BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource
Management Act 1991
and the Local
Government
(Auckland Transitional
Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan,
Topics 051-054 Centre
Zones, Business Park
and Industry zones,
Business activities and
Business controls

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Hearing dates: Monday 7 September 2015 to Friday 11 September 2015

@Simpson Grierson
Barristers & Solicitors

8 Loutit I T Fischer
Telephone: +64-9-358 2222
Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331
Email : tim .fischer@sim psongrierson .com
DX CX10092
Private Bag 92518
Auckland

MAY IT PLEASE THE PANEL:
1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

This is a hearing of submissions and further submissions received by the
Auckland Council (Council) on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
Topics 051-054 Centre Zones,

Business Park and Industry zones,

Business activities and Business controls (Business Topics).

1.2

1.3

The PAUP divides Auckland's business areas into the following ten zones:
(a)

City Centre;

(b)

Metropolitan, Town, Local, and Neighbourhood Centre zones;

(c)

Mixed Use, General Business and Business Park zones; and

(d)

Heavy and Light Industry zones.

The Business Topics concern the district plan provisions that apply in all of
these zones except the City Centre (Business zones) which has already
been heard through Topic 050 City Centre.

The Business Topics also

include some other related provisions which are explained below.
1.4

These legal submissions on behalf of the Council address the submissions
and evidence on the following PAUP provisions that come within the
Business Topics:
(a)

0 .3 Business zones- objectives and policies;

(b)

1.3 Business zones - activity tables, notification, land use controls,
development controls , assessment criteria , special

information

requirements;
(c)

E.4.5 Identified Growth Corridors- overlay objectives and policies;

(d)

E.4.4 City Centre Fringe Office- overlay objectives and policies;

(e)

J.4.5 City Centre Fringe Office- overlay rules;

(f)

H.5.2.3.2 Subdivision controls- business zones; and

26593434_2.docx

Page 1

(g)

Planning Maps - Building Frontage: General Commercial and Key
Retail Frontages.

1.5

The Council's evidence and legal submissions also address the following:

(a)

Site or area specific height requests

Site or area specific height requests for the Business zones have
been variously allocated to the Business Topics and Topic 078
Additional Zone Height Control. The Council has elected to produce
evidence in relation to all site or area specific height requests at the
earliest opportunity, that being the Business Topics.

1

Submitters will

have the opportunity to respond to the Council's evidence either as
part of the Business Topics or through Topic 078 Additional Zone
Height Control.

(b)

Affordable housing height bonus

The Council is proposing to reintroduce a height bonus in return for
provision of affordable housing through Topic 061 Affordability. This
issue has been substantively discussed as part of that topic.
However, given that the proposed provisions provide for bonus height
in the Business zones, they are included in the Council's evidence so
that they can be addressed by interested parties to the Business
Topics.

(c)

Retirement villages

2

The Panel's Procedural Minute No.13 recorded agreement between
the parties that the Special Purpose Retirement Village zone should
be removed in favour of specific retirement village provisions in the
Residential and Business zones. Submitters to Topic 061 Retirement
Villages and Affordability were granted standing to participate in the
Business Topics.

These matters have been addressed in the

Council's evidence accordingly.
1

2

This approach was noted in the Pre-hearing Meeting Report for Topic 078 Additional Zone Height Control. The
Council also lodged a memorandum with the Panel on 10 August 2015 to further explain its approach and this
was uploaded to the Panel's website.
Topic 061 Retirement Villages and Affordability, 5 June 2015.

26593434_2.docx

Page 2

(d)

Dilworth Terrace View Protection Plane

3

The Panel has indicated that it would like the parties to consider the
effects of amending the Dilworth Terrace View Protection Plane as
proposed in evidence by Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited
during Topic 050 City Centre.

Parties without standing in the

Business Topics were allowed to submit evidence and appear before
the Panel only in relation to the Dilworth Terrace View Protection
Plane. These matters have been addressed in the Council's evidence
accordingly.

(e)

Industrial rezoning

At the Topic 035 Air Quality hearing the Panel indicated it would be of
assistance if the Council produced evidence for Industry rezoning
requests at the same time as the evidence for the Industry zone-wide
provisions. The rezoning submissions have generally been allocated
to Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts.

Some submitters have

responded to the Council's evidence through the Business Topics
while others have indicated they will respond through Topic 081
Rezoning and Precincts.

1.6

There are 3,318 primary submission points and 30,544 further submission
points allocated to the Business Topics. The Parties and Issues Reports
and the Submission Point Pathway Reports provide further information
about the submissions .

1.7

Economic experts for the Business Topics participated in informal
caucusing i.e. not directed by the Panel in terms section 133 of the Local
Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act 2013
(LGATPA).

There was no facilitator and the process was coordinated by

the Council for the purpose of sharing the Council's economic analysis,
modelling techniques, and getting early feedback form the various experts.
A joint statement was prepared by the experts involved and has been
uploaded to the Panel's website . The joint statement is concerned with the

3

Email from Mr Jellie, 10 August 2015.

26593434_2.docx

Page 3

economic analysis and modelling spatial patterns of retail capacity
surplus/deficits. It also addresses economic principles for retail location and
principles for appropriate IGC location and the location of retail within IGCs.
1.8

Panel-assisted mediation took place for the Business Topics on 8-12 June,
29 June - 2 July and 15 July 2015. The parties who attended mediation
were able to reach agreement about the wording of many of the provisions.
However there are some significant outstanding issues raised in the
evidence of submitters, which is not surprising given the breadth of the
Business Topics and the number of submitters involved . It is notable that
there are very few high level "philosophical" challenges to the Council's
overarching strategy for the Business zones.

1.9

Given this broad scope, and the large number of submission points, these
legal submissions address the key differences between what is sought by
submitters and the position of the Council.

1.10

The approach taken in these legal submissions is therefore not to address all
matters raised in submissions or evidence on the Business Topics. Nor do
they discuss all matters referred to in the Council's evidence or agreed through
mediation. By not referring to particular submissions or evidence, this should
not be taken to indicate the Council's acceptance of or agreement to the
matters raised . In some cases the Council's position is simply reflected in
revised provisions attached to the Council's evidence.

1.11

The Council's planning witnesses have prepared a number of iterations of the
Business Topic provisions. The Council's position for this hearing is primarily
represented in the revised plan provisions attached to Mr Wyatt's rebuttal
evidence. Where these legal submissions refer to plan provisions by number
they are referring to the numbers in the provisions attached to Mr Wyatt's
rebuttal evidence unless indicated otherwise.

1.12

However there are also some matters which fall outside the text for the
Business zones e.g. changes to the planning maps, subdivision provisions,
affordable housing provisions and the Dilworth Terrace View Protection
Plane. For these matters the Council's position is reflected in the evidence
of the relevant witnesses and a consolidated version of all changes

26593434_2.docx

Page 4

proposed by the Council will be included with the Council's closing
remarks.

1.13

1.14

The Council's legal submissions are structured as follows:
(a)

Evidence;

(b)

Statutory framework and Interim Guidance;

(c)

Auckland Plan;

(d)

Regional Policy Statement and "centres plus";

(e)

Business zones- objectives and policies;

(f)

Identified Growth Corridors- objectives, policies, rules and mapping;

(g)

Business zones -land use rules and assessment matters;

(h)

City Centre Fringe Office- overlay objectives, policies and rules;

(i)

Height;

U)

Affordable housing height bonus;

(k)

Building Frontage: General Commercial and Key Retail Frontages;

(I)

Subdivision controls- business zones;

(m)

Retirement villages;

(n)

Dilworth Terrace View Protection Plane;

(o)

Industrial rezoning; and

(p)

Conclusion .

A short overview of the relevant provisions is provided in the relevant sections
of these submissions. They are also explained in the evidence of the Council's
witnesses which are set out below.

26593434_2.docx

Page 5

2.

EVIDENCE

2.1

As the Panel will be aware, the Council is calling evidence from 26 expert
witnesses in support of its position on the Business Topics. The number of
witnesses that are required to be called has been influenced by the inclusion of
evidence on a large number of site specific matters such as rezoning,
Additional Zone Height Control, and Key Retail and General Commercial
Frontages. A number of other witnesses are also required as a result of the
inclusion of the additional matters described above within the Business Topics.

2.2

So as to use the hearing time allocated to the Council efficiently, the Council
intends to call these witnesses together in their areas of expertise where
possible, and in the following order:

Planning
(a)

Matt Bonis - Commercial activity strategy and implementation, role
and function of centres

(b)

Jarette

Wickham

recommendations

Industrial
for

site

provisions,

specific

heavy

evaluation
industry

and

rezoning

submissions
(c)

Jeremy Wyatt- Background, Business Park zone, City Centre Fringe
Office overlay, miscellaneous matters

Transport
(d)

Kevin Wong-Toi- Transport planning

(e)

Karl Hancock- Identified Growth Corridors- Transport engineering

Economics
(f)

Greg Akehurst- Retail and office distribution economics

(g)

Susan Fairgray- Economic modelling

Urban Design and Height Planning
(h)

26593434_2.docx

lan Munro -Commercial zone built form objectives, policies and rules

Page 6

(i)

Sarah Coady - Design statements and spatial application of Key
Retail and General Commercial frontages

U)

Trevor Mackie - Building height in commercial and industrial zones

(k)

Hannah Thompson, Hamish Scott, Lee-Ann Lucas, Douglas Sadlier,
Ross Moffatt - Evaluation and recommendations for site specific
height submissions

Planning- Miscellaneous
{I)

Deanne Rogers - Retirement villages

(m)

Anthony Traub- Industrial subdivision planning

(n)

David

Mead

-

Affordable

housing

height

bonuses

affecting

commercial zones
(o)

Panjama Ampanthong- Dilworth Terrace Houses Viewshaft

(p)

George Farrant- Wind control

Industrial - Air Quality and Rezoning
(q)

Mike

Harvey

-

Heavy

industry

rezoning

submissions

and

development control (buffer rule)
(r)

Douglas Sadlier, Joy La Nauze, Roger Eccles, Dave Paul and Jo Hart
- Evaluation and recommendations for site specific heavy industry
rezoning submissions

3.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND INTERIM GUIDANCE

3.1

The legal framework applying to the PAUP under the LGTPA and the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will be very familiar to the Panel.
This framework has been set out previously in various legal submissions
on behalf of the Council in other hearing topics.

3.2

Therefore the relevant statutory tests when assessing the PAUP's district plan
provisions are included in Attachment A to these legal submissions for the
Panel's convenience. We do not outline the statutory tests in any detail in the
body of these submissions.

26593434_2.docx

We will however specifically address matters

Page 7

relating to trade competition or the effects of trade competition which are
particularly pertinent given the Panel's Interim Guidance on Topic 013 83. 1
Commercial and Industrial Growth.

3.3

Section 83.1 of the proposed RPS includes provisions that seek to sustain and
enhance the function, role and amenity of centres.

Such provisions are

generally expressed to relate to effects "beyond those effects ordinarily
associated with trade effects or trade competition".

The Panel's Interim

Guidance commented on this approach as follows:

Resource management policies should not be concerned with the
viability of activities, including centres of activities.

The proposed

policies to protect centres from adverse effects "beyond those effects
ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade competition" appear to
be seeking to protect the viability of those centres and thus are contrary
to s61(3) RMA.

3.4

The Council has reflected upon the views expressed by the Panel in the
Interim Guidance and the issues raised by the Interim Guidance.

In my

submission, the Council's approach in 83.1, which has been mirrored in the
Business Topic provisions which give effect to the RPS, is lawful and
appropriate in the circumstances.

3.5

The starting point is section 75(3) of the RMA which provides:

In preparing or changing any district plan, a territorial authority must not
have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

3.6

This provision was considered by the High Court in General Distributors v
Waipa District Council (2008) 15 ELRNZ 59. The High Court interpreted the
provision with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Discount
Brands Ltd v Westfield (NZ) Ltd [2005] NZSC 17:

[93] It follows that section 74(3) RMA does not preclude a territorial
authority preparing or changing its district plan, from considering those
wider and significant social and economic effects which are beyond the
effects ordinarily associated with trade competition. Indeed, it is obliged
to do so in terms of s 74(1).

26593434_2.docx

Page 8

[94] ... Local authorities promulgating plans, or changing plans, must not
have regard to trade competition, or to the effects which are normally
associated with trade competition. The promotion of town centre
consolidation, and the dispersal of commercial activity however are
legitimate resource management issues, because they can raise
significant social and economic concerns. Provision can properly be
made for them in district plans.

3.7

Therefore, expressing objectives and policies to relate to effects beyond those
effects ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade competition, reflects the
findings of the High Court in General Distributors and the Supreme Court in
Discount Brands.

In my submission this approach does not contravene

sections 61(3) and 75(3) of the RMA. To the contrary the approach adds a
necessary qualifier to ensure that regard is not had to matters precluded from
consideration under the RMA and the Discount Brands Ltd decision.

3.8

The cases above indicate that the relevant policies in the RPS and the district
plan provisions are addressing legitimate resource management issues in
relation to social and economic wellbeing. These are important matters under
Part 2 of the RMA which has critical importance when exercising plan-making
powers and functions under the RMA.

4.

AUCKLAND PLAN

4.1

While there are a range of other planning documents relevant to the PAUP, a
key document for the purposes of evaluating the merits of the PAUP district
plan business provisions is the Auckland Plan.

4.2

The Auckland Plan is the spatial plan for Auckland prepared under section 79
of the LGATPA.

Its legal relevance is that it is a strategy prepared under

another Act that must be had regard to under section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA
when considering the Business Topic provisions.

4.3

The Auckland Plan sets a 30 year strategic direction for Auckland. The
provisions of the Auckland Plan of most relevance for this hearing are
discussed in the evidence of the Council's planning witnesses. These
provisions can generally be found in Chapter 6 Auckland's Economy and

26593434_2.docx

Page 9

Chapter 10 Urban Auckland.

Provisions in other Chapters of the Auckland

Plan are also relevant to the Business zones.

4.4

The Auckland Plan addresses some matters that are of fundamental
importance to the Business zone provisions and the way that Auckland will
develop and grow.

In particular this includes provision for a hierarchy and

network of centres to accommodate and manage intensification and
commercial growth and to manage industrial land to promote industrial
activities. The Council has had regard to this approach when developing the
PAUP. This approach is also reflected the RPS which explained further below.

4.5

The relevant provisions are addressed in detail in the evidence of Mr Bonis on
behalf of the Council.

4

5.

REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT AND "CENTRES PLUS"

5.1

The relevant parts of the RPS are set out in the evidence of Mr Bonis.

5.2

We will not repeat Mr Bonis' summary in full.

5

However key objectives and

policies from the RPS relate to providing for growth in a quality compact urban
form, quality built form, development capacity and supply of land for urban
development, and social infrastructure.

5.3

Section B3.1 of the RPS is intended to reflect Plan Change 6 to the operative
6

Auckland Regional Policy Statement . It also has regard to the hierarchy and
network of centres set out in the Auckland Plan. This high level approach has
influenced the Council's position on most of the provisions in all Business
zones from objectives down to land use and development controls .

It is

fundamental to the Council's position on the Business Topics.

5.4

In summary Section B3.1 embodies a "centres plus" strategy which means that
the policy direction is for commercial growth to be located within the hierarchy
of centres plus identified growth corridors (IGCs) and other locations where
appropriate. The "centres plus" strategy in the RPS includes a preference for
commercial growth in centres rather than IGCs or other out-of-centre locations:

4

5
6

Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, part 7.
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 7.2 .
Change 6 was developed by the legacy councils and was ultimately resolved by Environment Court consent
order. This was a long and difficult process involving a large number of submitters.

26593434_2.docx

Page 10

commercial activities are "encouraged" in centres and "enabled" where
appropriate on IGCs. A key aspect of the strategy is to sustain and enhance
the function, role and amenity of centres having regard to their position in the
hierarchy or network of centres.

