearing of submissions on the
PAUP. However, the Council is strongly of the view that in order to be successful
29
30
31
Decision No. [2010] NZEnvC265, at [66].
Decision No. [2010] NZEnvC265, at [67].
See Michael Tucker, supplementary evidence for Topic 013 Urban Growth at [2.6] and Closing
Statement and Points of Clarification on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to Topic 013 RPS Urban
Growth Sections B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.5 and Appendix 1.1.
31560772:631364
Page 16
any such proposal must give effect to the relevant PAUP RPS provisions and
otherwise achieve the statutory criteria of the RMA.
7.12
In this regard, the Council particularly notes the requirement of B2.3 Objective 4 that
the development of land zoned future urban within the RUB occurs in a staged,
timely and integrated manner aligned with the provision of infrastructure.
7.13
The Council also draws attention to B2.3 Policies 3 and 4. B2.3 Policy 4 is to stage
the structure planning and rezoning of Future Urban zoned land having regard to the
Council's Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and to enable coordinated and efficient
provision of infrastructure within the RUB according to the following principles:
(a)
land should be rezoned following the preparation of a structure plan by either
the council, the private sector, or public sector partnership in accordance with
Appendix 1.1
(b)
rezoning should occur in a logical and integrated sequence, and aligned with
the provision of infrastructure that is planned and has identified funding
(including significant infrastructure)
(c)
new urban growth within the RUB should be immediately adjacent to
existing urban land unless the separation is necessary to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
7.14
Avoid, remedy or mitigate significant conflict between activities
Ensure the efficient provision of infrastructure including transport
Take account of the typography and other physical constraints
Avoid the areas outlined in Policy 3
(d)
there is sufficient development capacity and land supply for both business
and residential growth in each sector i.e. north, west and south
(e)
the location and quantity of development capacity being released at any one
time will have regard to the scale and economies of servicing and developing
the land
(f)
achieves a quality compact urban form and a range of housing choices for the
area
(g)
the ability to enable housing that is more affordable to households on low to
moderate incomes.
Apart from requiring structure planning to rezone Future Urban zoned land in the
RUB, B2.3 Policy 3 lists where urban development should be avoided where
practicable. This includes within:
(a)
Areas with significant environmental, heritage, nature character or landscape
values including land governed by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act;
31560772:631364
Page 17
(b)
Scheduled sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua;
(c)
Areas of significant mineral resources;
(d)
Close proximity to existing or planned significant infrastructure sensitive to
residential activities;
7.15
(e)
Land affected by coastal inundation and projected sea level rise; and
(f)
Areas prone to natural hazards.
In light of these RPS provisions, the Council agrees with Judge Kirkpatrick that
Appendix 1.1 sets out the type of matters that need to be taken into account where
proposals to rezone Future Urban zone land are under consideration. In effect the
information provided by a submitter should be of a structure plan standard providing
a clear picture of what is proposed and, addressing where relevant, the matters in
RPS Appendix 1.1.
7.16
The Council further notes that it is aware of a number of proposals to rezone Future
Urban land advanced by submitters in evidence involving what it would term medium
to large scale development. Amongst these are a proposal for precincts and live
urban zoning of Future Urban zoned land at Wainui East and Silverdale West (Wilks
Road 2014 Limited and Redvale Quarries Limited). The Council's position is that this
type of proposal does not give effect to the RPS or otherwise meet the statutory
criteria of the RMA.
7.17
In some cases there appears to have been little engagement by submitters with
stakeholders. This may mean there is no assurance that proposals are aligned with
the provision of infrastructure that is planned and has identified funding as envisaged
by B2.3 objective 4 and policy 4(b). In a number of cases we are instructed that there
have been no or scant discussions with AT, the New Zealand Transport Agency,
Watercare or the Council's stormwater unit about how core infrastructure will be
provided.
31560772:631364
Page 18
8.
REQUESTS TO REZONE RURAL LAND TO COUNTRYSIDE LIVING ZONE
8.1
The Council’s submissions and evidence for Topic 011 RPS Rural (Topic 011) and
Topics 056 and 057 Rural Objectives and Policies, and Rural Activities and Controls
(Topic 056 and 057) have previously explained that the approach of the PAUP is to
predominantly direct rural lifestyle living to areas identified for countryside living. In
the PAUP district plan these comprise the PAUP Countryside Living zones and a
number of precincts, usually with an underlying Countryside Living zoning.
8.2
The Council has received a substantial number of requests from submitters for rural
land to be rezoned from other PAUP rural zones to the Countryside living zone.
8.3
A number of factors have influenced the Council’s approach to formulating its
position on submitters' Countryside living zone requests.
These include the
provisions of Chapter 9 Rural of the Auckland Plan including strategic direction 9,
which provides “Keep rural Auckland productive, protected and environmentally
sound”.
8.4
As was also discussed in the Council’s legal submissions and Barry Mosley’s
evidence for Topics 056 and 057, the Auckland Plan anticipates less than 10,000
additional dwellings in Countryside Living zones and other rural areas outside rural
and coastal towns and villages in the 30 year period between 2012 and 2041.32
8.5
This means that the rural areas outside of the town and villages are not identified for
significant growth and inclusion of large areas for countryside living in the PAUP
would undermine the Auckland Plan's growth strategy as well as the strategic policy
direction to keep rural Auckland productive, protected and environmentally sound.
Where countryside living areas are provided, the Auckland Plan states that these
areas should be close to rural towns and urban areas.33
8.6
The strategic policy approach of the Auckland Plan to the rural areas is reflected in
the PAUP RPS Chapter B8 provisions. As with the Auckland Plan, the provisions of
Chapter B8 of the RPS make it clear that the PAUP's rural strategy would be
undermined if significant swathes of the rural areas were to be utilised for rural
lifestyle purposes at the expense of rural production activities and other activities that
require a rural location.
32
33
Auckland Plan, Section D Auckland's High Level Development Strategy, Figure 6 at page 56.
Auckland Plan, Chapter 9 Rural Auckland at page 234.
31560772:631364
Page 19
8.7
Among the matters highlighted in the PAUP RPS is the need for land subdivision not
to undermine the productive potential of rural land and to avoid, remedy or mitigate
adverse effects on biodiversity, landscape values, rural character and amenity (see
for example B8.3 Objective 1). The Chapter B8 provision of most relevance to the
identification of countryside living areas is Policy 6 in B8.3 Rural Subdivision. That
provides:
Manage the location, scale, density and extent of areas identified for countryside
living to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
8.8
avoid areas that would undermine the integrity of the RUB or compromise
the expansion of the satellite towns of Warkworth and Pukekohe, and rural
and coastal towns and villages
avoid areas of identified high natural values and elite and prime land
avoid areas that would constrain the operation of existing mineral extraction
activities or access to known and accessible future resources
maintain and enhance landscape, rural character and amenity values
provide opportunities for future intensification and retrofitting of services
within the identified area, including opportunities to be receiver areas for
transferable rural site subdivision
avoid the potential for reverse sensitivity effects that could hinder the
continued operation or growth of existing rural activities, or the
establishment of new rural activities.
safeguard the operation, maintenance, upgrading or development of existing
or planned significant infrastructure.
The Council has also been aware of the need to ensure that adequate receiver sites
in the Countryside Living zones are available to facilitate Transferable Rural Site
Subdivision (TRSS). As the Panel will recall this was a matter raised by a number of
submitters during the Topics 056 and 057 hearing.
8.9
Kyle Balderston's modelling evidence for Topics 056 and 057 suggested that under
the Council's proposed rural subdivision provisions, a minimum of approximately
3380 TRSS donor sites could be generated and that there was a receiver capacity of
approximately 1754 sites in the Countryside Living zones.
8.10
Bearing in mind these figures represented plan-enabled capacity only and it is not
possible to know how many land owners will in the future take up TRSS opportunities,
the Council's planning witness, Mr Mosley was of the opinion that the potential donor
supply and receiver capacity for TRSS were appropriately aligned.
Mr Mosley
considered that it was not necessary to identify additional receiver areas outside of
31560772:631364
Page 20
the Countryside Living zones or Serviced Villages at that stage34. The Council's
closing remarks for Topics 056 and 057 indicated that the issue would be reviewed in
later PAUP hearing topics such as Topic 081.35
8.11
Since the Topics 056 and 057 hearing, the Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016)
hearing has taken place. In its evidence for Topic 016, the Council has proposed
that part of the South Rodney area that was previously zoned Countryside Living in
the PAUP be brought within the RUB and rezoned Future Urban zone (Topic 016
evidence of Dave Paul in respect of the Dairy Flat Area). The Council has calculated
that this has resulted in the loss of approximately 205 potential TRSS receiver sites.
8.12
Against this background, the Council's position for this hearing is that it is appropriate
to identify some new areas for Countryside Living zoning in response to submitters
but only where the statutory criteria are achieved including, the need to give effect to
RPS B8.3 Policy 6.
As well as meeting the statutory criteria for rezoning the
identification of these additional Countryside Living zones will ensure that at this
stage there is a reasonable supply36 of receiver sites for TRSS. This is the principal
reason for the Council’s proposal to rezone some areas to Countryside Living.
8.13
In total the Council proposes to rezone approximately 1300 hectares of rural land in
the north of the region to Countryside Living zone. The areas proposed to be
rezoned are identified on maps Rodney Rural (R5, R6), Wellsford (R1), and Dairy
Flat (R12) and include:
(a)
An area between Kahikatea Flats Rd and Pine Valley Rd to the south-west of
Silverdale currently zoned Mixed Rural;
(b)
An area to the west of Orewa currently zoned Rural Production;
(c)
An area to the north-west of Puhoi between J. Turnwald and Ahuroa Rds,
currently zoned Rural Production;
(d)
34
35
36
Several areas around Wellsford, currently zoned Rural Production;
Rebuttal evidence, Barry Mosley, Topics 056 and 057, at [4.48].
Closing remarks on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to Topic 057 Rural activities and controls
(Rural Subdivision) at [6.5].
The Council's estimate is that together with the TRSS receiver site opportunities proposed by Mr Mosley
in his Topic 081 evidence about the Runciman precinct, this will result in approximately 645 additional
potential TRSS subdivision opportunities.
31560772:631364
Page 21
8.14
(e)
An area to the north of Warkworth currently zoned Rural Production; and
(f)
An area to the east of Helensville currently zoned Rural Production.
The Council also notes that its approach to dealing with submitters' requests to
rezone land to the Countryside Living zone, including where it is the Council's
position not to support these requests, is in some cases supported by the landscape
evidence of Stephen Brown and the land and soil science evidence of Dr Fiona
Curran-Cournane.
9.
REQUESTS TO REZONE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRY TO OTHER BUSINESS
ZONES
9.1
A number of submissions seek to rezone Light Industry zoned land to another
Business zone, usually General Business or Mixed Use. These requests have been
addressed in the Remaining Evidence, the rebuttal planning evidence of Mr Wyatt
and the rebuttal economic evidence of Mr Nunns.
Matters raised in submitter
evidence are also addressed later in these submissions.
9.2
These types of rezoning requests relate to matters raised by the Panel during the
hearing held for Topic 051-054 Centre Zones, Business Park and Industry zones,
Business activities and Business controls.
Economic Report
9.3
At the conclusion of the Topic 051-054 hearing, on 11 September 2015, the Panel
asked a number of questions of the Council's economists, Ms Fairgray and Mr
Akehurst. The questions required further economic analysis with a focus on the Light
Industry zone (Economic Report). The Panel indicated that the information was
sought to assist with determining both the Business zone provisions and rezoning
requests.
9.4
In summary the Panel's questions related to the following matters:
(a)
The proportion of existing activities in the Light Industry zone on the spectrum
from light industrial production to commercial activities; and
31560772:631364
Page 22
(b)
The demand / supply balance for the types of activities provided for in the
Light Industry zone.
9.5
By memorandum of counsel dated 5 October 2015 the Council lodged a detailed
outline of the Economic Report proposed by Ms Fairgray and Mr Akehurst to address
the questions asked by the Panel.
9.6
The Panel subsequently requested that the Council lodge a revised outline for the
Economic Report, to clarify the scope of work. As this revised document was being
prepared, the Panel issued a memorandum on 5 November 2015, which summarised
the outputs sought by the Panel.
The Council lodged a revised outline for the
Economic Report with the Panel by memorandum of counsel dated 10 November
2015.
Progress with the Economic Report
9.7
Producing the Economic Report has involved more work and taken longer than
anticipated. This was partly due to delays in settling the Council's proposed zones
which prevented the running of the Capacity for Growth (CfGS) model, and the field
work required was also time consuming. However good progress has been made
towards completing the Economic Report.
9.8
In particular, forecasting, data analysis and modelling tasks have generally been
completed.
The outstanding tasks relate to report drafting, analysis of current
capacity, and comparison of land demand to capacity. These matters are currently
being worked on and the Economic Report will be delivered to the Panel on or before
18 March 2016 (this date allows for a short period of review by the Council before the
Economic Report is lodged with the Panel).
Approach to Rezoning Requests
9.9
As mentioned above, there are a number of submissions seeking rezoning from Light
Industry to General Business or Mixed Use. These zones are generally sought to
enable more commercial activities on land proposed to be zoned Light Industry. As
explained in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt, while rezoning to another Business
zone is one method of enabling more commercial activity within light industry areas,
the Council has proposed two further methods.
These are the "grandfathering
clause" and the Identified Growth Corridor mechanism.
Both were addressed
31560772:631364
Page 23
through Topic 051-054 Centre Zones, Business park and industries zones, Business
activities and Business Controls.
9.10
Mr Wyatt's rebuttal evidence specifically addresses rezoning requests at Wairau
Valley, Barry's Point Road and Lunn Avenue. Similar issues arise when determining
other requests seeking rezoning from Light Industry to General Business or Mixed
Use but not all such requests have been addressed by Mr Wyatt.
9.11
The Economic Report may assist with determining the Light Industry rezoning
requests to some extent, particularly by answering questions about the mix of
existing activities and the supply of land for commercial activities.37 However, in our
submission the following key matters, which are generally referred to in Mr Wyatt's
evidence, should not be overlooked when considering rezoning requests for Light
Industry zoned land:
(a)
The Mixed Use zone provisions enable residential development up to 18 m in
height; therefore zones adjacent to, and activities within, proposed Mixed Use
zones should be compatible with residential activities;
(b)
The General Business zone enables large format retail which requires careful
consideration of potential effects on the function, role and amenity of centres
in accordance with B3.1 of the RPS;
(c)
Demand for industrial floorsapce is expected to grow over the life of the plan
and rezoning from Light Industry may compromise land supply for industrial
uses;
(d)
Some established light industry areas have a lower level of amenity (i.e.
functional amenity) than anticipated in the General Business zone or Mixed
Use zone; and
(e)
Careful consideration should be given to how proposed rezoning to General
Business or Mixed Use will affect the safe and efficient operation of the
transport network.
37
The supply of commercially zoned land has also been addressed in the Council's evidence on Topic 013
(B3.1) RPS Urban Growth (B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth) and Topic 051-054 Centre Zones,
Business park and industries zones, Business activities and Business Controls.
31560772:631364
Page 24
PART B – REZONING GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
10.
TOPIC 081a – REZONING (GENERAL)
10.1
General Auckland wide submissions were addressed in Mr Duguid’s evidence on
rezoning. They have also been addressed in the sub-regional overview evidence
reports for each geographical area.
11.
TOPIC 081b – REZONING (RODNEY)
11.1
Refer separate attachment.
12.
TOPIC 081c – REZONING (WEST)
12.1
Refer separate attachment.
13.
TOPIC 081d – REZONING (NORTH SHORE)
13.1
Refer separate attachment.
14.
TOPIC 081e – REZONING (SOUTH)
14.1
Refer separate attachment.
15.
TOPIC 081f – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (CENTRAL)
15.1
Refer separate attachment.
31560772:631364
Page 25
16.
CONCLUSION
16.1
For the reasons discussed in these submissions and in light of the evidence before
the Panel, the Council respectfully submits that the Council’s proposed approach to
rezoning and the underlying principles as outlined in Mr Duguid’s evidence achieves
the statutory criteria better than the alternatives proposed by submitters.
DATED at Auckland this
day of March 2016
M J L Dickey/ / D K Hartley / T Fischer /
M C Allan / J Hassall
Counsel for the Auckland Council
31560772:631364
1.
TOPIC 081b – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (RODNEY)
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The sub-region of Rodney is largely made up of the boundaries of the former
Rodney District.
It incorporates the entire Rodney Local Board area, and the
northern part of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The area comprises over
2,400 square kilometres. On the east coast it stretches from the northern most point
of the Council boundary below Mangawhai, southward to the northern side of the
Okura Estuary.
On the west coast it stretches from Te Tapora Peninsula
southward to Te Henga (south of Muriwai).1
1.2
In the Rodney area, there have been 696 submission points received on rezoning
requests. These are broken down into the sub-areas as follows:
(a)
Wellsford – 9;
(b)
Warkworth/Snells Beach – 109;
(c)
Kumeu – 140;
(d)
Rodney Rural – 223;
(e)
Helensville/Parakai – 39;
(f)
Hibiscus Coast – 106;
(g)
Dairy Flat - 52; and
(h)
Okura – 18.
EVIDENCE TO BE CALLED
1.3
The Council intends to call the following witnesses:
(a)
Robert Hillier (geotechnical) – Shoesmith Street, Warkworth
(b)
Claudia Hellberg and Katja Huls (stormwater) – Wainui East and Silverdale
West)
(c)
Christopher Allen (Watercare Services Limited)
(d)
Alastair Lovell - (Auckland Transport) - Wainui East and Silverdale West)
(e)
Andrew Beer - (public open space) - Wainui East and Silverdale West)
(f)
Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar - (stormwater) – Okura
(g)
Martin Neale - (freshwater ecology) – Okura
1
Statement of Evidence of Peter Vari on behalf of Auckland Council dated 28 January 2016, Rodney – Sub-Regional
Overview, at para 7.3.
Attach - Rezoning - 081b Rodney - 8.3.16.docx
Page 2
(h)
Andrew Murray – (transport) - Poplar Lane
CHANGES TO COUNCIL POSITION
Coatesville, Riverhead and Kumeu – Submissions seeking rezoning to Countryside
Living including Mike Wood, C Zambucka, Coatesville Rezoning Group Inc, Kevin
Lorigan and Toby Mandeno (submission # FS2554, 4844, 7142, 3805 and 6424)
Council position
1.4
Evidence on behalf of a number of submitters proposes that areas around
Coatesville, Riverhead and Kumeu be rezoned from the notified Rural Production
zone to Countryside Living zone. The Council does not support Countryside Living
zone in these locations. However the Council proposes a change from Countryside
Living zone to Mixed Rural zone.
Reasons
1.5
The Council supports a change from Rural Production to Mixed Rural for the
following reasons:
(a)
Rural Production zone is not a good fit with these areas because it
anticipates large properties and low intensity settlement;
(b)
The Mixed Rural zone better reflects these areas as it anticipates
smaller rural sites, a history of horticulture, and existing residents
who use their land for rural lifestyle purposes; and
(c)
Applying the requested Countryside Living zone would result in
the loss of prime land, adverse landscape effects, and would be
inconsistent with the compact city approach.
Huapai North – Michael Coote, Patricks Bay, C&R Properties, and Awatea Brothers
Limited (submission # 6512, 603, 6522, FS670)
Council position
31560772:631364
Page 3
1.6
The evidence of Dr Bellingham on behalf of Michael Coote and others are seeking
a rezoning of the Large Lot zone (as it applies to sub-precinct C in the Huapai North
precinct) to Single House zone. The Large Lot zone does not appropriately reflect
this area in Huapai North. The Council position is that the Single House zoning for
Huapai North may be more appropriate provided that the additional subdivision
control requiring the minimum site size to be 1,500m2 (as addressed in Mr Bradley's
evidence for the Huapai North precinct).
Reasons
1.7
The objectives and policies of the Large Lot zone, relate primarily to sites within
areas that are not reticulated, or have other physical limitations. This area on the
periphery of Huapai North does not reflect the Large Lot zone objectives and
policies.
1.8
The Council considers that applying the Large Lot zone in this particular location is
inconsistent with that zone's description and objectives. A rezoning from Large Lot
zone to Single House zone is appropriate, provided that the additional subdivision
control requiring the minimum site size to be 1,500m2 is also retained. Retaining
this control will mean that there will be no material change to site sizes within this
area.
ISSUES ARISING FROM SUBMITTER EVIDENCE
289 & 291 Sharp Rd, Sandspit – Submission by Estate D A Aley (submission # 3286)
Council position
1.9
Evidence on behalf of Estate D A Aley proposes to rezone the site from Mixed
Rural to Large Lot i.e. that the Large Lot zone be extended over the entire site at
the northern edge of the settlement. In response to the submitter's evidence, the
Council agrees that the site should be zoned Large Lot. Consequential changes to
the Rodney Landscape precinct (sub-precinct C) are also proposed by the Council.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 4
1.10
The Council considers rezoning the site from the notified Mixed Rural to Large Lot
appropriate because it is supported by landscape evidence. The consequential
precinct changes proposed by the Council will ensure that the subdivision and
development of this land reinforces the urban edge of Sandspit (rather than setting
up the land to the north for further urban development).
These changes are
addressed in the rebuttal evidence on the Rodney Landscape precinct by Dave
Paul.
Hatfields Beach precinct – Various submissions
Council position
1.11
The evidence provided by various submitters sought a number of changes to the
Hatfields precinct and underlying zoning proposed by the Council. In particular,
submitters sought a Countryside Living zone for the Hatfields Beach/Waiwera area.
The Council's position is that the notified Rural Coastal zoning should be retained.
Reasons
1.12
The reasons for the retention of the notified zoning were addressed in detail in the
rebuttal evidence on the Hatfields Beach precinct by Nathan Te Pairi and need not
be addressed further here.
Waiwera precinct – Various submissions
Council position
1.13
In response to evidence provided by submitters a number of changes to the
Waiwera precinct and underlying zones are proposed by the Council. The relevant
changes relate to business and residential zoning.
