milford town centre intensification - auckland council · 2012-07-04 · milford town centre...

Milford Town Centre Intensification Social Impact Assessment

Final Report

Milford Centre Limited c/o SKM 21 November 2007

This report has been prepared on behalf of:

Milford Centre Limited c/o SKM

This report has been prepared by:

SGS Economics and Planning Pty. Ltd.

ACN 007 437 729

Suite 12/50 Reservoir Street,

Surry Hills NSW 2010

phone: 61 2 8307 0121

fax: 61 2 8307 0126

email: [email protected]

web: www.sgs-pl.com.au

Milford Town Centre Intensification Social Impact Assessment / Final Report

1706sia (Final Report_Milford_21 November2007_Compressed).doc Pi

Executive Summary ................................................................... 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Milford Town Centre ........................................................................................................... 1 The Proposed Development ................................................................................................. 1 Potential Impacts, Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies................................................... 2

1 Introduction ....................................................................... 5

1.1 Background and Scope of the Study............................................................................. 5 1.2 Method and Limitations .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Structure of the Report .............................................................................................. 9

2 Milford Town Centre ...........................................................10

2.1 The Existing Centre ................................................................................................. 10 2.2 The Proposed Development ...................................................................................... 16 2.3 Future Population, Housing and Employment............................................................... 17 2.4 The Policy Context................................................................................................... 19

3 Benefits and Costs of Residential Intensification in Centres ...25

3.1 Background to Centres Policies.................................................................................. 25 3.2 Regional Benefits and Costs ...................................................................................... 25 3.3 Local Benefits and Costs........................................................................................... 27 3.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs................................................................................. 29

4 Baseline of Social and Economic Conditions ..........................31

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Demographic Characteristics..................................................................................... 32 4.3 Socio-Economic Characteristics ................................................................................. 39 4.4 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................ 43 4.5 Employment and Economy........................................................................................ 49 4.6 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure ........................................................................... 52 4.7 Transport and Access............................................................................................... 52 4.8 Community Services, Programs and Facilities .............................................................. 54 4.9 Summary of Baseline Conditions................................................................................ 56

5 Potential Impacts ...............................................................58

5.1 The Demand and Supply of Housing........................................................................... 58 5.2 Economic Vitality and Centre Vibrancy........................................................................ 61 5.3 Impacts on Infrastructure......................................................................................... 63 5.4 Potential Impacts on the Amenity of the Surrounding Environment ................................. 64 5.5 Impacts on Community Wellbeing.............................................................................. 66 5.6 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 68


1706sia (Final Report_Milford_21 November2007_Compressed).docPii

6 Potential Mitigation Strategies ............................................70

7 Conclusion.........................................................................75

8 References ........................................................................77

Appendix 1 - Risk Impact Assessment ........................................79


1706sia (Final Report_Milford_21 November2007_Compressed).doc P1

Executive Summary

Introduction

In June 2007, SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) was commissioned by Milford Centre Limited via

SKM to undertake a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in relation to the proposal to seek a change to

the North Shore District Plan to enhance the opportunity for the intensification of residential

development on the site owned by Milford Centre Limited at 143 Kitchener Road, Milford. A full

description of the proposal under review is provided in Section 2.

The purpose of the SIA was to independently assess the likely positive and negative social

consequences associated with intensification of the Milford Centre area such that an objective

assessment of the extent of the risks associated with potential impacts was known. Where

necessary, mitigation strategies to remove or lessen negative impacts on affected individuals and

populations were identified.

Milford Town Centre

The Milford Town Centre is situated within the North Shore City area some 12km from the Auckland

CBD and is located within 1km of the coast. Milford has developed to become an established

suburban shopping and service centre. The town centre includes a retail/commercial precinct zoned

Business 2 in the North Shore City Council District Plan, 2002. The area zoned Business 2

surrounding the site is generally characterised by small lots and dispersed property ownership

patterns.

The subject site referred to within this report as the Milford Shopping Centre (MSC) site, has a total

area of 2.9062 hectares. The site is currently utilised by the Milford Shopping Centre (MSC) and is

zoned Business 2. Retail and commercial tenancies also surround the MSC site and are zoned

Business 2. The tenancies are generally low density, (1 or 2 storeys) with most occupying only a

ground floor, or ground floor and first level. Commercial tenancies in the area surrounding the MSC

are occupied by a number of small, locally orientated professional businesses such as solicitors and

accountants. Overall, the quality and standard of the town centre area is ‘good to average’ but is

not seen to reflect the affluent area in which it is located (Land use survey conducted June 2007).

The Proposed Development

Milford Centre Limited is applying to the North Shore City Council for approval of a private plan

change to facilitate significant intensification of the site.

This SIA relates to Stage 3 of the proposed intensification of the MSC site by Milford Centre Limited.

Stage 3 involves a private plan change application to the NSCC to amend the NSCC district plan

provisions such that significant residential intensification can occur on the MSC site.


1706sia (Final Report_Milford_21 November2007_Compressed).docP2

Milford Centre Limited’s preferred proposal is to build higher density residential buildings at the MSC

site. It is anticipated that the residential development will house 250 apartments, averaging 2

bedrooms, (with 1.5 car spaces per apartment). The option involves building heights considerably

higher than the existing zone height of 9m. It is anticipated that the proposed intensification could

be completed in 2010 and is likely to result in an approximate population increase of 450 people at

the site1.

Potential Impacts, Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies

A robust, five stage methodology was used for this Social Impact Assessment by SGS. This included

a mix of data analysis, consultation, literature reviews and assessment based on previous

experience.

The proposed development is consistent with wider policy objectives relating to intensification. A

number of regional and local planning and policy documents support land use intensification at the

Milford Town Centre including the Auckland Regional Growth Concept Plan, 1999, North Shore City

Council City Blue Print, 2001 and the North Shore District Plan, 2002.

As outlined in Section 5 of this report, many positive impacts were identified in relation to the

proposed development. Likely positive impacts of the proposed development include:

• Providing a good opportunity for increased residential intensification at Milford

Town Centre. A large lot in single ownership, the proposed redevelopment of the Milford

Shopping Centre site would contribute substantially to intensification in the area, and will

occur in a centrally accessible area, close to public transport, retail and commercial

amenities.

• Presenting a key opportunity to widen the diversity of housing types available to

local and other residents. Residential intensification in centres diversifies housing

products, catering for a wide demographic spectrum. The proposed development at the

Milford Town Centre will add to the supply of housing and to greater diversity in the type of

dwellings available in the Milford area.

• Providing a stimulus for employment and business opportunities and revitalise the

town centre. Residential intensification at centres strengthens local economies and

improves centre viability and vitality by providing a larger and more diverse customer base,

particularly for local retail businesses and a focal point for business and economic activity.

The movement of new people into the area could further contribute to the vibrancy of the

centre.

• Contributing to the sustainability of future public transport networks. The proposed

development provides an opportunity for contribution to the sustainability of future transport

networks by contributing to increased patronage, optimising the use of services and

infrastructure and reducing car dependency.

• Contributing to the preservation of the character and amenity of the surrounding

environment. The proposed development will contribute to concentrated residential

1 This is based on the assumption of 1.8 persons per household. (Results from the 2006 Australian Census shows that dwelling occupancy rates across Australia for flats/units/apartments is 1.8 persons per dwelling. Australian Bureau of Statistics data was used as New Zealand statistics were not available for this study).



development in the town centre area, thus reducing the need to increase residential density

in nearby suburban localities and preserving the existing character and amenity of the

surrounding environment.

• Providing a stimulus for overall benefits to community wellbeing. The development

is likely to create a stimulus of overall benefits to the community to the extent that an

increase in population will create an increase in employment and business opportunities, and

help to stimulate and diversity the local economy. A strong and vibrant centre also provides

a focus to an area providing a sense of identity to residents

• Providing positive benefits associated with walking and cycling. The Milford centre is

currently well serviced by public transport making the site proposed for redevelopment easily

accessible. Urban intensification can account for substantial health benefits in well serviced

centres by providing more opportunities for increased walking (and cycling), less motor

vehicle use and a healthier population overall.

• Providing positive benefits for crime and safety. More residents living in the town

centre may equate with more people on the surrounding streets, thus improving passive

surveillance.

However, if not appropriately mitigated, the proposed development has potential to result in a

number of risks. The key risks identified, the overall risk rating, suggested mitigation strategies and

responsibility for implementation of these mitigation strategies are summarised in Table 1 over

page2. It is important to note that all these risks have been assessed as low to medium. Refer

Appendix 1 for further detail.

Mitigation strategies for the identified risks have been suggested to ensure that, if approved, the

positive benefits associated with the development are maximised. The mitigation strategies

suggested are the responsibility of Milford Centre Limited, North Shore City Council, Auckland

Regional Council or Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The measures suggested are not

complex or expensive. In addition to the mitigation strategies suggested, the following points are

considered to contribute to the reduced likelihood of the identified risks occurring:

• Information provided by Milford Centre Limited indicates that their consultants have carefully

assessed the potential effects of the proposal and that the site context has been taken into

account in developing the plan change;

• Community participation through public submissions will occur as part of the plan change

process;

• Potential effects of the proposed development (including impacts relating to design, noise,

traffic and visual impacts and infrastructure capacity) will be assessed by North Shore City

Council through the plan change process.

Following SGS’s comprehensive assessment of potential impacts, this analysis shows that

there are a number of key positive impacts associated with the development and that

there a number of potential negative impacts. It is SGS’s professional judgement that the

negative impacts assessed in this report could be mitigated against. It is therefore

considered that the potential benefits associated with the proposed development

outweigh possible negative impacts.

2 It is noted that the assessment of effects relating to visual impacts, traffic impacts and overshadowing are to be investigated in separate studies. As discussed in the following chapter, identified risks relating to any associated impacts will need to be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of these studies.



Table 1. Summary of Risks and Suggested Mit igat ion Strategies

Risk Risk Rating Mitigation Strategies Responsibility

Poor integration with

neighbouring development,

possible visual impacts,

overshadowing and the risk of

reverse sensitivity occurring

Low • Ensuring appropriate design standards for

new development and consideration of

these issues by NSCC during the

assessment process.

• Education material could be provided to

new residents to reduce the likelihood of

reverse sensitivity occurring.

NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited

New residents of the

development do not patronise

the local centre

Low • Support could be provided for activities to

promote local businesses.

• Support for the development of a Milford

Business Association could also be

provided.

NSCC

Potential for residential

development to downgrade the

retail / commercial role of

Milford town centre

Low • Monitoring of land consumption by retail /

commercial and residential development.

NSCC

The potential that take-up of

public transport does not occur

Medium • Monitoring of public transport patronage

and services.

• Education and promotion of the use of

public transport for new residents.

NSCC, Auckland

Regional

Transport

Authority

Amenity at the site is

compromised as a result of

short-term (during

construction) or longer-term

traffic and noise impacts

Medium • Traffic impacts are to be investigated in a

separate study. Recommended mitigation

measures to be implemented.

Milford Centre

Limited

Community stability and

cohesion may be affected with

a new population moving into

the area

Low • Community consultation and education will

assist with reducing the likelihood of this

risk occurring.

• “Welcome packs” could be distributed to

new residents to assist new residents at the

site ‘settle in’.

Milford Centre

Limited

Short-term impacts on

pedestrian access and safety

during the period of

construction

Medium • A Construction Management Plan will be

developed. Recommended mitigation


NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited

Improved passive surveillance

does not occur due to poor

design and/or inadequate

lighting in public areas

surrounding the development

Medium • Milford Centre Ltd to ensure that the design

of the proposed development is well

integrated into the local area and that

adequate lighting is provided.

Milford Centre

Limited

Marginal impact on the

availability and capacity of

community services, programs

and facilities

Medium • Audit and detailed study of the future

capacity of community services, programs

and facilities by NSCC.

NSCC



1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Scope of the Study



the North Shore District Plan to enhance the opportunity for the intensification of residential

development on the site owned by Milford Centre Limited at 143 Kitchener Road, Milford. A full

description of the proposal under review is provided in Section 2.





populations were suggested.

Social Impact Assessment Defined

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is a method of analysing in advance the likely impacts a proposed

development or policy change may have on an individual or community (the social aspects of the

environment). SIA involves characterising the existing state of such aspects of the environment,

forecasting how they may change if a given action or alternative is implemented and developing

means of mitigating changes that are likely to be adverse from the point of view of the affected

individual or population.

