Attn: Senior Policy Planner
Auckland Council
Level 24, 135 Albert Street
1982
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142
Act
Feedback sent via email: [email address]
FEEDBACK ON AUCKLAND COUNCIL’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE
NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT (ENABLING HOUSING SUPPLY AND OTHER MATTERS)
AMENDMENT ACT Information
Introduction
Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (“Kāinga Ora”) at the address for service set out
below provides the following feedback on Auckland Council’s (“Council”) Preliminary
Response to the National Policy Statement – Urban Development (“NPS-UD”) and the
Official
Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act
(the Housing Supply Act), also known as the Medium Density Residential Standards
the
(“MDRS”).
Feedback
General position
under
1. Kāinga Ora supports the implementation of the intensification provisions of the NPS-UD
and the MDRS, and ensuring planning decisions contribute to achieving well-functioning
urban environments. The Kāinga Ora position on implementation the NPS-UD adopts a
housing sector / urban system wide approach, inclusive of outcomes for the Kāinga Ora
portfolio and programmes.
Released
2. Kāinga Ora generally supports the intent of Council’s Preliminary Response in response
to giving effect to the NPS-UD and the MDRS.
1
3. Notwithstanding this, amendments are suggested by Kāinga Ora that are intended to
help clarify and support the intent by Council in giving effect to national direction, and in
particular, Policy 3 of the NPS-UD.
1982
Regional Policy Statement
Act
4. Amendments to the RPS will be necessary to give effect to the NPS-UD and MDRS. It
is noted that Council have not issued any consultation material on this matter. Kāinga
Ora would like to workshop this matter with Auckland Council.
Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS)
5. Kāinga Ora supports the Council enabling residential intensification with a
Information
commensurate increase in urban built form in accordance with the NPS-UD and the
MDRS.
6. Generally, Kāinga Ora are pleased to see the widespread adoption of the MDRS across
much of Auckland through the utilisation of the existing Mixed Housing Urban zone.
Official
7. However, Kāinga Ora seek clarification as to why Helensville has been excluded from
the MDRS. Helensville, Parakai and Helensville Rural combined exceed 5000 in
the
population, clarification on how the population has been measured is sought. It is noted
that Waiuku, Warkworth, and Pukekohe have been upzoned as per the MDRS. Council
should reconsider all similar areas to ensure consistency.
8. It is understood that Council intend to implement the MDRS standards either unchanged
under
or largely unchanged, this is supported by Kāinga Ora however amendments to make
provisions more lenient may also be appropriate where greater intensity outcomes are
sought.
9. Kāinga Ora also consider that Council should implement the national planning standards,
and in particular zone names. The THAB zone for example is not consistent with what a
typical high density residential zone seeks to achieve nor are the proposed names for
Released
how Council wish to downzone the MDRS to equivalents of the Single Housing and
Mixed Housing Suburban zones. This should be clarified.
2
Walkable catchments
10. The NPS-UD requires Council to enable buildings of at least six storeys within ‘walkable
catchments’, these being walkable distances from rapid transit stops, the city centre and
1982
the 10 metropolitan centres. Kāinga Ora support this as a baseline approach but will
advocate for increased heights where appropriate.
Act
11. Kāinga Ora supports the approach of using direct routes to measure walkable distances
rather than ‘as the crows flies’ but has not yet fully assessed how each catchment has
been applied and whether location specific factors such as steep streets, motorways,
lack of supporting infrastructure such as pedestrian crossings have been applied
appropriately.
12. A walkable catchment of 1200m from the City Centre is proposed. Kāinga Ora consider
that this should be extended to 2000m given these areas are highly desirable with good
Information
access to services and amenities.
13. Kāinga Ora also consider that a distance of 1200m should be proposed for walkable
catchments around Metropolitan Centres and Rapid Transit rather than 800m as is
currently proposed.
Official
14. Kāinga Ora consider that all train stations should be included as part of the RTN. This
includes the Penrose to Onehunga branch of the rail network. Kāinga Ora also consider
that the Pakuranga to Botany section of the Eastern Busway should be included,
the
approximate locations around the bus stations could be made.
15. The NPS-UD provides an interpretation of what is rapid transit and states:
‘Rapid transit service means any existing or planned frequent, quick, reliable and high-
under
capacity public transport service that operates on a permanent route (road or rail) that is
largely separated from other traffic’
16. Kāinga Ora also consider that the Rapid Transit Network considered by Council is too
limited and does not take into consideration other services within Auckland that provide
a frequent service (Frequent Transit Network - minimum 15 min frequency 7am – 7pm
seven days a week, approximately 30 routes, utilising bus priority or bus lanes1). The
Released
1 New public transport network (at.govt.nz)
3
NPS-UD interpretation of ‘Rapid Transit’ does not require that rapid transit routes be fully
separated from other traffic, just that they are largely separated. We consider that many
bus lanes on arterial routes within Auckland would meet this criteria.
