Plan Change 24 - Decision Report€¦ · Lauren White, Urban Design . Philip Brown, Planning . Alan...

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Private Plan Change 24

1

Decision following the hearing of Proposed Plan Change 24 (Private) “Waiata Shores Local Centre” to the Auckland Unitary Plan under the Resource Management Act 1991

PROPOSAL To rezone land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre Zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

This plan modification is GRANTED. The reasons are set out below.

Plan modification number: Private Plan Change 24

Site address: 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores

Applicant: Woolworths New Zealand Limited

Hearing commenced: Wednesday 04 September 2019, 9.30am Hearing panel: Peter Reaburn (Chairperson)

Barry Kaye Juliane Chetham

Appearances: For the Applicant: Allison Arthur-Young, Legal Counsel Matthew Grainger, Corporate Derek Foy, Economics Don McKenzie, Transport Lauren White, Urban Design Philip Brown, Planning Alan Blyde, Infrastructure (tabled) Benjamin Lawrence, Acoustic (tabled) For the Submitters: Auckland Transport

Trevor Mackie, Planning Mehmet Ahmet, Transport

Papakura Local Board Brent Catchpole (Chair) For Council:


2

Sanjay Bangs, Reporting Officer Craig Cairncross, Team Leader/Manager Terry Church, Traffic Engineer Tracy Ogden-Cork, Urban Designer Aaron Schiff, Economist Jon Styles, Acoustic Specialist Gemma Chuah, Stormwater Engineer Larissa Rew, Hearings Advisor

Hearing adjourned 4 September 2019

Commissioners’ site visits 19 August, 30 August, 3 September 2019

Hearing Closed: 5 September 2019 Abbreviations used in this Decision Applicant Woolworths New Zealand Limited AUP(OP) Auckland Council Unitary Plan Operative in Part Council Auckland Council Panel / we Independent Commissioners Peter Reaburn, Barry Kaye, Juliane

Chetham PPC24 Private Plan Change 24 RMA Resource Management Act 1991 Subject Site The land proposed to be rezoned by PPC24 INTRODUCTION 1. PPC24 is a private plan change that has been prepared following the standard

RMA Schedule 1 process (that is, the plan change is not the result of an alternative, 'streamlined' or 'collaborative' process as enabled under the RMA).

2. The private plan change request was made under Clause 21 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. It was supported by the required section 32 analysis and a range of supporting documentation. PPC24 was accepted by the Council under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the RMA on 5 March 2019.

3. The plan change was publicly notified on 9 May 2019 following a feedback process involving Iwi, as required by Clause 4A of Schedule 1. Notification involved a public notice as well as letters to directly affected landowners and occupiers alerting them to the plan change. The latter step was aimed at ensuring that landowners and occupiers of properties affected by potentially significant changes were made aware of the changes.

4. The submission period closed on 7 June 2019. Eight submissions were received, with no late submissions. A summary of submissions was notified for further


3

submissions on 20 June 2019 with the period for making further submissions closing on 4 July 2019. No further submissions were received.

5. This Decision relates to the submissions received on PPC24. The

Decision is made on behalf of the Council by a Panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners - Peter Reaburn (Chair), Barry Kaye and Juliane Chetham, appointed and acting under delegated authority pursuant to sections 34 and 34A of the RMA. The Decision has been made after considering all the submissions, the section 32 evaluation, the reports prepared by the officers for the hearing and evidence presented for the hearing.

SUMMARY OF THE PLAN CHANGE 6. The proposed plan change is described in detail in the hearing

report. In summary:

• The PPC24 land sits within an area known as Waiata Shores, an area that was previously occupied by the Manukau Golf Course. In 2013, Fletcher Residential Living purchased the land and is currently undertaking a predominately residential development consistent with its Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zoning.

• Key provisions of the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban

Zone include:

- Up to three dwellings per site are permitted, provided that the relevant core development standards are met, including maximum height, height in relation to boundary, building coverage and maximum impervious area standards;

- Retail activities limited to dairies up to 100m² gross

floor area per site (as a restricted discretionary activity) and restaurants and cafes up to 100m² gross floor area per site discretionary activity) are provided for. All other retail activities are not provided for, and therefore are a non-complying activity;

- Maximum building height of 11m, plus an additional

1m for roof form; - Maximum building height in relation to boundary of

3m plus 45 degrees;


4

- Maximum building coverage of 45% of the net site area, and maximum impervious area of 60% of the site area.

