2 Planning Report on the Urban Development Bill 7 February 2020 Redacted.pdf

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
Review of Avondale Town Centre redevelopment
opportunities against the proposed Urban Development
Bill.
THE 1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION
Report Prepared by:
Michael Campbell
OFFICIAL
Planner, Campbell Brown Planning Ltd
Report Reviewed by:
Ila Daniels
Principal Planner, Campbell Brown Planning Ltd
Date of Issue: 7 February 2020

link to page 3 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 23 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 32 link to page 36

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

1.0   Executive Summary

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) was established through the Kāinga Ora -
Homes and Communities Act 2019 on 1 October 2019.  Kāinga Ora consolidates and expands the
roles of three existing Crown entities: Housing New Zealand Corporation, HLC (2017) Limited
(HLC)  and  the  KiwiBuild  Unit  which  was  formerly  within  the  Ministry  for  Housing  and  Urban
Development.

This report has been commissioned by Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (“Kāinga ora”) to
consider the implications and potential toolkit available with the proposed UDB.

The  objective  of  the  Urban  Development  Bill  (UDB)  is  to  better  co-ordinate  use  of  land,
infrastructure, and public assets to maximise public benefit from complex urban development
projects.  The UDB will provide Kāinga Ora with significant new powers, which makes Kāinga Ora
responsible  for  building  homes.    The  UDB  seeks  to  enable  a  more  favourable  consenting,
1982
infrastructure,  land  acquisition  and  funding  regime  to  enable  this  to  occur.    It  provides  for  a
THE
longer term horizon for the planning and funding of development areas.

ACT
The Auckland Council (Panuku) and the Crown have been working on the Avondale Town Centre
for the past decade to determine the current desired strategic outcomes for the centre.

UNDER
Avondale  is  located  close  to  the  City  Centre  and  it  has  excellent  public  transport  links.  The
location and connectivity of Avondale along with its average house price, strongly supports its
market attractiveness for a variety of housing typologies, including affordable housing and build
to  rent  options.    The  completion  of  the  City  Rail  Link  will  also  increase  the  popularity  and
accessibility  of  the  Avondale  Town  Centre.    The  Town  Centre  is  ideally  suited  to  significant
redevelopment.
RELEASED
INFORMATION

Kāinga  Ora  presently  owns  two  large  development-ready  sites  in  the  town  centre  at

s
s 9(2)(a)
  Panuku  have  already
developed a high level spatial plan for the Avondale Town Centre.  This has already involved
9
significant consultation with the Avondale community.  The current Unitary Plan provides for a
(
OFFICIAL
high  degree  of  intensification  within  the  Avondale  Town  Centre.    The  key  exception  is  the
Avondale racecourse land.
2

)
Given the comprehensive nature of the process that needs to be undertaken to create an SDP,
it is our view that the process will only be attractive for large and complex redevelopment sites
(
that are either under zoned (or miss-zoned), and/or have infrastructure or funding constraints.

a
We note that any proposed SDP is not just a two dimensional ‘land use’ plan which will simply
)
regulate development of land within the SDP.

2

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

The SDP includes a much wider range of tools beyond a traditional Plan Change regulatory scope.
This  could  include  an  implementation  and/or  funding  and  infrastructure  strategy  which
describes the mechanisms that complement the Land Use plan. This can also include the Land
Use plan criteria - Urban design and sustainability outcomes, Centres design and function, street
and movement network, environment and Open Space and could introduce Precinct provisions
and Assessment criteria for each.  In our view, the significant advantage of the SDP process is
the  power  to  align  all  relevant  urban  redevelopment  tools  under  the  one  authority  in  an
integrated manner.

The SDP will require governance arrangements and the project objectives will guide any future
amendments  to  the  SDP.    We  note  that  the  SDP  will  provide  a  longer  term  vision  for  the
development  of  an  area  which  has  the  advantage  of  less  political  influence,  and  a  longer
strategic timeframe than a tradition regulatory plan process of 10 years.  At the same time, the
SDP process provides for the ability to modify the Plan to meet evolving economic, market and
environmental considerations.
1982

THE
Kāinga  Ora  would  become  the  main  consent  authority  under  the  Resource  Management  Act
1991  for  all  resource  consent  applications  in  the  SDP  area.  The  establishment  of  a  new
ACT
‘regulatory body’ would be a significant undertaking for Kāinga Ora.  In addition to resources,
there would be the need for the establishment of a significant number of systems and processes
to  undertake  such  a  regulatory  function.  Kāinga  Ora  must  also  perform  the  functions  of
UNDER
monitoring, enforcing, and promoting compliance in a SDP area.

We support Kāinga Ora being the lead regulatory authority within an SDP, noting that it will likely
need to delegate many of the regulatory functions, but there would be advantages to Kāinga Ora
in having overall ownership of the regulatory processes, to control desired quality and efficiency
outcomes. RELEASED
INFORMATION

In  our  opinion,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  UDB  would  be  required  to  increase  the  development
potential for the existing Avondale Town Centre and its immediate surrounds.   RMA consenting
processes  would  remain  similar  to  a  SDP,  and  an  SDP  would  not  in  our  opinion  provide  a
significant advantage over the current planning framework.
OFFICIAL

In  our  view,  there  would  be  an  advantage  in  utilizing  the  UDP  if  it  was  proposed  to
comprehensively redevelop the Avondale Racecourse land (as part of wider integrated Avondale
Town Centre) because the current zoning framework (Major Recreation Zone) does not provide
for  the  intensification  of  that  site.    The  size  and  scale  of  the  Avondale  Racing  site,  with  the
existing Town Centre would be well suited to a SDP, if that was desired.

The differences between the resource consenting under the RMA and SDP are similar, although
there is the potential for Kāinga Ora, in formulating the SDP, to specify more explicitly those
applications or activities that do not need to be publicly or limited notified.  This would greatly
3

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

assist with providing certainty to both Kāinga Ora, landowners and development partners.  There
are also requirements for faster processing of controlled and restricted discretionary activities,
which should enable a slightly faster turnaround of consenting.

Kāinga Ora will have extensive powers to compulsorily acquire land, but these powers will be
available regardless of the ability to provide a SDP.

In our view, the redevelopment of an area of the scale such as the Avondale Racecourse and the
Town Centre would also lend itself strongly to the provision of additional funding arrangements.
This  would  be  a  key  element  in  supporting  the  outcomes  of  the  SDP  and  it  would  form  an
important aspect of the overall SDP toolkit for implementation.

The UDB powers will assist Kāinga Ora to advance large major projects more rapidly as it will
help  coordinate  the  different  aspects  of  urban  development,  particularly  for  'brownfields'
development where more complex issues commonly arise.
1982

THE
The powers that Kāinga Ora have in relation to any UDP, and especially in relation to SDPs, will
make it more powerful than any agency that has preceded it.  The powers that Kāinga Ora will
ACT
acquire are currently held separately by a range of agencies and the UDB and SDP process merely
enables those powers to be accessed through a single, more streamlined process.  The strength
of the UDP is the sum of all its parts, and it will be important to ensure that all these tools are
UNDER
carried through to the eventual Act and are not watered down.

In our view, if Kāinga Ora acquired the Avondale Race Course land (or partnered with the land
owner) it will be in an advantageous position to control the value uplift of the land through up
zoning which could then be captured by way of the sale of super lots.

RELEASED
INFORMATION
Once  an  SDP  has  been  adopted,  Kāinga Ora  and  its partners will  have  access to  a  tool-kit  of
powers.  The SDP process will ensure these powers are used for a project in a co-ordinated way,
in line with the project objectives, so that redevelopment can occur.