Reasons
1.14
The reasons for the proposed changes were addressed in detail in the rebuttal
evidence on the Waiwera precinct by Rachel Morgan and need not be addressed
further here.
31560772:631364
Page 5
8, 165 187, 217, Wainui Road – Submission by Highgate Business Park (submission #
5736)
Council position
1.15
Planning evidence from Alistair White on behalf of the Highgate Business Park
proposes to rezone the site from the notified Single House zone to Mixed Housing
Urban zone. The Council's position is that the notified Single House zoning should
be retained for the site.
Reasons
1.16
All of the residential part of the Silverdale North precinct is zoned Single House and
the rules require that most of the development is required to be on sites greater
than 650m2.
The precinct requires a certain percentage to be higher density
development. In the rest of the Silverdale North area there are areas of higher
density development and these are not zoned or requested to be zoned higher
density zones. In the Council's view, to rezone the land Mixed Housing Urban would
create a spot zone, or in this case a strip of Mixed Housing Urban between the
Silverdale North sub-precinct B (Single House zone) and sub-precinct A (General
Business zone). The MHU zone with no density control, would also enable a
greater density of development than enabled by sub-precinct B, which would not be
consistent with the objectives and policies of the precinct.
165 Wainui Road – Submission by Colin Chester (submission # 6591)
Council position
1.17
Planning evidence from Shane Hartley on behalf of Colin Chester proposes to
rezone the site at 165 Wainui Road from the notified Single House zone to Mixed
Housing Urban zone. The Council's position is that the notified Single House zoning
should be retained for the site.
Reasons
1.18
The Council considers that retaining the Single House zone does not preclude it
being developed for higher density development because the Silverdale North
precinct, sub-precinct B requires a mix of densities and site sizes.
31560772:631364
Page 6
1.19
Nor does the Council support the request to rezone that part of the site zoned
General Business to a residential zone. Mr Hartley considers that the split zoning
does not sit comfortably with the existing site boundaries. However, the Council
considers that the depth of the residential zone along Wainui Road is fairly
consistent and rezoning all of the site would introduce an anomaly and result in
residential development intruding further into the business land. The area of
business land involved is approximately 4,000m2 and with a minimum site size of
400m2 for the General Business zone, provides opportunities for development.
Rezoning the General Business portion of the site residential is also an erosion of
the supply of business land in the area.
Silverdale North – Submission by Stride Holdings Ltd (formerly DNZ Property Fund
Limited) (submission # 3863)
Council position
1.20
The planning evidence of Jennifer Carvill on behalf of Stride Holdings Ltd sought
rezoning from General Business to Light Industry in sub-precinct A and rezoning
from Neighbourhood Centre to Business Park or Light Industry in sub-precinct D3.
The Council does not support the proposed rezoning in these sub-precincts.
Reasons
1.21
The Council does not support the rezoning from General Business to Light Industry
in sub-precinct A. The Council considers that the General Business zone combined
with sub-precinct A, best deliver the outcomes that are sought by the sub-precinct.
This is because the General Business zone includes polices that more generally
align with the policies of sub-precinct A.
1.22
The Council also does not support the rezoning from Neighbourhood Centre to
Business Park or Light Industry in sub-precinct D3. Rather, the Council considers
that the
underlying
zone
for sub-precinct D3
should
be
rezoned
from
Neighbourhood Centre (as notified) to Local Centre.
31560772:631364
Page 7
1.23
The Council considers that this rezoning is appropriate because the centre is more
aligned with the objectives and policies of the Local Centre zone, which aims to
provide for the local convenience needs of surrounding residents including a wide
range of small scale commercial and retail activities including a smaller scale
supermarket. The Council also considers that due to the 4 hectare size of the
centre, a Local Centre zoning is more appropriate.
1 Poplar Lane Whangaparaoa – Submission by the Poplar Trust (submission # 6595)
Council position
1.24
The planning evidence of Shane Hartley on behalf of the Poplar Trust seeks
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zoning for the property at 1 Poplar Lane,
Whangaparaoa. The Council's position is that the notified Light Industry zoning
should be retained for the property.
Reasons
1.25
The Council does not support rezoning the site from Light Industry to THAB
because given the location of the site, it will not achieve the objectives of the THAB
zone.
1.26
The transport evidence of Donald McKenzie on behalf of the Poplar Trust suggests
that from a transportation perspective, the submitters land is suitable for inclusion
within the THAB zone. However, the transport evidence of Andrew Murray on
behalf of the Council considers that the effects of the extra development at the site
are likely to be felt over a much wider area than the immediate access, or require a
much more substantial change in the network.2
Okura Long Bay precinct – Various submissions
Council position
1.27
In response to evidence provided by submitters, and discussions held with some of
the submitters, a number of changes to the Long Bay precinct and underlying zones
are proposed by the Council. The relevant changes relate to residential zoning.
2
Rebuttal evidence of Andrew Murray on behalf of the Council, dated 26 February 2016 at [4.18.3].
31560772:631364
Page 8
Reasons
1.28
The reasons for the proposed changes were addressed in detail in the rebuttal
evidence on the Long Bay precinct by David Mead and need not be addressed
further here.
55 Waimauku Station Road – John and Gillian Woods (submission # 6200)
Council position
1.29
The evidence of Graham Parfitt on behalf of this submitter supports this submitter's
request for the rezoning of this site from Single House, to Mixed Use zone. The Council
position is opposed to this request, and considers that the Rural Coastal Settlement
zone for this property is appropriate.
1.30
Mr Parfitt states that the site is located close to a Town Centre and Rapid and Frequent
Service Network (RFN). Mr Parfitt appears to suggest in his evidence that the spot
zoning of this site, to a Mixed Use zone, would be the best planning outcome. The
Council disagrees with these views.
Reasons
1.31
This site is not located near a Town Centre. The Local Centre in Waimauku however,
is 200 metres away. There is no RFN in the vicinity of this site. While the site may be
near the general transport infrastructure of State Highway 16 and the railway, there is
no access to public transport. This site is also within a settlement that does not have
access to a reticulated community wastewater service. This poses a constraint to any
proposed upzoning to a Mixed Use zone.
1.32
Finally, the Council does not agree with Mr Parfitt's evidence regarding the
appropriateness of spot zoning. Having regard to the Panel's Interim Guidance "Best
practice approaches to re-zoning, precincts and changes to the Rural Urban Boundary
(RUB)", the Council considers that spot zoning should be avoided in this case. The
rezoning sought by this submitter for this site is not appropriate given the site's existing
infrastructure constraints and the Council considers that the Rural Coastal settlement
zone is the most appropriate zone in respect of this site.
31560772:631364
Page 9
Various properties in Waimauku, including on and west of Wintour Road and on
Freshfields Road – Waimauku United Landowners Limited (submission # 6937-1),
Julius Yang (submission # 4382-1), Craig Booth (submission # 6781-1), John Francis
(submission # 7078-2) and Michael Ward (submission # 6812-1)
Council position
1.33
The planning evidence of Vern Warren on behalf of these submitters supports a change
in zoning from the notified Mixed Rural zone to a Single House zone for various
properties in Waimauku. The Council considers that the Rural Coastal Settlement zone
for properties in Waimauku is appropriate and should be applied.
Reasons
1.34
Mr Warren states in his evidence that the Rural Coastal Settlement zone minimum lot
size of 2,500m2 is a 'mismatch' with the historical subdivision patterns in Waimauku.
The Council considers that the minimum site size has been set in light of on-site
wastewater provision rather than a mismatch as Mr Warren suggests. This particular
matter, namely the lot sizes for on-site wastewater disposal systems is addressed in the
wastewater engineering evidence (Density in the Rural and Coastal Settlement zones)
of Mr Ormiston in Topics 059, 060, 062 and 063. Furthermore, the minimum lot size for
subdivision within the Rural Coastal Settlement zone is proposed to be reduced from
4,000m2 to 2,500m2.
1.35
These properties within Waimauku are in an unserviced settlement.
One of the
Council's zoning principles is to limit growth in unserviced settlements in rural and
coastal areas through the application of the Rural Coastal Settlement zone.
The
Council's proposed approach best gives effect to the objectives of the RPS, and is more
appropriate than the Single House zone sought by these submitters.
39-43 Percy Street, Warkworth – Submitter: General Trust Board of the Anglican Diocese
of Auckland (#8982-11)
Council position
1.36
The evidence of Clare Covington seeks Mixed Use zoning for the properties.
The
Council's position is that the notified Single House zone should be retained for the
properties.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 10
1.37
The submitter's evidence mistakenly says that the operative Auckland Council District
Plan (Rodney Section) zoning of this land is Mixed Business.
The operative plan
zoning is however Residential M which is a similar zoning to the PAUP Single House
zone. The application of the Single House zone is appropriate in light of the location of
the land and the adjacent low density residential development reflective of the Single
House zone.
Retention of the Single House Zone is the most appropriate way to
achieve the objectives of the Single House zone and gives effect to the RPS.
Land at Shoesmith Street, Warkworth (Lot 1DP 207145) – Submitter: 32 Church Street
Family Trust (32830-1)
Council Position
1.38
The submitter has lodged a range of expert evidence in support of the rezoning of
approximately 5.95 hectares of land at Shoesmith Street from the Large Lot zone to the
Mixed Housing Suburban zone.
The Council's position is that the Large Lot zone
should be retained.
Reasons
1.39
The rebuttal geotechnical evidence of Robert Hillier on behalf of the Council responds
to the geotechnical evidence of Richard Knowles on behalf of the submitter.
The
rebuttal evidence of Mr Hillier indicates that the site encompasses a significant natural
hazard landslide risk. Mr Hillier states that the hazard has been identified by desk
studies and proven by site specific investigations and analyses. From a geotechnical
perspective it is Mr Hillier's opinion that the site is commercially and technically
challenged and presents significant development risks to the developer and third
parties. In my Hillier's view, a large lot development on the site would reduce the
exposure to the landslide hazard.
1.40
In addition the land is only accessible from the minor road network, is not proximate to
the main center of Warkworth and is unable to be serviced by the wastewater network
in the short to medium term.
1.41
In light of these considerations retention of the notified zoning is the most appropriate
way to achieve the objectives of the Large Lot zone and gives effect to the RPS.
Land bounded by the Great North Road, Goatley Road and the A & P Showgrounds –
Submitters Goatley Holdings, Stellan Trust and Stevenson Family Trust (#7025-1)
31560772:631364
Page 11
Council position
1.42
The submitters seek the rezoning of approximately 61.5 hectares of land at the northern
end of Warkworth from Future Urban zone to a live urban Light Industry zone. The
Council's position is that the Future Urban zone should be retained.
Reasons
1.43
The planning evidence of Shane Hartley attaches a "structure plan" prepared on behalf
of the three landowners. It only includes assessment of business and industrial land
requirements, traffic impacts, civil engineering and geotechnical matters and ecological
values.
1.44
The Council does not support the rezoning given that the limited matters addressed and
consultation with stakeholders appears to be limited. The proposal would locate more
traffic intensive uses close to the proposed extension of the motorway (which the
FULSS indicates will not be constructed until 2022) and western bypass intersections. It
is also based on a bypass route which has yet to be confirmed.
1.45
Retention of the Future Urban zone gives effect to the RPS, in particular the objectives
and policies of Chapter B2.3 and is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives
of the Future Urban zone.
Land accessed from Valerie Close – Submitter Valerie Close Residents Group (#5154)
Council Position
1.46
The planning evidence of James Hook on behalf of the Valerie Close Residents Group
requests live urban zoning of approximately 75 hectares of land accessed from Valerie
Close, south west of Warkworth that is identified as Future Urban zoned land in the
PAUP as notified. The zones sought are the Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban
and Neighbourhood Centre zones. The Council's position is that the Future Urban zone
should be retained.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 12
1.47
In his evidence Mr Hook refers to the preparation of a Structure Plan and there are
subdivision rules and a structure plan map attached to his evidence. The only other
expert evidence is civil engineering evidence from Christopher Shortt.
1.48
The Council opposes the Future Urban zoning as it considers that the standard of
information provided falls short of what would be expected to support a structure plan of
the nature proposed. By way of example, no expert traffic engineering evidence has
been adduced in support of the proposal and there is no attempt to address the range
of matters outlined in Appendix 1.1 of the RPS.
1.49
Further little regard appears to have been had for the RPS policies in Chapter B2.3. A
clear reason why the live zoning proposal will not give effect to the RPS is that it will not
result in growth immediately adjacent to the existing urban area as required by B2.3
Policy 4 (c).
46-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach – Submitter Manikum Investments (#3972)
Council position
1.50
Planning evidence from Diana Bell on behalf of Manikum Investments Ltd seeks
rezoning of the land at 46 to 61 Dawson Road from Large Lot to Single House zone.
The Council's position is that at this current point in time the Large Lot zone should be
retained.
Reasons
1.51
This land is currently subject to a private plan change request - Private Plan Change
179 to Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section). The plan change seeks to
rezone the land in the operative district plan from a Large Lot zoning to a Medium
Intensity Residential zone. We are instructed that due to geotechnical issues the plan
change cannot be progressed until agreement can be reached with a neighbouring land
owner about the placement of stormwater control and management measures on the
neighbouring landowner's property.
Without such measures the intensity of
development proposed cannot be achieved.
1.52
As a result, the Council considers that a Single House zoning could only be applied to
the site if an agreement about stormwater issues is reached. In such circumstances it
would also be necessary to include plan provisions relating to stormwater and
wastewater management into the PAUP.
31560772:631364
Page 13
5 Matariki Street, Omaha – Submitter Sandee Investments Ltd (6605-2)
Council position
1.53
The planning evidence of Hamish Firth on behalf of Sandee Investments Ltd seeks to
re-zone the site at 5 Matariki Street as Single House, with a possible fall-back position
of partially Neighbourhood Centre zone (western portion of the site), and partially Single
House zone (eastern portion of the site). The Council's position is that the site should
remain zoned Single House.
Reasons
1.54
The Council opposes a change to the Single House zone for a number of reasons. The
notified Neighbour Centre zone already provides for residential dwellings within the
zone (except for on the ground floor where the dwelling has frontage to public open
space (including streets)). Therefore the submitter can already construct dwellings on
this site.
1.55
The economic analysis in the submitter’s evidence has concentrated on retail whereas
the Neighbourhood Centre zone allows for more activities than just retail (e.g. visitor
accommodation). The Neighbourhood Centre zone is a more enabling zone than the
SH zone, with more activities provided for.
1.56
The location of the site is suitable for a Neighbourhood Centre zone. It is located next to
a large car park, existing commercial activities, and the Omaha Surf Club. Rezoning the
land to Single House would permanently remove this land from commercial activity.
Retention of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone achieves the objectives of the
Neighbourhood Centre zone.
464 Leigh Road, Whangateau – Submitter Elizabeth Foster and Kenneth Harcombe (#194)
Council position
1.57
The evidence of submitter Elizabeth Foster seeks the rezoning of the site at 464 Leigh
Road, Whangateau from Rural Coastal zone to Rural Coastal Settlement zone. The
Council supports the retention of the Rural Coastal zone on this site.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 14
1.58
The Council considers that the site is unsuitable for residential expansion due to the
flooding and costal inundation hazards that are present over much of the land. The
notified zoning of the site recognises its characteristics and is the most appropriate way
to achieve the objectives of the Rural Coastal zone.
151 Rautawhiri Road, Helensville South – Submitter Hounslow Holdings Ltd (#5763-1)
Council position
1.59
The planning evidence of Craig McGarr on behalf of Hounslow Holdings Ltd seeks the
rezoning of the part of the site at 151 Rautawhiri Road zoned Future Urban zone to a
live urban Single House zone. The Council's position is that the notified Future Urban
zone should be retained.
Reasons
1.60
Mr McGarr's evidence states that the area of the site which is zoned Future Urban is
(conservatively) estimated to accommodate approximately 108 additional Single House
lots.
1.61
We are instructed that the Council opposes the application of the Single House zone
due to advice from Watercare Services Ltd that there are currently wastewater and
water supply capacity constraints in Parakai and Helensville.
Land in Wainui East and Silverdale West – Submitter Wilks Road 2014 Limited (#5520) and
Redvale Quarry Ltd (FS2271 and FS2270)
Council positon
1.62
A range of expert evidence on behalf of Wilks Road 2014 Limited and Redvale Quarry
Ltd has been lodged in support of a proposal to live urban zone and apply precincts to
land in Wainui East and Silverdale West. The Council does not support the rezoning
and precincts proposal.
Reasons
1.63
Expert rebuttal evidence has been lodged by the Council in respect of this proposal
from Claudia Hellberg and Katja Huls (stormwater), Andrew Beer (open space), Alastair
Lovell (AT) and Chris Allen (Watercare).
31560772:631364
Page 15
1.64
The Council's evidence indicates that the submitters' structure plans have not had
adequate input from the Council, AT or Watercare. Given the breadth of concerns
raised in the Council's evidence, it cannot be said that the potential adverse effects of
the proposals have been adequately addressed and that they are aligned with the
provision of infrastructure that is planned and has identified funding as anticipated by
Chapter B2.3 of the RPS.
Land at Horseshoe Bush Road, Dairy Flat Highway, and Kahikatea Flat Road – Submitters
: Rosal Trust (#2692-2), Karepiro Investments Ltd (3#26-1) and DF Enterprises Ltd (#865-1)
Council position
1.65
Evidence from Diana Bell and Barry MacDonell on behalf of the submitters seeks the
rezoning of sites at 2 Horseshoe Bush Road, 1431 to 1433, 1441 to 1443 and 1453
Dairy Flat Highway, and 2 to 27 Kahikatea Flat Road from Mixed Rural to Light Industry.
The Council supports the retention of the notified Mixed Rural zone.
Reasons
1.66
Rezoning of this land would result in an urban zoning outside of the RUB which would
not give effect to Chapter B2,1 policy 1 of the RPS. Although there is already an area
of light industry (approximately 2 hectares) in the locality in the Council's view this does
not justify rezoning additional land for urban purposes outside of the RUB.
The
evidence of Dave Paul for Topic 016 RUB North / West was that inclusion of this land
within the RUB would compromise the integrity of the RUB along the Dairy Flat
Highway and not result in a defensible boundary.
Rodney – rezoning to Countryside Living zone (various properties)
Council position
1.67
The evidence on behalf of the following submitters seeks that various properties in
Rodney be rezoned from Rural Production, Mixed Rural or Rural Coastal zone to
Countryside Living zone:
(a)
Barry MacDonnell for Rahopara Farms Ltd and Carba Rural Developments Ltd
(#1824-1, 1824-2) (1502 Wainui Road, Wainui);
31560772:631364
Page 16
(b)
Barry MacDonnell for SH16 Ltd (#302) (Maddies Road and Apline Road,
Kaukapakapa);
(c)
Emma Bayly for Hugh Green Ltd (#5259) (1640 Old North Road and Inland
Road, Hellensville);
(d)
Bruce Carter (#805) (Dysart Lane area, Kumeu);
(e)
Brian Putt for Omaha WF & SM Abraham (#3323) (Omaha Flats);
(f)
Burnette Macnicol for Thompson Road Residents and Nikau Retreat Ltd
(#3257, 6775) (Thompson Road and surrounds, Warkworth);
(g)
Carol Rockelrath for Huntington Family Trust, Carol Rockelrath and Ingolf
Rockelrath (#2175, 4666, 3121) (Area around Blackridge Rd, Drury Lane,
Escott Road and Three Oaks Drive);
(h)
Lance Hessell for John Greensmith (FS2720) (Areas around Point Wells
Road, Omaha Flats);
(i)
Philip Brown for Cedel Downs Stud (#1553) (South eastern Taupaki);
(j)
J E Eller for Huntington Family Trust (#2175) (Area around Blackbridge Road,
Drury Lane, Escott Road and Three Oaks Drive, Dairy Flat);
(k)
Graham Power for IRL Investments Ltd (#4419) (185 Sandspit Road,
Warkworth);
(l)
Daniel Shaw and Joanne Young for The Coastesville Rezoning Group Inc
(#7142) (Coatesville - northern side of the Coatesville-Riverhead highway);
(m)
Lance Hassell for Katherine Davis (#1436) (Land around Hepburn Creek
Road, Warkworth);
(n)
Mark Benjamin for RJ and AE Richardson Trust (#3758) (CoatesvilleRiverhead Highway and Sunnyside Road, Coatesville);
(o)
Robert Demler for Michael Twiss (#1317) (598 Mahurangi East Road, Algies
Bay);
31560772:631364
Page 17
(p)
Peter Reaburn for Neil and Elizabeth Norton (#9438) (Area south and west of
Waitakere Road, near Kumeu Showgrounds).
1.68
The Council's position is that the notified zoning should be retained for these properties
and that they should not be rezoned to Countryside Living.
Reasons
1.69
There are a range of reasons for the Council opposing the rezoning of these properties
that are dependent on the particular circumstances of the property involved. However,
in general, the Council considers that rezoning of these properties would not give effect
to the PAUP RPS, in particular B8.3 Policy 6, nor would the rezoning have appropriate
regard to the Auckland Plan or achieve the objectives and policies of the PAUP
Countryside Living zone.
1.70
A number of the properties are located on prime land. In these instances, RPS B8.3
Policy 6(b) directs Countryside Living zones to avoid areas of elite and prime land.
Therefore the Council's position is that Countryside Living zoning is not appropriate.
Moreover, as indicated in the evidence of Ms Curran-Cournane,3 Countryside Living
zoning would effectively curtail any further rural production in the area. She highlights
the problems of reverse sensitivity arising from countryside living in productive rural
areas.
1.71
In some instances rezoning could also undermine rural character, rural amenity values,
and otherwise adversely affect landscape values contrary to RPS B8.3 Policy 6(d). In
this regard the landscape values of a number of the submitter properties are described
in Stephen Brown's landscape evidence and he explains why from a landscape
perspective they are not suitable for countryside living.
