draft pukekohe-paerata structure plan 2019€¦ · copies of the “draft pukekohe-paerata...

Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 Feedback summary 2019

Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 3

Table of Contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 4

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

2 Engagement events and activities 2019 ........................................................................ 5

3 Feedback received ........................................................................................................ 9

4 Next steps ................................................................................................................... 19

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 19

4 Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019

Executive summary

Auckland Council is undertaking structure planning to guide the future urban development of Future Urban zoned land in the Pukekohe-Paerata and Drury-Opāheke areas. As part of this structure planning process, public engagement was held between 5 and 30 April 2019. This report summarises the feedback received in relation to the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019. A separate report has been prepared for the Draft Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan 2019.

1 Introduction

1.1 Structure Planning The Auckland Unitary Plan identifies land around Pukekohe-Paerata and Drury-Opāheke as areas for future urban development (Future Urban Zone). To guide this future urban development the council started the structure planning process for these areas in 2017. Structure planning:

• identifies opportunities and constraints relating to the land including infrastructure provision, heritage, natural values and natural hazards

• addresses the potential effects of urbanisation in the structure plan areas • identifies suitable urban land uses • does not rezone land but will guide future plan change processes to rezone future

urban zoned land into urban zones. The first phase of public engagement for these southern structure planning areas was undertaken in September - October 2017 and the second phase was undertaken 10 September – 10 October 2018.

The third phase of public engagement was undertaken 5 April – 30 April 2019. To support this public engagement the council prepared the “Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan: Summary report – April 2019”. That report explains the further work council had done since the 2018 public engagement and provides a draft structure plan for the area. The further work and key changes since the 2018 engagement are summarised below:

• Key outcomes o The key outcomes used to develop the draft structure plan have been refined to

further reflect feedback and aspirations identified by the community. • Land uses

o Amount of business land proposed has been reduced o Type of business land has been refined and is proposed to be Light Industry Zone

and Local Centre Zone o Amount of residential land has increased (due to decrease of business land) o Potential open space has been refined


• Expert technical reports have been completed or updated. Key reports include: o Transport: An Integrated Transport Assessment has been developed which

discusses the scale and staging for key components of an indicative transport network. Key components of this indicative transport network are shown on the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 maps.

o Business Land Demand and Location analysis: This analysis estimates the amount of business land that would be needed to service future population growth in the south of Auckland, including the Pukekohe-Paerata structure plan area. It also includes criteria to help identify successful locations for new industrial land.

• Environmental o Environmental information has been added to the draft structure plan maps e.g. 20

metre riparian buffer along both sides of permanent and intermittent streams and geological features such as tuff rings. The natural, physical and/or cultural values of these features provide opportunities for enhancement and protection as Pukekohe-Paerata develops and grows.

1.2 Transport planning Transport plays an important role in enabling future urban development across Auckland, including that in the southern structure plan areas. In late 2018, high-level transport network options were released by Te Tupu Ngātahi (the Supporting Growth Alliance). Te Tupu Ngātahi (the Supporting Growth Alliance) is a collaboration between the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport to undertake transport planning for urban growth in the Future Urban Zone across the Auckland region, and is now reviewing and assessing the preferred network options.

To keep up to date with transport planning in the south please see https://www.supportinggrowth.govt.nz/have-your-say/south/

2 Engagement events and activities 2019

2.1 Publicity and information Awareness of the southern structure planning public engagement events in April 2019 was promoted through:

• advertisements in: o the Franklin County News (28 March 2019) o Papakura Courier (10 April) o The Post, Franklin (26 March 2019)

• “Our Auckland” articles published 1 April and 18 April 2019 • the council’s dedicated public engagement portal: Have your say and help shape

Auckland • Supporting Growth’s website at https://www.supportinggrowth.govt.nz/growth-

areas/south/

https://www.supportinggrowth.govt.nz/have-your-say/south/

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/Pages/home.aspx

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/Pages/home.aspx

https://www.supportinggrowth.govt.nz/growth-areas/south/

https://www.supportinggrowth.govt.nz/growth-areas/south/


• small information displays at the council’s service centres and libraries in Papakura and Pukekohe

Letters or emails were sent to the owners and occupiers of properties within the structure plan areas informing them of the engagement period and the drop-in events. Letters or emails were also sent to other stakeholders, including people who had previously provided structure plan feedback, registered for updates at events, government agencies, infrastructure providers, and rural and other interest groups.

