needed for you to issue the direction under the Streamlined
Planning Process for its plan change.
out of scope
11.
Agree to meet the Mayor of Auckland to communicate these
Agree/Disagree
decisions and note that officials will provide talking points to
support this meeting.
12.
Agree to send a letter to the Mayor of Auckland to
Agree/Disagree
communicate your decisions, and note that officials will provide
a letter once you have made your decisions.
3
classification
Natasha Tod
Stephanie Gard’ner
Director Auckland,
Manager, Urban Policy
Ministry of Housing and
Ministry for the
Urban Development
Environment
..... / ...... / ......
..... / ...... / ......
Hon Chris Bishop
Minister of Housing,
Minister Responsible for
RMA reform, Minister of
Transport
..... / ...... / ......
4
classification
Purpose
1.
This briefing provides you with advice on maximising the impact of the CRL, including
advice on what could be included in RM Bill 2 to maximise development potential at
rapid transit stations and in particular CRL stations.
Key Points
2.
Central government (along with Council) has made significant investment in the CRL
and seeks to maximise the benefits of this infrastructure. There are a range of choices
of how central government could play a role in enabling and facilitating a greater
volume of development and mix of uses around the CRL stations and rapid transit
stations.
3.
You have made decisions to provide for Council to withdraw Plan Change 78 (PC78)
and notify a replacement plan change before the local body elections this year. This
plan change will be required to include at least equivalent capacity as that enabled
through PC78 and to implement the remaining intensification policies of the NPS-UD
(decisions on city centre zoning to are due by 30 May 2025). These changes will be
progressed through the Departmental Report on RM Bill 2. You have asked for further
advice on what could be directed for Council’s replacement plan change in RM Bill 2 in
relation to CRL stations and whether Council’s replacement plan change could have
immediate legal effect.
4.
This briefing seeks urgent decisions by or on Monday 31 March in relation to any
additional legislative requirements to be reflected in the Departmental Report, which
must be provided to the Environment Committee on 3 April 2025.
Changes to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other Systems Changes)
Amendment Bill
5.
Our first best advice is to work with Council to address planning constraints and
achieve greater densities around stations benefiting from the CRL as part of the
replacement for PC78 rather than add additional requirements into the legislation.
6.
However, if you did want to progress legislative or more directive options, we
recommend this takes the form of:
a.
Specifying in RM Bill 2 a requirement that Council should enable heights and
densities commensurate with the greater of likely future demand for housing
and business use or accessibility to business and services in the walkable
catchments of the Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside stations (subject
to any qualifying matters) in its plan change. Because there is very high
demand for housing and business use around these stations, we expect this to
be higher than the 6-storey minimum requirement in the NPS-UD.
b.
Using your Statement of Expectations to Council under the Streamlined
Planning Process for its replacement plan change to reinforce the requirement
5
classification
that heights and densities in the walkable catchments of the Maungawhau,
Kingsland and Morningside stations are only restricted to the extent necessary
to accommodate one or more of the qualifying matters in the NPS-UD.
7.
out of scope
8.
9.
10.
Set up a joint work programme with Council and review options for Maungawhau
11.
To enable further development at CRL and rapid transit stations, we recommend a
work programme be set up in conjunction with Council (e.g. to align infrastructure and
land use planning, aligning investment decisions). This is most likely to result in
reaching mutually agreed outcomes (with ‘buy in’) and thus more likely to create a
stable, enduring solution that provides investment certainty for the market, as well as
help strengthen the central government and local government relationship that will be
needed in the new system.
12.
On top of working with Council on its plan changes to maximise development,
out of scope
However, we note that transit-oriented developments (TODs)
are complex; central government can direct under legislation to enable development
but will rely heavily on collaboration with the private sector to deliver the desired mix of
development and uses. Successful TODs have typically required partnerships
between central government, local government and private sector.
6
classification
out of scope
7
classification
Background
16.
On 20 February 2025 you requested advice on opportunities to maximise the impact of
the CRL project, including opportunities to create Transit Oriented Developments. The
Government has invested heavily in the CRL project and its potential housing and
urban development benefits are nationally significant1.
out of scope
20.
Planning barriers for development across the relevant areas include zoning (including
height limits) and qualifying matters, of which special character, historic heritage
out of scope
8
classification
areas, and volcanic viewshafts have significant impacts. Viewshafts affect
development capacity to varying degrees in the catchments of Waitematā, Te
Waihorotiu, Karanga-a-Hape, Maungawhau, and Mount Albert stations. Annex A
attaches operative or planned zoning (where available) around all Western line
stations.
21.
Council’s PC78 provided for zoning changes that would enable significantly more
development around city centre and most Western line stations.
22.
You have recently agreed to enable Auckland to withdraw PC78 with an obligation to
notify a new plan change (BRF-5936 HUD2025-006557 refers). out of scope
23.
out of scope
24.
You recently agreed that the plan change which replaces the rest of PC78 should be
required to give effect to the intensification policies of the NPS-UD 2020 (BRF-5936,
HUD2025-006557). This would mean upzoning to at least six storeys around all of the
rail stations.
25.