• PPC24 seeks to rezone a 1.92ha part of Waiata Shores at

2 Te Napi Drive from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone to Business – Local Centre Zone.

• PPC24 seeks solely to change the zoning of the land. No

further precincts, overlays or controls are proposed. • The Business – Local Centre Zone provisions are primarily

contained in Chapter H11 of the AUP(OP). The zone applies to small centres across Auckland, and primarily provides for “the local convenience needs of surrounding residential areas, including local retail, commercial services, offices, food and beverage, and appropriately scaled supermarkets”.

• Key provisions in the Business – Local Centre Zone include:

- Retail activities (other than supermarkets) are permitted up to 450m² gross floor area per tenancy, and restricted discretionary above 450m² gross floor area per tenancy;

- Supermarkets are permitted up to 2,000m² gross floor area per tenancy, and restricted discretionary above 2,000m² gross floor area per tenancy;

- Offices are permitted up to 500m² gross floor area per site, and restricted discretionary greater than 500m² gross floor area per site;

- Commercial services and food and beverage are permitted with no gross floor area thresholds;

- Dwellings, supported residential care, visitor accommodation and boarding houses are permitted with no scale or density thresholds;

- Maximum building height of 18m, of which the maximum occupiable building height is 16m and the remaining 2m set aside for roof form;

- Height in relation to boundary standards applicable at the boundary with sites zoned residential or open space, including sites separated by a road. At the boundary with sites zoned Residential Mixed


5

Housing Urban, a height in relation to boundary of 3m + 45 degrees applies.

• A number of other AUP(OP) provisions will apply to any

development of the site under a Business – Local Centre zoning, including standards relating to transport matters in Chapter E27 and standards relating to noise and vibration in Chapter E25.

OFFICERS REPORT 7. The Panel received a section 42A (s42A) report prepared by Mr.

Sanjay Bangs with input from a number of Council and Council-appointed specialists. The s42A report included a recommendation to accept the plan change, with no amendment.

HEARING 8. To expedite the hearing process the Panel issued a Direction

requiring the pre-circulation of expert evidence. Pre-circulated evidence was provided as directed.

9. Panel members individually conducted site visits on August 20,

August 30 and September 3 2019. 10. The hearing was held at the Manukau offices of the Auckland

Council on Wednesday 4 September 2019. 11. At the hearing, submissions were presented by the applicant’s

counsel, Ms Allison Arthur-Young. Expert evidence was generally taken as read, although in most cases summary statements were provided by experts. A number of questions were asked by the Panel.

12. There was one submitter present at the hearing, Auckland

Transport. Mr. Brent Catchpole appeared on behalf of the Papakura Local Board.

13. Council advisors provided comments after hearing the cases

presented by the applicant and submitter. 14. Ms. Allison Arthur-Young presented reply comments at the

conclusion of the hearing.


6

15. The hearing was adjourned at the conclusion of the hearing and closed the following day, 5 September 2019 with no further information sought.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 16. PPC24 was a private plan change request. It was accepted by the

Council under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. 17. As a private plan change, Clause 29 of Schedule 1 to the RMA is

relevant. The provisions of a private plan change request must comply with the same mandatory requirements as Council initiated plan changes. As required, the PPC6 request contained an evaluation report in accordance with section 32 of the RMA (clause 22(1), Schedule 1, RMA). Clause 29(1) of Schedule 1 provides “except as provided in sub-clauses (1A) to (9), Part 1, with all necessary modifications, shall apply to any plan or change requested under this Part and accepted under clause 25(2)(b).

18. We are to make decisions on the submissions, and on the plan

change. 19. Clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the RMA sets out the requirements for

decisions:

(1) A local authority must give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions, whether or not a hearing is held on the proposed policy statement or plan concerned.

(2) The decision –

(a) must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting the

submissions and, for that purpose, may address the submissions by grouping them according to –

i. the provisions of the proposed statement or plan to

which they relate; or ii. the matters to which they relate; and

(ab) must include a further evaluation of the proposed policy

statement or plan undertaken in accordance with section 32AA; and

(b) may include -

i. matters relating to any consequential alterations necessary to the proposed statement or plan arising from the submissions; and


7

ii. any other matter relevant to the proposed statement or plan arising from the submissions

(3) To avoid doubt, the local authority is not required to give a

decision that addresses each submission individually. (4) The local authority must –

(aaa) have particular regard to the further evaluation

undertaken in accordance with subclause (2) (ab) when making its decision; and

(a) Give its decision no later than two years after notifying the proposed policy statement or plan under Clause 5; and

(b) Publicly notify the decision within the same time;

(5) On and from the date the decision is publicly notified, the proposed policy statement or plan is amended in accordance with the decision.

