BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991 and the Local
Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act
2010
AND
IN THE MATTER of Topics:
059 Residential objectives
and policies;
060 Residential activities;
062 Residential development
controls; and
063 Residential controls and
assessment
AND
IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further
submissions set out in the
Parties and Issues Report

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF NICHOLAS JON ROBERTS

ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
PLANNING RESIDENTIAL TOPICS
6 OCTOBER 2015

2
CONTENTS
1.

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

2.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4

3.

SCOPE............................................................................................................ 5

4.

ZONING STRATEGY, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ................................... 7

5.

METHODS FOR MANAGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................. 15

6.

METHODS FOR MANAGING ACTIVITIES .................................................. 44

7.

OTHER MATTERS ....................................................................................... 49

ATTACHMENT A: MARKED UP AMENDMENTS

ATTACHMENT B: MEMO FROM AUCKLAND COUNCIL GEOSPATIAL TEAM
ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL ZONE HEIGHT CONTROL MAPS
ATTACHMENT D: CITY CENTRE AND TAKAPUNA FRINGE HEIGHT
CONTROLS

1.

SUMMARY

1.1

My name is Nicholas Roberts, and I am providing this Evidence in

Rebuttal (EIR) in response to matters raised in the evidence for a number
of submitters on the Residential provisions for the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan (PAUP).

1.2

Having reviewed that evidence, I consider that the following minor

amendments to the marked up version of the Residential provisions in
Attachment 2 to my Evidence in Chief (EIC) would more appropriately
meet the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and
give effect to the objectives of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS):
(a)

Amendment to Policy 1 of the Single House zone to further

clarify where growth should be limited;

(b)

Amendment to General Policy 6 to better enable non-residential

activities;

(c)

An additional statement in the introduction to the General

objectives and policies to recognise the role that specialist
residential activities play in contributing to housing supply for
those with particular housing needs;

(d)

An amendment to General Objective 2a to remove reverse

sensitivity as a term, and better recognise the potential adverse
amenity effects resulting from urban intensification in areas of
existing incompatible land uses;

(e)

Amendment to the density rule for Mixed Housing Suburban

zone so that it applies to site area, rather than net site area;

(f)

Reduction in the minimum lot size in the Rural and Coastal

Settlement Zone from 3,000sqm to 2,500sqm;

(g)

Application of the Additional Zone Height Control to identified

sites at Stonefields, and at 1 Domain Crescent, Parnell;

(h)

Reinstatement of the Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary

control in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone (as in the PAUP);

(i)

Provision of an alternative, more generous height in relation to

boundary control as an option in the Terraced Housing and

4
Apartment Zone subject to a non-notified restricted discretionary
activity assessment;
(j)

Amendments to the assessment criteria for infringements to the

building coverage and landscaping controls to provide further
guidance as to when infringements would be appropriate
(including the design and location of proposed landscape
areas);

(k)

Amendment to the definition of Landscaped area to enable

paths up to 1.5m in width to be included (previously 1.0m only);

(l)

Amendments to the wording of the Daylight control to improve

clarity;

(m)

Deletion of clause 2 of the Water and Wastewater control as it is

not a direct resource management issue;

(n)

Providing for Education and Tertiary Education facilities in the

Large Lot zone as a discretionary activity (previously noncomplying);

(o)

Providing for Care Centres and Community Facilities on sites

designated by the Minister of Education as a permitted activity
subject to conditions; and

(p)

Providing for offices in identified City Centre and Takapuna

Centre fringe areas as a permitted activity subject to conditions.

2.

INTRODUCTION

2.1

My full name is Nicholas Jon Roberts. I am a planner engaged by the

Auckland Council (Council) to respond to submissions received on the
notified PAUP and to provide planning evidence in relation to Topics 059
Residential objectives and policies, 060 Residential activities, 062
Residential development controls, and 063 Residential controls and
assessment (the Residential Topics). I have the qualifications and
experience set out in my EIC dated 9 September 2015.
Code of Conduct

2.2

I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and
that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the
material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the
opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of

5
expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of
another person.
3.

SCOPE

3.1

In preparing this EIR, I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of

submitters on the Residential Topics. This EIR addresses various issues
raised in that evidence.

3.2

In my EIC on the Residential Topics I grouped submissions into three key

parts or themes: zoning strategy, objectives and policies; methods to
manage residential development; and methods to manage activities. This
rebuttal statement will adopt a similar approach to enable ease of crossreferencing to my EIC.

3.3

The sub-groups or "themes" that will be addressed in this rebuttal

evidence include the following:
Zoning strategy, objectives and policies
Zone-specific issues
(a)

Single House zone

(b)

Mixed Housing zones

(c)

THAB zone

Other matters
(d)

Additional zones

(e)

Non-residential activities

(f)

Specialist residential activities

(g)

Safety

(h)

Historic heritage, character and amenity

(i)

Incompatible land uses

Methods for managing residential development

Density and associated controls
(j)

Density control

(k)

Minimum lot size Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

6
(l)

Minimum lot size Single House zone

(m)

Minor units

Development controls
(n)

General

(o)

Height

(p)

Height in relation to boundary and building setbacks

(q)

Building coverage and landscaping

(r)

Impervious area

(s)

Outdoor living

(t)

Outlook and daylight

(u)

Minimum dwelling size

(v)

Water and wastewater

Design assessment
(w)

Design assessment criteria

(x)

Competitive design process

Methods for managing activities

(y)

Early Childhood Centres

(z)

Fire Stations

(aa)

Tertiary Education and Education facilities

(bb)

Offices

(cc)

Activity status near industrial zones

(dd)

Activity status near Golf Clubs

Other matters

3.4

(ee)

ACDC Model

(ff)

Site or area specific requests

(gg)

Infrastructure related terminology

(hh)

Mediation process

Except where otherwise stated in this rebuttal evidence, my position on

the Residential provisions remains as stated in my EIC.

The further

amendments to those PAUP provisions that I propose in this EIR are

included in Attachment A.

4.

ZONING STRATEGY, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Single House zone

4.1

The following statements of evidence raise concern regarding the

approach taken to the Single House zone in terms of the overall zoning
strategy and the zone objectives and policies:
(a)

Dick Hudig: Opposes the changes for natural justice reasons;

and considers that the zone should apply at Herne Bay due to
character and infrastructure reasons;

(b)

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc): Raises concerns

around the revised approach to the Single House zone from
environmental, development and natural justice perspectives. If
this approach is to be adopted, then high amenity values should
be included in the list of where growth should be limited1;

(c)

Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): Suggests amendments

to the Single House zone objectives and policies to further
clarify where it should apply2;

(d)

David Hermans (for Ministry of Business Innovation and

Employment): Suggests amendments to the Single House zone
objectives and policies to further clarify where it should apply3;

(e)

Maureen Forrester for Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers

Association Inc: Oppose changes to the SHZ objectives and
policies from the PAUP4;

(f)

Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland

2040): The SHZ objectives and policies should be amended to
include special character in addition to heritage5.

4.2

I understand that matters of legal scope will be addressed by the Council

through legal submissions. The spatial extent of the Single House zone
(SH zone) and Mixed Housing Suburban zone (MHS zone) is also a

1
2
3
4
5

Paragraphs 62 70 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040 Ltd.

Paragraph 13.9 of Ian Craigs evidence for Fletcher Residential Ltd.
Paragraph 8.10 of David Hermans evidence for MBIE.
Page 4 of Maureen Forresters evidence for Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers
Association Inc.
Paragraphs 6.1 6.4 of Brian Putts evidence for Herne Bay Residents Association &
Auckland 2040.

8
matter for Topics 080 and 081 rather than the Residential Topics, and
issues of scope for rezoning will be addressed at that time.
4.3

However, I note that a fundamental principle of the Residential zoning

strategy, as set out in my EIC, is that the MHS zone seeks to maintain a
suburban built character of generally two storeys in a general spacious
setting. The development controls will provide for similar levels of
daylight access, landscaping, opportunities for mature trees, and building
scale in both the SH and MHS zones. Although there will inevitably be
some difference in character due to the flexibility of housing size and
typology, this will be far less pronounced than between the MHS and
MHU, or MHU and THAB zones.

4.4

I do not consider that areas of high amenity value or special character

should be included in the SH zone objectives and policies. In my view,
unless there is sufficient amenity or character value to warrant an overlay
with tailored provisions to protect that value, the greater flexibility of the
MHS zone should apply (unless there are other significant environmental
or infrastructure constraints). For clarity, I have adopted the Councils
position on Topic 029 which reframes the special character overlays as
notified in the PAUP as historic character overlays (e.g. in SH zone
Objective 1).

4.5

I agree with changes suggested by Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential

Ltd) and David Hermans (for Ministry of Business Innovation and
Employment) that seek to further clarify the application of the SH zone. It
is important to clarify that significant environmental or infrastructure
constraints are constraints that are unlikely to be addressed in the
foreseeable future, or which cannot be addressed at a site-specific level.
Further, in relation to the public transport network, the planned network
should also be considered. As discussed in Don Munros evidence for
Auckland Transport/Auckland Council, there are planned upgrades to the
public transport network which should be considered when determining
the spatial extent of zones, in order to achieve an integrated approach
between land use and transportation planning. I therefore propose the
following amendments to Policy 1 of the SH zone (new amendments
shown in red text):

9
Policy 1: Require minimum site sizes that limit the intensity of
development in areas with:
a. significant environment constraints, or
b. infrastructure constraints that are unlikely to be addressed in the
foreseeable future or which cannot be addressed at a site-specific level,
or
bc. poor accessibility to:
i. the City Centre, Metropolitan, Town or Local Centres, or
ii. the existing or planned public transport network, or
iii. large urban facilities including existing or proposed public open
spaces, community facilities, education facilities, tertiary education
facilities, and healthcare facilities.
Mixed Housing zones
Strategy
4.6

Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd raise fundamental
concerns with the approach taken to the MHS and MHU zones.
Specifically, they consider that the two storey planned built character for
the MHS zone will not facilitate feasible development. In their view, the
MHS zone approach should therefore be deleted, and MHU significantly
expanded (with the remainder of sites zoned SH). They state this
approach would enable greater housing capacity and variety. A key
concern raised in their evidence is that the MHS zone has the same
controls as the SH zone, and as the only difference between the zones is
density and minimum lot size, this will not facilitate a substantial
difference between these zones.

