080 ak cncl - public open space - hayman park precinct (d wong) - planning

8/20/2019 080 Ak Cncl - Public Open Space - Hayman Park Precinct (D Wong) - Planning

1/21

1

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991and the Local Government (AucklandTransitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 080 Rezoning and Precincts(General)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and furthersubmissions set out in the Parties andIssues Report

EVIDENCE REPORT ON A SUBMISSION BY DAVID ALAN WONG FOR A NEWPRECINCT ON THE SOUTH WESTERN PART OF HAYMAN PARK, MANUKAU

3 DECEMBER 2015


2/21

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1 2.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

3.

CODE OF CONDUCT .................................................................................................... 2

4. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... 2 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL .................................................................... 2 6. APPROACH TO PRECINCTS WITHIN THE PAUP ....................................................... 3 7. STATUTORY AND PAUP FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 3 PART B –PRECINCT CONTEXT AND SUBMISSION THEMES ........................................... 5

8. CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 5 9.

PRECINCT SUBMISSION THEMES .............................................................................. 6

10. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PRECINCTSUBMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7

11.

MERIT ASSESSMENT OF NEW PRECINCT REQUESTS ........................................ 7

12.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP .................. 8

13. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 ATTACHMENT A: CV OF REPORT WRITER ....................................................................... 9 ATTACHMENT B: MAP OF THE PROPOSED PRECINCT ON HAYMAN PARK ................ 10

ATTACHMENT C: NEW PRECINCT PROVISIONS FOR THE TE PAPA MANUKAUPRECINCT, AS PROPOSED BY TE PAPA TONGAREWA ................................................ 11

ATTACHMENT D: MERIT ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW TE PAPA MANUKAU PRECINCTON HAYMAN PARK, MANUKAU ........................................................................................ 12


3/21

1

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this Evidence Report (Report) is to consider submissions and further

submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Topic 080 Rezoning and

Precincts General (Topic 080). This Report considers a submission point received

by Auckland Council (the Council) from The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa

Tongarewa (6318-2) (Te Papa Tongarewa) seeking to establish a new precinct

covering the south western part of Hayman Park, Manukau.

1.2 The precinct seeks to accommodate the proposed National Centre for Collections,

Learning and Exhibitions (National Centre), and to provide a range of activities that

are accessory to the use of the National Centre including conference facilities,

education activities, exhibitions, restaurant and café, and retail activities; as permitted

activities.

1.3 Specific development controls proposed for the precinct are:

maximum building height of 18m;

maximum site coverage of 70%; and

maximum impervious surface of 27,000m2.

1.4 No further submissions were received to this submission point.

1.5 The Report includes my proposal on whether to accept or reject the submission point.

The report identifies whether the submission point should be accepted or rejected, in

full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters

raised in the submission point.

PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The purpose of this Report is to consider submissions and further submissions to

Topic 080. This Report considers a submission point (6318-2) that was received by

the Council in relation to establishing a new precinct covering the south western part

of Hayman Park, Manukau.

2.2 The Report has been prepared by David Alan Wong. The qualifications and

experience of the Report writer are attached in Attachment A.


4/21

2

2.3 The Report identifies whether the submission point should be accepted or rejected, in

full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters

raised in the submission.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note 2014 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 Report is within my area of

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

4. SCOPE

4.1 I am providing planning evidence in relation to a submission point (6318-2) seeking to

establish a new precinct covering the south western part of Hayman Park, Manukau.

4.2 In preparing this Report I have relied on the Auckland-wide statements of evidence of

John Duguid for Topic 080 and Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographic

(Topic 080) which sets out the statutory framework, methodology, principles and

section 32 evaluations, used to guide the development and application of zones and

precincts.

4.3 In the alternative to the requested precinct, Te Papa Tongarewa seek that the

relevant area be re-zoned Public Open Space – Community zone. This submission

(6318-2) is addressed in the Council's Joint Evidence Report for Topic 080 Public

Open Space Rezoning.

5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL

5.1 I have read the Panel’s Interim Guidance and in particular those relating to:

(a) Chapter G: General Provisions, dated 9 March 2015;

(b) Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, dated 31 July 2015;

(c) Air Quality, dated 25 September 2015; and

(d) Chapter G General Provisions, dated 9 October 2015.


5/21

3

6. APPROACH TO PRECINCTS WITHIN THE PAUP

6.1 The Council’s approach to precincts is detailed in the evidence of Mr Duguid. In

particular, Mr Duguid outlines the Plan structure and the relationship between

overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions. Mr Duguid also provides anoverview of the methodology for applying precincts and the types of precincts

identified in the PAUP. I have read and agree with this evidence.