20. In this Decisions report, the Panel has focused on the key issues

raised in the submissions, expert evidence and representations to it. Submissions are not individually assessed. Rather, the submissions and further submissions which support the proposed plan change and/or seek further changes to the plan change are accepted to the extent that the plan change is approved as described in this Decision. All other submissions, including those opposing the plan change, are rejected.

SUMMARY OF HEARING EVIDENCE AND REPRESENTATIONS 21. We consider a brief account of the hearing evidence and

representations from the hearing is useful context for our decisions. 22. Briefs of expert evidence had been pre-circulated prior to the hearing

date. All material pre-circulated or presented at the hearing can be found on the Council’s web page at:

23. In this summary of the evidence it is not our intention to provide a

detailed account of all the matters covered in each of the briefs / statements but rather an outline of the key matters raised.

Applicant’s Opening 24. Allison Arthur-Young, counsel for the applicant, presented opening

submissions and tabled a copy of the main plans for the proposal. Ms. Arthur-Young confirmed that the applicant was not seeking any amendments to the current provisions of the Local Centre zone,


8

rather a direct replacement of the Residential -: Mixed Housing Urban zoning with Business - Local Centre zoning.

25. Ms. Arthur-Young noted that the experts engaged by the applicant

were confident that the proposed zoning was the most appropriate for the subject site and the surrounding area. The Local Centre zoning provisions would provide a robust planning framework for the Council to subsequently assess any future resource consent applications for Local Centre activities on the site. The Plan Change would provide for the social and economic well-being of the community in a way that mitigates adverse effects, maintains amenity values, and uses land efficiently.

Applicant’s Evidence 26. Mr. Matthew Grainger is Head of Property at Woolworths New

Zealand Limited and gave corporate evidence on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Grainger advised us that the applicant considered the subject site an ideal location for a local centre due to its proximity to Great South Road, the growing Waiata Shores residential subdivision, and the neighbourhoods of Wattle Downs and Conifer Grove. The applicant considered that a local centre development in this location will improve retail offering, commercial services, community focus and amenity, and provide employment opportunities. The applicant had consulted widely on the proposal, in particular with the New Zealand Transport Authority, Manurewa and Papakura local boards, iwi and Fletcher Living.

27. Mr. Derek Foy gave expert economic evidence. Mr. Foy advised us

that in his analysis there was a spatial gap in the supply of Local Centre zoned land in the area at present, which the proposed Local Centre will fill. The proposed centre would be of a size generally consistent with the average Auckland local centre and would provide efficient access for consumers to retail goods and services. The plan change would provide for some economic and other benefits, including increased employment, a reduction in total vehicle kilometres travelled to access retail goods and services, and a small net increase in construction activity. In his assessment the plan change was a more appropriate way of meeting the economic objectives and policies of the Unitary Plan and Regional Policy Statement than the current residential zoning or alternative Neighbourhood or Town Centre zonings, with only minor or less than minor adverse retail distributional effects. Mr. Foy’s initial Retail Assessment was centred around the development envisaged by the resource consent application. However, he had subsequently assessed other development options and concluded that, while it was unlikely that a Local Centre would develop if not anchored by a supermarket, the expected effects on other centres would be relatively similar whether or not a supermarket were to be


9

established. Because those effects would be similar to the development scenario tested in the Retail Assessment, the conclusion that effects would not go beyond trade competition effects also applied to the alternative development scenarios tested.

28. Mr. Don McKenzie gave expert traffic evidence. He had undertaken

an assessment based on the development proposed in the resource consent and concluded that the plan change could be accommodated within the surrounding road network without any further upgrades of the existing road network. Vehicles would be able to access the Local Centre via the recently completed traffic signals at the Great South Road I Te Napi Drive intersection and, the internal road network within Waiata Shores provided direct access to the proposed Local Centre, including Te Napi Drive, Gosper Road, Nganui Avenue and Pepene Avenue. In response to the concern that a sensitivity test had not been conducted for a higher land use intensity than proposed in the resource consent Mr. McKenzie was of the view that should appropriately occur at resource consent stage. He considered that the Local Centre zoning provisions, along with the Auckland-wide transport provisions, will provide a sufficiently robust framework for any future resource consent assessment.