1982
17. In particular, key bus routes along arterial roads such as (but not limited to) Dominion
Road, Sandringham Road, New North Road, Mt Eden Roads should be investigated for
inclusion given the large number of people they serve frequently every day on direct
Act
routes to the City Centre that are largely separated via bus lanes (particularly during
peak times of the day).
18. It is noted that Plan Changes 48, 49 and 50 for Drury have been recently approved post
the release of the draft information. There will be three train stations in Drury and private
plan change processes are underway to rezone the land from Future Urban. Council’s
submission on some of these plan changes advocated a walkable catchment from the
stations as well as applying 6-storey building heights for those residential developments
Information
within in. As such, these areas should have catchments and higher intensity zoning
applied to them.
19. Comments are provided below with regards to the application of the THAB zone to
residential areas around other centres.
Official
Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone (THAB)
the
20. Kāinga Ora support that the height limit in the THAB zone being increased to six or more
storeys in walkable catchments as a minimum. Kāinga Ora also consider that increased
heights above six stories will be appropriate in a number of locations, particularly in close
under
proximity to centres and services, and that this should be explored for incorporation into
the THAB zone.
21. Kāinga Ora further considers that all THAB zoned land should enable six storeys at a
minimum, including those outside current walkable catchments such as Wesley. Given
how little land is zoned THAB outside walkable catchments, it seems appropriate to treat
all THAB zoned land the same with a six storey minimum height limit applied2. This will
Released
2 It is noted that at the Auckland Council briefing session on 2nd May that officers stated that the
reason why these areas have remained at 5 storeys is to provide landowners certainty that
these areas wil not be ‘downzoned’ to the MDRS standards.
4
provide a planning framework that is simpler for plan users while also providing for
appropriate increased densities in these areas.
22. Kāinga Ora are particularly interested in the provisions of the THAB zone and how
1982
Council will seek to avoid the higher intensity THAB zone outcomes being undermined
by the MDRS which enable a lower height of 11m as a permitted development standard.
The THAB zone does not currently have a permitted baseline for dwellings, Kāinga Ora
Act
consider that Council need to sufficiently encourage/incentive increased scales of
development within the zone to achieve outcomes consistent with the zone purpose.
23. Kāinga Ora note that Council has advised that its investigations into THAB provisions
are continuing based on an outcomes approach. Kāinga Ora would like to specifically
make comments on the following:
a. Increasing the height limit from five to six storeys – this is supported as a minimum
Information
but as noted above Kāinga Ora consider all THAB zone land should be six storeys
minimum and that some THAB areas are worthy of increased heights.
b. Considering changes to the height in relation to boundary standards to allow for taller
buildings to be located closer to boundaries – this is supported3. However, Kāinga
Ora question whether height in relation to boundary rules would be better removed
Official
completely, or removed within the first 20m of a site, with complementing matters of
standards/discretion/assessment criteria to manage effects. It is unclear how Council
would deal with height in relation to boundary standards for THAB zones proposed
the
to remain at 5 storeys (outside walkable catchments, noting that Kāinga Ora do not
support this generally).
c. For front sites, encourage buildings to face the street and have less building bulk at
the rear of sites – this is supported from a general perspective but Kāinga Ora would
under
like to see further detail on this matter.
d. Encourage outlook to be located over the street rather than side boundaries – this is
supported from a general perspective but should be investigated alongside with the
3 Item 11 on the 31/03/2022 agenda of Auckland Council’s Planning Committee noted the
following was being considered:
Released
Relaxing the height in relation to boundary standards:
-
within 21.5m of the street frontage, applying a height in relation to boundary standard of
19m + 60 degrees to side and rear boundaries
-
beyond 21.5m of the street frontage, or on rear sites, applying a height in relation to
boundary standard of 8m + 60 degrees to side and rear boundaries
5
removal of side yards (and therefore any side wall windows) and should be balanced
against solar access and south facing glazing.
e. Control via standards the effects of taller buildings on sites that have much smaller
1982
buildings adjacent to them, such as lower intensity zones and buildings located next
to open spaces – Kāinga Ora generally disagree but will be considering these matters
further.
