Ode Baganantha
From:
Andrew Wharton
Sent:
Thursday, 29 July 2021 10:29 AM
To:
Amy Kearse
Subject:
My track changes post PLT meeting
Attachments:
AW 28 July edits - Draft LGWM Board Paper - Enabling UD outcomes v28 July.docx
I didn’t get to the last Appendix though

1982
Andrew Wharton (he/him)
Principal Advisor Planning (LGWM) | City Design and Place Planning | Wellington City Council
[email address] |s 9(2)(a)

Act

The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.

Information
Official
the
under
Released
1

Enabling LGWM Urban Development Outcomes

Agenda Item:  5
Item for:
Approval
Addressee:
Let’s Get Wel ington Moving Board
1982
Owner:
Poul Tvermoes
Date:
3 August 2021
Act
Version:
26 July
Doc no:

Purpose
Information
The purpose of this paper is to seek in principle agreement from the Board to a more active approach to
intervening and partnering to achieve transformative urban development around Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)
stations and accelerate discussions with Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) on options to achieve this. This will inform a subsequent decision from the Board at its next meeting
on 17 August.
Executive Summary
Official
Enabling urban development is integral to the LGWM programme alongside transport system improvements.
This is reflected in revised programme objectives for urban development, access and climate change.
the
A key challenge for all partners is to reduce emissions across transport projects and urban development to
achieve a compact urban form well-supported by active and rapid transport. Wel ington also has an urgent
need to address housing supply, affordability and choice. Central government, local government and Iwi al
have a role to play.
MRT is central to all LGWM options, and alongside the other programme elements, is necessary to deliver
a transport system that can support the increased population envisaged by the Wellington City Spatial Plan
under
of an additional 50-80,000 people within Wellington City over the next 30 years.
However, urban development under a business-as-usual approach is not likely to be sufficient to deliver
urban development at the pace and scale to support the forecast growth, fully realise the benefits of MRT,
or deliver affordable housing or wider community outcomes to the extent that may be desirable. Greater
flexibility around the acquisition, use and disposal of land is desirable to coordinate across both deliver of
transport and urban development in particular locations (eg, MRT precincts) to achieve the quality and scale
required of transformation required.
A much more coordinated approach to integrating urban development with LGWM is required. There are
various options about how this could work, including LGWM lead, WCC lead within or alongside LGWM, or
Released
partner with others such as Kāinga Ora to achieve this.
Utilising tools under the Urban Development Act (e.g. Specified Development Project (SDP) or specified
works) are options that need to be more fully explored with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD)  and  Kāinga  Ora, including more detailed analysis of what their advantages and disadvantages
compared to other avenues.
s 9(2)(g)(i)


Funding and financing to facilitate and deliver urban development is a major constraint. s 9(2)(g)(i)
. The Urban Development and Funding
and Financing workstreams are currently looking at options around how a ‘recyclable’ property financing
1982
mechanism  could  work.  Note, across the options above,  the extent of any urban development that is
facilitated or delivered could be scaled up or down, ranging from focusing on or around several MRT
precincts to a broader corridor approach and include would likely need agreements with developers.
Act
It is recommended to accelerate discussions with the Ministers of Housing (and Kāinga Ora and HUD) and
Transport on options enabling a greater level of  urban development  than what is envisaged under a
business-as-usual approach, expressing a preference for use of UDA mechanisms. It is also recommended
to discuss with Ministers and Kāinga Ora and HUD, the need and preferred approach to strengthening urban
development governance for LGWM.

Recommendations
It is recommended that the Board:

1.  Agree, in principle, that a more active and coordinated approach to intervening to achieve transformative
Information
urban development is required to enable LGWM benefits and wider city and regional outcomes for
housing, transport, and climate change to be met.
2.  Approve, in principle, LGWM accelerating engagement with Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing
and Urban Development on options to achieve transformative urban development around MRT stations,
s 9(2)(g)(i), s 9(2)(j)
Official
3.  Note the extent to which intervention in urban development may be scaled up or down and staged, will
the
be assessed in greater detail as the programme progresses, alongside wider engagement and decisions
on LGWM, considering risks, funding and financing, market conditions.
4.  s 9(2)(g)(i)


5.  Consider  whether strategic/commercial  urban development governance  expertise  is desirable to
under
supplement the existing governance composition for LGWM and engage with the Ministers of Transport
and Housing (and Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development) on how to best
enable this.