29. Ms. Lauren White gave expert urban design evidence. Ms. White has

been been involved with development at Waiata Shores since Fletcher Residential Limited purchased the land in 2013. Ms. White agreed with the Applicant's Urban Design Statement and the Council’s urban design peer review and overall considered a Business - Local Centre zone:

(a) provides an opportunity for residents of Waiata Shores and

the wider community to more conveniently meet more of their local retail needs;

(b) provides the opportunity to establish a community heart to the development and foster social interaction;

(c) promotes the use of walking and cycling by residents within this catchment and thereby contributes to reduced reliance on private vehicles; and

(d) provides for uses which more easily address and I or mitigate the challenging interface with Great South Road and adjoining industrial use.

Ms. White further noted her views that:

(e) the Great South Road arterial is by nature a mixed-use

corridor, supporting bus services and, together with the adjacent rail line, provides the Site with connection to a wider catchment to support a range of uses on the Site;


10

(f) permitted uses provided for by the proposed zoning provide greater opportunities to signal a gateway to the Waiata Shores development and assist with wayfinding at a local level;

(g) there is no benefit in protecting the Site for the type of medium density housing currently being developed by (Fletcher Living) at Waiata Shores. Residential use, including apartment typologies, is anticipated in a Local Centre zoning and can be integrated with development should it prove economically feasible and market attractive.

30. Ms. White noted that any concerns regarding the development

proposed in the resource consent application were the subject of the separate resource consent application and the provisions of the Business - Local Centre Zone were sufficient to ensure these details can be adequately resolved at resource consent stage and do not undermine the support for the rezoning.

31. Mr. Philip Brown gave expert planning evidence. Mr. Brown

considered that the subject site is better suited to a Local Centre zoning than its current residential zoning. The plan change in his view provides for additional business land to meet the demands of the surrounding community, the closest parts of which are growing rapidly as a result of the Unitary Plan's rezoning for intensive residential development. In his view the surrounding industrial land and Great South Road I SH1 context would provide compromised amenity for a residential development, and this context is better suited to Local Centre activities. Local Centre activities would assist in screening the residential development to the south from the reduced amenity associated with the proximity of Great South Road. He noted that the evidence of the applicant’s other witnesses confirmed that the rezoning would not generate any significant adverse environmental effects. He did not support the alternative of a Town Centre zoning for the subject site on the basis that the scale of development that is anticipated in the Town Centre zone would have the potential to create a less comfortable fit with the amenity expectations of the residential area to the south of Periko Way. In relation to transport matters Mr. Brown was of the opinion the there is sufficient scope within the Local Centre zone provisions and the Unitary Plan Transport chapter provisions to enable issues to be addressed through the resource consent application.

Applicant’s Evidence Accepted as Read 32. The Panel has read and considered the following expert evidence

provided on behalf of the applicant, which was not required to be personally presented by experts at the hearing:

• Mr. Alan Blyde – Stormwater, Flooding and Water / Wastewater Infrastructure


11

• Mr. Benjamin Lawrence – Acoustics

Local Board Submission

33. Mr. Brent Catchpole presented on behalf of the Papakura Local

Board. Mr Catchpole advised us that the Board supported the plan change proposal in principle. Mr. Catchpole considered it was necessary to take into account the narrow roads in the area and adequacy of traffic signal phasing when assessments were undertaken of traffic generation and parking, the particular concern being to ensure that any need for on-street parking was avoided. Mr. Catchpole also referred to the need to ensure adequate stormwater quality controls considering the close proximity of the Papakura Stream.

Submitter Evidence

34. There was one submitter present at the hearing, Auckland Transport. 35. Mr. Mehmet Ahmet gave expert traffic evidence. He generally agreed

with the traffic assessment undertaken by the applicant; however, he considered the currently proposed layout of Te Napi Drive I Periko Way did not adequately provide for pedestrian safety and connectivity. Mr. Ahmet considered there should be safe crossing facilities (dropped kerbs and tactile paving) installed between Periko Way and the reserve, and a shared use path on the northern side of Periko Way to better serve the commercial or retail land use, considering that there would potentially be increased pedestrian activity with the plan change. He also considered the layout of Gosper Road did not take account of the potential higher volume of pedestrians travelling between the residential portion and retail development and sought raised tables or other traffic calming measures and safe crossing facilities to be provided to accommodate the higher footfall. In respect of the Te Napi Drive I Periko Way intersection Mr. Ahmet agreed with the applicant’s revised Integrated Transport Assessment, that the current give-way priority-controlled layout is sufficient to support the plan change given that it also is possible to provide acceptable crossing facilities on Te Napi Drive. In respect of public transport considerations Mr. Ahmet was concerned that no assessment had been undertaken of whether existing facilities are adequate or not. He also considered that consideration needed to be given to wider transport network upgrades that may be required.