Act
f. Retaining the front yard setback (1.5m) and side yard setback (1m) in the THAB zone
– as discussed above, to encourage the bulk of buildings to front the street and
maximise development potential the side yard rule should be investigated for
removal. Front yard setbacks should also be permitted to either decrease or be
removed completely depending on the adjacent footpath, wide footpath areas
provide the amenity that is sought by this rule.
g. Requiring building setbacks and landscaping from private shared driveways and
Information
pedestrian footpaths – Kāinga Ora does not support this and consider that if a road
is needed/desired from an amenity perspective then road standards for vesting
should be changed.
h. Retaining the outdoor living space requirements of the THAB zone – Kāinga Ora
consider that further investigations into living space requirements should be
Official
reconsidered across all zones. The current requirements in THAB set different
requirements for outdoor living spaces depending on whether the associated unit is
located at ground floor or not. Kāinga Ora consider that outdoor living space
the
requirements should not be different based on what floor a unit is located and instead
should be provided relative to how many bedrooms a proposed unit has. Minimum
dimensions to ensure usability should be applied.
i. Requiring communal living space for larger scale developments 4 –Kāinga Ora
under
consider the threshold for provision should be considered carefully and seek
clarification as to whether these provisions must apply to outdoor spaces or could
include internal communal spaces. Supplementary standards regarding the function
and location of the outdoor areas relative to the number of units in the building and
unit typologies should also be considered.
Released
4 Item 11 on the 31/03/2022 agenda of Auckland Council’s Planning Committee noted that
communal outdoor living space was being considered as a requirement for developments of
more than 40 units.
6
j. Standards that require deep soil areas to support trees – Kāinga Ora question what
specific effect is sought to be regulated by this rule.
24. Kāinga Ora’s final position on these matters, and others pertaining to the THAB zone is
1982
reserved until details are released in August 2022.
Act
Auckland’s suburban centres
Neighbourhood centres
25. It is noted that Council does not intend to upzone residential land outside walkable
catchments around the Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone as this zone is applied
to single corner stores and service stations, or small clusters of shops and services
located in residential neighbourhoods.
Information
26. This is considered appropriate in general but Kāinga Ora will be considering further how
this zone has been applied spatially.
Local Centres
Official
27. It is noted that Council considers that the Business – Local Centre zone provides for the
convenience needs of surrounding residential areas, including local retail, commercial
the
services, offices, food and beverage, and appropriately scaled supermarkets.
28. Council intends to zone residential land around larger local centres that have good
accessibility as THAB of up to five storeys. This is intended to be up to 200m from the
edge of the centre.
under
29. Kāinga Ora consider this should be extended from 200m to 400m at a minimum and that
the THAB areas be enabled to at least six storeys instead of five storeys to appropriately
future proof these centres and ensure their functioning and vibrancy.
30. Kāinga Ora also does not agree with how Council have categorised each local centre as
‘large’ and with ‘good accessibility’. Broadly Kāinga Ora suggest that the presence of the
Released
local centre zone is sufficient to warrant consideration of THAB being applied within
400m. Kāinga Ora consider that if Council wishes to continue to differentiate where
THAB will / will not be applied around local centres that this should not be a matter of
7
scale and should instead be related to the level of service each centre provides or is
planned to provided i.e. level of commercial activities, services, social infrastructure as
well as accessibility to a range of transport modes; including walking, cycling and various
1982
public transport options.
Act
Town centres
31. It is noted that Council considers that the Business – Town Centre zone is applied to
suburban centres that are typically located on main roads which provide good access to
public transport and which serve a wider area than local centres and provide for a wide
range of activities.
32. Council intends to zone land THAB that is within 200m of the edge of smaller town
centres with good accessibility and within 400m of the edge of larger town centres with
Information
good accessibility.
33. Kāinga Ora does not agree that Town Centres should be categorised into larger and
smaller, all should be treated the same with an 800m walkable catchment proposed
around them. If this position is continued, Kāinga Ora contends that this should be based
Official
on the level of services rather than scale and distanced increased to future proof these
areas.
the
34. As above, Kāinga Ora contend that all THAB zones in Auckland should be enabled to a
minimum of six storeys.
under
Centres generally
35. Council have noted that the intensification proposals outlined above applies to the
residential areas only and not the centre zones themselves as ‘…they are considered to
already allow enough building heights and densities proportional to their commercial and
community offerings’.
36. Kāinga Ora do consider it appropriate to retain the Neighbourhood Centre zone at 3
Released
storeys, as surrounding residential zones will be of a similar scale/height however we do
8
not consider it appropriate to not increase the height limits for the Local Centre and Town
Centre zones.