Urban development is important to LGWM
National, regional and local policy direction
Released
2

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4

The importance of well-integrated urban development and transport planning is articulated  in the
Government Policy Statement for Land Transport 2021 (GPS 2021).1 The importance of enabling urban
development  alongside  delivering  transport improvements  has been reflected in updated investment
objectives for LGWM for liveability, access and climate change, endorsed by the partner councils, LGWM
Board and discussed with Ministers.
These objectives are well-aligned with the Wellington Regional Growth Framework (WRGF) priorities for
housing, access, and climate change. A WRGF ‘key move’ is to ‘fully unlock the urban development potential
of  current and future rapid transit orientated corridors particularly the LGWM corridor’.  The  Wellington
Regional Land Transport Plan 2021 objective ‘transport and land use are integrated to support compact
urban form, liveable places, and a strong regional economy’ reinforces this and supports the headline target
1982
of reducing regional transport emissions by 35% over the next ten years. Appendix 3 provides a summary
of relevant strategic direction in national and regional plans/policies.
Supporting future population growth
Act
The WRGF identifies how the Wellington-Horowhenua region could accommodate an additional 200,000
people living in the region. Latest population forecasts2 indicate the regional population could increase by
over 230,000 over the next 30 years. It is no longer a case of competing for growth across the region but
about  providing the necessary housing supply and infrastructure to support growth, and sequencing or
prioritising investment where it best supports government priorities (eg, reducing emissions). Currently, high
housing unaffordability restricts opportunities to live in Wellington City, pushing people to live elsewhere and
commute.
The recently approved Wellington City Spatial Plan aims for most of the 50-80,000 additional people over
the next 30 years to be housed in and near the City Centre, and in inner suburbs/suburban centres, with
very limited greenfield sites.
Information
The Spatial Plan states that once MRT station locations are confirmed, precinct planning around the stops
wil  inform future district plan changes to enable high quality comprehensive mixed-use development within
walkable catchments3 of the stops, including high density housing, employment opportunities, pedestrian
connections and public spaces. WCC intends to align three waters investment provided for in its Long Term
Plan to support growth on the MRT corridor once this is confirmed.
Connections with LGWM programme objectives
Official
Focusing Wellington’s urban development within walkable catchments of MRT stations (and other
centres/public transit corridors) helps achieve the LGWM programme objectives, in particular:
the
•  Improves liveability through more commercial, community and recreational services4 in a
walkable distance
•  Improves access to key city destinations without needing to use private cars
•  Lower carbon emissions through higher-density apartments and terrace housing, and more
walking and public transport use.
under

1 Minister Wood’s statement in Hīkina te Kohupara – Transport Emissions Pathways to Net Zero also reflects this: “A
key challenge wil  be to incorporate the need to reduce emissions across transport projects and urban development.
We wil  also require innovative approaches to decision-making and financing for infrastructure choices and move away
from ‘business as usual’ approaches.”
2 Wel ington Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) July 2021 update.
Released
3 A 10-minute walk to the MRT station.
4 Recreational services wil  include new green and open spaces, playgrounds, etc. that present additional costs and
interventions with no or limited commercial returns.
3

link to page 5

The type of compact urban form and mobility envisaged by the Spatial Plan together with LGWM is exactly
the type of integrated urban development and transport investment that should be prioritised regionally. It
also reinforces the ‘Avoid, Shift, Improve Framework’ to achieve net zero emissions.5
Urban development around MRT stations also increases patronage and fare box recovery, making mass
rapid transit more viable and greater value for money.