4.7

Having reviewed the evidence for Ockham Holdings Ltd, my view is the
following:
(a)

Density and minimum lot size will make a difference in terms of

the number of dwellings and people between the SH and MHS
zone, as explained in my EIC6. It is therefore appropriate to
provide for the two different zones to enable growth to be limited
in specified areas; and

(b)

The MHS zone and provisions will be appropriate to maintain a

suburban character where population growth does not need to
be limited, but three story, more intensive development is not

Refer paragraphs 13.18 13.29 of my EIC.

10
appropriate. It should therefore be retained as a zoning option
in terms of the overall zoning strategy.
4.8

Further, I note the evidence of Tim Heath and Philip Osborne for Housing
New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) acknowledges that although it is
important that the community has a degree of housing choice, it is also
essential that such choices do not undermine the ability for residential
activity to be developed in and around centres and transport hubs7. The
MHS zone provides a level of flexibility and increased housing capacity
while not undermining the role of MHU and THAB zones to encourage
higher levels of intensification where the greatest gains (for example,
infrastructure and public transport economics of scale, and accessibility
to centres) can be achieved.

4.9

I also note that Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040) specifically supports
the difference in height between MHS and MHU, and states that over
100 community groups represented by Auckland 2040 are generally
accepting of the release of density provided that a two storey suburban
built character is retained8. Although this is not a determining factor, I
consider this indicates that significant expansion of the MHU zone,
enabling three storeys over much of suburbia, is unlikely to be
acceptable to communities. The MHS zone provides a balance between
enabling a suburban character and facilitating housing capacity and
choice, and is therefore an appropriate zoning method to assist in
achieving the RPS policy direction9.

4.10

Based on the evidence, and the consideration of the overall zoning

strategy as set out in my EIC, I consider that the concerns raised by
Ockham Holdings Ltd are more related to the spatial extent of the MHU
zone, and are a matter for consideration in the rezoning Topics 080 and
081, and/or any future Plan Changes. The MHS zone should be retained
as a tool, but the appropriate spatial distribution of the SH, MHS, MHU
and THAB zones should be considered having regard to the RPS
objectives (as reflected through the zone objectives and policies).

7
8
9

Refer paragraph 4.3 of the joint statement of Tim Health and Philip Osborn for HNZC.
Paragraph 49 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040.
Including a quality compact city, increased housing capacity and choice, quality living
environments and residential amenity, as summarised in Section 12 of my EIC.

11
Objectives and policies
4.11

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 inc) considers the MHS objectives
and policies should be amended to recognise existing neighbourhood
character10. Recognition of a sites existing neighbourhood and wider
context is already reflected in General Objective 1 and I consider it is
unnecessary to reflect this specifically in the MHS zone. The planned
character is specified within the zone objectives and policies as this
differs between zones.

4.12

Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land
Ltd) seeks a four storey height for MHU zone as she states three storey
development is uneconomic, and four storeys with an elevator would
result in better onsite amenity11. I understand from the EIC of Peter
Nunns (for Auckland Council), and from submitters during the workshop
and mediation process, that four storey development is generally an
uneconomic model. I consider three storey development in MHU will
provide for greater intensification and flexibility of housing typologies than
MHS while also providing for a less intensive character than the five
storey development enabled in the THAB zone. I support retaining a
three storey built character objective for MHU.
THAB zone

4.13

Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage Land
Ltd) seeks six storeys as of right in the THAB zone12. I support retaining
a five storey baseline as a generally economically viable height that also
recognises the need to manage the transition of suburban areas to
higher density development. A five storey height will also enable for a
transition in height between lower scale centres (e.g. the Local Centre
zone with a total building height of 18m), and surrounding residential
areas. Six storey (and seven storey) development will be enabled in
appropriate locations through the additional height control.

10
11
12

Paragraphs 71 75 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040

Paragraphs 12 of Amanda Coats evidence for North Eastern Investments Limited and
Heritage Land Limited
Paragraphs 45-46 of Amanda Coats evidence for North Eastern Investments Ltd and
Heritage Land Ltd

12
Other matters
Additional zones
4.14

Benjamin Ross seeks the replacement of SH, MHS, MHU and THAB
zones with seven new zones that will enable much higher intensification
in the higher level zones (up to 60m+ height). I consider that the heights
and level of intensification proposed is not appropriate at this time to
apply to Aucklands existing residential areas. This level of intensification
would not appropriately manage change in existing residential areas, or
provide for reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents adjacent to
new developments, and would therefore not meet the RPS objectives. I
support the zoning strategy as set out in my EIC.
Non-residential activities

4.15

John Childs (for Saint Cuthberts College) seeks amendments to general

policy 6(b) relating to non-residential activities13. The changes are sought
as non-residential activities may not be able to be in keeping with or
complement the planned built character of a zone, but may still be
appropriate. I agree, and therefore propose the following changes to
general policy 6 (new amendments are highlighted in red text):
Policy 6. Enable non-residential activities that provide benefits to local
communities and which have minimal adverse effects on amenities of the
residential area:
a. support the social and economic well-being of the community
b. respect the planned built character of the neighbourhood are in keeping
with or complement the planned built character and are compatible with
the scale and intensity form of development anticipated within the zone
c. avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on residential amenity
d. will not detract from the vitality of the City Centre, Metropolitan and
Town Centre zones.
Specialist residential activities

4.16

A number of submitters (including Ryman, Summerset and Aria Bay) are

seeking a statement in the introduction to the General objectives and
policies to recognise the role that specialist residential activities play in
contributing to housing supply for those with particular housing needs. I

13

Paragraphs 6.3 6.4 of John Childs evidence for Saint Cuthberts College.

13
agree this would be consistent with the approach taken in the
introduction, as in my EIC I also support the addition of commentary on
non-residential activities. I therefore propose the following additional
wording:

Collectively, these zones provide for a mix of housing types, ranging
from a house in a coastal settlement, to a single detached house on a
suburban section, to an apartment near a metropolitan centre. Specialist
residential activities (including retirement villages, supported residential
care, boarding houses and visitor accommodation) that provide permanent
and temporary accommodation options for those with particular housing
needs may also establish within some zones.

Safety
4.17

Ann Weaver (for SafeKids Aotearoa) seeks that the general objectives
and policies should include reference to safety. General Objective 1 and
Policy 1 includes reference to safety, and support provisions and
assessment criteria relating to the safety of sites, streets and
neighbourhood. I consider no further amendments are required at the
objective and policy level to provide for safety within the residential
zones.
Historic heritage, character and amenity

4.18

Angus McKenzie (for The Character Coalition) considers that historic

heritage, character and amenity have been inadequately addressed in
the residential provisions, and that this approach does not give effect to
the RPS. Specifically, Mr McKenzie considers that if the growth
assumptions are correct, then heritage and character are needlessly
being placed at risk. In my view, consideration of the relative value of
historic heritage buildings and historic character areas more generally
are a matter for the schedules and overlays, rather than the residential
zone provisions. Where historic character overlays apply, I support the
application of the SH zone to complement those provisions, as discussed
in my EIC. I consider that the zoning strategy and specific provisions
complement other methods in the PAUP (including historic character
overlays and volcanic viewshafts), to provide an appropriate balance
between achieving RPS objectives relating to character, amenity, and
increased housing supply and choice.

14

Incompatible land uses

4.19

The following statements of evidence request amendments to general

objective 2 in relation to reverse sensitivity:
(a)

Andrea Rickard (for NZ Health Association / Sanitarium), and

Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Seek a minor
change to general objective 2a to better recognise incompatible
land uses14;

(b)

Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Seek changes

to the SHZ objectives and policies to state that growth should be
limited in areas where incompatible land uses would result in
adverse amenity effects on residential development15;

(c)

Cherie Lane (for North Shore Aero Club): Seeks amendments to

the Large Lot zone description, objectives and policies to
recognise the present and operation of adjacent significant
infrastructure, as an additional tool to complement the relevant
overlay16.

4.20

I do not support specific reference in the SH zone to restricting growth

due to incompatible land uses. Depending on the extent of the potential
reverse sensitivity issue, and the provisions of any relevant overlay,
another residential zone may be appropriate. For example, provided
dwellings

can

achieve

the

acoustic

insulation

and

ventilation

requirements of the High Land Transport Overlay, it would not be

necessary to restrict growth by applying the SH zone, and indeed this
may not be the most appropriate zone to give effect to the RPS (given
that intensification along majort transport corridors is encouraged). I
therefore support retaining direction in relation to reverse sensitivity at
the General objectives and policies level only.
4.21

Similarly, I do not support changes to the Large Lot zone objectives and
policies to recognise potential reverse sensitivity issues in relation to
significant infrastructure. This matter is best addressed through overlays,

14
15
16

Paragraphs 6 7 of Andrea Rickards evidence for NZ Health Association / Sanitarium;

Paragraph 57 of Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzeys evidence for HNZC.
Paragraph 58 of Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzeys evidence for HNZC.
Paragraphs 3.1 3.4 of Cherie Lanes evidence for the North Shore Aero Club.