The Interorganisational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for SIA expands the definition to

include:

“all social and cultural consequences to human populations of any public or private actions

that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet

their needs, and generally cope as members of society.”

(Source: cited in Burdge, 2002)

It is noted that this SIA includes a qualitative economic assessment in so far as it relates to impacts

on affected individuals and the community.

Legislative Framework

The NZ policy framework allows for social impact assessment through the Resource Management Act

(RMA) 1991, Schedule 4, as follows.

The process for requiring an assessment of environmental effects of a proposed development is

outlined in Clause 88 of the RMA 1991.



Schedule 4 (Part 2 Clause 1) defines Environment as:

(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and

(b) All natural and physical resources; and

(c) Amenity values; and

(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in

paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters.

Under Schedule 4, matters that should be included in an assessment of environmental

effects

Subject to the provisions of any policy statement or plan, an assessment of effects on the

environment for the purposes of Section 88 should include-

…

(d) an assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the proposed activity;

…

(g) a description of the mitigation measures (safeguards and contingency plans where relevant) to

be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or potential effect:

Matters that should be considered when preparing an assessment of effects on the

environment

Clause 2 states that:

Subject to the provisions of any policy statement or plan, any person preparing an assessment of the

effects on the environment should consider the following matters [as relevant to Social Impact

Assessment]:

(a) Any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community including

any socio-economic and cultural effects;

…

1.2 Method and Limitations

Tasks undertaken to complete the SIA for the proposed intensification of Milford Centre are

summarised below in Figure 1.



Figure 1. Study Method

Task 1: Project Inception Phase 1 Inception, Policy Context

and BaselineTask 2: Community Profile: Existing Town Centre and Demographic Context

Phase 4Impact Analysis and

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Phase 3Consultation

Task 4: Benefits of Residential Intensification in Centres

Task 5: Expert Consultation

Task 7: Impact Analysis

Phase 2 Literature Review

Task 6: Stakeholder Consultation

Task 3: Community Profile: Future Town Centre and Demographic Context

Discussion Paper

Phase 5 Reporting

Task 9: Draft Findings

Consultation Notes

Task 8: Mitigation Measures

Task 10: Final Report

Document Review

In order to establish a background context for the SIA, relevant existing documents were reviewed.

This included documents that were directly related to the proposed intensification, to the Milford area

generally, and the wider Auckland Region (including the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, 1999

(ARGS), documents prepared for the ARGS Review, 2006-07). In addition, a literature review on the

costs and benefits of intensification was undertaken. A full list of documents reviewed is included in

Section 8.



Site Visit and Land Use Survey

A site visit and land use survey was conducted on 25th June 2007. This visit assessed land use at

the Milford Town Centre and surrounding area, the general condition of the retail and commercial

tenancies, and access routes to the centre.

Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with key external stakeholders and involved a series of face-to-face

and telephone interviews. Organisations consulted included:

• Auckland Regional Council;

• Auckland Regional Transport Authority;

• North Shore City Council;

• Enterprise North Shore;

• Birkenhead / Northcote Community Board Chair / Community Coordinator3;

• Residential, Commercial and Retail Real Estate Agents active within the Milford area;

• Various community facility and service providers in the North Shore area.

Quantitative Data

A limited number of data sources were utilised in the impact assessment as both baseline and trend

indicators. Data sources included:

• Statistics NZ Census Data (1991-2006) for the Milford Town Centre Area (aggregated

meshblocks), the North Shore City Council (NSCC) area and the Auckland Region;

• Population, dwelling and retail floor space projections data from North Shore City Council;

• Median residential rent and sales data sourced from the Real Estate Institute of New

Zealand.

• Further data sources obtained through consultation with agencies and key stakeholders.

Impact Assessment, Risk Identification and Mitigation Strategies

Taking into account the baseline analysis, outcomes from consultation and observations from the site

visits, an independent assessment of the proposal was made and a list of potential impacts

determined. The likelihood of the risks associated with the impacts was assessed. Where there

were likely negative impacts, potential mitigation strategies were suggested.

Overall Conclusion Regarding Likely Impact

Given all preceding information, overall conclusions regarding the likely positive and negative impact

of the intensification of the Milford centre were made.

3 While the interview conducted with the Birkenhead Northcote Community Board Chair and Community Coordinator for this study focused on the Birkenhead / Highbury area, a number of comments were also recorded about the Milford area, as informed by the interviewee’s knowledge of the wider North Shore area and work with North Shore City Council.



1.3 Structure of the Report

The remainder of the body of the report is presented in six sections as follows:

Section 2 Contextual information including a description of the existing centre and the proposed

development. An overview of regional and local planning policy context relevant to

town centre intensification at Milford

Section 3 Qualitative discussion describing the social and economic benefits and costs of

intensification in existing centres with reference to regional and local impacts.

Section 4 A socio-demographic and socio-economic overview of the immediate locality

surrounding the site proposed for the residential intensification. This analysis

compares and contrasts the immediate locality surrounding the site proposed for the

residential intensification with the North Shore City Territorial Local Area (TLA) and

Auckland Region.

Section 5 Identifies and summarises the range of social impacts that could potentially be

experienced by community members in the area immediately surrounding the site

and community members in a wider geographic area that we anticipate might be

impacted upon.

Section 6 Restates the risks identified in the previous section and notes potential mitigation

strategies to lessen or completely erode the risk identified.

Section 7 The conclusion to this report summarises the findings of this Social Impact

Assessment.



2 Milford Town Centre

2.1 The Existing Centre

Milford Town Centre

The Milford Town Centre is situated within the North Shore City area some 12km from the Auckland

CBD (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Locat ion of Mi l ford Centre

MILFORDCENTRE

Source: www.wises.co.nz

The town centre includes a retail/commercial precinct zoned Business 2 in the North Shore City

Council District Plan, 2002 (Figure 3). The retail and commercial precinct includes the main street

retail and commercial area located on Kitchener, Milford, Dodson and Shakespeare Roads in addition

to the Milford Shopping Centre (MSC). This area is approximately 7 hectares. The location of the

proposed site for redevelopment, MSC is shown in the figure below.



Figure 3. Mil ford Centre Zoning Map

Site Boundary

Business 2 Zone, North Shore City Council District Plan, 2002

Milford Town Centre is located within 1km of the coast. The suburb of Milford first developed as a

popular location for holiday houses during the late 19th and early 20th Century. It was not until the

construction of the Harbour Bridge in 1959 that Milford began evolving into a suburban centre.

Since this time, Milford has developed to become an established suburban shopping and service

centre (pers. comm. Enterprise North Shore, June 2007). MSC has been trading since the mid

1990s.

The Site Proposed for Redevelopment – Milford Shopping Centre

The subject site, Lot 1 DP180874 has a total area of 2.9062 hectares and is utilised by Milford

Shopping Centre (MSC) (Figure 4). The site is located within a block defined by Milford Road to the

east, Ihumata Road to the north, Omana Road to the west and the shops fronting Kitchener Road to

the south.



Figure 4. The Si te – Mi l ford Shopping Centre

View of the Site, from Kitchener/Milford Rd Carpark Pedestrian crossing, Kitchener Rd

Source: SGS Economics and Planning, June 2007

The MSC site currently features a total gross floor area of 18,164m2, (12,237 m2 of net lettable

retail floor space) and approximately 800 car parks.

Well known retailers operating from the MSC include The Warehouse, Woolworths and Whitcoulls.

Other retail tenancies within the MSC are generally of average quality and are independent

operations. MSC currently has a high number of vacancies (refer to Figure 6) as tenancies have not

been renewed in preparation for current development plans.

The Milford Town Centre is relatively flat, making MSC easy to access for pedestrians. Pedestrian

access to the shopping centre site is limited to Kitchener and Milford Roads and vehicle access is

provided on three frontages: Milford Road, Ihumata Road and Omana Road. MSC is not considered

to be well integrated with the street, other than at the Kitchener Road pedestrian entrance.

Land to the west of Wairau Creek rises and residential development in this area looks over the MSC.

District and coastal views are not available from the site, but could be capitalised upon if

development was to exceed two storeys. Noise levels at the site are generally minor and are

associated with traffic movements as well as retail activity.

The area zoned Business 2 surrounding the MSC is generally characterised by small lots and has

dispersed property ownership. The proposed MSC site for redevelopment is a large lot in single

ownership.

Land Use at Milford Town Centre

Land use in the area surrounding the MSC site includes:

• Residential and retail / commercial properties are located directly opposite the Milford Road

frontage;

• Residential properties located directly opposite the Ihumata Road frontage and along Milford

Road to the north;

• Reserve / planted areas front the Wairau Creek to the west;

• Retail and commercial properties located on Kitchener Road to the south.



Figure 5. Mil ford Town Centre

Retail / commercial, Milford Rd Residential, Milford Road, view North

Kitchener Rd, view north-east Kitchener Rd, Shakespeare Rd intersection, view north-east

Source: SGS Economics and Planning, June 2007

Current land use at the centre is shown in Figure 6 (Land use survey conducted June 2007). Retail

and commercial tenancies in the Business 2 zone surrounding the MSC site are generally low density,

(1 or 2 storeys) with most tenancies occupying only a ground floor, or ground floor and first level

including a number of local restaurants, supermarkets, banks, chemists and basic services.

Commercial tenancies in the area surrounding the site are occupied by a number of small, local

businesses, most of which are classified as ‘scientific, technical and other services’ in Figure 6 below

– accountants and solicitors for example. In the past, Milford had a number of high quality tenants.



Figure 6. Retai l and Commercial Act iv i ty in MSC and Remainder of Business 2 Zone, Mi l ford Town Centre, June 2007

Retail Goods and Services

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Shopping Centre 7 7 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Remainder 21 15 12 11 9 8 7 4 2 2 1

Cafes, Rest. & Take/a

Clothing, Foot/w & Personal

Per. & Other

Health Care

Other Store-Based

Specialised Food

Recr. Goods Real Estate

Furn/Fl. Coverings/Housew /Te

Supermar. & Groc. Stores

AutomobileElectrical &

Elec. Goods

Other Services and Activities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Shopping Centre 0 3 0 1 26 0

Remainder 13 5 6 2 2 1

Prof, Scien & Tech Services

Fin & Insurance Services

Med & Other Health Care Services

Other Services Vacant Printing & Print Support Services

Source: Land Use Survey, June 2007, SGS Economics and Planning

Current land uses referred to above are represented spatially in Figure 7 (Land use survey conducted

June 2007). The centre currently has a high number of vacancies. These vacancies are the result of

an intentional strategy by the client not to renew leases (in preparation for an earlier stage of

development). There are few vacancies in the surrounding town centre area. It is noted however,

that the quality of tenancies in the surrounding town centre area is reported to have declined

significantly in recent years (pers. comm.. Barfoot and Thompson, June 2007).



Figure 7. Retai l & Commercial Act iv i ty , Business 2 Zone, Mi l ford Town Centre


Overall, the quality and standard of the town centre area is ‘good to average’ but is not seen to

reflect the affluent area in which it is located (Land use survey conducted June 2007). Few of the

main street retail activities have a strong street presence. The quality marginally declines towards

the Kitchener Road / Shakespeare Road intersection. A land use survey of the Town Centre

conducted in June 2006 showed that over half (52%) of the retail and commercial establishments in

Milford Town Centre are considered to be of average condition (Figure 8).



Figure 8. Condit ion of Premises, Mi l ford Town Centre

10%

52%

38%Poor

Average

Good


The Milford Town Centre has not had a mainstreet program, and this is reflected in the limited

landscaping at the centre (including the concentration of street trees at the pedestrian crossing on

Kitchener Road which, while landscaped does not reflect the affluence of the area in which the town

centre is located). Consultation conducted for this study indicated that a main street program is

unlikely to be funded by NSCC in the near future (pers. comm. Enterprise North Shore, June 2007).

The Surrounding Area and Region

The Business 2 zone at Milford Town Centre is surrounded by low density suburban residential

development of good amenity. Housing is generally detached in the immediate vicinity of the site

and there are a limited number of medium density residential developments.