Section 32 and 32AA

6.2 As outlined in the Auckland Unitary Plan Evaluation Report (the Evaluation Report),

the Council has focussed its section 32 assessment on the objectives and provisions

within the PAUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the

current operative Auckland RMA policies and plans. Whilst the Evaluation Report

applies to the entire plan, the report targets the 50 topics where the provisions

represent a significant policy shift.

6.3 I have assessed the proposed precinct in accordance with s 32AA in the body of this

Report, commensurate with the limited scale and significance of the changes

proposed.

7. STATUTORY AND PAUP FRAMEWORK

7.1 The general statutory and PAUP framework is detailed in the evidence of Mr Duguid,

dated 3 December 2015. The specific Public Open Space framework is outlined in

the Council’s Joint Evidence Report for Topic 080 Public Open Space Rezoning. In

addition, the provisions of the Regional Policy Statement 2.7 Social Infrastructure that

are relevant in light of the scale and nature of the proposed National Centre are

outlined below.

(a) Specific objectives that relate to social infrastructure include:

1 - A high quality network of Social infrastructure that meets Aucklanders’ needs

both locally and regionally.

2 - Social infrastructure is located where it is accessible by a range of transport

modes.

(b) Specific policies that relate to Social infrastructure include:

2 - Provide Auckland with sufficient Social infrastructure to meet the needs of its

growing population (sub-points (a) to (d) are not repeated here).


6/21

4

3 - Enable the efficient use of land and facilities by providing for complementary

activities to occur on Social infrastructure sites.

4 - Improve connections between Social infrastructure and public transport, cycling

and walking networks.

5 - Manage the transport effects of large scale Social infrastructure in an integrated

manner.

6 - Require Social infrastructure to:

a - be safe and functional for its users

b - be sympathetic to the character, both existing and future, of the area and

community in which it is located

c - incorporates the principles of sustainable building design

d - maintain the amenity of any adjoining streets and sites.

Designations, Overlays and other Spatial controls

7.2 The following overlays apply to the proposed precinct area:

(a) Vehicle access restriction – motorway interchange control

(b) Designation 1102 – Airspace Restriction Designation

(c) Auckland Airport – Moderate Aircraft Noise area

(d) Building frontage – General Commercial Frontage

(e) Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation over part of the south-western

corner of Hayman Park

(f) Heavy Industry Air Quality – Wiri, Sensitive Activity Restriction

(g) Manukau City Waitemata Aquifer

(h) High use stream management area

(i) Stormwater management area – Flow 2.

7.3 The precinct does not propose to override the overlays or spatial controls listed at

7.2(a) to 7.2(h) above.


7/21

5

7.4 However, the precinct does not specify a maximum impervious area, and uncertainty

exists whether the precinct would seek to override the Stormwater management area

– Flow 2 overlay. A maximum impervious area above 10% or 5000m2 for the

underlying Public Open Space – Informal recreation zone triggers a restricted

discretionary assessment of the potential consequences of this, and allows

appropriate mitigation options to be assessed.

7.5 I consider that the overlays and other spatial controls applying to the proposed

precinct area provide an additional layer of management and control but do not

significantly restrict the ability to develop the proposed National Centre.

PART B –

PRECINCT CONTEXT AND SUBMISSION THEMES

8. CONTEXT

8.1 This proposed new precinct is located at the south western part of Hayman Park,

Manukau and comprises about four hectares. The precinct location is shown in

Attachment B.

8.2 The precinct proposes specific controls to recognise and manage the individual

characteristics and the environmental issues within this area.

8.3 The underlying zoning of land in the precinct is Public Open Space – Informal

Recreation.

8.4 The following designations, overlays and spatial controls apply to the proposed

precinct area:

(a) Vehicle access restriction – motorway interchange control

(b) Designation 1102 – Airspace Restriction Designation

(c) Auckland Airport – Moderate Aircraft Noise area

(d) Building frontage – General Commercial Frontage

(e) Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation over part of the south-western

corner of Hayman Park

(f) Heavy Industry Air Quality – Wiri, Sensitive Activity Restriction


8/21

6

(g) Manukau City Waitemata Aquifer

(h) High use stream management area

(i) Stormwater management area – Flow 2.

8.5 The proposed precinct area is located on Hayman Park adjoining the Manukau

Metropolitan Centre zone to the north, east and south. The surrounding area is

characterised by a mix of retail, office and apartments. Located to the south is the

Manukau Institute of Technology’s campus, housing the Manukau train station.