15
and through general consideration of the spatial extent of the zones as
set out in the General objectives and policies.
4.22

I support the proposed amendments to General Objective 2a to improve

clarity about how the residential zones should assist in managing
potential effects from co-location of incompatible land uses. Not all plan
users will be familiar with the term reverse sensitivity therefore
alternative wording will assist in clarity of the objective. I therefore
propose the following amended wording (new amendments in red text):
Objective 2a. Enable higher residential densities in areas close to centres
and the rapid and frequent service network and large urban facilities,
while ensuring development is adequately serviced by existing or planned
infrastructure and managing potential adverse amenity effects resulting
from urban intensification in areas of existing incompatible land uses e.g.
managing reverse sensitivity effects on significant infrastructure and
industrial activities.

5.

METHODS FOR MANAGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Density and associated controls
Density control

5.1

Jonathan Maplesden, and Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg, correctly

picked up an error in the density control (3.1.2) where numerous deleted
clauses were still referred to. I have corrected this error in the marked up
changes at Attachment A.

5.2

A number of statements of evidence also seek that the density control be

applied on total site area, rather than net site area (including Vijay Lala
for multiple parties17, and Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for
HNZC18). Built form will be based on net site area (i.e. building
coverage), however in terms of density for sites under 1,000sqm in the
MHS zone a total site area approach to density is appropriate and will
assist in ease of plan use. I therefore agree with these submitters and
propose to amend Rule 3.1.1 Table 1 in relation to MHS as follows (new
proposed amendments in red text):

17
18

Paragraph 8.1(a) of Vijay Lalas evidence for multiple parties.

Paragraph 89 of Matt Lindenbergs and Amelia Linzeys evidence for HNZC.

16
Mixed Housing Suburban
One dwelling per 400 200m net of site area, or
No density limits apply where the site is greater than 1,000m
Minimum lot size Rural and Coastal Settlement zone
5.3

Karen Pegrume (for Better Living Landscapes Ltd) seeks a 1500sqm

minimum lot size in the RCS zone. The Auckland Regional Public Health
Service supports a 3,000sqm minimum lot size for unserviced lots. The
minimum lot size in this zone is directed by the minimum required area
for onsite wastewater discharge without presenting a high risk of adverse
environmental effects. Sandy Ormiston has reviewed the evidence and
undertaken further analysis, as set out in his rebuttal evidence. On this
basis, I support a reduction in the minimum lot size to 2,500sqm as the
most appropriate method to achieve the RCS zone objectives. In
particular, I note that this site size will be appropriate based on the
physical and environmental attributes of most sites (RCS Objective 2). I
consider it inappropriate to further reduce the minimum lot size as this
would provide an expectation that subdivision could be achieved, even in
areas where onsite wastewater discharge would be difficult without
generating significant adverse environmental or health effects. Any
application to infringe the minimum lot size would be assessed on its
merits, having regard to the potential adverse effects from developing a
smaller site and the objectives and policies of the RCS zone.
Minimum lot size Single House zone

5.4

The following statements of evidence raise concern regarding the

minimum 600sqm lot size in the SH zone:
(a)

Geoff Bennett: Seeks that the minimum lot size is based on

gross, not net site area, to enable a 1200sqm site to be
subdivided into two.

(b)

David Wren (for North 8 Limited): Seeks that the minimum lot
size in the Isthmus A Overlay be reduced from 600sqm to
400sqm to reflect the existing character.

(c)

Giles Bramwell for The Neil Group: Seeks that the minimum lot
size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is not
reduced;

17
(d)

Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): Seeks that the minimum
lot size should be reduced to 500sqm if the extent of the zone is
not reduced;

(e)

David Hermans (for MBIE): States that the minimum lot size of
600sqm is largely unjustified;

(f)

Peter Reaburn (for A M Culav): Considers that the 600sqm

minimum lot size in the SH zone is not justified, and should be
replaced by 450sqm (at least for the submitters site, or the
Waitakere legacy plan area more generally) unless the
proposed approach to limit the application of the SH zone is
accepted.

5.5

As comprehensively set out in my EIC (refer paragraph 13.19-13.29 and

15.26-15.36), in my view, the key purpose of the SH zone is to limit
growth in areas where there are significant constraints or values that do
not support intensification. The objectives and policies proposed for the
SH zone seek to limit growth in identified areas. The minimum lot size
therefore needs to support the intention of limiting growth in areas that
are zoned SH.

5.6

Auckland Council has undertaken additional analysis comparing the

potential growth enabled through a 600sqm minimum lot size, compared
with a 500sqm minimum lot size (e.g. as proposed by Ian Craig for
Fletcher Residential Ltd19). There are a number of variables that will
determine whether a site can be subdivided (including application of
overlays). However, based on a raw analysis of subdivision potential
based on the current lot size, I note the following (as advised by
Auckland Councils geospatial team refer Attachment B):
(a)

The total number of sites over 1200sqm (and therefore

potentially able to be subdivided based on a 600sqm minimum
lot size only) within the SH zone is 12,412;

(b)

The total number of sites between 1,000sqm and 1,200sqm

(therefore would only be able to be subdivided if the minimum lot
size was reduced from 600sqm to 500sqm) is 11,844; and

(c)

Therefore, the number of sites that could be subdivided within

the SH zone (as per the spatial extent in the PAUP) as a result

19

Paragraph 13.12 of Ian Craigs evidence for Fletcher Residential Ltd.

18
of reducing the minimum lot size from 600sqm to 500sqm would
increase by 95%.
5.7

The potential consequential increase in growth in the SH zone by

reducing the minimum lot size from 600sqm to 500sqm is significant.
Based on site size alone, the potential number of sites able to be
subdivided would nearly double. In my view, this would not achieve the
objectives and policies for the SH zone which seek to limit growth in
areas with identified values or constraints. Where the SH zone applies, a
600sqm site size will appropriately limit growth while providing for a
suburban character, and will therefore achieve the zone objectives.

5.8

Where an alternative minimum site area is appropriate due to the

established heritage character or additional infrastructure constraints,
these should be provided for within the relevant historic character overlay
or the additional subdivision controls. I therefore continue to support a
minimum lot size of 600sqm for the SH zone.
Minor units

5.9

The following statements of evidence seek that minor units be provided

for in the SH zone:
(a)

Geoff Bennett: Considers that minor units should be provided in

order to cater for smaller household sizes. Compared with old,
larger households, provision of minor units will not necessarily
increase demand on infrastructure in these areas;

(b)

Amelia Linzey / Matt Lindenberg: Supports minor dwellings in

the

SH

zone

as

restriction

on

additional

dwellings

in

inappropriate areas can be managed through the appropriate

overlay; and
(c)

Nick Molloy: Considers that a second dwelling in the SHZ should

not have to be only through conversion of an existing dwelling,
as similar amenity and infrastructure effects can occur through a
second stand-alone dwelling. Also considers that a second
dwelling should be a permitted or discretionary activity in the
historic heritage overlay.

19
5.10

My position on minor units is set out in my EIC20. In my view, it is

inappropriate to specifically provide for minor units where they may not
achieve the objectives and policies for the relevant zone. I note that
infringements to the density control, including for minor units, can be
sought as a discretionary activity and assessed on its merits (including
effects on environmental or infrastructure constraints, and the objectives
and policies of the relevant zones). I therefore do not propose any
change to approach to minor units. I do note, however, as stated in my
EIC21, that I support providing for minor dwellings as a permitted activity
in the historic character overlay in the SHZ where it is located outside an
identified flood plain.
Development controls
General

5.11

Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd consider there
should be only four key controls height, height in relation to boundary,
building coverage and landscaping. In their view, all other design matters
should be addressed through assessment criteria to enable design
flexibility. They also support reducing the design trigger from three
dwellings to two dwellings to enable this approach.

5.12

In my view, development controls are a useful tool as they set clear

baselines in terms of acceptable design responses to achieve the
desired amenity and/or built character outcome. Should an applicant
wish to provide a different design response to achieve the same
outcome, an infringement to a control can be sought and assessed on its
merits.

Compared

with

relying

on

assessment

criteria

alone,

development controls provide greater certainty to applicants while also

enabling flexibility (through applying for an infringement) and therefore, in
my view, are an effective and efficient method of achieving the relevant
objectives and policies. I generally support the retention of development
controls other than those already addressed for deletion in my EIC.

20
21

Paragraphs 18.28 18.29 (General), 21.10-21.13 (Large Lot zone), 22.9-22.1 (RCS zone)
and 23.10-23.13 (SH zone).
Paragraph 23.11.

20
5.13

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) considers that the provisions
should make specific reference to core development controls22. In my
view, this would add no value. The key approach to recognising the
importance of the core controls (as set out in paragraph 20.3 of my EIC)
is through the notification provisions and directive assessment criteria. I
also consider that referencing core controls in the provisions would
weaken the other controls, which also serve an important purpose in
achieving the objectives and policies of the residential zones. I therefore
do not propose any amendments to explicitly recognise core controls
within the provisions.

5.14

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) also seeks deletion of

substratum and soil type from the reasons that development control
infringements may be appropriate (general assessment criteria for
infringing

development

controls,

refer

Rule

11.2.1(a)(i))23.

This

terminology has been taken directly from the proposed Chapter G

provisions for development control infringements. However, in the case
of residential development control infringements I concur that these are
not relevant matters, and therefore propose to delete them.
Height
General
5.15

Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC consider that the roof
height flexibility should be for up to 100% of the roof from (not 50%) as
this would enable better design outcomes24. As set out in Graeme
McIndoes rebuttal evidence (at Section 7), this approach is inappropriate
as it would potentially enable an additional storey (with low floor to ceiling
heights) which would not achieve the built character and quality living
environment objectives of the residential zones. Further, Mr McIndoe
considers that the proposed heights provide sufficiently flexibility for roof
form design and floor to ceiling heights for the number of storeys
envisaged in each zone. No changes are therefore proposed to the roof
height flexibility allowances.

