NPS UD Local Board briefing 4 March 2022
Feedback and comments from local boards at individual mapping briefings
• Intensification around centres should also consider further investment
into/plans for the centres themselves – example was given about Glen Eden and
how it is a bit run down despite THAB is currently being enabled around the
• Interest in the floodplains and flooding as a QM, acknowledging that these have
not been mapped yet or translated into zoning/standard responses
• Interest in SEAs and WRHA, acknowledging that although mapped, the exact
zoning/standard response has not been confirmed for these QMs, particularly
for the Single House zoned sites in the WRHA overlay
• Interest in future process for updating the AUP as a result of future changes to
the city e.g. to the RTN
• Feedback that the use of scooters, bicycles etc. should be considered when
determining the extent of the walkable catchment
• General concerns about infrastructure capacity and investment requirements
across the region as a result of intensification
Henderson – Massey
• Particular areas of interest including:
Lake/streams in an area west of Ranui - Lake Palomino (Western Heights
between Ranui and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act Area near the Babich
Precinct) and ongoing protection through Single House zone and SEA overlay
streams within the Opanuku Stream area (north of Border Road/Henderson
Valley Road) and ongoing protections – mostly within Open Space –
Conservation zone but there is one private property though this has SEA over it.
• Recent flooding in Henderson Valley Road and southern parts of Swanson in
areas not experiencing flooding in the past
• Transport infrastructure issues/other infrastructure issues in various areas - non-
existent, insufficient and/or aging
• NW Bus lane improvements and how will this affect zoning – advised that WC
are based on existing and planned (in RTLP) projects – this is in the RTLP but
presume it’s not shown because it’s an express bus rather than a rapid transit
• How communication with local residents around the changes will be relayed in a
way which is understandable to a layperson
• Level of changes will create some concern with the community
• Border issues with MDRS next to Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act Area – how will
this be managed?
• Big concern for the local board are inequity issues – majority of up zoning to
occur in lower socio-economic areas with less QM’s such as Special Character
than that of central/isthmus local boards where there are more QM’s that will
temper the effects of the NPS-UD and MDRS
• How the HMLB can voice their concerns – when will they be able to provide
• City Centre - should not use eastern edge of zone as WC start (e.g. get rid of the
Port land) - could use Beach Rd as start for WC instead, and from Parnell centre -
to St Stephens only (St Stephens Ave could be boundary)
• We should be considering the requirement to include Perimeter blocks as an
urban design solution
• Wynyard quarter want to maintain the good outcomes achieved by Panuku over
• Want car parking maximums and communal parking - city hop stuff. Hate to have
6 storey apartments in edge of Parnell that aren't walkable and have heaps of
The Rodney Local Board only had one member attend! As the NPS Policy 3 does not
impact anywhere in Rodney, the only issue was around the application of the MDRS
to Warkworth and Milldale. The Rodney Local Board would support a qualifying
matter about transport infrastructure, to enable these areas to be retained at their
As only one member attended, there was a request to do another session where
more members might attend. I said I would be happy to do that but I did not promise
anything as I said such a further meeting would need to be signed off from
See attached memo
Whau local board went well, questions included:
• How do we make walkable catchments more walkable?
• Sediment control mechanisms with all this new developable capacity
• Status of SEA mapping extents and whether they are accurate
• Where does stormwater management fit in.
Devonport – Takapuna
• They were interested in the Devonport Heritage issue with removal of some
areas from Special Character, and what that meant for the area removed. the
view shafts and the Height variation controls around Devonport were also of
interest to them and whether these would be affected by the intensification.
• Exact meanings and definitions of zones and special character areas (possibly
quick reference sheet needed? Or a demonstration map with a key?)
• The coastal hazard and inundation layers were also looked at closely with
comment on the extent being questioned both ways- so they wanted to know
what the date of the data underlying the layers in the Viewer.