To support the public engagement, structure planning information was available online and in printed form. This included a draft structure plan summary report and a summary and feedback form for each of the two southern structure plan areas.

For Pukekohe-Paerata the feedback form included four maps showing the proposed business and residential zones, indicative open spaces, indicative transport network, indicative water infrastructure and a range of environmental features such as geological features, floodplains, a 20m riparian buffer along all permanent and intermittent streams, ridgelines, potential local paths etc.

The feedback form also included four questions about the proposed business and residential zones and the vision statement. However, people could also comment on any other aspect of the structure planning. A copy of this form is provided in Appendix 2.


Copies of the “Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan: Summary report – April 2019”, the “Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019: Summary and feedback form”, all supporting technical reports, and a flyer listing drop-in events were made available at the council’s service centres and libraries in Papakura and Pukekohe. Along with the 2019 engagement material, the information from the previous engagement in 2017 and 2018 is also still available on the Have Your Say website under “closed events”.

There is a dedicated email address for all southern structure planning enquiries. Staff were rostered to ensure queries through the inbox were answered in a timely manner: [email protected]

Feedback forms could be completed online, scanned and emailed to the dedicated email address, posted, or placed in a feedback box at any of the events or participating service centres or libraries.

mailto:[email protected]


2.2 Public events A series of public drop-in events were held throughout the engagement period. These events were designed so people could ‘drop-in’ anytime during the event, with no formal presentations made. Table 1 below lists these events. Table 1: Public events

Public engagement events Date (2018) Public drop-in event – Drury Hall Tuesday 9 April (2.30pm-8pm) Public drop-in event – Pukekohe Town Hall Thursday 11 April (2.30pm-8pm) Display stall – Franklin Markets, Pukekohe Saturday 13 April (8am-12pm) Public drop-in event – Papakura Library Wednesday 17 April (2pm-7pm) Public drop-in event – Pukekohe Library Tuesday 30 April (2pm-7pm)

Staff from the structure planning teams were available at all events to discuss the draft structure plans for both Pukekohe-Paerata and Drury-Opāheke. Unlike the second phase of public engagement in 2018, the Supporting Growth Alliance were not seeking feedback on transport network options during the council’s structure planning engagement. However, staff from the Supporting Growth Alliance were available at the drop-in events to answer questions on transport planning for the structure plan areas. Technical experts from Healthy Waters and Watercare were also available at most of these events. Some of the authors of the other supporting technical reports also attended.

The maps shown in the draft structure plan report were available on large display boards at the engagement events. These maps included the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019:

• Structure Plan Map • Transport Map • Environment Map • Water and Electricity Infrastructure Map A display stall was also set up at the Franklin Saturday market on 13 April 2019. This provided an opportunity to increase public exposure to the southern structure planning projects. Staff from the structure planning teams were at the market with the display boards, copies of the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 summary report, and the summary and feedback form.

These public events were attended by various members of the Franklin and Papakura Local Boards. The Franklin Ward Councillor also attended some events in Drury and Pukekohe.

In total, several hundred people attended the events, with over 270 people signing attendance sheets.


2.3 Mana whenua engagement Throughout the structure planning process, council and mana whenua have had ongoing engagement. A summary of this engagement process was part of the package of information available for this third phase of public engagement. Some mana whenua also submitted feedback as part of this phase of public engagement.

2.4 Targeted stakeholder events Letters or emails were sent to targeted stakeholders inviting them to meetings during the engagement period specific to their interests. Targeted stakeholders who attended meetings included:

• Government agencies, including Kiwirail, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John, Ministry of Education, Department of Corrections, New Zealand Transport Agency, Housing New Zealand Corporation, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Hobsonville Land Company, Ministry of Social Development, and Crown Infrastructure Partners, and the New Zealand Walking Access Commission.

• Infrastructure providers, including the health sector (Counties Manukau District Health Board) telecommunications (Spark), power (Vector), gas (First Gas) and water and wastewater (Veolia Water and Watercare).

• Rural land users, including the Pukekohe Vegetable Growers Association, Horticulture New Zealand, and Federated Farmers.

• Waikato District Council planning staff

3 Feedback received

People provided written feedback via three methods – online feedback form, emailed feedback or hardcopy feedback. Electronic feedback forms were either filled in online or information was received in email form. Completed hardcopy forms were received at events, posted, or delivered to libraries or service centres.