5.5

The centres strategy was addressed through Topic 013 83.1 Commercial and
Industrial Growth which was notable for the very high level of consensus

reached between the many interested parties. These parties included many
submitters with a direct and substantial interest in Auckland retailing.

5.6

Importantly the Interim Guidance for Topic 013 83.1 Commercial and Industrial
Growth states that the Panel "supports commercial growth on transport

corridors as well as in centres".

5. 7

Section B3.1 of the RPS should be given effect to when determining the district
level provisions within the Business Topics. The "centres plus" approach is
important to all Business zones because the scale and mix of activities in any
Business zone could affect the function , role and amenity of the other Business
zones. The Business zones work together as a package to provide for the
current and future commercial and employment needs of Aucklanders and
achieve a compact quality urban form in accordance with the Council's
strategic approach. IGCs are discussed separately below.

5.8

The "centres plus" approach is reflected "from the top down" in the Business
zones, from high level objectives and policies which address the role and
function of particular zones, down to rules and development controls that more
specifically identify the scale and mix of activities generally appropriate in each
of the Business zones .

6.

BUSINESS ZONE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Overview

6.1

The Business zone descriptions, objectives and policies are included in
Chapter 03 of the PAUP. Submissions and evidence on these provisions are
variously addressed in planning evidence on behalf of the Council from Mr
Wyatt, Mr Bonis and Ms Wickham.

High level urban design matters are

addressed in the evidence of Mr Munro.

26593434_2.docx

Page 11

6.2

The nine Business zones included in Chapter 03 are:

(a)

Metropolitan, Town,

Local,

and

Neighbourhood

Centre

zones

(Centres zones);

6.3

(b)

Mixed Use, General Business and Business Park zones; and

(c)

Heavy and Light Industry zones (Industry zones).

Chapter 03 is structured to first provide broad descriptions, objectives and
policies that apply generally to the Centres zones and the Mixed Use, General
Business and Business Park zones. These general provisions are followed by
zone descriptions, objectives and policies for each of the nine Business zones.
The description for each zone identifies the general features and refers to
existing and potential land uses.

6.4

The provisions in Chapter 03 need to be considered with specific Aucklandwide objectives and policies.

Auckland-wide provisions with particular

relevance include the transport provisions in C1.2 and the general provisions in
C1.7 which address matters such as lighting, noise and signs.

6.5

The objectives and policies relating to the Business zones provide a framework
for the management of activities in business areas beyond the City Centre.
This framework reinforces the role of centres as focal points for business and
community investment and recognises the need to provide suitable locations
for specific industries. As mentioned above the PAUP embodies the "centres
plus" approach to the distribution and management of commercial and
industrial growth.

6.6

The concept of a "hierarchy of centres" is fundamental to the Business zones.
It describes a regulatory framework for a network of centres that are ranked
from those that have regional significance to those that have local importance
to the immediate community and passers-by. A centre's place in the hierarchy
depends on a number of factors including size, location, access to public
transport, scale of built form , existing activities and future activities anticipated
in the centre, surrounding environment and growth expectations.

26593434_2.docx

Page 12

6.7

In addition to the Centres zones the PAUP includes the following Business
zones:

(a)

Mixed Use zone

Provides for residential activities and smaller scale commercial
activities. The zone is typically located around centres and along
sections of the rapid and frequent service network.

Given their

proximity to centres these zones may in some cases provide for
intensification

and

residential

and

commercial

consolidation

supporting centres.

(b)

General Business zone

Provides for business activities that may be less appropriate for or
unable to locate in centres. This includes activities ranging from light
industrial to limited office, large format retail and trade suppliers. The
zone is proposed in few locations across the Region.

Where the

zone is located around centres it may support and reinforce the
centre .

(c)

Business Park zone

Provides a location where office-type business activities can group
together in a park or campus like environment.

The zone enables

moderate to intensive office activities and some ancillary services.
The zone has been proposed for five locations and is expected to
have limited future application.

(d)

Light Industry zone

Provides for industrial activities that do not generate objectionable
odour, dust or noise.

This includes manufacturing, production,

logistics, storage, transport and distribution activities.

26593434_2.docx

Page 13

(e)

Heavy Industry zone

Provides for industrial activities that may produce objectionable
odour, dust and noise emissions.

Sensitive activities are not

appropriate in the zone and the zone has a functional standard of
amenity.

6.8

Each zone plays an important part in the PAUP's strategy for distribution and
management of commercial and industrial growth. The objectives and policies
for the Business zones generally seek to sustain and enhance the function,
role and amenity of centres within the hierarchy. This gives effect to the RPS
distributional strategy.

6.9

A number of amendments to the PAUP were agreed at mediation or have been
proposed by the Council and are not disputed in submitters' evidence. These
amendments are shown in the revised version of the plan provisions attached
to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt. In summary the key changes include the
following:

Amend the objectives and policies of the Centres zones to reiterate the
growth, scale and intensity implicit in the hierarchy of centres and
associated regeneration and intensification initiatives

Amend the objectives and policies of the Centres zones to confirm the
functional and social amenity outcomes that Centres should exhibit
according to their place in the hierarchy

Amend the objectives and policies of the Business zones to ensure that
development is managed appropriately with a focus on design quality for
developments that have a greater prominence of visual effects

Amend the General Business zone provisions to make it clear that General
Business zone activities should not be detrimental to centres

Amend the Business Park objectives and policies by splitting them to
distinguish between existing and new business parks (the latter are not
encouraged)

Amend the Light Industry zone description and add new policies to
acknowledge the presence of existing lawfully established commercial

26593434_2.docx

Page 14

activities and existing heavy industries within the Light Industry zone and to
recognise and provide for their ongoing operation

Amend the Industry zone policies to consolidate and emphasise that nonindustrial activities that do not support the primary function of the zones
should be limited or avoided

6.1 0

Amendments for clarity and consistency

The revised provisions are similar in their general approach to the notified
PAUP. There are no major policy shifts - rather the provisions have been
amended to align with the higher level provisions and to clarify and refine the
purpose of the zones and their position in the strategic framework.

6.11

Many of the Council's proposed amendments are supported by submitters or
have not been disputed in evidence. However submitters' evidence proposes
some additional amendments to the objectives and policies. The number of
agreed amendments to the objectives and policies has narrowed the issues
considerably.

6.12

The evidence from submitters raises the following key outstanding issues
which are responded to in the Council's rebuttal evidence and addressed
under separate headings below:

(a)

Residential activities within centres;

(b)

Key retail and general commercial frontages;

(c)

Encouraging integrated retail developments in centres;

(d)

Supermarkets in the Mixed Use and Light Industry zones;

(e)

Department stores in Local Centre zone; and

(f)

Functional and operational requirements.

26593434_2.docx

Page 15

Policies - Residential activities within centres

6.13

7

In his planning evidence Mr Lala seeks changes to Policy 03.1.2 to delete the
reference to managing reverse sensitivity effects which then appears to have
been incorporated into his revised Policy 03.1.1 Ob. He also seeks to revise
Policy 03.1.1 Ob to manage the effects of ground floor residential activities
within centres rather than discouraging dwellings at ground floor street
frontage as proposed by the Council.

6.14

The Council's position is that Mr Lala's proposed changes are not necessary or
appropriate. The reasons for this are set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr
Wyatt.

8

In particular Mr Lala's proposed changes narrow the consideration of

reverse sensitivity to residential activity at ground floor while the Council's
approach applies more widely.

The Council's approach to discouraging

dwellings at ground floor is more likely to achieve appropriate centre amenity
and reduce commercial growth constraints. Mr Wyatt agrees that Policy
03.1.1 Ob would benefit from explicitly enabling dwellings above ground floor in
Centre zones.

Policies - Key retail and general commercial frontages

6.15

In his planning evidence on behalf of the Property Council Mr Lala proposes a
softening of Polices 03.3.7a and 03.4.4a which require buildings to "generally"
front the street where they are subject to the Key Retail or General
Commercial Frontage.

He also seeks to relax the related rules by providing

for a variety of exceptions to the frontage requirements.

6.16

The Council's position is that this approach would not give effect to the RPS by
achieving a quality built form and is unnecessary because any departures from
the Council's proposed policies can be assessed on their merits through the
resource consent process. These reasons are set out further in the evidence
of Mr Munro on behalf of the Council.

7

8
9

9

Property Council 6212 , Monaro Properties and Takapuna Properties 3776, Crown Corp 4353 , BHV 4368,
Fairmont Investment 4287, Monte Holdings 8968, Aryan Equities 9377, Stingray Bay Farms 6631 , G&C Worger
Family Trust- no submission number, I AJK Investments- no submission number, Kauri Tamaki 5823, Tamaki
Redevelopment 4854, Orakei Bay Village 4830, 88 Broadway 3449.
Mr Wyatt, rebuttal evidence, part 6.
Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, paras 6.1-6.5.

26593434_2.docx

Page 16

Policies- Encouraging integrated retail developments in centres

6.17

In their planning evidence on behalf of PSIPIB Ltd and ONZ Ltd Ms Carvill and
Ms Tait recommend changes to Policy 03.3.9 to "encourage integrated retail
developments" in Metropolitan Centre zones. Foster et al seek similar relief on
behalf of Progressive Enterprises Ltd, Scentre (New Zealand) Ltd, Bunnings
Ltd , The National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd and Kiwi Income
Property Trust (Key Retailers Group). The Council's proposed version of the
policy focuses on supermarkets and department stores.

6.18

The Council's position is that it is not necessary or appropriate to refer to
integrated retail developments in the policy. The reasons for this are set out in
the evidence of Mr Munro.

10

In particular integrated retail developments do not

have a tendency to locate out-of-centre and they are a configuration of retail
which should not necessarily be encouraged in preference to alternative
configurations such as a "main street".

6.19

Foster et al also seek changes to Policy 03.3.9 to require the functional and
operational requirements of supermarkets, integrated retail developments and
department stores to be balanced against the need to achieve a quality built
environment. The Council's position is that this is not appropriate because the
word "balanced" implies that there is an inherent tension and equal trade-offs
to be made between the two . The reasons for this are further explained in the
evidence of Mr Munro

11

who considers that the Council's proposed wording

(which requires both functional and built quality aspects to be "recognised") is
more appropriate.

Policies- Supermarkets in the Mixed Use and Light Industry zones

6.20

Planning evidence from Foster et al on behalf of the Key Retailers Group
seeks to insert a new policy for the Mixed Use zone that recognises the
positive contribution of supermarkets and explicitly enables supermarkets
within the Mixed Use zone . A policy is also sought to enable supermarkets in
the Light Industry zone.

10
11

Mr Munro , rebuttal evidence, para 12.1-12.5.
Mr Munro , rebuttal evidence, para 13.2-13.4.

26593434_2.docx

Page 17

6.21

The Council is opposed to the proposed policies for the reasons set out in the
rebuttal evidence of Mr Bonis
the

Mixed

12

and Ms Wickham

13

policy is inappropriate

Use zone

.

Mr Bonis considers that
because

it encourages

supermarkets regardless of scale and does not provide for management of the
resultant environmental effects.

Ms Wickham considers that it is not

appropriate to "enable" supermarkets in the Light Industry zone due to
questions raised in the economic rebuttal evidence about the submitters'
projected demand for supermarkets, the scarcity of land zoned for light
industry activities, the distance from residential areas for some areas of Light
Industry zone, potential reverse sensitivity effects on light industry activities
and failure to give effect to proposed RPS provisions providing for the efficient
use of scarce industrial land for industrial activities.

Policies- Department stores in Local Centre zones

6.22

Planning evidence from Foster et al on behalf of the Key Retailers Group
seeks to amend Policy 03.5.6 to provide explicit recognition of department
stores in Local Centre zones, and provide for their functional requirements.

6.23

The Council is opposed to this approach for the reasons set out in the rebuttal
evidence of Mr Bonis.

14

He considers that department stores do not represent

a necessary component of local centres such that they require specific policy
acknowledgement of functional requirements and recognition .

Policies

and

assessment

criteria

-

Functional

and

operational

requirements

6.24

Planning evidence on behalf of the Key Retailers Group and Restaurant
Brands seeks to amend references to "functional requirements" in various
policies and assessment criteria by adding a reference to "operational
requirements". They argue that the two terms are different.

6.25

This question is addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt on behalf of
the Council.

12
13
14
15

Mr Wyatt

15

notes that this issue has been discussed in other

Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, paras 5.1-5.8.
Ms Wickham , rebuttal evidence, part 10.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, paras 7.1 -7.2 ..
Mr Wyatt, rebuttal evidence, para 11.2.

26593434_2.docx

Page 18

Topics and the Council has consistently taken the position that "functional"
includes "operational". Mr Wyatt supports this view. In doing so he notes that
the Oxford English Dictionary uses the two terms as synonyms and he
considers that there is no meaningful distinction between the two. For these
reasons the Council's position is that "functional" is sufficient and appropriate
without the word "operational". This approach will also maintain consistency
with other parts of the plan.

7.

IDENTIFIED GROWTH CORRIDORS - OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, RULES
AND MAPPING
Overview

7.1

The objectives and policies for IGCs are included in Chapter E4.5 of the
PAUP.

7.2

IGCs are an overlay mechanism in the PAUP which give effect to the "centres
plus" approach of the RPS by providing a "release valve" for new out-of-centre
commercial activities where appropriate. The "centres plus" approach and the
outcome of Topic 013 83.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth has been
described above and I won't repeat that here.

7.3

The PAUP did not include any rules for IGCs but a suite of rules and
assessment matters were agreed at mediation and are included in the revised
provisions attached to Mr Wyatt's rebuttal evidence.

Similarly the PAUP

included only one IGC at Lincoln Road and the parties are in agreement that
several more should be added. There are also a number of others that are
disputed between the parties. The Council supports five IGCs and there are
some submitters who consider this too many while others consider that it is not
enough.

7.4

A number of amendments to the PAUP in relation to IGCs were agreed at
mediation or have been proposed by the Council and are not disputed in the
submitters' evidence. These amendments are shown in the revised version of
the plan provisions attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt. In summary
the key changes include the following:

26593434_2.docx

Page 19

Amend the objectives and policies to clarify the matters that should be had
regard to when applying the IGC overlay and assessing applications for
resource consent

Provide activity status for certain types of retail in IGCs to apply if it is more
lenient than the underlying zone

New matters of discretion and assessment criteria to manage the effects of
large retail in IGCs

7.5

Inclusion of IGCs at Wairau Road, New North Road and Stoddard Road

Submitters' evidence proposes additional amendments in relation to IGCs
which are not agreed and are therefore in dispute. However, putting aside the
mapping, number and location of IGCs, there are very few material disputes as
to the plan provisions for IGCs.

The evidence from submitters raises the

following key outstanding issues which are responded to in the Council's
rebuttal evidence:

(a)

Overlay description;

(b)

Activity status for retail and trade suppliers; and

(c)

PotentiaiiGCs

Overlay description

Submitters' evidence

7.6

In planning evidence on behalf of PSPIB Ltd and DNZ Ltd Ms Carvill and Ms
Tait seek that the overlay description be amended to explicitly state that IGCs
are to provide overflow capacity for large format retail activities unable to
locate in centres, and without adversely impacting on the transport function of
the corridor, or the function and vitality of centres.

16

This is proposed in

reliance on economic evidence from Mr Philpott and transport evidence from
Mr McKenzie.

16

Ms Carvill and Ms Tail, evidence-in-chief, para 9.1 .1.

26593434_2.docx

Page 20

Council's position

7.7

The Council is opposed to the changes proposed on behalf of the submitters
for the reasons set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Bonis.
considers the

proposed

amendments to

unnecessary and inappropriate.

17

the

overlay

Mr Bonis

description

are

In particular the overlay description

proposed by Ms Carvill and Ms Tait is absolute in saying that there will be no
adverse effects on the transport function of the corridor or the function and
vitality of centres while the policy and rule framework anticipates some adverse
effects and provides for their management.

The proposed description is

therefore inaccurate.