22
23
24

Paragraph 79 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.

Paragraph 90 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.
Paragraphs 91 92 of Matt Lindenbergs and Amelia Linzeys evidence for HNZC.

21
Mixed Housing Urban
5.16

Richard Blakeys evidence for the Papakura Private Hospital identifies

that Figure 23 for MHU does not reflect the associated rule. This was an
error and has now been updated to show a 11m permitted height with an
additional 1m flexibility for roof form.
THAB

5.17

Vijay Lala notes that the wording for notification of development controls
(Rule 2.1) should clarify that the standard tests will be applied to any
height infringements over 2m in the THAB zone (rather than any building
over 2m as it currently reads)25. I accept this change. He further suggests
the standard tests should apply to any infringement of height in the
additional height control areas. I disagree with this approach, as I
consider the 2m flexibility as a non-notified activity to encourage
improved roof forms is also appropriate in the additional height control
areas. I therefore propose the following amended wording for Rule
2.1(b):
1. An application to infringe the following development controls will be
subject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of
the RMA:

b. building height infringements greater than 2m in the Terrace Housing

and Apartment Building zone.
Additional height control

5.18

Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Limited, seeks additional height
at Stonefields to reflect the legacy plan provisions, where they enabled 56 storey residential development under the Isthmus Structure Plan (E1403)26. I agree with the submitter that the PAUP should not, as a principle,
down-zone residential areas, given the RPS and Residential zone policy
direction

to

increase

housing

capacity

and

choice.

Six

storey

development in the locations sought by the submitter would provide for a

transition in height from the local centre, define the public park and
provide for visual interest and variety in building height/form across the
precinct.
25
26

Paragraph 8.1(b) of Vijay Lalas evidence for multiple parties.

Paragraphs 22 25 of Neil Donnellys evidence for Todd Property Group Ltd.

22

5.19

This is with the exception of the area at the south-eastern end of Korere
Terrace, which is defined as terraced and duplex in the Stonefields
masterplan and not subject to a six storey height limit under the
Operative District Plan. The eastern most part of this area is located
beneath the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft, which restricts height to
below six storeys. The other part of this area adjoins the MHS zone and
five storey development is considered to provide an appropriate
transition. Consistent with the Stonefields Masterplan, to ensure
consistency with the height enabled under the Mt Wellington Volcanic
Viewshaft and to provide an appropriate transition to the MHS zone land
to the south, I do not support additional height in this particular location.

5.20

The submitter is seeking a height limit of 20.5m. Consistent with the

analysis in my EIC and that of Graeme McIndoe, I support applying a
height limit of 19.5m, with the ability to infringe this height by up to 2m as
a non-notified activity, which would appropriately provide for six storey
development. Refer to Figure 1 below and Attachment C for a map of
the Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshaft applying to the area and my
proposed amendments to the Additional Zone Height Control.

23
Figure 1: Proposed Additional Zone Height Control at Stonefields
5.21

David Wren and Tony Koia, for Domain Student Accommodation, seek
that the additional building height control of 20.5m (or alternatively
19.5m) should apply to 1 Domain Drive. The control is sought only over
part of the site, to enable some transition to adjacent sites. I support
providing for an Additional Height Control of 19.5m on part of the site at 1
Domain Drive for the reasons outlined by the submitters planning and
architectural evidence. The additional height will provide for increased
housing capacity and choice in a highly accessible and high amenity
location. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Mixed Use zone,
which has a proposed height limit of 18m. Nevertheless, the Mixed Use
and Local Centre zone fronting Parnell Road is located on a ridge and
therefore a transition in height will be achieved from the centre to the
surrounding residential area consistent with Policy 3 of the THAB zone.
Refer to Figure 2 below and Attachment C for a map showing the
proposed amendments to the Additional Zone Height Control at 1
Domain Crescent.

Figure 2: Proposed Additional Zone Height Control at 1 Domain Crescent

5.22

Franco Belgiorno-Nettis raises concern about the application of the

additional height control for two areas in Takapuna. I acknowledge there
was an error in Attachment 9 to my EIC in referring to submission
number 1473-88 by Auckland 2040 in relation to the Emerald Inn site
section. That submission reference should be replaced by submission
number 3608-2 by Emerald Group Limited (Note: the submission
summary is correct, although incorrectly attributed). I consider that the

24
additional height zone control of 22.5m for this site will achieve a
transition between the Metropolitan zone, and the THAB zone (with no
height control) along Hurstmere Road, and then to the SH zone, and is
therefore consistent with Policy 3 for the THAB zone. Based on the
currently proposed zonings, I consider that the additional height control is
appropriate for the Emerald Inn site. Should the sites be rezoned as part
of Topic 081, then the appropriate height for the site may need to be
reconsidered.
5.23

With regard to the Tennyson Avenue site, I consider that a transition in

height is appropriate due to the SH zoned sites at the rear. Therefore, I
do not support an additional height control at this location.
Height in relation to boundary and building setbacks
Application to driveways

5.24

Douglas Hayrs evidence states that the height in relation to boundary

control should be applied to the other side of any common driveway,
whether a formal right of way or not. Clause 2 of the height in relation to
boundary control (where it applies) states that the control applies from
the farthest boundary of a legal right of way, entrance strip, or access
site. This addresses all forms of common driveways, except for informal
arrangements. For informal arrangements, there is the possibility of the
driveway being removed and replaced by a building or outdoor living
area, therefore adequate sunlight access to these areas should be
maintained. I therefore propose no further changes to the applicability of
the control in relation to driveways.
Alternative height in relation to boundary MHS zone

5.25

Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) and Graeme Scott (for Urban Design
NZ and NZIA) seek reinstatement of the alternative height in relation to
boundary control (AHIRB) in the MHS zone as per the PAUP to facilitate
two storey dwellings facing the street on narrow sites. I have reviewed
the rebuttal evidence of Graeme McIndoe, and acknowledge that
reinstatement of this control in MHS as a non-notified RDA would provide
for greater flexibility in providing for duplex houses facing the street.

25
From a s32AA perspective, an evaluation is required as to whether the
alternative height in relation to boundary control would be an appropriate
method of achieving the relevant objectives for the MHS zone. In this
respect, I consider the following costs and benefits apply (when
compared to relying on the standard 2.5m + 45 degrees height in relation
to boundary control alone):
Cost

of

the

Alternative
Increased
capacity

housing
and

HIRTB

Benefit

of

Alternative

Control

Control

Will

choice

HIRTB

enhance

feasibility

(Objective 1)

the

of

the
duplex

development on sites
of typical widths in
suburban areas.

Development engages

Will encourage duplex

with and addresses the

development to face

street (Objective 2)

the street (instead of

one unit behind the
other)

by

enabling

street-facing

duplex

development.
Development positively

Would

responds to the site

result

and

intensively

its

(Objective 2)

context

potentially
in

more
built

streetscape

that

established

in

area.

is
the

Will

encourage

development

to

respond positively to
the

street.

The

assessment criteria for

utilising

this

control

requires consideration
of

the

potential

daylight access and

visual

dominance

effects

on

neighbouring
One

two

the
sites.
unit

development
complying

with

the

permitted HIRTB does

26
not

require

specific

consideration

and

assessment of the site

context.
Development

Would

complements

the

neighbourhoods

result

potentially
in

more

intensively

planned suburban built streetscape

character

of

would

otherwise

provide

variety

of

for

one-two

built

storey dwelling forms

than

by

be

predominantly one-two

enabled, reducing the

storey buildings, in a

perceived

variety of forms and a

spaciousness of the

generally

street.

spacious

Will

enabling

street-

facing

duplex

development.

setting (Objective 2)
Development provides

Would

high-quality

result in an increase

improved functionality

living environments for

in

of living environments

residents and achieves

dominance effects on

at

a reasonable standard

neighbouring

dwellings.

of residential amenity

compared

for

permitted HIRTB.

adjoining

(Objective 3).

on-site

sites

potentially

shading

with

and
sites

Will

provide

first

for

level

of

the
The

assessment

criteria for utilising this

control

requires

consideration

of

potential

daylight

access

and

the

visual

dominance effects on
the neighbouring sites.
One

two

unit

development
complying

with

the

permitted HIRTB does

not

require

consideration

specific
and

assessment of the site

context.

27
5.26

On balance, I consider that the benefits of the Alternative HIRTB in

achieving the MHS zone objectives will outweigh potential costs,
particularly since utilising this control requires a restricted discretionary
activity assessment. I therefore support the reinstatement of the
alternative height in relation to boundary control for the MHS zone. While
I support this change, I record that there is presently no formal Council
approval to reinstate this control.
Height in relation to boundary and Building setback THAB zone

5.27

A number of submitters (including Generation Zero and North Eastern

Investments Limited and Heritage Land Limited) raise concern that the
building setback controls in the THAB zone constrain site development
flexibility and feasibility.

5.28

For sites that adjoin other sites in the THAB zone, the notified PAUP
requires buildings to be setback from both side and rear boundaries
depending on the number of storey, as shown in the following diagrams:

5.29

These setbacks provide for space between buildings but will result in
buildings that fail to address the street and will encourage outlook to be
provided to side boundaries instead of over the street, which may
compromise privacy on adjoining sites. Further, these setbacks would
severely restrict development potential on small and narrow sites, where
terrace housing development would be a more viable housing form.