In total, 222 items of written feedback were received from people and organisations in response to the Draft Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plans 2019. This included feedback from the Papakura Local Board and council’s Youth Advisory Panel. Some of this feedback referred to both geographical areas. Eighty-six pieces of feedback referred specifically to Pukekohe-Paerata.

3.1 What people said The “Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 summary and feedback form” asked four questions. These related to the proposed land uses, values and included a general question that provided an opportunity for any other feedback. The questions were:

Question 1 Business: Do you agree with the locations of the Business – Light Industry zone? Why or why not?


Question 2 Residential: Do you agree with the specific residential zonings? Why or why not?

Question 3 Values: Does the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 protect and enhance the natural, physical and cultural values that contribute to Pukekohe-Paerata’s unique character and identity?

Question 4 Other: Do you have any other feedback on the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019?

To best summarise the feedback received in response to these questions, this report has grouped the feedback into the following ten key themes1:

Theme 1: Structure Plan Process and Managing Growth

Theme 2: Residential Land Use

Theme 3: Business Land Use and Employment

Theme 4: Natural Environment

Theme 5: Identity / Character / Rural Character and Rural Protection

Theme 6: Heritage – natural / cultural / historic

Theme 7: Community / Social Facilities

Theme 8: Open Space

Theme 9 Transport

Theme 10: Miscellaneous

3.1.1 Theme 1: Structure Plan Process and Managing Growth

Vision and Outcomes

Concern was raised that the structure plan envisages Pukekohe as an Auckland suburb rather than an independent satellite town, because the structure plan is not considered to provide for sufficient business growth and employment opportunities.

A need was expressed to ensure that important rural services are not driven away by urbanisation.

Support was expressed for the vision statement. Support for the vision statement and outcomes was also expressed to the extent these promote necessary and appropriate growth.

Support was expressed for heritage-related and shared story provisions

1 Note: where relevant, when feedback relates to multiple themes it has been summarised under each theme.


Structure plan process and report

Some support was received for the process.

Comments relating to the structure plan report included general support for, and agreement with, outcomes of the plan identified in values and meeting requirements for growth.

Feedback was received that it is unclear how Māori values and narratives of place have informed the structure plan and story of the place.

Other feedback requested a better communication process. Communication about the plan was seen as unfriendly to youth and to the average citizen.

Managing growth

Feedback relating to staging and timing was varied. It included:

• Some support for the proposed staging and timing. • A number of feedback items requesting that infrastructure should be in place before

residential and business development occurred. • Some feedback suggesting that staging be determined by existing infrastructure

availability, proximity to existing urban areas, employment areas, and existing uses; and willingness of landowners to develop. Feedback was received that private plan changes should be encouraged.

• Live zoning was sought for both the entire Future Urban zone and for Growth Areas (or parts of) A2, C, D1, E, F, and H. These areas were either cited as being adequately served by or close to existing infrastructure, or infrastructure upgrades to service them were requested.

• Some feedback suggesting that good soils should be developed last or that development should not occur on elite soils.

• Other feedback which sought that Pukekohe development be deferred and Drury development prioritised.

• Requests for rural land beyond the Rural Urban Boundary to be part of the structure plan and given Future Urban zone or other live urban zoning. Requests were made to include land to the east, north and west of Paerata, and to the north of Area D1. Requests also sought the inclusion of identified land in Waiuku on the basis that the structure plan does not give effect to National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. Reasons given for Rural Urban Boundary extension requests included that they are required to be considered as part of the structure plan by Appendix 1 of the Unitary Plan.

• Requests for the Auckland Trotting Club’s land within the Rural Urban Boundary (Special Purpose (Major Recreation Facility zoning) to be part of the structure plan and to be rezoned.

• Area C was identified as not shaped for efficient development • Feedback requesting rezoning more urban land in northern Pukekohe as the southern

growth areas were considered too remote. Other feedback sought the rezoning of more urban land in southern Pukekohe to avoid ribbon development in Pukekohe-Paerata.


Matters for future plan changes

Comment was made that resources are required to deliver those physical outcomes of the plan identified in report’s sections on values and meeting growth requirements

Concern was raised that leaving matters for future plan changes, e.g. roading details, could deliver a fragmented piecemeal approach. It was suggested that the structure plan is an opportunity to deliver a holistic approach.