Activity status for retail and trade suppliers

Submitters' evidence

7.8

Ms Carvill and Ms Tait seek to amend the provisions so that retail activities
below 200m2 GFA and trade suppliers would default to the status in the
underlying zone, rather than being discretionary or restricted discretionary,
if that is more lenient than the underlying zone. The issues raised appear
to relate to concerns that agglomeration of smaller retail activities in IGCs
will result in unplanned centres. The argument for trade suppliers appears
to be that other Business zones are available to accommodate trade
suppliers .

Council's position

7.9

The Council's position is that the activity status in its revised provisions is more
appropriate. The economic evidence of Ms Fairgary on behalf of the Council
does not support the relief sought by Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. She considers
that discretionary status for retail less than 450m2 in IGCs is appropriate
because individual proposals would be subject to an assessment that would
sufficiently mitigate the risk of formation of de facto centres.

17
18

18

Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, para 9.4.
Ms Fairgray, rebuttal evidence, para 6.2.

26593434_2.docx

Page 21

7.10

Ms Fairgray also considers it is preferable from an economic perspective to
encourage trade suppliers to agglomerate with other retail within IGCs rather
than having them dispersed throughout the Light Industry zone.

19

This

supports restricted discretionary status for trade suppliers in IGCs although, as
noted by Mr Bonis, in many instances the underlying zone will have a more
lenient activity status which will prevail e.g. Lincoln Road, Wairau Road and
parts of Stoddard Road have an underlying Light Industry zone which permits
trade suppliers.

20

Potential IGCs

7.11

Potential IGCs are shown as an overlay on the planning maps. The PAUP
included a single IGC at Lincoln Road, Henderson.

A number of other

possibilities have been considered at mediation and in discussions between
the parties.

Some possibilities have been discounted through the process

while others are addressed in evidence from the parties.

7.12

Potential IGCs are addressed on behalf of the Council in planning evidence
from Mr Bonis, transport planning evidence from Mr Wong-Toi and economic
evidence from Ms Fairgray and Mr Akehurst.

Mr Hancock has provided

transport engineering evidence on behalf of Auckland Transport.

Matters to be considered

7.13

The matters that are to be had regard to when considering whether IGCs
should be included in the plan are set out in Policy 7 of B3.1 of the RPS.
These include the following matters:

(a)

adverse effects on the function, role and amenity of the city centre,
metropolitan and town centres beyond those effects ordinarily
associated with trade effects or trade competition;

(b)

adverse effects on the quality compact urban form and including the
anticipated planned location of activities, facilities, infrastructure and
public investment;

19
20

Ms Fairgray, rebuttal evidence, para 6.5.
Mr Bonis, rebutta l evidence, para 9.10.

26593434_2.docx

Page 22

(c)

effects

on

community

social

and

economic

wellbeing

and

accessibility;
(d)

the

integration and efficient use and

provision of land and

infrastructure;
(e)

impacts on the safe and efficient operation and the management of
the transport system including public transport and the road network;

(f)

the impacts of the development on the efficient use of any scarce
industrial land, in particular opportunities for employment for land
extensive industrial activities and heavy industry;

(g)

avoiding conflicts between incompatible activities; and

(h)

the effects on residential activity.

Economic modelling and analysis

7.14

The Council has also undertaken extensive economic analysis, including
modelling, to indicate where additional retail may be required and would be
consistent with the existing centres network as a result of retail floor space
capacity shortfalls. The analysis is a logical and robust process to understand
the retail market using comprehensive empirical data on a sound conceptual
basis.

This analysis shows where sufficient PAUP capacity to meet future

retail demand does and does not exist. The geographic patterns of surplus
and deficit influence the consistency of potential IGCs with a centres-based
urban form and the effect on the centres network.

These matters are

addressed in detail in the evidence of Ms Fairgray on behalf of the Council.

7.15

In my submission the Council's modelling is notable for its robustness and the
quality of the data used. As explained by Mr Akehurst

21

:

For the first time in my 20 years of experience in these matters, Council
has developed a flexible model of the future of retail in the city based on
empirical data covering both the existing supply of retail, the future
supply of retail and commercial land and capacity and households
shopping patterns.

21

Mr Akehurst, evidence-in-chief, para 4.4

26593434_2.docx

Page 23

7.16

As mentioned above informal expert conferencing was coordinated by the
Council and a joint statement was prepared by the experts involved which has
been uploaded to the Panel's website. The purpose of the conferencing was
to share the Council's economic analysis and modelling techniques and get
early feedback from the various experts. The joint statement is concerned with
the economic analysis and modelling spatial patterns of retail capacity
surplus/deficits.

It also includes addresses economic principles for retail

location and principles for appropriate IGC location and the location of retail
within IGCs.

7.17

In general there was broad agreement over the Council's modelling approach
in principle and some of the findings drawn from the model. Mr Thompson is
the

notable

exception

although

some

other experts

also

expressed

reservations or disagreement on particular issues which are identified in the
joint statement.

Mr Thompson disagreed with almost every proposition put

forward at the conference and promoted alternative approaches to modelling
retail capacity surplus/deficits.

7.18

In his evidence Mr Thompson promotes estimating capacity through assessing
current market feasibility of sites using an Urban Feasibility Model (UFM). All
other economic experts agreed that this approach is not robust or appropriate
(there are nine reasons for this outlined in the joint statement).

The many

shortcomings of Mr Thompson's approach are also addressed in the primary
and rebuttal evidence of Ms Fairgray.

In particular there are doubts as to

whether Mr Thompson has fully understood the modelling process.

Ms

Fairgray's primary and rebuttal evidence summarises some of the major issues
with the alternative approaches Mr Thompson is promoting.

7.19

In relation to Mr Thompson's UFM approach Ms Fairgray points out in
particular that it incorrectly assumes demand and prices hold constant over
time and fails to take into account changes in market feasibility as demand
grows. In reality, demand and prices increase through time, meaning more
sites become market feasible through time. It is also reliant on a greater set of
assumptions. It is therefore not a useful modelling tool in the Auckland context
and the weight of economic opinion at the expert conference confirmed this.

26593434_2.docx

Page 24

Proposed IGCs

7.20

The Council proposes inclusion of five IGCs in the plan. Two of these (Lincoln
Road and Ti Rakau Drive) have been challenged in evidence from submitters
who seek fewer IGCs. Other submitters are seeking inclusion of a further six
IGCs in the plan. The Council opposes including these additional IGCs in the
plan.

7.21

The Council considers that the number of IGCs must strike the "right" balance
and is critical to achieving its strategy for "centres plus" management of
commercial growth. This is reflected in the evidence in chief of Mr Bonis

22

:

An inadequate number of IGCs, coupled with a restrictive approach to
commercial provision, renders the mechanism redundant. Too many

IGCs will promote a diffuse pattern of commercial activity to the
detriment of the centres network.

7.22

In my submission the IGCs supported by the Council are the most appropriate
in terms of the statutory tests.

In particular they strike the right balance

between providing for commercial growth out-of-centre and avoiding too much
dispersal of commercial activities which could compromise the function, role
and amenity of centres in the PAUP hierarchy and network of centres.

As

explained above this "centres plus" strategy is fundamental to the Council's
entire approach to the Business zone provisions from the objectives down to
activity status and development controls.

7.23

The IGCs proposed by the Council are described

23

and spatially defined

24

in

the evidence-in-chief of Mr Bonis. The Council supports including the following
five IGCs in the plan:

(a)

Wairau Road; New North Road, Kingsland; Stoddard Road

At mediation all parties agreed that these are appropriately included
in the plan as IGCs. There is no evidence challenging any of these
IGCs.

22
23
24

Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 16.1 0.
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.
B .
.
.
. f
Mr oms, ev1dence-1n-ch1e , Attachment B.

26593434_2.docx

Page 25

(b)

Lincoln Road, Henderson; Ti Rakau Drive

At mediation all parties except PSPIB Ltd and DNZ Ltd agreed that
these areas are appropriately included in the plan as IGCs. PSPIB
Ltd and DNZ Ltd have produced planning, transport and economic
evidence challenging inclusion of these IGCs in the plan.

The

Council's position is that both areas should be included as IGCs for
the reasons set out in the evidence of its witnesses.

Although finely balanced , Mr Bonis supports including Lincoln Road
as an IGC, based on the planning history for the area, the ability to
accommodate additional retail capacity in an area where there is a
localised shortfall , and the proximate and intensifying residential
population. Lincoln Road is also observed to have a strong
commercial character?

5

Mr Bonis' rebuttal evidence shows that the

submitters' evidence overemphasises the absence of a confirmed
retail supply deficit and overlooks other reasons for making the area
an IGC?

6

Mr Bonis also supports inclusion of Ti Rakau Drive and refers to Mr
Akehurst's evidence that an IGC overlay in this area is appropriate in
accommodating
Pakauranga.

27

LFR that

can't

locate

at

Botany

Downs

or

He also refers to evidence from Mr Wong-Toi which

identifies that the proximate residential intensification areas close to
the corridor provides some relative transport benefits.

28

The

submitters' concerns appear to stem from the likely dispersal of retail
and associated transport effects. However Mr Bonis considers that
the effects of development along this IGC can be appropriately
managed through the assessment of individual resource consent
applications against the objectives, policies and assessment criteria
which have been agreed for IGCs.

25
26
27
28
29

29

Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.23.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, para 9.1 3.
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.27.
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20 .28.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, para 9.13.

26593434_2.docx

Page 26

7.24

A joint planning statement on behalf of the Key Retailers Group proposes a
further six IGCs which are not supported by the Council. As mentioned above
too many IGCs has the potential to undermine the Council's "centres plus"
strategy for management of commercial growth. This position is reflected in
the rebuttal evidence of Mr Akehurst

30

:

In my view it would be very dangerous to allow a very large number of
IGCs that cover a large amount of land to be identified as potential retail
locations because it will lead to significant adverse effects on the centre
network as a whole, and the centre network as a whole is the most
efficient and effective way to deliver a sustainable future for Auckland both in its support for a compact city form and in terms of efficient land
use for economic activity.

7.25

These concerns are one of the key reasons that the Council opposes the six
additional IGCs proposed by the Key Retailers Group although there are also
other specific reasons for opposing the additional IGCs. The Council's specific
reasons for opposing the additional six IGCs include the following:

(a)

Constellation Drive, Albany

Any retail capacity deficit in this area could be accommodated
through the Albany centre

31

and an IGC at Wairau Road . Existing

land uses including substantial office presence would not be assisted
and could be displaced by an IGC in this location.

32

The Council

opposes this IGC.

(b)

Great North Road, Arch Hill

This corridor has a limited presence of retail activities and a relatively
large proportion of office based activities. An IGC aimed largely at
accommodating space extensive retail activities may prevent further

30

Mr Akehurst, rebuttal evidence, para 8.8; see also Ms Fairgray, evidence-in-chief, paras 8.29 and 8.30; rebuttal
evidence, para 8.8.
31
M s Fa1rgray,
.
.
. f , para 8 .13.
ev1'd ence-1n-ch1e
32
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.32.

26593434_2.docx

Page 27

residential and business intensification in this area.

33

The Council

opposes this IGC.

(c)

Lunn Avenue, Mt Wellington; Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt
Wellington

Lunn Avenue already contains substantial trade suppliers, retail and a
range of food retailers. However it is poorly integrated with the public
transport network
growth.

35

34

and is not proximate to areas of residential

Including Lunn Ave or the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway as

IGCs may have implications for the Panmure Town Centre which
plays an important role with the surrounding community_3

6

The

Council opposes these IGCs.

(d)

Great South Road, Takanini (west of Walters Road); Great South
Road, Takanini (east of Walters Road)

This area accommodates the Fonterra Factory as well as numerous
small scale light industry and automotive services. Identification as
an IGC is likely to displace industrial activities in this area which
support substantial employment.

37

Substantial retail capacity is

available at the centres of Papakura, Takanini and Manukau?

8

The

Council opposes these IGCs.

33
34
35
36
37
38

Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.34.
Mr Wong-Toi, evidence-in-ch ief, para 5.4.10; rebuttal evidence, para 4.15 .
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.44.
Ms Fairgray, evidence-in-chief, para 8.32 .
Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, para 20.39.
Ms Fairgray, evidence-in-chief, para 8.28.

26593434_2.docx

Page 28

8.

BUSINESS ZONES- LAND USE RULES AND ASSESSMENT MATTERS
Overview

8.1

The provisions in Chapter 13 implement the objectives and policies of Chapter
03 Business zones.

As mentioned above the scale and mix of activities

provided for in the Business zone rules partly reflects the hierarchy which is
inherent in the PAUP centres strategy.

8.2

Submissions are variously addressed in the planning evidence of Mr Wyatt, Mr
Bonis, Ms Wickham and Mr Farrant, the urban design evidence Mr Munro and
Ms Coady, the economic evidence of Mr Akehurst and the air quality evidence
of Mr Harvey.

The provisions of Chapter 13 also include zone-wide height

controls which are addressed in a separate section below.

8.3

Chapter 13 contains two activity tables for the Business zones: Table 1.1
applies to the Centres zones and Mixed Use, General Business and Business
Park zones; and Table 1.2 applies to the Industry zones. The balance of
Chapter 13 is comprised of notification rules, land use controls, development
controls,

matters of control/discretion, assessment criteria and special

information requirements.

8.4

These provisions in Chapter 13 are variously expressed to be applicable to
activities in particular zones or particular activities in multiple zones. The land
use and development controls are often concerned with design and amenity.
They include matters such as building setback at upper floors, maximum tower
dimension and tower separation, buildings fronting the street, minimum floor to
floor height, glazing and other controls.

8.5

A number of amendments to the PAUP were agreed at mediation or have been
proposed by the Council and are not disputed in the submitters' evidence.
These amendments are shown in the revised version of the plan provisions
attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt. In summary the key changes
include the following:

Non-industrial Business zones - amend activity status for department
stores, cinemas, garden centres, marine retail, offices, retail, service
stations, justice facilities, recreation facilities and tertiary education facilities
(generally a less restrictive activity status is proposed)

26593434_2.docx

Page 29

Industry zones - add a permitted activity for existing lawfully established
commercial activities in the Light Industry zone, add a restricted
2

discretionary activity for stand-alone offices up to 100m GFA in both the
Light and Heavy Industry zones, make education facilities not otherwise
provided for more restrictive in the Heavy Industry zone, make emergency
services less restrictive in the Heavy Industry zone and add recreation
facilities and tertiary education facilities to the Industry zones activity table

Deletion of a number of urban design related development controls and
incorporation into assessment criteria which provide more flexibility e.g.
building entrances, roller doors, ground floor at street frontage level, and
building setback

Amend notification rule for Heavy Industry zone so that offices that are
non-complying are publicly notified

Amend the notification rule for the Light Industry zone so that offices and
retail are subject to the normal tests for notification and retirement villages
are publicly notified along with dwellings

Amend or delete development controls to reduce regulation and focus on
the critical matters e.g. buildings fronting the street, minimum floor to floor
height, maximum impervious area, yards, landscape planting, screening
and storage and wind control

Amend assessment criteria to reduce in number and focus on the types of
development with the most potential effects i.e. larger buildings and along
Key Retail Frontage and General Commercial Frontage streets

8.6

Many of the Council's proposed amendments are supported by submitters or
have not been disputed in evidence. However submitters' evidence proposes
additional amendments to the rules and assessment matters. The evidence
from submitters raises the following key outstanding issues which are
responded to in the Council's rebuttal evidence:

Activity status

(a)

Business Park zones;

(b)

Emergency services in the Neighbourhood Centre zone;

26593434_2.docx

Page 30

(c)

Trade suppliers and motor vehicle sales in the Mixed Use zone;

(d)

Retail within 400 m of the Metropolitan Centre zone in the General
Business zone;

(e)

Offices, supermarkets and entertainment facilities in the Local Centre
zone;

(f)

Supermarkets in the Neighbourhood Centre and Light Industry zones;

(g)

Broadcasting facilities in the Light Industry zone;

(h)

Reverse sensitivity in the Light Industry zone;

(i)

Commercial activities in the Light Industry zone;

U)

Competitive design provisions; and

(k)

Drive through facilities.