In our view, the combined Avondale Racecourse and Town Centre land site represents an ideal
OFFICIAL
redevelopment area that would be suitable for an SDP process.  We consider that there would
be a number of potentially significant benefits in adopting the SDP process if the development
of the Avondale Racecourse were contemplated, including the significant supply of high quality
urban land in a high accessible location, with the  ability to plan and fund infrastructure to a
standard that has the potential to deliver an exemplar urban environment.

The SDP process will enable Kāinga Ora to move land quickly to market and achieve housing
affordability and urban development outcomes. This will enable Kāinga Ora to be more effective
and proactive in providing land for urban development.

4

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

2.0   Introduction

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) was established through the Kāinga Ora -
Homes and Communities Act 2019 on 1 October 2019.  Kāinga Ora consolidates and expands the
roles of three existing Crown entities: Housing New Zealand Corporation, HLC (2017) Limited
(HLC)  and  the  KiwiBuild  Unit  which  was  formerly  within  the  Ministry  for  Housing  and  Urban
Development.

The objective of Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is to contribute to sustainable, inclusive,
and thriving communities that:

(a)
provide people with good quality, affordable housing choices that meet diverse needs;
and,

(b)
support good access to jobs, amenities, and services; and,
1982

THE
(c)
otherwise sustain or enhance the overall economic, social, environmental, and cultural
well-being of current and future generations.
ACT

Kāinga  Ora  has  two  key  roles,  as  both  a  developer  and  a  public  housing  landlord.  It  will  be
UNDER
required to perform both roles, and maximise the synergies between them, to achieve its overall
objectives. Kāinga Ora will require appropriate financial provisions to be able to carry out these
roles and effectively balance risk and flexibility with accountability and transparency.

The current Urban Development Bill (UDB) provides a toolkit for urban development projects
and  more  enabling  development  powers,  as  well  as  the  more  detailed  provisions  relating  to
INFORMATION
Māori interests.
RELEASED

This  proposed  legislation  will  enable  the  establishment  of  “specified  development  projects”,
with access to more enabling development powers to streamline  and accelerate  these  large,
complex  projects.  These  powers  relate  to  infrastructure,  funding,  reserves,  and  resource
management planning and consenting, and will be complemented by appropriate safeguards.
OFFICIAL
The legislation will also provide for land assembly powers, which will be available to all projects
undertaken by the Authority.

This report has been commissioned by Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (“Kāinga ora”) to
consider the implications and potential toolkit available with the proposed UDB.  The purpose
of  the  review  is  to  test  the  proposed  bill  from  a  practical  perspective  using  a  current  live
development opportunity (Avondale Town Centre) to determine the particular opportunities or
constraints in using the draft UDB, and to identify potential areas of enhancement of the Bill.

5

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

The  report  seeks  to  provide  a  comparison  of  the  benefits  and  constraints  for  Kāinga  Ora  in
undertaking a project redevelopment within the Avondale Centre and associated land:

a)
under the current legislation against;
b)
under the proposed Urban Development Bill.

We have reviewed the “Unlock Avondale” Enhanced Programme Business Case for Avondale to
determine  the  current  framework  of  proposed  strategic  outcomes  for  Avondale.  Our  review
considers whether there are further opportunities beyond the current regeneration strategy that
could  be  enabled  from  the  UDB,  that  were  previously  discounted  due  to  current  legislative
constraints.

You have also sought feedback on the following questions on the UDB:

a)
How would the proposed Bill be better or worse (noting where for each area of the Bill,
e.g. iwi, consultation, timeframes, planning, land acquisition, infrastructure, funding)?
THE  1982
b)
Identify  anything  that  stands  out  as  an  area  that  could  assist  Kāinga  Ora  in  this  new
process, (Iwi Interests, heritage, transport, reserves etc. need to be factored in)
ACT
c)
Ensure  that  Kāinga  Ora  are  commenting  on  areas  of  the  Bill  that  assist  with
operationalising the delivery,
d)
How can Kāinga Ora get certainty over an outcome for a project (when you do not own or
UNDER
do not wish to own all the land)?
e)
How can Kāinga Ora best ensure that all public agencies working on a shared process and
shared timing? Covering roads, schools, parks, reserves?
f)
How to get the change/uplift in value captured and shared across appropriate parties? and
g)
Identify  aspects  of  the  Bill  that  could  be  disaggregated  from  the  standard  Specified
Development Project process to assist with other smaller development areas. Kāinga Ora
RELEASED
INFORMATION
will  provide  comment  on  the  SDP  “lite”  concept,  recently  explored,  which  was  not
accepted into the draft bill.

OFFICIAL

6

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

3.0   Summary of the Urban Development Bill

3.1    Introduction

The key objective of the Bill is to better co-ordinate use of land, infrastructure, and public assets
to maximise public benefit from complex urban development projects.  The UDB will provide
Kāinga  Ora  with  significant  new  powers,  which  makes  Kāinga  Ora  responsible  for  building
homes.  The UDB seeks to enable a more favourable consenting, infrastructure, land acquisition
and funding regime to enable this to occur.

Under the proposed UDB, Kāinga Ora will be able to undertake any urban development project
(“UDP”). UDP’s are defined as:

  the development of housing;

1982
  the  development  and  renewal  of  urban  environments,  whether  or  not  this  includes
THE
housing development;

ACT
  the  development  of  related  commercial,  industrial,  community,  or  other  amenities,
infrastructure, facilities, services, or works; but not
UNDER

  a project that is only to develop or redevelop public housing on land owned by Kāinga
Ora.

Some  of  Kāinga  Ora’s  powers,  for  example  the  ability  to  compulsorily  acquire  land,  apply  in
relation to any UDP.
INFORMATION

RELEASED
However,  in  relation  to  large-scale  and  complex  projects,  called  “Specified  Development
Projects”  (“SDPs”),  the  UDB  will  provide  Kāinga  Ora  with  a  range  of  additional  significant
statutory powers.

3.2    Specified Development Projects: Large scale and complex projects
OFFICIAL

Part 1 of the UDB requires Kāinga Ora to have particular regard to providing or enabling:


integrated and effective use of land and buildings; and


quality infrastructure and amenities that support community needs; and


efficient, effective, and safe transport systems; and


access to open space for public use and enjoyment; and
7

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11


low-emission urban environments.

Like  the  Resource  Management  Act  1991  (RMA),  Kāinga  Ora  must  promote  the  sustainable
management of natural and physical resources by recognising and providing for the matters in
section 6 of the RMA, and having regard to the matters in section 7.

However, one of the key aspects of the UDB is the recognition that amenity values might change.
This  is  an  important  acknowledgement  that  seeks  to  clearly  state  that  in  delivering  a  higher
density urban environment the amenity values of such development areas are likely to change
in line with the planned outcomes sought for a particular area.

While  section 8 of the  RMA is not referred to in this principles section, the  UDB has its own
provisions about Maori interests with its particular obligations for Kāinga Ora.
The process for establishing an SDP is detailed. For each proposed SDP Kāinga Ora is required to
carry out an initial assessment to evaluate feasibility in which it identifies project objectives, a
1982
project area and a project governance body.
THE

The UDB does not specify a minimum size for SDPs. If Kāinga Ora recommends that the project
ACT
be established as an SDP, it must seek endorsement of that assessment from the responsible
Ministers, who must then consider a range of factors, including:

UNDER
  Whether  the  project  objectives  are  consistent  with  the  purpose  of  the  UDB,  the
principles that relate to SDPs, and any existing national directions under the RMA;

  Whether the project area, project governance body and consultation undertaken are
appropriate; and

RELEASED
INFORMATION
  Whether the SDP is supported by the relevant territorial authorities, or is in the national
interest.