Infrastructure provision was raised:

• Support was received for water and electricity infrastructure. • Provisions were sought relating to High Pressure gas transmission network, and that it

be mapped and its visibility and importance elevated. • In Area C, council was requested to consider the extent to which the National Grid line

servicing Glenbrook steel mill may constrain fine grained development. A park was supported in principal in Area C, but council was requested to consider implications of locating it near the National Grid line.

• Council was requested to plan early for telecommunications networks and requirements

• Plans should show existing and proposed roads Riparian margins were identified as needing further consideration

It was requested that the structure plan should stipulate zoning rules about walking and cycling connectivity. It was also requested that Auckland Council should fund, vest, manage, and maintain paths/trails/tracks to produce real connectivity. Opportunity was sought for plan changes to make connections beyond the structure plan area and across the wider heritage landscape.

Council was requested to model for and make provision for non-council-owned community facilities, e.g. provide for community corrections facilities in areas zoned for business land use.

A number of feedback points related to the urban/rural interface:

• Reference was sought to management of the interface between open/public space and existing rural land.

• Public access to inappropriately designed parks/open space adjoining rural production land creates reverse sensitivity issues.

• Public spaces adjoining rural production land complicate management of health and safety risks associated with agricultural spraying.

• Use precincts in urban zones to manage zone interfaces between urban and rural zones.

• Existing Pukekohe East precinct policy provision for roads is ineffective in protecting existing rural production land from urban development.

• Use precincts in Light Industry zone to support existing rural activities. • In Area E, feedback sought a Light Industry precinct which provides for a rural

business facility and a wider rural services hub.


• In Area H west, feedback sought the identification of business land as a rural-related industry precinct, with buffer zones to protect existing rural activities from future urban development.

• In Area H west Single House zone, feedback sought buffer zones to protect existing rural activities from future urban development.

Feedback relating generally to zone interfaces included:

• Where roads are not appropriate zone buffers, provide for alternative solutions, e.g. additional building setbacks and buffer strips within urban development areas.

• Parks and open space were supported as a buffer between zones if applied and designed appropriately.

3.1.2 Theme 2: Residential Land Use

Those who agreed with the proposed residential zones supported their locations, the amount of residential land, and higher densities close to Pukekohe and Paerata centres, transit, and major employment areas.

Some of those who disagreed wanted more residential land. Others wanted lower or higher densities. Some feedback considered that residential land was provided in the wrong locations, that residential development should avoid flood plains, and that residential development should not be built on productive soils/land used for horticulture.

Location specific feedback was received both in support of, and in opposition to, proposed zonings. A table summarising area-specific zoning feedback is provided in Appendix 1.

Some feedback emphasised the necessity of infrastructure and service upgrades and their timing. Consideration of the interface between residential and business land, and residential and rural land was also highlighted.

3.1.3 Theme 3: Business Land Use and Employment

Light Industry zoned land

Most feedback about business zoned land and employment was in relation to the Light Industry Zoned land as shown in the draft structure plan. Feedback both supported or opposed the location or amount of proposed Light Industry zoned land. Some feedback was more general about the whole structure plan area, whereas some was site-specific or area-specific. Some feedback also related to specific sites outside the structure plan area. A table summarising area-specific zoning feedback is provided in Appendix 1. Several economic analyses were submitted, both in support of, and in opposition to, council’s position.

Where reasons for support for the location of Light Industry land were given, these included: location generally on flat land, good access especially to arterial roads or the railway, close proximity to existing Light Industry zones or other established business activities (benefits from clustering similar activities and fewer reverse sensitivity issues),


provision for businesses that are not appropriate in town centres, and provision of local employment opportunities and reduction of the need for travel.

Reasons for opposition included that Light Industry zoned land should not be on fertile land, its proximity to existing residential dwellings and the effects it would have on residents’ quiet enjoyment and rural views. Feedback also suggested that business or industrial land should be located in smaller pockets of poorer quality land e.g. Pukekohe east and near Pokeno.

Concern was raised about the location of Light Industry zoned land within floodplains, however other feedback commented that it was more appropriate that industrial zoned land was located within floodplains than residential zoned land.

It was suggested that Light Industry Zoned land was too fragmented and not integrated with local centres, and that this would increase reverse sensitivity issues, require new infrastructure and increase traffic movements, including freight.

