059, 060, 062 and 063 - hrg - auckland council - (nick roberts) _ planning _ rebuttal

8/20/2019 059, 060, 062 and 063 - Hrg - Auckland Council - (Nick Roberts) _ Planning _ REBUTTAL

1/52

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the LocalGovernment (AucklandTransitional Provisions) Act2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of Topics:059 Residential objectives

and policies;060 Residential activities;

062 Residential development

controls; and063 Residential controls andassessment

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and furthersubmissions set out in the

Parties and Issues Report

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF NICHOLAS JON ROBERTSON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

PLANNING – RESIDENTIAL TOPICS

6 OCTOBER 2015


2/52

2

CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4

3. SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 5

4. ZONING STRATEGY, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ................................... 7

5. METHODS FOR MANAGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................. 15

6. METHODS FOR MANAGING ACTIVITIES .................................................. 44

7. OTHER MATTERS ....................................................................................... 49

ATTACHMENT A: MARKED UP AMENDMENTS

ATTACHMENT B: MEMO FROM AUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOSPATIAL TEAM

ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL ZONE HEIGHT CONTROL MAPS

ATTACHMENT D: CITY CENTRE AND TAKAPUNA FRINGE HEIGHT

CONTROLS


3/52

3

1. SUMMARY

1.1 My name is Nicholas Roberts, and I am providing this Evidence in

Rebuttal (EIR) in response to matters raised in the evidence for a number

of submitters on the Residential provisions for the Proposed Auckland

Unitary Plan (PAUP).

1.2 Having reviewed that evidence, I consider that the following minor

amendments to the marked up version of the Residential provisions in

Attachment 2 to my Evidence in Chief (EIC) would more appropriately

meet the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and

give effect to the objectives of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS):

(a) Amendment to Policy 1 of the Single House zone to further

clarify where growth should be limited;

(b) Amendment to General Policy 6 to better enable non-residential

activities;

(c) An additional statement in the introduction to the General

objectives and policies to recognise the role that specialistresidential activities play in contributing to housing supply for

those with particular housing needs;

(d) An amendment to General Objective 2a to remove ‘reverse

sensitivity’ as a term, and better recognise the potential adverse

amenity effects resulting from urban intensification in areas of

existing incompatible land uses;

(e) Amendment to the density rule for Mixed Housing Suburban

zone so that it applies to site area, rather than net site area;

(f) Reduction in the minimum lot size in the Rural and Coastal

Settlement Zone from 3,000sqm to 2,500sqm;

(g) Application of the Additional Zone Height Control to identified

sites at Stonefields, and at 1 Domain Crescent, Parnell;

(h) Reinstatement of the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary

control in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone (as in the PAUP);

(i) Provision of an alternative, more generous height in relation to

boundary control as an option in the Terraced Housing and


4/52

4

Apartment Zone subject to a non-notified restricted discretionary

activity assessment;

(j) Amendments to the assessment criteria for infringements to the

building coverage and landscaping controls to provide further

guidance as to when infringements would be appropriate

(including the design and location of proposed landscape

areas);

(k) Amendment to the definition of “Landscaped area” to enable

paths up to 1.5m in width to be included (previously 1.0m only);

(l) Amendments to the wording of the Daylight control to improve

clarity;

(m) Deletion of clause 2 of the Water and Wastewater control as it is

not a direct resource management issue;

(n) Providing for Education and Tertiary Education facilities in the

Large Lot zone as a discretionary activity (previously non-

complying);

(o) Providing for Care Centres and Community Facilities on sites

designated by the Minister of Education as a permitted activity

subject to conditions; and

(p) Providing for offices in identified City Centre and Takapuna

Centre fringe areas as a permitted activity subject to conditions.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My full name is Nicholas Jon Roberts. I am a planner engaged by the

Auckland Council (Council) to respond to submissions received on the

notified PAUP and to provide planning evidence in relation to Topics 059

Residential objectives and policies, 060 Residential activities, 062

Residential development controls, and 063 Residential controls and

assessment (the Residential Topics). I have the qualifications and

experience set out in my EIC dated 9 September 2015.

Code of Conduct

2.2 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and

that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the

material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the

opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of


5/52

5

expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of

another person.

3. SCOPE

3.1 In preparing this EIR, I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of

submitters on the Residential Topics. This EIR addresses various issues

raised in that evidence.

3.2 In my EIC on the Residential Topics I grouped submissions into three key

parts or themes: zoning strategy, objectives and policies; methods to

manage residential development; and methods to manage activities. This

rebuttal statement will adopt a similar approach to enable ease of cross-

referencing to my EIC.

3.3 The sub-groups or "themes" that will be addressed in this rebuttal

evidence include the following:

Zoning strategy, objectives and policies

Zone-specific issues(a) Single House zone

(b) Mixed Housing zones

(c) THAB zone

Other matters

(d) Additional zones

(e) Non-residential activities

(f) Specialist residential activities

(g) Safety

(h) Historic heritage, character and amenity

(i) Incompatible land uses

Methods for managing residential development

Density and associated controls

(j) Density control

(k) Minimum lot size – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone


6/52

6

(l) Minimum lot size – Single House zone

(m) Minor units

Development controls

(n) General

(o) Height

(p) Height in relation to boundary and building setbacks

(q) Building coverage and landscaping

(r) Impervious area

(s) Outdoor living

(t) Outlook and daylight

(u) Minimum dwelling size

(v) Water and wastewater

Design assessment

(w) Design assessment criteria

(x) Competitive design process

Methods for managing activities

(y) Early Childhood Centres(z) Fire Stations

(aa) Tertiary Education and Education facilities

(bb) Offices

(cc) Activity status near industrial zones

(dd) Activity status near Golf Clubs

Other matters

(ee) ACDC Model

(ff) Site or area specific requests

(gg) Infrastructure related terminology

(hh) Mediation process

3.4 Except where otherwise stated in this rebuttal evidence, my position on

the Residential provisions remains as stated in my EIC. The further

amendments to those PAUP provisions that I propose in this EIR are

included in Attachment A.


7/52

7

4. ZONING STRATEGY, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Single House zone

4.1 The following statements of evidence raise concern regarding the

approach taken to the Single House zone in terms of the overall zoning

strategy and the zone objectives and policies:

(a) Dick Hudig: Opposes the changes for natural justice reasons;

and considers that the zone should apply at Herne Bay due to

character and infrastructure reasons;

(b) Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc): Raises concerns

around the revised approach to the Single House zone from

environmental, development and natural justice perspectives. If

this approach is to be adopted, then high amenity values should

be included in the list of where growth should be limited1;

(c) Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): Suggests amendments

to the Single House zone objectives and policies to further

clarify where it should apply2;

(d) David Hermans (for Ministry of Business Innovation andEmployment): Suggests amendments to the Single House zone

objectives and policies to further clarify where it should apply3;

(e) Maureen Forrester for Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers

Association Inc: Oppose changes to the SHZ objectives and

policies from the PAUP4;

(f) Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland

2040): The SHZ objectives and policies should be amended to

include “special character” in addition to heritage5.

4.2 I understand that matters of legal scope will be addressed by the Council

through legal submissions. The spatial extent of the Single House zone

(SH zone) and Mixed Housing Suburban zone (MHS zone) is also a

1 Paragraphs 62 – 70 of Richard Burton’s evidence for Auckland 2040 Ltd.

2 Paragraph 13.9 of Ian Craig’s evidence for Fletcher Residential Ltd.

3

Paragraph 8.10 of David Herman’s evidence for MBIE.4 Page 4 of Maureen Forrester’s evidence for Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc.

5 Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.4 of Brian Putt’s evidence for Herne Bay Residents Association &

Auckland 2040.