Case for LGWM partner intervention in urban development
1982
The reasons why a higher degree of intervention in urban development is required include:
•  To enable quality urban environments
Act
•  Property acquisition and amalgamation to create larger sites can enable more development
•  Increased certainty of high-density housing around stations
•  Urban development improves the service of MRT and the transport network
•  Houses could be delivered at a greater pace and with a wider range of partners
•  Demonstrating best practice for walkable neighbourhoods and density done wel .

These are set out in more detail in Appendix 3.

The extent of intervention has an impact on outcomes
Options for intervening to achieve urban development outcomes can be categorised into three broad
Information
areas:
s 9(2)(g)(i), s 9(2)(j)
Official
the
The diagram below il ustrates that across this spectrum of options, a lower level of intervention carries less
development risk but a higher risk that LGWM outcomes may not be achieved. Appendix 1 sets out the
options in more detail.
under
Released

5 As expressed in Waka Kotahi Toitu Te Taiao and Climate Change Commission advice.
4

1982

Act

Who is best placed to intervene?
Current and functions roles of each partner are limited and the LGWM partnership and/or WCC would
require significantly more support and access to funding and financing to branch into the urban
development at the scale envisaged. The table below outlines the current roles and functions of the
LGWM partners, LGWM, and Kāinga Ora and HUD and limitations or advantages.
Organisation/entity
Commentary
Wellington City Council
Urban development role and function, including the City
Development Team which facilitates and enables development
Information
with private sector partners. The City Development team does not
have a budget for urban development, except for when the Council
allocates it for a specific project.

Greater Wellington City Council
Responsible for public transport. Some urban development powers
but does not currently perform this function. Does not have
capacity and capability to facilitate or deliver urban development.
Official

Waka Kotahi
Does not have urban development function. Does not have
capacity and capability to deliver urban development. NLTF
investment only to be directed towards transport activities.
the
Constrained funded.

LGWM
As a joint programme, LGWM is an amalgam of the LGWM
partners’ functions. The programme does not yet have capacity to
deliver urban development, but there is some capacity to facilitate
development. No funding for urban development has been
under  allocated to the programme yet.

Kāinga Ora
Under the UDA can lead or facilitate urban development projects
and coordinate powers under various statutes to accelerate
delivery under a range of different partnership approaches. A
number of the UDA powers can be delegated to other agencies
such as local government. UDA tools untested. Kāinga Ora may
not have capacity to partner with LGWM and/or to achieve urban
development alongside LGWM.

Released
Ministry of Housing and Urban
Responsible for advice to Minister of Housing, including on funding
Development
and financing mechanisms and use of tools under UDA and IFF.
Policy rather than delivery agency.
5

How could intervene work utilising UDA tools?
Utilising  tools  under  the  Urban  Development  Act  (ie,  Specified  Development  Project  (SDP)  or  specified
works) are options that need to be more fully explored with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and Kāinga Ora.
There are a number of ways this could work, such as:
1. Kāinga Ora establish SDP focussed on urban development only (eg, in partnership with WCC and/or 1982
GWRC) and coordinate with the LGWM programme.
2. Kāinga  Ora  lead  under  an  SDP  focused  on  LGWM  programme  and  urban  development  (in
partnership with existing LGWM partners and potentially Iwi).
Act
3. Kāinga  Ora  facilitate  establishment  of  SPD  (or  other  UDA  tools)  but delegate transport and city
planning functions to LGWM-led governance body and/or options for specific delegations to WCC.
s 9(2)(g)(i)