• Visual design, gunmetal blue was hard to see on map for some members
• Finally they wanted to be sure that the viewer was going to be available for the
public when the consultation occurs in April/ May.
was certainly a question/statement on the proposed deletion of the SCA along the
lines of - “You’ve just done PC34 to insert some missing detail into the AUP and now
the SCA is being removed? I can imagine that the community won’t be happy..” I
think Sanjay has already satisfied one board member’s query re: density around the
eastern transport corridor, following a few takes on getting to the nub of his question.
I don’t think that needed following up on.
Overall the board members had fewer questions and comments than we expected.
Most questions were just related to clarifying the scope of the work and the viewer
itself which were able to be answered during the briefing. The main concern raised
was regarding the removal of the Special Character Area – Business overlay for the
Howick town centre. One board member commented that given the special character
statement was only completed relatively recently (within the last 3 years) and there
was a lot of community involvement in this process that it was likely that members of
the local community would not be happy with the removal of this overlay.
• Are we able to highlight that there is no proper existing walkway between
Orsova Place to Lynfield local centre? No through way to Lynfield local centre –
only to reserve. Does this affect 200m walkability around the local centre?
• Stoddard Road: Why is the part of Richardson Road zoned as THAB when there is
no bus route going along there?
• Three Kings town centre – walkable catchment: Presuming Kāinga Ora will feed
into this/have a view on McCullough Ave properties being up-zoned?
• Three Kings Precinct: Area under investigation – in order to do what? What is
covered in the investigation?
• Royal Oak town centre – walkable catchment: Housing to west of Pah Road –
within the Puketapapa LB area - which is zoned THAB. Is this not good urban
planning practice to have different zoning within the same block? In some
instances, could the zoning - like in this example of Pah Road - be extended to
the corner of the block for the sites fronting the main road? Taking into account
the NPS-UD rules, how much are we allowed to extend the zoning ourselves for
cases like the Pah Road THAB?
• Why was Mt Roskill local centre assessed as a small local centre with high
accessibility under policy 3(d) as it is part of the Dominion Road corridor. Should
it be considered a town centre?
• When will local board members get access to the GIS viewer? At what time?
• In terms of high-quality character, does that include state houses which are at
the end of their life, falling apart and unhealthy? There may be some heritage
value here, but are they of a quality which should be retained for the future?
This is stopping them from being redeveloped into anything else. Patches in the
area include on Donald Crescent, McCullough Ave, and Foch Ave area
(questionable as its infill housing has had an impact on what is happening there),
May Road near school (state housing).
• There might have to be special criteria for state-housing areas which have been
deemed as heritage?
• Lynfield local centre – why is the centre assessed as having high accessibility?
• As it is an election year, with changes happening to all 21 local boards, for
incoming board members it will be difficult to understand some of the
conversations that we’ve all had up to now – how are they going to get these
people up to date? These people will need good briefing when they come
• Ensure it is clear the initial consultation does not get confused with the
submission period, matters raised in the initial consultation won’t be considered
• Idiots guide to the viewer – could even put a video to go on the YouTube?
• 3 (d) Town centres local centres
• Noting that NPS-UD is enabling 'at least' 6 storeys; Possibly more than 6 storeys
• Discussion around criteria for refining boundaries of walkable catchments
• Noted the intensive development already occurred at Allendale Rd (retirement
home) and has provided good benefits to the community
• Value of scar value balanced against intensification - noting Kingsland will be one
of the most well-connected stations and how this should be weighted with
preserving historic heritage values
• How would discretions of applying qualifying matter/planning assessments be
considered at a local board level
• Site specific queries on precinct and areas under investigation - Epsom Precinct-
Open Space issue with Mt Eden Bowling Club
• Next steps for local board involvements (Emma Clarified)
• Queried around interaction with ALR process
1. Ms. Henry raised a question about walkable catchments inquiring where the
800m threshold came from. She said that the 800m may not be considered
walkable for some of this local board’s constituents. I explained international
planning practise concludes that 800m or 10 minutes is considered walkable for
the average person.
2. Ms. Henry also asked how the local board could use the NPSUD/MDRS to push for
Auckland transport to reinstate/improve public transport links in these areas that
are anticipated to intensify. I explained that Auckland transport determine the
demand relative to the amount of development. I also explained that that is
outside of what we look at in this body of work.