If the joint Ministers agree with the request, an Order in Council will establish the SDP and Kāinga
Ora will then prepare a draft development plan.
OFFICIAL

The UDB to outlines the powers Kāinga Ora will have in relation to SDPs, including the ability to:


override, add to, or suspend provisions in RMA plans or policy statements within the project
area.  Although  importantly,  a  development  plan  cannot  go  beyond  the  scope  of  any
provisions in a regional policy statement or plan;


act as a consent authority (for consents under district plans) and requiring authority under
the RMA. Kāinga Ora does not however take over the role of a regional council, the Minister
8

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

for  the  Environment,  or  the  Environmental  Protection  Authority,  if  a  resource  consent
application relates to matters within their jurisdiction;


acquire land and reconfigure reserves.


use funding tools for infrastructure and development activities;


levy targeted rates and development contributions; and


build and change infrastructure, including the establishment of its own standards.

As soon as an Order in Council which establishes the SDP has been made, Kāinga Ora will be able
to veto or amend resource consent applications and exclude plan changes from applying in a
project area before the development plan is operative.
The draft development plan that Kāinga Ora prepares will have to include:
1982

THE
  details of the development’s design, including a structure plan;

ACT
  any necessary changes to normal RMA planning instruments or processes;


UNDER
  identification of any areas to be protected or excluded from development;

  high-level information on what development powers Kāinga Ora will have access to and
how they will be exercised;

  high-level information and certain details on funding sources; and

RELEASED
INFORMATION
  the timing of development.

The draft development plan will be notified for consultation, with submissions being heard and
considered by an independent hearing panel (IHP). The IHP will then provide the responsible
Minister with a report on the draft development plan, and any changes that it recommends.
OFFICIAL

We note that appeals against the decision of the IHP are limited to points of law in the High
Court only. There is a right to appeal the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal, but that
appeal is the final appeal. The Minister will then either decline or approve the development plan.

We note  that there  are some  limits on Kāinga Ora’s powers.  The UDP  places obligations on
Kāinga Ora in relation to Māori interests that extend beyond the framework set out in the Kāinga
Ora–Homes and Communities Act 2019.

9

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

Kāinga Ora must engage with Māori entities as a part of the SDP process and the powers of the
Bill cannot be used in respect of Māori customary land, Māori reserves and reservations, or any
parts  of  the  common  marine  and  coastal  area  in  which  customary  marine  title  or  protected
customary rights have been recognised.

The UDB also provides safeguards for the protection of historic heritage values. Kāinga Ora is
required  to  seek  recommendations  from  Heritage  New  Zealand  Pouhere  Taonga  on  the
protection of heritage  values  for a proposed project area, and the development  plan cannot
override planning rules and other provisions protecting historic heritage in a way that would
make them more permissive to development.
The  SDP  process  also  has  mechanisms  that  seek  to  protect  environmental  bottom  lines.  For
example:


important environmental features can be excluded from the project area;


1982

project  objectives  are  required  to  be  consistent  with  the  national  policy  statements,
THE
national environmental standards, and other national directions under the RMA;

ACT

the development plan can apply any existing RMA protections or include new provisions to
protect specific areas or features; and

UNDER

approval  from  the  Minister  of  Conservation  is  required  if  the  project  area  includes  or  is
adjacent to reserve land, land subject to a conservation interest, or any part of the coastal
marine area.

Notwithstanding the above, the SDP process does envisage some loosening of environmental
protections compared to those currently in district plans to accelerate development. Although
RELEASED
INFORMATION
arguably,  the  most  onerous  environmental  protections  exist  in  environmental  bottom  lines
created  under  section  6  of  the  RMA,  (matters  of  national  importance  such  as  the  coastal
environment,  outstanding  natural  features  and  landscapes, indigenous  vegetation  and
significant habitats of indigenous fauna historic heritage, significant risks from natural hazards)
and in regional plans and policy statements, which Kāinga Ora is unable to override.
OFFICIAL

Kāinga  Ora’s  inability  to  override  heritage  matters,  or  regional  plans  could  prove  to  be  a
significant roadblock to some developments, particularly for ‘greenfields’ developments where
regional level consents are often crucial.

We also note  that the  UDB recognises the aspirations that Māori have  in housing and urban
development, as potential development partners, as people significantly impacted by historic
matters and current pressures in housing, and through their connections with the land and other
natural resources. This UDB establishes protections for land in which Māori have interests and
an  expectation  that  Kāinga  Ora  will  identify  and  support  Māori  aspirations  for  urban
10

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

development in specified development project areas. The includes the opportunity to
participate in urban development. We see this aspect as an exciting aspiration and given Kāinga
Ora’s knowledge and experience with development areas like Hobsonville Point.

1982

THE

ACT

UNDER

RELEASED
INFORMATION

OFFICIAL

11

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

4.0  Background to the existing Avondale Town Centre

4.1    Unlock Avondale Plan – July 2019

The Auckland Council (Panuku) and the Crown have been working on the Avondale Town Centre
for  the  past  decade.  The  current  strategic  planning  for  the  Avondale  Town  Centre  is
encapsulated in the “Unlock Avondale - Enhanced Programme Business Case for Avondale” (July
2019) to determine the current desired strategic outcomes for the centre.

By way of a summary, the following is noted with regard to the existing Avondale Town Centre1.

Problem Definition

•
Under development of a number of key sites
•
Poorly functioning retail and main street
1982
•
Urban form of the main street has a significant break in the middle
THE
•
Town centre lacks a defined community ‘heart’
•
Town square is too small, poorly defined, and not well used
ACT
•
Community facilities are isolated and have significant issues
•
Public open space is not well connected to the town centre
UNDER
•
The racecourse impacts connectivity and takes up a considerable amount of the catchment
of the town centre and adds very limited economic activity
•
Poor housing stock dominated by ageing social housing
•
Poor connection to the Whau River
•
Community desire for change

INFORMATION
Key Principles
RELEASED

•
Lead with public realm and community investment and create high quality well activated
public space
•
Work together with stakeholders to deliver quality regeneration and bring more residents
into the centre
OFFICIAL
•
Be aspirational for the place, the people and Tāmaki Makaurau
•
Strengthen the viability of the centre

Strategic Outcomes

•
Work strategically with the Crown and other agencies to address  Auckland’s long-term
housing need.

1 Refer Unlock Avondale report – July 2019
12

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11
•
Enabling  our  partner  agencies  to  achieve  the  optimal  urban  regeneration  outcomes
Panuku seeks for Avondale.
•
Enable high quality developments, leading to increased density and a mix of typologies
•
Lead strong urban design and urban regeneration outcomes.
•
Optimise the value and land  uses of current underutilised holdings and other identified
critically strategic sites.
Four Key Moves
Key move one: Enliven the heart of Avondale town centre
Key move two: Create high-quality residential neighbourhoods
Key move three: Strengthen connections with the town centre
Key move four: Foster the growth of local businesses
Avondale  is  located  close  to  the  City  Centre  and  it  has  excellent  public  transport  links.  The
1982
location and connectivity of Avondale along with its average house price, strongly supports its
market attractiveness for a variety of housing typologies, including affordable housing and build
to  rent  options.    The  completion  of  the  City  Rail  Link  will  also  increase  the  popularity  and
ACT
accessibility of the Avondale Town Centre.
Kāinga  Ora  presently  owns  two  large  development-ready  sites  in  the  town  centre  at  s
s 9(2)(a)
9
Panuku presently owns three large development sites: 1817 Great North Road (2,912m2); 18 Elm
(
Street  (9,647m2)  and;  Avondale  Central  (7,447m2).  Panuku  are  also  seeking  to  enable
development on the existing library and community centre site at 93 and 99 Rosebank Road
2
once it is no longer required for that purpose (7,573m2). Panuku is aiming to develop these and
RELEASED UNDER THE
INFORMATION
)
it has an enhanced programme business case approved by their Board.
(
a
)
OFFICIAL
13

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

The current key land ownership map is set out below:

THE  1982
ACT
UNDER

Figure 1: Key landholdings in Avondale Town Centre
Panuku  have  developed  a  high  level  spatial  plan  for  the  Town  Centre,  as  set  out  in  Figure  2
below:

RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL

    Figure 2: Avondale Spatial Plan
14

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

The  spatial  plan  seeks  to  coordinate  public  land  holdings  to  increase  the  residential  housing
supply,  relocate  the  community  facility  and  enhance  connectivity.    Significant  investment  is
underway within the public realm to provide a catalyst for private investment into Avondale.