8/52

8

matter for Topics 080 and 081 rather than the Residential Topics, and

issues of scope for rezoning will be addressed at that time.

4.3 However, I note that a fundamental principle of the Residential zoning

strategy, as set out in my EIC, is that the MHS zone seeks to maintain a

suburban built character of generally two storeys in a general spacious

setting. The development controls will provide for similar levels of

daylight access, landscaping, opportunities for mature trees, and building

scale in both the SH and MHS zones. Although there will inevitably be

some difference in character due to the flexibility of housing size and

typology, this will be far less pronounced than between the MHS and

MHU, or MHU and THAB zones.

4.4 I do not consider that areas of ‘high amenity value’ or ‘special character’

should be included in the SH zone objectives and policies. In my view,

unless there is sufficient amenity or character value to warrant an overlay

with tailored provisions to protect that value, the greater flexibility of the

MHS zone should apply (unless there are other significant environmental

or infrastructure constraints). For clarity, I have adopted the Council’s

position on Topic 029 which reframes the “special character” overlays as

notified in the PAUP as “historic character” overlays (e.g. in SH zoneObjective 1).

4.5 I agree with changes suggested by Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential

Ltd) and David Hermans (for Ministry of Business Innovation and

Employment) that seek to further clarify the application of the SH zone. It

is important to clarify that “significant environmental or infrastructure

constraints” are constraints that are unlikely to be addressed in the

foreseeable future, or which cannot be addressed at a site-specific level.

Further, in relation to the public transport network, the planned network

should also be considered. As discussed in Don Munro’s evidence for

Auckland Transport/Auckland Council, there are planned upgrades to the

public transport network which should be considered when determining

the spatial extent of zones, in order to achieve an integrated approach

between land use and transportation planning. I therefore propose the

following amendments to Policy 1 of the SH zone (new amendments

shown in red text):


9/52

9

Policy 1: Require minimum site sizes that limit the intensity of

development in areas with:

a. significant environment constraints, or

b. infrastructure constraints that are unlikely to be addressed in the

foreseeable future or which cannot be addressed at a site-specific level,

or

bc. poor accessibility to:

i. the City Centre, Metropolitan, Town or Local Centres, orii. the existing or planned public transport network, or

iii. large urban facilities including existing or proposed public open

spaces, community facilities, education facilities, tertiary education

facilities, and healthcare facilities.

Mixed Housing zones

Strategy

4.6 Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd raise fundamental

concerns with the approach taken to the MHS and MHU zones.

Specifically, they consider that the two storey planned built character for

the MHS zone will not facilitate feasible development. In their view, the

MHS zone approach should therefore be deleted, and MHU significantly

expanded (with the remainder of sites zoned SH). They state this

approach would enable greater housing capacity and variety. A key

concern raised in their evidence is that the MHS zone has the samecontrols as the SH zone, and as the only difference between the zones is

density and minimum lot size, this will not facilitate a substantial

difference between these zones.

4.7 Having reviewed the evidence for Ockham Holdings Ltd, my view is the

following:

(a) Density and minimum lot size will make a difference in terms of

the number of dwellings and people between the SH and MHS

zone, as explained in my EIC6. It is therefore appropriate to

provide for the two different zones to enable growth to be limited

in specified areas; and

(b) The MHS zone and provisions will be appropriate to maintain a

suburban character where population growth does not need to

be limited, but three story, more intensive development is not

6 Refer paragraphs 13.18 – 13.29 of my EIC.


10/52

10

appropriate. It should therefore be retained as a ‘zoning option’

in terms of the overall zoning strategy.

4.8 Further, I note the evidence of Tim Heath and Philip Osborne for Housing

New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) acknowledges that “although it is

important that the community has a degree of housing choice, it is also

essential that such choices do not undermine the ability for residential

activity to be developed in and around centres and transport hubs”7. The

MHS zone provides a level of flexibility and increased housing capacity

while not undermining the role of MHU and THAB zones to encourage

higher levels of intensification where the greatest gains (for example,

infrastructure and public transport economics of scale, and accessibility

to centres) can be achieved.

4.9 I also note that Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040) specifically supports

the difference in height between MHS and MHU, and states that over

100 community groups represented by Auckland 2040 are generally

accepting of the release of density provided that a two storey ‘suburban’

built character is retained8. Although this is not a determining factor, I

consider this indicates that significant expansion of the MHU zone,

enabling three storeys over much of suburbia, is unlikely to beacceptable to communities. The MHS zone provides a balance between

enabling a suburban character and facilitating housing capacity and

choice, and is therefore an appropriate zoning method to assist in

achieving the RPS policy direction9.

4.10 Based on the evidence, and the consideration of the overall zoning

strategy as set out in my EIC, I consider that the concerns raised by

Ockham Holdings Ltd are more related to the spatial extent of the MHU

zone, and are a matter for consideration in the rezoning Topics 080 and

081, and/or any future Plan Changes. The MHS zone should be retained

as a tool, but the appropriate spatial distribution of the SH, MHS, MHU

and THAB zones should be considered having regard to the RPS

objectives (as reflected through the zone objectives and policies).

7 Refer paragraph 4.3 of the joint statement of Tim Health and Philip Osborn for HNZC.

8 Paragraph 49 of Richard Burton’s evidence for Auckland 2040.

9 Including a quality compact city, increased housing capacity and choice, quality living

environments and residential amenity, as summarised in Section 12 of my EIC.


11/52

11

Objectives and policies

4.11 Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 inc) considers the MHS objectives

and policies should be amended to recognise existing neighbourhood

character 10. Recognition of a site’s existing neighbourhood and wider

context is already reflected in General Objective 1 and I consider it is

unnecessary to reflect this specifically in the MHS zone. The planned

character is specified within the zone objectives and policies as this

differs between zones.

4.12 Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land

Ltd) seeks a four storey height for MHU zone as she states three storey

development is uneconomic, and four storeys with an elevator would

result in better onsite amenity11. I understand from the EIC of Peter

Nunns (for Auckland Council), and from submitters during the workshop

and mediation process, that four storey development is generally an

uneconomic model. I consider three storey development in MHU will

provide for greater intensification and flexibility of housing typologies than

MHS while also providing for a less intensive character than the five

storey development enabled in the THAB zone. I support retaining a

three storey built character objective for MHU.

THAB zone

4.13 Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land

Ltd) seeks six storeys as of right in the THAB zone12. I support retaining

a five storey ‘baseline’ as a generally economically viable height that also

recognises the need to manage the transition of suburban areas to

higher density development. A five storey height will also enable for a

transition in height between lower scale centres (e.g. the Local Centre

zone with a total building height of 18m), and surrounding residential

areas. Six storey (and seven storey) development will be enabled in

appropriate locations through the additional height control.

10

Paragraphs 71 – 75 of Richard Burton’s evidence for Auckland 204011 Paragraphs 12 of Amanda Coats evidence for North Eastern Investments Limited andHeritage Land Limited

12 Paragraphs 45-46 of Amanda Coats evidence for North Eastern Investments Ltd and

Heritage Land Ltd


12/52

12

Other matters

Additional zones

4.14 Benjamin Ross seeks the replacement of SH, MHS, MHU and THAB

zones with seven new zones that will enable much higher intensification

in the higher level zones (up to 60m+ height). I consider that the heights

and level of intensification proposed is not appropriate at this time to

apply to Auckland’s existing residential areas. This level of intensification

would not appropriately manage change in existing residential areas, or

provide for reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents adjacent to

new developments, and would therefore not meet the RPS objectives. I

support the zoning strategy as set out in my EIC.