36. Mr. Trevor Mackie gave expert planning evidence. Mr. Mackie

confirmed that Auckland Transport supports there being a Local Centre in this location, providing local convenient access to facilities and a range of retail and employment opportunities. However, he


12

noted that the roading and transport networks at Waiata Shores were designed for a residential subdivision and that road and transport improvements are needed to provide fit for purpose infrastructure for a Local Centre. Mr. Mackie was concerned that there is a significant risk that the resource consent process for the current supermarket and associated retail and office proposal will not deliver road and transport improvements suitable for a Local Centre. In particular he considered that the Integrated Transport Assessment had been prepared for the plan change and the resource consent application, which meant that the AUP(OP) trip generation rule (E27.6.1(1)) will not apply. He considered that the Business - Local Centre zone provisions may be limited to the on-site and boundary effects of development. These constraints may mean that the measures considered necessary by Mr. Ahmet would not be achieved.

MATTERS TO BE RESOLVED 37. After analysis of PPC24 and evidence, undertaking a site visit,

reviewing the Council planning officers’ s42A report, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the Panel has identified the matters that need to be resolved.

38. No party filed any expert evidence or otherwise raised issues in

respect of the following matters as covered in the expert evidence for the applicant:

• Cultural effects • Stormwater discharge and diversion effects • Flooding effects • Water and wastewater infrastructure effects • Land disturbance effects

39. We have reviewed these matters and we are satisfied that the

provisions contained in PPC24 or that generally apply in the AUP(OP) are appropriate. Accordingly, we do not address these matters further.

40. The matters outstanding to be resolved lie in the areas of:

• Economic Effects • Relationship between the Plan Change and the Resource

Consent • Adequacy of the AUP (OP) Framework to Address Transport

Matters • Implications associated with the proposal to connect Brylee

Drive (in Conifer Grove) to Gosper Road (in Waiata Shores) • Noise • Section 32


13

FINDINGS ON THE MATTERS TO BE RESOLVED 41. Our main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are

detailed below. Economic Effects 42. There were issues raised in submissions, that there is already an

adequate supply of supermarkets, convenience and other retail stores in close proximity to the site. Mr. Foy acknowledged that are a number of retailers operating in the area, however the Retail Assessment concluded that the area is undersupplied with retail. The proposed Business Local Centre Zone would serve a catchment similar to average local centres across Auckland, and the low trade competition effects assessed, and retail demand projections indicate that there is demand for additional retail supply in the area1.

43. The MR Cagney peer review report engaged by Council considered

that PPC24 was consistent with the direction and framework of the Unitary Plan in terms of economic activity and effects. Mr. Schiff confirmed these views at the hearing and supported PPC24 without modification.

44. We find on the evidence that there is the potential for only minor or

less than minor adverse retail distributional effects arising from PPC24.

Relationship between the Plan Change and the Resource Consent

45. The applicant lodged a land use resource consent application concurrently with PPC24 to develop the following:

• 4,000m² gross floor area supermarket;

• 513m² gross floor area of retail, in 6 tenancies;

• 1,442m² gross floor area of commercial services, anticipated to be predominately healthcare services;

• Associated car parking, servicing, access and circulation.

46. The applicant initially sought to have the resource consent notified, considered and heard together with PPC24. We were advised that Council staff advised against that option on the basis that a private plan change could not be taken into account in the processing of a resource consent until a decision had been made on the private plan change. Mr. Brown informed us that it is envisaged by the applicant

1 Mr. Foy’s evidence paragraphs 8.4/8.5


14

that the resource consent application will be determined once the plan change is operative.

47. The proposal put forth in the resource consent application formed a basis for some of the applicant’s expert assessments on PPC24. In response to concerns raised by Council staff, the applicant’s experts provided comment on whether a more intensive development scenario could have effects that would be greater in scale than those initially assessed.

48. In respect of economic effects, Mr. Foy was of the view that it was

unlikely that a centre would develop on the subject site if it was not anchored by a supermarket2. However, it was his view that effects on other centres would be relatively similar whether or not a supermarket were to be established. Those effects would be similar to the development scenario tested in the original Retail Assessment, the conclusion that effects would not go beyond trade competition effects would also apply to alternative development scenarios.

49. In respect of traffic effects, Mr. McKenzie acknowledged the consent

application was not the only development that could be advanced under a Business-Local Centre zoning. However, he considered that it provided a realistic development scenario for the site and is indicative of the traffic related effects that a local centre may generate.

50. In respect of acoustic effects, Mr. Lawrence’s evidence was based on

the zoning rather than the resource consent, although the latter was also assessed as an example of what noise effects could be generated3.