The  majority  of  the  remaining  land  in  the  Town  Centre  is  held  in  private  ownership  and  is
somewhat fragmented.  We note that Avondale Primary School is located at 1910-1940 Great
North Road, which comprises a large 1.5833-hectare site that is zoned as Town Centre.

In addition, the Avondale Racecourse is located adjacent to the Avondale Town Centre.  While
the current strategic planning for Avondale maintains the site in accordance with the current
status quo (open space), this site is a significant urban landholding comprising approximately 35
hectares of land.  This land features the racecourse, together with a number of stadium  and
horse racing buildings and playing fields that we understand are leased by the Auckland Council.

4.2  Summary of the current Unitary Plan planning framework for Avondale
1982

THE
The current Unlock Avondale plans do not seek to intensify Avondale to a greater extent than
what is currently envisaged through the provisions for the existing Auckland Unitary Plan.
ACT

The Avondale Centre is generally zoned Town Centre Zone, with Mixed Use zone and Terraced
Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zone also surrounding the Town Centre.  Avondale also
UNDER
features an additional height overlay of 32.5 metres in the Town Centre zone and 21 metres and
22.5 metres high in the respective Mixed Use and THAB zones.

RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL

Figure 3: Auckland Unitary Plan Zoning and Height overlay map
15

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

Overall, the current Unitary Plan already provides for a high degree of intensification within the
Avondale Town Centre. The only exception is the Avondale racecourse and this is discussed
further below.

THE 1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
16

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11
5.0   Consideration of the UDB and the Avondale Town Centre
The following section of this report discusses key parts of the UDB and its relevance to Avondale.
5.1
Purpose of the UDB
The proposed UDB features a wider purpose, beyond the current purpose of the RMA and other
key legislation.  Of particular note in the UDB is the acknowledgment that “amenity values may
change”.  This is an important aspect of the Bill in seeking changes to a particular existing urban
area, and the Bill acknowledges that intensification will bring with it changes to expectations
around amenity as urban areas transition to higher density.
In order to give effect to the purpose and principles the SDP, there are a significant number of
steps and consultation obligations that are required to be undertaken in order to give effect to
the UDB.  Given the comprehensive nature of the process that needs to be undertaken to create
1982
an  SDP,  it  is  our  view  that  the  process  will  only  be  attractive  for  large  and  complex
THE
redevelopment sites  that are either under zoned (or miss-zoned), and/or have infrastructure
constraints.
ACT
We note that the government is also currently reviewing its National Policy Statement: Urban
UNDER
Development (“NPS: UD”).  The NPS: UD will be available in late 2022, therefore the UDB will
need  to  suffice  till  then.    This  NPS  will  impose  new  responsibilities  on  Local  and  Regional
Authorities to ensure  that there  is sufficient capacity for housing and business land in urban
areas, to meet the needs of the community and to manage housing affordability.
In  many  instances,  we  would  expect  that  many  of  the  current  district  planning  frameworks
INFORMATION
throughout New Zealand will need to be updated to meet the directives of the NPS: UD.  This
RELEASED
may obviate the need for SDP’s in some cases.
We also note that the RMA reform review that is currently underway could also result in changes
to  the  existing  resource  consenting  process,  particularly  around  notification  and  consent
timeframes.
OFFICIAL
5.2  Consultation obligations of the UDB
The establishment of the SDP would require considerable consultation in the formulation of any
new development plan for the Avondale area.
Significant  consultation  and  community  engagement  has  already  occurred  within  Avondale.
There is a risk of alienating the Avondale community with a new consultation process based on
the UDB.
17

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

In  our  view,  the  real  benefit  would  likely  only  come from  the  incorporation of the  Avondale
Racecourse as a development area.  Any significant change on the land use planning for this site
would  be  able  to  use  the  SDP  provisions  and  the  associated  consultation  required  would  be
suitable for such a development.  Typical consultation for both a Plan Change (RMA) or the SDP
(UDB)  process  would  in  our  view  involve  similar  stakeholders.    The  likely  list  of  typical
stakeholders would include:

  Land owners within the area
  Local Board
  Mana Whenua
  Council and CCO’s
  Government entities i.e. Ministry of Education

In many respects, these requirements cover existing obligations similar to that for a Private Plan
Change including undertaking a cost benefit analysis of the proposed change. The requirement
1982
for an evaluation report under section 32 of the RMA must examine whether the objectives of
THE
the proposed change to the Plan are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the
Act,  and  whether  the  provisions (that  is  the  policies,  rules  and other methods)  are  the  most
ACT
appropriate way of achieving the objectives. When a proposal is notified, an evaluation report
must be made available at the same time, and decision-makers must have particular regard to
it  before  notifying.  If  changes  are  made  to  the  proposal  following  notification,  a  further
UNDER
evaluation must then be made available at the time of the decision and decision-makers must
have particular regard to that further evaluation.  This is essentially the same process for an SDP.

Under the Resource Management Act, there are four processes for developing regional policy
statements, regional plans and district plans:
INFORMATION

The standard "Schedule 1" process;
RELEASED

The limited notification process, which is a variation of the standard Schedule 1 process;

The streamlined process; and

The collaborative process.

OFFICIAL

18

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

The standard RMA Plan Change process is set out below:
THE 1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL

Figure 4: Standard Plan Change Process

The streamlined Plan Change process

Councils may make a request to the Minister to use a streamlined planning process for a
proposed policy statement, plan, plan change or variation. The process must be "proportional to
the issues being addressed" and is intended to provide greater flexibility in planning processes
19

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

and timeframes and allow these to be tailored to specific issues and circumstances. The following
diagram summarises the streamlined process.

THE  1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION

Figure 5: Streamline Plan Change Process
OFFICIAL

The  streamline  process  does  require  the  Council  to  progress  and  promote,  which  clearly
removes key control from Kāinga Ora.

Kensington Swan have undertaken a comparison of Plan Change options for the Eastern Porirua
Regeneration Project. This general review remains relevant and this is set out below:

20

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

THE  1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION

Figure 6: Comparison of SPP and SDP Process (Source Kensington Swan)

Comparison of consultation
OFFICIAL
SPP initial consultation:
SDP initial consultation:
-  Requires  consultation  with  a  set  list  of
-To inform the initial assessment of the SDP a set
stakeholders.4  This  will  allow  an  early
list of stakeholders needs to be consulted. The list
understanding of the issues the community may
is broader than is required for SPP.
raise in submissions;

-  Public  consultation  is  not  mandatory  but  does
-Following initial assessment, public consultation
provide  time  and  process  advantages  if
(open for 20-30 working days) is required on:
conducted  prior  to  the  application  to  the
i The strategic objectives;
Minister.
ii The proposed project and project area; and iii
Nominated project lead;
21

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

This public consultation must be supported by the
assessment  of  the  proposed  development
project, including the concept plan.