The Maungawhau, Kingsland, and Morningside stations fall within the Auckland Light
Rail corridor and so were not included in PC78. There is very significant development
capacity that could potentially be unlocked if planning restrictions are reduced around
these stations. The Maungawhau catchment is significantly affected by special
character and volcanic viewshafts. Kingsland, and to a lesser extent Morningside, are
significantly affected by special character overlays.
And there are barriers to mixed use development
26.
There are also planning restrictions on the amount of commercial or mixed-use
development that is planned or enabled around stations. Mixed use development is
important to support economic growth in local areas, attract investment, and support
9
classification
vibrant neighbourhoods. While the walkable catchments around the three city centre
stations permit mixed use development, the walkable catchments of other stations
have varying levels of residential zoning in which commercial activities are restricted.
Options for reducing constraints and maximising the value of land
In the short--term there is an option to address constraints via Council’s new plan change
27.
There are opportunities to work with Council to address planning restrictions around
CRL and other stations benefitting from the CRL project as part of its replacement plan
change. We expect the plan change could address underlying zoning constraints
around stations and potentially limit the impact of some qualifying matters, including
potential changes to some of the viewshafts affecting Maungawhau station.
28.
You have asked for advice on options to direct Council to upzone around CRL stations
as part of RM Bill 2. We have considered a range of options to address the planning
constraints (see Annex B). Our first best advice is to work with Council to address
planning constraints and achieve greater densities around stations benefiting from the
CRL as part of the replacement for PC78. However, we are aware that you may want
to proceed with a legislative or directive intervention. If so, you could proceed with a
two-pronged approach as set out below:
29.
Heights and densities: Specify a requirement in RM Bill 2 that Council’s replacement
plan must enable heights and densities commensurate with the greater of likely future
demand for housing and business use or accessibility to business and services in the
walkable catchments of the Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside stations
(subject to any qualifying matters) in its plan change. We recommend prioritising these
stations on the basis of the strong benefits of development in these areas with good
access and proximity to the city centre, and the extensive planning restrictions around
these stations (shown in Annex A). We don’t recommend specifying the exact building
heights in the legislation as the risks of unintended consequences are high. These
include risks to timeframes for notifying the plan change, and the risk of getting the
number wrong because we have no ability to test it through a consultation process.
30.
A requirement to enable heights commensurate with the greater of demand or
accessibility will require the council to undertake an assessment of future demand,
and we think this is appropriate to do to maximise development capacity. Demand for
housing and business use will be high at all of these stations so we expect this will
require the council to enable heights and densities above the minimum 6 storey
requirement in the NPS-UD.
31.
out of scope
10
classification
out of scope
32.
Qualifying matters: Enabling greater densities around these stations through zoning
changes will be a good first step. However, as noted above, these walkable
catchments have qualifying matters that apply, and there is an opportunity for the
replacement plan change to modify these constraints where appropriate to reduce
their impact.
33.
You could set an expectation that the council does this via your Statement of
Expectations to Council under the Streamlined Planning Process. This could reinforce
the requirement in the NPS-UD that heights and densities are only being restricted in
the walkable catchments of the Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside stations to
the extent necessary to accommodate one or more of the qualifying matters. We
suggest that this is included in your Statement of Expectations rather than in
legislation because it is an existing requirement under Policy 4 of the NPS-UD, so the
focus should be on reinforcing this. You can make a formal decision on the content of
your Statement of Expectations when you set the direction to the Council.
34.
out of scope
35.
36.
37.
11
classification
out of scope
We also need to work through any other infrastructure constraints
40.
Infrastructure capacity and geological constraints within the walkable catchments are
important considerations. Stations closer to the city centre (such as Karanga-a-Hape,
Maungawhau, Kingsland, and Morningside) have high existing amenity values and can
access existing infrastructure networks, supporting their development potential. These
areas will also benefit from completion of Watercare’s Central Interceptor project3.
However, localised infrastructure constraints may also prove to be a barrier to
increased development density, at least in the short to medium term. For example,
advice to Eke Panuku has identified that infrastructure upgrades (such as to the water
supply and wastewater networks) are required within the wider Maungawhau station
catchment to enable the current development plans. Overall, we would expect that
further upgrades to local infrastructure within other walkable catchments will be
required. The timing, scope and funding of any additional local infrastructure upgrades
will need to be ascertained. This can be built into a work programme with Council.
3 The Central Interceptor is New Zealand’s largest wastewater project and will reduce wastewater overflows in central
Auckland, improving the health of local waterways. The 16.2 kilometre tunnel runs from Point Erin in Herne Bay to
Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plant and is accompanied by two smaller sewer tunnels. Project completion is
expected in 2026, at a cost of $1.668 billion.
12
classification
out of scope
Risks
50.
Council will need to move quickly to draft and vote to notify a replacement plan change
before local government elections later this year. If requirements of this plan change
are complex or numerous, this will be more difficult. There are also risks associated
with including requirements for the plan change to upzone around particular stations in
RM Bill 2 without the opportunity for select committee submissions on these
requirements. Time to progress policy advice on what to include in relation to the CRL
in RM Bill 2 has been highly truncated and officials may not have been able to
consider all of the relevant issues.
51.
While we discussed high level options with officers from Council, the Council has not
had a formal opportunity to respond to the proposal for what is included in legislation.
9(2)(g)(i)
14
classification
19
classification
20
classification
21
classification
22
classification