1.72
In respect of countryside living areas, as previously discussed in these submissions the
Auckland Plan states that these areas should be close to rural towns and urban areas.4
Where properties are not close to rural towns and urban areas, this is a further reason
for the Council opposing the rezoning to a Countryside Living zone.
CORRECTIONS
3
Topic 081a evidence-in-chief of Fiona Curran-Cournane on behalf of Auckland Council (Land and Soil Science),
dated 26 January 2016 at [7.1] - [7.2].
4
Auckland Plan, Chapter 9 Rural Auckland at page 234.
31560772:631364
Page 18
1.73
The Council is proposing two corrections to the planning maps lodged with the
primary evidence for the Rodney geographic area. These corrections have been
made to the hearings version of the Council's planning maps and are outlined in
Attachment [X].
31560772:631364
!
SUB$
TOPIC+AREA+
REGION+
Rodney!
Dairy!Flat!
Rodney!
Hibiscus!Coast!
!
!
SUBMISSION+ FULL+STREET+
AREA+UNIT+
ADDRESS+/+LEGAL+
DESCRIPTION+
!
1431!and!1433!
Dairy!Flat!Hwy!
SUBURB+ NOTIFIED+
/+AREA+ ZONE+
PROPOSED+
ZONE+
REASONS+FOR+CORRECTION+
Dairy!
Flat!
MR,!LI!
LI,!MR!!
!
Silverdal
e!
RP!
GB!
Part!of!the!sites!zoned!LI!should!be!MR!and!
part!of!the!sites!zoned!MR!and!should!be!
LI.!!The!LI!zone!does!not!follow!the!
cadastral!boundaries!of!the!sites!when!it!
should.!
Rezone!the!sites!from!RP!to!GB!because!
the!sites!are!within!the!RUB!and!it!is!
contrary!to!the!RPS!for!land!within!the!RB!
to!be!zoned!rural.!!This!amendment!is!out!
of!scope.!
4,!6,!8,!10!Hibiscus!
Coast!Hwy!
1.
TOPIC 081c – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (NORTH SHORE)
Introduction
1.1
The sub-region of North Shore is largely made up of the boundaries of the
former North Shore City Council.
Kaipatiki,
and
Upper
It incorporates Devonport-Takapuna,
Harbour
Local
Board
Areas
(except
Hobsonville/Whenuapai), and the southern part of the Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board Area. The area is characterised by an extensive coastal edge
of approximately 160 kilometres with the Hauraki Gulf and Waitemata
Harbour.1
1.2
In the North Shore area, there have been 2523 submission points received
on rezoning requests.
These are broken down into the sub-areas as
follows:
(a)
Albany and Greenhithe – 241;
(b)
Glenfield, Northcote and Birkenhead – 1510;
(c)
East Coast Bays – 117;
(d)
Takapuna, Milford and Smales Farm – 158;
(e)
Devonport Peninsula - 299; and
(f)
Rosedale, Wairau and Barry's point (Light Industry) – 198.
Evidence to Be Called
1.3
The Council intends to call evidence from the following:
(a)
Jeremy Wyatt (planning – business zoning at Wairau Valley, Barry's
Point Road and Lunn Avenue
(b)
Shona Myers (ecology – 61 Waipa Road, Birkenhead)
(c)
Martin Peake (transport – Albany Heights)
(d)
Peter Nunns (economics – business zoning)
Issues Arising From Submitter Evidence
1
Statement of Evidence of David Sanders on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 January 2016, North Shore – Sub-Regional
Overview, at paras 7.2-7.3.
Attach - Rezoning - 081c North Shore - 8.3.16.docx
Page 2
540 Paremoremo Road, Paremoremo – Submitter: Department of Corrections (#623035)
Council position
1.4
The planning evidence by Peter Hall on behalf of the Department of Corrections
seeks a change from the notified Countryside Living zone to Single House zone, or
in the alternative, change the subdivision rules or rezone the village as a Rural and
Coastal Settlement for the Auckland Prison Village at 540 Paremoremo Road. The
Council's position is that the notified Countryside Living zone should be retained
over this site.
Reasons
1.5
The Council considers that a prerequisite for the application of the Single House
zone to settlements located outside the Rural Urban Boundary is for the settlement
to comprise an urban area that has access to a reticulated community wastewater
service.
1.6
The 97 residential dwellings at the Paremoremo prison facility are contained within
a single title. The dwellings are serviced by existing waste water and water supply
assets owned by the Department of Corrections.
1.7
The evidence of Mr Hall on behalf of the Department of Corrections does not
explain how, upon subdivision, access to the services for the existing houses, and
potentially the undeveloped part of the title for which the submitters are also
seeking the Single House zone, is to be secured to provide an appropriate servicing
standard.
The Council understands from Watercare Services Limited that the
existing private assets at 540 Paremoremo Road are generally in poor condition
and would require significant capital investment to meet the necessary public
standard.
1.8
The intensification of this particular site will not achieve the relevant objectives for
the Single House zone, or give effect to the RPS. The site does not meet the
proposed definition of "serviced villages" in the RPS as “a settlement that comprises
an urban area that has access to reticulated community wastewater service”. For
these reasons, the Council considers that the underlying Countryside Living zone is
appropriate.
31560772:631364
Page 3
61 Waipa Street, Birkenhead – Further Submitter: Brian and Patricia Beecroft
(FS#3860)
Council position
1.9
The statement from Brian and Patricia Beecroft and the ecological evidence of Dr
Flynn on behalf of this further submitter, support a change from Single House zone
to Mixed Housing Suburban for their property at 61 Waipa Street, Birkenhead. A
portion of the property boundary is subject to the SEA overlay.
The Council's
position is that the notified Single House zone is appropriate and should be retained
over this site. The Council also considers it appropriate for the SEA overlay to
remain over the property, however the extent of the SEA overlay should be
reduced.
Reasons
1.10
Ms Myers has responded to the matters raised by Dr Flynn in her rebuttal evidence
dated 4 March 2016. Ms Myers considers that the SEA overlay has been properly
applied over this area, and meets the PAUP criteria of representativeness and
diversity. Ms Myers' view is that the SEA overlay should remain on 61 Waipa Street
but proposes that its extent be reduced to remove areas of exotic vegetation,
including areas dominated by ginger.
Ms Myers considers that tree fern and
kanuka, which provide a dense canopy, should remain within the SEA overlay
extent, and that these are part of, and buffer, the wider SEA in the catchment.
1.11
Ms Myers considers that the proposed reduction of the SEA, means that the SEA
covers 28% of the submitter's site (compared to 40% of the site prior to the
proposed amendments). Given the continued application of the SEA over part of
the site, the Council position is that the Single House zone for 61 Waipa Street is
appropriate, and gives effect to the RPS.
Albany Heights and Fairview Heights
Council position
1.12
A number of submitters have requested a range of zoning types in the Albany
Heights and Fairview Heights areas for zoning that would result in greater intensity
31560772:631364
Page 4
of residential development than that proposed by the Council. The Council position
is that its proposed zoning in the PAUP as notified (comprising variously of Large
Lot, Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban) is appropriate and should be
retained.
Reasons
1.13
Mr Peake has provided technical traffic evidence on behalf of the Council in
response to particular submitters relating to Albany Heights and Fairview Heights.
1.14
Mr Peake considers that the zoning of Albany Heights should not be intensified
beyond that proposed in the PAUP, unless or until the link road between Gills Road
and Oteha Valley Road is constructed. The current restricted width at the southern
end of Gills Road, which is the main access road into the area, hinders any possible
intensification from the notified PAUP.
1.15
We respect to Fairview Heights, Mr Peake considers that further analysis is
required to determine whether the one lane bridge at the southern end of Fairview
Avenue can accommodate increased traffic arising from intensification. Mr Peake
considers that from a transport perspective, any further intensification of Fairview
Heights is not appropriate at this time.
1.16
We are instructed that the Environment Court is currently considering the proposed
Notice of Requirement to address the restricted capacity as the southern end of
Fairview Avenue. The Notice of Requirement relates to Plan Change 32 to the
Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section), where the Environment Court
confirmed that intensification of this area should not occur until improvements (such
as to an upgrade to Fairview Avenue and bridge, and the Medallion Drive
extension) were implemented.
1.17
The Council considers that for the reasons set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr
Peake that its proposed zoning for Albany Heights and Fairview Heights is the most
appropriate way to achieve the relevant objectives of the applicable zones in the
PAUP as notified, and best gives effect to the RPS.
Wairau Valley, Wairau – Submission by Wairau Property Owners Collective
31560772:631364
Page 5
Council position
1.18
Evidence on behalf of the Wairau Property Owners Collective proposes to
rezone 160 ha of Light Industry zoned land to General Business.
The
Council's position is that Light Industry is the most appropriate zone for this
area of land.
Reasons
1.19
The Council supports Light Industry zone rather than General Business for
the reasons set out in the planning rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt and the
economic rebuttal evidence of Mr Nunns on behalf of the Auckland
Council.
1.20
In summary the reasons include:
(a)
At 160 ha the area is more than twice the size of Albany
Metropolitan Centre and rezoning is clearly contrary to the
"centres plus" approach to managing commercial growth as set
out in B3.1 of the RPS;
(b)
The cost benefit analysis undertaken on behalf of the submitters is
insufficient from a section 32 perspective and a proposed
rezoning of this magnitude requires a robust, evidence-based
analysis of the potential effects;
(c)
The submitter has not provided transport evidence and Council’s
previous evidence has identified traffic difficulties with Wairau
Road;
(d)
Demand for industrial floorspace is expected to grow over the life
of the life of the PAUP and the loss of such a substantial area
would not enable a sufficient supply of industrial land; and
(e)
The Light Industry zoned area has a functional level of amenity
and the General Business zone’s anticipated built form and
31560772:631364
Page 6
consent requirements is inappropriate relative to the types of
existing activities in the area.
Barry's Point Road – Submissions seeking rezoning from Light Industry to Mixed Use
Council position
1.21
A range of submitters seek to rezone Light Industry zoned areas at Barry's
Point Road to Mixed Use. The Council's position is that Light Industry
zoning should be retained for the Barry's Point Road area, at least until
structure planning occurs.
Reasons
1.1
The Council considers that Light Industry zoning should be retained, at
least until structure planning occurs, for the reasons set out in the rebuttal
evidence of Mr Wyatt. In summary:
(a)
Structure planning will maximise the benefits and minimise the
costs of rezoning;
(b)
Rezoning part of the area to Mixed Use may be appropriate due to
extent of commercial activities which have established within the
Barry’s Point Road Light Industry zoned area (the Economic
Report will assist in determining the mix of activities in the area);
(c)
Amending the entire area to Mixed Use zone at this point in time
will fail to capitalise on the opportunities presented nor minimise
the effects of redevelopment;
(d)
The area has excellent accessibility to transport networks and is
proximate to the Takapuna Metropolitan Centre; and
(e)
The Takapuna Strategic Framework identifies Barry’s Point Road
as an area that needs further planning so as to capitalise on its
undoubted potential.
31560772:631364
Page 7
Changes to Council position
Raymond Terrace, Northcote – Submission by Simon Ayris (submission # 5560)
Council position
1.2
Planning evidence from Angela Goodwin on behalf of Simon Aysis
proposes to rezone the lots that have frontage to the southern side of
Raymond Terrace from the notified Single House zone to Mixed Housing
Suburban zone.
In response to the submitter's evidence, the Council
agrees that the relevant area should be zoned Mixed Housing Suburban.
Reasons
1.3
The Council supports rezoning the lots that have frontage to the southern
side of Raymond Terrace to Mixed Housing Suburban zone because the
properties are generally unaffected by SEA overlay and there is little to
distinguish these properties from the other MHS zoned properties on the
north side of Raymond Terrace and Lydia Avenue.
The adjoining
properties to the north-east and the west have extensive areas of SEA
overlay across them should remain as Single House zone for this reason.
1043-1047 Beach Road, Long Bay (Vaughn Park) – Submission by the General Trust
Board of the Diocese of Auckland (submission # 4422-24)
Council position
1.4
Planning evidence from Craig McGarr on behalf of the General Trust Board
of the Diocese of Auckland proposes to rezone the Vaughn Park site from
Single House to Mixed Housing Suburban. In response to the submitter's
evidence, the Council agrees that the site should be zoned Mixed Housing
Suburban.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 8
1.5
The Council supports rezoning the site from Single House to Mixed
Housing Suburban for the following reasons:
(a)
The Vaughn Park site is separated from the coastal edge by the
Sir Peter Blake Marine Education centre and residential
development to the north and east;
(b)
Beach Road separates the site from Long Bay Regional Park and
the stream to the north-west;
(c)
The site is not identified as being subject to coastal inundation or
flooding; and
(d)
The residential areas to the south and south-east are zoned
Mixed Housing Suburban so the change in zone would not
amount to a spot zoning or a departure from the planned urban
form of the surrounding area.
Corrections
1.6
The Council is proposing a single correction to the planning maps lodged with the
primary evidence for the North geographic area. This correction has been made to
the hearings version of the Council's planning maps and is outlined in Attachment
[X].
31560772:631364
!
SUB
$
REG
ION+
Nort
h!
Shor
e!
!
!
TOPIC+
AREA+
East!
Coast!
Bays!
SUBMI
SSION+
AREA+
UNIT+
N5!
FULL+STREET+ADDRESS+
/+LEGAL+DESCRIPTION+
SUBU
RB+/+
AREA+
NOTI PROP
FIED+ OSED+
ZONE+ ZONE+
REASONS+FOR+CORRECTION+
15!Kenmure!Ave!(Part!
Lot!21!DP!38854)!
Forres
t!Hill!
SH!
A!small!slither!of!land!that!should!have!reverted!to!SH!due!to!flooding!
constraints!in!line!with!the!abutting!main!parcels!of!land.!
MHS!
1.
TOPIC 081d – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (WEST)
Introduction
1.1
The West Auckland sub-region is largely made up of the boundaries of the
former Waitakere City Council. It incorporates the Whau, Waitakere Ranges,
Henderson/Massey, and the Hobsonville/Whenuapai part of the Upper
Harbour/Kaipatiki Local Board Areas.
Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, and
Upper Harbour Local Board Areas (except Hobsonville/Whenuapai), and the
southern part of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area.1
1.2
In the North Shore area, there have been 1702 submission points received on
rezoning requests. These are broken down into the sub-areas as follows:
(a)
Glendene, Glen Eden and New Lynn – 538;
(b)
Henderson – 318;
(c)
Massey/Ranui/Non Rural Swanson – 466;
(d)
Northwest Waitakere, Hobsonville, West Harbour and Herald Island –
90;
(e)
Te Atatu -239; and
(f)
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area – 51.
Evidence to Be Called
1.3
The Council does not intend to call any witnesses for the West geographic
area.
Issues Arising From Submitter Evidence
20 and 26 Seaview Road, Piha – Submission by Preserve Piha Limited (submission #
2056-1)
1194 Huia Road, Huia – Submission by John and Pien Wise (submission # 4724-3)
Council position
1.4
Planning evidence from Michael Campbell and Barry Kay on behalf of the
submitters proposes to rezone the submitters' sites from the notified Rural
1
Statement of Evidence of Eryn Shields on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 January 2016, West – Sub-Regional
Overview, at para 7.2.
Attach - Rezoning - 081d West - 8.3.16.docx
Page 2
Conservation zone to Neighbourhood Centre zone. The Council's position is
that the notified Rural Conservation zone should be retained for these
properties.
Reasons
1.5
Although the sites on their own are not high in the values the Rural
Conservation zone seeks to recognise and protect, they are part of the wider
Rural Conservation zone context and any effects of new activities on the sites
should be carefully managed to achieve the Rural Conservation zone
objectives and policies.
1.6
The properties are also subject to the Waitakere Ranges Coastal Settlements
precinct, which is more enabling of a number of accommodation and
commerce activities than provided for in the underlying Rural Conservation
zone.
1.7
The application of the Rural Conservation zone is consistent with the approach
for other sites occupied by commerce activities located within the Waitakere
Ranges Heritage Area in that they have the same zoning as the surrounding
land.
1.8
The Council's position is that the provisions of the Rural Conservation zone
and the Waitakere Coastal Settlements precinct strike an appropriate balance
between enabling certain accommodation and commercial activities, and
managing effects on the values of the Rural Conservation zone objectives and
policies seek to recognise and protect.
19 Church Street, Swanson – Submission by Addams Trust Company Limited
(submission # 7019-2)
Council position
1.9
The planning evidence from Lahiru Wijewardhana on behalf of Addams Trust
Company Limited seeks to rezone 19 Church Street, Swanson from Rural
Coastal zone to Mixed Housing Urban zone. The original submission was
summarised as relating only to 19 Church Street (which is zoned Countryside
Living in the notified PAUP), and that adjoining properties at Crows Road
(which are zoned Rural Coastal zone in the notified PAUP), which the
31560772:631364
Page 3
submission also relates to, were not identified. The Council's position is that
the Countryside Living zone should be retained for 19 Church Street and the
Rural Coastal zone should be retained for the Crows Road properties.
Reasons
1.10
The Council does not support rezoning 19 Church Street from Rural Coastal to
Mixed Housing Urban as the site is outside the RUB boundary and an
intensive residential zone on a site largely covered by the SEA overlay would
conflict with the objectives and policies of the Swanson North precinct, which
seek to manage subdivision in order to protect the rural and landscape
character of the area.
1.11
The Council also does not support rezoning the land at Crows Road from
Countryside Living to Mixed Housing Urban because rezoning to an intensive
residential zone would be in conflict with the objectives and policies of the
RPS.
1.12
In addition to being located outside of the RUB, the subject land is separated
from the Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban zoning of the Swanson
North township by a stream and by the Redwood Park Golf Club which is
zoned Large Lot. It is the Council's position that the separation of the subject
land from the township does not support a compact urban form and in this
respect the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the objectives and
policies of the RPS which seek a compact urban form.
1.13
Mr Wijewardhana's request for the rezoning of 19 Church Street and the
Crows Road properties has been made on the grounds that the MHU zone is
needed to generate funding for remediation of the land which he describes as
being "likely to be highly contaminated" (by previous landowners) and is the
subject of an order from the Environment Court to be remediated. However,
the Council does not consider this to be appropriate grounds to warrant
rezoning the land.
17-19 Fred Taylor Drive, Westgate – Submission by The National Trading Company
(submission # 2632)
Council position
31560772:631364
Page 4
1.14
The planning evidence from Vaughan Smith on behalf of The National Trading
Company seeks to rezone 17-19 Fred Taylor Drive from Mixed Use zone to
General Business zone. Mr Smith considers that the existence of the Pak'n
Save supermarket on the site is strong grounds to rezone the site to General
Business zone and that the supermarket activity is best provided for by the
objectives and policies of the General Business zone. The Council's position is
that the notified Mixed Use zoning should be retained for the site.
Reasons
1.15
Supermarket activity is provided for in both zones' objectives and policies, and
activity tables and is ultimately controlled by the Westgate precinct provisions.
1.16
The Council does not support rezoning of the site from Mixed Use to General
Business because the Mixed Use zone provides more flexibility for future
development of the site than the General Business zone. In particular, the
Mixed Use zone provides for residential activities, which will broadly support
the functioning of the Metropolitan Centre and preserve the future opportunity
for a mix of business and residential activities to be established on the site.
Pak'n Save and Bunnings, Westgate – Submission by IB and GA Midgley (submission #
4478-107, 108, 118)
Council position
1.17
The planning evidence from David Haines on behalf of IB and GA Midgley
seeks to rezone land at Westgate (underlying sub-precinct C) as follows:
(a)
Rezone land occupied by Bunnings from Mixed Use to General
Business; and
(b)
Rezone land occupied by Pak'n Save from Mixed Use to Metropolitan
Centre.
1.18
The Council's position is that the notified Mixed Use zoning should be retained
for both sites.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 5
1.19
The Council considers that the Mixed Use zone is the most appropriate zone
for the Bunnings site because it provides more flexibility for future
development of the site ant than General Business zone. In particular, the
future opportunity for a mix of business and residential activities to be
established on the site in the event that redevelopment does occur.
1.20
With respect to the Pak'n Save site, the Council does not consider that the
Metropolitan Centre zoning requested by the submitter is an appropriate zone
to apply to this site. The Metropolitan Centre zone is a significant deviation
from the planned Westgate precinct and ignores the significant amount of
planning and investigatory work that went into the development of the
Westgate precinct.
1.21
The Mixed Use zoning forms sub-precinct C in the Westgate precinct and is
intended to provide for urban growth that is comprehensively planned to
integrate with, and support, the Metropolitan Centre, while ensuring that retail
activities within sub-precincts B and C do not detract from the viability of the
Metropolitan Centre in sub-precinct A.
1.22
The Council considers that the expansion of the Metropolitan Centre zone
would provide direct competition to the Metropolitan Centre zone that has
been planned in sub-precinct A and no evidence has been provided by the
submitter evaluating how the expanded Metropolitan Centre might impact on
the performance of the Westgate precinct as a whole.
1.23
In this context, it is the Council's position that retention of the Mixed Use zone
which has been planned to integrate with and support the metropolitan town
centre at sub-precinct A is appropriate.
Sub-precincts D and F, Westgate – Submission by New Zealand Retail Property Group
(submission # 5165)
Council position
1.24
The planning evidence of Peter Reaburn on behalf of New Zealand Retail
Property Group seeks to rezone land in the Westgate precinct as follows:
(a)
Rezone land in sub-precinct D in the vicinity of Rua Road from
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings to General Business; and
31560772:631364
Page 6
(b)
Rezone a 18.5 hectares of sub-precinct F from Light Industry to
General Business.
1.25
The Council's position is that the notified PAUP zoning should be retained for
both sites.
Reasons
1.26
The Council remains of the view that the Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings zoning near Rua Road is appropriate for the location and should be
retained. This is because the THAB zoning is well positioned having regard to
the PAUP zoning principles and achieves the objectives and policies of the
RPS and the THAB zone – being near the town centre, near employment,
having good access to transport, and being located near a large tract of open
space.