In relation to the regional context, consultation conducted for this study indicated that with regard to

retail, generally the ‘top-end dollar’ is not being catered for in Milford, or on the North Shore

generally. Consultation indicated that expenditure from the retail outlets is escaping to areas that

have the ‘big brand names’ and ‘higher level’ retailers. Newmarket was provided as an example

(pers. comm.. MATCH Realty, June 2005).

2.2 The Proposed Development

Milford Centre Limited is applying to the North Shore City Council for approval of a private plan

change to facilitate significant intensification of the Milford Shopping Centre (MSC) site.

This SIA relates to Stage 3 of the proposed intensification of the MSC site by Milford Centre Limited.

The three stages of the wider proposal are described over page.



Stage 1: This stage primarily involves an internal refit of the existing shopping centre.

Stage 2: Stage 2 of the proposed development involved a resource consent application by Milford

Centre Ltd to expand the existing MSC to provide for additional retail and commercial space, 15 new

residential units, underground car parking / access / plant rooms as well as the necessary excavation

and site works and site servicing to develop these activities.

Stage 3: Stage 3, to which this study relates, involves a private plan change application to the

NSCC to amend the NSCC district plan provisions such that significant residential intensification can

occur on the MSC site.

Stage 3 Plans for the Milford Shopping Centre4

Milford Centre Limited’s preferred proposal is to build higher density residential buildings at the MSC

site. It is anticipated that the residential development will house 250 apartments, averaging 2

bedrooms, (with 1.5 car spaces per apartment). The option involves building heights considerably

higher than the existing zone height of 9m. It is anticipated that the proposed intensification could

be completed in 2010 and is likely to result in an approximate population increase of 450 people at

the site5.

Market assessments completed for MSC by Bayley's Real Estate (pers. Comm.. Bayley’s Real Estate,

June 2007) indicate that a potential target market for the development has been identified as older

people (of retirement and pre-retirement age) looking to downsize. Homeowners, rather than

investors have been identified as the likely purchasers of the properties due to the likely price point

at which the homes would enter the market. Future population is expected to come from the North

Shore area itself, possibly the immediate vicinity of the site although attraction from a wider area is

also likely (pers. Comm.. Bayley’s Real Estate, June 2007).

2.3 Future Population, Housing and Employment

If current policy objectives are realised, the centre is projected to experience population, housing

and employment growth into the future.

Population and Housing

North Shore City Council’s Population Projections specific to the Milford Town Centre area6 (Figure 9)

indicate that the population living within the centre and the residential area immediately surrounding

the Business 2 zone is projected to increase by 530 people between 2006 and 2021 (NSCC Land-use

Capacity and Allocation Model, 2005). These forecasts for the Milford Town area are consistent with

4 The analysis of impacts, risks and mitigation measures contained within this SIA is based on the Stage 3 plans shown in this section of the report. 5 This is based on the assumption of 1.8 persons per household. (Results from the 2006 Australian Census shows that dwelling occupancy rates across Australia for flats/units/apartments is 1.8 persons per dwelling. Australian Bureau of Statistics data was used as New Zealand statistics were not available for this study). 6 Including the Milford Business 2 Zone and the immediate residential area surrounding the Business 2 zone as shown in Figure 9.



the aim of intensification, but, as discussed in the following section, the pathway to ensuring

intensification occurs is unclear. Currently the zoning environment at the Town Centre is

constrained, land ownership is fragmented, vacant land is limited and density allowances are such

that these likely increases in population, housing and employment may be difficult to achieve

without a significant development such as the MSC.

Table 2. Populat ion Growth Mi l ford Town Centre Area

NSCC Projections 2006 2011 2021 Change Milford Town Centre Area 3,549 3,570 4,079 530

Source: North Shore City Council Land-use Capacity and Allocation Model 2005.

Figure 9. Mil ford Town Centre Area

Milford town centre area

Source: North Shore City Council Land-use Capacity and Allocation Model 2005

Results from NSCC’s Land-use Capacity and Allocation Model shows that an additional 346 dwellings

are projected for the Milford Town Centre between 2006 and 2021 to cater for this additional

population (Table 3).

Table 3. Dwel l ing Growth Mi l ford Town Centre Area NSCC Projections 2006 2011 2021 Change Milford Town Centre Area 1,604 1,646 1,950 346


As noted in Section 2.2 of this report, the proposed development of the MSC site by Milford Centre

Limited is likely to result in an additional 250 dwellings and an approximate population increase of

approximately 450 people at the site7. It is anticipated that the proposed intensification could be

completed in 2010. If approved, the MSC site would account for some 72% of the expected

population growth in the town centre area over the next three years.

7 This is based on the assumption of 1.8 persons per household. (Results from the 2006 Australian Census shows that dwelling occupancy rates across Australia for flats/units/apartments is 1.8 persons per dwelling. Australian Bureau of Statistics data was used as New Zealand statistics were not available for this study).



Employment

North Shore City Council’s Projections specific to the Milford Town Centre Area8 indicate that

employment is estimated to increase in Milford Centre by 128 jobs between 2006 and 2021. This is

anticipated to be made up by employment in retail (+123 jobs) and non-retail jobs (+5 jobs) (NSCC

Land-Use Capacity and Allocation Model 2005).

Table 4. Employment Growth Mi l ford

2006 2011 2021 Change

Milford Centre Retail Employment 600 687 723 123

Milford Centre Non-Retail Employment 1147 1152 1152 5


2.4 The Policy Context

The following review of the current policy context as it relates to intensification of Milford Town

Centre was informed by consultation with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), Auckland Regional

Transport Authority (ARTA) and North Shore City Council (NSCC) conducted for this SIA in June

2007. In addition, the report Establishing a Classification for Auckland’s Centres and Corridors for

Auckland Regional Council (May 2007)9, which SGS authored was an input for the review.

Regional Planning and Policy

Regional strategic planning policy documents for Auckland indicate the desire for intensification

around town centres and transport nodes. The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy Growth Concept

2050 (1999) identifies Milford within a network of centres and corridors (see Figure 10). Regional

planning documents envisage that intensification will occur within the period 2005-201010. (This is

elaborated upon further below). It was noted through consultation for this study that although

regional strategic planning documents identify a desire for intensification, there has been a general

reluctance by developers to intensify in suburban town centres in Auckland (pers. comm. ARC, June

2007).

8 Including the Milford Business 2 Zone and the immediate residential area surrounding the Business 2 zone as shown in Figure 9. 9 http://www.arc.govt.nz/arc/auckland-region/growth/update-and-review-of-the-regional-growth-strategy.cfm 10 Schedule 1 in Appendix 1 of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) Proposed Plan Change 6, (July 2007).



Figure 10. Auckland Regional Growth Strategy Growth Concept 2050 Map, 1999

Source: Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, 1999

The centres and corridors identified in the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy Growth Concept 2050

are intended to be focal points for business and employment, housing and community services as

well as being community meeting places. Centres are identified as important nodes connecting the

Regional Land Transport Strategy framework which identifies the planned and future potential rapid

transport network. The location of centres and their activity within the region is linked to access of

the centre to public transport as well as main roads or at the cross roads of main arterials.

Transport improvements proposed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority are likely to result

in further improvements to the public transport network surrounding the site if plans are

implemented (pers. comm.. ARTA, June 2007).



Figure 11. Proposed Rapid Transi t Network and Qual i ty Transi t Network to 2016

Source: Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan 2006-2016 ARTA



Since the release of the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy Growth Concept 2050 in 1999, centres

have been classified and in some cases have been attributed some priority in various strategic

planning documents. Milford is classified as a ‘Large Suburban Centre’ within the Auckland Regional

Council’s (ARC) Regional Analysis of Centres Activity (2006) and as a ‘Town Centre’ within the new

Schedule 1 in Appendix 1 of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) Proposed Plan Change

6, (July 2007). Schedule 1 of the ARPS (July 2007) indicates that detailed centre planning will be

carried during the period 2005-10 (District Plan changes are scheduled to be notified during this

period within the ARPS).

In July 2007, results from the recent evaluation of the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy Growth

Concept 2050 (1999) were released - Growing Smarter, the Auckland Region in the 21st Century.

The report identifies a number of proposed priority actions for the adoption of a polycentric growth

model in Auckland (Table 5).

Table 5. Proposed Pr ior i ty Act ions

Proposed Priority Actions for Improving Implementation of the ARGS To Be Endorsed By

Establish a refined classification for Auckland’s centres and corridors and business areas Mid 2008

Get the right 2008 planning in place to enable the region’s desired urban form in centres

and corridors

End 2008

Identify priority areas for implementation End 2008

Source: ARC, July 2007

Local Planning and Policy

At the local Council level, Milford is currently identified as a Town/Village Centre with more intensive

forms of residential development in and around its commercial centre11. North Shore City Council’s

(NSCC) City Blueprint concept plan, 2001, is shown below.

11 North Shore City Blueprint, 2001



Figure 12. City Blueprint ‘L iv ing Ci ty ’ Concept Plan

Source: North Shore City Council 2001

Key priorities identified for the Milford centre identified within the City Blueprint Action Plan, 2001,

include the following:



Informed by the North Shore City Blue Print 2001, the North Shore District Plan 2002 seeks to

encourage development opportunities in and around selected sub-regional, town and village centres

with an emphasis on “…a high standard of design and compatibility with surrounding activities”.

(The NSCC’s Good Solutions Guide for Apartments is supported by the District Plan to guide good

practice in design and compatibility with surrounding activities for apartment development.)

The site proposed for intensification is zoned Business 2 in the District Plan. This allows for mixed

use development to occur. The Plan emphasises the need to ensure the growth of employment and

economic activities in areas where residential development within business zoned areas is to occur:

• By managing residential development so it does not significantly reduce the availability of

land for business activities in the City’s general business areas and in those higher amenity

business areas outside of commercial centres.

• By ensuring that residential development in business areas is designed to avoid, remedy or

mitigate adverse effects on residential amenity from business activities12.

This is supported in within the North Shore City Council Economic Development Strategy, 2006.

The proposed development will not reduce the availability of land for business activities in the town

centre. As noted in Section 3 and 5 following, the proposed intensification is likely to contribute to

centre vibrancy and vitality. Residential intensification at centres strengthens local economies and

can improve centre viability and vitality by providing a larger and more diverse customer base,

particularly for local retail businesses and a focal point for business and economic activity. The

movement of new people into the area could further contribute to the vibrancy of the centre.

Without intensification at the Milford town centre this is unlikely to occur.

In summary:

• A number of regional and local planning and policy documents support land use

intensification at the Milford Town Centre and have an emphasis on good design and the

growth of employment and economic activity.

• Population, household and employment forecasts for Milford and the wider area are

consistent with the aim of intensification, but the pathway to ensuring intensification occurs

is unclear. Currently the zoning environment at the Town Centre is constrained, land

ownership is fragmented, vacant land is limited and density allowances are such that likely

increases in population, housing and employment may be difficult to achieve without a

significant development such as the MSC.

• North Shore City Council is in the process of undertaking a series of strategic planning

exercises in relation to each of its town centres to inform a review of its’ District Plan,

although detailed planning for Milford Centre is yet to commence. The centre has been

identified as a 2005 – 2010 priority for detailed planning.

12 NSCC District Plan 15.3



3 Benefits and Costs of Residential Intensification in Centres

This section contains a qualitative discussion describing the social and economic benefits and costs of

intensification in existing centres with reference to regional and local impacts. The discussion draws

on a wide variety of literature (refer Section 8) as well as documents produced as part of the recent

review of the Auckland Growth Strategy by the Auckland Regional Growth Forum, including

International Trends and Lessons in Growth Management (2007), Stocktake of Existing Consultation

on Urban Intensification in Auckland: Final Report (2006), Intensification in Auckland, Developer

Survey (2006) and Social Implications of Housing Intensification in the Auckland Region: Analysis

and Review of Media Reports, Surveys and Literature (2005).

3.1 Background to Centres Policies

The implementation of centres policies have been a part of the history of planning in many

successful cities. Recent metropolitan planning strategies that have included centres policies in the

Australian context include the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, South East Queensland and Perth. In

addition, intensification in centres in overseas jurisdictions continues to be rigorously pursued,

particularly in New York, London, Tokyo, Toronto and Zurich.