37. The Local Centre zone currently provides for 4 storeys only, it seems counter intuitive to
1982
allow for higher heights around the centre than directly within it. Kāinga Ora contend that
this land should be zoned at least six storeys to increase commercial and residential
activities and future proof the centres and ensure centres are the focal points of
Act
neighbourhoods. This is supported by Policy 3(c) and (d) which enable building heights
of at least 6 storeys within walkable catchments and building heights and density of urban
form that is commensurate with the greater of (d) ‘(i) the level of accessibility by existing
or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial activities and community
services; or (ii) relative demand for housing and business use in that location.’
38. The Town Centre zone height limit is variable between 11m and 27m depending on
where height variation controls are applied. Kāinga Ora consider that all Town Centre
Information
heights should provide for at least 6 storeys, and where appropriate could provide for up
to 15 stories, to give effect to the NPS-UD, particularly Policy 3.
39. It is noted that where a centre zone overlaps with a RTN walkable catchment from RTN,
Policy 3C requires that building heights of at least 6 storeys are provided within the centre
Official
zone as well.
the
Mixed Use Zone
40. Kāinga Ora note that Council has not outlined any substantial changes to the mixed use
zone other than the potential for increased heights within the walkable catchments.
under
Kāinga Ora consider that a review of this zone in relation to its function for supporting
wider business and housing outcomes within the centres hierarchy in necessary. Kāinga
Ora would welcome an opportunity to workshop this further with the Council.
Metropolitan Centre Zone
Released
41. Kāinga Ora notes that Council has not provided any material discussing review of or
changes to the Metropolitan Centre zone. Kāinga Ora consider that some changes to
the zone could be appropriate, including but not limited to the removal of maximum height
9
controls. Potentially additional changes beyond removal of the height controls could be
made to the zone following a review of this zone relative to the outcomes sought by the
NPS UD.
1982
The City Centre
Act
42. Kāinga Ora supports the removal of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) standard and supports
unlimited height within the zone (noting that some special height controls apply i.e. Albert
Park).
43. Kāinga Ora support the removal of the GFA bonus standards.
44. Kāinga Ora reserves its position on the zone until further details are released regarding
how tower dimensions, outlook space and set back controls will be implemented.
Information
Qualifying matters
General position
45. Auckland Council5 have advised that qualifying matters are characteristics about some
Official
properties or within some areas that may allow the Council to modify, or reduce, required
building heights or density.
the
46. It is agreed that many of the matters listed by Council are already protected or recognised
in the AUP through overlays that restrict development potential. Kāinga Ora notes
however that not all overlays in the AUP would necessarily be qualifying matters and in
some instances parts or all of existing overlays may need to be modified or removed
under
from the AUP going forward.
47. It is Kāinga Ora’s general position is that Qualifying Matters should only be used where
they meet the requirements of the Act and in the case of clause 3.32 in the NPS-UD only
if the requirements of clause 3.33 are met.
Released
5 Factsheet 6 (Part 1)
10
48. Qualifying matters directly related to Section 6 matters are appropriate for inclusion and
Kāinga Ora general y agree with most of the positions taken by Council on many of these
matters. However, specific comments on other qualifying matters are provided below.
1982
49. Kāinga Ora also question whether a qualifying matter has to necessarily modify a density
standard within the zone construct, or if the matter can be managed solely by other
planning methods such as an overlay that operate in in parallel with density standards of
Act
the zone.
Local View and Viewshafts (Locally Significant and Regionally Significant)
50. Kāinga Ora question the inclusion of Local Views and Viewshafts (Locally and Regionally
significant) as qualifying matters. The NPS-UD allows for the introduction of Qualifying
Matters with section 3.32 however limiting what can be introduced. Kāinga Ora would
Information
like clarification on how the Local Views, Viewshafts and Height Sensitive areas which
have been proposed as Qualifying Matters meet the relevant tests i.e. national
significance.
51. A detailed task should be done to clarify why each is included and how it directly links
Official
with a matter of national importance.
the
National Grid Overlay
52. Part of this overlay, namely the National Grid Yard, provides absolute certainty for
landowners on how they can utilise their sites. It is therefore considered that its use as a
under
Qualifying Matter to either retain current zoning or not up zone as per the MDRS or NPS-
UD is not required given the overlay rules relating to location of some built on parts of
sites override the underlying base zoning, but in many instances this overlay does not
apply to the full site as such the presence of the overlay should not determine the
underlying zoning.