28
5.30

In response to this, I proposed the following control in my EIC, which is

an amalgam of the AHIRB in the Mixed Housing Urban zone and the
setbacks in the notified PAUP (as above):

5.31

The AHIRB control as shown is proposed to apply with the first 20m of
the site frontage with the standard 3m and 45 degree recession plane
from the MHU zone applying thereafter. While this better provides for two
storey terrace housing close to side boundaries, upon further review, I
consider that this approach results in an overly complex (therefore likely
more expensive) and unattractive building form if maximised. The
approach would also prevent three storey terraces close to side
boundaries, which is a desirable building form on smaller or narrow sites
given that the THAB zone seeks to provide for the efficient use of land in
highly accessible locations close to centres, the rapid and frequent
service network and large urban facilities (THAB zone Objective 1).

5.32

To address the issues identified above, I propose the approach outlined

below, which is supported by Graeme McIndoe, Councils consultant
urban designer for the Residential zones.

5.33

The permitted height in relation to boundary control in the THAB zone

would be 3m and 45 degrees, consistent with the permitted control in the

29
MHU zone. This would provide for owners of existing properties to
undertake additions and alterations to existing dwellings as a permitted
activity, which is appropriate in a zone, which will slowly transition to
more intensive residential development over time.
5.34

To achieve three storey terraces close to the boundary while providing

for five, six and seven storey apartments on wider sites, the following
AHIRB

is

proposed, which

would

be

non-notified, restricted

discretionary activity, with a 1m side and rear yard applying:

Within the first 20m of the site frontage

More than 20m from the site

frontage

5.35

The assessment criteria for the use of this control would ensure that
development is orientated towards the street or towards the rear of the
site and not towards side boundaries. This would avoid three storey
terraces with long frontages along side boundaries, which may
compromise the privacy of adjoining sites. This desired orientation is
shown below:

30

5.36

In my opinion, the proposed AHIRB is simple and efficiently and

effectively provides for the development intended by the zone in a
manner consistent with the urban design objectives and policies of the
THAB zone.

5.37

In terms of over-shadowing, three - seven storey development will

inevitably result in increased shading on neighbouring sites compared
with the existing environment, however, in my opinion this is appropriate
in a higher density environment. In terms of visual amenity and visual
dominance, the proposed approach is reasonably consistent with notified
setback control, while enabling building at lower height closer to the
boundary. This will ensure that taller buildings/taller parts of buildings are
appropriately setback from side and rear boundaries and visual
dominance effects are managed at external site boundaries.
Building coverage and landscaping
General

5.38

Ian Craigs evidence (for Fletcher Residential Ltd) states that the
assessment criteria for infringing building coverage and landscaping
should include reference to landscaping27. Brian Putt (for Herne Bay
Residents Association & Auckland 2040) also considers that the
assessment criteria for building coverage infringements should focus on
the ratio of impermeable to permeable surface area28. I have further
reviewed the criteria for infringing these controls and agree that

27
28

Paragraph 9.23 of Ian Craigs evidence for Fletcher Residential Ltd.

Paragraph 4.9 of Brian Putts evidence for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland
2040.

31
amendments are required to reflect infringements to the landscaping
control. I also consider that provision of a landscaping plan which
includes specimen trees can assist in mitigating the effects of infringing
these controls. These considerations should apply whether the
infringements is within the flexibility enabled as a non-notified restricted
discretionary activity, or for additional infringements. I therefore propose
the following amendments to the criteria at Rule 11.2(d) (new
amendments shown in red text):
d. Building coverage and landscaping in the Mixed Housing Suburban
and Mixed Housing Urban zones
i. When considering applications to infringe building coverage or
landscaping control by up to 5 per cent in the Mixed Housing Suburban
and Mixed Housing Urban zones, the Council will consider whether:
- the development provides for terrace housing or other more
intensive housing types that necessitate greater building coverage
or lesser landscaping area; and
- the site is of a size sufficient or the development is designed and
located in a manner that mitigates the visual dominance effects of
increased building coverage to the street, public open space and
neighbouring sites, while achieving the planned built character of
the zone.
- landscape areas are designed and located where they are readily
perceived from the street, public open space or neighbouring sites
and will mitigate visual dominance effects, including through the
proposed planting and maintenance of specimen trees.

Landscaped Area - definition

5.39

Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare Ltd) seeks an amendment to the

definition of Landscaped Area to enable the inclusion of paths up to
1.5m in width for retirement villages (currently 1.0m in width)29. The
reason for this request is to enable inclusion of paths within retirement
villages that are designed to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility
scooters. I consider that enabling paths up to 1.5m would have a minimal
effect on the purpose of the landscaped area control (being to contribute
to the built character and amenity of the residential zones), and will
encourage provision of universally accessible paths. On balance, I
therefore support this amendment to the landscaped area definition as it
applies to all activities (not just retirement villages).

29

Paragraph 59 of Clinton Birds evidence for Ryman Healthcare Ltd.

32

Mixed Housing zones

5.40

In respect of the approach to building coverage, the position set out in

my EIC is to enable 35% permitted building coverage in MHS with an
additional 5% able to be sought as a non-notified RDA activity, and
similarly, permitted 40% + 5% flexibility in the MHU zone. The following
statements of evidence seek amendments to this position:
(a)

Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) and
Graeme Scott (for Urban Design NZ and NZIA) support
removing the RDA flexibility for an additional 5%, and instead,
increasing the permitted thresholds by 5%, to 40% in MHS and
45% in MHU.

(b)

Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential supports the 35% + 5% RDA

flexibility in the MHS zone (as proposed in my EIC), however
seeks 10% flexibility in the MHU zone (i.e. 40% + 10% flexibility
as an RDA, instead of 40% + 5% flexibility as proposed in my
EIC).

(c)

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) opposes the 5%

flexibility in the MHS zone, but does not oppose this approach
for the MHU zone.

(d)

Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) seeks reinstatement of the

notified building coverage controls in MHS.

(e)

Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association & Auckland

2040 Inc) seeks flexibility up to 45% for sites smaller than
300sqm (consistent with the Residential 1 approach in the
legacy Isthmus District Plan).

(f)

Amanda Coats (for North Eastern Investments Ltd and Heritage

Land Ltd) seeks 50% building coverage and 35% landscaping in
MHU.

33
(g)

Luke Christensen (for Generation Zero) generally opposes the

reduction in building coverage between the PAUP and the
position of my EIC.

5.41

In respect of the approach to landscaping, the position set out in my EIC

is to require 40% minimum landscaped area in both the MHS and MHU
zones, with a reduction by 5% able to be sought as a non-notified RDA
activity in the MHU zone only. The following statements of evidence seek
amendments to this position:
(a)

Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential) and Amelia Linzey and Matt
Lindenberg (for HNZC) seek the 5% flexibility in the MHS zone
as well as the MHU zone;

(b)

Mark Todd and Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd) seek 40%
with no flexibility in the MHS zone, and an increase in the
minimum landscaped area to 45% in the MHU zone;

(c)

Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare) seeks a reduction in the

permitted landscaped area from 40% to 35% in the SH, MHS
and MHU zones, and from 30% to 25% in THAB.

5.42

Having reviewed submitters evidence, my view on the building coverage

and landscaping controls for the Mixed Housing zones as set out in my
EIC (refer paragraphs 24.24 24.35) has not changed. Although I
acknowledge that building coverage 40% in MHS and 45% in MHU
would enable more efficient use of land, and may be appropriate subject
to design, this needs to be considered against the potential adverse
effects on the built character of these zones from raising the permitted
baseline. In particular, I note that one or two dwellings on a site will not
be subject to design assessment, and the building length control in the
PAUP has been deleted. Many sites in the Mixed Housing zones are
likely to continue to be utilised for one or two dwellings. Depending on
the site characteristics and design of the dwellings, an increase in
building coverage of 5% may result in developments which detract from
the planned built character, particularly the spacious character sought in
the MHS. This is particularly as a 5% increase on a relatively large site
will result in a noticeably larger building, which, without any design

34
assessment, may result in large blank facades and consequentially bulky
buildings within a suburban area.
5.43

An alternative approach to mitigate this risk on built character would be to

increase the building coverage and require all one - two dwelling
developments to be subject to resource consent. In my view, this would
be a less efficient approach. The 5% flexibility can be achieved as a nonnotified RDA subject to appropriate design, which is required for multiunit developments in any case through the assessment criteria.
Effectively, this approach will enable up to 40% and 45% for all
developments subject to appropriate design without penalising smaller
scale one - two dwelling development.

5.44

With regard to the minimum landscaped area in the MHS zone, I do not
consider it appropriate to enable 5% reduction as a non-notified activity.
Retaining a suburban, spacious character is one of the objectives of the
zone, and landscaped areas will be a significant contributor to achieving
this objective. Infringements, if appropriate, will be assessed on their
merits having regard to the assessment criteria (which have been
refined, as discussed above).

5.45

I note that any further infringements beyond the flexibility provided for as
a non-notified activity may be appropriate and will be assessed on their
merits, having regard to the stated purpose of the controls.