Key considerations/risks to realising the urban development opportunities
Information
Should LGWM partners wish to take a more active approach by either facilitating or delivering urban
development outcomes, the partners should consider:
1.
s 9(2)(g)(i)
From our discussions with Kāinga Ora to date, the current market
conditions for property acquisition are challenging and require greater agility or use of other tools
Official
(eg, under the UDA).
2.
Urban development is not dependent on the MRT being built first. It can begin once the station
the
locations are confirmed. If urban development is not at the vanguard of MRT projects, then LGWM
wil  have increased cost of purchasing land for the project, greater opposition through the approvals
process, and lost opportunities for land value capture and good public outcomes earlier in the
project. Even if the MRT is delayed or is not built as expected, the MRT corridor is suitable for urban
development based on Spatial Plan directions to place density in city and suburban centres and
along key public transport corridors.
under
3.
s 9(2)(g)(i)
4.
Construction sector capacity wil  play a large role in the ability to deliver the level of urban
development sought by planning for growth and MRT investment. The building contractor/supplier
market is small and the ability to develop in an acceptable timeline and to achieve a suitable return
on cost for developers or government needs to be further assessed, including the potential ability for
LGWM to attract more capacity to the region through a guaranteed pipeline of construction projects.
Released
6

5.
The importance of highlighting opportunities and seeking to align LGWM planning and delivery with
work underway regionally, including a regional housing plan (a key project arising from the WRGF)
and Kāinga Ora’s preparation of its Regional Investment Plan for the next ten+ years.

6.
s 9(2)(g)(i)
for urban development are significant changes to how the LGWM
programme is currently structured and resourced. LGWM may need a separate entity to effectively
deliver quality and timely urban redevelopment around MRT stations. An example is the City Rail
Link Ltd in Auckland. CRL Ltd is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council to deliver the rail
project and catalyse development on and around the new stations. This wil  need to be considered
as part of further work on the future delivery model for the programme.
1982

7.
Large-scale property acquisition for urban development reasons may result in significant local
community concern and outrage alongside wider support from a wider community perspective due
to housing affordability and supply pressures. More targeted/strategic acquisitions may have more
Act
support.

8.
LGWM-facilitated urban development can assist with transitional projects, art, parks, creative
spaces and other short-term uses so the city can continue to grow and thrive while the major
demolitions, earthworks and transport works are taking place.

Opportunity to partner with developers but financing is required
s 9(2)(g)(i)

Information
The opportunity to partner with LGWM to deliver these sorts of key developments is
likely to attract national and international interest.
Funding or finance is needed to facilitate and/or deliver development. The finance need arises as land is
acquired from different owners, who settle or reach agreement at different points in time. LGWM and/or the
delivery agency would need working capital to acquire and/or hold land until  partnerships could be
established. LGWM could tender development opportunities and deliver in partnership with the private
sector. For example, the programme could sell the site to a chosen delivery partner and the land cost would
Official
be repaid accordingly (capturing limited amounts of value uplift in the process).
Without funding, there are no tools available to the programme to enable such outcomes. If the programme
does not succeed in acquiring sites for amalgamation, then there is no guarantee development wil  occur on
the
its own at a scale the programme requires to support the investment in MRT.
To ensure best practice,  Government procurement processes and a strict and thorough open market
procurement process would need to be fol owed. An opportunity exists for LGWM to assemble a panel of
preferred development partners. This panel would then provide the programme with a shortlist of preferred
developers and streamline the procurement process for any development precinct.
under
This process would also help ensure robust procurement practises are adhered to. Developers would be
invited to submit their vision for each precinct and the programme wil  be able to work with the preferred
partner or partners to achieve development outcomes. District Plan controls and the negotiation of a clear
development agreement with developers (or a specified development project under the UDA – discussed
below) would help ensure LGWM development outcomes are in line with the programme’s intent and vision.