8.6 There is a signed letter of agreement (dated 5 September 2013) by the Minister for

Arts, Culture and Heritage; Auckland Mayor; Te Papa Board Chair; and the Chair of

the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board setting out their agreement to work jointly to

explore and advance the development of a national cultural centre to be located in

South Auckland.

8.7 The Council has agreed in principle to make between two to four hectares of land

within Hayman Park available for the development of a new museum and storage

facility.

8.8 Some initial general concept designs that show the location of the proposed

development were prepared, but are subject to revision in response to consultation.The timing of the development has been adversely impacted by a decision by

Cabinet not to proceed with funding in the current financial year. While Te Papa has

advised that they intend to proceed; the nature, size, detailed location and timing of

development has not been resolved.

9. PRECINCT SUBMISSION THEMES

9.1 One submission point (6318-2) by Te Papa Tongarewa has been received requesting

the inclusion of a precinct overlay over the south western part of Hayman Park to

accommodate the proposed National Centre. No further submissions were received.

9.2 Informal discussions were held on the 19 October 2015 between the Council and Mr

Mark Vinall, the Planning Consultant for Te Papa Tongarewa, to seek further

information to support the precinct. On 30 October 2015, draft provisions for the

proposed Te Papa Manukau Precinct were provided to the Council.

9.3 The draft provisions included new objectives, policies, activity table, and development

controls seeking exemptions to the height in relation to boundary, yards, screening,


9/21

7

and gross floor area threshold controls for the Public Open Space zones in the

PAUP.

10. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PRECINCT

SUBMISSIONS

10.1 There are no proposed amendments outside the scope of submissions.

PART C: ANALYSIS OF NEW PRECINCTS

11. MERIT ASSESSMENT OF NEW PRECINCT REQUESTS

11.1 I have conducted a merit assessment of the proposed new Te Papa Manukau

precinct to determine whether I support the submission point (6318-2) by Te Papa

Tongarewa. The precinct content (set out in Attachment C) was received following

the Council’s request for additional information to support the submission point

requesting a new precinct. My merit assessment is contained in Attachment D.

11.2 I do not support the proposed new precinct, because it provides for all of the activities

associated with the National Centre as permitted activities, with very permissive

development controls. Consequently, the provisions (i.e. activity statuses, controls

and assessment criteria) do not provide sufficient certainty to the Council that the

adverse effects related to the following matters can be adequately addressed or

mitigated:

development design

external appearance

landscaping

stormwater

screening of refuse collection areas

effects of the proposal on public access to, and use of Hayman Park.

11.3 My concerns regarding the lack of controls over these matters is exacerbated by the

lack of detailed, finalised plans for the National Centre, which is perhaps inevitable

with a project at this stage of its development.


10/21

8

11.4 In addition, the new precinct would have an underlying Public Open Space – Informal

Recreation zone. The provisions of the precinct would be inconsistent with the

provisions of the underlying zone, contrary to the IHP's Interim Guidance Best

practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts.

11.5 The Council remains open to working with the submitter to resolve the matters

outlined above, to the extent that this may be presently possible.

11.6 Having regard to my merit assessment, I note that, in the absence of a precinct, a

possible alternative is that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage could lodge a

notice of requirement to designate land on Hayman Park for the National Centre.

The nature and scope of the proposal could be controlled through conditions imposed

on the designation. However, the Minister would be required to take on financially

responsibility for the designation.

12. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP

12.1 There are no consequential amendments to other parts of the PAUP as a result of my

evidence.

13. CONCLUSIONS

13.1 I have considered the submission point (6318-2) by Te Papa Tongarewa seeking a

new precinct on the south western part of Hayman Park, Manukau. In my opinion,

the precinct provisions i.e. controls and assessment criteria do not provide sufficient

certainty to the Council that matters including urban design, landscaping, and

stormwater, and effects on Hayman Park; can be adequately addressed and adverse

effects mitigated. A possible alternative could be to designate land on Hayman Park

to enable the development of the National Centre for Collections, Learning and

Exhibitions.

David Alan Wong

3 December 2015


11/21

9

ATTACHMENT A:

CV of Report Writer

Career Summary

Career Period Role Organisation

2010 to present Principal Planner Auckland Council

2000 to 2010 Senior Planner Auckland City Council

1991 to 2000 Planner Manukau City Council

Qualifications

Bachelor of Planning, University of Auckland, 1992

Bachelor of Arts, University of Auckland, 1989

Affiliations

Full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

Career Summary

I have over twenty years’ experience working in the former Manukau City Council, the former

Auckland City Council, and Auckland Council on designations, plan changes, and spatial

plans. For the last two years I have been Lead Planner for the Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan,

and contributed to the development of the rural urban boundary at Puhinui in the PAUP.