5.46

I further clarify that the Housing Project Office building coverage

infringement statistics identified in Attachment 5 to my EIC are based on
delineated areas, or proposed site areas, rather than the overall
application area which I have now clarified is the appropriate approach. A
line of terraced houses will likely have higher building coverage for the
inner units, and lower building coverage for the end units, but the overall
perceived built character should be consistent with that sought for the
zone. The total application area approach is therefore appropriate.
THAB zone

5.47

Mark Todd and Barry Kaye for Ockham Holdings Ltd seek 55% building
coverage in the THAB zone (compared with 50% as proposed in my EIC)

35
and a minimum 40% landscaped area. Based on the modelling
undertaken by Auckland Council, I support retention of the 50% building
coverage in the THAB zone. This will enable terraced housing and
apartment building typologies, while also recognising that these areas
are in transition from more traditional suburban to higher density built
environments. Again, infringements may be appropriate subject to design
and assessment in accordance with the stated purpose of the control.
Large Lot zone
5.48

Richard Blakeys evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust seeks to

amend the building coverage control in the Large Lot zone so it is based
on a graduated approach in relation to site area only (i.e. is not limited to
400sqm)30. In my view, buildings over 400sqm would potentially detract
from the built character objectives for the Large Lot zone, regardless of
the size of the site, particularly when viewed from the street. Buildings of
this scale in the Large Lot residential zone should generally be assessed
on their merits through a resource consent process. Consideration for a
site-specific precinct for the submitters site (14 Mills Lane, Albany) is
outside the scope of this topic. I therefore do not propose any
amendments to the building coverage rule in the Large Lot zone.
Newmarket Growth Structure Plan Area

5.49

David Wrens evidence for Cowie Street Investments seeks to enable

coverage in the THAB zone up to 80% combined building and
impermeable surface coverage, at least in the Newmarket Growth
Structure Plan Area. A 70% impervious area applies in the THAB zone,
for the reasons set out in my EIC. In my view, this area-specific
circumstance is best addressed through precinct provisions, where
appropriate and justified, and is outside the scope of the present
Residential Topics.
Impervious area

5.50

Karen Blair (for Z Energy, BP and Mobil) opposes the impervious area
controls within the Residential zones on the basis that they effectively

30

Paragraphs 29 33 of Richard Blakeys evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust.

36
duplicate the regional stormwater rules. In my view, it is appropriate to
have all controls relating to site layout and coverage within the residential
zones as this will facilitate ease of plan use. Further, the impervious area
thresholds differ depending on the zone, therefore it is appropriate to
locate them within the residential zone provisions.
Outdoor living
5.51

Ann Weaver, for SafeKids Aotearoa, seeks amendments to the outdoor

living space control and assessment criteria to specifically require that
outdoor living space should be capable of being physical separated from
vehicle movements. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service
supports this request. The control already requires that outdoor living
space does not include any parking, access or manoeuvring areas. As
these areas must be separated, a fence could therefore be erected
between the outdoor living space and areas where there are vehicles. I
consider no further change is therefore required to the rule. However, to
clarify the purpose of this control, I propose to amend the purpose
statement to include reference to separating outdoor living areas from
vehicle access and manoeuvring areas.

5.52

Brian Putt (for Mahi Properties Ltd) seeks an amendment to the outdoor
living court control to require 5 hours of solar access31. As addressed in
Section 13 of Graeme McIndoes rebuttal evidence, the outdoor living
court control does have sufficient regard to solar access while also
providing clarity to designers. In my view, demonstrating that 5 hours of
solar access can be provided would require specialised information for
every development, and would therefore not be an efficient method of
providing a reasonable level of sunlight access. I retain the position on
this control as per my EIC.
Outlook and daylight

5.53

The following statements of evidence raise concern with the proposed

outlook and daylight controls:

31

Section 10 of Brian Putts evidence for Mahi Properties Ltd.

37
(a)

David Wren (for Cowie Street Investments): Considers that the

outlook areas should be able to overlap, and the daylight control
should be reviewed, to ensure these controls do not reduce the
development potential of narrow sites.

(b)

Barry Kaye (for Ockham Holdings Ltd): Considers that the

daylight control should be relocated to assessment criteria, and
further guidance provided on which windows should be the
measuring point for daylight.

(c)

Vijay Lala (for multiple parties): Considers that the outlook

dimension for principal living areas should be able to be reduced
to 4m (from 6m) if there is a 1.6m fence, as this will provide
sufficiently for privacy.

(d)

Ian Craig (for Fletcher Residential Ltd): States that the daylight
control is confusing and requires more justification. Also
suggests that it could discourage developers from providing
windows.

(e)

Luke Christensen (for Generation Zero): Raises concern that the

minimum outlook space may have perverse consequences by
significantly reducing development capacity of a site by pushing
buildings apart.

(f)

Brian Putt (for Herne Bay Residents Association, Auckland 2040

and Mahi Properties Ltd): Seeks additional controls regarding
privacy and solar access to adjacent sites, including a 9m
separation between buildings (including over boundaries);
amending the outlook space control to address overlooking from
balconies, and overlooking of outdoor living areas of adjacent
sites; amending the outlook control to provide greater than 1m
from bedrooms (to provide privacy to adjacent sites); the Vic
Code daylight control should be used instead of the currently
proposed control.

(g)

Clinton Bird (for Ryman Healthcare Ltd): Opposes the 3m x 3m

outlook space for bedrooms, and seeks 1m x 1m for all

38
bedrooms; opposes the daylight control in principle as a
combination of common sense, marketability, the New Zealand
Building Act: Clause G7: Natural Light, and height in relation to
boundary controls have, in my opinion, ensured that habitable
rooms enjoy an appropriate minimum level of access to
daylight;
(h)

Matt Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey (for HNZC): Consider that

the outlook space control gives primacy to established
neighbouring development, by requiring new development to be
set back from it. They consider the 6m outlook depth may be
frequently infringed, and is therefore not an appropriate control.
It may also lead to unintended built form outcomes.

5.54

In my view, and based on the EIC and rebuttal evidence of Graeme

McIndoe (refer to section 5 of the latter), I consider that:
(a)

Outlook requirements should not be reduced or able to overlap

as they are already permissive and highly enabling (including in
comparison to similar provisions overseas which typically
require a 20m separation between buildings), and further
reduction would not achieve the quality living environment
objectives of the residential zones. Increasing the outlook space
requirement would impact on development feasibility and
flexibility. Therefore, I support retention of the dimensions as per
my EIC (refer also to Section 5 of Mr McIndoes rebuttal);

(b)

Outlook requirements should not be permitted to be reduced

based on provision of a fence, as if a fence is downhill of a
window it may not provide for sufficient privacy. Provision of a
fence at an appropriate level may be considered through an
application to infringe the control;

(c)

I acknowledge that the daylight control is not as simple as a

height in relation to boundary control, for example. However I
consider that ensuring adequate access to daylight is essential
to achieve the quality living environment objectives of the
residential zones, and to enable the consequential benefits to
health and social wellbeing (as set out in the RMA). The

39
proposed control provides for flexibility in design responses,
while also providing clarity to applicants about what is
acceptable. The alternatives either a simplified control or
reliance on assessment criteria would either reduce flexibility
(in the case of a simplified control) or reduce certainty to
applicants (in the case of relying on assessment criteria), both of
which would have implications in terms of development
feasibility. In my view, and having regard to the position of Mr
McIndoe, I consider the proposed control is the most appropriate
method in achieving the objectives of the residential zones in
relation to daylight access and also development feasibility.
Minor amendments to the wording of the control are proposed to
increase clarity of application. I consider that the ongoing
education of architects, draughtsman and planners will increase
understanding of the application of the control over time.
Minimum dwelling size
5.55

The following statements of evidence raise concern with the minimum

dwelling size control:
(a)

Point Chevalier Residents against THAB (Jim Rendall): Raises

concern about developments in the THAB zone being allowed to
have 100% of 30sqm dwellings as of right. States that this is
too small to allow for functional living;

(b)

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc): Considers that the

minimum dwelling size in MHS should be 45sqm to avoid overintensification and provide an area for living consistent with
suburban character;

(c)

David Hermans (for MBIE): questions the justification for the

minimum dwelling size rule;

(d)

Auckland Regional Public Health Service: considers that the

proposed minimum dwelling size is the minimum appropriate to
enable compliance with the Housing Improvement Regulations
(based on likely occupancy) and therefore should not be further
reduced;

40
(e)

Gayleen Mackereth (for Howick Ratepayers and Residents

Association Inc): considers that a 40sqm minimum studio
apartment size would be appropriate in the THAB zone;

(f)

Nick Molloy: provides examples where dwellings smaller than

40sqm have been designed appropriately.

5.56

I reiterate that the minimum dwelling size control is not intended to

achieve built character (e.g. a suburban character in the MHS zone); it is
to achieve a quality living environment for residents of those units. I
acknowledge that smaller unit sizes may be appropriate, and note that
infringements to the minimum dwelling size are a non-notified RDA
activity enabling design assessment of the proposed layout. Having
regard to all of the above evidence, and the further analysis in Graeme
McIndoes rebuttal evidence (section 8), I continue to support the position
set out in my EIC at paragraphs 20.47 20.54.
Water and wastewater

5.57

Vijay Lala (for multiple parties) seeks to delete clause 2 of the water and
wastewater control, as he states this is not a RMA matter32. I agree that
the method and legal arrangements regarding connection to the
Watercare network is a matter to be addressed through Watercares
processes, rather than a development control. I therefore propose to
delete clause 2 of this control where it applies (MHS, MHU and THAB
zones).

5.58

Christine Coste (for Auckland Utility Operators Group and others) seeks
that this rule be extended to apply to all network utilities. The purpose of
the control is to recognise an existing significant issue with regards to
potential intensification in areas with current capacity constraints from
water or wastewater, and to restrict growth where these services cannot
be adequately provided. This will prevent land use consents being
provided for developments that cannot be serviced. I am not aware of
any

similar

significant

constraints

to

network

utilities

such

as

telecommunications or electricity that would warrant a similar control for

those services. I therefore do not support extending the control beyond
water and wastewater.
32

Paragraph 8.1(c) of Vijay Lalas evidence for multiple parties.