1.27
The Council does not consider that the rezoning of land in sub-precinct F from
Light Industry to General Business is appropriate. The area of zoning forms
sub-precinct F in the Westgate precinct and is intended to be an integrated
business and employment area focusing on land-extensive industrial activities.
The Light Industry zoning is therefore important to the intention of the subprecinct and to the intention of the Westgate precinct as a whole.
1.28
The Council considers that the proposed additional 18.5 hectares area of
General Business zone would have an impact on the viability of the
metropolitan centre and no evidence analysing this impact has been
presented by Mr Reaburn.
Brigham Creek Park, Hobsonville – Submission by Brigham Creek Business Park
(submission # 3429)
Council position
1.29
The planning evidence of Alastair White on behalf of Brigham Creek Park
seeks to remove the Hobsonville Corridor sub-precinct A1 from the underlying
Light Industry zone and to rezone a 70m deep ribbon of the land fronting
Hobsonville Road along the length of sub-precincts A1 from Light Industry to
General Business.
31560772:631364
Page 7
1.30
The Council's position is that the notified Light Industry zone should be
retained for the site.
Reasons
1.31
The Council does not agree with Mr White's view that the Light Industry zone
is an inappropriate zone to adjoin residential activity. The Light Industry zone
anticipates industrial activities that do not generate objectionable odour, dust
or noise emissions. Adverse effects from industrial activities must be managed
within the zone and in relation to adjacent areas. This includes effects on the
transport environment.
1.32
The proposed rezoning represents an unnecessary erosion of the Light
Industry zone in this area and would set a precedent for future challenges to
the Light Industry zone. It is the Council's position that the Light Industry zone
in this location is appropriate and should be retained.
Land bounded by Hobsonville Road, Trig Road, State Highway 16 and Upper Harbour
Highway Hobsonville – Submission by CDL Land New Zealand Limited (submission #
3159)
Council position
1.33
The planning evidence of John Childs on behalf of CDL Land New Zealand
Limited (CDL) seeks to rezone the subject land (comprising 45 ha) from
Future Urban zone to THAB zone. The subject land bounded by Hobsonville
Road, Trig Road, State Highway 16 and Upper Harbour Highway (but
excluding residentially zoned land in the block fronting Hobsonville Road and
including 4-6 Hobsonville Road).
1.34
The submitter does not own the whole area proposed for rezoning and has not
undertaken any consultation with the other land owners.
1.35
The Council's position is that the notified Future Urban zone should be
retained for the subject land.
Reasons
31560772:631364
Page 8
1.36
The planning evidence of Mr Childs suggests that a structure plan could be
dispensed with in favour of relying on the subdivision provisions of the PAUP.
The Council does not agree with Mr Childs' view that structure planning should
be dispensed with. The Council considers that structure planning is necessary
in order for relevant information to be considered to ensure that the area is
developed in an integrated and coordinated manner and that it is aligned with
the timely provision of infrastructure.
1.37
The appropriate level of information to inform rezoning of the subject land from
Future Urban to a live zone is set out in the PAUP requirements for structure
planning at Appendix 1.1. The supporting information provided by CDL lacks
the necessary detail as required by Appendix 1.1 to appropriately inform the
application of a live zone.
1.38
Given the lack of detailed supporting information, the lack of a structure plan
or equivalent planning exercise and the lack of consultation with the land
owners, it is the Council's position that the proposed rezoning is inappropriate
and that the subject land should remain Future Urban zone.
The Landing, Boundary Road, Hobsonville – Submission by Hobsonville Land Company
(submission # 3859)
Council position
1.39
The planning evidence of Matthew Lindenberg on behalf of Hobsonville Land
Company seeks to rezone the site known as ‘The Landing’ on Boundary Road,
Hobsonville from Future Urban zone to Mixed Use zone. With the exception of
a comparison of PAUP zones and activity tables, no supporting evidence has
been provided by the submitter.
1.40
The Council's position is that the notified Future Urban zone should be
retained for the site.
Reasons
1.41
The original submission is without supporting technical information and Mr
Lindenberg’s evidence advises that a proposed plan change which includes a
section 32 assessment and a range of detailed technical assessments could
be made available to the Council if the Council considers this to be of
31560772:631364
Page 9
assistance in considering the request.2 The Council is of the view that the
appropriate time to provide this information would have been as part of the
original submission or as evidence in support of the submission.
1.42
The PAUP process for rezoning FU zone to a live zone is discussed above. In
particular, the necessity of a structure plan accompanying the proposed
rezoning prepared in accordance with Appendix 1.1 and with relevant
supporting technical information.
1.43
In the absence of the detailed information that Mr Lindenberg has referred to
in his evidence but has not provided, the Council is unable to make an
informed assessment of the proposed rezoning from Future Urban zone to
Mixed Use zone. Accordingly, the Council's position is that the Future Urban
zone is appropriate and should be retained.
Panuku Auckland Development
Council position
1.44
The planning evidence of Vijay Lala on behalf of Panuku Development (a
Council Controlled Organisation) originally requested the rezoning of 6 hectare
site at the eastern end of Hobsonville Point from Mixed Housing Urban zone to
Local Centre zone.
1.45
Council officers met with Mr Lala on 17 February 2016 to discuss the
proposed Local Centre zone and whether it was an appropriate zone for this
location. As a result of these discussions, the parties agreed that the
Neighbourhood Centre zone would be more appropriate in this location,
particularly as the local centre in this area does not align with the Auckland
Plan hierarchy of centres (where a Local Centre is shown in the Hobsonville
Road Corridor).
1.46
Having regard to the centres hierarchy outlined in the Auckland Plan and the
objectives and policies of the Neighbourhood Centre zone, the Council's
position is that the Neighbourhood Centre zone is appropriate for this location
as it will provide employment and local commercial services at a
neighbourhood scale.
2
Primary Statement of Evidence of Matthew Lindenberg on behalf of Hobsonville Land Company, dated 15 February 2016 at
[12].
31560772:631364
Page 10
Changes to Council Position
36 Dolbear Street, Titrangi – Submission by Joanne Sunde and Tim Rickards (submission
# 3504)
Council position
1.47
Evidence from Joanne Sunde proposes to rezone the site from the notified
Single House zone to Mixed Housing Urban zone.
In response to the
submitters' evidence, the Council has changed its position and agrees that the
site should be zoned Mixed Housing Urban.
Reasons
1.48
The Council supports rezoning the site to Mixed Housing Urban because there
are practicable engineering solutions that allow two houses/sites to be
developed at 36 Dolbear Street as outlined by the submitter.
Therefore,
managing flooding risk at the site does not require maintenance of the Single
House zone.
Rezoning to Mixed Housing Urban zone will achieve the
objectives of the Mixed Housing Urban zone and gives effect to the RPS.
64 Godley Road, Green Bay – Submission by The National Trading Company of New
Zealand Limited (submission # 2632-265, FS2963)
Council position
1.49
Planning evidence from Vaughan Smith on behalf of The National Trading
Company of New Zealand Limited proposes to rezone the site from the
notified Neighbourhood Centre zone to Local Centre zone. In response to the
submitter's evidence, the Council has changed its position and agrees that the
site should be zoned Local Centre.
Reasons
1.50
The Council supports rezoning the sites from Neighbourhood Centre to Local
Centre due to the function, role and context of the centre. As inferred by Mr
Smith, the range of activities that occur in the Green Bay centre give it a wider
role than described in the objectives and policies for the Neighbourhood
Centre zone. The range of activities, including the presence of small scale
31560772:631364
Page 11
supermarkets,
is
more
indicative
of
a
Local
Centre
zone
than
a
Neighbourhood Centre zone. The Council's position is therefore that rezoning
to Local Centre is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the
Local Centre zone and gives effect to the RPS.
377 and 379 West Coast Road, Glen Eden – Submission by Peter Reid and Daniel Thomas
(submission # 6834)
Council position
1.51
Evidence from Mr Brown proposes to rezone the site from the notified Light
Industry zone to Single House. In response to the submitter's evidence, the
Council has changed its position and agrees that the site should be zoned
Single House rather than Light Industry.
Reasons
1.52
The Council supports rezoning the site from Light Industry zone to Single
House zone due to a number of factors identified in Mr Brown's evidence.
This includes that the properties are already used for residential purposes and
adjoin existing areas of Single House zone.
54 Brigham Dreek Road (Lot 1 DP40934), Whenuapai – Submission by Anderson and
O'Leary Limited (submission # 3590-1)
Council position
1.53
Evidence from Jonathan Brendan Ryan on behalf of Anderson and O'Leary
Limited proposes to rezone the site from the notified Future Urban zone to
Light Industry zone. In response to the submitter's evidence, the Council has
changed its position and agrees that the site should be zoned Light Industry
rather than Future Urban.
Reasons
1.54
The Council supports rezoning the site to Light Industry because the small
isolated site of Future Urban zoning is likely to be an error. Light Industry
zoning recognises that the site is associated with the ITM Pinepac Sawmill
31560772:631364
Page 12
and the site is contiguous with other Light Industry land to the east. Other
adjacent land is zoned Mixed Housing Urban and Local Centre.
Lot 2 DP 463057, Hobsonville Point – Submission by Hobsonville Land Company Limited
(submission # 3859-60)
Council position
1.55
Planning evidence from Giles Bramwell on behalf of Hobsonville Land
Company Ltd proposes to rezone part of the site from the notified Open Space
zone to Mixed Housing Urban. In response to the submitter's evidence, the
Council has changed its position and agrees that the site should be zoned
Mixed Housing Urban.
Reasons
1.56
The Council supports rezoning part of the site from Open Space to Mixed
Housing Urban to reflect the extent of open space that is shown in the
Approved Comprehensive Development Plan for the Sunderland precinct at
Hobsonville Point.
31560772:631364
ATTACHMENT: TOPIC 081e – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (CENTRAL)
1.
The sub-region of Central Auckland (Central area) covers approximately 15,214 hectares,
encompassing the Auckland Isthmus area under the former Auckland City Council
boundaries and includes the Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa Local
Board areas. The area also includes the southern portion of the Waitemata Local Board
area, western portion of the Whau Local Board area and northern part of the MangereOtahuhu Local Board area. In summary, the area extends from Avondale to Point England
(west to east) and Herne Bay to Hillsborough (north to south).1
2.
In the Central area, there have been 8258 submission points received on rezoning
requests. These are broken down into the sub-areas as follows:
3.
(a)
Western Isthmus – 2457;
(b)
Eastern Isthmus – 3985;
(c)
Southern Isthmus – 967; and
(d)
City Centre Fringe – 849.
The submission points on the Central area are summarised in Attachment E of the
evidence report of Joao Machado and Paulina Wythes on behalf of the Council for Central
Auckland – Sub-regional Overview.
Evidence to Be Called
4.
The Council intends to call Stephen Brown as a landscape expert witness in relation to the
Eastern Isthmus (Stonefields development).2
5.
As previously addressed in these submissions, we record that a number of evidence
reports were filed on the Council's behalf for this Topic on or after 26 January 2016, which
reports have since been amended pursuant to the Council's Resolution of 24 February
2016 and subsequent advice to the Panel by memorandum dated 29 February 2016. The
authors of those evidence reports will not be called in support of their Remaining Evidence.
1
2
Statement of Evidence of Joao Machado and Paulina Wythes on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 January
2016, Central Auckland – Sub-Regional Overview, at paragraph 1.2.
Mr Brown’s EIC on Central – Eastern Isthmus Rezoning (Landscape) is dated 29 January 2016.
Page 2
Issues Arising from Submitter Evidence
Requests to Rezone land from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU)
6.
A number of submitter requests have been made seeking that land be rezoned from LI to
MU (specific submitter requests will be discussed in further detail below).
We are
instructed that the Council is concerned that rezoning land from LI to MU would not provide
certainty that industrial activities would be retained, which could potentially have an impact
on the LI land supply needed by industrial and manufacturing sectors to support growth in
the future. The Council considers that retention of LI zoned land meets the objectives of
the RPS, in particular B2.3 (Development capacity and supply of land for urban
development) as it ensures there will be sufficient land supply in the Central area to
accommodate industrial type activities for business growth. The retention of the LI zoned
land also meets objectives 1 and 3 under B3.1 (Commercial and industrial growth) of the
RPS in that the role of centres as focal points for commercial and industrial business
growth will be sustained while avoiding conflicts between incompatible land uses.
7.
The Council also notes that its proposed revised zone provisions for the LI zone will provide
for the continued use of existing commercial activities and allows change between some
commercial uses. The LI zone also anticipates a range of supporting activities including
food and drink, dairies and trade suppliers. It is therefore submitted that the presence of
such commercial activities alone is not a justification for a change from LI to MU.
8.
The specific areas where submitters have requested land be rezoned from LI to MU are as
follows:
(a)
City Centre Fringe
i. Sub area C6 – Kingsland and Morningside. A number of submitters have sought
to rezone the land around the Morningside Train Station from LI to MU.3
In his EIC on behalf of Augusta, Nick Roberts contends that rezoning the subject
land from LI to MU would more appropriately meet the objectives of the RPS and
Part 2 of the RMA because the land is located within a “close walk” to
3
J Mead (4330-1), Tim Daniels (4600-5), Louis Mayo (4797-107), Stephen Davis (4832-85) and Generation Zero
(5478-48) and the further submission of Augusta Capital Ltd (Augusta) (FS 3895) which specifically seeks to
rezone its land at 11 McDonald Street, Morningside, from LI to MU, which is supported by the EIC of Nick
Roberts on behalf of Augusta.
Page 3
Morningside Train Station and proposed frequent bus services which will
contribute to a quality compact city, and the land is not the most appropriate
location for industrial activities.4
The Council notes that the subject land is part of a larger pocket of LI land
situated north of Saint Lukes Town Centre and south of Morningside Town
Centre. The LI zoned land area encompasses light industrial activities such as
freight depots, warehousing and storage, light manufacturing and servicing,
repair and maintenance services, storage and lockup facilities and wholesalers.
The Council supports retention of the LI zone in this area, and considers that this
zoning gives effect to the RPS, as discussed above.
ii. Sub area C7 – Newton. A number of submitters have sought to rezone sites on
Boston Road from LI to MU. 5
The Council has similar concerns with the
proposed rezoning in this sub area as those discussed above in relation to sub
area C6.
The Council considers that it is important to retain LI land in this
location of the City Centre Fringe to ensure sufficient land is allocated for LI
activities to support future business and industrial growth of the city. The Council
notes that there is a reasonably large area of land zoned MU along the railway
corridor and around Newmarket Metropolitan Centre and Newton Town Centre to
support growth and intensification providing a mix of residential and employment
activities.
iii. Sub area C8 – Parnell. A number of submitters have requested the change of
zoning from LI to MU for sites along the Strand,6 and for sites fronting Augustus
Terrace.7
The land along The Strand has traditionally been an industrial zone, but this has
started to change to incorporating a variety of uses; automotive, car rental, trade
supplies, retail, commercial and office.
In the Council’s evidence report the
proposed zoning change from LI to MU was not supported,8 and the submitters
listed above have put in evidence to support their requests.
4
5
6
7
8
EIC of Nick Roberts on behalf of Augusta, at paragraph 2.
Dilworth Trust Board (3477-18), Department of Corrections (6230-33) and Samson Corporation (primary
submission 6247 and further submission 3350).
Submissions 3477-19 (Dilworth Trust Board), 3563-1 (Matso Commercial Limited and JPGFT Limited), 4307-4
(The Strand Trust).
Submissions 2016-5 (Parnell Business Association), and FS3875 (Cleethorpes Fifty Five Ltd).
Joint Evidence Report on Submissions by Panjama Ampanthong and Hamish Scott on behalf of Auckland
Council for Central – City Centre Fringe Rezoning dated 26 January 2016, Attachment C.
Page 4
It is acknowledged that some LI areas have a mix of uses with some activities
being commercial or office based. The land along The Strand has traditionally
been an industrial zone, but this has started to change to incorporate a variety of
uses; automotive, car rental, trade supplies, retail, commercial and office.
However, the revised LI zone provisions proposed by the Council provides for the
continued use of existing commercial activities and allows change between some
commercial uses. We are therefore instructed that the Council does not consider
that the presence of such commercial activities alone is justification for a change
to MU and the requested zoning changes from LI to MU
(b) Eastern Isthmus
i.
Sub area C19 – Stonefields and Panmure. In its submission point 6150, NCI
Packaging (NZ) Ltd (NCI) seeks a change in zoning from LI to MU at its site at 80
Mount Wellington Highway. In her evidence on behalf of NCI, Helen Hamilton
states that the land is no longer economically viable for LI uses.9 Ms Hamilton
relies on the evidence of Mr Brett Smithies,10 to support this economic argument
stating that the NCI manufacturing operations are one of only two manufacturing
activities in the immediate area.
Ms Hamilton also addresses the matter of the incorrect configuration of the land
holdings as these have been renegotiated as a result of the AMETI project in this
location.11 Consequently, a number of zones come into play when considering
the rezoning of the land holdings.
Despite this, the focus of the submission
evidence is on the rezoning from LI to MU.
The Council considers that the LI zone reflects the historically established
activities on the site and capitalises on the locational attributes of the area,
including the proximity to the Centre, to the surrounding MU zone and the RFN. It
also presents a variety of employment and business opportunities desirable to an
area which is currently growing. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure sufficient
supply of industrial land is retained in the Auckland region as a whole, as it is
difficult to identify and establish new areas. We are therefore instructed that the
Council does not support the request to rezone the subject site from LI to MU.
9
10
11
Evidence report of Helen Mary Hamilton on behalf of NCI dated 10 February 2016 at paras 3.2 to 3.4.
Evidence report of Edgar Brett Smithies on behalf of NCI (Valuation and Property Evidence) dated 10 February
2016, and referred to at paras 3.2 to 3.4 of the evidence report of Ms Hamilton.
EIC of Ms Hamilton at paras 2.9 to 2.11.
Page 5
There is an outstanding issue in regards to this site.
As stated above, the
landholdings affecting this site have been reconfigured as part of the AMETI
project. The Council GIS system does nto have the updated cadastral data and
that’s something the Council team is working on. Once the data is available and
the cadastral layout of the area is corrected, we anticipate being able to provide
Council’s position on the full extent of zoning for the NCI Packaging site.
(c)
Southern Isthmus
i.
Sub area C15 – Penrose, Onehunga. The evidence of John Duthie on behalf of
EJV investments opposes the retention of LI on Great South Road and seeks a
rezoning to MU.12 Mr Duthie considers that the proposed LI zoning does not
recognise the existing commercial activities on the sites.13
We are instructed that the Council continues to support the retention of LI zoning
for the sites on Great South Road. This is because the LI zones supported for
retention are existing LI areas and it is necessary to ensure sufficient supply, with
new areas being more difficult to identify. It is acknowledged that this particular
area has a mix of commercial or office based activities that are not provided for
as permitted activities in the LI zone. However, the LI zone provides for the
continued use of existing commercial activities and allows change between
uses. This zone also anticipates a range of supporting activities including food
and drink, dairies and trade suppliers. This area represents the ‘start’ of the wider
LI zone in this area and should be preserved where possible to prevent
incremental loss.
ii.
Sub area C15 – Penrose, Onehunga. The evidence of John Keith Radley on behalf
of R M Lerner and J K Radley opposes the retention of LI zoning for the submitter’s
property at 2 Walls Road and properties to the north on Great South Road (the
same properties identified in EJV Investments submission discussed above). 14
This is due to the proposed LI zoning not recognising the existing office activity on
2 Walls Road. Mr Radley is seeking GB or MU zoning, which he considers more in
keeping with the activities currently carried out on the surrounding land.
The LI zones which the Council supports for retention are established LI areas,
which it considers are necessary to ensure sufficient supply of industrial land, with
12
13
14
Statement of Evidence of John Duthie on Behalf Of Ejv Investments Limited (Planning) dated 10 February 2016.
Ibid at paras 4.1 to 4.6.
Statement of Evidence of John Keith Radley on Behalf of R M Lerner And J K Radley (Submitter 2436 and
Further Submitter 2162), dated 10 February 2016.
Page 6
new areas being more difficult to identify as LI. It is acknowledged that the site at 2
Walls Road is currently used for office activities. However, the revised LI zone
provisions proposed by the Council provide for the continued use of existing
commercial activities and allow change between some commercial uses. This zone
also anticipates a range of supporting activities including food and drink, dairies and
trade suppliers. The Council therefore considers that the current use of the site for
office activities alone is not justification for a change to MU.
iii.
Sub area C15 – Penrose, Onehunga. The evidence of Gerard Thompson on behalf
of Captain Springs Limited 2015 opposes the retention of LI on Captain Springs
Road and Mays Road. 15 This is because the proposed LI zoning does not
adequately reflect either the existing environment, the likely future use of this land,
and is inappropriate in this location. In Mr Thompson’s view, the site and
surrounding block should be rezoned to MU as this would more efficiently and
effectively provide for both the existing and future land uses, and provide an
appropriate transition of activity between the sensitive residential activity to the
north and west, and the more intensive industrial activity to the south of the rail line.
The Council acknowledges that this particular LI area has a mix of uses, including
commercial, office and residential activities. However, the LI zone provides for the
continued operation of existing commercial activities and allows change between
uses. This zone also anticipates a range of supporting activities including food and
drink, dairies and trade suppliers. The Council therefore considers that the presence
of such commercial activities alone is not justification for a change to MU.
The MU zone is typically located around centres and along sections of the rapid and
frequent service network. This provides a transition in terms of scale and activity,
between residential areas and the City Centre and Town Centre zones. In this
instance, the subject properties are located more than 1km from the Onehunga TC
and therefore the Council considers that the application of MU could enable
commercial activity that could harm the function, role and amenity of centres.
The Council is proposing to rezone a large area east of these sites from LI to HI,
including the western side of Maurice Road and 2 – 10 Henderson Place. The
Council considers that application of MU in this location could increase the number
15
Statement of Evidence of Gerard Francis Thompson on Behalf Of Captain Springs 2015 Limited (Further
Submission #3784), dated 10 February 2016.