The concept of a multi-centred city region has considerable longevity. Indeed, there has been a

centres policy in each of Sydney’s strategic plans since the 1948-51 County of Cumberland Plan each

being adjusted to address the needs of the time. Centres policies generally include objectives to

concentrate a greater range of activities near to one another making it is easier for people to go

about their daily activities. This can partly be reflected by the various economic, social and

environmental benefits that a centre can provide to urban regions, if supportive policy directions and

infrastructure and services are properly constructed and provided.

Interestingly, much of the push for increased medium and higher-density housing in centres is based

on the projection that there will be a larger proportion of smaller households in the future, with

larger numbers of older people, and an increasingly mobile population (Randolph et. al. 2005). The

logic is that there will be more demand for one and two bedroom accommodation, and thus it is

important to provide an appropriate mix of housing.

3.2 Regional Benefits and Costs

At a regional scale, the focus of housing and employment in town centres helps to achieve a compact

growth structure. It is strongly held that such a growth structure attracts a number of

environmental, economic and social benefits. Typically, these benefits are concerned with the

logistical and inventory advantages offered by urban consolidation policies.

Several studies show that higher density, contiguous urban development as opposed to fragmented,

low density development (so called ‘sprawl’) generates fewer vehicle kilometres of travel and saves

on transport infrastructure costs because of improved opportunities to utilise standing capacity (SGS

Economics and Planning 2007).



Environmentally, more compact cities make more efficient use of urban land and leave non-urban

land on the fringe of regions to be maintained for other uses, be they agriculture, horticulture,

protection and management of areas of environmental, cultural or heritage significance. It also

assists in protecting rural landscapes and production areas from urban encroachment. In the

Auckland context, there is evidence of an appreciation of the important positive environmental

impacts intensification can have. The Stocktake of Existing Consultation on Urban Intensification in

Auckland Report suggests that allowing increased building heights and densities in existing town

centres is generally acceptable as it is regarded as protecting the value of existing residential areas

outside of the town centre and protecting the environment by minimizing urban sprawl. This benefit

provided by urban intensification sits within the purpose of the Resource Management Act which is to

promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

A strong centres policy helps to reinforce ‘origin’ and ‘destination’ nodes across the metropolitan

public transport network. Origin stations tend to be the focus of the highest residential densities

across the region and typically account for a large proportion of stations. Conversely, destination

stations are fewer in number but provide a critical mass of employment and are generally well

spaced. This balance between origin and destination optimises movement, ensures greater

patronage, and allows a viable and sustainable public transport system to evolve.

Similarly, a compact growth structure optimises the use of existing infrastructure. Outward

metropolitan expansion requires provision of new capital works. This includes the expansion of

services geographically into new growth areas and linking infrastructure with the established

networks. Whilst infrastructure upgrading is still required, demand from ‘infill’ development can have

wider benefits than the provision of new infrastructure at the city edge (Auckland Regional Growth

Forum 2007).

Finally, urban living accounts for substantial health benefits. For example, modest increases in

physical activity, from less sedentary lifestyles, where public transport, walking and cycling (active

transport) choices encourage incidental activity, can reduce the need for medical treatment in those

at risk of diabetes. Research indicates that growing a compact city often gives an opportunity to

promote better public health and allow for greater physical activity which leads to less obesity -

related disease and diseases due to overall air pollution (Auckland Regional Growth Forum 2007).

Graham (2005) contends that more intensive urban development is associated with more walking

and cycling and less motor vehicle use than low density urban sprawl. The recognised connection

between urban sprawl and physical inactivity and obesity associated health problems highlights the

public health benefits of urban intensification.

One of the primary criticisms of the compact growth model is its tendency to increase pressure on

housing affordability as a result of constrained land supply. In the long-term this may result in both

employment and population relocating to other cities in response to increased costs of living and loss

of competitiveness (Fischel 1997). To ensure that the managed land release process does not

negatively impact housing affordability, many regions are implementing strategies that support and

encourage intensification in centres so that supply is not constrained.

At a regional level, compact growth strategies may increase pressure on housing affordability,

although this is debatable given the additional costs associated with travel and infrastructure

provision to more dispersed areas. Auckland-specific research indicates that there are contrasting

community perceptions regarding the impact of intensification on housing affordability. Surveys

reviewed in Syme et al (2005) noted that many residents felt that intensified living had given them



the opportunity to afford their own home, and provided an entry point into the housing market.

However some consultation highlighted community concern that poorer residents could get pushed

out by growth.

3.3 Local Benefits and Costs

Centres planning stems from the theory of cluster development or agglomeration economies. Rather

than dispersing activity, economic, environmental and social benefits can be realised for the

community from greater co-location. These are important local benefits.

Generally, the benefits of centres planning refer to the concentration of people, common

infrastructure, an available and diverse labour forces and market size. In this light, denser urban

agglomerations generate higher levels of productivity and higher returns to business and workers

which benefits the community as a whole (Paling et. al. 2007).

Residential intensification strengthens local economies and improves centre viability and vitality by

providing a larger and more diverse customer base, particularly for local retail businesses. Retail,

café/restaurants, finance and insurance, communication services, property and business services,

health, education and other similar sectors generally prefer to be located in or close to town centres,

with ready access to a customer base and good road and public transport access. In the Auckland

context, the Stocktake of Existing Consultation on Urban Intensification in Auckland Report indicates

that increasing residential development in centres was seen as a key factor in supporting,

strengthening and broadening the availability of retail and services indicating that encouraging well

designed housing in a mixed use environment could be beneficial for compatible businesses and

provide more jobs. Such centre revitalisation relates to one of the key principles of the Resource

Management Act, to maintain and enhance amenity values (RMA Act 1991, Part 2).

Environmentally, one of the perceived benefits of urban consolidation is that increasing residential

densities around public transport nodes (i.e. centres) will encourage more people to use this mode of

travel. The flow-on benefits of such a strategy are a consequential decline in car and energy use and

greenhouse gas emissions (Randolph et. al. 2005). Car ownership can be considered as a surrogate

for the use of public transport, walking and cycling for the journey to work (JTW). The Australian

2001 census allows car ownership to be matched against defined centre boundaries. Figures for

Sydney clearly indicate that those living within 1 km of railway stations possess fewer cars than

those in the remainder of the of the local government area (Cox Richardson 2004). Additionally the

co-location of activities stimulates greater walking because activities are closer.

According the Social Implications of Housing Intensification in the Auckland Region Report (2005),

although the level of intensification so far achieved in Auckland has not significantly lifted public

transport services or been to a level that has supported additional public services in areas of change,

the surveys reviewed indicate higher use of passenger transport by residents of intensive housing

developments, and lower rates of car ownership, when compared to non-residents in surrounding

areas. This is supported by comments within these surveys by residents and non-residents of higher

density developments many of whom emphasised the positives associated with higher population

numbers along public transport routes.

Socially, co-location allows equitable access, particularly by public transport, to a high proportion of

residents which would otherwise need to rely on private transport to engage in daily activities. Apart



from allowing better access to metropolitan level facilities for a large number of people, a strong and

vibrant centre also provides a focus to an area, providing a sense of identity to residents. In the

Auckland context, a range of community perceptions regarding the impact of intensification on

social-cohesion and identity are evident. However, consultation results specific to Milford Town

Centre are not available, the local community’s perceptions therefore remain untested.

Further, residential intensification in centres diversifies housing products, catering for a wide

demographic spectrum. Focusing residential development in centres also ensures that ‘infill’

development does not infiltrate suburban settings outside of the centre (usually 1km radius). In this

way, intensifying residential development preserves the character of suburban localities. The Sydney

Metropolitan Strategy has highlighted this by concentrating residential development in centres, 80%

of suburban streets are quarantined from infill development (Department of Planning 2007). In the

Auckland context the community has expressed a need for a mix of housing types for different

cultures, ages and incomes in areas that are accessible to public transport (Auckland Regional

Growth Forum 2006).

The risks associated with a decline in housing affordability associated with intensification at the local

level are not clear, as there is pressure on housing affordability generally, however, it is

acknowledged that intensification has the potential to lead to higher development costs (for

example, land costs and the cost of constructing underground and/or structured carparking).

Conversely, however, apartments are generally more affordable that detached dwellings on larger

lots. Therefore, although the development is unlikely to provide ‘affordable housing’ per se, it is

likely that general affordability for home purchasers is likely to be assisted to some degree with the

MSC development through an increase in dwelling supply and contribution to greater diversity in the

type of dwellings available in the Milford area.

There is a concern prevalent in Auckland that high density developments will be the ‘slums of the

future’. There is strong community perception that an increase of apartments will lead to a higher

number of renters or low income households inevitably leading to a change in the socio-economic

structure of the area. Greater levels of community consultation and examples of good quality urban

design in higher density developments are important components in allaying these (generally

unfounded) fears and to ensure that measures to ensure potential new comers to an area add rather

than detract from the social fabric or centres.

The quality of design in high and medium density residential development is a key issue of

relevance. The Stocktake of Existing Consultation on Urban Intensification in Auckland Report and

Social Implications of Housing Intensification in the Auckland Region Report both contend that

concerns over quality rated highest in community consultation and surveys. This included design

quality in relation to both the quality of building design, as well as the interaction of the building with

the surrounding environment including streetscapes, the character and scale of building and its

contribution to coherent urban design. This concern is echoed by developers13 who noted that a lack

of incentive for innovation and design within the district planning process and lack of consistency in

implementing policy is lowering the standard of higher density developments.

A range of other issues relating to the design of development have been raised in relation to

pursuing more intensive mixed use in centres. For example, reverse sensitivity is an issue and risk

13 Auckland Regional Growth Forum, (2006) Developer Survey: Intensification in Auckland

Unpublished Report.



for some existing businesses when more sensitive land uses like residential development are

constructed nearby and complaints relating to noise, amenity or traffic are reported by new

residents. The extent to which reverse sensitivity is an issue is related to building quality as well as

the expectations of residents in centres. Reverse sensitivity is an intra-zone issue requiring

appropriate design standards for new development including buffering, ground level integration,

compliance with noise standards for example.

3.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs

As was discussed in the previous section, it is important to acknowledge that residential

intensification in centres are maximised when development is carried out in a sustainable manner

and to a high standard. Similarly, the full range of benefits of residential intensification in centres

are only generally realised after a number of elements are present within a centre including:

• A reliable and convenient public transport system;

• An established network of ‘origin’ and ‘destination’ transport nodes throughout the region;

• A good mix of commercial and retail land uses;

• A good mix of housing types and tenures;

• The presence of cultural, social and health facilities;

• A high quality urban environment including parks, recreation and walking facilities and

plazas.

There are potential costs as well as benefits, but overall intensification in the right location can be

strongly positive at both a regional and local level. The general benefits and costs of residential

intensification are outlined below.

Benefits

The general benefits of residential intensification include:

• Strengthening of local economies through an expanded customer base;

• Improving access to retail, office, health, education, leisure, entertainment and cultural

facilities and community and personal services;

• Providing equitable access, particularly by public transport, to a high proportion of a

community which would otherwise be denied easy access;

• Optimising the use of services and infrastructure;

• Reducing car dependency;

• Providing more opportunities for increased walking and cycling which provides for a healthier

environment;

• Allowing for multiple use of facilities and the co-location of activities;

• Increasing housing mix;

• Preserving the character of suburban localities by concentrating development in centres;

• Potentially providing more affordable accommodation for people who desire to live in a

certain area through the option of a range of housing types;

• Creating more interesting places to live and providing a strong identity to residents; and

• Protecting rural landscapes and production areas from urban encroachment.



Costs

If not appropriately planned or considered, the preceding discussions have shown that there can also

be costs associated with intensification. Issues to be aware of regarding intensification include:

• Ensuring adequate public transport is present in the centre, to ensure the increased

population does not equate with increased congestion and car usage;

• Ensuring that appropriate strategies are put in place such that growth at a regional level

does not increase pressure on housing affordability;

• Ensuring that the community is adequately consulted regarding intensification and that

measures to ensure potential new comers to an area add rather than detract from the social

fabric or centres;

• Ensuring that adequate infrastructure is present, but the requirement for land and

infrastructure does not detract from affordability.



4 Baseline of Social and Economic Conditions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report provides a socio-demographic and socio-economic overview of the

immediate locality surrounding the site proposed for the residential intensification. The analysis

addresses the following characteristics:

• Demographic;

• Socio-Economic;

• Housing;

• Employment and Economy;

• Infrastructure;

• Transport and Access; and

• Community Services, Programs and Facilities.