51. In respect of urban design matters, Ms. Ogden-Cork informed us that

there were matters to address in relation to the current resource consent proposal, however there was scope within the AUP (OP) provisions to address these.

52. There was no suggestion of any other effects analyses that relied on

the development proposal contained in the resource consent application.

53. We find that the experts have appropriately addressed potential

development scenarios for the land under a Business–Local Centre zoning. The specific development proposals contained in the resource consent application provide a helpful indication of how the applicant intends to develop the site in the future, but those proposals are not directly related to the plan change, that seeks only to alter the zoning of the land.

2 Mr. Foy’s evidence, paragraph 6.13 3 Mr. Lawrence’s evidence, Section 6


15

Adequacy of the AUP (OP) Framework to Address Transport Matters 54. All traffic experts generally agreed that generated traffic and parking

demands associated with development that would be enabled by PPC24 could be compatibly integrated into the local traffic environment. Differences of opinion were in matters of detail rather than any fundamental deficiency. However, Mr. Mackie raised a concern that measures considered necessary by Auckland Transport may not be able to be achieved under the AUP (OP)’s resource consent framework applying to future development of the site. He considered there was a “significant risk” that the resource consent process for the current supermarket and associated retail and office proposal will not deliver road and transport improvements suitable for a local centre4.

55. Rule E27.6.1(1) would normally require a restricted discretionary

activity application for trip generation, thus allowing consideration of matters, including contributing to improvements to the local transport network5. Mr. Mackie agreed that, if that rule was to apply, then Auckland Transport’s concerns could be addressed. However, Rule E27.6.1(2) states:

Standard E27.6.1(1) does not apply where: (b) development is being undertaken in accordance with a consent or

provisions approved on the basis of an Integrated Transport Assessment where the land use and the associated trip generation and transport effects are the same or similar in character, intensity and scale to those identified in the previous assessment;

56. Mr. Mackie explained his concern as arising from the basis that the

applicant’s Integrated Transport Assessment had been prepared for both the plan change and the resource consent application. In his view that meant that the trip generation rule (E27.6.1 (1)) would not apply. He pointed out that Mr. Church and Mr. Bangs had also identified that risk. Mr. Mackie did not consider that other provisions in the AUP (OP) provided sufficient confidence that there were alternative means to ensure Auckland Transport’s concerns could be addressed. He also considered that the intentions in respect of transport mitigation currently offered by the applicant were not sufficient.

57. Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Mackie’s concerns at the hearing,

expressing the following opinions:

4 Mr. Mackie’s evidence paragraph 4.4 5 Matters of Discretion E27.8.1(4); Assessment Criteria in E27.8.2 (3)


16

1. E27.6.1(2) applies only where a consent or provisions have been approved In this case no consent or provisions will have been approved and the exclusion will not apply;

2. E27.6.1(2) applies only to particular measures previously

assessed and approved. In this case the applicant had not sought that particular measures be considered as part of this (plan change) process.

3. The applicant had accepted that Rule E27.6.1(1) applied and

had sought consent under that rule in the resource consent application.

4. The applicant had acknowledged that the resource consent

application would be assessed through a separate process. 58. At the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Bangs advised us that he had

reconsidered the position he expressed in the s42A report. He agreed with Mr. Brown, that that the exclusion rule E27.6.1(2) will not apply in respect of a future resource consent assessment and Rule E27.6.1(1) will apply.

59. We prefer the evidence of Mr. Brown and Mr. Bangs on this matter.

In this decision we simply approve a mapping change. We do not approve any provisions relating to transport or any other matter, nor has it been sought that we do so. Any resource consent relating to development of the site under the Business-Local Centre zoning will be assessed through a separate process. We find that there is no basis for concern that consideration of transport matters will not be possible under Rule E27.6.1(1). We find on the evidence that rule will apply.

Implications associated with the proposal to connect Brylee Drive (in Conifer Grove) to Gosper Road (in Waiata Shores) 60. In March 2018, Fletcher Residential Living applied for resource

consents for the formation of a road connection linking Gosper Road and Brylee Drive, located southeast of the PPC24 land. These resource consents were publicly notified in August 2018, with some 512 submissions received. We were advised that a hearing of that application, before a separately constituted panel, was to take place in the week following this hearing. The merits of this road connection are not part of our considerations. However, we have addressed, following evidence provided for this hearing, the implications of a road connection to PPC24.