Non-residential activities

4.15 John Childs (for Saint Cuthbert’s College) seeks amendments to general

policy 6(b) relating to non-residential activities13. The changes are sought

as non-residential activities may not be able to be “in keeping with or

complement the planned built character” of a zone, but may still be

appropriate. I agree, and therefore propose the following changes togeneral policy 6 (new amendments are highlighted in red text):

Policy 6. Enable non-residential activities that provide benefits to local

communities and which have minimal adverse effects on amenities of the

residential area:

a. support the social and economic well-being of the community

b. respect the planned built character of the neighbourhood are in keeping

with or complement the planned built character and are compatible with

the scale and intensity form of development anticipated within the zone

c. avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on residential amenity

d. will not detract from the vitality of the City Centre, Metropolitan and

Town Centre zones.

Specialist residential activities

4.16 A number of submitters (including Ryman, Summerset and Aria Bay) are

seeking a statement in the introduction to the General objectives and

policies to recognise the role that specialist residential activities play in

contributing to housing supply for those with particular housing needs. I

13 Paragraphs 6.3 – 6.4 of John Childs evidence for Saint Cuthbert’s College.


13/52

13

agree this would be consistent with the approach taken in the

introduction, as in my EIC I also support the addition of commentary on

non-residential activities. I therefore propose the following additional

wording:

… Collectively, these zones provide for a mix of housing types, ranging

from a house in a coastal settlement, to a single detached house on a

suburban section, to an apartment near a metropolitan centre. Specialist

residential activities (including retirement villages, supported residential

care, boarding houses and visitor accommodation) that provide permanent

and temporary accommodation options for those with particular housing

needs may also establish within some zones. …

Safety

4.17 Ann Weaver (for SafeKids Aotearoa) seeks that the general objectives

and policies should include reference to safety. General Objective 1 and

Policy 1 includes reference to safety, and support provisions and

assessment criteria relating to the safety of sites, streets and

neighbourhood. I consider no further amendments are required at the

objective and policy level to provide for safety within the residential

zones.

Historic heritage, character and amenity

4.18 Angus McKenzie (for The Character Coalition) considers that historic

heritage, character and amenity have been inadequately addressed in

the residential provisions, and that this approach does not give effect to

the RPS. Specifically, Mr McKenzie considers that if the growth

assumptions are correct, then heritage and character are needlessly

being placed at risk. In my view, consideration of the relative value ofhistoric heritage buildings and historic character areas more generally

are a matter for the schedules and overlays, rather than the residential

zone provisions. Where historic character overlays apply, I support the

application of the SH zone to complement those provisions, as discussed

in my EIC. I consider that the zoning strategy and specific provisions

complement other methods in the PAUP (including historic character

overlays and volcanic viewshafts), to provide an appropriate balance

between achieving RPS objectives relating to character, amenity, and

increased housing supply and choice.


14/52

14

Incompatible land uses

4.19 The following statements of evidence request amendments to general

objective 2 in relation to reverse sensitivity:

(a) Andrea Rickard (for NZ Health Association / Sanitarium), and

Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Seek a minor

change to general objective 2a to better recognise incompatible

land uses14;

(b) Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Seek changes

to the SHZ objectives and policies to state that growth should be

limited in areas where incompatible land uses would result in

adverse amenity effects on residential development15;

(c) Cherie Lane (for North Shore Aero Club): Seeks amendments to

the Large Lot zone description, objectives and policies to

recognise the present and operation of adjacent significant

infrastructure, as an additional tool to complement the relevant

overlay16.

4.20 I do not support specific reference in the SH zone to restricting growthdue to incompatible land uses. Depending on the extent of the potential

reverse sensitivity issue, and the provisions of any relevant overlay,

another residential zone may be appropriate. For example, provided

dwellings can achieve the acoustic insulation and ventilation

requirements of the High Land Transport Overlay, it would not be

necessary to restrict growth by applying the SH zone, and indeed this

may not be the most appropriate zone to give effect to the RPS (given

that intensification along majort transport corridors is encouraged). I

therefore support retaining direction in relation to reverse sensitivity at

the General objectives and policies level only.

4.21 Similarly, I do not support changes to the Large Lot zone objectives and

policies to recognise potential reverse sensitivity issues in relation to

significant infrastructure. This matter is best addressed through overlays,

14 Paragraphs 6 – 7 of Andrea Rickard’s evidence for NZ Health Association / Sanitarium;

Paragraph 57 of Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey’s evidence for HNZC.15

Paragraph 58 of Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey’s evidence for HNZC.16

Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.4 of Cherie Lane’s evidence for the North Shore Aero Club.


15/52

15

and through general consideration of the spatial extent of the zones as

set out in the General objectives and policies.

4.22 I support the proposed amendments to General Objective 2a to improve

clarity about how the residential zones should assist in managing

potential effects from co-location of incompatible land uses. Not all plan

users will be familiar with the term ‘reverse sensitivity’ therefore

alternative wording will assist in clarity of the objective. I therefore

propose the following amended wording (new amendments in red text):

Objective 2a. Enable higher residential densities in areas close to centres

and the rapid and frequent service network and large urban facilities,

while ensuring development is adequately serviced by existing or planned

infrastructure and managing potential adverse amenity effects resulting

from urban intensification in areas of existing incompatible land uses e.g.

managing reverse sensitivity effects on significant infrastructure and

industrial activities.

5. METHODS FOR MANAGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Density and associated controls

Density control

5.1 Jonathan Maplesden, and Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg, correctly

picked up an error in the density control (3.1.2) where numerous deleted

clauses were still referred to. I have corrected this error in the marked up

changes at Attachment A.

5.2 A number of statements of evidence also seek that the density control be

applied on total site area, rather than net site area (including Vijay Lala

for multiple parties17, and Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for

HNZC18). Built form will be based on net site area (i.e. building

coverage), however in terms of density for sites under 1,000sqm in the

MHS zone a total site area approach to density is appropriate and will

assist in ease of plan use. I therefore agree with these submitters and

propose to amend Rule 3.1.1 Table 1 in relation to MHS as follows (new

proposed amendments in red text):

17 Paragraph 8.1(a) of Vijay Lala’s evidence for multiple parties.

18 Paragraph 89 of Matt Lindenberg’s and Amelia Linzey’s evidence for HNZC.


16/52

16

Mixed Housing Suburban –

One dwelling per 400 200m! net of site area, or

No density limits apply where the site is greater than 1,000m!

Minimum lot size – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

5.3 Karen Pegrume (for Better Living Landscapes Ltd) seeks a 1500sqm

minimum lot size in the RCS zone. The Auckland Regional Public Health

Service supports a 3,000sqm minimum lot size for unserviced lots. The

minimum lot size in this zone is directed by the minimum required area

for onsite wastewater discharge without presenting a high risk of adverse

environmental effects. Sandy Ormiston has reviewed the evidence and

undertaken further analysis, as set out in his rebuttal evidence. On this

basis, I support a reduction in the minimum lot size to 2,500sqm as the

most appropriate method to achieve the RCS zone objectives. In

particular, I note that this site size will be appropriate based on the

physical and environmental attributes of most sites (RCS Objective 2). I

consider it inappropriate to further reduce the minimum lot size as this

would provide an expectation that subdivision could be achieved, even in

areas where onsite wastewater discharge would be difficult without

generating significant adverse environmental or health effects. Any

application to infringe the minimum lot size would be assessed on itsmerits, having regard to the potential adverse effects from developing a

smaller site and the objectives and policies of the RCS zone.

Minimum lot size – Single House zone

5.4 The following statements of evidence raise concern regarding the

minimum 600sqm lot size in the SH zone:

(a) Geoff Bennett: Seeks that the minimum lot size is based on

gross, not net site area, to enable a 1200sqm site to be

subdivided into two.