41

Design assessment
Design assessment criteria
5.59

Peter Hollenstein considers that the development controls and design

assessment criteria in the plan provide too much emphasis on passive
surveillance of the street, and states the sometimes orientating dwellings
not to the street would result in a better outcome overall. This matter has
been addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Graeme McIndoe (at section
10). I concur with his conclusions that providing passive surveillance and
positive design outcomes along the public realm are a desirable outcome
that does not necessarily preclude dual aspect dwellings or location of
principle living rooms and outdoor living areas where the greatest solar
access can be gained. The design assessment criteria will be considered
in the round having regard to the context of a particular proposal and I
therefore do not consider any changes are needed to weaken the focus
on providing quality streetscapes.

5.60

Ann Weaver, for SafeKids Aotearoa, seeks amendments to the design

criteria to specifically reference safety, and to require consideration of
physical separation of pedestrian and vehicle access to sites. Although I
agree that safety is an important design consideration, separate vehicle
and pedestrian access is not always practicable or desirable. A safe
environment can be created through well-designed shared access
spaces.

I propose a minor amendment to the relevant assessment

criteria at 10.2.3(f) Design of parking and access, subclause (vii) to clarify

the importance of safety, as follows:
vii. Vehicle crossings and accessways should be clearly separated from
pedestrian access. The spaces may be or integrated where designed as a
shared space with pedestrian priority to ensure a safe pedestrian
environment.
5.61

Sarah Gambitsis considers that the placement of the THAB zone should
respect heritage buildings. I note that design assessment criteria require
consideration to be given to site context, including the relationship of a
site with adjacent heritage buildings (refer assessment criteria 10.2.3(a)
Neighbourhood character, subclause (ii)).

42
5.62

Neil Donnelly, for Todd Property Group Ltd, makes the following points in
relation to the design assessment criteria:
(a)

Opposes assessment criteria as a method: Mr Donnelly

generally opposes the use of assessment criteria as they are too
detailed and do not promote design flexibility and innovation. He
considers that there should be reliance instead on strongly
worded objectives and policies, design statements and nonstatutory guidelines. In my view, design assessment criteria are
appropriate to provide clear guidance to applicants while also
enabling flexibility, and are therefore a useful and efficient tool in
achieving the relevant objectives and policies. Without design
assessment criteria, there would be a significant level of
uncertainty introduced in terms of what would be an acceptable
design outcome. In my view, reliance on design statements and
non-statutory guidelines alone would not be the most efficient
and effective method of achieving the relevant objectives and
policies.

(b)

If retained as a method, matters of discretion and assessment

criteria should include consideration of affordability or cost
implications: Mr Donnelly considers that high quality design
outcomes should be balanced against the affordability or cost of
the design, and the impact on the feasibility of development. I do
not support including these aspects as matters of discretion. The
release of density controls, increase in height in the THAB zone,
and the reduction in the number of development controls all
seek to minimise restrictions on development feasibility.
However, achieving a quality compact city, quality living
environments and reasonable levels of residential amenity
require an appropriate level of design. This overall balance in
achieving the overall objectives for Residential zones would be
disrupted by including affordability as a matter of discretion.

5.63

In addition, Neil Donnelly for Todd Property Group Ltd, as well as Amelia
Linzey and Matt Lindenberg for HNZC, oppose the use of directive words
such as should and maximise in the design assessment criteria. I note
that these are criteria only, however where these terms have been used,

43
this indicates the criteria is of importance. I further note this is the style
utilised throughout the PAUP and therefore I have adopted this
terminology for consistency.
5.64

Jonathan Maplesden states that the assessment criteria do not include

any reference of orientation to the sun. This is addressed in the rebuttal
evidence of Graeme McIndoe (refer paragraphs 17.30 - 17.31). I concur
with Mr McIndoe that sunlight access has been adequately addressed in
the proposed provisions and no further changes are required.

5.65

Richard Burton (for Auckland 2040 Inc) seeks specific inclusion of

residential amenity in the design assessment criteria33. Matters relating to
residential amenity of adjacent sites are managed through the
development controls, including height in relation to boundary, yards, and
outlook. These provide acceptable baselines to achieve the reasonable
residential amenity objectives and policies of the MHS, MHU and THAB
zones. I therefore do not support adding residential amenity to the design
assessment criteria, as this would be duplication of these matters and
would introduce uncertainty for applicants. However, I note that the
neighbourhood character criteria more broadly require consideration of
the sites context, which will include responding to adjacent sites where
appropriate.

5.66

Luke Christensen (for Generation Zero) considers that the design

assessment criteria are too onerous34. For example, Mr Christensen
identifies that the floor to ceiling heights in the criteria are higher than the
notified PAUP rules they replace. I note that the design assessment
criteria have not been significantly challenged and are in any event not
absolute requirements, only guidelines. In my view, they provide an
appropriate balance between giving clarity and certainty to designers
about what would be appropriate, while still enabling flexibility provided
quality living environments can be achieved.

5.67

Angus McKenzie (for The Character Coalition) considers that the

assessment criteria should recognise existing character, not just planned
character. Consideration of the existing character is appropriate in the
MHS, and this is recognised in the neighbourhood character criteria at

33
34

Paragraph 83 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.

Paragraphs 14 16 of Richard Burtons evidence for Auckland 2040 Inc.

44
10.2.3(a)(i). In areas of change, retaining the existing character will not
always be feasible. I consider the criteria provide an appropriate balance
between recognising existing and planned character.
5.68

Amelia Linzey and Matt Lindenberg (for HNZC) propose to include

assessment criteria relating to sustainable design as a consequence of
their position regarding the Sustainable Building control. I note that this is
outside the scope of the Residential Topics, as was addressed in Topic
074. I therefore do not have a position on those criteria and have not
included them in my amendments at Attachment A.
Competitive Design Process

5.69

Peter Hollenstein proposes a method that would enable developers to

opt-in to a competitive design process route that would avoid the
restricted discretionary activity resource consent route.

5.70

Having reviewed Mr Hollensteins evidence, and Mr Mcindoes rebuttal

(refer paragraphs 18.5 - 18.6), I agree in principle that a competitive
design process can assist in achieving quality design. However, I
consider that all buildings should be subject to a consistent set of design
assessment criteria to ensure a coherent approach to building form and
design in the residential zones. Replacing the resource consent process
with a competitive design process (by making winning entries a permitted
activity) risks buildings being designed without having regard to the
planning context. Therefore, although I support the concept of a
competitive design process to enhance design quality, I consider that this
should not replace the statutory framework for design assessment in the
Residential zones. I note that my evidence for the Regional Policy
Statement Section B2.2 Quality Built Environments proposed adding
Voluntary Design Competitions as a non-regulatory method (i.e. outside
the rules of the Unitary Plan). This is also the position set out in Graeme
McIndoes rebuttal evidence, which I concur with.

6.

METHODS FOR MANAGING ACTIVITIES

Early Childhood Centres

45
6.1

Richard Hall and Catherine Richards for Auckland Kindergarten

Association seek that a middle tier for early childcare centres between
200 400sqm as a non-notified restricted discretionary activity in the
Residential zones be reinstated (as per the PAUP) to provide a level of
certainty to ECLS operators. This would provide for around 30 60
children. For the reasons set out in my EIC (refer paragraphs 30.9
30.12), I do not support a default non-notified RDA activity status for
moderate scale facilities, as the appropriateness of this will depend on
the site and context. I do seek to enable these activities through a broad
RDA activity status subject to normal tests for notification.

I would

anticipate that where moderate scale facilities are appropriate, having

regard to the zone and context, that they could potentially be processed
on a non-notified activity.
Fire Stations
6.2

Fiona Blight (for NZ Fire Service) seeks that Emergency Services be a

restricted discretionary activity (subject to normal tests for notification)
within the residential zones. As stated in my EIC (refer paragraphs 33.3
33.8), I consider that these activities may have a wide range of effects on
residential amenity and built character, and therefore should be subject
to a discretionary activity level assessment.
Tertiary Education and Education facilities

6.3

Richard Blakeys evidence for The Prema Charitable Trust states that
there is no planning justification for tertiary education to be a noncomplying activity in the Large Lot zone, and that it should be
discretionary.

6.4

On review, I agree that tertiary education may be appropriate in the

Large Lot zone depending on the nature and scale of the activity, and the
context of the site. This is consistent with my approach to discretionary
activity as stated in paragraph 29.2(c) of my EIC, and specifically in
relation to tertiary education activities in paragraph 33.2 of my EIC. I
therefore propose to amend the activity status from non-complying to
discretionary in the Large Lot zone, to enable applications to be
assessed on its merits (refer EIC principles). Although no evidence was

46
received specifically in relation to education facilities in the Large Lot
zone, I consider a consistent approach would be appropriate and
therefore propose amending the activity status of education facilities in
Large Lot zone from non-complying to discretionary. Although this is not
specifically requested by any submitter (and is therefore out of scope), I
consider this would be appropriate having regard to the objectives and
policies of the Large Lot zone.
Care Centres and Community Facilities on sites designated by the
Minister of Education
6.5

In Topic 055 Social Infrastructure, Trevor Mackies evidence for Auckland

Council supported the rezoning of public schools from the Special
Purpose School zone, to a residential, business or rural zone in
accordance with the general surrounding zoning. School activities and
development will be provided for through the designation, however these
designations do not provide for community uses of the grounds outside
of school hours. Trevor Mackies evidence has recommended that the
activity tables for the residential zone be amended to enable community
use of designated state school facilities as a permitted activity35.