We note that the proposed SDP is not just a two dimensional ‘land use’ plan which will regulate
development of land within the SDP.

The  SDP  includes a much wider range of tools beyond a traditional Plan Change  scope.  This
could include an implementation and or funding and infrastructure strategy which describes the
mechanisms that complement the Land Use plan. This can also include the Land Use plan criteria
- Urban design and sustainability outcomes, Centres design and function, street and movement
network, environment and open Space and could introduce Precinct provisions and Assessment
criteria for each.

5.3  Part 3 - Subpart 2 — Resource consent process in respect of a SDP

THE  1982
Resource Consenting Process

ACT
Kāinga Ora would become the consent authority under the Resource Management Act 1991 for
all resource consent applications in the SDP area. We note that Kāinga Ora would not be  the
resource  consent  authority  if  a  regional  council,  the  Minister  for  the  Environment,  or  the
UNDER
Environmental Protection Authority would be the consent authority under the RMA.

The establishment of a new regulatory body would be a significant undertaking for Kāinga Ora.
In addition to resources, there would be the need for the establishment of a significant number
of systems and processes to undertake such a regulatory function. Kāinga Ora must also perform
the functions of monitoring, enforcing, and promoting compliance in a SDP area.
RELEASED
INFORMATION

We note that Kāinga Ora must delegate its powers and functions to a local authority; or 1 or
more hearings commissioners in relation to a resource consent application if it is:

(a) the sole applicant; or
(b) an applicant in a partnership; or
OFFICIAL
(c) is in a significant contractual relationship with an applicant in a project area.

We  note  that  in  the  case  of  Auckland  the  Council’s  “Key  Accounts”  team  could  provide  an
appropriate department to manage such resource consenting requirements on behalf of Kāinga
Ora under the SDP.

Consideration could potentially be given to contracting the wider consenting function out to a
territorial authority, as they already have the resources, and the planning systems to managing
a resource consent process.  This includes the ability to lodge and track resource consents on
22

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

line, and manage workflow through their existing computerised consent tracking system.  The
Council  has  an  existing  administration  and  democracy  services  department  that  can  manage
billing  (consent  cost  recovery),  and  the  setting  of  agendas  for  notified  and  limited  notified
resource consents, and/ or liaison with independent commissioners.

The would be merit in appointing a number of independent commissioners to determine such
applications.   Given  the  scale of  likely  development within  an  SDP,  it  would  be  important  to
ensure that there is a suitable stable of commissioners to provide for efficient decision making
on subsequent resource consent applications.

It is also considered that the current TAG and Urban Design Panels are working well, and these
approaches  could  continue  within  the  SDP  process,  and  incorporated  into  the  Regulatory
consenting  structure.    That  would  have  the  potential  reduce  ‘re-litigation’  of  urban  design
matters.

1982
There is a streamline consenting process proposed by the UDB, but the reality is that meeting
THE
resource consent information requirements will always have a significant bearing in terms of the
ultimate consenting timeframes.
ACT

While there is an opportunity for Kāinga Ora to set up its own department in house and create
the right organisation to establish the right ‘culture’, there will always need to be checks and
UNDER
balances in place and, as with any need for independence in decision making, Kāinga ora can
only  determine  the  final  outcome  to  a  certain  extent,  and  the  requirement  for  the  use  of
commissioners  means that no regulatory process will ever provide  100%  certainty about  the
consenting outcome.  That being said, the decision making process does acknowledge and put
in place a clear mandate for decision makers to have regard to the “the project objectives” in
considering a resource consent for an SDP.  In our view, this would provide additional weight to
RELEASED
INFORMATION
the outcomes sought by the SDP.  The SDP will require governance arrangements and the project
objectives will guide any future amendments to the Development Plan.

Ideally, the UDB would have an overarching section that imposed an obligation on all regulatory
decision makers, regardless of the RMA or SDP process that acknowledges the purpose of the
OFFICIAL
UDB  and  Kāinga  Ora’s  unique  role  as  a  government  entity  tasked  with  delivering  urban
development.  That was a similar approach to the Special Housing Area legislation, which sought
to elevate the needs for affordable housing as a key priority in decision making.

We  also  note  that the  RMA review  is currently underway.   The scope  of the review  includes
looking at the RMA and how it interfaces with the:
  Local Government Act 2002
  Land Transport Management Act 2003
  Climate Change Response Act, to be amended by the Zero Carbon Amendment Bill.
23

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11
The scope of the review includes spatial planning. This review is seeking to make better and more
strategic decisions about resources and infrastructure over longer timeframes.
The  Resource  Management  Review  Panel  released  has  its  Issues  and  options  paper:
Transforming the resource management system: Opportunities for Change – November 2019.
The  review  specifically  notes  that  urban  areas  are  struggling  to  keep  pace  with  population
growth.  “…the RMA has not achieved good outcomes for our urban areas or built environment.
A  shortage  of  housing  in  New  Zealand,  and  the  perception  that  RMA  processes  are  overly
cumbersome and provide insufficient certainty for major infrastructure, has seen a long series of
official inquiries that have identified shortcomings in the performance of the RMA.”
The general timeline for the RMA review is set out below:
THE  1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
Figure 7: RMA Review Timeline
Consideration  of  the  purpose  of  the  UDB  could  be  a  matter  specifically  provided  for  under
section 104 of the RMA as part of a wider consideration on housing delivery.  Like the former
Special  Housing  Area  legislation,  we  consider  that  the  UDB  provides  for  a  hierarchy  of
assessment  matters  that  gives  priority  to  provision  of  affordable  housing  as  part  of  the
24

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

consideration of any resource consent application within and SDP area.  We also see merit in
affording limited appeal rights for developments located within a SDP area.  This could include
restriction  to  appeal  to  third  parties,  for  example  where  a  development  complies  with  the
building heights as set out in the SDP.

As noted above, the UDB does not override the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Rules.
There  are  a  number  of  regional  triggers  under  the  Auckland  Unitary  Plan,  and  there  is  a
reasonable prospect that major developments will trigger a requirement for a regional consent
under the Unitary Plan.

Consenting outcomes for the Avondale Town Centre

It  is  unlikely  that  the  UDB  would  be  required  to  increase  the  development  potential  for  the
existing Avondale Town Centre and its immediate surrounds (excluding the Racecourse land).
Current RMA consenting processes would remain similar to a SDP, and an SDP would not in our
opinion provide a significant advantage over the current planning framework.
1982

THE
In  our  view,  there  would  be  an  advantage  in  utilizing  the  UDP  if  it  was  proposed  to
comprehensively  redevelop  the  Avondale  Racecourse  land  because  the  current  zoning
ACT
framework (Major Recreation Zone) does not provide for the intensification of that site.  The
size and scale of the Avondale Racing would be well suited to a SDP, if that was desired.
UNDER

Generally  speaking,  the  current  Unitary  Plan  is  an  enabling  document  which  puts  in  place  a
framework for landowners to develop their land.  Public entities like Council or Kāinga Ora can
have a role in leading quality outcomes within a development area through the development of
their own landholdings, but at the same time private investment in a development area needs
to be incentivised to encourage investment from the private sector.  Where Kāinga Ora controls
INFORMATION
the land, they have been able to drive quality outcomes through adherence to their own design
RELEASED
quality standards, quite apart from the regulatory framework.

Kāinga  Ora  has  already  adopted  this  approach  historically  though  its  developments  at
Hobsonville Point and its current projects in the Northcote, Mangere and the like. In relation to
land owned by Kāinga Ora (or other government entities) the use of development agreements
OFFICIAL
and urban design review panels (like the Tag Process) provide a useful mechanism for Kāinga
Ora to control the outcomes on its own land, regardless of the regulatory framework.