Agencies can support LGWM in forming its role in urban development
Released

6 These calculations are drawn from initial analysis by TPG.
7

To have an involvement in urban development around MRT stations, LGWM should continue engaging
through the WRGF, with Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora, and from a funding
and financing perspective with Treasury and Ministry of Transport.
The Wellington Regional Leadership Committee of central and local government and iwi leaders, which
oversees implementation of the WRGF, provides a forum to engage regionally on housing and urban
development, infrastructure, reducing emissions, adapting to climate change, iwi/Māori aspirations, and
funding challenges. This forum helps bring LGWM issues to the attention of both Ministers of Transport
and Housing. s 9(2)(g)(i)

The Government is proposing a new Strategic Planning Act which wil  require regional-level spatial plans 1982
to coordinate planning and funding for three waters and transport infrastructure, land use controls, and
other public investments. Once this is in place, the regional spatial plan can help guide integrated
development and transport works.
Act
The LGWM Board should consider whether additional strategic urban development expertise could
supplement the existing governance composition for LGWM. This expertise would help with the different
options for urban development, consenting and property acquisition. If desirable, the Board should
expedite discussions with the Ministers of Transport and Housing and HUD and Kāinga Ora on the use of
UDA tools and bringing Kāinga Ora into the LGWM governance, and specifically options for
funding/financing urban development.

Next steps
The next Board paper on 17 August will set out the options, functions and potential for urban development
Information
in more detail, based on the Board’s in-principle  decisions  from this paper.  The  Urban  Development
workstream wil  also continue to progress the following activities:

•  Developing a model to highlight:
o  The reasonable level of value uplift/creation the programme could expect to capture.
o  Correlation between land investment and direct  development outcomes  (eg, yield and
timing).
Official
o  Opportunity cost associated with the level of land acquisition funding (or lack of it).
This will inform more detailed discussion on the role urban development and the funding/financing
levels required to support this.
the

•  Consenting Strategy – this is currently being revised and is assessing the advantages and
disadvantages of the available statutory approval pathways for the transport packages and urban
development objectives of the programme. The revised consenting strategy wil  be delivered on 30
July for partner review and the decisions on recommendations in this paper wil  guide that
evaluation.
under

•  Property Acquisition Strategy – the programme is currently modelling the sensitivities associated
around the level of investment in land acquisition vs programme yield (residential units), the
opportunity costs relating the restriction in funding and peak debt required to fund land acquisition
and development outcomes. This wil  be included in the draft Property Acquisition Strategy due in
September.

•  Subject to the Board’s decisions on the recommendations within this paper, the Urban
Development workstream wil  adjust the approach to both the Consenting Strategy and Property
Acquisition Strategy to incorporate strengthened consideration of the urban development
Released
opportunities as well as engage with Kāinga Ora and HUD on further versions of both documents,
as well as overall options for strengthened strategic urban development governance expertise.

8

• s 9(2)(g)(i)

1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
9

s 9(2)(g)(i)
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released

link to page 13

Appendix 2: Levels of LGWM intervention in urban development and
effects on dwelling numbers
Development concept plans by The Property Group (TPG) compared realisable development over 30
years under the current district plan, with having MRT south to Island Bay and east to Miramar, and plan
changes around MRT stations.
The TPG estimates indicate that MRT combined with plan changes around MRT stations will enable
enough dwel ings to cater for the population projections for the suburbs with MRT in 2048:
1982
•  Core route: CBD and Te Aro
•  South route: Mt Cook, Newtown, Berhampore, Island Bay
•  East route: Kilbirnie, Miramar
Act
Mt Victoria and Hataitai may be affected by MRT as well but are not included to retain relative
comparisons between intervention options.

Number of realisable dwellings: City
Total dwellings and
Centre, South, East
population
Core
South
East
2048 population projections
5,110
2,769
1,188
9,067
23,574
Do minimum: Spatial Plan-enabled
2,850
3,250
1,650
6,265
growth, but no MRT7
16,289
Information
Plan (refer Appendix 1)
8,000
5,900
2,230
16,130
41,938
The numbers indicated above under ‘Plan’ are what is possible under the Spatial Plan with MRT, however
this does not provide any certainty that they wil  be delivered. Current rates of development generate
approximately 500 apartments per year, which over 30 years is equivalent to approximately 15,000
dwellings, similar to the total number noted in the table above under Plan.
Official
‘Facilitating’ and/or ‘Delivering’ development gives greater control over the development outcomes, can
provide more certainty that apartment stock wil  be delivered, and can be responsive to the demands of a
changing market.
the
The number of dwel ings enabled through ‘facilitate’ and ‘deliver’ options (refer Appendix 1) wil  depend on
LGWM’s level of involvement and funding. The greater the level of intervention, the more dwellings (and
better urban outcomes) enabled.
s 9(2)(g)(i)