6.6

This was missed in error from my EIC. I concur that it is appropriate to

enable existing public schools to be utilised for a range of community
activities and care centres. This will assist in achieving General Objective
3 and Policy 6 for the residential zones. However, these should be
subject to the same operational conditions as for schools (in particular,
noise limits), in order to achieve reasonable levels of residential amenity
as required by the objectives for each of the residential zones. Further,
any new buildings specifically for these activities should be subject to
design assessment. I therefore propose to enable care centres and
community facilities on sites designated by the Minister of Education as
permitted activities, subject to the following land use control:
3.7 Care Centres and Community Facilities on sites designated by the
Minister of Education
1. Activities should comply with the relevant designation conditions,
including general Education designation condition 2 - Noise.
2. Activities should be located within existing buildings.

35

Refer paragraph 10.40 of Trevor Mackies evidence for Auckland Council on Topic 055:
Social Infrastructure.

47

6.7

Activities that do not comply with the above controls (including if they
involve a new building) will default back to the discretionary activity status
for these activities in residential zones. Alternatively, the Ministry could
seek to construct a new building through the Outline Plan of Works
process under their designation if it will also be for educational purposes.
Offices

6.8

The following statements of evidence seek to enable offices within the

Residential zones:
(a)

David Wren for Ruthford Rede, Webster and Co and Chivalry

Enterprises: Seeks a City Centre Fringe Office overlay (or
similar) to apply to sites south of College Hill, Freemans Bay;

(b)

Philip Harland (for Philip and Janice Harland): Seeks provision

for offices up to 400sqm as a restricted discretionary activity
within the THAB zone.

6.9

In general, I consider that offices not enabled by the Home Occupation

rules are generally not appropriate for Residential zones, as this activity
would not be consistent with the objectives for residential amenity.
Further, offices should be concentrated in centres due to the accessibility
of centres (including by public transport), and the contribution that office
workers have to the vitality and vibrancy of those centres.

6.10

However, in fringe locations around the City Centre and Takapuna

Metropolitan Centre, there are established areas with a residential built
character where offices have become part of the established amenity,
and where office activity may still achieve the policy direction for those
centres. To cater for offices within the identified sites at College Hill,
Freemans Bay (as shown in the evidence of David Wren for Ruthford
Rede, Webster and Co and Chivalry Enterprises), I propose a City
Centre Fringe Control to enable offices as a permitted activity within an
existing building..

6.11

The primary submission of Philip and Janice Harland states that not
providing for offices in the THAB zone removes current development

48
rights which enable residential scale offices on the south side of Byron
Street and the north side of Bracken Avenue to the east of Burns
Avenue. The right to undertake office activities on these sites was
established through an Environment Court decision (RMA 1449/95), and
are provided for through a Controlled Activity status within the Residential
7 (Office) zone of the legacy North Shore District Plan. The matters for
assessment

relate

to

residential

amenity.

Having

reviewed

the

background to this control, I consider it is appropriate to enable offices

within existing buildings as a permitted activity on the sites identified in
Philip and Janice Harlands primary submission. Provided the office
activity is within an existing buildings, and the relevant Auckland-wide
controls (including for parking and noise) are complied with, I consider
the general residential and business zone objectives would be met. New
office buildings on these sites should be a full discretionary activity to
enable consideration of the potential adverse effects and the relevant
objectives and policies.
Activity status near industrial zones
6.12

Annejo Liang (for Atlas Concrete Ltd) proposes a discretionary activity

status for any residential or community activities within 500m of the
Heavy Industry zone, or 100m from the Light Industry zone. I consider
that this matter is more appropriately addressed through the Sensitive
Activity Restriction overlay (refer Topic 035) than within the Residential
zone provisions. I therefore do not propose any amendments to address
this matter.
Activity status near Golf Clubs

6.13

Glen Ogilvie, for Akarana Golf Club Limited, seeks a further row in the
activity table making all development within 30 metres of the boundaries
of the Akarana Golf Course a controlled activity, enabling Council to be
able to impose conditions to enhance safety and reduce potential
damage to the proposed development from golf balls. In my view, this is
a specific property related issue that should be addressed between the
owners of the golf club and the adjacent residents, rather than through
planning regulation. I therefore do not propose any amendments in
response to this statement of evidence.

49

7.

OTHER MATTERS
ACDC Model

7.1

A number of statements of evidence raise concerns about the re-run of

ACDC model, and the interpretation of the outputs (including Patrick
Fontein, Adam Thompson for Property Council, and David Hermans for
the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment). Other statements
(e.g. Jim Rendall for Point Chevalier Residents against THAB) seek to
utilise the model outputs as a reason for changing provisions or the
extent of zones.

7.2

Although the ACDC model outputs provide a useful check that the
residential zoning strategy and provisions will assist in meeting the RPS
housing capacity objectives, they are not fundamental to my position as
comprehensively set out in my EIC. The zoning strategy and provisions
(including development controls) are based on providing a balanced
approach in achieving the key policy directions, including providing for a
quality compact city; increasing housing capacity and choice; quality
living environments and residential amenity.

7.3

Key barriers to increasing housing capacity from a feasibility perspective

were identified through mediation and Auckland Councils economic
evidence as being the density controls, the insufficient height flexibility
particularly in the MHU zone, and the four storey height limit in the THAB
zone. The residential controls set out in my EIC seek to resolve these
key issues.

7.4

Based on the evidence received, I consider there is no significant issue

with the proposed provisions (including the overall zoning strategy and
development

controls)

from

feasibility

perspective.

The

main

development feasibility concerns raised by submitters evidence are in

relation to building coverage, minimum dwelling size, and the spatial
extent of zones. With regard to the controls, I have addressed these in
my EIC and earlier in this rebuttal statement. I consider that further
consideration of the developable capacity enabled by the PAUP will likely
be required as part of the rezoning topics, which are outside the scope of

50
this evidence. I note that the statements of evidence of Vijay Lala (for
multiple parties) and David Hermans (for MBIE) also acknowledge that
the ACDC Model will be a useful tool for the rezoning topics (more so
than for determining the controls within the residential zones). Having
reviewed the concerns raised in respect of the ACDC15 model, there is
currently no issue identified that would cause me to substantially review
my position on the Residential provisions, which work together as a
whole to provide a balanced approach to achieving the relevant
objectives.
Site or area specific requests
7.5

A number of submitters provided evidence raising concerns about the

zoning provisions for specific areas. These include:
(a)

Graham F Pearce; Phil S and Philippa M Wells: Raise concern

regarding the lack of protection for sunlight access to existing
homes in the THAB zone, and therefore request that the
residential area bounded by St Heliers Bay Road, Tuhimata
Street and Benbow Street be rezoned from THAB zone to MHU.

(b)

Jim Rendall for Point Chevalier Residents against THAB: Raises

a fundamental concern with the THAB zone in the Point
Chevalier Bird streets.

(c)

Sarah

Gambitsis

and

Hartwig

Clasen:

Raises

concerns

regarding the extent of THAB zone around Royal Oak and

Onehunga, and the lack of THAB in more appropriate locations
(e.g. Sandringham, Mt Eden, Newmarket).
(d)

G L Smith for Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Incorporated:

Seeks to apply open space or low density zones around the
base of all maunga.

(e)

David Wren (for Alice and David Wren): Seeks the additional
height provided for Selwyn Village should transition from 11m to
8m adjacent to the SH zoned sites.

(f)

Jeff Brown (for Caughey Preston Trust): Seeks a precinct for

this aged-care facility as it does not benefit from provisions for
retirement villages, and currently has a concept plan in the
legacy plan.

51
(g)

Tuperiri Road Residents Association: Seeks that both sides of

the Tuperiri Road cul-de-sac should be zoned Mixed Housing
Suburban (rather than split between MHS and MHU as in the
PAUP).

7.6

I consider that these matters are outside the scope of the residential
provisions themselves, and relate more to the spatial extent of zones
which is a matter for Topics 080 and 081.

7.7

For clarity, I note that other submitter requests regarding site or area
specific matters (such as a higher minimum site size for Epsom or larger
yards in Howick) do form part of my analysis. For the reasons generally
set out in Part B of my EIC, I do not support area-specific variation in the
Residential controls. Where there are significant infrastructure, historic
character or site/place specific values that justify a diversion from the
standard residential approach, these should be analysed through a s32
process and tailored controls applied through an overlay or a precinct.
Where an overlay or precinct does not apply (as addressed through other
topics by Auckland Council), I support the residential controls as set out
in Attachment A of this rebuttal evidence.
Infrastructure related terminology

7.8

Christine Coste (for Auckland Utility Operators Group and others) seeks
changes to provisions to ensure consistency of terminology including
infrastructure, network utilities, community infrastructure/social facilities,
throughout the PAUP. I have sought clarification from Auckland Council
and a number of minor amendments are proposed to ensure consistency
with Auckland Councils position on previous topics, as detailed in
Attachment A.
Mediation process

7.9

A number of submitters raise concerns in evidence about the lack of

representation of lay people and community groups at the mediation
(e.g. Hartwig Clasen; Point Chevalier Residents against THAB), and
consider that the proposed provisions are in favour of developers rather
than existing communities. As comprehensively set out in my EIC, I have

52
sought

to

achieve

an

appropriate

balance

between

enabling

intensification, housing capacity and choice; and providing for quality

living environments and residential amenity. The provisions seek to
enable change while also recognising that this change will occur in
established residential areas with an expectation of a reasonable level of
sunlight, privacy, and landscaping. Auckland 2040 (which represents a
large number of community groups) and Herne Bay Residents
Association participated in the expert conferencing workshops and are
signatories to a joint statement demonstrating significant agreement to
the set of development controls. I therefore assure these submitters, and
the panel, that I have had adequate regard to the values of existing
residents as well as developers when reaching the position as set out in
Attachment A to this rebuttal evidence.
Nicholas Roberts
6 October 2015