61. A connection between Gosper Road and Brylee Drive would bring

the Conifer Grove catchment significantly closer to the subject site than the present roading pattern allows. We were provided with information that current roading links mean that Conifer Grove is slightly closer to the Takanini Centre. However, Mr. Foy advised


17

as that Conifer Grove was still considered as part of the subject site’s primary catchment. He explained that primary catchments can overlap due to such factors as personal preference for shoppers. His analysis of economic effects had taken into account the current roading pattern and did not rely on a Gosper Road / Brylee Drive link.

62. In respect of traffic effects Mr. McKenzie provided evidence that, in

the event there is no connection from Brylee Drive to Waiata Shores, this will not result in a material impact on the overall operation of the Great South Road I Te Napi Drive intersection6.

63. In the event there was a connection from Brylee Drive to Waiata

Shores the existing (2018) peak hour traffic on Brylee Drive of 270 traffic movements is projected to result in an increase of around 100 trips. The plan change would increase this by 45 vehicle movements resulting in a total of 416 vehicles per (peak) hour along Brylee Drive. On the basis that a road carrying less than 500 vehicles during the peak hour was unlikely to experience any congestion, Mr. McKenzie considered that Brylee Drive can readily accommodate the additional traffic generated by the plan change without any significant adverse effect on its transport function7.

64. Mr Lawrence provided evidence that no increase in noise level is

predicted for receivers on Brylee Drive8. 65. From an urban design perspective Ms. White supported a

connection to Conifer Grove as good connectivity is a foundation principle of urban design. However, whilst beneficial, the establishment of a local centre in this location in her opinion was not dependent on a full road link being provided between Gosper Road and Brylee Drive. The proposed Business-Local Centre Zone location on the Great South Road arterial, served by buses and the proximity to the rail station, provided accessibility to a wider area.

66. Mr. Brown considered that issues related to the Brylee Drive

connection are not relevant to consideration of PPC24 on the basis that the connection was the subject of a separate and unrelated application for resource consent and that neither the plan change nor the resource consent application for development of the subject site was dependent on the Brylee Drive connection9.

67. We heard no evidence disputing that view. We find that a Brylee

Drive connection is not required to justify approval of this plan change.

6 Mr. McKenzie’s evidence paragraph 5.8 7 Mr. McKenzie’s evidence paragraph 5.7 8 Mr. Lawrence’s evidence, paragraph 8.4 9 Mr. Brown’s evidence, paragraph 8.3


18

Noise

68. Council’s acoustic consultant reviewer Jon Styles. Mr Styles

considered that adopting the noise limits in the Business-Local Centre Zone would allow for activities to increase the ambient noise levels at the adjoining residential interface by a range of approximately 0 to 5 decibels. Mr Styles was of the view that this would range from being clearly noticeable and appreciable increase in noise level (+5dB) to not noticeable at all (0dB).

69. There appeared to be no disagreement that the standard AUP (OP)

noise controls could be met after the introduction of a Business-Local Centre zoning. Noised levels enabled at the residential interface would be increased through the rezoning. However, as noted by Mr. Styles and Mr. Bangs, these interface standards are applied across much of Auckland, and represent a balance between protecting residential amenity and enabling business to operate without undue restrictions or acoustic mitigation works. Mr. Bangs also noted that the residentially zoned land immediately south of Periko Way, which would accommodate the most sensitive noise receivers, is currently held in ownership by Fletcher Living, who have submitted in support of PPC24. Resource consents have either been recently granted or are currently being processed for residential development on these sites, and future owners can be reasonably expected to be informed of PPC24 and its implications in terms of noise effects.

70. We find on the evidence that there is no reason to decline PPC24 on

the basis of noise effects. Section 32

71. The plan change request included a comprehensive section 32

evaluation report which was adopted by Mr. Bangs in the s42A report10. The integrity of the s32 assessments was not questioned in the evidence before us. We are satisfied that the s32 assessments have adequately identified and assessed the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of PPC24.

72. Section 32AA of the RMA, which requires a further evaluation for any

changes that are proposed, is not relevant in this case as no changes have been proposed.

73. In respect of positive effects Mr. Brown considered the plan change

will enable the development of a local centre to service the needs of the nearby Waiata Shores, Wattle Downs and Conifer Grove

10 S42A report, paragraph 50


19

communities. He noted that local centres generally provide a convenient stop for customers to complete a number of errands and this site would act as a community hub for the Waiata Shores residential development, while also providing convenient access for day-to-day activities for the nearby communities of Wattle Downs and Conifer Grove. The site was in a good location to ensure it will be well visited, due to its proximity to these neighbourhoods and the Great South Road arterial.