This analysis compares and contrasts the immediate locality surrounding the site proposed for the

residential intensification (referred to as the Milford Town Centre area) with the North Shore City

Council Area (NSCC) and Auckland Region (Figure 13). The Milford Town Centre area is made up of

Census Mesh Blocks that have been aggregated to best align with the Milford Town Centre area used

by North Shore City Council in its population, dwelling and employment projections14, (refer to Figure

9) (NSCC Land-Use Capacity and Allocation Model 2005).

Figure 13. Mil ford Town Centre Area Relat ive to Surrounding Region

Source: SGS Economics and Planning

14 Including the Milford Business 2 Zone and the immediate residential area surrounding the Business 2 zone.



4.2 Demographic Characteristics

Population and Sex Structure

In 2006, Milford Town Centre Area had a usual resident population of 3,567. Figure 14 below shows

the age structure of the population in relation to the North Shore City and Auckland averages.

Compared with the two benchmark areas, Milford had an older population, with 24.4% of the

population aged 65 years or older (compared with 10.8% for North Shore city and 9.9% for

Auckland). There were also fewer young children, teenagers and young adults residing in the area.

Figure 15 shows the change in median age in Milford between 1991 and 2006. In 2006, the median

age in Milford Town Centre Area (46.8 years) was significantly older than NSCC area (35 years) or

the Auckland region (33 years), indicating a likely future ageing population.

Figure 14. Age Structure, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f per

sons

Milford Centre 4.2 5.1 5.4 5.8 5.1 4.4 5.0 6.4 7.1 6.7 5.5 7.6 6.7 24.4

NSCC 6.1 6.5 7.2 7.8 7.6 6.2 7.1 8.1 8.4 7.7 6.4 5.8 4.3 10.8

Auckland 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 6.9 7.6 8.1 8.1 7.1 5.9 5.2 3.9 9.9

0-4 Years

5-9 Years

10-14 Years

15-19 Years

20-24 Years

25-29 Years

30-34 Years

35-39 Years

40-44 Years

45-49 Years

50-54 Years

55-59 Years

60-64 Years

65+ Years

Source: Statistics NZ 2006



Figure 15. Median Age 1991-2006

25

30

35

40

45

50M

edia

n Ag

e

Milford 45 47 48 46

NSCC 33 34 35 35

Auckland 30 32 33 33

1991 1996 2001 2006

Source: Statistics NZ

Figure 16 shows the proportional distribution of persons aged 65 years and older in the NSCC and

indicates a high proportion of residents within the Milford Town Centre Area and surrounds aged 65

years and over.



Figure 16. Distr ibut ion of Older Person 2006

Source: SGS Economics and Planning, Statistics NZ 2006

Years of Usual Residence (incl. last 5 years)

Data concerning the number of years at usual residence provides a view on the stability of the

population within a given area. As shown in Figure 17 below, the majority of residents in Milford

Town Centre Area have lived in their place of usual residence for between ‘1-9 years’ (46.9%), but it

is interesting to note that a higher proportion of residents have lived in their place of usual residence

for ’10-29 years’ (23.8%) or ’30 or more years’ (3.9%) when compared with those in NSCC and the

Auckland Region. This indicates that a large component of the Milford population have been within

the area for a significant amount of time.



Figure 17. Years at Usual Residence, 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% o

f per

sons

Milford Centre 20.6 46.9 23.8 3.9

North Shore City 23.8 50.1 18.0 3.6

Auckland 23.4 48.5 17.3 3.2

0 Years 1-9 Years 10-29 years 30 or more years


Household Type

In 2006 there were 1,539 households in Milford in 2006 and the average number of people per

household was 2.3 people. Figure 18 shows a comparison of household type structure of the Milford

Town Centre Area and the NSCC and Auckland Region. Although Milford Town Centre Area was

dominated by ‘Family Households’15 (64.0%), compared with the surrounding NSCC and Region,

Milford Town Centre Area had significantly more ‘One Person Households’ with 31.1% compared with

18.8% for North Shore City and 19.1% for Auckland.

15 As defined by Statistics NZ, ‘Family Households’ are a “household containing two or more people usually living together with at least one couple and/or parent-child relationship, with/without other people”. They therefore include both ‘couple families with children’ and ‘couple families without children’.



Figure 18. Household Type, 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

of o

ccup

ied

priv

ate

dwel

lings

Milford Centre 64.0 3.9 31.1

North Shore City 75.3 4.7 18.8

Auckland 73.0 5.2 19.1

Family Household Multi-Person Household One Person Household


Detailed analysis of Census meshblock data (Figure 19) shows the location of one person

households. There was a greater concentration of one person households in the south/south-west

area of Milford Town Centre Area, with 20-60% of households identifying as a ‘one person

household’.



Figure 19. Distr ibut ion of One Person Households 2006

Source: Statistics NZ and SGS Economics and Planning

Figure 20 below shows the change in household type between 2001 and 2006. There was a steady

increase in the number of family households16 in Milford Town Centre Area and a relatively steady

number of one person households, with a slight decrease between 2001 and 2001. This trend is in

line with the increasing proportion of young children identified earlier.

16 As defined previously.



Figure 20. Household Type 1991-2006

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200N

o. o

f hou

seho

lds

1991 843 93 465

1996 927 51 489

2001 948 51 510

2006 993 60 483

Family Household Multi-Person Household One Person Household

Source: Statistics NZ

Ethnicity and Language Characteristics

As shown in Table 6, 66.1% of Milford Town Centre Area’s population was born in New Zealand. A

lower proportion of NSCC’s population was born in New Zealand than either Milford Town Centre

Area or Auckland.

Table 6. Bir thplace, 2006

Born in NZ Born Overseas

Milford Town Centre Area 66.1% 31.9%

North Shore City 57.4% 31.6%

Auckland 59.6% 35.0%

* Excludes category ‘not elsewhere included’

Milford Town Centre Area had a similar ethnic profile and language profile to NSCC overall.

European Ethnic origin is the most dominant ethnicity of all areas.



4.3 Socio-Economic Characteristics

Household Income and Source of Income

As shown in Figure 21, Milford and North Shore City were characterised by a high percentage of very

high income households (those earning $100,000 or more per yea), in line with trends for NSCC.

Figure 21. Household Income, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% o

f occ

upie

d pr

ivat

e dw

ellin

gs

Milford Centre 14.0 9.1 13.6 11.1 10.9 27.4

North Shore City 10.3 7.6 13.3 12.6 15.5 27.2

Auckland 11.2 7.9 13.6 12.3 14.0 22.9

$20,000 or Less $20,001 - $30,000 $30,001 - $50,000 $50,001 - $70,000 $70,001 - $100,000

$100,001 or More

Figure 22 shows the distribution of high income (>$100,001 per year) households in North Shore

City TLA. There was a concentration of high income households in areas of high environmental

amenity - along the foreshores of Auckland Harbour, the coast, Lake Pupuke and on the rural

fringes. The coastal areas of Milford Town Centre Area had a higher proportion of high income

households for example. Overall Milford had a greater proportion of high income households than the

central and south-west areas of the TLA.



Figure 22. Distr ibut ion of High Income Households 2006


Figure 23 shows the proportional distribution of household income source for Milford Town Centre

Area and the surrounding TLA and Region. Milford Town Centre Area had a far lower proportion of

households that obtain their income through ‘Wages, salary etc’ (50.1%) than NSCC (71.9%) or

Auckland (69.6%). As would be expected from the older age profile in Milford Town Centre Area, a

high proportion of households obtained their income from NZ and Other Superannuation and

Pensions (40.6%). There are also a high proportion of households who obtained some of their

income from ‘Interest, Dividends etc’ (49.5%).



Figure 23. Household Sources of Income*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

of h

ouse

hold

s

Milford Centre 50.1 24.5 49.5 0.6 33.7 6.9 1.5 2.3 6.2

North Shore City 71.9 28.9 38.4 2.1 17.7 5.5 2.8 4.4 13.2

Auckland 69.6 25.3 31.5 2.0 16.5 4.1 4.7 4.3 18.2

Wages, Salary, etc

Self-employment or Business

Interest, Dividends,

etc

Work Accident Insurer

NZ Super-annuation

Other Super.,

Pensions

Unemployment Benefit

Student Allow ance

Other Govt. Benefit

* The chart represents all sources of income not only main source of income.

Qualifications of Residents

Figure 24 shows the proportion of the Milford Town Centre Area and NSCC populations with post

high-school qualifications, compared with the same proportions for Auckland. Overall, Milford Town

Centre Area had higher proportions of residents with a Diploma or higher qualification.

The proportion of residents with ‘No Qualification’ was the same for Milford Town Centre Area and

NSCC with 12.9% of the population. This is far lower than the proportion of residents in the Auckland

Region with ‘No Qualifications’ (18.1%). This indicates that Milford Town Centre Area and NSCC have

a highly skilled population.



Figure 24. Highest Qual i f icat ion Prof i le, 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20%

of p

erso

ns

Milford Centre 12.9 10.9 11.0 17.1 6.4

North Shore City 12.9 12.5 10.2 15.4 5.9

Auckland 18.1 11.6 8.5 12.7 5.0

No Qualif ication Certif icate (post school)

Diploma Bachelor Degree & Level 7 Qualif.

Postgraduate Degree

* doesn't equal 100% (other school obtained qualifications not included)


Health

Statistics NZ collects information relating to births, deaths and hospital discharges for the North

Shore TLA (Quarterly Review, Statistics NZ 2007). This data indicates the relatively high and stable

health status of residents with the following health trends recorded in the North Shore City Council

area for the year ending March 2007:

• There was an increase in live births and a decline in deaths for the year ending March 2007;

• In March 2007, there was a slightly higher number of hospital discharges than the previous

year;

• Hospitalisations were most regularly and as a result of Injury and Poisoning (14.4%) and

Complications relating to Pregnancy and Childbirth (10.5%).

Research conducted for this study did not indicate that the health status of residents in the Milford

Town Centre Area is likely to deviate significantly from population health in the North Shore LGA.

Given the relative wealth of the area and the good environment of its surrounds, the health of the

current population in the Milford area is likely to be high.

Crime and Safety

Crime statistics available for the wider North Shore region indicate that the majority of reported

crime related to minor offences. During the year ended 31 December 2006, there were 40,206

crimes recorded in the North Shore/Waitakere Police District, an increase of 5.8% from the previous

year. The majority of crimes were for dishonesty offences (55.9%) followed by violence offences

(13.1%) and drugs and anti-social behaviour (13.0%) (Quarterly Review, Statistics New Zealand

2007). Consultation conducted for this study indicated that the level of crime and safety in the



Milford Town Centre area is not likely to deviate significantly from that in the wider LGA

(Birkenhead/Northcote Community Coordinator / Board Chair pers. comm.. June 2007).

Community Wellbeing

North Shore appear to have higher life expectancy than other regions in NZ, indicating good general

health within the area, better access to health services and good social and economic conditions

(Ministry for Social Development 200617). Analysis conducted for this study indicates that the level

of community wellbeing in the Milford Town Centre area is not likely to deviate significantly from that

in the wider LGA.

4.4 Housing Characteristics

Housing Type and Tenure

An inspection of the area immediately surrounding the site (June 2007) showed that detached

dwellings dominate both the Milford Town Centre area and the surrounding areas. However, in the

wider Lake Pupuke Area Unit area (used in this analysis due to lack of data relating to the Milford

Town Centre Area18) there was a higher proportion of ‘Two or more Flats, Townhouses, Apartments,

Houses Joined’ than either North Shore City TLA or Auckland Region (Figure 25). It is noted that the

distribution of this data (as shown in Mesh Block data) is not available (39.5% for Lake Pupke Area

compared to 22.7% and 22.5% for North Shore City TLA and Auckland Region respectively).

Figure 25. Dwel l ing Type 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f occ

upie

d pr

ivat

e dw

ellin

gs

Lake Pupuke 56.7 39.5 0.3 3.5

North Shore City 73.9 22.7 0.1 3.3

Auckland Region 71.0 22.5 0.4 6.1

Separate HouseTw o or More

Flats/Units/Tow nhouses/Apartments/Houses Joined

Other Occupied Private Dw ellings

Occupied Private Dw elling Not Further Defined


17 Ministry of Social Development (2006) North Shore City Quality of Life report, access at www.northshorecity.gov.nz on 3rd August 2007 18 The Lake Pupuke Area Unit Area used in this analysis is similar in size, but of a slightly different geography to the study area referred to in the remainder of this section of the report.