To what extent this would
under
be additional apartments has yet to be determined and wil  depend on who may partner with the
programme to deliver.
s 9(2)(g)(i)
. LGWM would
also be taking 100% of the development and construction risks.
[Note, TPG will be providing additional information on Monday relating to Berhampore and Island Bay to
be extrapolated for the Central City and Newtown and the East].
Released

7 The TPG “do minimum” dwel ing numbers for Te Aro are increased by 25%, and in southern and eastern suburbs by
20%, to reflect increases in heights and density in Te Aro, in town centres and around key public transport corridors in
the final Spatial Plan.

Other considerations
Catering for future population growth is only one of a number of benefits from building MRT, and
facilitating urban development around MRT stations. These benefits are set out in Appendix 3 below.
Most developers currently prefer to build smaller terrace housing and apartments, due to increased
construction risks. LGWM facilitating or delivering buildings can enable larger apartment buildings next to
MRT stations. These buildings can also include public benefits like affordable housing, community
services, small parks and pedestrian connections.
1982
The 2048 population projections are not the same as the Spatial Plan-enabled population at the suburb
level. The Spatial Plan-enabled sub-area populations wil  be calculated in the next Housing and Business
Development Capacity Assessment. This assessment is likely to be done in 2022 once the proposed
district plan is notified and the new development rules (height, density, protections etc) can be  Act
incorporated.
The numbers in the table have many assumptions, so il ustrate the relative magnitude between options
for intervention. It assumes MRT option V1A and light rail, and a loose estimate of new district plan rules
without MRT, and that three waters upgrades wil  keep pace with MRT construction.
Basis of the ‘Plan’ numbers
The development capacity for the ‘Plan’ option was calculated by:
1.  Identifying development sites, including:
a.  Sites within the suburb identified as supporting feasible comprehensive/infil  development
under WCC’s existing capacity model
Information
b.  Opportunity sites identified within the Stage 1 context analysis of the suburb (including
those held in single ownership which currently do not maximise the sites’ potential)
c.  Buildings that require rebuilding due to earthquake strengthening requirements.
2.  Establishing land-use development controls (e.g. height, density) by:
a.  Determine controls based on transit-oriented development principles
Official
b.  Refine the development controls through results of development feasibility testing on
example sites and desirable built form outcomes in the structure plans for areas of change
3.  Modelling massing controls and generate increase in gross floor area across each of the suburbs.
the
4.  Allocating proposed land use and mix of uses based on market indicators and feasibility analysis
on light house sites.
5.  Applying take-up rate to determine realisable development over time.
under
Released
13

Appendix 3: Why intervene in urban development?
The reasons why intervene in urban development is recommended:
•  To enable quality urban environments: Involvement in urban development increases the
certainty that quality urban environments wil  be created around the MRT stations. While aspects
of this can be done through the design of the transport infrastructure itself, other aspects need
greater development and design. The diagram below sets out the urban development aspects that
1982
LGWM can enable with greater involvement in urban development around MRT stations.
Act
Information
Official

•  Property acquisition and amalgamation to create larger sites can enable more
development: If LGWM or its partners facilitated urban development near MRT stations, this
the
would increase the number of commercially viable terrace housing and apartments. The greater
the level of facilitation, the more housing that can be built in MRT precincts. This is likely to have a
greater impact in inner and outer suburbs rather than the central city. The example below
demonstrates this at a very simple level. Land purchased to build a hypothetical MRT station (blue
circle) is marked with blue X’s. For good urban development outcomes, the land in blue squares
could be acquired and amalgamated as needed.
under
Released