Notification rule

{I)

Buildings infringing height;

Land use and development controls

(m)

Agglomeration of retail and food and beverage in the Mixed Use and
General Business zones;

(n)

Residential activities at ground floor;

(o)

Side and rear yards in the Neighbourhood, Local or Town Centre
zones;

(p)

Glazing on building elevations that front a street within Metropolitan
and Town Centre zones;

Assessment criteria and special information requirements

(q)

"should" vs "extent to which";

(r)

Buildings adjoining site frontage;

26593434_2.docx

Page 31

(s)

Stud heights for drive-through restaurants;

(t)

Vehicle access and building continuity; and

(u)

Special information requirements.

Activity status - Business Park zones

8.7

Planning evidence from Mr Smith and Mr Thompson

39

seeks that the activity

status for department stores in the Business Park zones be relaxed from noncomplying to discretionary.

Planning evidence from Mr McKal

0

seeks

changes to activity status in the Business Park zones for a number of activities
including residential and commercial sexual services.

8.8

The Council agrees it is appropriate reclassify commercial sexual services and
department stores from non-complying to discretionary activity. Discretionary
status for department stores is supported by Mr Wyatt because the objectives
and policies of the Business Park zone will appropriately manage the effects of
department stores and department stores are unlikely to locate in a Business
Park zone due to the land costs and pressure for more intensive development
within the zone.

41

The Council does not consider that any other changes to

activity status are warranted particularly Mr McKay's proposal of permitted
activity status for residential activities.

8.9

42

The Council's position is supported by Mr Wyatt

who provides planning

reasons in his rebuttal evidence. He considers that the Business Park zone
caters primarily for existing intensive out-of-centre office activities and
residential activities would compete directly for the above ground space within
the zone which is not the most efficient use of Business Park land.

Activity status and assessment criteria - Emergency services in the
Neighbourhood Centre zone

8.10

In her evidence on behalf of the NZ Fire Service Fiona Blight seeks that the
activity status for emergency services in the Neighbourhood Centre zone be

39

40

Goodman Property Trust, Goodman Paihia, The Warehouse and Northcote Rd 1 Holdings.
NZIA, Generation Zero and Urban Design Forum .

41

.

Mr Wyatt, rebuttal evidence, para 5.4.
42M r W yatt, rebuttal evidence,
.
para 5.7.

26593434_2.docx

Page 32

relaxed from discretionary to restricted discretionary (with the normal tests for
notification).

She also seeks changes in relation to the wording of the

assessment criteria dealing with the functional requirements of emergency
services.

8.11

The Council's position is that the activity status and assessment criteria
attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt are appropriate and should not
be amended in response to Ms Blight's evidence.

8.12

The Council's position is supported by Mr Wyatt who provides planning
43

reasons in his rebuttal evidence .

He considers that the assessment criteria

are clear and discretionary status is appropriate because the Neighbourhood
Centre zone objectives and policies do not envisage development with the
scale and type of effects that a fire station may have.

Activity Status - Trade suppliers and motor vehicle sales in the Mixed
Use zone

8.13

Planning evidence from Mr Norwell

44

45

and Ms Panther-Knight

seeks

restricted discretionary activity status for trade suppliers and motor vehicle
sales in the Mixed Use zone.

8.14

The Council's position is that discretionary status is more appropriate.

The

46

planning reasons for this are set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Bonis.

He

considers that trade suppliers are not easily accommodated in the Mixed Use
zone and discretionary status is appropriate to enable each proposal to be fully
assessed on its merits (this need not preclude outcomes like the Grey Lynn
Bunnings).

43

Mr Wyatt, rebutta l evidence, part 7.
44 B
.
unn1ngs.
45
Gilltrap Holdings.
46
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, part 5.

26593434_2.docx

Page 33

Activity status - General Business zone retail within 400 m of the
Metropolitan Centre zone

8.15

Planning evidence from Ms Carvill and Ms Tait

47

seeks addition of a new rule

in the General Business zone to make retail up to 450m2 GFA per tenancy a
restricted discretionary activity if it is within a 400 m walk from the Metropolitan
Centre zone.

8.16

The Council does not support this rule for the reasons set out in rebuttal
evidence from Mr Bonis

48

and Ms Fairgray

49

.

In short the rule is unnecessary

and would duplicate or disperse economic activity away from the adjacent
Metropolitan Centre. Economic activity could instead be attracted to collocate
with large format retail in the General Business zone which would relocate or
disperse the core of the centre.

Activity status - Offices, supermarkets and entertainment facilities in the
Local Centre zone

8.17

Planning evidence from Mr Sousa on behalf of Mr Hogan seeks to provide for
offices, supermarkets and entertainment facilities as permitted activities in the
Local Centre zones.

8.18

The Council's position is that it is more appropriate to have a tiered approach
under which smaller scale offices and supermarkets are permitted while larger
scale activities require a restricted discretionary resource consent.

The

Council also considers that discretionary status is more appropriate for
entertainment facilities in the Local Centre zone.

The planning reasons in
50

support of this approach are set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Bonis.

Activity status - Supermarkets in the Neighbourhood Centre and Light
Industry zones

8.19

The planning evidence of Foster et al on behalf of the Key Retailers Group
seeks an activity status for supermarkets in the Neighbourhood Centre and

47
48
49

50

PSPIB Ltd and DNZ Ltd.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, part 6.
Ms Fairgray, rebuttal evidence, para 8.1 and 8.2.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, part 7 and part 10.

26593434_2.docx

Page 34

Light Industry zones that is less restrictive than the non-complying status
proposed by the Council. Discretionary status is sought in the Light Industry
zone.

In the Neighbourhood Centre zone discretionary status is sought for

supermarkets exceeding 2000m2 and restricted discretionary status is sought
for smaller supermarkets .

8.20

The Council does not support this approach for the reasons set out in the
1

2

rebuttal evidence of Mr Bonis5 , Ms Wickham 5 , Ms Fairgral

3

and Mr

Akehurst.

8.21

Ms Wickham's reasons for considering that it is not appropriate for
supermarkets to be discretionary in the Light Industry zone are the same as
those set out in relation to the policy sought to enable supermarkets in the
Light industry zone. They include questions raised in the economic evidence
about the submitters' projected demand for supermarkets, the scarcity of land
zoned for light industry activities, the distance from residential areas for some
areas of Light Industry zone, potential reverse sensitivity effects on light
industry activities and failure to give effect to proposed RPS provisions
providing for the efficient use of scarce industrial land for industrial activities.

8.22

Mr Bonis

54

considers that non-complying status is more appropriate for

supermarkets in the Neighbourhood Centre zone for the following reasons:

(a)

It will better achieve the proposed objectives particularly 03.6.1 and 2
which seek to limit the scale and intensity of commercial activities;

(b)

The built form and transport intensity of larger scale supermarkets is
typically

incongruent

with

the

amenity

expectations

of

both

neighbourhood centres and the adjoining residential interface;
(c)

Supermarkets may displace smaller more convenience

based

activities narrowing the ability of the local community to access
frequent needs (it is acknowledged that in-centre supermarket
developments can in some instances foster reinvestment and
improved accessibility to convenience retail) ; and
51
52

53
54

Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, part 8.
Ms Wickham, rebuttal evidence, part 10.
Ms Fairgray, rebuttal evidence, part 5.
Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, para 8.3.

26593434_2.docx

Page 35

(d)

There is an absence of developable sites able to absorb larger scale
supermarkets with the most likely resultant scenario being extension
onto an adjoining zone.

Activity status- Broadcasting facilities in the Light Industry zone

8.23

Planning evidence from Mr Cook on behalf of Sky Network Television seeks
that broadcasting facilities are provided for as a permitted activity in the Light
Industry zone rather than defaulting to non-complying status as an activity not
otherwise provided for.

8.24

The Council does not support this approach for the reasons set out in the
55

planning evidence of Ms Wickham .

In particular she considers that consider

that the large office component of such activities would be contrary to the RPS
83.1 Policies 11 and 12 and Policy 4 of the Light Industry zone which seeks to
avoid activities that do not support the primary function of the zone by limiting
office activities except where they are accessory to the primary activity on the
site or up to 100m2 GFA.

Activity status- Reverse sensitivity in the Light Industry zone

8.25

There is a range of evidence from industrial parties seeking more restrictive
activity status for activities in the Light Industry zone.

This includes more

restrictive activity status for drive-through facilities , garden centres , marine
retail, motor vehicle sales, trade suppliers, storage and lock up, animal
breeding and boarding, and horticulture.

8.26

The Council's position is that permitted activity status is appropriate for these
activities. The planning reasons for this position are set out in the rebuttal
evidence of Ms Wickham .56 She considers that the activities in question may
result in some reverse sensitivity effects but the amenity expectations of
people utilising such activities are not particularly high. Where these activities
which generally have a large outdoor component are located within 1OOm of a
Heavy Industry zone the Council proposes restricted discretionary status with
an assessment of reverse sensitivity being required .

55
56

Ms Wickham , rebuttal evidence, part 4.
Ms Wickham , rebuttal evidence, part 6.

26593434_2.docx

Page 36

Activity status and land use control - Commercial activities in the Light
Industry zone

8.27

In her planning evidence-in-chief on behalf of the Council Ms Wickham
proposed a permitted activity rule for "existing lawfully established commercial
activities" in the Light Industry zone with a land use control managing scale
and providing that activities may change within the range of commercial
activities. This was proposed in response to submissions.

8.28

Evidence from submitters ranges from those who think that Ms Wickham's land
use control goes too far in allowing one commercial activity to be substituted
for another (e.g. retail for office) to those who more generally seek a more
permissive approach to commercial activities in the Light Industry zone. There
are also a number who support the control.

8.29

The Council's position is that allowing existing commercial activities to be
substituted with others is an effective and efficient approach which recognises
the value of existing business investment by providing a degree of flexibility as
to the permissible use.

The Council has however revised its position to

exclude entertainment facilities from the rule because they are less appropriate
in the Light Industry zone . The Council does not support a more permissive
approach to any other commercial activities such as new stand-alone offices.
The reasons for this position are explained further in the rebuttal evidence of
57

Ms Wickham .

8.30

The Council does not support applying the permitted activity rule for "existing
lawfully established commercial activities" to the Heavy Industry zone as
requested by Mr Haines on behalf of Atlas Concrete . This is because heavy
industrial activities generate a lower level of amenity and are therefore more
vulnerable to reverse sensitivity effects from commercial activities. In addition
to this there are much fewer commercial activities in the Heavy Industry zones
because the operative district plan zonings do not provide for commercial
activities to the same extent as the operative zonings for the Light Industry
zone .

It is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate to provide for existing

commercial activities in the heavy Industry zone .

This is explained in the

rebuttal evidence of Ms Wickham.

57

Ms Wickham , rebuttal evidence, parts 8 and 9.

26593434_2. docx

Page 37

Activity status - Competitive design provisions

8.31

Evidence on behalf of Mr Hollenstein seeks permitted activity status for
applicants that opt for "competitive design" process. The crux of this method is
to substitute the consent authority with an Urban Design Jury at least 50%
appointed by the applicant.

The proposed method also enables permitted

status to be awarded by the Council's urban design panel and it allows the
Council to grant contraventions to some bulk and location rules (including
building height) through officer discretion rather than the resource consent
process .

8.32

The Council's position is that the submitter's proposed approach is unlawful
and lacks planning merit. Urban design and planning concerns are addressed
in the evidence of Mr Munro on behalf of the Council. Mr Munro considers that
the proposed approach "does not have resource management merit because it
encourages personal aesthetic preference or design popularity as a reliable or
adequate substitute to an impartial assessment of effects and PAUP policy
implementation".

58

He considers that the Council's revised approach which

has substantially removed rules and replaced them with a non-notified
restricted discretionary pathway (based on assessment matters) is a more
appropriate and reliable method than the submitter's proposal.

8.33

In my submission the proposed approach is also unlawful because the
proposed rules are not certain on their face and they seek to confer discretion
outside the resource consent process. This is contrary to the RMA.

Activity status- Drive through facilities

8.34

Restaurant Brands seeks permitted activity status for drive-through restaurants
across the Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre, Neighbourhood
Centre, Mixed Use and General Business zones.

8.35

In his evidence-in-chief on behalf of the Council Mr Wyatt considers that "the
merits of the submissions require further investigation , and I agree that the
notified version is the appropriate activity status for drive through

58

Mr Munro , rebuttal evidence, para 4.4.

26593434_2.docx

Page 38

restaurants at this time".

59

In his evidence-in-chief Mr Arbuthnot

60

notes that

this differs from the mediated provisions and maintains his position that drive
through restaurants should be permitted in the identified zones.

8.36

The Council's position is that the activity status for drive through restaurants
set out in the revised provisions attached to Mr Wyatt's rebuttal evidence is the
most appropriate approach. This approach permits drive through restaurants
in the Mixed Use and General Business zones. They would be restricted
discretionary in the Metropolitan, Town and Local Centre zones (the submitter
seeks permitted) . In the Business Park zone they would be non-complying
(the submitter seeks discretionary). In the Neighbourhood Centre zone they
would be discretionary (not disputed by the submitter).

8.37

The Council considers that its proposed approach will appropriately manage
the potential adverse effects of drive through facilities.

In particular matters

such as siting and design, signage, traffic and parking, noise and residential
interface issues will be appropriately assessed through the resource consent
process.

In my submission it is more appropriate that these matters are

assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on the general permitted
activity controls which may not adequately address the potential effects of a
particular proposal.

Notification rule - Buildings infringing height

8.38

Planning evidence from Mr Campbell

61

seeks to remove potential for

notification of building height infringements on sites greater than 1 ha. The
Council does not support this change for the reasons set out in Mr Wyatt's 62
rebuttal evidence. He consider that building height has the most potential for
adverse effects on a wide number of people and it is appropriate to apply the
normal tests for notification .

59
60
61
62

Mr Wyatt, evidence-in-chief, para 18.24.
Mr Arbuthnot, evidence-in-chief, part 7.
Masten Holdings Limited 5968, Rolf Masten Trust 6355, Joanna A Masten and 777 Investments Limited 6732.
Mr Wyatt, rebuttal evidence, part 8.

26593434_2.docx

Page 39

Land use control - Agglomeration of retail and food and beverage in the
Mixed Use and General Business zones

8.39

In his evidence-in-chief Mr Bonis

63

proposed land use controls 13.3.2, 3.3.2a

and 3.3.2b to manage the agglomeration of retail in the Mixed Use zone, and
food and beverage in the Mixed Use and General Business zones.

The

controls limit the number of retail activities that may aggregate and I or
proximity to the higher order Centre zones.

8.40

Planning evidence from Mr Smith and economic evidence from Mr Tansley on
behalf of The Warehouse opposes the rules seeking to control food and
beverage in the Mixed Use and Business zones. The Council's position is that
the land use controls are necessary and appropriate to manage distributional
effects of out-of-centre retail and food and beverage on Centres and preserve
the purpose and integrity of the PAUP zones. This is supported by the rebuttal
evidence of Mr Bonis

64

and Ms Fairgral

5

.

Development control - Residential activities at ground floor

8.41

Planning evidence from Mr Lala

66

seeks to narrow the scope of development

control 13.4.11 which restricts residential activities from locating at ground floor
street frontages so that it applies only to Key Retail Frontages and General
Commercial Frontages.

8.42

The Council does not support this change for the reasons set out in Mr
Wyatt's

67

rebuttal evidence. In particular he considers that Mr Lala's proposal

is not appropriate because it overlooks that matters such as street activation ,
vitality and amenity are important in parts of centres that are not subject to Key
Retail or General Commercial Frontages, and that ground floor space is
valuable for commercial purposes throughout centres.

63

Mr Bonis, evidence-in-chief, paras 31 and 32.