As shown in Figure 26 Milford had a higher proportion of one (16.7%) and two (36.1%) person

households residing in separate houses in 2006 than either NSCC or Auckland Region. Figure 27

below shows that Milford also had a much higher proportion of occupied attached dwellings with one

person households (46.9%) than NSCC (36.3%) and the Auckland Region (35.6%).

Figure 27. Dwel l ing Type by Number of Usual Residents, At tached Dwel l ings, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% o

f occ

upie

d pr

ivat

e ho

useh

olds

Milford Centre 46.9 35.3 10.5 7.3

North Shore City 36.3 35.5 15.1 13.1

Auckland 35.6 34.3 14.7 15.4

1 Usual Resident 2 Usual Resident 3 Usual Resident 4 or more Usual Resident


Figure 26. Dwell ing Type by Number of Usual Residents, Separate Houses, 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% o

f occ

upie

d pr

ivat

e ho

useh

olds

Milford Centre 16.7 36.1 18.6 28.6

North Shore City 12.7 30.4 20.4 36.5

Auckland 13.0 29.1 19.3 38.6

1 Usual Resident 2 Usual Resident 3 Usual Resident 4 or more Usual Resident




Figure 28 shows the proportional distribution of dwelling tenure for the Milford Town Centre Area

compared with the TLA and wider Region. When compared with Auckland, Milford Town Centre Area

had a higher proportion of ‘Dwellings owned, partly owned or in Family Trust by Usual Resident’

(65.8% compared with 59.3%) and a lower proportion of ‘Dwelling not owned by Usual Resident’

(28.9% compared with 33.6%). NSCC is characterised by a high level of home ownership. A high

level of homeownership in the Milford area is not surprising given the relative stability of the local

population, as discussed in Section 4.2.

Figure 28. Dwell ing Tenure, 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f occ

upie

d pr

ivat

e dw

ellin

gs

Milford Centre 65.8 28.9 5.0

North Shore City 67.3 28.4 4.2

Auckland 59.3 33.6 7.1

Dw elling Ow ned, Partly Ow ned or in Family Trust by Usual

Resident(s)

Dw elling Not Ow ned by Usual Resident(s) Not Elsew here Included


Figure 29 and Figure 30 show the distribution of housing tenure type for NSCC. There was a higher

concentration of full or partial home ownership on the Waitemata foreshore area and the north-east

area of NSCC, including the Hauraki Gulf foreshore. Milford Town Centre Area had a comparatively

high concentration of full or partial home ownership.

There were a higher proportion of households who do not own their place of usual residence in the

south east area of Milford Town Centre Area. In comparison to the wider NSCC, Milford Town Centre

had a similar proportion of households in rental housing.



Figure 29. Dwel l ing Tenure – Ful l or Part ia l Home Ownership 2006




Figure 30. Housing Tenure – Rent ing 2006


Housing Cost

Figure 31 below shows the median dwelling price for Milford/Takapuna and the Auckland Region. It is

also noted that median dwelling price in NSCC in January 2007 was approximately $549,00019. This

chart shows a considerable increase in housing cost in both the Milford Area and the Auckland

Region over the last 15 years. The Milford/Takapuna area has a significantly higher median dwelling

price ($657,500) than both North Shore City TLA and Auckland Region.

19 Crockers (2007) Crocker’s Market Research, Issue 22 March 2007



Figure 31. Median Dwel l ing Pr ice May 1992-May 2007 for Mi l ford/Takapuna and Auckland

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Med

ian

Dw

ellin

g Pr

ice

($'0

00)

Milford/Takapuna 180 191 228 250 328 330 313.5 380 305 330 360 381 460 530 560 657.5

Auckland 135 145 166 178 227.5 235 234.5 230 237.5 235 266 292 339 370 400 450

May 1992

May 1993

May 1994

May 1995

May 1996

May 1997

May 1998

May 1999

May 2000

May 2001

May 2002

May 2003

May 2004

May 2005

May 2006

May 2007

Source: Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, SGS Economics and Planning

Figure 32 below shows the change in median rents in Milford/Takapuna between May 2006 and May

2007. The most significant increase was in 3 bedroom dwellings (an additional $75 per week on the

2006 base). There was a slight increase in 2 bedroom dwellings ($5 per week) but no increase in 4

bedroom dwellings. There was no information for 1 bedroom dwellings in the Milford area.

Figure 32. Milford/Takapuna Median Rents May 2006 and May 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Med

ian

Ren

t $ P

er W

eek

May-06 325 390 500

May-07 330 465 500

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 bedroom

Crockers Market Research, Issue 26 July 2007, SGS Economics and Planning



4.5 Employment and Economy

Employment

The following analysis uses 2006 census data for usual resident population and workplace address

and refers to the characteristics of employment within the Milford Town Centre Area and also of the

residents of Milford Town Centre Area.

Figure 33 shows the employment profile of Milford Residents. In 2006, 1,812 usual residents

participated in the workforce. The Milford Town Centre Area was characterised by a low (and

declining) number of unemployed and increases employment in both the full- and part-time

positions.

Figure 33. Employment Status 1991-2006

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

No.

of P

erso

ns

1991 1089 297 108

1996 1173 381 57

2001 1185 366 78

2006 1320 426 66

Employed Full-Time Employed Part-Time Unemployed


At the time of the 2006 census, the unemployment rate in NSCC was 4.3%, compared with 5.6% for

Auckland Region.

Industry of Employment

Figure 34 shows the distribution of employment by industry of usual residents and labour force in

Milford. Residents of Milford were predominantly employed in the Property and Business Sector (348

employed). This sector had almost double the number of employees of the next sector, Retail and

Trade (183). Residents of the Centre were also employed in the Education and Health and

Community Services Industries.



People who work in Milford Town Centre Area are predominantly employed in Retail Trade (441

employed) and Property and Business Services (306 employed).

Figure 34. Employment by Industry, Mi l ford Town Centre Area 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Propert

y and

Busine

ss Servi

ces

Retail Trad

e

Manufac

turing

Health and

Com

munity

Serv

ices

Constru

ction

Finance

and In

suranc

e

Wholesa

le Trad

e

Educa

tion

Not Else

where In

clude

d

Cultural

and R

ecreati

onal S

ervice

s

Accom

modati

on, C

afes a

nd Res

taurants

Transport

and Stor

age

Govern

ment A

dmini

stratio

n and D

efenc

e

Person

al and O

ther S

ervice

s

Communicati

on S

ervice

s

Electric

ity, G

as and

Wate

r Sup

ply

Agricu

lture,

Forestry

and Fish

ingMini

ng

No.

of p

erso

ns E

mpl

oyed

Milford Centre (Usual Residents)Milford Centre (Labour force)


Occupation

Figure 35 shows the distribution of employment by occupation of usual residents and labour force in

Milford Town Centre Area. Usual Residents of Milford Town Centre Area were predominantly

employed as Managers (387 employed) and professionals (465 employed). In contrast, the labour

force consisted of a high number of ‘Sales Workers’ (390 employed) and a smaller number of

Professionals (264 employed) and Managers (225 employed).



Figure 35. Occupat ional Prof i le, Mi l ford Town Centre Area, 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500N

o. e

mpl

oyee

s

Milford Centre (Usual Residents) 387 465 141 108 258 177 51 51

Milford Centre (Labour force) 225 264 114 135 201 390 33 54

Managers ProfessionalsTechnicians and Trades

Workers

Community and Personal

Service

Clerical and Administrative

Workers

Sales Workers

Machinery Operators

and DriversLabourers


Retail and Commercial - Rent and Sales

Consultation conducted for this study indicated that there is high demand for retail and commercial

floor space in the town centre area within the mainstreet precinct surrounding the MSC site and

potential for more, small, boutique development in the future (development including industries

comprising between 5-10 employees in niche industries for example) (pers. comm.. NSCC, June

2007).

Consultation with retail and commercial real estate agents based on the North Shore has indicated

that retail rents in Milford range between $280/sqm and $380/sqm. Respondents in the consultation

phase indicated that rents are driven by the quality of space and size rather than the precinct within

which it is located with premiums paid for smaller and higher quality space. Demand for retail

tenancies in the mainstreet area of Milford Town Centre (eg, Kitchener Rd) is extremely strong and

this is reflected to a large extent by the prevalence of long term (5-6yr) leases. The Business 2 zone

area surrounding the shopping centre site has very low vacancies and short vacancy timeframes

when they do occur – most tenancies are re-tenanted within a maximum of 1 or 2 weeks (Pers.

Comm., Barfoot and Thompson, June 2007).

Discussions with key informants indicated that retail sales in the Milford area are rare; however

there have been a couple recently. Retail investment in Milford generally locally based, with

investors preferring to be located close to their investment. Sales recently have achieved an

average 6% capitalisation rate20 (Pers. Comm., Barfoot and Thompson, June 2007).

20 ‘Capitalisation Rate’ is a measure of the ratio between the cash flow produced by an asset (real estate) and its capital cost (the original price paid to own the asset).



Vacancy rates in Auckland are currently at historic lows and retail vacancy rates within North Shore

City have dropped over the last year from 2.9% to 2.4%. The current vacancy rate is similar to

Auckland City and slightly higher than the overall rate for Auckland (Pers. Comm., Barfoot and

Thompson, June 2007).

Consultation has indicated that Milford does not have a large amount of commercial office space and

as a result, the area which is available is readily lettable. The majority of office space available is B

and C Grade and rents for approximately $180-$220sqm. Commercial office space in Milford is

characterised by a large number owner occupiers providing services to the local community (Pers.

Comm., Barfoot and Thompson, June 2007). Within North Shore City TLA, the office market much

stronger in Takapuna which in September 2007 had a vacancy rate of 4%. A Grade commercial

space in Takapuna achieves between $275 and $350sqm/pa, with B grade achieving between $220

and $275sqm/pa. C Grade office space in Takapuna achieves similar levels to that in Milford Town

Centre21.

4.6 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure

The Milford Catchment does not appear to have any significant issues relating to infrastructure

provision currently given present loads on the system (Pers. Comm. NSCC, August 2007), although

the capacity of wastewater infrastructure in the Milford area is still to be confirmed as part of North

Shore City Council’s Strategic Review of the Trunk Network. The level of development proposed by

the client (and other developers in Milford and Takapuna) may require substantial investment in

network upgrades (Pers. Comm. NSCC, August 2007) but it is noted that this will be a requirement

of any approval given.

Preliminary consultation carried out for the proposed development has indicated that water supply

infrastructure will need to be improved prior to intensification. NSCC is in the process of

investigating the Milford Takapuna Area, which is estimated to take at least 15 months. Likely

population and employment growth in Takapuna and Milford would be assessed concurrently in

terms of wastewater capacity as they both flow to the same Pump Station (Pers. Comm. NSCC,

August 2007).

4.7 Transport and Access

Road Infrastructure

The site is located in close proximity to major road infrastructure. The Milford Town Centre Area is

located near the intersection of four major roads (Kitchener Rd, Shakespeare Rd, Omana Rd and

East Coast Road). The Milford Town Centre Area is easily accessible to Auckland and Albany via the

Northern Motorway. The adequacy of road infrastructure is being assessed by a separate report.

21 Colliers (2007) Auckland Metropolitan Office Report, Spring 2007.



Mode Share – Usual Residents

Figure 36 shows the proportional distribution of travel mode for work trips by residents of Milford

Town Centre Area compared with NSCC and Auckland Region. Travel by car (either driver of a

private or company vehicle or as a passenger) was by far the most popular form of transport for all

areas. For Milford Town Centre Area, a higher proportion of residents travelled to work by public bus,

walked or jogged or worked from home than either of the benchmark areas.

Figure 36. Mode Share of Work Tr ips, 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% o

f usu

al re

side

nts

Milford Centre 9.0 10.9 49.2 10.2 2.9 6.6 0.0 0.5 0.7 5.0 0.5 4.3

North Shore City 6.7 10.2 52.0 11.5 4.0 5.8 0.0 0.5 0.7 3.0 1.8 3.9

Auckland 6.5 9.5 51.8 10.9 4.6 4.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 3.8 1.0 5.1

Worked at Home

Did not go to Work Today

Drove a Private

Car, Truck

Drove a Company Car, Truck

Passenger in a Car,

Truck, Public Bus Train

Motor Cycle or Pow er

BicycleWalked or

Jogged OtherNot

Elsew here Included

Source: Statistics NZ, 2006.