Page 7
of sensitive residential activities in an area adjacent to LI and HI. The proposed MU
zoning does not meet RPS objectives of 3.1.11a – non-industrial activity on LI land
and 3.1.12 managing reverse sensitivity and therefore we are instructed that the
Council supports the retention of the LI. zone
iv.
Sub area C21 – Ellerslie.
In her evidence on behalf Wilkinson Road Limited
Partnership, Stephanie Hantler supports the submitter’s request for the rezoning of
Wilkinson Road Limited Partnership’s site for MU at 43 Wilkinson Road.16
While the Council acknowledges that resource consent has been granted for a
multi-light commercial building, this can be implemented without the need to change
the zone. As stated above, the revised LI zone provisions proposed by the Council
provide for the continued use of existing commercial activities and allow change
between some commercial uses.
Furthermore, the Council considers that it is necessary to ensure sufficient supply of
industrial land is retained as new areas are more difficult to identify. This area
represents the ‘start’ of a larger and consolidated LI zone in this area and the
Council considers that it should be preserved where possible to prevent incremental
loss.
The zone can also be adjacent to residential areas as the anticipated activities
within this zone do not generate objectionable noise, odour, dust or emissions. The
Council therefore considers that the presence of such commercial activities alone is
not justification for a change to MU.
Additionally, the MU zone is typically located around centres and along sections of
the rapid and frequent service network. This provides a transition in terms of scale
and activity, between residential areas and the Centre zones. This particular area is
located away from Ellerslie Town Centre and is separated by residential and other
LI activities. The Council considers that inappropriately located additional new MU
areas could detract from the function, role and amenity of nearby centres and in
doing so the success of the centres focussed approach in the RPS.
v.
Sub area C21 – Ellerslie.
Mr A Fraser and Mr M Vinall for Kiwi Self-Storage
support the rezoning of sites at Cawley Street including 40 & 80, Ellerslie from LI to
MU.
16
Evidence report of Stephanie Hantler on behalf of Wilkinson Road Limited Partnership, dated 9 February 2016.
Page 8
The Council acknowledges that some LI areas have a mix of uses with some
activities being commercial or office based.
However, the revised LI zone
provisions proposed by the Council provide for the continued use of existing
commercial activities and allow change between some commercial uses. This zone
also anticipates a range of supporting activities including food and drink, dairies and
trade suppliers.
The zone can also be adjacent to residential areas as the
anticipated activities within this zone do not generate objectionable noise, odour,
dust or emissions.
The Council therefore considers that the presence of such
commercial activities alone is not justification for a change to MU.
Furthermore, Council considers that it is necessary to ensure sufficient supply of
industrial land is retained as new areas are more difficult to identify. This area also
represents the ‘start’ of a larger and consolidated LI zone in this area and should be
preserved where possible to prevent incremental loss.
Additionally, the MU zone is typically located around centres and along sections of
the rapid and frequent service network. This provides a transition in terms of scale
and activity, between residential areas and the Centre zones. This particular area is
located away from Ellerslie TC and is separated by a residential area. The Council
considers that additional new MU areas could detract from the function, role and
amenity of nearby centres and in doing so the success of the centres focussed
approach in the RPS, and therefore does not support the requested zoning change
to MU.
vi.
Sub area C21 – Ellerslie. Mr M Vinall for Cawley Street Investments supports Kiwi
Self Storage’s and Cawley Investments request for MU zoning for sites on Cawley
Street, Ellerslie.
The Council acknowledges that some LI areas have a mix of uses with some
activities being commercial or office based.
However, the revised LI zone
provisions proposed by Council provide for the continued use of existing
commercial activities and allow change between some commercial uses.
This
zone also anticipates a range of supporting activities including food and drink,
dairies and trade suppliers. The zone can also be adjacent to residential areas as
the anticipated activities within this zone do not generate objectionable noise,
odour, dust or emissions. The Council therefore considers that the presence of
such commercial activities alone is not justification for a change to MU.
Page 9
Furthermore, Council considers that it is necessary to ensure sufficient supply of
industrial land is retained as new areas are more difficult to identify. This area also
represents the ‘start’ of a larger and consolidated LI zone in this area and should be
preserved where possible to prevent incremental loss.
Additionally, the MU zone is typically located around centres and along sections of
the rapid and frequent service network. This provides a transition in terms of scale
and activity, between residential areas and the Centre zones. This particular area
is located away from Ellerslie TC and is separated by a residential area.
The
Council considers that additional new MU areas could detract from the function,
role and amenity of nearby centres and in doing so the success of the centres
focussed approach in the RPS, and therefore does not support the requested
zoning change to MU.
vii. Sub area C21 - Mr N Roberts and Mr Riley (Urban Design) for the Sultan Trust
support the submitter’s request to rezone 2-4 Sultan Street and 15-17 Kalmia
Street, Ellerslie from LI to MU due to the proximity of the sites to the TC and RFN.
Mr Riley supports this with additional urban design evidence.
It is noted that both Mr Roberts and Mr Riley acknowledge the proximity to Ellerslie
Town Centre via the nearby pedestrian tunnel and overpass and agree that zoning
is a balancing act. In re-examining these sites for potential MU as opposed to TC,
the Council has revisited the sites and surrounding area and considers that the
businesses are varied and are of the type that could be found in a LI area.
The Council acknowledges that the Unitary Plan is a forward looking plan, however
the retention of LI areas in close proximity to centres can also provide a variety of
employment and business opportunities to meet the community’s needs arising
from population growth.
The retention of LI activities in these areas can also
provide sustainable and ongoing economic development being close to major
routes and rail connections as well as providing for the social, cultural and economic
well-being of a community.
As stated above, the Council considers that it is necessary to ensure sufficient
supply of industrial land is retained as new areas are more difficult to identify.
Incremental loss in general and of smaller light industry sites near centres may lead
Page 10
to a supply issue in the future. We are therefore instructed that the Council does
not support a change to MU and proposes retention of the notified LI zone.
viii. Sub area C18 – Mt Wellington.
In his evidence on behalf of Fulton Hogan
Limited, Mr Tollemache seeks to amend the zoning of 4 Reliable Way and
surrounding properties, from LI to HI.17
The Council acknowledges the context of the Fulton Hogan site, however, the LI
zone also provides for existing activities that are located within the zone.
Therefore the Council considers that the presence alone of such activities is not
justification enough to rezone the area to HI; other factors including the proximity
to existing residential areas needs to be considered. Furthermore, the Council
considers that if the zone is amended to HI, over time this could encourage
additional HI activities to the area that are less benign, which could cause
sensitivity issues given the proximity to the surrounding residential development.
We are therefore instructed that the Council does not support a change to HI and
continues to support the retention of the notified LI zone.
ix. Sub area C18 – Mt Wellington. In his evidence on behalf of AML Limited & Allied
Concrete, Mr Tollemache supports the rezoning of 20 Leon-Leicester Avenue,
Mount Wellington from LI to HI.18
The Council acknowledges the context of the site however, the LI zone also
provides for existing activities that are located within the zone. Therefore the
Council does not consider that the presence alone of such activities is
justification enough to rezone the area to HI; other factors including the proximity
to existing residential zones need to be considered. Furthermore, the Council
considers that if the zone is amended to HI, over time this could encourage
additional HI activities to the area that are less benign which could cause
sensitivity issues given the proximity to the surrounding residential development.
We are therefore instructed that the Council does not support a change to HI and
continues to support retention of the notified LI zone.
17
18
Statement of Evidence of Mark Tollemache for Fulton Hogan Limited In Relation To Topic 081e Rezoning And
Precincts (Geographical Areas), dated 10 February 2016.
Statement of Evidence of Mark Tollemache for AML Limited & Allied Concrete Limited In Relation To Topic 081
Rezoning, dated 10 February 2016.
Page 11
x.
Sub area C18 – Mt Wellington. In her evidence report on behalf of the Salvation
Army, Ms R Fraser-Smith supports the submitter’s request for a rezoning of 18
Allright Place, Mount Wellington from LI to MU.
The site is on the edge and within a LI area and is adjacent to an area of THAB.
The revised LI zone provisions proposed by the Council provide for the continued
use of existing commercial activities and allow change between some
commercial uses.
This zone also anticipates a range of supporting activities
including food and drink, dairies and trade suppliers. While it is acknowledged
that there is some MU to the west of the site along Carbine Road, the Council
considers that additional MU areas away from centres and the RFN are not
appropriate. We are therefore instructed that the Council does not support the
requested change to MU and proposes retention of the notified LI zone.
Other Rezoning Requests
9.
The Council has considered a number of submitter requests for zoning changes, which
would have otherwise been addressed in rebuttal evidence from its witnesses.
These
requests are discussed below according to their sub area.
(a)
City Centre Fringe
(i)
Sub area C7 – Newton. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) –
(1725-434) has sought to rezone 35 Grafton Road, Grafton from Strategic
Transport Corridor (STC) to MU. The site is located outside the NZTA’s
Designation 6736.
This submission point was addressed by Sukhdeep Singh under Topic
080.19 Ms Singh supported the removal of the STC zone from 35 Grafton
Road because it aligns with the primary zoning principle for the STC zone
where the STC zone should not be applied to any land outside the NZTA
and KiwiRail designations. Consequential to this rezoning, she suggested
that the High Land Transport Route Noise overlay apply to the subject site
and the appropriate zone for this site be determined under Topic 081
(Geographical Area).
19
Evidence Report of Sukhdeep Singh on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 080, General – Special Purpose
Strategic Transport Corridor Zone, dated 3 December 2015 at paras 10.17 to 10.19.
Page 12
We are instructed that the Council considers it is appropriate to rezone 35
Grafton Road from STC to MU and to apply the High Land Transport Route
Noise overlay on the site, given its close proximity to the City Centre and
Hospital. It is noted that the adjacent land to the south is also zoned MU.
The site has also recently been rezoned by Private Plan Change 58 under
the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section) from the
Transport Corridor Precinct to Business 4 under the Operative Isthmus
District Plan. Both of these plan changes were approved by the Auckland
Council and made operative on 13 January 2013.
(b)
Eastern Isthmus
(i)
Sub area C19 – Stonefields and Panmure. In its submission point 6069
relating to 1-37 Mount Wellington Highway, Bunnings Ltd (Bunnings)
requested a rezoning of the subject site from MU to General Business (GB).
In his evidence on behalf of Bunnings, Matthew Norwell states that the
current manufacturing use of the site will be vacating and Bunnings Ltd will
be establishing a new outlet on the site. 20 In light of this, Mr Norwell
considers that the GB zone is more appropriate for the site.21 Mr Norwell
points out that as the adjoining property to the south is zoned GB then this
request would not result in a spot zone.22
We are instructed that the Council does not support the requested rezoning.
The Council considers that the application of the GB zone is limited and
tends to reflect the existing development on site. The Council considers that
MU is a better fit in this location, having regard to the RFN, walking distance
to centres and its supporting role for nearby centres.
(ii)
Sub area C19 – Stonefields and Panmure. In its submission point 656, Body
Corporate 197887 requests the rezoning of 20-54 Mount Wellington Highway
from GB to MU. In his evidence on behalf of Body Corporate 197887, David
Haines considers that the current GB zone limits the potential development
of the site given its location and with particular regard to the recent
improvements in the transport network based around the nearby Panmure
20
21
22
Second statement of evidence of Matthew Norwell on behalf of Bunnings Ltd (Mt Wellington) dated 10 February
2016 at para 3.1.
Ibid, para 4.2.
Ibid, para 4.4.
Page 13
TC.23 In addition, Mr Haines requests the application of a precinct over the
site to ensure the existing Large Format Retail activities are properly
recognised in the interim.24
As discussed above, the application of the GB zone throughout the region
has been limited and generally reflects and enables the existing
development of the site while protecting against any adverse effects of the
LFR, which is the primary purpose of this zone. The Council considers that
this is evident in this instance. The zone is surrounded by MU, which acts as
a buffer between this development and the surrounding residential
environment. We are therefore instructed that the Council does not support
the requested rezoning of this site from GB to MU.
With regard to the proposed precinct, the Council has assessed this proposal
against the relevant criteria of the Merits Assessment for new precincts
(based on the interim guidance of the Panel in their “Best Practice Approach
for Precincts”).25 We are instructed by the Council that the precinct has
failed to meet the relevant criteria, particularly on the grounds that it only
represents a single purpose which is based on the underlying zone controls.
The underlying zone and associated activities continue to be supported by
the Council in this location.
Mr Brown’s landscape evidence responds to a submission by Todd Property
Group Limited (Todd Property) (submission 4909-38), which sought the
application of Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zoning to a
strip of land at 80 Korere St, Stonefields. The site is between the existing
Stonefields subdivision and the foot of Mt Wellington. Mr Brown accepts that
an area or areas of reserve / open space are unlikely to be achieved across
the subject land, and proposes instead that the land be rezoned Single
House with a height limit of 8m. We note that the planning evidence of Neil
Donnelly for Todd Property dated 10 February 2016 filed in response agrees
that THAB zone is inappropriate and proposes MHS zone instead. We are
instructed that the Council, relying on Mr Brown’s evidence, considers Single
House zone to be appropriate.
23
24
25
Statement of Primary Evidence of David R Haines on behalf of Body Corporate 197887, dated 10 February
2016, at para 16.
Ibid at paras 19-21 and Annexure 3.
This guidance was relied upon by Mr Haines at para 34 of his EIC.
Page 14
(iii)
Sub area C22 – Glendowie.
In her submitter evidence,26 Suzanne Weld
seeks retention of the SH zone in ‘parts of the Glendowie and Wai o Taiki
Bay area which run down to the estuary’. Ms Weld notes in her evidence
that her original submission on this matter is not included in the primary
evidence of Ms Lucas and Ms Papaconstantinou on behalf of the Council for
Topic 081 – Central Rezoning – Eastern Isthmus. Ms Weld’s original
submission was unfortunately not given a submission point number or
addressed directly in the primary evidence report of Ms Lucas and Ms
Papaconstantinou.27
We are instructed that the Council does not support the retention of the SH
zone generally throughout the Wai o Taiki Bay area except where
environmental constraints, such as flooding risk, exist on sites that would
preclude rezoning to MHS. Where sites are not subject to any constraints,
rezoning to MHS has been supported by the Council. The Council considers
that the MHS zone is consistent with the zoning principles set out in John
Duguid’s Statement of Primary Evidence (Topic 081 Rezoning), and
therefore does not support the request to retain SH zoning in this area.
(iv)
Sub area C23 – St Heliers, Mission Bay and Kohimarama. In her further
submission point FS2192 and supporting evidence,28 Ms Frances Battersby
on behalf of the Frances Battersby Family Trust opposes a number of
submissions which seek to either rezone the properties at 96 and 98 Allum
Street from SH to MHS or seek to remove the SEA (SEA_T_6180) from
these properties. Ms Battersby supports her position with evidence that she
presented post hearing for Topic 023 (SEA and vegetation management).29
As a result of this evidence the Council has agreed to include an additional
area of SEA for the abovementioned properties, consequently increasing the
area to greater than 20% (the measure applied as a trigger for the rezoning
principles).
In its submission point 7094, Kohimarama Trust Limited requests that the SH
zone for properties 110 – 126 Allum Street, 278 – 280 Kohimarama Road
26
27
28
29
Evidence report of Suzanne Weld for Topic 081 dated 11 February 2016.
However, Ms Weld’s further submission, in opposition to the Tamaki Redevelopment company submission to
rezone from SH to MHS in this area (#4854-10) was considered at Attachment C of the EIC of Ms Lucas and
Ms Papaconstantinou.
Evidence report of Frances Battersby on behalf of the Frances Battersby Family Trust dated 10 February 2016.
As discussed in the legal submissions for the Frances Battersby Family Trust for Topic 023, dated 10 August
2016.
Page 15
and the southern portion of 19 Pamela Place be rezoned to MHS and that
reference to the SEA be removed for these properties and for 92 – 108 Allum
Road.
The properties between 92 – 128 Allum Street and 280 – 310 Kohimarama
Road, Mission Bay had a notified zone of SH (278 Kohimarama Road was
notified as MHS). They were subject to the Historic Character overlay
(proposed to be revised from Special Character overlay). This has since
been retracted from these properties as the result of a review of this overlay
through Topic 079 (Special Character and Pre-1944 Mapping).
The properties are also subject to the SEA – SEA_T_6180 to varying
degrees. In accordance with the Council’s zoning principles, where an SEA
affects more than 20% of the property then the property is to be zoned SH.
Based on the advice of Council’s Biodiversity experts in terms of the SEA
coverage it was advised that the SH zone should remain over the properties
110 – 126 Allum Street and 280 Kohimarama Road and be applied to 278
Kohimarama Road. The remaining properties were considered to have
sufficient land area unaffected by the SEA and therefore could be rezoned
MHS.
With specific regard to the properties at 96 and 98 Allum Street - on their
own these properties constitute a spot zone if zoned SH while retaining MHS
zone over some other properties along Allum Street as addressed in the
Council’s primary evidence for Topic 081e.. Consequently, the Council
considers that keeping the proposed zone of MHS (as outlined in Council’s
primary evidence) is appropriate in this case and that the criteria and
controls applied through the SEA overlay will manage the effects of any
future development of these sites.
For the reasons discussed above, we are instructed that the Council does
not support the requests to rezone the properties at 110-126 Allum Street,
278-280 Kohimarama Road or the southern portion of 19 Pamela Place,
Mission Bay.
Page 16
(c)
Western Isthmus
(i)
Sub area C14 - Lynfield, Blockhouse Bay and Hillsborough. The evidence of
David Wren on behalf of Peng Chen (FS3898) opposes the retention of the
notified SH zone at 22 Martin Avenue and the application of the Pre-1944
BDC on this property. 30 This is due to the site's location and ability to
provide for increased residential intensities close to a railway station. Mr
Wren supports the change of zone from notified SH to MHS zone at 22
Martin Avenue.31
This further submission is requesting an out of scope change as the property
subject to this evidence (22 Martin Avenue, Mount Albert) does not align with
the properties mentioned in the original submissions of Peng Chen (8393712, 839-4308 and 839-4309). We are instructed that the change sought to
rezone 22 Martin Avenue to MHS zone is not supported by the Council as
this site is affected by the Pre-1944 BDC and the outcomes the Pre-1944
BDC seeks to achieve align with the objectives of the SH zone. 32 The
Council supports the retention of the notified SH zone to ensure that spot
zoning does not occur and the integrity of Margaret Avenue and Chatham
Avenue is maintained through the consistent application of the SH zone over
the block (Margaret Avenue, Chatham Avenue, Martin Avenue and Parkdale
Road).
(ii)
Sub area C14 - Lynfield, Blockhouse Bay and Hillsborough. The evidence of
Peter Reaburn33 and Chris Solleder34 on behalf of RSSB NZ Limited (5501)
support the proposed change of notified SH to MHS zone at 78 and 80 Olsen
Ave, Hillsborough in the Evidence Report of Gurvinderpal Singh, Stephen
Craig Van Kampen, Vanita Ranchhod, Cosette Mia Saville, and Tim
Jeevanraj Solomon on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 081e – Central
Area Rezoning – Western Isthmus.35
30
31
32
33
34
35
Statement of Primary Evidence of Edward David Wren On Behalf Of Peng Chen, dated 10 February 2016.
Ibid at paras 8-9.
As discussed in the evidence report of Deborah Olivia Rowe nn Behalf Of Auckland Council for Topic 080
(Planning - Pre-1944 Overlay Zoning Principles), dated 3 December 2015.
Statement of Evidence of Peter Dean Reaburn on Behalf Of RSSB NZ Limited, 78- 80 Olsen Avenue and 66
And 68 Melrose Road, dated 10 February 2016.
Statement of Evidence of Chris Anthony Solleder (Engineering) on Behalf of RSSB NZ Limited, 78-80 Olsen
Avenue and 66 And 68 Melrose Road, dated 10 February 2016.
At Attachment C.
Page 17
However, Mr Reaburn opposes the retention of the notified SH zone at 66
and 68 Melrose Road, Mount Roskill.36 Mr Reaburn seeks a zone change at
66 and 68 Melrose Road from notified SH to MHS zone.
Mr Solleder
considers that the construction of an additional stormwater trunk line has
reduced the flooding risks over the 66 and 68 Melrose Road properties and
supports a zone change to MHS.37
Jon Rix from Tonkin and Taylor on behalf of Auckland Council’s Stormwater
Unit has reviewed the engineering report prepared by Mr Solleder and
confirms that the new stormwater trunk line that passes through the subject
property, constructed to alleviate flooding on Olsen Avenue does not
alleviate the 1% AEP flooding risks at 66 and 68 Melrose Road. The new
stormwater pipe does not reduce the predicted extent or level of the 1% AEP
flood event. Instead, the new pipe reduces flood risk in more frequently
occurring storm events. The flood mapping on Council’s GIS reflects the 1%
AEP flood risk present on the site. The properties at 66 and 68 Melrose
Road are affected by flooding constraints and therefore we are instructed
that the Council does not support the proposed the zone change from SH to
MHS.
(iii)
Sub area C13 – Royal Oak. The evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of
The Warehouse Limited (2748, FS2880) opposes the proposed rezoning
from notified THAB zone to MU zone at 677, 677A and 679 Mt Albert Road,
Royal Oak in the Evidence Report of Mr Singh, Mr Van Kampen, Ms
Ranchhod, Ms Saville, and Mr Solomon on behalf of the Council and seeks a
zone change to GB.38
These sites are currently used as a secondary access way to large format
retail activities on 100 Pah Road, Royal Oak. The sites are located on the
Mount Albert Road RFN in close walking distance to the Royal Oak Town
Centre, adjacent to MU and THAB zoned properties.
The Council’s approach to rezoning takes into account the long term goals of
the RPS which include providing for commercial growth that contributes
36
37
38
EIC of Mr Reaburn for RSSB NZ at para 3.2.
EIC of Mr Solleder for RSSB NZ at paras 2.2 to 3.1.
Statement of Evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of The Warehouse Limited (Submitter Number 2748,
Further Submitter No. 2878) Rezoning – 100 Pah Road and 677, 677A and 679 Mt Albert Road, Royal Oak,
dated 11 February 2016 at para 41.