Overall,  it  is  our  opinion  that  Kāinga  Ora  should  be  the  consenting  authority  in  those
circumstances  where  it  chooses  to  establish  an  SDP,  but  from  a  logistical  and  resourcing
perspective  it  may  seek  to  delegation  the  “administrative”  functions  to  a  local  authority.    It
would however enable Kāinga Ora to control the process and set KPI’s for the achievement of
quality and efficiency objectives of importance to Kāinga Ora.

25

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

We do note that for land within SDP area, Kāinga Ora will be able to veto or amend resource
consent  applications  and  exclude  plan  changes  from  applying  in  a  project  area  before  the
development  plan  is  operative.    Once  the  development  plan  is  operative,  Kāinga  Ora  as  the
consenting  authority  would  have  the  same  role  as  a  territorial  authority  to  determine  the
compliance with the consents of private development within a development area.

A change in the planning framework has the potential to deliver a significant value uplift and
rules can also be adopted to ensure that a quality outcome is achieved.  Whether the role of a
regulator is best achieved by the Council, or by Kāinga Ora would be influenced by a number of
factors.  There is always a subjective element to urban design, and, regardless of the regulatory
entity, the key to achieving quality outcomes is the use of urban design reviews of development
scenarios.

Any value uplift of land that is derived through up zoning can also be coordinated with funding
through rating and development contributions to assist with the funding of key infrastructure.
1982
This would appear to have most relevance in an area such are the Avondale racecourse land,
THE
rather than the existing town centre.

ACT
One potential change could be to provide a mechanism in the UDB is where an independent
Urban Design Panel has signed off on the design of a particular Kāinga Ora development project,
the Council cannot relitigate that issue and must adopt that advice as its own.
UNDER

Notification

It is our understanding that there are no notable changes to the current notification provisions
when using the UDB which largely defers to the RMA.  Note that the current RMA and Unitary
Plan precludes notification in certain instances.  There is however an opportunity for the SDP to
RELEASED
INFORMATION
further control notification as part of the SDP.  Like the current Unitary Plan, this could provide
for a specific activity to take place without the need for the written approval of affected persons.
As an example, within the Unitary Plan THAB zone, notification is specifically excluded in certain
cases:

OFFICIAL
H6.5. Notification
(1) Any application for resource consent for the following activities will be considered without
public or limited notification or the need to obtain the written approval from affected parties
[our emphasis] unless the Council decides that special circumstances exist under section 95A(4)
of the Resource Management Act 1991:
(a) dwellings that comply with all of the standards listed in Table H6.4.1 Activity table;
(b) an integrated residential development that complies with all of the standards listed in Table
H6.4.1 Activity table;
(c) New buildings and additions to buildings which do not comply with H6.6.6 Height in relation
to boundary, but comply with Rule 6.6.7 Alternative height in relation to boundary;
26

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

(d) development which does not comply with H6.6.16 (1a) Front, side and rear
fences and walls; or
(e) development which does not comply with H6.6.17 Minimum dwelling size.

The SDP process should in our view enable such provisions to also be adopted, and perhaps go
further to make it clear that technical infringements like earthworks or transport matters do not
influence the above presumption.

The ability for the  private sector to get  certainty about  the planning process  is an  important
factor for the private sector investment into SDP areas.

For the most part, the majority of resource consents are processed on a non-notified basis under
the current RMA processes. However, any new SDP areas should benefit from the use the UDB
provisions to manage the notification process, once an SDP has been approved.

1982
The differences between the resource consenting under the RMA and SDP are similar, although
THE
there is the potential for Kāinga Ora, in formulating the SDP, to specify more explicitly those
applications or activities that do not need to be publicly or limited notified.  This would greatly
ACT
assist with providing certainty to both Kāinga Ora, landowners and development partners.  There
are also requirements for faster processing of controlled and restricted discretionary activities,
which should enable a slightly faster turnaround of consenting.
UNDER

5.4  Part 3 - Subpart 2—Designations

Kāinga  Ora  is  to  be  treated  as  being  approved  as  a  network  utility  operator  and  a  requiring
authority under section 167 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

RELEASED
INFORMATION
We  understand  that  the  designation  process  was  informally  considered  for  development  of
areas in Avondale (such as Avondale Racing), however this process would result in an obligation
to purchase the subject land.

The use of the designation process for the comprehensive urban development of a subject site
OFFICIAL
is not possible under the UDB as the functions are limited to activities that—

(i) distribute water for supply, including irrigation; or
(ii) operate a drainage or sewerage system; or
(iii) construct or operate a road or a railway line

Overall, it is useful that Kāinga Ora is a network utility operator and a requiring authority, and
this should be supported.

27

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

5.5  Part 5 - Part 3 - Subpart 2 - Reserves

The current process for dealing with reserves is time consuming and cumbersome.   The UDB
could also incorporate an ‘automatic’ zoning change as part of the same process. i.e. if acquiring
reserve land then the zone alters to the adjacent land zone.  This process could be made more
efficient outside the SDP process.

5.6  Part 3 – Subpart 4 - Infrastructure

Under the UDB Kāinga Ora will have roading powers in relation to all roads in a project area
(other than roads under the control of the New Zealand Transport Agency).

No  significant  roading  or  infrastructure  is  currently  proposed  for  the  Avondale  Town  Centre,
which generally seeks to utilize the existing roading network, and enable connections through
existing land holdings.
1982

THE
In the context of the existing Avondale Town Centre, there is unlikely to be sufficient advantages
to warrant an SDP for this aspect.
ACT

However, in our opinion, there could be a significant advantage if Kāinga Ora chose to redevelop
a site like the Avondale Racecourse.  This would enable Kāinga Ora to operate as its own roading
UNDER
authority.  It could define its own preferred roading typologies that are more aligned with urban
design outcomes  preferred by  Kāinga Ora and which  are  not  currently  favoured by Auckland
Transport.

This  could  include  the  introduction  of  narrower  streets  or  shared  roads  and  enhanced
environmental  features  such  are  rain  gardens  and  higher  quality  landscaping.    There  are
RELEASED
INFORMATION
potentially likely to be additional costs associated with such infrastructure, however, these costs
could be met through targeted rating for the SDP area to recover the costs of delivering a higher
quality urban environment.

There  would  be  some  benefit  to  Kāinga  Ora  if  it  were  able  to  reduce  the  current  standards
OFFICIAL
required  by  Auckland  Transport  but  presently  Kāinga  Ora  needs  to  go  through  the  full  SDP
process in order to obtain this advantage of this part of the UDB.

Road stopping is an example of a process that could be undertaken without an SDP, with TLA
support and in order to achieve a faster process.

28

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

5.7  Part 4 - Funding of specified development projects

The UDB provides Kāinga Ora with a range of powers to fund development activities that are
carried out to achieve project objectives. This includes the power to—

  set targeted rates;
  require development contributions;
  require betterment payments;
  fix infrastructure and service charges.

The UDB provides Kāinga Ora with the ability to seek additional funding for a project area.  For
new  or  upgraded  urban  areas  that  provides  an  opportunity  to  provide  for  enhanced
infrastructure and amenities and to potentially recover these additional costs through a targeted
rate, or contribution.

There are likely to be additional costs associated with enhanced infrastructure, however, these
1982
costs could be met through targeted rating or contributions for an area to recover the costs of
THE
a delivering a higher quality urban environment.  Obviously there would need to be balance in
managing longer term affordability and cost issues, but we consider this to be a strong aspect of
ACT
the UDB.