(b) David Wren (for North 8 Limited): Seeks that the minimum lot

size in the Isthmus A Overlay be reduced from 600sqm to

400sqm to reflect the existing character.

(c) Giles Bramwell for The Neil Group: Seeks that the minimum lot

size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is not

reduced;


17/52

17

(d) Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): Seeks that the minimum

lot size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is

not reduced;

(e) David Hermans (for MBIE): States that the minimum lot size of

600sqm is largely unjustified;

(f) Peter Reaburn (for A M Culav): Considers that the 600sqm

minimum lot size in the SH zone is not justified, and should be

replaced by 450sqm (at least for the submitter’s site, or the

Waitakere legacy plan area more generally) unless the

proposed approach to limit the application of the SH zone is

accepted.

5.5 As comprehensively set out in my EIC (refer paragraph 13.19-13.29 and

15.26-15.36), in my view, the key purpose of the SH zone is to limit

growth in areas where there are significant constraints or values that do

not support intensification. The objectives and policies proposed for the

SH zone seek to limit growth in identified areas. The minimum lot size

therefore needs to support the intention of limiting growth in areas that

are zoned SH.

5.6 Auckland Council has undertaken additional analysis comparing thepotential growth enabled through a 600sqm minimum lot size, compared

with a 500sqm minimum lot size (e.g. as proposed by Ian Craig for

Fletcher Residential Ltd19). There are a number of variables that will

determine whether a site can be subdivided (including application of

overlays). However, based on a raw analysis of subdivision potential

based on the current lot size, I note the following (as advised by

Auckland Council’s geospatial team – refer Attachment B):

(a) The total number of sites over 1200sqm (and therefore

potentially able to be subdivided based on a 600sqm minimum

lot size only) within the SH zone is 12,412;

(b) The total number of sites between 1,000sqm and 1,200sqm

(therefore would only be able to be subdivided if the minimum lot

size was reduced from 600sqm to 500sqm) is 11,844; and

(c) Therefore, the number of sites that could be subdivided within

the SH zone (as per the spatial extent in the PAUP) as a result



18/52

18

of reducing the minimum lot size from 600sqm to 500sqm would

increase by 95%.

5.7 The potential consequential increase in growth in the SH zone by

reducing the minimum lot size from 600sqm to 500sqm is significant.

Based on site size alone, the potential number of sites able to be

subdivided would nearly double. In my view, this would not achieve the

objectives and policies for the SH zone which seek to limit growth in

areas with identified values or constraints. Where the SH zone applies, a

600sqm site size will appropriately limit growth while providing for a

suburban character, and will therefore achieve the zone objectives.

5.8 Where an alternative minimum site area is appropriate due to the

established heritage character or additional infrastructure constraints,

these should be provided for within the relevant historic character overlay

or the additional subdivision controls. I therefore continue to support a

minimum lot size of 600sqm for the SH zone.

Minor units

5.9 The following statements of evidence seek that minor units be providedfor in the SH zone:

(a) Geoff Bennett: Considers that minor units should be provided in

order to cater for smaller household sizes. Compared with old,

larger households, provision of minor units will not necessarily

increase demand on infrastructure in these areas;

(b) Amelia Linzey / Matt Lindenberg: Supports minor dwellings in

the SH zone as restriction on additional dwellings in

inappropriate areas can be managed through the appropriate

overlay; and

(c) Nick Molloy: Considers that a second dwelling in the SHZ should

not have to be only through conversion of an existing dwelling,

as similar amenity and infrastructure effects can occur through a

second stand-alone dwelling. Also considers that a second

dwelling should be a permitted or discretionary activity in the

historic heritage overlay.


19/52

19

5.10 My position on minor units is set out in my EIC20. In my view, it is

inappropriate to specifically provide for minor units where they may not

achieve the objectives and policies for the relevant zone. I note that

infringements to the density control, including for minor units, can be

sought as a discretionary activity and assessed on its merits (including

effects on environmental or infrastructure constraints, and the objectives

and policies of the relevant zones). I therefore do not propose any

change to approach to minor units. I do note, however, as stated in my

EIC21, that I support providing for minor dwellings as a permitted activity

in the historic character overlay in the SHZ where it is located outside an

identified flood plain.

Development controls

General

5.11 Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd consider there

should be only four key controls – height, height in relation to boundary,

building coverage and landscaping. In their view, all other design matters

should be addressed through assessment criteria to enable design

flexibility. They also support reducing the design trigger from threedwellings to two dwellings to enable this approach.

5.12 In my view, development controls are a useful tool as they set clear

‘baselines’ in terms of acceptable design responses to achieve the

desired amenity and/or built character outcome. Should an applicant

wish to provide a different design response to achieve the same

outcome, an infringement to a control can be sought and assessed on its

merits. Compared with relying on assessment criteria alone,

development controls provide greater certainty to applicants while also

enabling flexibility (through applying for an infringement) and therefore, in

my view, are an effective and efficient method of achieving the relevant

objectives and policies. I generally support the retention of development

controls other than those already addressed for deletion in my EIC.

20 Paragraphs 18.28 – 18.29 (General), 21.10-21.13 (Large Lot zone), 22.9-22.1 (RCS zone)

and 23.10-23.13 (SH zone).21

Paragraph 23.11.


20/52

20

5.13 Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) considers that the provisions

should make specific reference to ‘core’ development controls22. In my

view, this would add no value. The key approach to recognising the

importance of the ‘core’ controls (as set out in paragraph 20.3 of my EIC)

is through the notification provisions and directive assessment criteria. I

also consider that referencing ‘core’ controls in the provisions would

weaken the other controls, which also serve an important purpose in

achieving the objectives and policies of the residential zones. I therefore

do not propose any amendments to explicitly recognise ‘core’ controls

within the provisions.

5.14 Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) also seeks deletion of

“substratum and soil type” from the reasons that development control

infringements may be appropriate (general assessment criteria for

infringing development controls, refer Rule 11.2.1(a)(i))23. This

terminology has been taken directly from the proposed Chapter G

provisions for development control infringements. However, in the case

of residential development control infringements I concur that these are

not relevant matters, and therefore propose to delete them.

Height

General

5.15 Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC consider that the roof

height flexibility should be for up to 100% of the roof from (not 50%) as

this would enable better design outcomes24. As set out in Graeme

McIndoe’s rebuttal evidence (at Section 7), this approach is inappropriate

as it would potentially enable an additional storey (with low floor to ceiling

heights) which would not achieve the built character and quality living

environment objectives of the residential zones. Further, Mr McIndoe

considers that the proposed heights provide sufficiently flexibility for roof

form design and floor to ceiling heights for the number of storeys

envisaged in each zone. No changes are therefore proposed to the roof

height flexibility allowances.

22 Paragraph 79 of Richard Burton’s evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.

23 Paragraph 90 of Richard Burton’s evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.

24 Paragraphs 91 – 92 of Matt Lindenberg’s and Amelia Linzey’s evidence for HNZC.


21/52

21

Mixed Housing Urban

5.16 Richard Blakey’s evidence for the Papakura Private Hospital identifies

that Figure 23 for MHU does not reflect the associated rule. This was an

error and has now been updated to show a 11m permitted height with an

additional 1m flexibility for roof form.

THAB

5.17 Vijay Lala notes that the wording for notification of development controls

(Rule 2.1) should clarify that the standard tests will be applied to any

height infringements over 2m in the THAB zone (rather than any building

over 2m as it currently reads)25. I accept this change. He further suggests

the standard tests should apply to any infringement of height in the

additional height control areas. I disagree with this approach, as I

consider the 2m flexibility as a non-notified activity to encourage

improved roof forms is also appropriate in the additional height control

areas. I therefore propose the following amended wording for Rule

2.1(b):

1. An application to infringe the following development controls will besubject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of

the RMA:

…

b. building height infringements greater than 2m in the Terrace Housing

and Apartment Building zone.