Page 18
positively to amenity and achieves a compact and efficient urban form
focused within a hierarchy of centres and identified growth corridors.
The Council considers that the proposed MU zoning provides for the most
appropriate future development potential to support the functioning of the
Royal Oak TC, allowing for a transition zone between the TC to the east and
the THAB zone to the west, and encouraging the creation of active street
interface along a prominent and well pedestrianized part of the Mount Albert
Road RFN. We are therefore instructed that the Council does not support
the requested rezoning to GB, and considers that the existing use of the
sites as an access way to The Warehouse will continue to be provided for
through existing resource consents.
(iv)
Sub area C10 - Epsom, Mount Eden and Eden South. The evidence of Vern
Warren on behalf of The Warehouse Limited (2748, FS2880) opposes the
retention of the notified SH zone at 16 Rocklands Ave, Balmoral and seeks a
change of zone to LC.39
The Council considers that rezoning to LC would provide greater scope for
development than was provided for by Plan Change 209 in the Auckland
Council District Plan – Isthmus Section (Isthmus District Plan). This Plan
Change resulted in the rezoning of the site from Residential 6A to Business 2
in the Isthmus District Plan with additional restrictive controls limiting the type
of development on the site.
The Council considers that LC zoning could result in significant adverse
effects on the residential amenity of Rocklands Ave, beyond the adverse
effects which the Plan Change sought to control. The proposed
comprehensive development of the site at 16 Rocklands Ave, Balmoral is still
able
to
be
undertaken
through
the
approved
resource
consents
(R/LUC/2013/3990 and R/REG/2013/4253). In addition, the site is affected
by the HC overlay. The outcomes of the HC are generally aligned with the
objectives of the SH zone. We are therefore instructed that the Council does
not support the requested rezoning from notified SH to LC zone at 16
Rocklands Ave.
39
Primary Statement of Evidence of Vern Warren on behalf of The Warehouse Limited (Submitter Number 2748),
dated 11 February 2016 at paras 35 to 38.
Page 19
(v)
Sub area C11 - Stoddard Rd, Sandringham Rd Extension and Mount Roskill.
Gerard Thompson, on behalf of Kiwi Income Property Trust Limited and Kiwi
Property Holdings Limited (5253), considers that LC zoning for the May
Road end of Stoddard Road and the Richardson Road/Stoddard Road
intersection is more appropriate than the notified PAUP zoning of GB and
TC; the MU zoning for the section of land along Stoddard Road between
Richardson Road and Sandringham Road Extension is more appropriate
than the notified PAUP zoning of TC; and the GB zoning for 112 Stoddard
Road, Mount Roskill is more appropriate than the notified PAUP zoning of
TC.40
Mr Thompson considers that the notified TC zoning for the centre at the
section of land along Stoddard Road between Richardson Road and
Sandringham Road Extension and the notified GB zoning for the May
Road/Stoddard Road end is inappropriate.41 His view is that the LC zone for
both ends of Stoddard Road, with a combination of MU, GB and LI zones in
between, is more appropriate.42
Vaughan Smith, on behalf of The National Trading Company of New Zealand
Limited (NTC) (2632, FS2963) agrees with the planning analysis and
recommendations stated by Mr Thompson, which are supported by NTC’s
submission and evidence.43
Michael Fisher, Bobby Shen and John Mackay, on behalf of The New
Zealand Institute of Architects Inc., Urban Design Forum and Generation
Zero (5277, FS3235, 5280, 5478, FS2558), expressed concern at the size
and extent of the notified Stoddard Road TC, MU and GB zones.44 Mr Shen
is of the view that it is unnecessary to create a business/retail zone longer
than Ponsonby Road and more than twice as wide at Stoddard Road.
40
41
42
43
44
Planning Statement of Evidence of Gerard Thompson on Behalf Of Kiwi Income Property Trust Limited And Kiwi
Property Holdings Limited (#5253/79-80), Topic 081e – Rezoning And Precincts (Geographical Areas),
Stoddard Road Rezoning, dated 10 February 2016.
Ibid at paras 4.2 and 4.3.
Ibid at para 5.2.
Statement of Evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of The National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited
(Submitter Number 2632, Further Submitter No. 2963), Rezoning – Stoddard Road, dated 12 February 2016 at
para 5.
Statement of Expert Evidence of Michael Fisher, Bobby Shen, John Mackay Topic 080 and O81 - Zoning and
Precincts, 081e CENTRAL (Western Isthmus) and 081e CENTRAL (Southern Isthmus) on behalf of the New
Zealand Institute of Architects, dated 10 February 2016, at para 9.7.
Page 20
53 May Road contains a New World supermarket. 20-22 Stoddard Road
contains the Warehouse, as well as a number of other business and retail
activities including banks and some chain store food outlets.
We are instructed that the Council does not support the request to change to
the LC zone because it does not meet RPS 3.1 Policy 4 and 6 (criteria for a
new Local Centre) and will undermine the future development of the notified
Stoddard Road TC which is located 550m north of this site. The subject site
is set up as large format retail with a mix of small and large scaled retail
activities. It has poor street interface and is dominated by a car-oriented
environment.
We are instructed that the Council does not support the
potential future development available at this site if zoned to LC zone and
considers that the form and function of the proposed LC zone for this site is
not consistent with Policy 3.1.4 of the PAUP.
In addition, the Council considers that the location of the proposed LC zone
change is not consistent with Policy 3.1.6(b) and will undermine the
sustainable distribution of centres in the PAUP. The proposed LC is located
too close to the existing Stoddard Road TC. The change to LC will create
adverse effects, both individually and cumulatively with the Stoddard Road
TC, on the distribution, function, role and amenity of the TC, beyond those
effects ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade competition.
We are instructed that the Council supports the retention of the notified GB
zone at 53 May Road and 20-22 Stoddard Road, Mount Roskill. The retail
activities provided on the site are appropriately located and identified as part
of the GB zone. The PAUP’s zoning of these sites as GB reflects business
activities that may be less appropriate for, or are not able to locate in
centres, while ensuring activities within the zone do not diminish the function,
role and amenity of the Stoddard Road TC.
The section of land (both sides) along Stoddard Road between Richardson
Road and Sandringham Road Extension contains a number of small and
large scale retail and commercial activities, residential properties and
community facilities.
Page 21
We are instructed that the Council does not support the request to change
the notified TC zone to a mix of LC, MU and GB zones. The area is identified
as a TC under the Auckland Plan and RPS Centres Hierarchy. It is a focal
point for community interaction and contains a diverse range of activities
which are distinctive to this centre. The area is very visible and accessible,
especially to the new SH20 connection currently under construction. There is
a significant amount of growth potential and redevelopment opportunities
(both commercial and residential) in the area.
The Council considers that a down-zone to a LC zone or a mix of zones will
not provide the sufficient space and opportunity for commercial and
residential growth in this area. The application of the notified TC zone
recognises and provides additional redevelopment potential in the area that
is anticipated long-term for this area.
(d)
Southern Isthmus
(i)
Sub area C18 – Mt Wellington.
Mr C Moriarty for Summerset Group
Holdings Limited supports the rezoning of 2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 Harrison Road,
Mount Wellington from MHU to MU.45 Mr Moriarty considers the proposed
zone of MHU for 8 Harrison Road to be a spot zone and that MU would
reflect the density and scale with the use being provided for in the MU zone.
The Council’s proposed zoning of the subject site to MHU is set out in the
Evidence Report of Ms Stainwright, Mr Wilson and Mr Eccles for Topic 081e
Central Rezoning – Southern Isthmus.
The site at 8 Harrison Road is approximately 38,000m2, and located
opposite an area of MHU.
As such, the Council does not consider the
provision of the proposed MHU zone to be a spot zone. The MU zone is
typically located around centres and along sections of the rapid and frequent
service network. This provides a transition in terms of scale and activity,
between residential areas and the Centre zones.
This particular area is
located away from Ellerslie Town Centre and as such any substantial new
MU area could detract from the function, role and amenity of nearby centres
and in doing so the success of the centres focussed approach in the RPS.
45
Statement Of Primary Evidence Of Craig Barry Moriarty for Summerset Group, dated 18 February 2016.
Page 22
The map in the Primary Evidence of Ms Stainwright, Mr Wilson and Mr
Eccles,46 shows the proposed change as in scope where it should be an out
of scope change. This is a result of proposing an alternative zone to that
requested by submitters. This proposed change was presented in the EIC
of Mr Philip Brown in Topic 080d Retirement villages. We are instructed that
the Council does not support the change to MU and continues to support
proposed zone of MHU for 8 Harrison Road and support the retention of LI
for the remaining sites.
Housing New Zealand Submissions
10.
As discussed above, there is a significant divergence in the approach to zoning principles
taken by HNZ and the approach taken by the Council.
To assist the Panel, the key
differences in the rezoning position of the Council and HNZ for the Central area (by topic
area and sub area) are set out below.
City Centre Fringe
Ponsonby / Herne Bay / St Marys Bay/ Freemans Bay [ C2 ]
11.
HNZ has only shown on its “Principles Map” attached to its planners' evidence in chief how
Ponsonby would be impacted47 – the actual extent of to where HNZ’s rezoning evidence
applies is not clear. While further detail has been provided for areas surrounding HNZ
landholdings in Grey Lynn and Freemans Bay in particular, it is difficult to see to where the
‘scope for change’ according to HNZ extends.
12.
HNZ’s application of MHU in Kelmarna Ave and Moira Street is based on walking distance
to Herne Bay LC, park and school. The Council’s position is predominantly MHS and SH
zones in these same areas. HNZ is applying MHU extensively over areas identified with
Pre-1944 BDC overlays, where the Council is proposing to retain SH zone.
13.
HNZ properties around Anglesea and Hepburn Streets, Freemans Bay, are subject to the
HC overlay. It is submitted that HNZ’s application of THAB has no regard for the HC
overlay. Its proposed zoning is based on the location of Ponsonby TC and RFN in relation
to the HNZ properties and surrounding areas.
46
47
Page 144, Map ‘Central C18, Mount Wellington – Revised Zones’.
Joint Statement of Primary Evidence of Amelia Linzey and Matthew Lindenberg on behalf of HNZ for Topic 081,
dated 19 February 2016, Attachment B.
Page 23
Grey Lynn / Westmere [ C3 ]:
14.
HNZ’s positon seeks extensively wider application of MHU and THAB zoning than that
proposed by the Council. Properties in Grey Lynn and Westmere, including the area
surrounding the West Lynn shops, are extensively identified with HC or Pre-1944 BDC
overlays.
15.
In accordance with HNZ’s principle that overlays should not impact on zoning,48 HNZ’s
application of MHU or THAB does not take into consideration the Pre-1944 BDC around
West Lynn LC.
16.
The Council notes that HNZ has applied the MHU zone beyond 800m from the Grey Lynn
and Westmere LCs, thus appearing to be ‘stretching’ the application of its principles in this
area causing further divergence from the Council’s position.
17.
HNZ properties around Great North Road in Grey Lynn are subject to flooding and sloping
topography. In accordance with its principles, HNZ ignores these constraints and its
application of THAB and MU zones is primarily based on their principles regarding walking
distance to LC and RFN.
Kingsland / Morningside [ C6 ]:
18.
HNZ’s application of THAB on Saint Lukes Road is based on the location of its properties
close to TC and RFN. In this same area, the Council’s position is predominantly MHU and
MHS zones as notified zones, and there is some in-scope rezoning to MHU south of Saint
Lukes Road.
Eastern Isthmus
Remuera/ Meadowbank/ Saint Johns [ C25 ]:
19.
In the area around Meadowbank train station, HNZ’s position applies MHU extending
further from the RFN (train station and on Meadowbank Road), whereas the Council’s
position rezones to MHU approx. 250m from the station through in-scope changes
responding to submissions. This aligns with the Council’s principles and the submissions
48
As discussed in the joint statement of evidence of Ms Linzey and Mr Lindenberg on behalf of HNZ for Topic
080, and referred to at para 33 of their joint statement of evidence for Topic 081.
Page 24
that requested intensification within proximity of the station. HNZ (and some of the
submitters in this area) seek to extend MHU further than that which the Council is
proposing.
20.
The Council's position is that areas subject to the HC overlay should be SH. HNZ does not
take into consideration the HC overlay over these sites and proposes MHU as it aligns with
the HNZ locational zoning principles regarding proximity to the RFN.
21.
HNZ has extensive application of MHU throughout the whole area beyond the rezoning
principle criteria. Following the Council's Resolution of the Council on 24 February 2016
(Resolution), its position has spot zones of MHU.
22.
In the area of Coates Ave and Kepa Road, it appears as if no consideration is given by
HNZ to overlays (pre-1944 BDC). However, HNZ’s position broadly reflects the Council's
principles in regards to proximity to RFN on Coates Ave and Kepa Road.
Mission Bay / Kohimarama / Saint Heliers [ C23 ]:
23.
HNZ seeks MHU zoning along Kohimarama Road, Godden Crescent, and Atkin Ave in line
with its principles in relation to proximity to the RFN. For the most part however, the zoning
proposed in much of the Mission Bay, Kohimarama, Saint Heliers, and Glendowie areas
appears to be more in line with the Council’s principles than HNZ’s principles. Applying the
HNZ principles would result in significantly more THAB and MHU zoning in these areas, as
can be seen on the HNZ “principles map” filed with their planners' evidence in chief.
Glendowie [ C22 ]:
24.
The Council’s position following its Resolution has resulted in spot zones of MHU in
Crossfield Rd, Cranbrook Place and Riddell Rd, with a mix of MHS and SH elsewhere.
HNZ’s position generally reflects the Council’s primary report as noted in respect of Mission
Bay / Kohimarama / Saint Heliers above.
Stonefields/ Panmure/Glen Innes and Point England [ C19 and C20 ]:
25.
The major differences are that HNZ applies additional MHU in the north around Leybourne
Circle and Castledine Crescent (which the Council proposes to zone as MHS) and
additional THAB east of the Panmure TC along Matapan Road towards Dunkirk. HNZ has
Page 25
proposed intensification in this area based around it being a Special Housing Area and as
part of the regeneration area led by Tamaki Redevelopment Company .
Western Isthmus
Epsom/ Sandringham / Saint Lukes / Mt Eden [ C10 ]:
26.
Only parts of the south and east of this area are included in the HNZ maps. HNZ appears
to retain the THAB zoning proposed by the Council around Dominion Road and around the
Sandringham Rd LC and St Lukes TC with minimal expansion.
27.
HNZ has generally proposed MHU zoning to the rest of its properties due to their proximity
to FNs, replacing MHS and SH zonings as proposed in the Council’s evidence which were
due to heritage and flooding.
Stoddard Road, Sandringham Rd Extension and Mt Roskill [ C11 ]:
28.
HNZ’s position seeks significantly greater application of THAB, replacing MHU, MHS and
SH being the Council’s position (following the Resolution) around Stoddard Road TC. This
is primarily to the north of the TC where there are flooding issues. HNZ proposes that MHU
be applied to all other HNZ areas, whereas the Council’s position is to retain predominantly
MHS zone. Much of this area is within the HSA overlay.
Three Kings [ C12 ]:
29.
HNZ seeks greater application of THAB around Three Kings TC, particularly to the West
and South. Notably this includes areas along the western ridge of the quarry. HNZ seeks
that all other areas are generally zoned MHU. The difference between the Council’s
position (following the Resolution) and HNZ is more pronounced to the west of the Quarry
where the Council’s position on zoning is primarily SH and MHS.
30.
HNZ and the Council both appear to support a SH zoning to the north of the Three Kings
maunga so as to not impact views of the maunga. This contradicts the MHU zoning it has
proposed elsewhere around the maunga and its own principles.
Page 26
Royal Oak [ C13 ]
31.
HNZ has largely kept the Council’s zonings in this sub area, except for expansion of THAB
over Council’s MHS zoned areas to the south-east of the Royal Oak TC.
Point Chevalier / Waterview [ C4 ]:
32.
HNZ seeks an expanded THAB zoning around the Point Chevalier Town Centre to align
with its principle of having THAB zoning within 400 metres from a Town Centre.
The
proposed MHU zoning is substantially expanded (it does not acknowledge pre-1944 BDC
and flooding overlays) around THAB areas, Meola Rd.
33.
HNZ has not applied its principles to the full extent down the northern end of Pt Chevalier
Rd, instead keeping largely to the Council position (which has not changed following the
Resolution).
34.
In Waterview, HNZ has largely supported the Council position (which has not changed
following the Resolution), however HNZ has slightly extended the application of the MHU
zone.
Mt Albert [ C5 ]:
35.
HNZ seeks an expanded THAB zoning around the Mt Albert TC and sites close to the
Stoddard Rd TC, disregarding heritage overlays. It also seeks a large expansion of MHU
covering the large majority of HNZ properties in the area.
Avondale / New Windsor /Blockhouse Bay [ W15 ]:
36.
The only difference is that the Council’s position (following the Resolution) proposes that
some properties along Wingate St and Great North Rd be zoned MHU, whereas HNZ has
proposed zoning this area as THAB due to its proximity to the Avondale TC.
Avondale / Rosebank Road [ W14 ]:
37.
In the Avondale/ Rosebank residential areas north & north-east of Ash Street and Great
North Road, the areas proposed to be zoned as THAB are generally the same in the HNZ
and the Council positions. However, HNZ proposes a much wider application of MHU than
Page 27
the Council, covering most of this residential area. The extent of MHU zoning applied by
HNZ is in some cases inconsistent with its own principles regarding proximity to a Town
Centre (beyond 800m) and/or frequent transport network (beyond 250m).
38.
The proposed HNZ rezoning takes no account of some significant flooding constraints in
this area. The Council’s position is to zone areas with significant flooding contraints as SH.
39.
Coastal areas that are constrained by good pedestrian accessibility (given cul-de-sac
roading design) to Town Centre and/or public transport have been proposed to be rezoned
to MHS by HNZ, whereas the Council position (following the Resolution) has been to zone
as SH.
Avondale Town Centre & nearby residential areas to the north
40.
HNZ generally proposes a similar application of the TC and MU zones as the Council, but
HNZ proposes a much wider application of the THAB & MHU zones north of the Town
Centre as it does not take into account Pre-1944 & identified historic character areas where
the Council has proposed zoning MHS or SH.
Southern Isthmus
Penrose /Onehunga [C15]:
41.
In these areas, HNZ has not considered overlays and has proposed up-zoning, in
particular, a wider application of THAB & MHU, and increased use of higher densities
further away from Onehunga Town Centre.
One Tree Hill/Oranga [C16]:
42.
In this area, HNZ has sought a wider application of MHU, than proposed by the Council,
and it has not considered overlays.
Mount Wellington [C18]:
43.
HNZ seeks a wider extent of MHU be applied due to interpretation of its proximity principles
and definition of a ‘Frequent Network (FN)’ as opposed to a Rapid and Frequent Transit
Page 28
Network (RFN), and a wider application of THAB & MHU in general including in Parry
Road, Walters Road and surrounds.
Otahuhu [S8]:
44.
HNZ has not considered overlays or reverse sensitivity due to the proximity to Heavy
Industry areas and has proposed up-zoning in those areas. It has also proposed a wider
application for MHU and gone beyond its own principles in some areas including Princes
Street East.
Changes in Position
45.
Following consideration of submitter evidence we have been instructed that the Council has
changed its position in relation to certain rezoning proposals, which are set out below
according the relevant geographical sub area.
City Centre Fringe
Sub area C8 – Parnell
Rezoning of land around Parnell Station
46.
In their submisstions, the Parnell Business Association (Parnell Inc.) (2016-6) and KiwiRail
(4336-153) have requested a change of zone from Strategic Transport Corridor (STC) to
MU. These submissions refer to the site located between the railway line and Cheshire
Street, currently zoned STC, and described as Lot 1 DP 477135. The zoning of the land is
shown in Figure 1 below.
Page 29
Figure 1: Zoning of Land around Parnell Station
47
The subject site is no longer owned by KiwiRail, having been sold to Summerset Holdings
Ltd (Summerset), although still covered by the designations ID 6300, and 6301
(Newmarket Branch Railway Line and North Auckland Railway Line). Summerset have
inherited the submission point by KiwiRail and presented their evidence through the Topic
080 evidence exchange. The submitter and the Council had agreed to address the
submitter’s evidence through the Topic 081 hearing track, but inadvertently did not address
the submissions in primary evidence for Topic 081.
48.
The subject site falls away steeply, continuing the slope from Parnell Road, located along
the ridgeline, down to the railway line that runs along the border of the Domain. The site
narrows to the south to around 20m in depth. The site is bordered to the north and east by
the MU zone, and to the west by the railway line, while zones to the south include SH,
MHS, and THAB. The MU zone would allow for a range of development supporting the
Parnell Town Centre and aligned with the railway station.
Page 30
49.
We are instructed that the Council supports rezoning the site from STC to MU with the
application of the City Centre Fringe Office controls. No additional height is either sought
or suggested for the site, and as such the default height of 18m (proposed to be revised
from 16.5m through Topic 051-054 evidence) applies.
Parnell Cathedral
50.
Submissions 2016-7 and 4422-9, by the Parnell Business Association and The General
Trust Board of the Diocese of Auckland (GTB) respectively, have both sought a zone
change for 446 Parnell Road, 8 Cathedral Place, 9 St Stephens Ave and 1a Brighton,
Parnell (the Parnell Cathedral site). The relevant zoning of the subject site is set out below
at Figure 2. The Parnell Business Association seeks to rezone the land to MU while the
GTB seek THAB. In his statement of evidence on behalf of GTB, Craig McGarr contends
that the THAB zone is appropriate for the subject property.49
51.