UNDER
In our view, the redevelopment of an area of the scale such as the Avondale Racecourse would
lend itself strongly to the provision of  additional funding arrangements.  The would be a key
element on supporting the outcomes of the SDP and would form an important aspect of the
overall toolkit for implementation.

We  have  assumed  that  Kāinga  Ora  would  have  the  ability  to  seek  loans  to  fund  capital
INFORMATION
investment and there could be benefits in funding larger scale infrastructure projects associated
RELEASED
with a SDP with longer term funding or bonds that are recovered over a longer timeframe from
the future home owners.

5.8  Part 5 - General Land acquisition

OFFICIAL
Kāinga Ora will have extensive powers to compulsorily acquire land, but these powers will be
available regardless of the ability to provide a SDP.

We understand that Kāinga Ora will have much wider land acquisition powers:

i.
It will be able to apply to the Minister for Land Information to have land or an interest in
land (except for sensitive Māori land) taken by compulsory acquisition under Part 2 of the
PWA for one or more ‘specified works’, without demonstrating that the work also meets
the definition of ‘public work’ in the PWA;
29

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

ii.
It  will  be  able  to  do this  at  any  time, whether or  not  a  development  project  has  been
established and whether or not the relevant land is within a project area;
iii.
It will be able to do this with the intention of transferring that land or interest in land to
another person or entity for a specified work;
iv.
The land will vest in Kāinga Ora instead of the Crown. Kāinga Ora will be able to hold land
or interest in land in its own name without having to hold it for a particular public work;

We  note  that  Panuku  have  already  commenced  acquisition  of  land  in  Avondale  through  the
public works act.  This section of the UDB is a key tool to assist in the acquisition of key land
holdings and it is noted that Kāinga Ora does not need to prepare a SDP to utilise these powers.
Key land holdings in Avondale are already controlled by Kāinga Ora or Panuku.  Regardless of
any  decision  to adopt  an SDP  process,  this  section of  the  UDB  provides  Kāinga  Ora  with  the
power to acquire land, if required.

In a wider context there would be significant advantages to Kāinga Ora if it were able to efficient
1982
acquire strategic land holdings that would enable Kāinga Ora to complete development areas,
THE
regardless of whether they fall within an SDP area.  Historically, we understand that there has
been a number of instances where the acquisition of small pockets of private land would greatly
ACT
assist in providing a more cogent development area, such as suburbs like Glen Innes, where the
ability to acquire the “missing teeth” that will unlock the wider development potential of the
land could be highly attractive.
UNDER

This is a key tool for Kāinga Ora in this instance and should be strongly supported as a standalone
provision, as currently proposed.

One of the historic challenges for redevelopment has been the access to adjacent private land
for right of entry for drainage services.   The current provisions under the Local Government Act
RELEASED
INFORMATION
are slow and cumbersome. It would be highly advantageous to Kāinga Ora  if it had power of
entry  to  private  land  and  to  connect  its  infrastructure  to  existing  public  services  located  on
adjacent  private  land.    This  would  be  a  key  tool  in  unlocking  Kāinga  Ora  land  regardless  of
whether it decide to purchase the adjacent sites.

OFFICIAL
We note that these acquisition powers can be used for the purpose of acquiring land in future
development areas prior to any uplift in land values following an urban development project’s
announcement.  This would be a significant advantage with a site like the Avondale Racecourse.

30

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

5.9  Response to Key Questions

In the table below, we respond to the key questions that were put us in comparing the RMA and
SDP  processes  for  Avondale.    This  comparison  assumes  we  had  not  already  undertaken
consultation (which has already occurred).

Questions
Our response (for Avondale Town Centre)
a)  How
would
the
Issue/Power
Better Worse Same
Comments
proposed  Bill  be  better
Iwi Consultation
Same
Generally,  the  process  would  be  the  same,
or  worse  (noting  where
noting that consultation has already occurred
for each area of the Bill,
for
the
ATC.
Additional
consultation
e.g.  iwi,  consultation,
timeframes,
planning,
requirements  likely  to  delay  masterplan
land
acquisition,
delivery.
infrastructure, funding)?
Consultation
Same
Generally,  the  process  would  be  the  same,

noting that consultation has already occurred
for
the
ATC.
Additional
consultation
requirements  likely  to  delay  masterplan
delivery.
Timeframes
Same
Generally,  the  process  would  be  the  same,
1982
noting  that  significant  strategic  planning  has
THE
already  occurred  for  the  ATC.  Additional
requirements  likely  to  delay  masterplan
delivery.
ACT
Planning
Same
Unitary  Plan  already  provides  for  High
Intensity development in the ATC
Land acquisition
Better
Wider  powers  to  acquire  land,  but  not
UNDER
contingent on an SDP process.
Infrastructure
Better
Ability  to  manage  infrastructure  and  roading
design  enhanced,  but  not  an  apparent
significant issue for ATC
Funding
Better
Ability  to  increase  funding,  but  still  requires
market  uptake.    Funding  has  been  allocated
for the Multi-Purpose Community Facility and
land  acquisitions.  Infrastructure  and  design
INFORMATION
constraints  should  be  able  to  be  discovered,
RELEASED
proved and allocated.
Questions
Our response (for Racecourse)

Issue/Power
Better Worse Same
Comments
a)  How
would
the
Iwi Consultation
Same
Redevelopment  of  the  Avondale  Racecourse
proposed  Bill  be  better
would trigger consultation but, this would be
or  worse  (noting  where
required  regardless  if  the  land  were  to  be
for each area of the Bill,
developed  under  the  UDP  or  though  the
OFFICIAL
e.g.  iwi,  consultation,
timeframes,
planning,
normal RMA consenting regime.
land
acquisition,
infrastructure, funding)?

Consultation
Better
Redevelopment  of  the  Avondale  Racecourse
would trigger consultation but, this would be
required regardless if wither the land were to
be  developed  under  the  UDP  or  though  the
normal RMA consenting regime. There will be
an  enhanced  toolkit  in  consulting  with  Iwi,
which  could  provide  for  more  meaningful
consultation.
31

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

Timeframes
Better
The timeframes for a UDP would in  our view
be  more  efficient  than  with  a  typical  Plan
Change process.

Planning
Better
The SDP process would provide an opportunity
to up zone the Racecourse land.  The process
is similar to a plan change but the overarching
purpose of the SDP would give greater weight
to the desire outcomes for the site.

Land acquisition
Better
Wider  powers  to  acquire  land,  but  not
contingent on an SDP process.
b)
Infrastructure
Better
Ability  to  manage  infrastructure  and  roading
design enhanced.
c)

Funding
Better
Ability  to  increase  funding  particularly
associated with planning betterment and new
infrastructure
b) Identify anything that
This will depend on the particular area.  There are no strong advantages for the existing town
stands out as an area that
Avondale Town Centre in using the SDP process, but if the Avondale Racecourse were acquired
could assist Kāinga Ora in
for redevelopment, the planning transport, infrastructure, reserves and funding processes would
this new process, (Iwi
provide strong collective benefits to the redevelopment of this area.
Interests, heritage,
transport, reserves etc. need
to be factored in)
1982

THE
c) Ensure that Kāinga Ora are
Aspects have been discussed throughout this report.
commenting on areas of the
Bill that assist with
ACT
operationalizing the delivery.

d) How can Kāinga Ora get
The incorporation of land within an SDP may provide Kāinga Ora with greater certainty, although
UNDER
certainty over an outcome
the effectiveness of the any outcome will be informed by the quality of the planning provisions
for a project (when you do
that are adopted for an SDP.  It will however provide Kāinga Ora with a greater role to determine
not own or do not wish to
these outcomes, both as a land owner, and a regulatory body.
own all the land)?