Additional height control

5.18 Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Limited, seeks additional height

at Stonefields to reflect the legacy plan provisions, where they enabled 5-

6 storey residential development under the Isthmus Structure Plan (E14-

03)26. I agree with the submitter that the PAUP should not, as a principle,

down-zone residential areas, given the RPS and Residential zone policy

direction to increase housing capacity and choice. Six storey

development in the locations sought by the submitter would provide for a

transition in height from the local centre, define the public park and

provide for visual interest and variety in building height/form across the

precinct.

25 Paragraph 8.1(b) of Vijay Lala’s evidence for multiple parties.

26 Paragraphs 22 – 25 of Neil Donnelly’s evidence for Todd Property Group Ltd.


22/52

22

5.19 This is with the exception of the area at the south-eastern end of Korere

Terrace, which is defined as “terraced and duplex” in the Stonefields

masterplan and not subject to a six storey height limit under the

Operative District Plan. The eastern most part of this area is located

beneath the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft, which restricts height to

below six storeys. The other part of this area adjoins the MHS zone and

five storey development is considered to provide an appropriate

transition. Consistent with the Stonefields Masterplan, to ensure

consistency with the height enabled under the Mt Wellington Volcanic

Viewshaft and to provide an appropriate transition to the MHS zone land

to the south, I do not support additional height in this particular location.

5.20 The submitter is seeking a height limit of 20.5m. Consistent with the

analysis in my EIC and that of Graeme McIndoe, I support applying a

height limit of 19.5m, with the ability to infringe this height by up to 2m as

a non-notified activity, which would appropriately provide for six storey

development. Refer to Figure 1 below and Attachment C for a map of

the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft applying to the area and my

proposed amendments to the Additional Zone Height Control.


23/52

23

Figure 1: Proposed Additional Zone Height Control at Stonefields

5.21 David Wren and Tony Koia, for Domain Student Accommodation, seek

that the additional building height control of 20.5m (or alternatively

19.5m) should apply to 1 Domain Drive. The control is sought only over

part of the site, to enable some transition to adjacent sites. I support

providing for an Additional Height Control of 19.5m on part of the site at 1

Domain Drive for the reasons outlined by the submitter’s planning and

architectural evidence. The additional height will provide for increased

housing capacity and choice in a highly accessible and high amenity

location. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Mixed Use zone,

which has a proposed height limit of 18m. Nevertheless, the Mixed Use

and Local Centre zone fronting Parnell Road is located on a ridge and

therefore a transition in height will be achieved from the centre to the

surrounding residential area consistent with Policy 3 of the THAB zone.

Refer to Figure 2 below and Attachment C for a map showing the

proposed amendments to the Additional Zone Height Control at 1

Domain Crescent.

Figure 2: Proposed Additional Zone Height Control at 1 Domain Crescent

5.22 Franco Belgiorno-Nettis raises concern about the application of the

additional height control for two areas in Takapuna. I acknowledge there

was an error in Attachment 9 to my EIC in referring to submission

number 1473-88 by Auckland 2040 in relation to the Emerald Inn site

section. That submission reference should be replaced by submission

number 3608-2 by Emerald Group Limited (Note: the submission

summary is correct, although incorrectly attributed). I consider that the


24/52

24

additional height zone control of 22.5m for this site will achieve a

transition between the Metropolitan zone, and the THAB zone (with no

height control) along Hurstmere Road, and then to the SH zone, and is

therefore consistent with Policy 3 for the THAB zone. Based on the

currently proposed zonings, I consider that the additional height control is

appropriate for the Emerald Inn site. Should the sites be rezoned as part

of Topic 081, then the appropriate height for the site may need to be

reconsidered.

5.23 With regard to the Tennyson Avenue site, I consider that a transition in

height is appropriate due to the SH zoned sites at the rear. Therefore, I

do not support an additional height control at this location.

Height in relation to boundary and building setbacks

Application to driveways

5.24 Douglas Hayr’s evidence states that the height in relation to boundary

control should be applied to the other side of any common driveway,

whether a formal right of way or not. Clause 2 of the height in relation to

boundary control (where it applies) states that the control applies fromthe farthest boundary of a legal right of way, entrance strip, or access

site. This addresses all forms of common driveways, except for informal

arrangements. For informal arrangements, there is the possibility of the

driveway being removed and replaced by a building or outdoor living

area, therefore adequate sunlight access to these areas should be

maintained. I therefore propose no further changes to the applicability of

the control in relation to driveways.

Alternative height in relation to boundary – MHS zone

5.25 Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) and Graeme Scott (for Urban Design

NZ and NZIA) seek reinstatement of the alternative height in relation to

boundary control (AHIRB) in the MHS zone as per the PAUP to facilitate

two storey dwellings facing the street on narrow sites. I have reviewed

the rebuttal evidence of Graeme McIndoe, and acknowledge that

reinstatement of this control in MHS as a non-notified RDA would provide

for greater flexibility in providing for duplex houses facing the street.


25/52

25

From a s32AA perspective, an evaluation is required as to whether the

alternative height in relation to boundary control would be an appropriate

method of achieving the relevant objectives for the MHS zone. In this

respect, I consider the following costs and benefits apply (when

compared to relying on the standard 2.5m + 45 degrees height in relation

to boundary control alone):

Cost of the

Alternative HIRTB

Control

Benefit of the

Alternative HIRTB

Control

Increased housing

capacity and choice

(Objective 1)

- Will enhance the

feasibility of duplex

development on sitesof typical widths in

suburban areas.

Development engages

with and addresses the

street (Objective 2)

- Will encourage duplex

development to face

the street (instead of

one unit behind the

other) by enabling

street-facing duplex

development.

Development positively

responds to the site

and its context

(Objective 2)

Would potentially

result in a more

intensively built

streetscape that is

established in the

area.

Will encourage

development to

respond positively to

the street. The

assessment criteria for

utilising this control

requires consideration

of the potential

daylight access and

visual dominance

effects on the

neighbouring sites.

One - two unit

development

complying with the

permitted HIRTB does


26/52

26

not require specific

consideration and

assessment of the site

context.

Development

complements the

neighbourhood’s

planned suburban built

character of

predominantly one-two

storey buildings, in a

variety of forms and a

generally spacioussetting (Objective 2)

Would potentially

result in a more

intensively built

streetscape than

would otherwise be

enabled, reducing the

perceived

spaciousness of the

street.

Will provide for a

variety of one-two

storey dwelling forms

by enabling street-

facing duplex

development.

Development provides

high-quality on-site

living environments for

residents and achieves

a reasonable standard

of residential amenity

for adjoining sites

(Objective 3).

Would potentially

result in an increase

in shading and

dominance effects on

neighbouring sites

compared with the

permitted HIRTB.

Will provide for

improved functionality

of living environments

at first level of

dwellings.

The assessment

criteria for utilising this

control requires

consideration of the

potential daylight

access and visual

dominance effects on

the neighbouring sites.

One – two unit

development

complying with the

permitted HIRTB does

not require specific

consideration and

assessment of the site

context.


27/52

27

5.26 On balance, I consider that the benefits of the Alternative HIRTB in

achieving the MHS zone objectives will outweigh potential costs,

particularly since utilising this control requires a restricted discretionary

activity assessment. I therefore support the reinstatement of the

alternative height in relation to boundary control for the MHS zone. While

I support this change, I record that there is presently no formal Council

approval to reinstate this control.