As stated by Ms Mein in her evidence for Topic 079, the Holy Trinity Cathedral and its site
are a significant landmark in Parnell, marking one end of Parnell village at the southern and
highest point of Parnell Rise.50 In recognition of the importance of the Anglican diocese and
this location in the historic development of Parnell, Ms Mein proposed retention of the
Historic Character overlay but replacement of the Isthmus A residential historic character
area with the Parnell business historic character area.51 The site in question forms part of an
important transition from the commercial core of Parnell Rise and the surrounding residential
development, being closely aligned with Parnell village, yet containing historic residential
dwellings and located adjacent to the residential neighbourhood. We are instructed by the
Council that application of the THAB zone is compatible with the Parnell Business Historic
Character overlay area.
52.
It is also important to note the implication of the height in relation to boundary rule in
considering this change. When the THAB zone borders a lower intensity residential zone the
building line is a 45 degree line 2.5m above the property boundary. The properties to the
east and south site do lie significantly lower than the Cathedral site.
53.
We are instructed that the Council agrees with Ms Mein that the application of the Historic
Character overlay Parnell business area together with an underlying THAB zone are more
49
50
51
Statement of Evidence of Craig McGarr for GTB in relation to Topics 079 and 081, dated 18 December 2015 at
paras 3.22 and 3.23.
Rebuttal evidence of Lisa Mein for Auckland Council on Topic 079, dated 21 January 2016 at para 9.3.
Ibid at para 9.5.
Page 31
enabling than the notified Isthmus A combined with SH zone, providing for an array of
development opportunities whilst still recognising and providing for the historic character
values of the site.
446
Parnell
Road,
8
Cathedral Place, 9 St
Stephens Ave and 1a
Brighton
Figure 2: Parnell Cathedral site, Parnell
Eastern Isthmus
Sub area C25 – Remuera, Meadowbank and St Johns
81 Ngapuhi Road, Remuera
54.
In his submission point 1501-1 and supporting evidence,52 Phillip Dexter requested that the
property at 81 Ngapuhi Road be rezoned from SH to MHS as he believes the property is
not subject to any greater flood constraint than other properties in the area zoned MHS or
already redeveloped as multi dwelling sites.
52
Evidence report of Philip Dexter dated 10 February 2016.
Page 32
55.
In their primary report on behalf of the Auckland Council,
53
Ms Lucas and Ms
Papaconstantinou did not support a rezoning to MHS as the properties were subject to the
flooding constraint. This has since been reviewed and the constraint has been removed
from 81 Ngapuhi Road, as well as from 77, 77A, 79 and 79A Ngapuhi Road, which were
also subject to the flooding constraint.
56.
We are instructed that the Council now considers that a rezoning of 81 Ngapuhi Road from
SH to MHS is appropriate. The remaining properties referred to remain SH zoned sites as
there are no submissions seeking the rezoning of those properties.
Western Isthmus
Sub area C13 – Royal Oak
100 Pah Road, Royal Oak
57.
The evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of The Warehouse Limited (2748-9; FS2880)
opposes the retention of the notified LI zone at 100 Pah Road, Royal Oak and seeks a
zone change to GB.54
58.
The site reflects and includes large format retail such as The Warehouse, Warehouse
Stationary, and ancillary businesses that align with the objectives of the GB zone. The LI
zone anticipates industrial activities such as manufacturing, production, logistics, storage,
transport and distribution activities that is not consistent with the site. The Council therefore
considers that rezoning the site to GB will not adversely affect the function, role and
amenity of the Royal Oak TC, and accordingly supports the proposed rezoning from notified
LI to GB zone at 100 Pah Road.
Corrections
59.
The Council has identified a number of errors and anomalies in relation to the Central area:
53
Joint evidence report on submissions By Lee-Ann Mary Lucas and Anna Papaconstantinou on behalf of
Auckland Council for Topic 081 – Central Rezoning: Eastern Isthmus dated 26 January 2016, at Attachment C.
Statement of Evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of The Warehouse Limited (Submitter Number 2748,
Further Submitter No. 2878) Rezoning – 100 Pah Road and 677, 677A and 679 Mt Albert Road, Royal Oak,
dated 11 February 2016.
54
Page 33
(a)
identified as out of scope (residential) changes in the primary evidence reports; or
identified since the primary evidence reports were prepared (including in and out of
scope changes).
(b)
relate to areas where there has been no change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but which have been incorrectly identified as ‘areas of change’ on planning maps in
the primary evidence reports.
60.
The proposed corrections are set out at in the two attachments below.
!
ERRORS/ANOMALIES THAT RELATE TO AREAS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE NOTIFIED PAUP
BUT WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS ‘AREAS OF CHANGE’ ON PLANNING MAPS IN THE PRIMARY REPORT
WESTERN ISTHMUS
SUB-AREA
TOPIC
AREA
FULL STREET
ADDRESS / LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
NOTIFIED
ZONE
PROPOSED
ZONE
REASONS FOR CORRECTION
C10
Western
Isthmus
917A Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
915 Mount Eden Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
911 Mount Eden Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
907F Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
907E Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
2/783 Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
1/783 Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
5 Onslow Road Mount
Eden
N/A
N/A
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
!
C10
Western
Isthmus
3 Onslow Road Mount
Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
714A Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
38 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
36 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
34 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
32 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
30 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
28 Shorwell Street
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
7 Onslow Road Mount
Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
2/901 Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
1/901 Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C10
Western
Isthmus
20 Kitchener Road
Sandringham
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
40 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
40A Kensington
Avenue Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
43 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
43A Kensington
Avenue Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
42 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
44 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
45 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
46 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
47 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
48 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C10
Western
Isthmus
49 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
50 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
51 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
52 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
53 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
54 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
55 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
55A Kensington
Avenue Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
57 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
59 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
61 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C10
Western
Isthmus
63 Kensington Avenue
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
73 Ellerton Road Mount
Eden
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
2/48 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
1/48 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
50 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
52 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
54 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
56 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
907A Mount Eden
Road Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
903 Mount Eden Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
901 Mount Eden Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C10
Western
Isthmus
2A Shackleton Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
2B Shackleton Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C10
Western
Isthmus
785 Mount Eden Road
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
58 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
60 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
64 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
66 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
68 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
70 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
72 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
74 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C4
Western
Isthmus
48 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
50 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
52 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
54 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
56 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
58 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
63 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
61 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
59 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
57 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
55 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C4
Western
Isthmus
53 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
51 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
49 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
47 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
45 Walmer Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
55 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
53 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
51A Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
51 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
49A Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
49 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C4
Western
Isthmus
47 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
45 Kiwi Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
74 Walker Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
76 Walker Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
78 Walker Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
80 Walker Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
84 Walker Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
53A Walmer Road
Point Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
48 Moa Road Point
Chevalier
N/A
N/A
C4
Western
Isthmus
1041 Great North Road
Point Chevalier
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
6 Mcfadzean Drive
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
W15
Western
Isthmus
4 Mcfadzean Drive
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
33 Donovan Street
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
35 Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
39A Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43 Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43A Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43B Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43C Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43D Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
43E Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
55 Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
W15
Western
Isthmus
55A Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
1/67 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
2/67 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
67 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
69 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
69A Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
71 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
W14
Western
Isthmus
54 Roberton Road
Avondale
N/A
N/A
W14
Western
Isthmus
54A Roberton Road
Avondale
N/A
N/A
W14
Western
Isthmus
28 Racecourse Parade
Avondale
N/A
N/A
W14
Western
Isthmus
28 Racecourse Parade
Avondale
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
W14
Western
Isthmus
1951-1955 Great North
Road Avondale
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
55B Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
57 Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
W15
Western
Isthmus
61 Margate Road
Blockhouse Bay
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
1 Invermay Avenue
Three Kings
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
1B Invermay Avenue
Three Kings
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
1A Torrance Street
Royal Oak
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
57 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
C12
Western
Isthmus
63 Pah Road Epsom
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
SOUTHERN ISTHMUS
SUBREGION
TOPIC
AREA
FULL STREET
ADDRESS / LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
NOTIFIED
ZONE
PROPOSE
D ZONE
REASONS FOR CORRECTION
C15
Southern
Isthmus
188 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
186 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
5/184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
4/184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3/184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2/184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1/184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
4/100 Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3/100 Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2/100 Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
!
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1/100 Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
100A Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
98B Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
98A Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
E/57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
D/57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
C/57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
B/57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
A/57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
41A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
41 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
!
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
39 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
37 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
23 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
21 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
19 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
17 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
15 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
13 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
11A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
11B Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
11 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
9A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
9 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
7A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
7 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
5 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1 Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
52 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
50 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
48 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
46 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
44B Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
44A Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
44 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
42A Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
42 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
40A Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
4/40 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3/40 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2/40 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1/40 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
4/38 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3/38 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2/38 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1/38 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
36B Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
36A Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
36 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
34A Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
34 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
89 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
85 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
83 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
81A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
81 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
79 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
79A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
77 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
75 Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
75A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
68 Hutton Street,
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
12 Water Street,
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2-8 Maurice Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
40 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
36 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
34 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
30 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
20 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
8 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
6 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
2 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
15 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
7 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
3 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
49 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
47 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
45 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
35 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
27 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
1 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
10 Maurice Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
31 Rockridge Avenue,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
23 O'rorke Road,
Penrose
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
C15
Southern
Isthmus
34-36 Rockridge
Avenue, Penrose
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
23A Quadrant Road,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
184A Arthur Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
40 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
38 Hill Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
57A Spring Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
100 Victoria Street,
Onehunga
N/A
N/A
C15
Southern
Isthmus
11A-11B Quadrant
Road, Onehunga
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
18 Nixon Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
179 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
177 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
S8
Southern
Isthmus
175 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
173 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
2/171 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
1/171 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
169 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
12 Nixon Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
10 Nixon Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
8 Nixon Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
6 Nixon Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
20 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
18 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
S8
Southern
Isthmus
16 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
14 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
12 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
10 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
8 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
6 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
4 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
2 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
9 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
7 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
9 Alexander Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
!
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
!
S8
Southern
Isthmus
8 Alexander Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
11 Fairburn Road
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
27-29 Saleyards Road
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
1/10 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
2/10 Tamaki Avenue
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
S8
Southern
Isthmus
171 Church Street
Otahuhu
N/A
N/A
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
Mapping error. No change in zoning from the notified PAUP
but incorrectly identified as ‘area of change’ on planning
maps in the Primary Report.
EASTERN ISTHMUS
SUBREGION
TOPIC
AREA
FULL STREET
ADDRESS / LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
NOTIFIED
ZONE
PROPOSED
ZONE
REASONS FOR CORRECTION
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
19 Papango Street
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
38 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
26 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
!
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
28 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
30 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
32 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
34 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
36 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
19 Papango Street
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
38 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
26 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
28 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
30 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
32 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
!
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
34 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
36 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
19 Papango Street
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C19
Eastern
Isthmus
38 Ganley Terrace
Stonefields
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
18 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
20 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
22 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
24 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
26 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
28 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
30 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
!
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
32 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
34 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
36 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
33 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
31 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
29 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
27 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C24
Eastern
Isthmus
25 Kupe Street Orakei
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
8C Orakei Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
8B Orakei Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
8A Orakei Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
!
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
110-120 Ascot Avenue
Greenlane
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
33 Norana Avenue
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
22 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
4/20 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
20C Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
2/20 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
1/20 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
4/18 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
3/18 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
2/18 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
1/18 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
!
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C25
Eastern
Isthmus
10 Armadale Road
Remuera
N/A
N/A
No change in zoning from notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
CITY CENTRE FRINGE
SUBREGION
TOPIC
AREA
FULL STREET
ADDRESS / LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
NOTIFIED
ZONE
PROPOSED
ZONE
REASONS FOR CORRECTION
C8
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
32 Balfour Road,
Parnell
N/A
N/A
187 Mount Eden Road,
Mount Eden
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
C7
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
!
703-705 New North
Road St Lukes
703A New North Road
St Lukes
703B New North Road
St Lukes
703C New North Road
St Lukes
703D New North Road
St Lukes
705A New North Road
St Lukes
!
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
!
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
705B New North Road
St Lukes
705C New North Road
St Lukes
705D New North Road
St Lukes
707 New North Road St
Lukes
707A New North Road
St Lukes
13 Onslow Road
Kingsland
13A Onslow Road
Kingsland
15 Onslow Road
Kingsland
17 Onslow Road
Kingsland
19 Onslow Road
Kingsland
21 Onslow Road
Kingsland
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
!
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
3 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
1/3 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
2/3 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
5 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
7 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
9 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
11 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
13A Selkirk Road St
Lukes
1/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
!
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
3/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
4/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
5/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
6/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
7/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
8/13 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
15 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
17 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
19 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
21 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
!
C6
!
City
Centre
Fringe
N/A
23 Selkirk Road St
Lukes
N/A
No change in zoning from the notified PAUP but incorrectly
identified as an ‘area of change’ on planning maps in the
Primary Report
ERRORS/ANOMALIES AS SHOWN IN REVISED MAPS
SUB-AREA /
SUBURB
TOPIC
AREA
FULL STREET
ADDRESS / LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
NOTIFIED
ZONE
PROPOSED
ZONE
REASONS FOR CORRECTION
Orakei (C24)
Eastern
Isthmus
Road frontage on 100102 Reihana Street
MHS
In scope MHU
Sites in front of 100-102 Reihana Street are part of an in scope
change (5277-232 and 5280-234) from MHS to MHU and
should be shown as in scope.
Orakei (C24)
Eastern
Isthmus
60A Kupe Street
MHS
MHU
One property at the rear of the site with access off Kupe Street
was not zoned MHU in the notified PAUP. MHU is the most
appropriate zone for the site as it is not subject to any
environmental constraints and is located in close proximity to
the RFN and NC on Kepa Road. Rezoning to MHU is supported
in keeping with the zoning of the adjacent 60B and 60C Kupe
Street. This is an out of scope change.
Remuera
(C25)
Eastern
Isthmus
109 Portland Road,
Remuera
SH
In scope MHS
The site was subject to a submission to rezone from SH to
MHS – which was supported. Site is situated in a row of sites
that were rezoned ‘out of scope’ and consequently was
rezoned to SH when maps were amended to reflect Governing
Body decision 24 Feb. It should maintain its MHS zoning and
be shown as an ‘in scope’ change.
Stonefields
(C19)
Eastern
Isthmus
80 Korere Street
POS
In scope - SH
80 Korere Street is subject to a submission to rezone from POS
to THAB (4909-38) and the change at the site should be
marked as in scope SH.
Onehunga
(C15)
Southern
Isthmus
73 Trafalgar Street
MHS
Yes
A change from MHS to MHU is supported in the Primary
Report, but the map change was not reflected in planning maps
in Attachment E of the Primary report.
Page 2
Submission 5716-2831 makes a submission on this siter.
Propose to rezone the driveway to ensure consistent zoning
with the rest of the site. The application of MHU is the most
appropriate way of achieving the zone objectives and gives
effect to the RPS.
Sylvia Park,
Mount
Wellington
South (C17)
Southern
Isthmus
Road Reserve DP 19468
Great South
Road/Penrose Road
Penrose
LI
Road
A change to road is supported in Attachment C of the Primary
Evidence but the planning map, page 142. Map ‘Central C17,
Sylvia Park, Mount Wellington South – Revised Zones’ in the
same report shows the PAUP zone of LI, not road.
Mount
Wellington
(C18)
Southern
Isthmus
8 Harrison Road, Mt
Wellington
LI
MHU
The map in the Primary Evidence of Ms Stainwright, Mr Wilson
and Mr Eccles, page 144, Map ‘Central C18, Mount Wellington
– Revised Zones’ shows the proposed change as in scope
where it should be an out of scope change. This is a result of
proposing an alternative zone to that requested by submitters.
This proposed change was presented in the EIC of Mr Philip
Brown in Topic 080d Retirement villages.
Ellerslie
(C21)
Southern
Isthmus
30, 32,
MHS
MHU
A change from MHS to MHU is supported. The Primary
Rezoning Evidence lists sites as affected properties and
inferred zoning would be amended to MHU but was not
reflected in the maps.
32A, 32B, 36, 36A,
36B, 36C, 38-40
Morrin Street
Submission point 5696-56 makes a submission on this site.
The area is adjacent to higher density areas and close to
transport networks. The rezoning to MHU allows further
intensification and this is the most appropriate way to achieve
the objectives of this zone and gives effect to the RPS.
Page 3
Pt Chevalier
(C4)
Western
Isthmus
8 Premier Ave, Pt
Chevalier
MHU/MU split
zone
MU
The site had a split zone of MHU and MU in the notified PAUP.
Corrected in Primary report and listed in Attachment F (Out of
scope changes).
Support the change of notified MHU to MU zone. The property
was notified with split zones of MHU and MU. The site is
located on and adjacent to a RFN and part of the commercial
business corridor along Great North Road leading up to Pt
Chevalier TC. The full site is proposed to rezone and retain MU
zone.
Balmoral
(C10)
Western
Isthmus
Three sites between 2
Halston Rd and 652-660
Dominion Rd, Mt Eden
MHU
LC
Support out of scope change of notified MHS to LC zone for
strip of three sites between 2 Halston Road and 652-660
Dominion Road, Mount Eden. The properties are part of the LC
zoned sites located on Dominion Road. The strip is a driveway
that services the LC sites and at the back of the properties.
Propose change to LC zone to reflect local context. The
rezoning is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives
of the LC zone and gives effect to the RPS.
Sandringham
(C10)
Western
Isthmus
18 Arabi Street,
Sandringham
SH/MHU
SH
The site was notified with split zones of SH and MHS. Whole
site to be rezoned SH as it is under HC overlay. The site is
affected by the HC and rezoning to SH zone is proposed
because the outcomes the HC seeks to achieve generally align
with the objectives of the SH zone and rezoning gives effect to
the RPS.
Mt Roskill
(C11)
Western
Isthmus
Road frontage on 124
Stoddard Rd, Mt Roskill
TC
Road (not a
zone)
A portion of the road has been zoned TC in front of 124
Stoddard Road property. Remove TC zone on road.
Mt Roskill
(C11)
Western
Isthmus
Road frontage on 210
Richardson Rd.
TC
Road (not a
zone)
A portion of the road has been zoned TC in front of 210
Stoddard Road property. Remove TC zone on road.
Page 4
Mt Roskill
(C11)
Western
Isthmus
1370, 1372, 1374, 1376,
1378 Dominion Road
STC
MHS
Consequential amendment identified from Topic 080 Strategic
Transport Corridor (STC) report by Sukhdeep Singh relating to
submission #1725-435. The submission point seeks to “rezone
1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill from STC to MHS”.
In her report, Ms Singh is supporting the requested change and
proposing the removal of the STC zone and applying the MHS
zone as proposed under the Primary Report. The change was
not made to maps submitted part of the Western Isthmus
Primary Report Evidence. Correct identification of change in
scope on maps as stated in Primary Report.
Three Kings
(C12)
Western
Isthmus
898 Mt Eden Road,
Three Kings
THAB
N/A
Access driveway lot to 898A Mt Eden Road was rezoned to
THAB and shown as out of scope, but is part of adjoining sites
of 898 and 898A Mt Eden Road that is shown in scope and
rezoned to THAB. Driveway to be shown in scope.
Royal Oak
(C12)
Western
Isthmus
221c St Andrews Road
SH/MHS
SH
Support out of scope change of notified MHS to SH zone for
part of site at 211C St Andrews Road, Epsom. The property
has a split zone of SH and MHS zone and is subject to the HC
overlay. The site is affected by the HC and rezoning to SH zone
is proposed because the outcomes the HC seeks to achieve
generally align with the objectives of the SH zone and rezoning
gives effect to the RPS.
Three Kings
(C12)
Western
Isthmus
2 Queensway, Three
Kings
SH/MHS split
zone
MHS
Support out of scope change of notified SH to MHS zone for
part of the site at 2 Queensway, Three Kings. The property has
a split zone of SH and MHS zone and is subject to the HC
overlay. However, Council’s Heritage team confirm that there is
a mapping anomaly and there are no heritage features on the
site. Support change to MHS zone to align with surrounding
residential properties. The rezoning is the most appropriate way
to achieve the objectives of the MHS zone and gives effect to
Page 5
the RPS.
Avondale
(W14)
Western
Isthmus
6a Oregon Ave,
Avondale
MHS
SH
Change zone from MHS to SH zone. The change is "in scope"
with Submission 5716-2801. The Primary Report for Western
Isthmus stated and included in Attachment C but the planning
maps did not show change. Correct identification of change in
scope on maps as stated in Primary Report.
Avondale
(W14)
Western
Isthmus
11c and 11d Taramea
St, Avondale
THAB
MHS
Change zone from THAB to MHS zone. The change is “in
scope" with Submission 4730-1. The Primary Report for
Western Isthmus stated and included in Attachment C but the
planning maps did not show change. Correct identification of
change in scope on maps as stated in Primary Report.
Avondale
(W14)
Western
Isthmus
13 and 14 Naumai
Street, Avondale
MHS
MHU
Change zone from MHS to MHU zone. The change is “in
scope" change with HNZ Submission 839-4199. The Primary
Report for Western Isthmus stated and included in Attachment
C and F but the maps did not show change. Correct
identification of change in scope on maps as stated in Primary
Report.
Avondale
(W15)
Western
Isthmus
LH side Mcfadzean
Drive and RH side
Letterkenny Place,
Avondale
N/A
N/A
Correct the “in scope" zoning change made to properties Lhside of Mcfadzean Drive & Rh-side of Letterkenny Place that is
shown on the maps but were missing the black “in scope”
boundary line. The Primary Report for Western Isthmus stated
and included in Attachment C and E but the maps did not show
the change identified in the “in scope” black boundary. Correct
identification of change in scope on maps as stated in Primary
Page 6
Report.
Herne Bay,
Ponsonby, St
Marys Bay,
Freemans
Bay (C2)
Grey Lynn,
Westmere
(C3)
Kingsland,
Morningside
(C6)
Newton (C7)
Parnell (C8)
Newmarket
(C9)
Glendowie
(C22)
Kohimarama
(C23)
Pt England
(C20)
One Tree Hill,
Oranga (C16)
Mount Albert
(C5)
Royal Oak
(C13)
Lynfield,
City
Centre
Fringe
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
City
Centre
Fringe
Eastern
Isthmus
Eastern
Isthmus
Eastern
Isthmus
Southern
Isthmus
Western
Isthmus
Western
Isthmus
Western
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page 7
Blockhouse
bay,
Hillsborough
(C14)
!