74. We note also Fletcher Livings’ submission in support of the proposal

on the basis that the subject site is well located to accommodate a local centre to provide for the needs of the Waiata Shores community and wider catchment. The proposal was also supported in principle by the Papakura Local Board.

75. In respect of the potential for adverse effects, the most relevant

matters have been canvassed above in this Decision. We have found that there are no potential adverse effects that cannot be adequately managed through future resource consents.

76. Alternative zoning scenarios were examined, in particular, by Mr. Foy,

Ms White and Mr. Brown. In favouring a business zoning over a residential zoning Mr. Foy noted that there are no real alternatives to provide for increased retail and services activities for the needs of the Waiata Shores and surrounding community and that the subject site is strategically valuable in this regard11. Of the business zoning options available, Mr. Foy considered a Neighbourhood Centre zoning would not provide adequate capacity and would be too restrictive to adequately provide for an appropriate range of retail and service activities to service the communities' needs12. Conversely, a Town Centre zoning would enable activities that would increase the likelihood that a centre on the subject site would provide for more than the local convenience needs of the surrounding community, which is what Mr. Foy’s Retail Assessment (in supporting a Business-Local Centre zoning) concluded is appropriate given retail supply gaps in the area at present. This would potentially lead to slightly greater adverse effects on neighbouring town and local centres than assessed in the Retail Assessment, resulting in an economically inefficient use of resources13.

77. We note that the submitted Assessment of Environmental Effects, the

s42A report and Mr. Brown’s evidence assess in a comprehensive manner, relevant planning documents, including: -

• the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Capacity 2016

11 Mr. Foy’s evidence paragraph 6.5 12 Mr. Foy’s evidence paragraph 6.6 13 Mr. Foy’s evidence paragraphs 6.7 – 6.9


20

• the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2014 (Amended 2017)

• National environmental standards or regulations (none are considered to apply)

• Regional Policy Statement (RPS) • District Plan • Auckland Plan • Long-Term Plan 2018 – 2028 • Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2017 • Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 – 2028 • Regional Public Transportation Plan 2015 • Long-Term Plan 2018 – 2028 • Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2017 • Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 – 2028 • Regional Public Transportation Plan 2015 • Manurewa-Takanini-Papakura Integrated Area Plan 2018 (MTPIAP)

78. We have considered these plans and find that PPC24 is generally consistent with them. We are satisfied that PPC24 provides for rezoning of land within the Rural Urban Boundary that supports a quality compact urban form and provides for a range of employment choices (RPS B2.2.2(7)). We find, after considering the objectives of the zone, that a Business–Local Centre zoning is most appropriate for the subject site as it:

• will enable commercial activity which primarily services the

local convenience needs of the surrounding residential area, which will be developed intensively in accordance with its Mixed Housing Urban zoning (H11.3(16));

• will not undermine the function, role or amenity of any town

centre, metropolitan centre or the city centre (H11.3(17)(c)); • will not give rise to any adverse effects on the safe and

efficient operation of the transport network (H11.3(17)(b)). 79. We find that PPC24 is consistent with s31 RMA. It assists in

achieving integrated management of the effects of the use and development of land to ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in respect of business land to meet the expected demands of the district.

80. We find PPC24 to be consistent with Part 2 RMA. It will provide for

social and economic well-being of the community in a way that mitigates adverse effects, maintains amenity values and uses land efficiently.


21

DECISION 81. Acting under a delegation from the Auckland Council to hear and

decide the proposed plan change and the submissions, the Commissioners, pursuant to Clauses 29 and 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, resolve that:

1. Private Plan Change 24 to the Auckland Unitary Plan is

approved, with the modifications described below; and 2. The submissions which support the proposed plan change

and/or seek further changes to the plan change are accepted to the extent that the plan change is approved with the modifications described below; and

3. All other submissions and further submissions, including those

opposing the plan change, are rejected. 82. The reasons for the Decision is that Private Plan Change 24:

(a) will assist the Council in achieving the purpose of the RMA (b) is consistent with the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (c) is consistent with the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA (d) is supported by necessary evaluations in accordance with

section 32; and (e) will help with the effective implementation of the plan.

The Plan Change as approved appears in Attachment A.

Peter Reaburn PPC24 Panel Chairperson 25 September 2019


22

Attachment A: Map showing amendments to AUP(OP) arising from PC24

2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores: Rezone from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone to Business – Local Centre Zone

Date post:	03-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Plan Change 24 - Decision Report€¦ · Lauren White, Urban Design . Philip Brown, Planning . Alan...

Documents