64

Mr Bonis, rebuttal evidence, part 5.
65 Ms F.
.
a1rgray, rebuttal evidence,
paras 4.14 and 4.15.
66
Property Council 6212, Monaro Properties and Takapuna Properties 3776, Crown Corp 4353, BHV 4368,
Fairmont Investment 4287, Monte Holdings 8968, Aryan Equities 9377, Stingray Bay Farms 6631, G&C
Worger Family Trust- no submission number, I AJK Investments- no submission number, Kauri Tamaki 5823,
Tamaki Redevelopment 4854, Orakei Bay Village 4830, 88 Broadway 3449.
67
Mr Wyatt, rebuttal evidence, para 6.6.

26593434_2.docx

Page 40

Development control - Side and rear yards in the Neighbourhood, Local
or Town Centre zones

8.43

In planning evidence on behalf of Samson Corporation Ltd and Sterling
Nominees Ltd Mr Brown proposes that side and rear yards in development
control 13.4.15 be removed from sites in the Neighbourhood, Local or Town
Centre zones.

8.44

The Council maintains its position that the side and rear yards are appropriate
in these zones. The reasons for this are set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr
Munro.

(a)

68

In particular his key reasons are:

The Neighbourhood, Local and Town Centre zones enable a variety
of residential and non-residential activities that can occur through the
day and night. This includes indoor and outdoor activities, goods
deliveries and storage, staff recreation and so forth. Keeping this
range of activities away from sensitive boundaries with a space that
can accommodate landscaping to visually soften visual or overlooking
effects is an effective means of avoiding , remedying or mitigating
adverse environmental effects.

(b)

A 3m yard setback provides a key opportunity to mitigate the effects
of business to residential development, as well as a minimal buffer
space to separate windows or other activities from residential
neighbours such as by vegetation .

(c)

It is possible that development above ground floor in Business zoned
sites could be for residential activities. A zero lot line (when buildings
can be built directly abutting the boundary) could provide for
balconies and other nuisance generating activities in inappropriately
close proximity to neighbours.

(d)

While bulk and location rules can manage the effects of development
proposed in contravention of those rules, they do not address any
effects arising from development within those controls - such as
overlooking enabled by development that complies with the height in
relation to boundary rule.

68

Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, part 10.

26593434_2.docx

Page 41

Development control - Glazing on building elevations that front a street
within Metropolitan and Town Centre zones

8.45

In their planning evidence Mr Norwell

69

and Foster et al

70

oppose development

control 13.4.9.2(c)(vii) which requires glazing (50% of height and width) on
building elevations that front a street within Metropolitan and Town Centre
zones if they are not subject to either a Key Retail Frontage or a General
Commercial Frontage.

8.46

The Council's position is that the development control should be retained for
the reasons set out in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Munro?

1

He considers that

it remains the most effective means of ensuring that along streets a minimum
extent of passive surveillance, visual interest and amenity will be likely to occur

Assessment criteria- "should" vs "extent to which"

8.47

In their planning evidence on behalf of Housing New Zealand Mr Lindenberg
and Ms Linzey express disagreement with the approach taken to assessment
criteria within the business provisions. In particular they are concerned that
assessment criteria are framed using the word "should" rather than "whether"
or "the extent to which".

8.48

The Council's position is that neither approach is incorrect as a matter of law
and it is a question of what is most appropriate in terms of the statutory tests.
The evidence of Mr Munro
particularly

in

72

is that "should" is more efficient and effective

circumstances

where

urban

design

rules

have

been

"relinquished" in favour of assessment criteria . This approach also has more
clarity and simplicity because it uses criteria that unambiguously explain the
spatial outcomes that are generally most appropriate. For these reasons more
directive assessment criteria are appropriate.

69
70

71
72

McDonald's.
.

Key Retailers Group.
Mr Munro, rebutta l evidence, paras 11 .2-11 .5.
Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, part 9.

26593434_2.docx

Page 42

Assessment criteria- Buildings adjoining site frontage

8.49

In her planning evidence Ms Panther-Knight

73

recommends deleting part of

assessment criterion 13.6.2.5(a)(i) which specifies proportions of frontages
which are encouraged to be occupied by buildings in particular zones (for sites
not covered by Key Retail and General Commercial Frontages).

8.50

The Council is opposed to the submitters' proposed amendments for the
reasons set out in Mr Munro's

74

rebuttal evidence. Mr Munro considers it is

appropriate for the criterion to send a clear signal to applicants as to the range
of frontage outcomes likely to be granted consent. The Council proposed the
criterion in substitution for a development control with frontage requirements
for sites not covered by Key Retail and General Commercial Frontages. The
purpose was to provide more flexibility and opportunity for innovative design. If
the criterion is amended as proposed by Ms Panther-Knight then the Council's
position is that the frontage development control should be reinstated to
ensure good outcomes on the relevant frontages .

8.51

In their planning evidence Mr Lala and Foster at al propose changes to the
Council's assessment criterion 13.7.2.2(a)(i) which encourages Key Retail
Frontage buildings to adjoin the site frontage unless there are exceptional
circumstances and the development achieves a better design outcome than a
complying proposal. Mr Lala and Foster at al oppose the word "exceptional".

8.52

The Council's position is that this word is necessary and appropriate to achieve
the policies in relation to Key Retail Frontage streets. The reasons for the
Council's position are further explained in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Munro?

5

He considers that the criterion implements the proposed policies seeking to
require a very high standard of street amenity along Key Retail Frontage
Streets.

Assessment criteria - Stud heights for drive-through restaurants

8.53

In his planning evidence on behalf of McDonald's Mr Norwell recommends that
drive-through restaurants be exempt from assessment criterion 13.6.2.5(xiv)

73
74
75

Argosy Property Ltd, Chalmers Properties Ltd , Fletcher Building Group Ltd , and Port of Tauranga .
Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, para 14.3.
Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, paras 6.7, 13.8 and 14.3.

26593434_2 .docx

Page 43

which requires development to have "appropriate ground floor stud heights"
where buildings adjoin public open spaces including streets. The assessment
criterion is directed at achieving good stud heights and it notes that a finished
floor to floor height of 4 m has been historically successful in Auckland.

8.54

The Council's position is that there is no basis for treating drive-through
restaurants differently to other activities.

The criterion is not particularly

onerous because it does not require a particular stud height. This is supported
by Mr Munro for the reasons set out in his rebuttal evidence?

6

Assessment criteria -Vehicle access and building continuity

8.55

In his planning evidence on behalf of Restaurant Brands Mr Arbuthnot has
proposed changes to the Council's criterion 13.9.1.2(d) to limit the requirement
for the location of vehicle access to have regard to the effects on the continuity
of activities and pedestrian movement to sites abutting either a Key Retail
Frontage or General Commercial Frontage.

8.56

The Council's position is that it's proposed criterion is the most appropriate.
This is supported by Mr Munro for the reasons set out in his rebuttal
evidence.

77

He considers that the importance of building continuity is not

limited to Key Retail Frontage and General Commercial Frontage streets and
therefore the changes to the criterion are not warranted.

Special information requirements

8.57

The special information requirements for the Centres zone include a
requirement for design statements.

There are a number of submitters that

consider design statements should be removed from the plan because they
are unnecessary and duplicate the requirements of an assessment of
environmental effects.

8.58

This question has been addressed through the hearing on Topic 077
Sustainable Design and will not be addressed further in these submissions

except to say that design statements are an appropriate method to ensure that

76

Mr Munro, rebuttal evidence, para 11.1 .
77 M
.
r Munro , rebuttal evidence, para 5.5.

26593434_2.docx

Page 44

development is consistent with the RPS objective to achieve a quality built
environment the Council supports their inclusion in the Business zones.

8.59

In urban design evidence on behalf of the Council Ms Coady has addressed
the question of where the appropriate thresholds for triggering design
statements would lie in the Centre zones?

8

She agrees that the PAUP

threshold for the requirement to provide a design statement is too low because
they are essentially required for every resource consent application .

She

therefore proposes to amend this threshold to require design statements only
for:

(a)

New buildings and significant alterations and additions to existing
buildings on sites with a Key Retail or General Commercial Frontage;
and

(b)

New buildings on all other sites within Metropolitan, Town, Local,
Neighbourhood Centre zones, and General Business and Mixed Use
zones where the site is larger than 500m2 or the building proposed is
larger than 1000m2 GFA.

8.60

These thresholds have not been opposed to in submitters' evidence and the
Council's position is that they strike an appropriate balance between making
sufficient information available to assess applications and avoiding overly
onerous requirements.

9.

CITY CENTRE FRINGE OFFICE - OVERLAY OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND
RULES
Overview

9.1

The objectives and policy for the City Centre Fringe Office overlay are set out
in Chapter E4.4 of the PAUP. The rules to implement the objective and policy
are set out in J4.5. These matters and related submissions are addressed in
the planning evidence-in-chief of Mr Wyatt.

78
79

79

Ms Coady, evidence-in-chief, part 7.
Mr Wyatt, evidence-in-chief,

26593434_2. docx

Page 45

9.2

The City Centre Fringe Office overlay applies to areas of the Mixed Use zone
and Local Centre zone in the fringe area around the City Centre and
Newmarket. The purpose of the overlay is to enable intensive office activities
close to the City Centre and Newmarket, where good public transport is
available. This is achieved by making offices a permitted activity and removing
the GF A limitation on office activities.

9.3

A number of amendments to the PAUP were agreed at mediation or have been
proposed by the Council and are not disputed in submitters' evidence. These
amendments are shown in the revised version of the plan provisions attached
to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt. In summary the key changes include the
following:

Revise structure of provisions from overlay to part of the Business zone
provisions

Changes to reflect PAUP offices strategy

New policy to recognise and provide for offices to establish within the
mapped area

Amendments to emphasise importance of proximity and accessibility to the
City Centre and Newmarket

9.4

Minor changes for consistency and to correct errors

The Council's position on the City Centre Fringe Office overlay is reflected in
the revised provisions attached to Mr Wyatt's rebuttal evidence. There are no
outstanding issues raised in evidence on behalf of submitters that need to be
addressed in these legal submissions.

10.

HEIGHT
Overview

10.1

The PAUP provisions that address height in the Business zones include some
of the objectives and policies in Chapter 03.

Height related development

controls, matters of discretion and assessment criteria for the Business zones
are included in Chapter 13.

26593434_2.docx

Page 46

10.2

Height controls in the PAUP include maximum building height (13.4.2 for nonindustrial Business zones and 13.5.1 for Industry zones) and height in relation
to boundary (13.4.3 for non-industrial Business zones and 13.5.2 for Industry
zones). Development control infringement matters of discretion are included in

13. 7.1.1 and development control infringement assessment criteria are included
in 13.7.2.1 and 1A.

10.3

The maximum building heights for the Business zones include zone-wide
height controls and for some of the Business zones there are site or area
specific height controls which are implemented through the Additional Zone
Height Control (AZHC).

For the Town Centre zone all maximum height

controls are set through the AZHC. The height in relation to boundary controls
apply zone-wide in all Business zones.

10.4

Zone-wide and site or area specific height limits (AZHC) are addressed under
separate headings below.

Zone-wide height controls

10.5

The zone-wide height controls are considered in the urban design and
planning evidence of Mr Mackie on behalf of the Council.

This includes

maximum building height and height in relation to boundary controls.

10.6

The zone-wide building controls vary for the Business zones. In particular for
the Centres zones the heights decrease according to the status of the relevant
centre in the hierarchy of centres. As foreshadowed above, managing building
scale is a fundamental part of achieving the Council's centres strategy. This
influences the role, function and amenity of a particular centre and, importantly,
the relationship it may have with other centres. Maintaining relative differences
in building scale according to a centre's place in the PAUP hierarchy is
therefore necessary to achieve the centres strategy and appropriate levels of
amenity in the zones and adjoining zones.

10.7

The height in relation to boundary controls for the Business zones have
recession plane heights and angles which vary according to the zoning of the
subject site and the adjacent site.

For example, the angle of the recession

planes vary between 18 degrees and 60 degrees, and the height above ground
level which the recession plane will be measured from varies between 2.5 m

26593434_2.docx

Page 47

and 16.5 m. These controls are focused on character and amenity within the
zone and adjoining zones.

10.8

The maximum height controls are notable due to the large amount of
discussion they have generated since the draft plan was first notified for public
comment.

Strong views have been put forward both from those who want

more height and those who want less height. The Council has invested a large
amount of effort in these issues in the early stages of developing the PAUP.
This included a high level of political engagement with both developers and
residents. These early efforts have meant that discussions through the PAUP
process have been more limited.

However the Council agrees that it is

appropriate to make some material revisions to the notified height provisions.
These changes are explained in Mr Mackie's evidence-in-chief.

10.9

In response to submissions the Council proposes to remove controls on the
number of storeys and move to a total building height approach which specifies
an "occupiable" building height with an additional height for roof form.

The

Council's proposed revisions to the notified height limits in development control
13.4.2 are set out in Mr Mackie's

80

evidence as follows:

Table 1A
~

Occuoiable
buildina heiaht

Metropolitan centre ~
Town Centre

!Additional Heiaht !Total building
!for roof form
heiaht

-

~
~s

shown on the
Zone
Heiaht Control laver
on the olannina
maps
~dditional

Local centre

1§m

~

1.§m.

Nejghbourhood

11m

~

13m

Mixed use

1§m

~

18m

General Business

~

-

16.5m

Business Park

~

-

2_0.5m

~

10.10

The height controls for the Centres zones range from total building height of
72.5 m for the Metropolitan Centre zone down to 13m for the Neighbourhood

80

Mr Mackie, evidence-in-chief, para 10.50.

26593434_2.docx

Page 48

Centre zone. The Mixed Use zone has a maximum total building height of
18 m, the General Business zone has a maximum height of 16.5 m and the
Business Park zone has a maximum height of 20.5 m.

For the Local and

Neighbourhood Centre zones and the Mixed Use zone the occupiable building
height can be exceeded by up to 2 m for the roof form. The maximum building
height for the Industry zones is 20 m.

10.11

Under the Council's revised position the total building height has increased in
most cases between 0.5 m and 2.5 m.

As explained in Mr Mackie's

81

evidence-in-chief the Council's proposed changes will allow the desired
number of storeys without cramping the ground floor height. The roof form
allowance is to allow flexibility in roof form design rather than incentivise all
buildings to a uniform height with flat roofs.

Depending on the zone, these

amendments may result in an additional one or two storeys compared to the
notified PAUP which Mr Mackie considers to be positive for accommodating
intensification in centres and the Mixed Use zones.

10.12

A number of other amendments to the zone-wide height controls were agreed
at mediation or have since been proposed by the Council and are not disputed
in the submitters' evidence.

These amendments are shown in the revised

version of the plan provisions attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt. In
summary the key changes include the following:

Remove height in relation to boundary diagrams and put into a table for
ease of interpretation

Add reference to a recession plan indicator to make it clear when different
rules regarding height in relation to boundary apply e.g. rules differ if a
proposal is on the southern side of particular zone boundaries because the
shading impacts of extra height will be negligible

10.13

Despite the contentious history of the height controls very few submitters have
produced evidence challenging the Council's proposed zone-wide height
controls. The key area of dispute appears to be the maximum building height
control for the Mixed Use zone although there is al.so evidence challenging the
height controls in the Industry zones and Metropolitan Centre zones excluding

81

Mr Mackie, evidence-in-chief, para 10.15.

26593434_2.docx

Page 49

82

Newmarket

.

This low level of challenge may in part reflect the changes to

the PAUP that are now proposed by the Council.

10.14

However there is some evidence from submitters that seeks further changes to
the maximum building height and height in relation to boundary controls. The
evidence from submitters raises the following key outstanding issues which are
responded to in the Council's rebuttal evidence:

(a)

Height in Mixed Use zones;

(b)

Height in Industry zones; and

(c)

Height in relation to boundary in Light and Heavy Industry zones.