Isthmus
TOPIC 081f – REZONING AND PRECINCTS (SOUTH)
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Southern sub-region is largely made up of the boundaries of the former
Manukau City Council, and to a lesser extent parts of the former Franklin District
Council.
It incorporates the local board areas of Howick, Otara-Papatoetoe,
Manurewa, Papakura, Franklin, and part of the Mangere-Otahuhu local board
Areas.1
1.2
In the Southern area, there have been 4171 submission points received on
rezoning requests. These are broken down into the sub-areas as follows:
(a)
Urban (North and East) – 382;
(b)
Highbrook, Manukau and Puhinui – 140;
(c)
Urban (Central and West) – 1735;
(d)
Urban (South) - 1509; and
(e)
Rural – 405.
Evidence to Be Called
1.3
The Council intends to call the following witnesses:
(a)
Melean Absolum (landscape – Future Urban zoning of land in North East
Pukekohe);
(b)
Robert Hillier (geotechnical – Future Urban zoning of land in North East
Pukekohe);
1
(c)
Jeremy Wyatt (planning – business zoning at Ormiston);
(d)
Natalie Hampson (economics – land at Ormiston); and
(e)
Natalie Hampson (economics – Hingaia Local Centre).
Statement of Evidence of Marc Dendale on behalf of Auckland Council dated 26 January 2016, South – SubRegional Overview, at para 1.1.
Attach - Rezoning - 081f South - 8.3.16.docxAttach - Rezoning - 081f South - 8.3.16.docx
Page 2
ISSUES ARISING FROM SUBMITTER EVIDENCE
79 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush – Submitter: Ormiston Centre Ltd (formally
Firmount Trust) (#3091)
Council position
1.4
The planning evidence by Mr Yu for Ormiston Centre Ltd seeks General Business
zoning for the property at 79 Ormiston Road, Flat Bush. The Council's position is
that the notified Light Industry zoning should be retained for the property.
Reasons
1.5
The property is zoned Business 5 under the Auckland District Plan (Manukau
Section), however an equivalent zone is not provided for in the PAUP. The options
available within the PAUP framework are therefore to retain the Light Industry zone,
rezone to Mixed Use or General Business (as requested by submitters on adjacent
properties), or apply a Precinct that applies the same rules as the Business 5 zone.
1.6
Mr Yu suggests that rezoning to General Business would enable 122,500m2 of
commercial and industrial floorspace. In this regard, the wider effects of the
allowable retail development that would be enabled by the General Business zone
have the potential to impact the viability of the existing centre network, and the
nearby Botany Town Centre in particular. These impacts are generally discussed in
Ms Hampson's rebuttal evidence2 and the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt.
1.7
The Council's position is that the benefits of retaining the Light Industry zone have
not been adequately accounted for by M Yu, and that the loss of Light Industry
zoned land in the Highbrook-East Tamaki industrial hub would have a range of
potentially significant adverse effects.3 Given the size of the property, the Council's
position is that a comprehensive redevelopment would be best achieved through
the resource consent or plan change process.
2
3
Rebuttal evidence of Natalie Hampson on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to 79 Ormiston Road,
Flat Bush (economics), dated 3 March 2016 at [4.1] – [4.4].
Rebuttal evidence of Natalie Hampson on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to 79 Ormiston Road,
Flat Bush (economics), dated 3 March 2016 at [4.3(e)].
31560772:631364
Page 3
246 Great South Road and 1-7 Mcannalley Street, Manurewa – Submitter: MD
Holdings Limited (#1030-1, 1030-2)
Council position
1.8
The planning evidence of Mr Childs for MD Holdings Limited seeks Mixed Use
zoning for the properties at 246 Great South Road and 1-7 Mcannalley Street,
Manurewa. The Council's position is that the notified Neighbourhood Centre zoning
should be retained for these properties.
Reasons
1.9
The properties are not located adjacent to the Manurewa Town Centre, and the
Council's position is that the notified zoning is appropriate because sufficient
intensification has already been provided for in areas directly surrounding the
Centre. Furthermore, Mixed Use zoning in this location would not provide an
appropriate transition of intensification and building height moving away from the
Centre. Therefore, the notified zoning is the most appropriate way to achieve the
objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre zone, and gives effect to the RPS including
the centres strategy/hierarchy.
425 Clarks Beach Road, Waiau Pa – Submitter: Orepunga Farms Limited
(#2196)
Council position
1.10
The planning evidence of Mr Warren for Orepunga Farms Limited seeks Rural and
Coastal Settlement zoning for the property at 425 Clarks Beach Road, Waiau Pa.
The Council's position is that the notified Mixed Rural zoning should be retained for
the property.
Reasons
1.11
The Council's position is that the zoning change sought by the submitter is not
appropriate as it will not achieve RPS B2.1 as the property is not located in close
proximity to any centres or urban facilities.
Furthermore, the proposal will not
31560772:631364
Page 4
achieve RPS B2.5, which for rural and coastal towns and villages, seeks to contain
growth within the existing extent of unserviced settlements.
27 Linwood Road, Karaka – Submitter: The Pakuranga Hunt Incorporated
(#3099)
Council position
1.12
The planning evidence of Mr Putt for the Pakuranga Hunt Incorporated seeks Rural
and Coastal Settlement zoning for the property at 27 Linwood Road, Karaka. The
Council's position is that the notified Rural Coastal zoning should be retained for the
property.
Reasons
1.13
Given the property is located immediately adjacent to the coast and in line with Mr
Brown's landscape evidence-in-chief for Topic 081a,4 the Council's position is that
Rural Coastal zoning is appropriate to:
1.14
(a)
maintain the natural character of the coastal edge;
(b)
provide a natural buffer to coastal erosion; and
(c)
contribute to visual amenity values.
The property is also located on prime soil,5 which is a further reason for the Rural
Coastal zoning being retained.
4
5
Evidence-in-chief of Stephen Brown on behalf of Auckland Council (Landscape) dated 29 January 2016
at [196] - [199].
Topic 081a evidence-in-chief of Fiona Curran-Cournane on behalf of Auckland Council (Land and Soil
Science), dated 26 January 2016.
31560772:631364
Page 5
3 Maraetai Coast Road, Maraetai – Submitter: The Marion Ross Memorial
Trust Board (#7124-34), 76 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai – Submitter:
Maraetai Land Development Limited (#5371-2) and Waiho Block, Maraetai –
Submitter: Whitford Forest Holdings Company (#3693)
Council position
1.15
The planning evidence of Mr Hay, Mr P Brown and Mr Pearce for the respective
submitters seeks:
(a)
an extension of the Single House zone over part of the property at 3
Maraetai Coast Road instead of Rural Coastal and Mixed Rural zoning as
notified;
(b)
Coutryside Living zoning over the property at 76 Maraetai School Road
instead of Mixed Rural zoning as notified; and
(c)
Future Urban zoning over the northern end of the Waiho Block instead of
Mixed Rural zoning as notifed.
1.16
The Council's position is that the notified zoning of these properties should be
retained.
Reasons
1.17
On the basis of Mr Brown's landscape evidence the Council considers that the
notified zoning is necessary to avoid future suburban development from
undermining the existing character of the area, which encompasses elevated hill
country (made up of bush, forest and pasture) extending from Maraetai towards the
Clevedon Scenic Reserve.6
1.18
The Council's position is that retention of the Mixed Rural and Rural Coastal zoning
over these properties is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of these
zones and gives effect to the RPS.
6
Topic 081a rebuttal evidence of Stephen Brown on behalf of Auckland Council (Landscape) at [86] [94].
31560772:631364
Page 6
Brookby – Submitter: The Maskell Trust (#5164-1)
Council position
1.19
The planning evidence of Mr Comer for The Maskell Trust seeks Countryside Living
zoning for various properties in Brookby, totalling an area of approximately 1,250ha.
The Council's position is that the notified Mixed Rural zoning should be retained for
these Brookby properties.
Reasons
1.20
On the basis of Mr Brown's landscape evidence the Council considers that the
notified zoning is necessary to ensure that the fundamentally rural character of the
Brookby area is not compromised.7 Mr Brown considers the area to be one of
Auckland's most distinctive landscapes, displaying an exceptionally high level of
amenity, which could be eroded by the effects that would accompany the change to
residential intensity under the Countryside Living zone.
1.21
Mr Comer acknowledges that the Brookby area is made up of prime land, but that
rural production is constrained in the area. Nevertheless, as indicated in the
evidence of Ms Curran-Cournane, 8 Countryside Living zoning would effectively
curtail any further rural production in the area.
1.22
The Council's position is that retention of the Mixed Rural zoning over the various
properties in Brookby is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the
Mixed Rural zone and gives effect to the RPS.
Clevedon-Kawakawa Road, McNicol Road and Otau Mountain Road –
Submitter:
Netherlea
Holdings
Limited
(#2415-1,
2415-4),
Roscommon
Properties Limited (#2551-1) and Stratford Properties Limited (2367-1)
Council position
1.23
The planning evidence of Mr Grace seeks Countryside Living zoning over the
respective submitters' land in Clevedon, totalling an area of approximately 342ha
7
8
Topic 081a rebuttal evidence of Stephen Brown on behalf of Auckland Council (Landscape) at [95] [100].
Topic 081a evidence-in-chief of Fiona Curran-Cournane on behalf of Auckland Council (Land and Soil
Science), dated 26 January 2016 at [7.1] - [7.2].
31560772:631364
Page 7
along Clevedon Kawakawa Road (east of Clevedon) and near McNichol and Otau
Mountain Roads – extending north-east to south-east of Clevedon village. The
Council's position is that the notified Rural Coastal and Rural Production zoning
should be retained for these Clevedon properties.
Reasons
1.24
On the basis of Mr Brown's landscape evidence the Council considers that the
notified zoning is appropriate to achieve the retention of demarcation between town
and country in the area.9 Mr Brown considers that Countryside Living zoning would
have a profound effect on the character and qualities of both Clevedon and the
Wairoa River.10
1.25
Mr Grace suggests that the land having limited productive capability is a further
reason for the requested zoning. Given the land is predominantly prime land, and
because RPS B8.3 Policy 6(b) directs Countryside Living zones to avoid areas of
elite and prime land, the Council's position is that Countryside Living zoning is not
appropriate. Moreover, as indicated in the evidence of Ms Curran-Cournane, 11
Countryside Living zoning would effectively curtail any further rural production in the
area.
1.26
The Council's position is that retention of the Rural Coastal and Rural Production
zones over these properties at Clevedon is the most appropriate way to achieve the
objectives and the respective zones and gives effect to the RPS.
CHANGES TO COUNCIL POSITION
302 Te Irirangi Drive, Flat Bush – Submission by NCB 2000 Limited
(submission # 5140)
308 Te Irirangi Drive, Flat Bush – Submission by Broadway Property Group
(submission # 2405)
Council position
9
10
11
Topic 081a rebuttal evidence of Stephen Brown on behalf of Auckland Council (Landscape) at [108].
Topic 081a rebuttal evidence of Stephen Brown on behalf of Auckland Council (Landscape) at [110].
Topic 081a evidence-in-chief of Fiona Curran-Cournane on behalf of Auckland Council (Land and Soil
Science), dated 26 January 2016 at [7.1] - [7.2].
31560772:631364
Page 8
1.27
Planning evidence from Michael Foster 12 and Daniel Shaw 13 on behalf of the
submitters proposes to rezone the submitters' sites from the notified Light Industry
zone to Mixed Use zone. In response to the submitters' planning evidence, the
Council has changed its position and agrees is that the Mixed Use zoning sought by
the submitters is the most appropriate zone under the PAUP.
Reasons
1.28
The Council supports rezoning the sites from Light Industry to Mixed Use for the
following reasons:
(a)
It will recognise the existing function of the site and provide flexibility for
future redevelopment;
(b)
The site has good access to Te Irirangi Drive and Ormiston Road and will
be served by the Rapid and Frequent Transport Network;
(c)
The site is located in proximity to Botany Junction Local Centre and will not
detract from the Local Centre because it has already been developed;
(d)
The established uses (business and residential) are mixed use in nature;
and
(e)
It is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Mixed Use
zone and gives effect to the RPS.
The Bishop’s Estate, Bishop’s Dunn, Croke and Browne Places, Flat Bush –
Submission by Home Base Botany Limited (submission # 5676)
Council position
1.29
Planning evidence from Ian McManus14 on behalf of the Home Base Botany Limited
proposes to rezone parts of the site from Light Industry to General Business or
Mixed Use. In response to the submitter's evidence, the Council has changed its
position and agrees that a part change from Light Industry to General Business is
12
Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.5.
Paragraphs 23, 28, 34 and 85-122.
14
Paragraphs 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5.
13
31560772:631364
Page 9
appropriate. The Council also proposes an out of scope change from Light Industry
to Neighbourhood Centre zone.
Reasons
1.30
The Council supports rezoning parts of the site along Bishop Dunn Place and
Bishop Browne Place from Light Industry to General Business for the following
reasons:
(a)
It will recognise the existing function of the site and provide flexibility for
future redevelopment; and
(b)
It will not adversely affect the function, role and amenity of adjacent
centres as the area is already fully developed.
1.31
The Council supports out of scope changes to parts of the site fronting Te Irirangi
Drive from Light Industry to Neighbourhood Centre for the following reasons:
(a)
This site is adjacent to a school and on a main arterial road;
(b)
The site functions as a Neighbourhood Centre with small-scale retail and
commercial units.
1.32
Rezoning to Neighbourhood Centre is the most appropriate way to achieve the
objectives and policies of the Neighbourhood Centre zone in that the site provides
small-scale commercial activities to meet the convenience needs of passers-by.
1.33
The remaining properties along Bishop Dunn Place and Bishop Croke Place are
proposed to remain Light Industry as the area is Light Industry in nature and
includes a large format Mitre 10 store (provided for in the zone) and a mix of
warehousing and associated office. Other consented activities can rely on existing
use rights to continue.
31560772:631364
Page 10
2038 Great South Rd, Bombay, Bombay – Submission by Atlas Concrete
Limited (submission # 3700-48)
Council position
1.34
Planning evidence from David Haines 15 on behalf of Atlas Concrete Limited
proposes to rezone the site from the notified Rural Production zone to
Neighbourhood Centre zone. In response to the submitter's evidence, the Council
has changed its position and agrees that Neighbourhood Centre zoning is the most
appropriate zone under the PAUP.
Reasons
1.35
The Council supports rezoning the site from Rural Production to Neighbourhood
Centre for the reasons set out in Mr Haines' evidence. These reasons include:
(a)
Approved resource consents for the site mean the split site zoning is no
longer appropriate; and
(b)
Rural production or rural industry activities are unlikely to occur in the
southern part of the site because the approved resource consents allocate
that part of the site for wastewater and stormwater treatment and disposal
to support development in the northern part of the site.
1.36
This matter is further discussed in Todd Webb’s Topic 081 Auckland Council
rebuttal evidence on the Bombay 1 Precinct.
173, 177 and 179 Great South Road, Takanini – Submission by Bunnings
Limited (submission # 6096-77)
Council position
1.37
Planning evidence from Mr Norwell on behalf of Bunnings Ltd proposes to rezone
part of the site from the notified Mixed Housing Suburban zone to Light Industry
zone. In response to the submitter's planning evidence, the Council has changed
15
Paragraphs 38-39.
31560772:631364
Page 11
its position and agrees that the site should be zoned entirely Light Industry rather
than Light Industry with part Mixed Housing Suburban.
Reasons
1.38
The Council supports rezoning the entire site to Light Industry because a Bunnings
Warehouse has been established on the site which is a permitted activity in the
Light Industry zone. This means that the Mixed Housing Suburban portion of the
site will not be used for residential development in the near future.
Resource
consent conditions for the Bunnings Warehouse require the land to be
amalgamated into a single site. The resource consent conditions also mean that
retention of the Mixed Housing Suburban zone is not required to provide an amenity
buffer for the adjoining residential areas.
Parts of Lot 2 DP 208817 and Lot 1 DP 192491 covered by sub-precinct B of
the Grahams Beach precinct, Awhitu
Council position
1.39
The notified zones are Mixed Rural and Rural Coastal Settlement. The Council
considers that the parts of Lot 2 DP 208817 and Lot 1 DP 192491 covered by subprecinct B of the Grahams Beach precinct should be rezoned to Countryside Living
zone.
Reasons
1.40
The Grahams Beach precinct provides for large-lot subdivision over sub-precinct B.
The current zoning of Rural Coastal Settlement would require a resource consent
for any new dwelling. The Council considers that this is not appropriate for this
precinct area, which is an extension of the Grahams Beach coastal settlement.
Countryside Living provides for large lots, and provides for dwellings as a permitted
activity.
Corrections
1.41
The Council is proposing a number of corrections to the planning maps lodged with
the primary evidence for the South geographic area. These corrections have been
31560772:631364
Page 12
made to the hearings version of the Council's planning maps and are outlined in
Attachment [X].
31560772:631364
!
SUB$
REGION+
TOPIC+AREA+
South!
Rural!
South!
Rural!
S17!
LOT!7!DP!125647! Awhitu,!
BLK!IX!AWHITU!SD! Glenbrook,!
Glenbrook!
Beach,!
Patumahoe!
and!Waiuku!
SH!(part!of!
Lot!14!DP!
42177!only)!
South!
Urban!
(Central!and!
West)!
S7!
80V!Alabaster!
Drive!
MHS!
SH!
South!
Urban!
(Central!and!
West)!
S7!
Road!
MHS!
!
SUBMISSION+ FULL+STREET+
AREA+UNIT+
ADDRESS+/+LEGAL+
DESCRIPTION+
S17!
82!Wattle!Bay!
Road!
SUBURB+/+
AREA+
NOTIFIED+
ZONE++
PROPOSED+
ZONE+
REASONS+FOR+CORRECTION+
Awhitu,!
Glenbrook,!
Glenbrook!
Beach,!
Patumahoe!
and!Waiuku!
MR!
RCS!(area!of!
property!
shown!in!the!
operative!
Auckland!
Council!District!
Plan!(Franklin!
Section)!as!
Village!zone!
only)!
POS!X!
Conservation!
Support!rezoning!of!area!of!property!
shown!in!the!operative!Auckland!Council!
District!Plan!(Franklin!Section)!as!Village!
zone!from!MR!to!RCS.!This!was!a!
mapping!error.!
Papatoetoe,!
Hunters!
Corner,!
Middlemore,!
Mangere!
East,!
Wymondley!
!
Papatoetoe!
84!Henwood!Road! Papatoetoe,!
Hunters!
Corner,!
Support!change!to!POS!X!Conservation,!as!
an!out!of!scope!change.!This!area!of!land!
has!been!zoned!SH!in!error.!It!is!owned!
by!Auckland!Council,!and!was!part!of!a!
20m!wide!esplanade!reserve!strip!that!
has!since!eroded.!Given!the!location,!
POS!X!Conservation!is!the!most!
appropriate!zone.!
Support!change!of!zoning!of!driveways!
from!MHS!to!SH!to!correct!mapping!
errors.!Change!from!MHS!to!SH!aligns!
zoning!of!driveway!with!that!of!the!
property.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!Road!to!
MHS!as!this!site!(Section!1!SO!426980)!
has!been!incorrectly!zoned!as!Road.!The!
!
South!!
Urban!(North! S2!
and!East)!
87!Ti!Rakau!Drive!
Middlemore,!
Mangere!
East,!
Wymondley!
Pakuranga!!
South!!
Urban!(North! S3!
and!East)!
89!Ti!Rakau!Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S4!
and!East)!
South!!
rezoning!is!the!most!appropriate!way!to!
achieve!the!objectives!of!the!MHS!zone!
and!gives!effect!to!the!RPS.!
THAB!
(driveway!
only)!
MHU!
Pakuranga!!
THAB!
(driveway!
only)!
MHU!
91!Ti!Rakau!Drive!
Pakuranga!!
THAB!
(driveway!
only)!
MHU!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
11V!Frank!Bunce!
Grove!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
46!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
48!Pencaitland!
Drive!
Flat!Bush,!!
SH!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
TC!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
TC!
Botany!
Junction!
!
MHU!
THAB!
THAB!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!THAB!to!
MHU!to!correct!a!mapping!error.!
Driveway!is!incorrectly!zoned!THAB!while!
the!substantive!site!is!zoned!MHU.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!THAB!to!
MHU!to!correct!a!mapping!error.!
Driveway!is!incorrectly!zoned!THAB!while!
the!substantive!site!is!zoned!MHU.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!THAB!to!
MHU!to!correct!a!mapping!error.!
Driveway!is!incorrectly!zoned!THAB!while!
the!substantive!site!is!zoned!MHU.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!SH!to!MHU!
to!correct!a!mapping!error.!Driveway!is!
incorrectly!zoned!SH!while!the!
substantive!site!is!zoned!MHU.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!TC!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!TC!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
50!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
52!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
56!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
58!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
60!Pencaitland!
!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
TC!
THAB!
TC!
THAB!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
POS!X!
THAB!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!TC!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!TC!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
!
and!East)!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
62!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
64!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
66!Pencaitland!
Drive!
South!!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
68!Pencaitland!
Drive!
!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Junction!
Flat!Bush,!!
Botany!
Junction!
!
Flat!Bush!and!
Botany!
Informal!
Recreation!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
POS!X!
Informal!
Recreation!
THAB!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!POS!zone!to!
THAB!to!correct!mapping!error.!THAB!
zoning!did!not!correctly!follow!the!
property!boundary.!The!rezoning!is!the!
most!appropriate!way!to!achieve!the!
objectives!of!the!THAB!zone!and!gives!
!
South!!
!
!
Urban!(North! S5!
and!East)!
97!Ti!Rakau!Drive!
Junction!
Pakuranga!!
THAB!
(driveway!
only)!
MHU!
effect!to!the!RPS.!!
Support!rezoning!of!notified!THAB!to!
MHU!to!correct!a!mapping!error.!
Driveway!is!incorrectly!zoned!THAB!while!
the!substantive!site!is!zoned!MHU.!!