12/21

10

ATTACHMENT B:

Map of the proposed precinct on Hayman Park

Location and extent of the precinct


13/21

11

ATTACHMENT C:

New Precinct Provisions for the Te Papa Manukau Precinct, as proposed by Te Papa

Tongarewa


14/21

BF\55570707\1 | Page 1

Topic 080k Rezoning and Precincts (General) – Public Open Space

Attachment C to evidence of David Wong

Te Papa Manukau Precinct provisions, as proposed by Te Papa Tongarewa

Te Papa Manukau precinctThe underlying zoning of the land within the Te Papa Manukau precinct is the Public Open Space

– Informal Recreation zone. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of theprecinct.

1. Precinct description

The Te Papa Manukau precinct covers the south-western corner of Hayman Park. The site hasbeen identified for the development of a National Centre for Collections, Learnings andExhibitions.

The National Centre will provide a significant community-focused education, interactive learningand community outreach facility as well exhibitions drawn from collections or as part of touringprogrammes. The facility will also provide environmentally safe, efficient, secure storage fortaonga, national cultural, scientific and heritage collections.

The purpose of the precinct to provide for the development and use of the museum and storagefacility. The precinct enables a range of activities that are accessory to the museum and storage

facility and contains development controls to manage potential adverse effects on the operationand open space nature of Hayman Park.

2. Objectives

The objectives are as listed in the Public Open Space – Informal Recreation zone, in addition tothose specified below.

1. A museum and storage facility is developed and used in a way that meets the needs of usersand the technical needs of the facility and is compatible with the open space character ofHayman Park.

3. Policies

The policies are as listed in the underlying Public Open Space – Informal Recreation zone, inaddition to those specified below.

1. Enable the use of a defined area of Hayman Park for a museum and storage facility.

2. Manage development including building height, building coverage so it will be compatible withthe open space character of Hayman Park.


15/21

BF\55570707\1 | Page 2

3. Enable appropriate accessory activities to occur.

Precinct Rules

Te Papa Manukau precinct

The activities, controls and assessment criteria in the underlying Public Open Space – InformalRecreation zone and the Auckland-wide rules apply in the Te Papa Manukau precinct unlessotherwise specified below. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct.

1. Activity table

Activity table Te Papa precinct

Activity Activity status

Commerce

Retail activities accessory toMuseums

P

Restaurants and cafes, excludingdrive-through facility, accessory toMuseums

P

Community

Museum P

Displays and exhibitions P

Conference facilities accessory toMuseums

P

Education facilities accessory toMuseums

P

2. Development controls

2.1 Site coverage

1. The maximum permitted site coverage or cumulative total area of buildings must not exceed

70% of the total precinct.

2. Development that does not comply with clause 2.2.1 is a discretionary activity.

Comment [M1]: The buildingcoverage and height controls werebased on analysis of Te Papa’s futurecollection storage needs, with anadditional estimate for the collections ofpotential partner organisations(Auckland based museum facilities).The size and scale of the facility alsoincluded estimates for an exhibitionspace, interactive learning areas andother functional space. Constructionaffordability was also a factor indetermining the Centre’s GFA.


16/21

BF\55570707\1 | Page 3

2.2 Building height

1. Building height must not exceed 18m.

2. Development that does not comply with clause 2.2.2 is a discretionary activity.

2.3 Impervious area

1. The maximum impervious area must not exceed xx per cent.

2.4 Height in relation to boundary

1. The Public Open Space zone Rule I3.3 Height in relation to boundary does not apply in the TePapa Manukau precinct.

2.5 Yards

1. The Public Open Space zone Rule I3.4 Yards does not apply in the Te Papa Manukauprecinct.

2.6 Screening

1. The Public Open Space zone Rule I3.5 Screening does not apply in the Te Papa Manukauprecinct.

2.7 Gross floor area threshold

1. The Public Open Space zone Rule I3.6 Gross floor area threshold does not apply in the TePapa Manukau precinct.

3. Assessment – Restricted discretionary activities

3.1 Matters of discretion

In addition to the general matters set out in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions, the council

will restrict its discretion to the matters for infringements in the Public Open Space – Informal

Recreation zone and the Auckland-wide rules.

3.2 Assessment criteria

In addition to the general assessment criteria in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions, the

council will consider the relevant assessment criteria for development control infringement in the

Public Open Space – Informal Recreation zone and the Auckland-wide rules.