Height in Mixed Use zones

Submitters' evidence

10.15

There are a number of submitters seeking to increase the height control in the
Mixed Use zone. This includes evidence from Mr Gapes
Thompson

84

,

85

Mr Cooper

83

Mr Riley and Mr

,

and Ms van Bohemen and Mr Christiansen

86

.

The

submitters generally seek six to eight storeys in the Mixed Use zone rather
than the total building height of 18 m which would usually equate to four or five
storeys.

Council's position

10.16

The Council's position is that a total building height of 18 m is the most
appropriate height control in the Mixed Use zone. The reasons for this are set
87

out in the urban design and planning evidence of Mr Mackie.

He considers

that the additional height would have noticeable effects on adjacent Single
House, Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban zones (which may
be built to a single story in some cases) and would not provide an appropriate
82
83
84
85
86
87

Hartwig Classen.
Redwood Group, Captain Springs 2015 Limited .
Redwood Group, Captain Springs 2015 Limited, St Marks Women's Health, Cleethorpes Fifty Five Limited , Tana
Turei and Faraday Properties Limited .
St Marks Women's Health .
New Zealand Institute of Architects, Urban Design Forum and Generation Zero.
Mr Mackie, rebuttal evidence, paras 4.17-4.23.

26593434_2.docx

Page 50

"transition" between these Residential zones and the Centres zones.

He is

also concerned about amenity within the Mixed Use zone and achieving the
Council's "centres plus" strategy for intensification.

Mr Mackie notes that

infringing the Council's proposed height control does not have any penalty in
terms of activity status.

Height in Industry zones

Submitters' evidence

10.17

In his planning evidence on behalf of DB Breweries Ltd Mr Hall seeks a zonewide height control of 25 m for the Light Industry zone. Dr Grant Hewison on
behalf of the Greater East Tamaki Business Association seeks unlimited height
in the Heavy Industry zone.

Council's position

10.18

The Council's position is that 20 m is generally appropriate as a permitted
activity for the Industry zones.
Mackie.

88

This is supported by the evidence of Mr

If any particular site or proposal warrants greater height then the

restricted discretionary resource consent process is available. This approach
will ensure that the effects of additional height are properly managed and
assessed.

Height in relation to boundary in Light and Heavy Industry zones

Submitters' evidence

10.19

In his planning evidence on behalf of Samson Corporation Limited and Sterling
Nominees Ltd Mr Brown considers that the HRB control in Light and Heavy
Industry zones should be a 35° plane measured from 6m above the boundary
rather than 18° measured at Bm above the boundary with Residential, Public
Open Space, Special Purpose - School and Special Purpose -

Maori

Purposes zones. In his planning evidence on behalf of DB Breweries Ltd Mr
Hall considers the height in relation to boundary control for the Light Industry
zone should be 45° measured 3m above the boundary. These changes would
effectively allow taller buildings closer to the boundary.
88

Mr Mackie, evidence-in-chief, para 10.87.

26593434_2.docx

Page 51

Council's position

10.20

The Council's position is that 18° measured at 8m above the boundary is the
most appropriate. The reasons for this are set out in the rebuttal evidence of
Mr Mackie.

89

Mr Mackie considers that the Council's proposed provisions

would better manage the effects of fairly utilitarian buildings in the Industry
zones on adjacent sensitive zones.

In particular effects relating to building

bulk and dominance would be better managed.

Site or area specific

10.21

The PAUP includes the AZHC as a mechanism for providing site-specific
height controls without including a list of exceptions in the zone-wide height
rules. The AZHC is also used to set the height controls in all Town Centre
zones.

10.22

Site or area specific height submissions are addressed in the evidence of:

(a)

Mr Douglas Sadlier- West and South

(b)

Mr Ross Moffatt - North

(c)

Ms Hannah Thompson, Mr Hamish Scott and Ms Lee-Ann LucasCentral Area

10.23

The AZHC mechanism works like an overlay by delineating a site or area on
the planning maps and specifying a height limit. The heights specified in the
AZHC override the applicable zone-wide height control i.e. the zone-wide
height control is varied for the area that comes within the overlay. The AZHC
may increase or decrease the zone-wide height controls. The AZHC related
provisions in J4.2 of the PAUP are covered by the Topic 078 Additional Height
Control. A number of site specific height requests have been allocated to the

Business Topics while others have been allocated to Topic 078 Additional
Height Control.

10.24

The Council has considered all site or area specific height requests in terms or
whether it is appropriate for the AZHC to be amended or applied to a specific

89

Mr Mackie, rebuttal evidence, paras 5.6-5.7.

26593434_2.docx

Page 52

area. Rather than addressing some of the site or area specific height requests
in the Business Topics and some in Topic 078 Additional Height Control the
Council has elected to produce evidence in relation to all site or area specific
height requests at the earliest opportunity (being the Business Topics). This
was also to enable the height controls to be considered in an integrated
manner along with the other development controls.

However submitters will

have the opportunity to respond to the Council's evidence either as part of the
Business Topics or Topic 078 Additional Height Control.

10.25

In response to submissions the Council proposes similar changes to those
explained above for the zone-wide maximum height controls i.e. move to a
total building height approach which specifies an "occupiable" building height
with an additional height for roof form. The Council's proposed approach to
the AZHC control 13.4.2 are set out in Mr Mackie's

90

evidence as follows:

Table 1A: Total building height on Additional Zone Height Control layer on the
planning maps

Occupiable buildina
height

Additional Heiaht for roof !Total buildina heiaht
form
shown on Additional
~one Height Control
laver on the olannina

11m

~

~(currently

1.§m

~

;1.§.m (currently 16.5m)

jJ!

~

~(currently 20.5m)

2.§.!!l

~

~(currently 24.5m)

Same as on the planninq

~

~

12.5m)

Exceedina 27m

!:!JE.Q.§

10.26

The total building height for AZHCs that do not exceed 27 m must be either
13m, 18m, 21m or 27m .

This is a change from the PAUP e.g. 12.5 m

becomes 13 m,16.5 m becomes 18m, 20.5 m becomes 21m and 24.5 m
becomes 27m. A consequential change is therefore required to all planning
maps showing AZHCs that do not exceed 27 m to show the new heights. This
revised approach with occupiable building height and roof form specified
separately will have similar benefits in terms of intensification to those set out
above for the zone-wide height controls.

90

Mr Mackie, evidence-in-chief, para 10.50.

26593434_2.docx

Page 53

10.1

All site or area specific height submissions have been addressed in the
planning evidence of:

(a)

Mr Douglas Sadlier- West and South

(b)

Mr Ross Moffatt- North

(c)

Ms Hannah Thompson, Mr Hamish Scott and Ms Lee-Ann Lucas Central Area

10.2

The professional views of these witnesses are adopted as the Council's
position on any given height request. Given the large number of site specific
height requests assessed on behalf of the Council there are relatively few
assessments that are disputed in evidence.

10.3

However the number in dispute through evidence still numbers approximately
28 so it isn't practicable to address each one in detail in these legal
submissions. To assist the Panel we have prepared the table in Attachment
B which summarises the submitter and Council positions and gives the

Council's reasons for supporting a particular height control as the most
appropriate.

11.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING HEIGHT BONUS
Overview

11.1

The Council is proposing to introduce provisions providing for bonus building
height in return for the provision of affordable housing through Topic 061
Affordability.

This issue was substantively discussed as part of that topic.

However, given that the proposed provisions provide for bonus height in the
some of the Business zones, they have been addressed in the Council's
evidence on the Business Topics , so that any interested submitters have the
opportunity to respond .

11.2

The proposed bonus provisions stand-alone within Chapter H6.6 Affordable
housing rather than being incorporated into the provisions for the relevant
Business zones.

26593434_2.docx

Page 54

11.3

The proposed bonus rule for the Business zones provides that developments
in the Local, Town and Metropolitan Centres and Mixed Use zones which
incorporate affordable housing and meet certain controls may apply for
additional occupiable building height of 3.5 m or 7 m as a non-notified
restricted discretionary activity.

11.4

Only one submitter, Hartwig Clasen, has produced substantive evidence for
the Business Topics to address the affordable housing height bonus
provisions.

Mr Clasen's evidence raises the following issues which are

responded to in Mr Mead's rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council:

(a)

Scope for bonuses; and

(b)

Need for bonuses.

Scope for bonuses

Submitters' evidence

11.5

Mr Clasen

91

seeks guidance from the Panel as to whether there is scope for

the bonus provisions proposed by Mr Mead.

He is concerned that as the

bonuses were not part of the notified plan, interested parties would not have
been aware of them and would not have had an opportunity to submit in
opposition or support.

Council's position

11.6

At paragraphs 4.2 of his rebuttal evidence Mr Mead refers to a number of
submission points that propose various bonus or incentive schemes relating to
the provision of affordable housing. At paragraph 4.3 of his rebuttal evidence
Mr Mead refers to a range of submissions that seek to increase heights in the
Business zones.

11.7

In my submission, when read together, these submissions fairly and
reasonably raise the prospect of affordable housing height bonuses.

Any

interested parties had the opportunity to become involved in the process by
lodging a further submission after reviewing the publicly notified summary of
91

.

Mr Clasen, supplementary statement of evidence, para 3.1.

26593434_2.docx

Page 55

decisions requested . In my submission scope and fairness issues therefore do
not arise.

Need for bonuses

Submitters' evidence

11.8

At paragraph 7.1 of his supplementary statement Mr Clasen questions the
need for bonuses given possible changes to the residential density controls
proposed by the Council during mediation for the Residential zones.

Council's position

11.9

In his rebuttal evidence Mr Mead acknowledges that increased density may
improve affordability relative to housing in the surrounding area but considers
that the new stock is unlikely to be affordable relative to median incomes.

92

It

should also be noted the rule being considered through the Business Topics
concerns the Business zones so the proposed density changes for the
Residential zones are not relevant.

11.10

As set out in the evidence of Mr Mead, the height bonuses provide a localised
trade off in that local effects are compensated for by a greater range of
diversity of housing options within a community.

The effects of additional

height are also able to be managed though the resource consent process . In
my submission this approach meets the statutory tests in that it provides for
the social and economic well-being of communities while appropriately
managing adverse effects.

12.

BUILDING FRONTAGE: GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND KEY RETAIL
FRONTAGES
Overview

12.1

The Key Retail Frontage (KRF) and the General Commercial Frontage (GCF)
are shown on planning maps mainly along certain road frontages in the
Metropolitan and Town Centre zones (with a small number of GCFs in the
Mixed Use zone).

92

.
Mr Mead, rebuttal ev1dence, para 5.3.

26593434_2.docx

Page 56

12.2

The site-specific application of KRFs and GCFs are addressed in the urban
design evidence of Ms Coady on behalf of the Council. The professional views
of Ms Coady are adopted as the Council's position on any given frontage
request.

12.3

KRFs and CGFs are provided for in various objectives and policies in
Chapter D of the PAUP.
supported

93

by rules and

The policy framework for KRFs and CGFs is
assessment criteria which

specify particular

requirements for treatment of buildings subject to the KRF or GCF. The rules
and criteria relate to matters such as pedestrian amenity and safety and visual
quality e.g. built to street frontage for length of site, glazing maximised and
blank walls avoided, weather protection for pedestrians etc.

12.4

KRF streets are intended to be a focal point for pedestrian activity while GCF
streets are intended to support this role.

KRFs are therefore subject to a

greater number of controls and assessment matters than GCFs to achieve
"better" pedestrian and amenity outcomes on these frontages.

12.5

As explained in the evidence of Ms Coady the application of KRFs and GCFs
was determined by location and function within a Metropolitan or Town
Centre's overall movement network and development pattern. This began with
a desktop GIS exercise and was then followed with a site visit to determine the
appropriateness of each street for each frontage.

12.6

All submission points seeking changes to KRFs and GCFs are addressed in
evidence-in-chief of Ms Coady who supports a number of changes to the KRF
and GCF mapping in response to submissions.

These amendments are

consistent with the approach set out in Mr Munro's evidence to focus urban
design attention on the most important areas of centres. These are outlined in
her evidence.

12.7

The evidence on behalf of the following submitters seeks further removal of
KRFs and CGFs even though they have in a number of cases benefited from
the approach recommended in Ms Coady's evidence-in-chief:

(a)
93

National Trading Company Ltd;

Chapter 03 .3 and 03.4.

26593434_2. docx

Page 57

12.8

(b)

McDonalds Ltd;

(c)

PSPIB Ltd and DNZ Ltd; and

(d)

Chalmers Properties Ltd .

I address each under separate headings below:

(a)

National Trading Company ltd

182 Apirana Ave, Glen Innes; 44 Orfy Avenue, Mangere; 11 Moana
Ave, Orewa; 2-6 Crown Lynn Place, New Lynn; 8-10 Clonbern Road,
Remuera; 8-18 Alderman Drive, Henderson

The submission sought to delete all KRFs or CGFs applied to the
submitter's sites.

In her evidence-in-chief Ms Coadl

4

supported

revisions for many of the submitter's sites. The planning evidence of
Mr Smith on behalf of the submitter continues to pursue the removal
KRFs and CGFs which Ms Coady considers appropriate to retain. Mr
Smith considers KRFs and GCFs to be inconsistent with sites
containing a supermarket. The relevant sites are each considered
separately in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Coad/5 .

Ms Coady

considers it is not appropriate to make any further changes beyond
the numerous concessions made through her evidence-in-chief. This
will not affect the existing supermarket operations but should
redevelopment occur it will ensure an appropriate standard of
pedestrian amenity and safety and visual quality given the context of
the sites.

(b)

McDonalds ltd

374-376 Hibiscus Coast Highway; 1157-1161 Great North Road,
Point Chevalier; 47 Mangere Town Square, Mangere; 2 Ronwood
Ave, Manukau; 7 Avenue Road, Otahuhu; 3 Newbury Street, Otara;
101 Great South Road, Papakura

94
95

Ms Coady, evidence-in-chief, Attachment D.
Ms Coady, rebuttal evidence, part 5.

26593434_2.docx

Page 58

The submission sought to delete KRFs or CGFs from 13 restaurant
sites.

6

In her evidence-in-chief Ms Coadl considered that some

frontage typologies should be retained, some should be removed
entirely and others should be "downgraded" from KRF to GCF. The
planning evidence of Mr Norwell on behalf of the submitter continues
to pursue the removal KRFs and CGFs which Ms Coady considers
appropriate to retain.

The relevant sites are each considered

separately in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Coadl

7

.

Ms Coady

considers it is not appropriate to make any further changes beyond
the numerous concessions made through evidence-in-chief.

The

remaining KRFs and CGFs are necessary to achieve appropriate
standards of pedestrian amenity and safety and visual quality given
the context of the sites.

(c)

PSPIB Ltd and DNZ Ltd

Botany Town Centre

The submission sought to delete the GCF from Te lrirangi Drive and
Chapel Road.

In her evidence-in-chief Ms Coadl8 supported

removal of the control from Chapel Road but considered it should be
retained on Te lrirangi Drive. The evidence of Ms Carvill and Ms Tait
on behalf of the submitter seeks that the GCF control be removed
from both frontages, although they concede that it may be applicable
along the northern portion of the Te lrirangi Drive boundary of the
site. Ms Coady considers that the southern portion of the frontage is
just as important as the northern portion.

99

There is intensive

residentially zoned land near the southern boundary and the GCF
would achieve a "pedestrian friendly" interface with the Botany Town
Centre.

96

97
98
99

Ms Coady, evidence-in-chief, Attachment D.
Ms Coady, rebuttal evidence, part 6.
Ms Coady, evidence-in-chief, Attachment D.
Ms Coady, rebuttal evidence, para 7.2.

26593434_2.docx

Page 59

(d)

Chalmers Properties Ltd

1-3 Ronwood Ave Manukau

The submission sought to delete the GCF from 1-3 Ronwood Ave. In
her evidence-in-chief Ms Coady

100

supported retention of the CGF

and this was opposed in planning evidence from Ms Panther-Knight
on behalf of the submitter. In rebuttal evidence Ms Coady maintains
her view that the GCF should be applied because Ronwood Ave is a
core part of the Manukau Metropolitan Centre, which is expected to
intensify significantly, and should therefore be more pedestrian
friendly to enable and encourage people to walk around the centre.