Public Transport and Walkability

The centre is currently well serviced by Bus and Taxis. In total, 11 bus services pass by the Milford

Shopping Centre Site with 4 bus stops in the vicinity of the site - 2 on Milford Road and 2 on

Kitchener Road. The local area is also well served by taxi ranks and taxi services generally.

As discussed in Section 2.4, improvements proposed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority

would result in further improvements to the public transport network servicing the Milford town

centre. This would result in improved connections between Milford, other centres and employment

areas (including the Auckland CBD) through improved connections to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit

stations located along the motorway corridor.

As discussed in Section 2.1, the Milford Town Centre is relatively flat, making the Centre easy to

access for local pedestrians.



4.8 Community Services, Programs and Facilities

Consultation and investigations undertaken as part of this study have shown that the Milford region

has some but not many community facilities, particularly for an ageing population and that there

may be the requirement for marginal augmentation to existing facilities if intensification occurs

(Pers. comm.. Birkenhead Northcote Community Board / Community Coordinator, June 2007, Age

Concern, pers comm. Aug 2007)22.

Figure 37 shows the current location of education, health and community facilities in the area

surrounding the study site.

Age Concern, a community group which provides facilities and services for senior citizens including

transportation, home assistance, and education, indicated that intensification of the Milford Town

Centre could be accommodated by existing facilities, although there may be the need to provide

additional offices and meeting rooms for the general population (pers. comm.. August 2007).

There are no art galleries, theatres, police stations and golf courses in Milford Town Centre. It is

noted that these higher order facilities are available in Takapuna. A number of schools, medical

facilities and places of worship are located in the area.

Figure 38 shows the location of open space and reserves in the area surrounding the Milford Town

Centre. The Milford Town Centre is in close proximity to Sylvan Park and Brian Byrne’s Reserve.

Public access to the Waitemata foreshore is also within walking distance from the site (along Milford

Road).

22 While the interview conducted with the Birkenhead Northcote Community Board Chair and Community Coordinator for this study focused on the Birkenhead / Highbury area, a number of comments were also recorded about the Milford area, as informed by the interviewee’s knowledge of the wider North Shore area and work with North Shore City Council.



Figure 37. Education, Heal th and Community Faci l i t ies, Mi l ford


Figure 38. Open Space and Reserves, Mi l ford




4.9 Summary of Baseline Conditions

Key baseline characteristics of Milford Town Centre are summarised below.

Demographic Characteristics

• In 2006, the Census population of the locality was 3,567 persons.

• Compared with North Shore City Council area, Milford Town Centre area had a high

proportion of people of pre-retirement and retirement age (55 years and older).

• There had been a steady decline of 20-34 year olds over the past 15 years (1991-2006), but

an increase in young children into the area.

• In 2006, the median age in Milford Town Centre Area (46.8 years) was significantly older

than NSCC area (35 years) or the Auckland region (33 years), indicating a likely future

ageing population.

• Declining household size is a general trend across the Auckland region in line with the ageing

of the population and other social trends. Time series analysis shows that the proportion of

one person households has remained relatively stable, while the number of family

households has increased over the past 15 years (1991-2006).

Community Wellbeing

• Milford and North Shore City were characterised by a high percentage of very high income

households (those earning $100,000 or more per year) in 2006.

• Milford Town Centre Area had a far lower proportion of households than obtain their income

through ‘Wages, salary etc’ (50.1%) than North Shore City or Auckland.

• As would be expected from the age profile in Milford Town Centre Area, a high proportion of

households obtain their income from NZ and Other Superannuation and Pensions (40.6%).

There were also a high proportion of households who obtain some of their income from

‘Interest, Dividends etc’ (49.5%).

• Current educational outcomes, level of personal security, wider job and business

opportunities, health and governance point to a high level of community well-being

experienced in the study area.

• As outlined in Section 4, Milford Town Centre Area has had a moderately stable population

with a comparatively high proportion of residents having lived at their place of usual

residence for ten years or more.

• Crime and safety do not appear to be significant issues in Milford (Quality of Life Survey,

2006).

• Given the relative wealth of the area and the good environment of its surrounds, the health

of the current population in the Milford area is likely to be high.

Housing

• Detached dwellings dominate within the Milford town centre area. However, in the wider

Lake Pupuke Area Unit area there was a higher incidence of ‘Two or more Flats, Townhouses,

Apartments, houses Joined’ when compared to North Shore City TLA and Auckland Region.



• Dwelling tenure was dominated by full or partial home ownership and dwellings in the

ownership of Family Trusts in 2006. A considerable number of households have been within

the area for over 10 years.

• There has been a considerable increase in housing costs in both the Milford/Takapuna area

and the Auckland Region over the last 15 years. Incomes in the Milford area are generally

higher than NSCC and Auckland average, indicating capacity for local residents to pay for

housing.

Employment and Economy

• The Milford Town Centre Area was characterised by low (and declining) unemployment and

increasing employment (both full- and part-time).

• In 2006, the centre had strong employment in the Retail Trade, followed by the Property and

Business Services. People working in the centre were predominantly employed as ‘Sales

Workers’, with a smaller number of Professionals and Managers.

• Residents of Milford were predominantly employed in the Property and Business Sector and

were predominantly employed in Managerial and professional occupations.

• Demand for retail and commercial tenancies in the mainstreet area of Milford Town Centre is

extremely strong and characterised by long term (5-6yr) leases.

Development Infrastructure, Community Facilities and Services

• The site is located in close proximity to road infrastructure23.

• Water and sewerage infrastructure in the Milford Catchment appears to be adequate for

current populations but are likely to require upgrades to host more intense uses. Council

indicate that adequate infrastructure is a requirement of approval for the proposed plan

change.

• Community facilities and services, while not expansive, are likely to be able to cater for

intensification, although some augmentation of facilities for the ageing population, offices

and community meeting spaces might be required.

• The site is well located in terms of proximity and access to public open space.

Transport and Access

• Travel by car (either driver of a private or company vehicle or as a passenger) was by far the

most popular form of transport for all areas. For Milford Town Centre Area, a higher

proportion of residents travelled to work by public bus, walked or jogged or worked from

home than NSCC area or Auckland region.

• The centre is currently well serviced by Bus and Taxis.

• The Milford Town Centre is relatively flat, making the Centre easy to access for local

pedestrians.

23 The adequacy of which is being assessed by a separate report.



5 Potential Impacts

This section identifies and summarises the range of positive and negative social impacts that could

potentially be experienced by community members either within the area immediately surrounding

the site and/or by community members from a wider geographic area. The information provided is

based on the findings of baseline data analysis, stakeholder consultation and research into the costs

and benefits of intensification undertaken for this study.

The potential impacts and risks identified in this chapter relate to the key areas identified within the

baseline research and include:

• Likely impacts on demand and supply of housing;

• Likely impacts on economic vitality and centre vibrancy;

• Likely impacts on infrastructure;

• Likely impacts on amenity of the surrounding environment;

• Likely impacts on community wellbeing;

• Likely impacts associated with increased walking and cycling;

• Likely impacts on crime and safety;

• Likely impacts on the availability and capacity of community services, programs and

facilities.

5.1 The Demand and Supply of Housing

One of the potential key social impacts associated with the proposed development relates to

housing, including positive impacts such as the proposed development providing an opportunity for

increased residential intensification at Milford Town Centre, as well as the development’s potential to

provide for greater diversity in housing types. Risks associated with these positives are also

discussed.

Potential negative impacts and associated risks are also identified. These relate to the potential for

poor integration with neighbouring development, possible visual impacts and the risk of reverse

sensitivity occurring. Potential impacts on housing affordability are also identified. Results of the

assessment of key risks associated with these potential positive and negative impacts are also

discussed.

5.1.1 Opportunity for Increased Residential Intensification at Milford Town Centre

Achieving Regional Aims

As noted previously, North Shore City Council’s Population Projections specific to the Milford Town

Centre Area indicate that the population living within the centre and the residential area immediately

surrounding the Business 2 zone is projected to increase by 530 people between 2006 and 2021 and

346 dwellings within this timeframe. However it is unclear how, in the current constrained zoning

environment at the Town Centre these policy objectives along with the projected population and



dwelling growth is to occur without the MSC site being allowed to intensify via changes to the District

Plan as proposed.

The concept explored for the MSC, as noted at the outset, is a desired yield of approximately 250

apartments by way of higher density buildings. It is anticipated that the proposed intensification

could be completed in 2010 and is likely to result in an approximate population increase of 450

people at the site (this equates to 72% of expected population growth in the town centre area).

As a large lot in single ownership, the development at MSC would provide a significant opportunity

for increased residential intensification to occur and contribute significantly to the achievement of

long term policy objectives, population and dwelling growth. Thus, the proposed development offers

a good opportunity for increased residential intensification to occur within an existing town centre,

particularly considering that:

• The increase in population associated with the MSC will contribute substantially to

intensification in the area, and will occur in a centrally accessible area, close to public

transport, retail and commercial amenities.

• There has been a general reluctance by developers other than Milford Centre Limited to

intensify in suburban town centres in Auckland (pers. comm. ARC, June 2007).

• The MSC is a large lot in one ownership and the Milford Town Centre Area, zoned Business 2,

surrounding the site is generally characterised by small lots and dispersed property

ownership patterns. An increase in population size in other parts of the Town Centre, equal

to that expected as a result of the proposed development, will require substantial time and

effort given the fragmented land ownership at the centre.

That there will be little change to housing supply in the Milford Town Centre Area in the short-term is

a risk associated with the opportunity for increased residential intensification. As shown in Appendix

1, this is considered to be a medium level risk.

Integration and Design Considerations

It is noted that to achieve benefits associated with intensification, design considerations, visual

impacts and integration with the broader area will need to be considered. Information provided by

Milford Limited indicates their consultants have given due thought to these issues in assessing

options for development. Further information is provided in other consultant reports that accompany

this plan change application. The risk of this issue significantly negatively impacting the immediate

and surrounding areas is therefore considered low (refer Appendix 1).

A further risk associated with the proposed development if it were to proceed relates to the issue of

reverse sensitivity. The North Shore District Plan 2002 emphasises the need to ensure the growth of

employment and economic activities in areas where residential development within business zoned

areas is to occur “by ensuring that residential development in business areas is designed to avoid,

remedy or mitigate adverse effects on residential amenity from business activities24. This is also

supported in the North Shore City Council Economic Development Strategy, 2006.

Reverse sensitivity is a potential risk for existing businesses in the centre. The construction of

residential development (a more sensitive land use) nearby may result in complaints by new

24 NSCC District Plan 15.3



residents relating to noise, amenity or traffic associated with the original business use at the centre.

The extent to which reverse sensitivity is an issue is related to building quality as well as the

expectations of residents in centres and nature of surrounding commercial land use. Current noise

levels at the site are generally minor and are associated with traffic movements as well as retail

activity. Information provided by Milford Centre Limited indicates that due thought has been given

to this issue and it is addressed through the design of the development. Further information is

provided in a separate report. Risks associated with reverse sensitivity at the site are therefore

considered to be low (refer Appendix 1).

The North Shore District Plan 2002 also emphasises the need to ensure that residential development

is managed so as “not [to] significantly reduce the availability of land for business activities in the

City’s general business areas and in those higher amenity business areas outside of commercial

centres”. Again, this is supported in within the North Shore City Council Economic Development

Strategy, 2006. The potential for residential development at the centre to reduce the availability of

commercial / business land within the centre is a risk identified in relation to the proposed

development. However, this is not considered to be a significant risk as the current proposal does

not result in the reduction of commercial / retail floor space at the centre and the use of ‘airspace’

for housing contributes to minimising this potential risk.

Housing Affordability

As outlined in Section 3.2, one of the primary criticisms of the compact growth model is its tendency

to increase pressure on housing affordability as a result of constrained land supply. The risk of a

decline in housing affordability associated with residential intensification differs from a regional and

local perspective.