Height in relation to boundary and Building setback – THAB zone

5.27 A number of submitters (including Generation Zero and North Eastern

Investments Limited and Heritage Land Limited) raise concern that the

building setback controls in the THAB zone constrain site development

flexibility and feasibility.

5.28 For sites that adjoin other sites in the THAB zone, the notified PAUP

requires buildings to be setback from both side and rear boundaries

depending on the number of storey, as shown in the following diagrams:

5.29 These setbacks provide for space between buildings but will result in

buildings that fail to address the street and will encourage outlook to be

provided to side boundaries instead of over the street, which may

compromise privacy on adjoining sites. Further, these setbacks would

severely restrict development potential on small and narrow sites, where

terrace housing development would be a more viable housing form.


28/52

28

5.30 In response to this, I proposed the following control in my EIC, which is

an amalgam of the AHIRB in the Mixed Housing Urban zone and the

setbacks in the notified PAUP (as above):

5.31 The AHIRB control as shown is proposed to apply with the first 20m ofthe site frontage with the standard 3m and 45 degree recession plane

from the MHU zone applying thereafter. While this better provides for two

storey terrace housing close to side boundaries, upon further review, I

consider that this approach results in an overly complex (therefore likely

more expensive) and unattractive building form if maximised. The

approach would also prevent three storey terraces close to side

boundaries, which is a desirable building form on smaller or narrow sites

given that the THAB zone seeks to provide for the efficient use of land in

highly accessible locations close to centres, the rapid and frequent

service network and large urban facilities (THAB zone Objective 1).

5.32 To address the issues identified above, I propose the approach outlined

below, which is supported by Graeme McIndoe, Council’s consultant

urban designer for the Residential zones.

5.33 The permitted height in relation to boundary control in the THAB zone

would be 3m and 45 degrees, consistent with the permitted control in the


29/52

29

MHU zone. This would provide for owners of existing properties to

undertake additions and alterations to existing dwellings as a permitted

activity, which is appropriate in a zone, which will slowly transition to

more intensive residential development over time.

5.34 To achieve three storey terraces close to the boundary while providing

for five, six and seven storey apartments on wider sites, the following

AHIRB is proposed, which would be a non-notified, restricted

discretionary activity, with a 1m side and rear yard applying:

Within the first 20m of the site frontage More than 20m from the site

frontage

5.35 The assessment criteria for the use of this control would ensure that

development is orientated towards the street or towards the rear of the

site and not towards side boundaries. This would avoid three storey

terraces with long frontages along side boundaries, which may

compromise the privacy of adjoining sites. This desired orientation is

shown below:


30/52

30

5.36 In my opinion, the proposed AHIRB is simple and efficiently and

effectively provides for the development intended by the zone in a

manner consistent with the urban design objectives and policies of the

THAB zone.

5.37 In terms of over-shadowing, three - seven storey development will

inevitably result in increased shading on neighbouring sites compared

with the existing environment, however, in my opinion this is appropriate

in a higher density environment. In terms of visual amenity and visual

dominance, the proposed approach is reasonably consistent with notified

setback control, while enabling building at lower height closer to the

boundary. This will ensure that taller buildings/taller parts of buildings are

appropriately setback from side and rear boundaries and visual

dominance effects are managed at external site boundaries.

Building coverage and landscaping

General

5.38 Ian Craig’s evidence (for Fletcher Residential Ltd) states that the

assessment criteria for infringing building coverage and landscaping

should include reference to landscaping27. Brian Putt (for Herne Bay

Residents Association & Auckland 2040) also considers that the

assessment criteria for building coverage infringements should focus on

the ratio of impermeable to permeable surface area28. I have further

reviewed the criteria for infringing these controls and agree that


28 Paragraph 4.9 of Brian Putt’s evidence for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland

2040.


31/52

31

amendments are required to reflect infringements to the landscaping

control. I also consider that provision of a landscaping plan which

includes specimen trees can assist in mitigating the effects of infringing

these controls. These considerations should apply whether the

infringements is within the flexibility enabled as a non-notified restricted

discretionary activity, or for additional infringements. I therefore propose

the following amendments to the criteria at Rule 11.2(d) (new

amendments shown in red text):

d. Building coverage and landscaping in the Mixed Housing Suburban

and Mixed Housing Urban zones

i. When considering applications to infringe building coverage or

landscaping control by up to 5 per cent in the Mixed Housing Suburban

and Mixed Housing Urban zones, the Council will consider whether:

- the development provides for terrace housing or other moreintensive housing types that necessitate greater building coverage

or lesser landscaping area; and

- the site is of a size sufficient or the development is designed and

located in a manner that mitigates the visual dominance effects of

increased building coverage to the street, public open space and

neighbouring sites, while achieving the planned built character of

the zone.

- landscape areas are designed and located where they are readily

perceived from the street, public open space or neighbouring sites

and will mitigate visual dominance effects, including through the proposed planting and maintenance of specimen trees.

Landscaped Area - definition

5.39 Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare Ltd) seeks an amendment to the

definition of “Landscaped Area” to enable the inclusion of paths up to

1.5m in width for retirement villages (currently 1.0m in width)29. The

reason for this request is to enable inclusion of paths within retirement

villages that are designed to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility

scooters. I consider that enabling paths up to 1.5m would have a minimal

effect on the purpose of the landscaped area control (being to contribute

to the built character and amenity of the residential zones), and will

encourage provision of universally accessible paths. On balance, I

therefore support this amendment to the landscaped area definition as it

applies to all activities (not just retirement villages).

29 Paragraph 59 of Clinton Bird’s evidence for Ryman Healthcare Ltd.


32/52

32

Mixed Housing zones

5.40 In respect of the approach to building coverage, the position set out in

my EIC is to enable 35% permitted building coverage in MHS with an

additional 5% able to be sought as a non-notified RDA activity, and

similarly, permitted 40% + 5% flexibility in the MHU zone. The following

statements of evidence seek amendments to this position:

(a) Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) and

Graeme Scott (for Urban Design NZ and NZIA) support

removing the RDA flexibility for an additional 5%, and instead,

increasing the permitted thresholds by 5%, to 40% in MHS and

45% in MHU.

(b) Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential supports the 35% + 5% RDA

flexibility in the MHS zone (as proposed in my EIC), however

seeks 10% flexibility in the MHU zone (i.e. 40% + 10% flexibility

as an RDA, instead of 40% + 5% flexibility as proposed in my

EIC).

(c) Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) opposes the 5%

flexibility in the MHS zone, but does not oppose this approach

for the MHU zone.

(d) Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) seeks reinstatement of the

notified building coverage controls in MHS.

(e) Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland

2040 Inc) seeks flexibility up to 45% for sites smaller than

300sqm (consistent with the Residential 1 approach in the

legacy Isthmus District Plan).

(f) Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage

Land Ltd) seeks 50% building coverage and 35% landscaping in

MHU.


33/52

33

(g) Luke Christensen (for Generation Zero) generally opposes the

reduction in building coverage between the PAUP and the

position of my EIC.

5.41 In respect of the approach to landscaping, the position set out in my EIC

is to require 40% minimum landscaped area in both the MHS and MHU

zones, with a reduction by 5% able to be sought as a non-notified RDA

activity in the MHU zone only. The following statements of evidence seek

amendments to this position:

(a) Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential) and Amelia Linzey and Matt

Lindenberg (for HNZC) seek the 5% flexibility in the MHS zone

as well as the MHU zone;

(b) Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) seek 40%

with no flexibility in the MHS zone, and an increase in the

minimum landscaped area to 45% in the MHU zone;

(c) Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare) seeks a reduction in the

permitted landscaped area from 40% to 35% in the SH, MHS

and MHU zones, and from 30% to 25% in THAB.