53. Should Transpower progress with plans to underground some lines within Auckland,
Released
Kāinga Ora consider that the zoning as required by the NPS-UD or MDRS should be
able to be easily and efficiency applied to the affected land with the rules of the overlay
implemented to manage development, rather than downzoning the land in the meantime.
11
When lines come down, plan changes to alter the zoning will therefore not be required.
This would give more certainty to landowners about the potential of their land in the future
without any risk of inappropriate subdivision, use or development occurring.
1982
Designations
Act
54. It is noted that residential land subject to designations have been upzoned where
appropriate in accordance with the NPS-UD and MDRS. Kāinga Ora support this
approach.
Aircraft noise
55. Kāinga Ora consider it appropriate that the High Aircraft Noise Area be used as a
Information
Qualifying Matter, however it is not considered appropriate to use the entire Aircraft
Noise Overlay (D24) as a Qualifying Matter. Aircraft noise as a Qualifying Matter limiting
should be dissected further, particularly Kāinga Ora question if the some of the plan
provisions relating to restriction of development within parts of the noise boundaries and
the Moderate Aircraft Noise Area introduce density standards that are not appropriate
Official
qualifying matters. Kāinga Ora consider further assessment of the Council’s approach
is necessary and seeks to discuss this further with the Council.
the
Natural hazards
56. Kāinga Ora query what is meant by ‘significant natural hazard’ and whether this relates
under
to a pre-adopted risk matrix by Council. Kāinga Ora seek further discussion with Council
on what hazards have been used as qualifying matters and what methods are to be used.
Notable Trees
57. Kāinga Ora agree with the approach for notable trees so long as this does not
Released
compromise identified values of a notable tree.
12
Significant Ecological Areas (SEA)
58. Kāinga Ora seek clarification on how the SEA overlay has been applied as a Qualifying
1982
matter, it appears in some instances to have been used to retain existing zoning and in
other instances it has not. Kāinga Ora questions if there is a need for the presence of an
Act
SEA to be a determinative factor in the zoning applied or if the overlay itself is sufficient
in managing the qualify matter.
Infrastructure
59. It is noted that the Council and its CCOs are currently considering long term
Infrastructure constraints as a Qualifying Matter. It is understood that this includes three
Information
waters and transport.
60. Kāinga Ora do not agree that infrastructure constraints should be used as a qualifying
matter and would like to workshop this matter with Council.
Official
Special Character
61. Kāinga Ora does not consider that Council has not done sufficient work as required by
the
the Act or NPS UD to justify special character areas as a Qualifying Matter and as such
oppose Councils applying planning methods in those locations to reduce development
capacity contrary to the outcomes sought by policy 3 of the NPS UD. Kāinga Ora would
welcome an opportunity to further discuss this issue with the Council
under
Light Rail Investigation Area
62. Kāinga Ora note that Council has not shown draft zone changes for the area marked as
‘Light Rail Investigation Area’. Kāinga Ora consider that Council should have zoned this
area in the draft release in line with the MDRS/NPS-UD to interested parties to provide
some certainty about what could be expected as a minimum.
Released
63. Given Kāinga Ora’s interest in this area, particularly in Mount Roskill/Wesley etc. we
request that this matter be workshopped between key stakeholders.
13
Addressing the issues arising from the Wallace judicial review
64. Kāinga Ora would like confirmation from Council regarding how it plans to respond to the
1982
findings of the Wallace judicial review.
65. The judicial review underlined some plan drafting and administration issues with the
Act
current Auckland Unitary Plan that are involved with the consenting of residential
developments in the Mixed Housing and THAB zones. This is impacting Kāinga Ora’s
Auckland Housing Programme and our ability to deliver much needed housing in an
efficient and effective manner.
66. Kāinga Ora consider that Council have the opportunity to tackle this issue by considering
matters of discretion in relevant zones as well as considering horizontal integration of
notification rules.
Information
67. Kāinga Ora would like to workshop this matter with Council.
Next steps
68. Kāinga Ora thank Auckland Council for releasing draft information in advance of the
Official
August 2022 plan change deadlines. As a key stakeholder in the Auckland region
delivery housing and urban development Kāinga Ora would like to workshop the various
topics covered in this feedback with the Council at its earliest opportunity.
the
under
Released
14
Dated 09/05/2022
1982
………………………………………...
Act
Brendon Liggett
Manager - Development Planning
National Planning, Urban Design and Planning Group
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:
Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities
PO Box 74598, Greenlane, Auckland 1546
Information
Email: [email address]
Official
the
under
Released
15