It was also suggested that the locations council had identified as Light Industry Zone were unsuitable or not economically viable due to hydrological constraints and low visibility and profile from existing arterial roads.

Comments were received that there was a shortage of appropriately zoned vacant industrial land (Light and Heavy Industry) in Pukekohe, especially along arterial roads with good frontage and visibility. Existing businesses could not expand and this was forcing some businesses to move away from the area. Other feedback considered the amount of Light Industry zoned land shown in the 2019 draft structure plan maps to be more appropriate than that shown in 2018, and to better reflect the forecast demand for this type of zoned land over the next 30 years. It was also suggested that Light Industry zoned land in Pukekohe-Paerata will largely service the local market rather than the regional or national market place due to distance from the motorway.

Feedback was received that the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 does not give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity because the plan provides for insufficient Heavy Industry zoning.

Local employment

Feedback was received about the importance of providing for local jobs. This included the need to support nearby townships, e.g. Tuakau. It was also suggested that rural towns and villages also play an important role in supporting rural production activities and the people involved in these activities.

Comment was received that Pukekohe offers an abundance of labour shown by the large volumes of labour leaving Pukekohe each day to work across Auckland. It was noted that more business land will immediately encourage local business and job development that will stimulate economic prosperity. Concern was expressed that the structure plan did not


provide other types of employment opportunities (e.g. Mixed Use or General Business Zones).

Other activities

Several comments were received about the types of activities provided for by the Light Industry Zone. These included concern that the Light Industry Zone rules would not sufficiently support rural-related industry or a rural service hub, and therefore precincts were suggested e.g. parts of Area H (west) and Area E. There was a comment that the Light Industry and Local Centre Zones should provide for community corrections facilities.

Centres

Few comments were received about the proposed Local Centre Zone or centres in general. Concern was expressed that the broad range of permitted activities within the Light Industry Zone, or that the two potential new local ‘neighbourhood’ centres in Area D could undermine business in local centres, especially the existing Pukekohe Town Centre. Comment was made that any new centre should retain the look and feel of the existing Pukekohe town centre. Feedback was also was received that the area around the proposed Local Centre in Area D should be zoned Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings.

3.1.4 Theme 4: Natural Environment

Riparian buffers

Feedback was received relating to the suggested 20 metre riparian buffer for permanent and intermittent streams. The approach taken in the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 was both supported and opposed.

Support was provided for a 20 metre width because it would provide an opportunity for connectivity and riparian restoration. Comments included that connectivity and riparian restoration need to be planned together and provided for in objectives, policies and rules which are well integrated and do not conflict.

Others considered a 20 metre width too wide. Some considered the width excessive for an urban setting. Some suggested a reduction to a 10 metre width or a 5 metre width. Reduced widths were also suggested depending on the size/flow of streams, e.g. for intermittent streams.

Clarity was sought relating to when such a riparian buffer would be required, what ownership and funding arrangements would be, what ongoing maintenance provisions would be, and what public access would be provided for.

Area-specific feedback relating to riparian buffers was also received, mostly in opposition to their provision. Reasons for opposition to riparian buffers included that the buffers would restrict the extent of developable land available.


Flooding and stormwater

Green corridors were sought to manage flood hazard, protect ecological values, provide amenity and for walking and cycling tracks.

Feedback was received opposing the development of flood prone land. Reasons for opposition included inadequate consideration of efficient land use intensity, and conflict between industrial uses and natural values.

Stormwater management and run off were of concern. Environmental effects of road drainage were also a concern. Aquifer recharge was also raised as a concern, especially for local commercial growers using groundwater. Concerns about contamination of the Manukau Harbour were raised.

Concern was raised about effects of increased impervious surfaces on flooding, stormwater management and water quality, and that inadequate consideration had been given to cumulative effects of new urban development and climate change.

Feedback sought water sensitive development so that stormwater discharged into existing streams does not lead to increased stream loading and increase risk of downstream flooding.

Site-specific feedback relating to flooding and stormwater discharge was also received.

3.1.5 Theme 5: Identity / Character / Rural Character and Rural Protection

Concern was expressed about Pukekohe’s character as a satellite centre, and the need for it not to just become a commuter suburb of Auckland.