5.42 Having reviewed submitter’s evidence, my view on the building coverage

and landscaping controls for the Mixed Housing zones as set out in my

EIC (refer paragraphs 24.24 – 24.35) has not changed. Although I

acknowledge that building coverage 40% in MHS and 45% in MHU

would enable more efficient use of land, and may be appropriate subject

to design, this needs to be considered against the potential adverse

effects on the built character of these zones from raising the ‘permitted

baseline’. In particular, I note that one or two dwellings on a site will not

be subject to design assessment, and the building length control in the

PAUP has been deleted. Many sites in the Mixed Housing zones are

likely to continue to be utilised for one or two dwellings. Depending on

the site characteristics and design of the dwellings, an increase in

building coverage of 5% may result in developments which detract from

the planned built character, particularly the spacious character sought in

the MHS. This is particularly as a 5% increase on a relatively large site

will result in a noticeably larger building, which, without any design


34/52

34

assessment, may result in large blank facades and consequentially bulky

buildings within a suburban area.

5.43 An alternative approach to mitigate this risk on built character would be to

increase the building coverage and require all one - two dwelling

developments to be subject to resource consent. In my view, this would

be a less efficient approach. The 5% flexibility can be achieved as a non-

notified RDA subject to appropriate design, which is required for multi-

unit developments in any case through the assessment criteria.

Effectively, this approach will enable up to 40% and 45% for all

developments subject to appropriate design without penalising smaller

scale one - two dwelling development.

5.44 With regard to the minimum landscaped area in the MHS zone, I do not

consider it appropriate to enable 5% reduction as a non-notified activity.

Retaining a suburban, spacious character is one of the objectives of the

zone, and landscaped areas will be a significant contributor to achieving

this objective. Infringements, if appropriate, will be assessed on their

merits having regard to the assessment criteria (which have been

refined, as discussed above).

5.45 I note that any further infringements beyond the flexibility provided for as

a non-notified activity may be appropriate and will be assessed on their

merits, having regard to the stated purpose of the controls.

5.46 I further clarify that the Housing Project Office building coverage

infringement statistics identified in Attachment 5 to my EIC are based on

‘delineated’ areas, or proposed site areas, rather than the overall

application area which I have now clarified is the appropriate approach. A

line of terraced houses will likely have higher building coverage for the

inner units, and lower building coverage for the end units, but the overall

perceived built character should be consistent with that sought for the

zone. The total application area approach is therefore appropriate.

THAB zone

5.47 Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd seek 55% building

coverage in the THAB zone (compared with 50% as proposed in my EIC)


35/52

35

and a minimum 40% landscaped area. Based on the modelling

undertaken by Auckland Council, I support retention of the 50% building

coverage in the THAB zone. This will enable terraced housing and

apartment building typologies, while also recognising that these areas

are in transition from more traditional suburban to higher density built

environments. Again, infringements may be appropriate subject to design

and assessment in accordance with the stated purpose of the control.

Large Lot zone

5.48 Richard Blakey’s evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust seeks to

amend the building coverage control in the Large Lot zone so it is based

on a graduated approach in relation to site area only (i.e. is not limited to

400sqm)30. In my view, buildings over 400sqm would potentially detract

from the built character objectives for the Large Lot zone, regardless of

the size of the site, particularly when viewed from the street. Buildings of

this scale in the Large Lot residential zone should generally be assessed

on their merits through a resource consent process. Consideration for a

site-specific precinct for the submitter’s site (14 Mills Lane, Albany) is

outside the scope of this topic. I therefore do not propose any

amendments to the building coverage rule in the Large Lot zone.

Newmarket Growth Structure Plan Area

5.49 David Wren’s evidence for Cowie Street Investments seeks to enable

coverage in the THAB zone up to 80% combined building and

impermeable surface coverage, at least in the Newmarket Growth

Structure Plan Area. A 70% impervious area applies in the THAB zone,

for the reasons set out in my EIC. In my view, this area-specific

circumstance is best addressed through precinct provisions, where

appropriate and justified, and is outside the scope of the present

Residential Topics.

Impervious area

5.50 Karen Blair (for Z Energy, BP and Mobil) opposes the impervious area

controls within the Residential zones on the basis that they effectively

30 Paragraphs 29 – 33 of Richard Blakey’s evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust.


36/52

36

duplicate the regional stormwater rules. In my view, it is appropriate to

have all controls relating to site layout and coverage within the residential

zones as this will facilitate ease of plan use. Further, the impervious area

thresholds differ depending on the zone, therefore it is appropriate to

locate them within the residential zone provisions.

Outdoor living

5.51 Ann Weaver, for SafeKids Aotearoa, seeks amendments to the outdoor

living space control and assessment criteria to specifically require that

outdoor living space should be capable of being physical separated from

vehicle movements. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service

supports this request. The control already requires that outdoor living

space does not include any parking, access or manoeuvring areas. As

these areas must be separated, a fence could therefore be erected

between the outdoor living space and areas where there are vehicles. I

consider no further change is therefore required to the rule. However, to

clarify the purpose of this control, I propose to amend the purpose

statement to include reference to separating outdoor living areas from

vehicle access and manoeuvring areas.

5.52 Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) seeks an amendment to the outdoor

living court control to require 5 hours of solar access31. As addressed in

Section 13 of Graeme McIndoe’s rebuttal evidence, the outdoor living

court control does have sufficient regard to solar access while also

providing clarity to designers. In my view, demonstrating that 5 hours of

solar access can be provided would require specialised information for

every development, and would therefore not be an efficient method of

providing a reasonable level of sunlight access. I retain the position on

this control as per my EIC.

Outlook and daylight

5.53 The following statements of evidence raise concern with the proposed

outlook and daylight controls:

31 Section 10 of Brian Putt’s evidence for Mahi Properties Ltd.


37/52

37

(a) David Wren (for Cowie Street Investments): Considers that the

outlook areas should be able to overlap, and the daylight control

should be reviewed, to ensure these controls do not reduce the

development potential of narrow sites.

(b) Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd): Considers that the

daylight control should be relocated to assessment criteria, and

further guidance provided on which windows should be the

measuring point for daylight.

(c) Vijay Lala (for multiple parties): Considers that the outlook

dimension for principal living areas should be able to be reduced

to 4m (from 6m) if there is a 1.6m fence, as this will provide

sufficiently for privacy.

(d) Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): States that the daylight

control is confusing and requires more justification. Also

suggests that it could discourage developers from providing

windows.

(e) Luke Christensen (for Generation Zero): Raises concern that theminimum outlook space may have perverse consequences by

significantly reducing development capacity of a site by pushing

buildings apart.

(f) Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association, Auckland 2040

and Mahi Properties Ltd): Seeks additional controls regarding

privacy and solar access to adjacent sites, including a 9m

separation between buildings (including over boundaries);

amending the outlook space control to address overlooking from

balconies, and overlooking of outdoor living areas of adjacent

sites; amending the outlook control to provide greater than 1m

from bedrooms (to provide privacy to adjacent sites); the Vic

Code daylight control should be used instead of the currently

proposed control.

(g) Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare Ltd): Opposes the 3m x 3m

outlook space for bedrooms, and seeks 1m x 1m for all


38/52

38

bedrooms; opposes the daylight control in principle as “a

combination of common sense, marketability, the New Zealand

Building Act: Clause G7: Natural Light, and height in relation to

boundary controls have, in my opinion, ensured that habitable

rooms enjoy an appropriate minimum level of access to

daylight”;

(h) Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Consider that

the outlook space control gives primacy to established

neighbouring development, by requiring new development to be

set back from it. They consider the 6m outlook depth may be

frequently infringed, and is therefore not an appropriate control.

It may also lead to unintended built form outcomes.