13.

101

SUBDIVISION CONTROLS- BUSINESS ZONES
Overview

13.1

The Auckland-wide rules in H.5.2.3 include specific development controls for
subdivision in particular zones including the Business zones. These matters
are addressed in the planning evidence of Mr Traub on behalf of the Council.

13.2

The rules include various controls relating to matters such as minimum site
size, minimum frontage, shape factor, access width, proportion of sites that are
rear sites, parking areas and signs. Many of the controls are similar across the
Business zones.

Some notable differences are that larger lot sizes are

anticipated in the Business Park and Industry zones (200m 2 for Centres,
Mixed Use and General Business zones; 1000 m2 for Business Park and Light
Industry zones; 2000 m2 for Heavy Industry zone). The Industry zones require
wider carriageway width (6.5 m rather than 5.5 m). Local, Neighbourhood and
Mixed Use zones are excluded from the frontage requirements.

13.3

In his evidence-in-chief Mr Traub

102

addresses a number of submissions

relating to subdivision. In response to these submissions he supports retention
of the PAUP provisions relating to lot sizes, rear sites, signs and subdivision

100
101
102

.
. f Attachment D.
Ms Coa dy, ev1'd ence-1n-ch1e,

Ms Coady, rebuttal evidence, paragraph 8.2.
Mr T rau b , ev1'dence-1n-ch1e
.
. f , para 1.3.

26593434_2.docx

Page 60

around existing buildings. He supports some minor changes in relation to car
parking buildings.

13.4

There are no outstanding subdivision issues raised in evidence on behalf of
submitters and the Council's position on subdivision in the Business zones is
reflected in the revised provisions included in Attachment B to Mr Traub's
evidence-in-chief.

Overlapping Topics

13.5

An email dated 10 August 2015 from the Panel in relation to Topic 022 Natural
Hazards and Flooding indicates an overlap between several PAUP Topics

including the Business Topics. The overlap relates to subdivision and natural
hazards.

13.6

The site shape factor rule H.5.2.3.2 has been considered as part of the
Business Topics but also includes aspects relating to natural hazards. The
Panel's email recorded that natural hazards will be addressed as part of Topic
064 Subdivision. The purpose of this was to inform and clarify how the Council

may use its power under section 106 of the RMA to refuse consent for or
impose conditions on a subdivision on land which is subject to a natural
hazard.

13.7

Therefore, although Mr Traub has addressed the site shape factor rule in his
evidence on the Business Topics, the Council anticipates that the site shape
factor rule will be discussed further in Topic 064 Subdivision. The Council's
position on rule H.5.2.3.2 may change as a result of this further consideration.

14.

RETIREMENT VILLAGES
Overview

14.1

The notified PAUP includes a Special Purpose Retirement Village zone. The
purpose of the Retirement Village zone is to enable the development of new
purpose-built retirement villages within urban areas and re-development of
existing retirement villages.

14.2

The Panel's Procedural Minute No.13 recorded agreement between the parties
that the Special Purpose Retirement Village zone should be removed in favour

26593434_2.docx

Page 61

of specific retirement village provisions in the Residential and Business zones.
Submitters to Topic 061 Retirement Villages and Affordability were granted
standing to participate in the Business Topics.

14.3

The revised approach to retirement villages in the Business zones is
addressed in the planning evidence of Ms Rogers on behalf of the Council.
The general approach is to treat retirement villages in a similar manner to other
residential activities in the Business zones. The key aspects of the Council's
proposed approach are:

The activity status of retirement villages in the Metropolitan and Town
Centre zones and Mixed Use zones should be changed from discretionary
to permitted

The activity status of retirement villages in the Neighbourhood and Local
Centre zones should remain a discretionary activity

The activity status of retirement villages in the Light Industry zone should
remain non-complying

The activity status of retirement villages in the Heavy Industry zone should
be changed from non-complying to prohibited which is consistent with the
treatment of dwellings

Consequential changes to the activity table, development control rules and
assessment matters

14.4

One of the changes proposed by the Council is to make retirement villages a
prohibited activity in the Heavy Industry zone.

103

There are no submissions

which specifically seek this status but it would be consistent with the treatment
of other residential activities and would achieve the relevant policies which
acknowledge the low level of amenity and potential for reverse sensitivity
effects in the Heavy Industry zone.

None of the submitters have produced

evidence opposing this change.

14.5

Submitters' evidence raises the following key outstanding issues which are
responded to in the Council's rebuttal evidence:

103

Ms Rogers, evidence-in-chief, para 8.40; rebuttal evidence, part 6.

26593434_2.docx

Page 62

(a)

Policy provision for retirement villages in the Mixed Use, General
Business and Business Park zones;

(b)

Activity

status

for

retirement

villages

in

the

Local

and

Neighbourhood Centre zones and General Business and Business
Park zones; and
(c)

The application of development controls and assessment criteria.

Policy provision for retirement villages in the Mixed Use, General
Business and Business Park zones

Submitters' evidence

14.6

Planning evidence of Mr Kyle on behalf of Ryman Healthcare Ltd and the
Retirement Villages Association seeks specific policy wording changes for the
Mixed Use zone to better reflect retirement villages as part of the range of
residential activities. Policy wording changes are also sought in relation to
the General Business and Business Park zones to enable retirement
village residential activities and to manage reverse sensitivity effects.
These changes are also supported and requested in the planning evidence
from Northbridge Lifecare Trust 104 .

14.7

Planning evidence from Summerset Holdings Ltd seeks to substitute
"residential accommodation" for "housing" in the General Business zone
Introduction and Policy 03.1 .2. 105 This is a similar approach directed at
enabling retirement villages in this zone .

Council's position

14.8

The Council does not support these changes for the reasons set out in Ms
Rogers' evidence. Ms Rogers' evidence is that Council's proposed provisions
are appropriately worded to capture retirement villages: retirement villages are
by their nature intensive residential activities and are specified in the nesting
table for residential activities 106 .

104
1~

106

'd ence-m-ch1
.
.ef , para 3.6.
Mr Rea burn, ev1
.
.
.
Addressed by Ms Rogers, ev1dence-1n-ch1ef, paras 8.9-8.11.
Ms Rogers, rebutta l evidence, part 5.

26593434_2.docx

Page 63

14.9

Ms Rogers also considers that changes to better enable retirement villages in
the General Business and Business Park zones are not appropriate.

She

considers that all forms of residential activity should be discouraged from these
zones given limited availability of land in these zones, the purpose, objectives
and policies of the zones, the lower amenity anticipated and the potential
reverse sensitivity effects that may or may not be able to be adequately
107

managed.

Activity status for retirement villages in the Local and Neighbourhood
Centre zones and General Business and Business Park zones

Submitters' evidence

14.10

Planning evidence of Mr Kyle on behalf of Ryman Healthcare Ltd and the
Retirement Villages Association seeks restricted discretionary activity status
for retirement villages in the Local and Neighbourhood Centre zones and in the
General Business and Business Park zones.

Council's position

14.11

The Council does not support these changes for the reasons set out in Ms
Rogers' evidence. Ms Rogers does not support restricted discretionary activity
status for retirement villages in the General Business and Business Park zones
for similar reasons to those set out above in relation to the policy approach to
these zones.

108

She considers that non-complying status will better manage

reverse sensitivity effects and occupation of relatively scarce business land by
land intensive retirement villages . It would also better achieve the Council's
proposed objectives and policies for the General Business and Business Park
zones.

14.12

Similarly Ms Rogers does not support restricted discretionary status for
retirement villages in the Local and Neighbourhood Centre zones.

109

In these

centres a smaller scale and mix of activities is anticipated to serve local needs.
Ms Rogers considers that typically larger scale retirement villages would not
107
108
109

.

Ms Rogers, rebuttal ev1dence, part 5.
Ms Rogers, rebuttal evidence, part 6.
Ms Rogers, evidence-in-chief, paras 8.17-8.20; rebuttal evidence, part 6.

26593434_2.docx

Page 64

meet the intended purpose of these zones and are more appropriately
managed as discretionary activities.

The application of development controls and assessment criteria

Submitters' evidence

14.13

Planning evidence of Mr Kyle on behalf of Ryman Healthcare Ltd and the
Retirement Villages Association seeks to clarify that restrictions on residential
activities at ground floor would not apply to retirement units developed as part
of a retirement village .

In addition an amendment is sought to exclude

retirement villages from the internal amenity controls.110 Submitters have also
raised questions about Business zone provisions that cross-refer to provisions
from the Terrace Housing & Apartment Buildings zone which may be subject to
111

change .

Council's position

14.14

In her rebuttal evidence Ms Rogers supports application of restrictions on
residential activities at ground floor to retirement units within a retirement
village.

112

clarify this.

She proposes an amendment to development control 13.4.11 to
The amended rule would enable non-residential parts of

retirement villages such as reception, lobby entrance or communal restaurant
area to establish at ground floor.

14.15

Ms Rogers considers it appropriate for the outlook control in the City Centre
zone to apply to retirement villages in the Metropolitan Centres zone and
outlook space for the THAB zone to apply to retirement villages in the Town ,
Local , Neighbourhood Centre zones and the Mixed Use zone .

113

She

proposes a change to the purpose of development control 13.4.20 to reflect
this.

110
111
112
113

Mr Kyle , evidence-in-chief, para 49.3
Ryman Healthcare Ltd, Retirement Vi llages Association and Northbridge Lifecare Trust in relation to Rule 4.20.
Ms Rogers, rebuttal evidence, part 7.
Ms Rogers, rebutta l evidence, part 7.

26593434_2.docx

Page 65

15.

DILWORTH TERRACE HOUSES VIEW PROTECTION PLANE (DTHVPP)
Overview

15.1

The DTHVPP is a City Centre zone development control that has the purpose
of managing the scale of development to protect views of the Dilworth Terrace
Houses from the eastern end of Quay Street. The height of a building subject
to this control, including any structures on the roof of a building, must not
exceed the height limits specified on Figure 4 - View protection plane for
Dilworth Terrace House. A building that does not comply with the control is a
non-complying activity.

15.2

Submissions on the DTHVPP were heard as part of Topic 050 City Centre. In
that topic the Council's heritage witness Ms Adina Brown and planning witness
Ms Panjama Ampanthong supported the western extent of the DTVPP being
reduced by 63 m where the view towards the Dilworth Terrace Houses is
blocked by recent development (due to a drop in height on Quay Street).

15.3

114

The Council witnesses also supported a submission from Heritage New
Zealand that the DTHVPP should be put into a Built Environment Overlay. One
of the reasons for this is that there is a section of the DTHVPP that is outside
of the City Centre zone in the PAUP.

It includes properties south of The

Strand, The Strand itself and the Tamaki Drive section of the DTHVPP and is
zoned Light Industrial in the PAUP. Putting the DTHVPP in one place in the
PAUP would mean that it could be easily found rather than being located in
two separate zones.

15.4

However, the Built Environment Overlay provisions were not drafted at the time
of the Topic 050 City Centre hearing.

They have been addressed in Ms

Ampanthong's evidence on the Business Topics, because they also relate to
the Light Industry zone . We advised submitters with an interest in this issue in
advance of the Council's evidence being lodged with the Panel so that they
would have the opportunity to respond.

15.5

The Panel subsequently indicated that it would like the parties to consider the
effects of amending the Dilworth Terrace View Protection Plane as proposed in
evidence by Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited during Topic 050 City

114

Ms Ampanthong , evidence-in-chief, para 9.3.

26593434_2.docx

Page 66

Parties without standing in the Business Topics were allowed to

Centre.

submit evidence and appear before the Panel only in relation to the Dilworth
Terrace View Protection Plane.

15.6

The key amendments proposed by Mr Ampanthong as part of the Business
Topics to address these matters are :

Adding a new objective and policy for the DTHVPP under Chapter E Overlay objectives and policies

Add new development controls for the Dilworth Terrace Houses viewshaft
under Chapter J - Overlay rules

Add a new overlay map showing the reduced extent of the viewshaft as per
Council heritage expert's position

Changing the name of the viewshaft from "Dilworth Terrace Houses View
Protection Plane" to "Dilworth Terrace Houses Viewshaft"

15.7

Submitters' evidence raises the following key outstanding issues which are
responded to in the Council's rebuttal evidence:

(a)

Alternative Viewshaft;

(b)

Views from public areas; and

(c)

Viewshaft description.

Alternative viewshaft

Submitters' evidence

15.8

In planning evidence on behalf of Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Mr Lala
suggests that the proposed overlay map should be replaced with a map that
shows the viewshaft from the Strand as proposed in the evidence of Gavin
Lister for Topic 050 City Centre .
evidence.

115

This is shown in Ms Ampanthong's rebuttal

115

Ms Ampanthong , rebuttal evidence, para 4.2

26593434_2.docx

Page 67

Council's position

15.9

The alternative viewshaft from The Strand as proposed in Mr Lister's evidence
was addressed by Ms Adina Brown, the Council's heritage specialist, in her
rebuttal evidence on Topic 050 City Centre. Ms Brown is the only heritage
expert who has given evidence on this matter. Ms Brown considers that the
alternative viewshaft is likely to result in a decrease in overall significance of
the viewshaft and supports the amended viewshaft in Figure 1 of Ms
Ampanthong's evidence-in-chief.

15.10

Ms Ampanthong, relying on Ms Brown's heritage evidence, supports the
retention of the viewshaft where the view is obtained from the eastern end of
Quay Street and western end of Tamaki Drive. She considers that this better
achieves the intent of proposed Objective 1 which is that views to the Dilworth
116

Terrace Houses are protected .

15.11

The Council's position is that retention of protected views of the Dilworth
Terrace Houses should be modified by 63m and included in a built
environment overlay as suggested by the Council's witnesses. This will better
achieve the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and the objectives
and policies of the PAUP. This approach appropriately recognises and
provides for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision ,
use and development in terms of section 6(f) of the RMA.

Views from public areas

Submitters' evidence

15.12

Planning evidence from Mr Scott on behalf of the Dilworth Terrace Residents
Body Corporate and the Strand Bodies Corporate suggests adding "from public
areas" to the objective and "public" to the development control to reflect a 1992
Planning Tribunal decision (Body Corporate 97010 v Auckland City Council)
seeking to preserve views from public spaces.

116

Ms Ampanthong , rebuttal evidence, para 4.4.

26593434_2.docx

Page 68

Council's position

15.13

The Council does not support this approach for the reasons set out in Ms
Ampanthong's rebuttal evidence. In her rebuttal evidence Ms Ampanthong
considers it unnecessary to refer to views "from public areas" in the
objective given that the policy and proposed description clearly identify that
the view of the Dilworth Terrace Houses is protected from selected public
117

vantage points on Quay Street and Tamaki Drive.

She does not support

the proposed change to include the word "public" in the development
controls for similar reasons.

Viewshaft description

Submitters' evidence

15.14

In planning evidence on behalf of Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Mr
Lala

118

suggests that a description of the Dilworth Terrace houses viewshaft

should be included for consistency with the provisions for the other PAUP
overlays.
Council's position

15.15

Mr Ampanthong supports the inclusion of a viewshaft description in
principle.

However, she does not support the content that Mr Lala

proposes, in particular, the matters that concern viewpoints being located
in The Strand.

15.16

119

Ms Ampanthong proposes an alternative description which she considers
to be more appropriate. The proposed description provides a general context
of the history of the Dilworth Terrace Houses and the viewshaft. It specifies
measures used to prevent visual intrusion of the viewshaft from structures and
buildings in a similar context to that of the Auckland Museum Viewshaft. 120 Ms
Ampanthong's proposed description has been adopted as the Council position.

117
118
119

120

Ms Ampanthong, rebuttal evidence, para 4.8.
Mr Lala, evidence-in-chief, para 11.
Ms Ampanthong , rebuttal evidence, para 5.2.
Ms Ampanthong , rebuttal evidence, paras 5.3 and 5.4.