Comment [M2]: This figure willdepend on the extent of the precinctarea. Council has agreed in principle tomake between two and four hectares ofland available. The precinct area isapprox. 4 hectares in area.


17/21

BF\55570707\1 | Page 4

Precinct Area


18/21

12

ATTACHMENT D:

Merit Assessment of the New Te Papa Manukau Precinct on Hayman Park, Manukau

Assessment criteria Relevance Initial assessment to determine whether if theprecinct is justified

Special housing areas

1. Is the precinct area or part

thereof subject to an operative

variation or resource consent

under HAASHA?

No

PAUP strategy

2. Does the precinct align with

the strategic direction of the

PAUP, i.e. RPS and zones?

No • The existing underlying Public Open Space –

Informal Recreation zone for Hayman Park in the

PAUP does not provide for the outcomes sought

in the precinct i.e. the proposed National Centre or

its associated activities and development controls.

• No information has been provided by the submitter

on the infrastructure required to support the

precinct.

3. Does the precinct conform

with Council’s position on the

RUB?

Not

applicable

Hayman Park is located within the RUB.

4. Does the precinct avoid

overriding overlays? (Refer

Rule G2.1)

No Nine overlays or spatial controls apply to the

proposed precinct area in the PAUP. The precinct

does not propose to override eight of the overlays or

spatial controls. However, the precinct does not

specify a maximum impervious area, and

uncertainty exists whether the precinct would seek

to override the Stormwater management area –

Flow 2 overlay.

Necessity for the precinct

5. Is sufficient and appropriate

infrastructure capacity

available to support the

development?

No No information has been provided by the submitter

on the infrastructure required to support the

proposed precinct e.g. parking, water, wastewater,

stormwater management.


19/21

13

Consider both site and

network implications re timing,

operational standards and

funding strategies has the

submitter discussed proposed

precinct with AT, Watercare,

Stormwater / has approval

been obtained

6. Is the precinct outcome

clearly stated and can it be

categorised against precinct

types?

Yes The precinct outcome is clearly stated, and is

seeking to provide for a National Centre for

collections, learning and exhibitions.

7. Can the activity rely on

existing use rights or existing

resource consents or

designations?

No

8. Does the zone or Auckland-

wide rules provide for this

activity?

No The existing underlying Public Open Space –

Informal Recreation zone does not provide for the

proposed National Centre or its associated activities

and development controls.

9. Is there an existing precinct

over this area in the notified

PAUP?

No

10. Does the precinct only

control 1-2 matters

No The precinct proposes new objectives, policies, and

development controls.

Statutory

11. Does the precinct result in

significant or meaningful

departure/variation from the

underlying zone or Auckland-

wide provisions which

recognises place based

differences/circumstances?

Yes The current underlying Public Open Space –

Informal Recreation zone for Hayman Park in the

PAUP does not provide for the proposed National

Centre or its associated activities and development

controls.

12. Does the precinct give

effect to a recent plan change

No


20/21

14

or Environment Court decision

(generally either 2 years prior

to AUP notification or post

notification) to amend a legacy

plan.

13. For previously considered/

declined plan changes to

amend a legacy plan, does the

precinct demonstrate

significant new information or

changed circumstances?

Not

applicable

14. Other matters Yes An alternative method is available to enable the

proposed National Centre. The proposal could be

achieved by the Minister for Arts, Culture and

Heritage lodging a notice of requirement to

designate land on Hayman Park for the National

Centre.

As addressed in the Council’s Joint Evidence Report

for Topic 080 Public Open Space Rezoning, the

request by Te Papa Tongarewa (submission point

6318-1) to rezone the south western part of Hayman

Park from Public Open Space – Informal Recreation

to Public Open Space – Community to provide for

the National Centre is not supported by the Council

due to:

uncertainty regarding the nature, size, detailed

location and timing of the proposal

lack of detailed analysis to determine the effects

on Hayman Park or local area of enabling a

broader range of activities envisage by the

Public Open Space - Community zone.

Conclusion

The new precinct is not supported as:

its provisions i.e. controls and assessment criteria do not provide sufficient certainty to the

Council that matters including urban design, landscaping, and stormwater, and effects on


21/21

15

Hayman Park; can be adequately addressed and adverse effects mitigated

an alternative method is available to enable the National Centre i.e. through a designation

the nature, size, detailed location, and timing of the National Centre have not been resolved

lack of detailed analysis to determine the potential effects on Hayman Park of establishing a

broader range of community activities.

080 ak cncl - public open space - hayman park precinct (d wong) - planning

Documents