e) How can Kāinga Ora best
There  could be  an  element  of  carrot  and stick  in working  with other  agencies.   The  UDB  puts
ensure that all public
Kāinga  Ora  in the  position to  potentially  ‘override’  the  Council’s current  processes  or  policies.
agencies working on a
That may well provide the ability to better negotiate outcomes outside of the SDP process.
shared process and shared

timing? Covering roads,
RELEASED
INFORMATION
schools, parks, reserves?
It will also provide Kāinga Ora with the ability to provide leadership on urban land redevelopment
to  provide  exemplar  developments  that  are  innovative  in  terms  of  their  delivery.    Such  an
outcome could well lead to pressure for the current territorial authority to fall into line with the
approach adopted by Kāinga ora.

f) How to get the
One of the significant benefits of the UDB is the proposed funding arrangements and these should
change/uplift in value
be  strongly  supported,  and  it  is  critical  that  such  funding  is  aligned  with  the  planning  and
captured and shared across
infrastructure  powers  that  are  enabled  by  the  UDB.    These  essentially  need  to  work  as  an
OFFICIAL
appropriate parties? and
integrated package in order to deliver a quality urban environment.

g) Identify aspects of the Bill
As  noted  above,  the  current  provisions  under  the  Local  Government  Act  are  slow  and
that could be disaggregated
cumbersome. It would be highly advantageous to Kāinga Ora if it had power of entry to private
from the Standard SDP
land and to connect its infrastructure to existing public services located on adjacent private land.
process to assist with other
This would be a key tool in unlocking Kāinga Ora land regardless of whether it decide to purchase
smaller development areas.
Kāinga Ora will provide
the adjacent sites.
comment on the SDP “lite”

concept, recently explored,
The current process for dealing with reserves is time consuming and cumbersome.  It is envisaged
which was not accepted into
that this power would be exercised with Council approval. Could also incorporate an ‘automatic’
the draft bill.
zoning change as part of the same process. i.e. if acquiring reserve land then the zone alters to
the adjacent land zone. This process could be made more efficient outside the SDP process.

32

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

In our view, the current Avondale Town Centre is unlikely to derive any great benefit from the
establishment of an SDP within the existing Centre.  The planning framework and development
pattern is largely set out and sufficient strategic planning as already underway to deliver the
outcomes that are presently being sought by Panuku and the associated crown entities.

We  do  however  consider  that  there  would  be  a  number  of  potentially  significant  benefits  in
adopting the SDP process if the development of the Avondale Racecourse were contemplated.
The current zoning and the site and location of the site are such that the substantial effort to
develop an SDP would in our view be justified.  In that scenario, we would envisage that an SDP
would cover both the Racecourse and the Town Centre to facilitate the integrated planning of
the centre as a whole.

We could see a scenario whereby if Kāinga Ora were able to acquire the Avondale Racecourse
at  its  present  market value,  the  resulting “up  zoning”  of  the  land  could  release  considerable
value to this land, which would be used to advance a high quality urban development.  The site
1982
has the potential to deliver a significant increase on housing within an attractive brownfields
THE
location.

ACT
Kāinga Ora would have the ability to control the funding arrangements for the land.  This could
deliver a similar housing model as was developed at Hobsonville Point, with Kāinga Ora adopting
the role a lead master planner and land developer.
UNDER

A summary of key points of difference between the SDP and current powers is set out below:

Power
SDP
Current Situation
Change regulations to enable
Ability provide for more
Through a Private Plan Change, the
intensification
specific/prescriptive urban
normal RMA processes apply.
INFORMATION
development outcomes and create
RELEASED
a future consenting framework that
streamlines resource consenting
and provides certainty to the
development sector.
Streamlining the resource
Ability to streamline some
Normal RMA provisions apply.
consent process
consenting and reduce notification
risks (See below)
OFFICIAL
Compulsory land acquisition
Once acquired, land can be
Can use the PWA to acquire land for
transferred to a private developer.
‘urban renewal’ under LGA 1974 &
Removes offer-back obligations
2002 but not for commercial projects
(except Māori land), require Crown

entities in the project area to
contribute surplus land, and
assemble and hold land without
this being for a particular public
work).
Exchanging or revoking suitable
Can make changes to government
If it’s a Council recreation reserve can
types of reserve land
purpose, scenic, historic, recreation
review under Reserves Act but tends

and local purpose reserves.
to run as a separate process.

33

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

Stopping, re-aligning, designating
Kāinga ora will be a road
Local road controlling authority and
and creating roads and other
controlling authority and can build,
requiring authority powers.
transport routes.
change or remove transport

infrastructure, power to
commission and construct public
transport facilities and ancillary
infrastructure). Still need to work
with Council’s
Designating, altering and
Kāinga Ora can build, change or
Requiring authority powers for local
constructing infrastructure (and
remove infrastructure (except
government work does not currently
make, suspend or
nationally significant), require
apply to Kāinga Ora.

network utility operators to install

or
alter existing network utility
assets).
Vesting infrastructure in local
Ability for Kāinga Ora to influence
This occurs at present nut must be in
councils or other appropriate
engineering design standards.
line with ATCOP or similar engineering
receiving organisations at the
standards of the Council.
completion of development
projects.
Independently funding and
Kāinga Ora can set development
Council sets development
1982
incentivising urban development
contributions, betterment
contributions and through rating
THE
payments or connection payments
frameworks.
to align budget and costing with

desired urban outcomes.
ACT

In terms of the RMA consenting timeframes, the following table prepared by Kensington Swan is
UNDER
useful:
RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL

34

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Community
7 February 2020
Case study review of Avondale and the Urban Development Bill
0138HOB11

6.0   Conclusion

The UDB powers will assist Kāinga Ora to advance large major projects more rapidly as it will
help coordinate the different aspects of urban development, particularly for large 'brownfields'
development where more complex issues commonly arise.

The powers that Kāinga Ora have in relation to any UDP, and especially in relation to SDPs, will
make it more powerful than any agency that has preceded it.  The powers that Kāinga Ora will
acquire  are  currently  held  separately  by  a  range  of  agencies  and  the  UDB  and  SDP  process
enables those powers to be accessed through a single, more streamlined process.  The strength
of the UDP is the sum of all its parts, and it will be important to ensure that all these tools are
carried through to the eventual Act and they are not watered down.

In our view, if Kāinga Ora the acquired the Avondale Race Course land (or partnered with the
land owner) it will be in an advantageous position to control the value uplift of the land through
1982
up zoning which could then be captured by way of the sale of super lots.
THE

Once  an  SDP  has  been  adopted,  Kāinga Ora  and  its partners will  have  access to  a  tool-kit  of
ACT
powers.  The SDP process will ensure these powers are used for a project in a co-ordinated way,
in line with the project objectives, so that complex development can occur.
UNDER

Based on our review, the SDP process is unlikely to be warranted for the development of the
existing Avondale Town Centre given the advanced planning that is already underway.

In our view, the Avondale Racecourse site (or such similar sites) represents an ideal site that
would  be  suitable  for  an  SDP  process,  and  we  consider  that  there  would  be  a  number  of
INFORMATION
potentially significant benefits in adopting the SDP process if the development of the Avondale
RELEASED
Racecourse were contemplated, including the significant supply of high quality urban land in a
high accessible location, with the ability to plan and fund infrastructure to a standard that has
the potential to deliver an exemplar urban environment.

OFFICIAL

35

THE 1982
ACT
UNDER
RELEASED
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
Campbell Brown Planning Limited
Level 1, 56 Brown Street, Ponsonby | PO Box 147001, Auckland 1144
Ph 09 378 4936 | [email address] | www.campbellbrown.co.nz