•  Increased certainty of high-density housing around stations: The Property Group (TPG) has
modelled the amount of feasible and realisable development with a plan enabled MRT option.
Along with population projections and capacity from Spatial Plan directions, this gives us an
indication of how MRT and facilitating urban development around it can help service this
population growth. [Refer to Appendix 2 for supporting data]. This high-level analysis indicates that
MRT combined with land use planning around stations would enable enough housing to support
population projections in the urban areas served by MRT over the next 30 years. Redevelopment
potential from MRT in the outer suburbs is relatively lower than City Centre and inner suburbs due
to small, narrow lots, multiple individual ownership, and lower land value than inner city areas.  1982
•  Urban development improves the service of MRT and the transport network: Urban
development is not just a result of transport infrastructure, but also helps achieve transport
outcomes through greater use of public and active transport, and less road construction in
Act
suburban and greenfield areas. Wellington needs a transport system that can serve people near
where they live, work, learn and play. Intervention can focus urban development around MRT
stations. The MRT and public transport network becomes more functional when the greatest
density of people’s homes and destinations are within walking distance of rapid transit stations.
•  Houses could be delivered at a greater pace and with a wider range of partners: A more
active approach to intervention would increase the housing options that could be delivered and
enable them to be delivered at a faster pace that under a market-only approach, enabled primarily
by amalgamation.
•  Demonstrating best practice for walkable neighbourhoods and density done well: There is
also opportunity to develop best practice examples to showcase what high-quality high-density
living looks like and demonstrate the commercial viability of high density to stimulate the market.
Information
Development projects which are for blocks of the city (not just site by site) allow integrated design
where built space and open space can be planned and implemented.  Designing neighbourhoods
with a mix of living, enterprise, play and social spaces that are connected by safe, light, lanes and
streets is an opportunity but also a challenge as it requires an agency that knits the parts together.

Official

  the
under
Released
15

link to page 17

Appendix 4: Summary of relevant strategic direction – draft, to add further
references
Large transport projects like LGWM have an important role in supporting transit-oriented development. The
directions below are quoted from key city, region and national documents.
Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan 2021 (RLTP)
The RLTP has a thirty-year strategic Objective 2: “Transport and land use are integrated to support compact
urban form, liveable places, and a strong regional economy.” Policies supporting this objective include:  1982
2.4 Ensure new transport infrastructure is designed and located to enhance access and support
compact urban form consistent with the Regional Policy Statement.
Wellington Regional Growth Framework 2021
Act
[from this work need to tease out the importance of delivering the density within wellington city.
The Draft Framework Report identifies six “key moves”, one is:
3.  Fully unlock the urban development potential of current and future  rapid transit orientated
corridors particularly the Let’s Get Wellington Moving corridor. By leveraging our existing rail network
and new investment in rapid transit,  particularly on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving corridor, to
deliver transformational urban development including density changes and more affordable housing
choices
Wellington City Spatial Plan 2021
The Spatial Plan focuses growth in four areas: the central city (including Te Aro and Adelaide Road), inner
Information
suburbs, suburban centres, and around existing and planned rapid transit stops.
Future mass rapid transit station precincts are identified as “opportunity sites”. It directs precinct planning
around the eventual MRT stations to have transport benefits considered alongside land use and public realm
changes. It notes further opportunities to:
•  Partner with other organisations and the private sector to deliver high quality development in the
right locations.
Official
•  Capture increases in land value resulting from the mass rapid transit infrastructure and use this to
support the investment.   the
•  Target investment in public realm improvements including open space and green infrastructure.
Waka Kotahi Information Sheet: Programme Business Case Intervention Hierarchy (August 2017)
The NZ Transport Agency expects that an intervention hierarchy approach wil  be applied to all investment
proposals, at both programme and project  levels.  The “Consider First” is Integrated Planning: align
development with existing infrastructure and services, and plan for urban form which reduces travel demand.
under
LGWM Programme Objectives
Focusing Wellington’s urban development within walkable catchments of MRT stations (and other
centres/public transit corridors) helps achieve the LGWM programme objectives, in particular:
•  Improves liveability through more commercial, community and recreational services8 in a
walkable distance
•  Improves access to key city destinations without needing to use private cars
Released