5.54 In my view, and based on the EIC and rebuttal evidence of Graeme

McIndoe (refer to section 5 of the latter), I consider that:

(a) Outlook requirements should not be reduced or able to overlap

as they are already permissive and highly enabling (including in

comparison to similar provisions overseas which typically

require a 20m separation between buildings), and further

reduction would not achieve the quality living environmentobjectives of the residential zones. Increasing the outlook space

requirement would impact on development feasibility and

flexibility. Therefore, I support retention of the dimensions as per

my EIC (refer also to Section 5 of Mr McIndoe’s rebuttal);

(b) Outlook requirements should not be permitted to be reduced

based on provision of a fence, as if a fence is downhill of a

window it may not provide for sufficient privacy. Provision of a

fence at an appropriate level may be considered through an

application to infringe the control;

(c) I acknowledge that the daylight control is not as ‘simple’ as a

height in relation to boundary control, for example. However I

consider that ensuring adequate access to daylight is essential

to achieve the quality living environment objectives of the

residential zones, and to enable the consequential benefits to

health and social wellbeing (as set out in the RMA). The


39/52

39

proposed control provides for flexibility in design responses,

while also providing clarity to applicants about what is

acceptable. The alternatives – either a simplified control or

reliance on assessment criteria – would either reduce flexibility

(in the case of a simplified control) or reduce certainty to

applicants (in the case of relying on assessment criteria), both of

which would have implications in terms of development

feasibility. In my view, and having regard to the position of Mr

McIndoe, I consider the proposed control is the most appropriate

method in achieving the objectives of the residential zones in

relation to daylight access and also development feasibility.

Minor amendments to the wording of the control are proposed to

increase clarity of application. I consider that the ongoing

education of architects, draughtsman and planners will increase

understanding of the application of the control over time.

Minimum dwelling size

5.55 The following statements of evidence raise concern with the minimum

dwelling size control:

(a) Point Chevalier Residents against THAB (Jim Rendall): Raises

concern about developments in the THAB zone being allowed to

have 100% of 30sqm dwellings ‘as of right’. States that this is

too small to allow for functional living;

(b) Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc): Considers that the

minimum dwelling size in MHS should be 45sqm to avoid over-

intensification and provide an area for living consistent with

suburban character;

(c) David Hermans (for MBIE): questions the justification for the

minimum dwelling size rule;

(d) Auckland Regional Public Health Service: considers that the

proposed minimum dwelling size is the minimum appropriate to

enable compliance with the Housing Improvement Regulations

(based on likely occupancy) and therefore should not be further

reduced;


40/52

40

(e) Gayleen Mackereth (for Howick Ratepayers and Residents

Association Inc): considers that a 40sqm minimum studio

apartment size would be appropriate in the THAB zone;

(f) Nick Molloy: provides examples where dwellings smaller than

40sqm have been designed appropriately.

5.56 I reiterate that the minimum dwelling size control is not intended to

achieve built character (e.g. a suburban character in the MHS zone); it is

to achieve a quality living environment for residents of those units. I

acknowledge that smaller unit sizes may be appropriate, and note that

infringements to the minimum dwelling size are a non-notified RDA

activity enabling design assessment of the proposed layout. Having

regard to all of the above evidence, and the further analysis in Graeme

McIndoe’s rebuttal evidence (section 8), I continue to support the position

set out in my EIC at paragraphs 20.47 – 20.54.

Water and wastewater

5.57 Vijay Lala (for multiple parties) seeks to delete clause 2 of the water and

wastewater control, as he states this is not a RMA matter 32. I agree that

the method and legal arrangements regarding connection to theWatercare network is a matter to be addressed through Watercare’s

processes, rather than a development control. I therefore propose to

delete clause 2 of this control where it applies (MHS, MHU and THAB

zones).

5.58 Christine Coste (for Auckland Utility Operators Group and others) seeks

that this rule be extended to apply to all network utilities. The purpose of

the control is to recognise an existing significant issue with regards to

potential intensification in areas with current capacity constraints from

water or wastewater, and to restrict growth where these services cannot

be adequately provided. This will prevent land use consents being

provided for developments that cannot be serviced. I am not aware of

any similar significant constraints to network utilities such as

telecommunications or electricity that would warrant a similar control for

those services. I therefore do not support extending the control beyond

water and wastewater.

32 Paragraph 8.1(c) of Vijay Lala’s evidence for multiple parties.


41/52

41

Design assessment

Design assessment criteria

5.59 Peter Hollenstein considers that the development controls and design

assessment criteria in the plan provide too much emphasis on passive

surveillance of the street, and states the sometimes orientating dwellings

not to the street would result in a better outcome overall. This matter has

been addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Graeme McIndoe (at section

10). I concur with his conclusions that providing passive surveillance and

positive design outcomes along the public realm are a desirable outcome

that does not necessarily preclude dual aspect dwellings or location of

principle living rooms and outdoor living areas where the greatest solar

access can be gained. The design assessment criteria will be considered

in the round having regard to the context of a particular proposal and I

therefore do not consider any changes are needed to ‘weaken’ the focus

on providing quality streetscapes.

5.60 Ann Weaver, for SafeKids Aotearoa, seeks amendments to the design

criteria to specifically reference safety, and to require consideration ofphysical separation of pedestrian and vehicle access to sites. Although I

agree that safety is an important design consideration, separate vehicle

and pedestrian access is not always practicable or desirable. A safe

environment can be created through well-designed shared access

spaces. I propose a minor amendment to the relevant assessment

criteria at 10.2.3(f) Design of parking and access, subclause (vii) to clarify

the importance of safety, as follows:

vii. Vehicle crossings and accessways should be clearly separated from

pedestrian access. The spaces may be or integrated where designed as a

shared space with pedestrian priority to ensure a safe pedestrian

environment.

5.61 Sarah Gambitsis considers that the placement of the THAB zone should

respect heritage buildings. I note that design assessment criteria require

consideration to be given to site context, including the relationship of a

site with adjacent heritage buildings (refer assessment criteria 10.2.3(a)Neighbourhood character, subclause (ii)).


42/52

42

5.62 Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Ltd, makes the following points in

relation to the design assessment criteria:

(a) Opposes assessment criteria as a method: Mr Donnelly

generally opposes the use of assessment criteria as they are too

detailed and do not promote design flexibility and innovation. He

considers that there should be reliance instead on strongly

worded objectives and policies, design statements and non-

statutory guidelines. In my view, design assessment criteria are

appropriate to provide clear guidance to applicants while also

enabling flexibility, and are therefore a useful and efficient tool in

achieving the relevant objectives and policies. Without design

assessment criteria, there would be a significant level of

uncertainty introduced in terms of what would be an acceptable

design outcome. In my view, reliance on design statements and

non-statutory guidelines alone would not be the most efficient

and effective method of achieving the relevant objectives and

policies.

(b) If retained as a method, matters of discretion and assessment

criteria should include consideration of ‘affordability’ or ‘costimplications’: Mr Donnelly considers that high quality design

outcomes should be balanced against the affordability or cost of

the design, and the impact on the feasibility of development. I do

not support including these aspects as matters of discretion. The

release of density controls, increase in height in the THAB zone,

and the reduction in the number of development controls all

seek to minimise restrictions on development feasibility.

However, achieving a quality compact city, quality living

environments and reasonable levels of residential amenity

require an appropriate level of design. This overall balance in

achieving the overall objectives for Residential zones would be

disrupted by including affordability as a matter of discretion.

5.63 In addition, Neil Donnelly for Todd Property Group Ltd, as well as Amelia

Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC, oppose th

059, 060, 062 and 063 - hrg - auckland council - (nick roberts) _ planning _ rebuttal

Documents