More than a dozen items of feedback were received which expressed concern about how to balance the growth of the urban area with the protection of nationally important fertile soils. The importance of land around Pukekohe for vegetable growing was emphasised.

Feedback requested a precautionary approach to urbanising highly productive land until a National Policy statement on Versatile Land and High Class Soils has been developed by government and council has responded to it.

Feedback sought support for the importance of the rural economy to Pukekohe and that provision be made for rural-related businesses to continue and expand.

A number of comments were received in relation to rural sensitivity and protection of the environment. Rural-urban interface controls were suggested.

3.1.6 Theme 6: Heritage – natural / cultural / historic

General support was expressed for retention of natural and built heritage.

Clarity was sought as to how heritage features would be protected or enhanced.

Specific support was expressed for retention of tuff rings, including suggestions to avoid development in their vicinity or include them in parks.


Feedback sought further historic heritage investigations within the Future Urban zone to identify both Māori and European heritage.

Comment was also received that the village-like character of Buckland should be protected.

3.1.7 Theme 7: Community / Social Facilities

Some support was expressed for the proposed community facilities.

The identification of the need for and provision of community corrections activities in the structure plan area was sought.

Planning early for infrastructure provision was identified as important, e.g. telecommunications networks.

3.1.8 Theme 8: Open Space and connectivity

Support was expressed for the extent, size and location of parks and green space. Support for large parks was expressed. Comments were received that sufficient green space and recreation facilities need to be provided for the whole area, not just the structure plan area.

Area-specific comments included support for, and opposition to, proposed parks in Area C, with comments also noting that park location in Area C should take account of Transpower’s transmission line serving the Glenbrook Steel Mill.

Support was expressed for an open space network. Funding for its establishment, management and maintenance was identified as important.

Identification of existing and proposed reserve networks was sought.

Clarity was sought to differentiate between trails, greenways and separated facilities and their mapping was sought.

Provision of walking and cycling as options was supported.

Connection of southern Auckland and northern Waikato settlements and amenities by public accessways for multiple purposes such as recreation, tourism and commuting was sought.

Riparian restoration was seen as an opportunity to provide connectivity. Infrastructure corridors, e.g. for stormwater and wastewater, were also suggested as possible walking and cycling trail locations.

Volcanic features were requested to be included in public open space.

Comment was received that more details should be provided about healthy lifestyles and environment.


3.1.9 Theme 9 Transport

Traffic congestion was a concern. There were numerous requests to put transportation infrastructure in place before or at the same time as residential and business development. To alleviate congestion, increased residential density around railway stations and additional local employment land were also sought.

Provision for rural traffic and freight was a concern. Adequate arterial roading for rural production vehicles around Pukekohe was sought. Provision of adequate parking for larger rural vehicles from areas without public transport using Pukekohe as their service centre was sought. Rail yards and freight distribution centres in Area E and near Glenbrook were sought for local produce to ease road and motorway congestion.

Feedback was received about the proposed road network. Some feedback supported the network in principle and other feedback sought more details about routes.

Some feedback was area-specific, in particular in relation to the location of the Pukekohe East recommended arterial road, and the proposed western routes.

Concern was raised that roading should protect indigenous vegetation, and that arterial roading should have an interface with residential development which maintains residential amenity values. Feedback also suggested that the location and design of new roads and road upgrades should seek to avoid or minimise any potential impacts on existing commercial vegetable production activities.

More, frequent, and upgraded public transport was sought.

Support was expressed for the prioritisation of electrification of the railway between Pukekohe and Papakura. Support for the prioritisation of the proposed railway station at Paerata was also expressed.

Support was expressed for park and ride facilities at Paerata, and for expanded park and ride facilities at Pukekohe. Multi storey facilities were suggested.

Support was expressed for the indicative walking and cycling network. Off-road transport connections were sought between centres e.g. cycling, walking, horse riding. Safety concerns were expressed about the relationship between roads, cycleways and footpaths.

Infrastructure was sought for an active transport network, including provision of walking and cycling options to connect with railway stations and bus routes.

Riparian margins and infrastructure corridors were seen as potential locations for walking and cycling trails. Concern was expressed about whether walking and cycling access would actually be provided alongside the railway line between Pukekohe and Papakura.

Telecommunication providers sought early opportunities to design their networks into roads. Gas providers were also interested in road location implications for their network.