3. Ms. Henry also asked how the local board could use the NPSUD/MDRS to push for
more open spaces, and their importance (and growing importance) to be
retained/improved etc with housing intensification. I explained that Auckland
Council's Parks Department administer the councils open spaces and parks, and
that this body of work does not have the ability to create new open spaces.
4. She also raised a question around infrastructure capacity/funding, and how that
will be managed with all the additional housing coming in given the existing state
of infrastructure in Glen Innes (and similarly, other areas) and the large amount
of funding that would be needed for most of the suburbs in Auckland. I explained
that infrastructure capacity and availability is a known problem. Funding for
infrastructure improvements is addressed in the long-term plan and from central
government funding allocation. Also add a more localised level any required
improvements to receiving infrastructure networks is usually funded by the
developer. I gave an example of A developer trying to connect to a new
stormwater network and ensuring that the receiving network has the capacity for
any new additional residential development. if it does not have capacity it may
prevent the development from going ahead or the developer may choose to
upgrade the network downstream to enable the development to go ahead.
5. Ms. Henry asked a lot of questions about different aspects of residential
development in general which were all answered.
There was nothing that I had to follow up on and go back to my local board with. Ms.
Henry I was satisfied with all of the questions that I had answered. she will be
reporting back to the other local board members tomorrow.
• Papakura Local Board are concerned about intensification on peat soils
particularly around Takanini
• We have also identified a problem with the viewer – when zoomed in during the
Teams presentation, it is very difficult to differentiate between brown changed
zoning colour next to non-changing Rural- Countryside Living Zone. People
couldn’t tell them apart at this scale when the viewer was displayed through the
Teams call. It all looked urban. I have just taken some screenshots below of the
Kaipara Road area although they have a better distinction than the Teams
presentation view had.
• Confirmed the importance of the Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and
Height Sensitive Areas to Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
• Concerns expressed about the changes to Mangere Bridge under the MDRS as
this area had previous protection under the old Manukau District Plan as a larger
lot area and was zone Single House under the PAUP.
• Concerns about the potential loss of Mangere 2 (Teo Lane and Tioro Lane)
Precinct and Rosella Road Precinct to the MDRS provisions.
• Raise concern that Local Board members need to be given training on how to use
the NPS – UD viewer and an updated on the content of the AUP (Zoning,
Overlays, etc). Only the Local Board chair and the Senior Local Board advisor
attended the presentation – I also understand they were also the only ones from
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board to attend the earlier presentation by Phill Reid).
Low attendance from the Manurewa LB. Just the chair and an advisor. And another
advisor popped in towards the end. Overall they seemed to understand fairly well and
were happy to see that their SCA remained intact and that there was likely to be a
“zoning” response to protect those values and the SEAs.
A couple of questions but nothing significant from them:
• They wanted to know if they could give feedback (when time to do so) that they
wanted to rezone some Light Industry around Te Mahia Train Station to Mixed
• Wanted to know what happens if walkability/accessibility is improved in the
• They wanted to know if Notable Trees were also a QM – I couldn’t remember at
the time so will send a follow-up email
• Asked about view protection, were slightly surprised to see they only had one
small Local Public View
• Question about requiring lifts above three storeys. Understand it is 4 or more.
• Question about when the RLTP is being reviewed and updated.
• Why is Northcote town centre classed as a small centre, when it is projected to
grow when redeveloped in the coming years? Is the bus interchange/stops
planned at the centre going to be RTN? Explanations given – footprint of the
centre won’t change and size (shops/services) counted today not in future.
Growth in numbers of shops/services could trigger a review if gets significantly
• Concerned about area down Bentley Ave from Glenfield Centre where flooding
occurs – should this be kept from intensification? HW have noted the issue and
have an upgrade planned.
• Concerns around loss of SCA in Birkenhead/Northcote Point. Evaluation process
described. Are interested in the criteria for surveying and high quality.
• Concerned about loss of tree canopy with coverage increases and
redevelopment in MDRS areas.
Hibiscus and Bays
• Concern about the provision of infrastructure.
• Concern that coastal inundation shown wasn’t up to date.