26593434_2.docx

Page 69

16.

INDUSTRIAL REZONING
Overview

16.1

Rezoning requests have generally been allocated to Topic 081 Rezoning and
Precincts.

16.2

At the Topic 035 Air Quality hearing the Panel indicated it would be of
assistance if the Council produced evidence for Industry rezoning requests at
the same time as the evidence for the Industry zone plan provisions . As a
consequence the Industrial rezoning requests have been addressed in the
following planning evidence on behalf of the Council as part of the Business
Topics:

16.3

(a)

Jarette Wickham;

(b)

Douglas Sadlier;

(c)

Ewen David Paul;

(d)

Jo Hart;

(e)

Joy La Nauze; and

(f)

Roger Eccles.

There was a variety of different responses to the Council's evidence-in-chief in
the evidence from submitters. Some submitters produced evidence agreeing
with the Council's evidence, some lodged evidence opposing the Council's
evidence and others indicated that they would address the Council's evidence
through Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts.

Where evidence was lodged

opposing the Council's evidence-in-chief the Council has produced rebuttal
evidence if necessary.

A full break-down of how each submitter has

approached the rezoning evidence is set out in the rebuttal evidence of Ms
Wickham on behalf of the Council.

16.4

121

The Council's position on the Industry rezoning evidence is that, while it may
have been of considerable assistance for some of the submitters to receive the
Council's evidence early, it is better that the rezoning issues are heard and

121

Ms Wickham , rebuttal evidence, part 11.

26593434_2.docx

Page 70

determined as part of Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts, if that is where they
have been allocated.

16.5

The reasons for this are that there may be parties who are interested in the
rezoning issues who have no standing to participate in the Business Topics
and may not even be aware that the evidence has been produced. These
parties would not have the opportunity to get involved and be heard on the
rezoning issues. We therefore haven't addressed the rezoning requests any
further in these legal submissions but we are happy to do so at the request of
the Panel.

17.

CONCLUSION

17.1

For the reasons discussed in these submissions and in light of the
evidence before the Panel, the Council respectfully submits that the
amended provisions as set out in the Council's rebuttal evidence better
achieve the statutory criteria for district plan provisions than the alternatives
suggested by submitters, and should be preferred by the Panel.

DATED at Auckland this

th day of September 2015

W S Loutit I T R Fischer
Counsel on behalf of Auckland Council

26593434_2.docx

Page 71

ATTACHMENT A
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
18.

The PAUP must be prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the LGATPA and
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), except the provisions of the
RMA that are excluded from applying by or correspond to provisions of Part
4 of the LGATPA. 122
District Plan

19.

The relevant provisions are primarily part of the PAUP district plan. The
relevant statutory tests when assessing the merits of the PAUP district plan
provisions are principally derived from sections 31 , 32, 72, 74, 75 and 76 of
the RMA and section 145 of LGATPA. In summary, the relevant
requirements include whether the provisions:
(a)

are designed to accord with and assist the Council to carry out its
functions as a territorial authority; 123

(b)

are in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA; 124

(c)

are in accordance with the Council's obligations (if any) to prepare
and have particular regard to a section 32 evaluation report; 125

(d)

are in accordance with any regulations (including national
environmental standards); 126

(e)

give effect to the proposed regional policy statement in the
PAUP; 127

(f)

give effect to a national policy statement and the New Zealand
Coastal Policy Statement; 128

(g)

have regard to management plans and strategies prepared under
other Acts (including the Auckland Plan) and to any relevant entry

122
123
124
125
126
127

Section 121 of the LGATPA.
Section 74(1)(a) and section 31 of the RMA.
Section 74( 1){b) of the RMA.
Sections 74(1 ){d) and {e) of the RMA.
Section 74(1 )(f) of the RMA.
Section 75(3)(c) of the RMA and sections 122(1) and 145(1)(f){i) of LGATPA. See Judicial Conference on
Interim Recommendations 27 January 2015 Conference Minute.
128 Sections 75(3)(a) and{b) of the RMA.

26593434_2.docx

Page 1

on the New Zealand Heritage List (to the extent that they have a
bearing on the resource management issues of the district); 129
{h)

have regard to the extent to which the district plan needs to be
consistent with the plans or proposed plans of adjacent territorial
authorities ·' 130 and

(i)

take into account any relevant planning document recognised by
an iwi authority and lodged with the territorial authority (to the
extent that their content has a bearing on the resource
management issues of the district). 131

20.

The relevant rules must also have regard to the actual and potential effects
of activities on the environment. 132

21.

In addition, the Panel must consider district plan provisions in light of the
section 32 criteria and whether:
(a)

the relevant objectives are the most appropriate way to achieve
the purpose of the RMA; and

(b)

the relevant policies and other provisions that implement or give
effect to the objectives, are the most appropriate way to achieve
the objectives.

22.

Under section 32AA, a further evaluation must be undertaken in
accordance with section 32 where changes have been proposed to the
provisions since the original section 32 report was completed (at a level of
detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the changes).

23.

When evaluating the provisions, regard must not be had to trade
competition or the effects of trade competition .133 Also of relevance to the
provisions, under section 145 of the LGATPA, the Panel in formulating its
recommendations must take account of the mediation outcomes and have

129
130
131
132
133

Sections 74(2)(b)(i) and (iia) of the RMA.
Section 74(2)(c) of the RMA.
Section 74(2A) of the RMA.
Section 76(3) of the RMA.
Sections 66(3) and 74(3) of the RMA.

26593434_2.docx

Page2

regard to the audit report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment of
the PAUP section 32 report. 134

134 Sections 145(1)(b) and (c) of the LGATPA.

26593434_2.docx

Page 3

ATTACHMENT B

SITE OR AREA SPECIFIC HEIGHT SUBMISSIONS IN DISPUTE THROUGH EVIDENCE

26593434_2.docx

Page 1

Council
position in EIC

Height sought
in Submitters'
EIC

32.5- 16.5m or
24.5m

21m

32.5- 16.5m or
24.5m

21m

16 York St,
Parnell

24.5m

21m

24.5m

21m

7-15 Farady St,
Parnell

none

21m

27m

21m

8 Augustus Tee,
Parnell

none

21m

20m

21m

105-111
Newton Road

none

21m

27m

21m

Submitter

Site

Height sought
in submission

Masten
Holdings/Rolf
Masten Trust

69-79 St
Georges Bay
Road

Masten
Holdings/Rolf
Masten Trust
St Marks
Women's
Health and
others
St Marks
Women's
Health and
others
St Marks
Women's
Health and
others

Final Council
position

Carlaw Park

40m

18m

32.5m

18m

Samson
Corporation

Khyber Pass,
Boston Road
and Nugent St

24.5m

20m

24.5m

20m

26593434_2.docx

AZHC was not intended as a mechanism to grant a range of heights across
an individual site- should be achieved through another mechanism (e .g.
precinct) . 21m appropriate until range of heights achieved through other
mechanism . [7.2]- [7.4] Rebuttal evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
Height of 24.5m would be too dominant given the prominent location of
the site and would be out of scale with the town centre to the south .
[11.112] Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
21m height offers potential for additional growth while highlighting the
disconnect from the town centre and the character residential receiving
environment. [7.7] Rebuttal Evidence of Scott, Thompson and Lucas;
[11.113-11.116] Statement of Evidence of Thomson, Scott and Lucas
21m height offers potential for additional growth while highlighting the
disconnect from the town centre, and the character residential receiving
environment. [7.6] Rebuttal Evidence of Scott, Thompson and Lucas;
[11.113-11.116] Statement of Evidence of Thomson, Scott and Lucas
21m is appropriate as reflects the impact of viewshafts, upper ridge line
location, as well as existing street network. [7.8] Rebuttal Evidence of
Scott, Thompson and Lucas; [11.77] Statement of Evidence of Thompson,

Scott and Lucas.

Wardour
Investments

Samson
Corporation

Reasons

George Street,
Charles Street,
Horopito St

Sites in the area have already been redeveloped with relatively low
building form, no higher than four storeys for many sites. An AZHC
overlay would interfere with the coherent scale of built form in the area .
[7.10] Rebuttal Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
The current heights are appropriate as they reflect the impact of
viewshafts, upper ridgeline location, as well as the existing street
network. [11 .77] and [11.82]-[11.83] Statement of Evidence of Thompson,

Scott and Lucas
24.5m

18m

24.5m

21m

21m is appropriate given the interface with open space at Basque Park,
the sometimes narrow street fabric and restrictions from volcanic
views hafts [11.76]-[11 .83] Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and

Lucas

Page2

Submitter

Site

Pengellys
Properties
Limited

6-34 Kenwyn
Street

Vernon

Samson
Corporation

Samson
Corporation
Samson
Corporation

Samson
Corporation

Samson
Corporation

26593434_2.docx

Area of
Manukau Rd in
front of
Gardener Road
Block of Gt
North,
Ponsonby,
Maidstone
Block of Pollen
Mackelive,
Ponsonby Rds
Block between
SH1, Gillies etc
1-45 Great
North Road, 216 Ponsonby
Road, 1-7a
Maidstone
Street
Ponsonby
Khyber Pass
Road, Boston
Road and
Nugent Street,
Newton

Height sought
in submission

Council
position in EIC

20.5m

18m

N/A

N/A

Height sought
in Submitters'
EIC

10m

Final Council
position

Reasons

21m

Support increase in height to 21m because all sites held in single
ownership, there are no sensitive surrounding uses and there is
opportunity for greater development to be enabled without effects on
character areas. [7.17] Rebuttal Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas

18m

18m is appropriate for site in light of location along an arterial road and
situation between two Local Centres [8.2]-[8.6] Rebuttal Evidence of

Thompson, Scott and Lucas

24.5m

13m

24.Sm

13m

13m offers appropriate balance between proximity to the city and the
Historic Character Overlay. Allows for some intensity whilst still
ma intaining character value. [10 .15] and [10.17] Statement of Evidence of

Thompson, Scott and Lucas
24.5m

13m

16.5m

13m

24.5m

18m

24.5m

18m

Increase in height would interfere with consistent development pattern
across Pollen Street road frontage and Ponsonby Town Centre (in its
entirety) . [6.3] Rebuttal Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
Location deems the height increase to be inconsistent with the height
principles. [12.21] -[12.22] Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and

I
1

Lucas

I
24.5m

13m

24.5m

13m

13m offers appropriate balance between proximity to the city and the
Historic Character Overlay. Allows for some intensity whilst still
maintaining character value. [10.15] and [10.17] Statement of Evidence of

Thompson, Scott and Lucas

24.5m

20m

24.5m

20m

The current heights are appropriate as they reflect the impact of
viewshafts, upper ridgeline location, as well as the existing street
network. [11.77] and [11.82]-[11.83] Statement of Evidence of Thompson,

Scott and Lucas

Page 3

I

Submitter

Samson
Corporation

Samson
Corporation

Site
George Str,
Charles Str,
Horopito Rd,
View Rd and
Dominion Rd,
Mt Eden
27-31 Gillies
Ave,
Newmarket

Height sought
in submission

24.5m

Council
position in EIC

18m

Height sought
in Submitters'
EIC

24.5m

Final Council
position

21m

24.5m

18m

24.5m

18m

Location of site means a height increase would be inconsistent with the
height principles of the area . [12.21)-[12.22) and [12.30) Statement of

Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas

144-150
Williamson
Street

18m

13m

18m

13m

Masfen
Holdings/ Rolf
Masfen Trust

Newmarket and
9-15 Davis
Cresent

72.5m and 56m

32.5m and
24.5m

72.5m and 56m

32.5m and
24.5m

215 Kepa Rd

21m is appropriate given the interface with open space at Basque Park,
the sometimes narrow street fabric and restrictions from volcanic
views hafts [11.76)-[11.83) Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and

Lucas

Samson
Corporation

Masfen
Holdings/ Rolf
Masfen Trust

Reasons

13m height limit strikes balance between protecting the historic character
of the centre and adjoining Single House zoned sites, while supporting
public transport and contributing to the vitality and vibrancy pf the
centre. [10 .25)-[10.26) Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott, Lucas
Site is restricted in height by volcanic viewshafts and the Historic
Character overlay. Location of site means a height increase would be
inconsistent with the height principles of the area. [12.17)-[12 .22)

Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
16.5m, 24.5m,
32.5m

18m

16.5m, 24.5m,
32.5m

18m

18m will enable a mix of activities while ensuring that it doesn't
physically/visually dominate the surrounding residential and public open
area . The location of Eastridge does not justify a height beyond its
function under the height principles and centres hierarchy.

I
I

[12. 79]-{12.80] Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott, Lucas

Hartwig Clasen

Onehunga and
Royal Oak
centres

16.5m

27.5m

16.5m

27.5m

Council height is in line with the level of growth anticipated growth by
zoning it as a Town Centre. Height limit provides flexibility for
intensification and supports provision of community and public transport.
Council height is consistent with building form, scale and amenity
anticipated for a town centre in the PAUP and will ensure an efficient use
of the land .
[12 .5)- [12.7) Statement of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas

----

26593434_2.docx

Page4

I

--

Submitter

Site

Kimberley Trust

Marewa Road,
Greenlane

Height sought
in submission

20.5m

Council
position in EIC

18m

Height sought
in Submitters'
EIC
20.5m

Final Council
position

18m

Reasons
Size and location are consistent with the height principles of the Business
zones so height increase not appropriate. 18m supports and enables
growth of Greenlane centre as a local centre. [12.43]- [12.47] Statement

of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
Kimberley Trust

Marewa Road,
Green lane

20.5m

18m

20.5m

18m

Size and location are consistent with the height principles of the Business
zones so height increase not appropriate. 18m supports and enables
growth of Green lane centre as a local centre. [12.43]- [12.47] Statement

1
1

of Evidence of Thompson, Scott and Lucas
32.5m for the school site is outside of scope and should be 27m [3 .2] and
[4.3] of Rebuttal Evidence of Moffatt
Birkenhead
town centre

24.5m

32.5m

24.5m

32.5m (except
for Birkenhead
Primary School
-27m)

Orewa town
centre

30m

13m-27m

30m- 65m

13m-27m

3 Akoranga
Drive,
Northcote

16.5-32.5m

16.5m

16.5m- 32.5m

16.5m

Ja nine Bell

Te Atatu
Peninsula

12.5m

20m

12.5m

20m

DB Breweries
Limited

DB Waitemata
Brewery

35m

20m

35m

Birkenhead
Town Centre
Association

Destination
Orewa Beach
and Pamber
(Auckland) Ltd
Masten
Holdings/ Rolf
Masten Trust

-

20m
The brewery has both operational requirements for taller structure and
various sensitive zones surrounding the site, including residential, a
school, and public open space. [4.25] Rebuttal Evidence of Trevor Mackie I

- -- - - - - -

26593434_2.docx

32.5m is appropriate for High bury Mall because impacts on the centre,
surrounding residential zones and public open space would not be
significant and additional height appropriate in terms of the constrained
physical size of the centre and its setting atop the ridgeline . [3.2] and
[4. 7]-[4.10] of Rebuttal Evidence of Moffatt
Council's heights appropriate as they reflect years of local planning
initiatives and court decisions on building height in Orewa to reflect town
centre status (not metropolitan centre) and environmental particula r
outcomes. [3.3] and [5.5-5.11] of Rebuttal Evidence of Moffatt
Site is not suitable for additional height as it is not a centre, is located
near a busy intersection and is intended for general business activity.
[6.2] rebuttal Evidence of Moffatt
Potential effects on visual amenity of residential properties due to
redevelopment at 20m can be appropriately addressed through HIRB
control. Therefore inappropriate to deviate from PAUP approach. [5.5][5.8] rebuttal Evidence of Sadlier
Potential adverse effects on adjacent residential zones in terms of
shadowing. [8.309] Statement of Evidence of Sadlier

Page 5

<0
Q)

C>

m

a.

X

u
0

"0

~I

(")

"<t

(")

Ol
L{)

<0
N