Several land owners beyond the Future Urban zone requested inclusion of their land in the structure plan area to take advantage of proposed transport enhancements.


3.1.10 Theme 10: Miscellaneous

Comment was received about the Health topic paper. It was suggested that this could be built upon to include analysis of wider social determinants of health. The Health topic paper was also seen as good practice and a sound base for healthy urban planning. It was suggested that council should use healthy urban planning frameworks and resources such as those from World Health Organisation (WHO), especially from the WHO’s European region.

A Health Impact Assessment process was suggested to foster links between health and urban design issues.

Links with and signalling of other council activity and policy ambitions was sought in the structure plan, e.g. Healthy Ageing Strategy, the desire to become an Age Friendly City, climate change.

Feedback sought that the structure plan be optimised to improve health outcomes, e.g. connections in urban developments. Inclusion of Māori health and wellbeing and equity implications of the structure plan was also sought.

4 Next steps

Council is now considering the feedback received and working towards producing a final structure plan for Pukekohe-Paerata later in 2019.

Once the Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan has been finalised it will need to be adopted by Auckland Council. Once this is done the structure plan can be used to inform any future plan changes for the area.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 Area-specific zoning feedback

Structure Plan Growth Area

Support Oppose

Area A Wesley College (remnant)

Support residential zoning

Area A2 Belmont Support residential zoning


Area B: North-east Paerata

Support residential zoning Rezone area around the northern edge of existing Paerata Industrial Park from residential to business.

Area C North-west Paerata


Area D South Paerata and Adams Drive

Support Light Industry zoning Support residential zoning

Rezone from Mixed Housing Urban to Terraced Housing and Apartment Building around proposed local centre Oppose Light Industry zoning in flood plain

Area D1 Grace James Road and Pukekohe north-east


Area D2 Pukekohe north-east


Area E Pukekohe north-west

Support part or all of Area E, as Light Industry, especially along Heights Road, Helvetia Road, Gun Club Road and Beatty Road Support residential zoning

Rezone part or all of Area E, especially along Paerata Road, from residential to Light Industry Rezone Heights Road from Residential to business zone Rezone 10 Butcher Road from residential to Light Industry Oppose Light Industry zone in floodplain and near indigenous vegetation

Area F Pukekohe East central

Support Light Industry zoning Support residential zoning

Rezone parts of Station Road, including between the Auckland Trotting Club and the A and P Showgrounds from Light Industry to residential Rezone some land bounded by Golding Road, Royal Daulton Drive and Auckland


Trotting Club from Mixed Housing Suburban to Mixed Housing Urban

Area G Pukekohe East central

Provide more medium-high density residential zoning

Area H west Buckland and surrounds

Support Light Industry zoning Support part or all of Area H (west) as Light Industry especially along Buckland Road opposite the Pukekohe Park Raceway

Rezone part of Area H (west) hilly terrain from Light Industry to residential

Area H east Buckland and surrounds

Support part of Area H (east) as Light Industry close to the train station and existing light industry area

Rezone all or parts of Area H (east) from Light Industry to residential Rezone 16 Yates Road from Light Industry to Special Purpose- School Rezone from residential to Light Industry Rezone some land bounded by Yates Road, Golding Road from Mixed Housing Suburban to Mixed Housing Urban

Area I Buckland South and Pukekohe Hill

Beyond Rural Urban Boundary

Rezone specific sites outside the Future Urban Zone and structure plan area to urban zones

Within Rural Boundary

Rezone Auckland Trotting Club from Special Purpose Major Recreation Facility to residential and business zones


Appendix 2: Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 summary and feedback form

19-P

RO-1

845

Have your say in shaping Auckland’s future together. [email protected]

aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursay phone 09 301 0101

Summary and feedback formDraft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019

We have reviewed your feedback. We have received updated information about stormwater, water supply and wastewater, transport, business land supply, geotechnical issues, contaminated land, open space and community facilities. We have consulted further with mana whenua. We have received more information about health and urban design.

We would like some further feedback from you. Please see the maps on the next pages and the questions on the feedback form.

More detailed explanation is in the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 Summary Report. That report and a range of supporting technical and specialist reports are available here: aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursayThis link also links to the 2017 and 2018 consultation material including previous background reports and feedback summaries.

What’s happened since 2018?

What’s happening now?