8 Recreational services wil  include new green and open spaces, playgrounds, etc. that present additional costs and
interventions with no or limited commercial returns.
16

• Lower carbon emissions through more apartments and terrace housing, and more walking and
public transport use.
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
17

s 9(2)(g)(i)
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released

Partnership Board minutes
Date, time:  03 August 2021, 4pm

Location:
LGWM Board room – Rūnanga, Customhouse Quay or via Teams

1982
Members:  Dave Brash (chair), Barbara McKerrow, Brett Gliddon, Luke Troy, Robyn Elston,

Sarah Hay
Act
Attendees:  David Dunlop, Siobhan Procter, Gunther Wild, Dave Humm, Jodie Lawson, Rowan
Oliver, Willy Trolove, Moana Mackey, Barry Watkins, Adam Howard-Brumby
Alastair Patrick (item 6); Amy Kearse, Poul Tvermoes, Andrew Wharton, Peter
Chrisp (item 5); Paul Barker (item 4); Nigel Shatford, (item 7)
Emily Quayle (secretariat)
Apologies:  Greg Campbell

Information
Doc no:
0155/21

Out of Scope
Official
the
under
Released

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 2 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 3 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
5
For approval: Enabling urban development outcomes
Poul Tvermoes
Poul Tvermoes, Amy Kearse, Peter Chrisp and Andrew Wharton spoke to the urban development
paper. The paper was taken as read.
Members were advised that a short note to the Minister is being prepared in advance of his initial
meeting with Minister Woods at the end of August. The note, and the meeting, wil  cover elements of
the urban development paper. The Board agreed to review this offline.
Information
There was some concern expressed that the concepts found in the urban development paper have not
yet been socialised with Councillors. As activity progresses, there is also a need to consider keeping
chief executives of potential additional partner agencies informed of what may come. While it was
early days yet, the team will consider appropriate timing for connecting with key stakeholders as part
of planning for the next steps.
It was acknowledged that a coordinated, cross-organisation approach to urban development was
Official
necessary for some of the programme’s benefits to be achieved. Funding wil  also be required, the
level of which wil  be dependent on the approach agreed by Ministers, Councils and agencies. The
team has connected with the Auckland Light Rail team to bring in lessons and to minimise duplication
the
of effort where possible.
It was agreed that it was too early to consider amendments to governance arrangements at this stage.
The LGWM Partnership Board:
under
•  Agreed in-principle that a more active and coordinated approach to intervening to achieve
transformative urban development is required to enable LGWM benefits and wider city and
regional outcomes for housing, transport and climate change to be met.
•  Approved LGWM accelerating engagement with Kāinga Ora and the Minsitry of Housing and
Urban Development on options to achieve transformative urban development around MRT
stations, s 9(2)(g)(i), s 9(2)(j)


Released
•  Noted the extent to which intervention in urban development may be scaled up or down and
staged, will be assessed in greater detail as the programme progresses, alongside wider
Minutes Page 4 of 9

engagement and decisions on LGWM, considering risks, funding and financing, market
conditions.
•  s 9(2)(g)(i), s 9(2)(j)

•  Considered whether strategic/commercial urban development governance expertise is
desirable to supplement the existing governance composition for LGWM and engage with the
Ministers of Transport and Housing on how best to enable this.
1982
Poul, Amy, Peter and Andrew left the hui.
Out of Scope
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 5 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under

Released
Minutes Page 6 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 7 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 8 of 9

Out of Scope
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Minutes Page 9 of 9

Document Outline

AW 28 July edits - Draft LGWM Board Paper - Enabling UD outcomes v28 July.pdf
61. 3 August 2021 Board Minutes.pdf
- Partnership Board minutes