In 2017 and 2018, council asked for your feedback about the opportunities, issues or challenges we should consider when developing a structure plan for Pukekohe-Paerata. We also asked what you thought about maps showing some proposed mapped land uses.

What’s already happened?

In 2018, you told us these matters were important:

• structure plan process and managing growth

• transport

• natural environment

• rural – protection, identity, character

• residential land

• business land and employment

• heritage – natural/cultural/historic

• community/social facilities

• open space

• miscellaneous.

What’s happening next?• Consideration of your further feedback

• Any consequential amendment to the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019

• Council approval of the final Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 later this year

Once the structure plan is finalised, it will become the basis for Auckland Council initiated plan changes.

If you would like to be on our mailing list, please fill in your details on a feedback form.

2

D R A F T P U K E K O H E - P A E R A T A S T R U C T U R E P L A N 2 0 1 9

3


4


5


6


Contact details

Your name and feedback will be included in public documents.

All other personal details will remain private.

First name: _______________________________________

Last name: _______________________________________

Email address: ____________________________________

Postal address: ___________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Postcode: __________________________________

Your local board: ____________________________

Is your feedback on behalf of an organisation?

Yes – I am the official spokesperson for the organisation

No – these are my own personal views

If yes, what is the name of your organisation?

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Demographics (optional)

We have a few optional questions which will help us understand a bit more about you. Please note: the following questions help us understand what groups of the community are engaging with the council. All questions are optional and, again, all personal information will remain private.

Are you?

Male Female Gender diverse

What age group do you belong to?

<15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

55-64 65-74 75+

What ethnicity(s) do you identify with? (tick all that apply)

NZ European Maori Samoan

Tongan Chinese Indian

Other (please specify):

Do you live in Pukekohe or Paerata?

Yes No

If not, where do you live?

Do you work in Pukekohe or Paerata?

Yes No

All personal information that you provide in this submission will be held and protected by Auckland Council in accordance with our privacy policy (available at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/privacy and at our libraries and service centres) and with the Privacy Act 1993. Our privacy policy explains how we may use and share your personal information in relation to any interaction you have with the council, and how you can access and correct that information.

We recommend you familiarise yourself with this policy.

Tell us what you think about the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019.More information is available:

• online at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursay

• at the Pukekohe and Papakura service centresand libraries

• by phoning 09 301 0101 or [email protected]

You can submit your feedback:

• online at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursay

• by emailing your completed form [email protected]

• by dropping your completed form off at Pukekoheor Papakura service centres and libraries

• by placing your completed form in an envelopeand sending to the following freepost address:

Feedback opens Friday 5 April and closes Tuesday 30 April 2019

Attn: Plans and Places (Planning Central-South)Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan, Freepost Authority 191615, Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142

Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 Feedback Form Questions

Give us your feedback Please see the maps on pages 3 to 6.

We have made the following key changes since 2018:

Land Uses• Amount of business land proposed has been reduced

• Type of business land has been refined and is proposed to be Light Industry zone (apart from Local Centre)

• Amount of residential land has been increased

• Open Space mapping updated.

Environmental• Environmental information added to maps

• Includes 20 metre riparian buffer along both sides of permanent and intermittent streams.

Transport• An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) has been

developed, which discusses the scale and staging for key components of a draft future transport network. The ITA is based on a draft strategic transport network being developed as part of the Supporting Growth Programme. The draft strategic network has not yet been approved by the Auckland Transport and NZ Transport Agency boards, and is therefore still subject to change.

To find out more about transport or to speak to one of the Supporting Growth team members:

Visit: http://supportinggrowth.govt.nz/have-your-say/south/phone: 0800 4769 255 (GROW AKL) or email: [email protected]

The Supporting Growth team will also be joining us at our structure plan drop-in sessions where you will be able to speak to the team members directly.

Question 1. Business Do you agree with the locations of the Business – Light Industry zone? Why or why not?

Question 3. Values Does the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 protect and enhance the natural, physical and cultural values that contribute to Pukekohe-Paerata’s unique character and identity? Why or why not?

Question 2. Residential Do you agree with the specific residential zonings? Why or why not?

Question 4. Other Do you have any other feedback on the Draft Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019?

ISBN: xxxx (Print) xxxx (PDF)

Find out more: phone 09 or visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

draft pukekohe-paerata structure plan 2019€¦ · copies of the “draft pukekohe-paerata...

Documents