The risks associated with a decline in housing affordability at the local level are not clear, as there is

pressure on housing affordability generally, however, it is acknowledged that intensification has the

potential to lead to higher development costs (for example, land costs and the cost of constructing

underground and/or structured carparking). Conversely, however, apartments are generally more

affordable that detached dwellings on larger lots. Therefore, although the development is unlikely to

provide ‘affordable housing’ per se, general affordability for home purchasers may be assisted to

some degree with the MSC development through the increase in dwelling supply and contribution to

greater diversity in the type of dwellings available in the Milford area..

At a regional level, compact growth strategies may increase pressure on housing affordability,

although this is debatable given the additional costs associated with travel and infrastructure

provision to more dispersed areas. Addressing this issue at the wider regional level is outside the

scope of the proposed development. Risks associated with housing affordability are therefore

considered to be low.

5.1.2 Increase in the Diversity of Housing Types

As noted in Section 1.2 an inspection of the area immediately surrounding the site (June 2007)

showed that detached dwellings are the dominant dwelling types directly surrounding the Milford

Town Centre Area. The Auckland community has expressed a need for a mix of housing types for

different cultures, ages and incomes in areas that are accessible to public transport (Auckland



Regional Growth Forum 2006). The development proposed by Milford Centre Limited has the

opportunity to increase the diversity of housing types within the Milford area.

A number of factors point to increased demand for smaller dwelling types in the Milford area.

Declining household size is a general trend across the Auckland region in line with the ageing of the

population and other social trends. The high median age of people residing Milford indicates an

ageing population (associated with a reduction in household size). Given the centre’s proximity to

the Hauraki Gulf coast and Auckland CBD, the Milford Town Centre is likely to remain an attractive

location for retirees and professionals, while data showing the breakdown of housing type by

household size indicates demand for attached dwellings (overall, smaller household types in Milford

are likely to live in attached dwellings). The proposed development aims to offer desirable

accommodation to meet demand for smaller dwelling types in the Milford area.

As outlined in Section 3.2, residential intensification in centres diversifies housing products, catering

for a wide demographic spectrum. The proposed development at the Milford Town Centre is likely to

add to the general availability of housing and provide for greater housing mix in the immediate

vicinity of the centre area by providing from smaller dwelling types (250 two bedroom apartments).

These can be attractive to a range of family types and particularly for older people, which has been

identified as a potential target market for the development (Pers. Comm. Bayleys Real Estate June

2007).

A risk associated with this opportunity for increased residential intensification to occur at Milford

Town Centre includes the possibility that smaller, high density housing types are not taken up by the

target market. Given the general demand in the area, this risk has been identified as low (refer

Appendix 1) but if it eventuated, may have wider implications for community wellbeing as discussed

later in this chapter.

5.2 Economic Vitality and Centre Vibrancy

Key positive social impacts associated with economic vitality and centre vibrancy include potential for

the proposed development to offer a stimulus for employment and business opportunities and to

provide a focal point for business and economic activity. A potential negative impact identified

through this assessment includes the possibility that improved amenity at the site does not extent to

the surround area of retail development. Key risks associated with these likely positive and negative

impacts are also discussed.

5.2.1 Stimulus for Employment and Business Opportunities

Milford is generally characterised by a population with high socio-economic status, as demonstrated

through the high proportion of very high income households, sources of income within the centre

area and low unemployment rate in the NSCC area. Overall, however, the quality and standard of

the town centre area currently is not seen to reflect the affluent area in which it is located. The best

known retailers operating from the MSC include The Warehouse, Woolworths and Whitcoulls.

As noted in Section 2.1 there are few vacancies in the town centre area and demand for retail and

commercial tenancies in the mainstreet area of Milford Town Centre is considered to be very strong.

However, the quality of tenants is reported to have declined significantly in recent years (pers.



comm.. Barfoot and Thompson, June 2007). Employment in retail at the centre is strong, but

available retail currently generally consists of average quality, independent operations. Consultation

conducted for this study indicated that there is the general perception that the ‘top-end dollar’ is not

being catered for in Milford (pers. comm. MATCH Realty, June 2005).

North Shore City Council’s Projections specific to the Milford Town Centre Area25 indicate that

employment is estimated to increase in Milford Centre by 128 jobs between 2006 and 2021. This is

anticipated to be made up by employment in retail (+123 jobs) and non-retail jobs (+5 jobs) (NSCC

Land-Use Capacity and Allocation Model 2005). Although regional strategic and statutory planning

documents anticipate that employment will occur within the town centre it is unclear how an increase

in such development sufficient to spark an increase in the vitality of the centre will occur.

Residential development of the scale anticipated with the proposal is likely to make a substantial

difference in supporting future retail and hence strengthening and broadening the local economy and

promoting jobs growth in the centre. As outlined in Section 3.2, residential intensification

strengthens local economies and improves centre viability and vitality by providing a larger and more

diverse customer base, particularly for local retail businesses and a focal point for business and

economic activity. Retail, café/restaurants, finance and insurance, communication services, property

and business services, health, education and other similar sectors generally prefer to be located in or

close to town centres, with ready access to a customer base and good road and public transport

access.

In addition, the movement of new people into the area could further contribute to the vibrancy of the

centre. The new apartments would take advantage of coastal views and are likely to attract affluent

residents, thus providing the potential for an increase in retail demand for ‘better’ shops, cafes,

restaurants and services as the result of an increased in-centre residential population.


Town Centre includes the possibility that new residents of the development do not patronise the local

centre. This risk is considered to be low considering that Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the project will

involve the refit and upgrade of the existing Milford Shopping Centre (as outlined in Section 2.2).

A potential negative impact and further risk includes the possibility that improved amenity at the site

does not extend to the surrounding area of retail development – ie, that the new development might

be ‘inward looking’ and poorly integrated with adjacent development. As discussed previously,

information provided by the client indicates that their consultants have given due thought to this

issue and further information is provided in a separate report. The likelihood of this risk occurring is

considered to be low.

As identified within Section 5.1.1 above, the risk associated with the potential for residential

development to downgrade the retail / commercial role of Milford town centre is considered to be

negligible given that the development will be adding to rather than detracting from the lower levels

of retail floor space. That is, residential development will only occur above the ground level.

25 Including the Milford Business 2 Zone and the immediate residential area surrounding the Business 2 zone as shown in Figure 9.



5.3 Impacts on Infrastructure

Key positive social impacts associated with the proposed development include the potential to

contribute to the sustainability of future public transport networks. Potential negative impacts

include short-term and longer-term traffic impacts. Potential impacts on wastewater and water

supply infrastructure are also discussed. Key risks associated with these impacts are discussed

following.

5.3.1 Potential to Contribute to the Sustainability of Future Public Transport Networks

The Milford Town Centre is relatively flat, making the Centre easy to access for local pedestrians. In

2006, Milford Town Centre Area had a higher proportion of residents who travelled to work by public

bus, walked or jogged, compared with NSCC and the Auckland region. (The Milford Town Centre is

relatively flat, making the Centre easy to access for local pedestrians). The centre is also well

serviced by Buses.

As recognised within the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, centres are important nodes

connecting the Regional Land Transport Strategy framework which identifies the planned and future

potential rapid transport network. Transport improvements proposed by the Auckland Regional

Transport Authority are likely to result in further improvements to the public transport network

surrounding the site if plans are implemented. This improvement would be a positive contributor to

the current development proposed by providing transport for new residents and reducing the

likelihood of car dependency (however the extent to which this occurs is dependent on the timing of

improvements to public transport infrastructure).

The proposed development provides an opportunity for contribution to the sustainability of future

transport networks by contributing to increased patronage, optimising the use of services and

infrastructure and reducing car dependency. As discussed in Section 3.2, several studies show that

higher density, contiguous urban development as opposed to fragmented, low density development

(so called ‘sprawl’) generates fewer vehicle kilometres of travel and saves on transport infrastructure

costs because of improved opportunities to utilise standing capacity (SGS Economics and Planning

2007). The intensification of centres helps to reinforce ‘origin’ and ‘destination’ nodes across the

metropolitan public transport network. A balance between origin and destination nodes optimises

movement, ensures greater patronage, and allows a viable and sustainable public transport system

to evolve.

A risk associated with this opportunity includes the potential that take-up of public transport does

not occur. This has been assessed as a ‘medium’ level risk as reduced car dependency is dependent

on the early introduction of sufficient and effective public transport infrastructure.



5.3.2 Traffic Impacts

The Milford Town Centre Area is located near the intersection of four major roads (Kitchener Rd,

Shakespeare Rd, Omana Rd and East Coast Road). The Milford Town Centre Area is easily accessible

to Auckland and Albany via the Northern Motorway.

Given the expected increase in population associated with the development if it was to proceed, a

number of short-term impacts on traffic are acknowledged. This includes increases in traffic volume

expected during the construction period as well as ongoing increases in traffic. Longer term, traffic

volumes in the local area will increase as a result of the proposed development. This is considered

to be a ‘medium’ level risk, mainly derived from increased vehicle movements by residents at the

site. Traffic impacts are to be investigated in a separate study. The level of impact associated with

this issue is dependent on the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this study.

5.3.3 Waste Water and Water Supply Infrastructure

As noted in Section 4.6, waste water and water supply infrastructure for Milford Town Centre Area is

adequate for current populations but is likely to need to be updated to accommodate future

population growth (Pers. Comm. NSCC, August 2007). NSCC intends to review infrastructure

capacity within the next 15 months. The proposed development will place increased demand on

infrastructure, with the potential risk that the infrastructure will reach capacity. This is likely to

coincide well with assessment of the proposed development as the upgrade of this infrastructure

would be a necessary condition of approval of the proposed development, so there is little risk of a

shortfall in the provision of this infrastructure.

It is noted that this infrastructure is likely to need to be upgraded regardless of whether the

proposed development goes ahead (if the intent for proposed intensification at the town centre is to

be achieved as outlined within the District Plan).

5.4 Potential Impacts on the Amenity of the Surrounding Environment

The preservation of the character and amenity of the surrounding environment is a key positive

social impact identified in relation to the amenity of the surrounding environment. Possible visual

and overshadowing impacts and potential short-term and long-term noise and other amenity impacts

are likely negative impacts identified through this assessment. Risks associated with these impacts

are discussed following but it is noted that a separate commission deals with visual assessment and

shadowing effects.

5.4.1 Preservation of the Character and Amenity of the Surrounding Environment

A site visit conducted for this study (June 2007) showed that the Business 2 zone at Milford Town

Centre is surrounded by low density suburban residential development of good amenity. Housing is

generally detached in the immediate vicinity of the site and there are a limited number of medium

density residential developments.



In line with District Plan and Regional planning objectives, the proposed development will contribute

to concentrated residential development in the town centre area, thus reducing the need to increase

residential density in nearby suburban localities and adjacent residential areas to cater for future

population growth. This provides the opportunity to preserve the character of these suburban areas.

At a regional level, as outlined in Section 3.2, environmentally, more compact cities make more

efficient use of urban land and leave non-urban land on the fringe of regions to be maintained for

other uses, be they agriculture, horticulture, protection and management of areas of environmental,

cultural or heritage significance. It also assists in protecting rural landscapes and production areas

from urban encroachment.


Town Centre includes possible visual and overshadowing impacts associated with the proposed

development. Residents directly opposite the site (Milford Road and Ihumata Road frontages) and

residents to the west of Wairau Creek directly overlooking the site are also likely to experience some

visual impacts.

A further risk associated with this opportunity for increased residential intensification to occur at

Milford Town Centre includes the possibility that the visual appearance of the proposed development

has potential to detract from the amenity of the locality if poor quality design and poor integration of

the proposed development with the surrounding area was to occur.

Visual impacts may be positive or negative depending on the design of the proposed development as

well as community perceptions and acceptance of the development. It is acknowledged however,

that the development is likely to be visible on the skyline from distant locations and that

overshadowing is a further amenity issue to be considered with the proposal. A detailed Visual

Impact Assessment is being undertaken separately and will report on this in further detail. The risks

associated with the visual impact of the proposed development are considered to be low if the

mitigation strategies recommended in the Visual Impact Assessment are implemented effectively.

5.4.2 Potential Noise Impacts

As noted in section 2.1, noise levels at the site are currently associated with traffic as well as retail

activity. The development has potential to create increased noise levels in the short-term during

construction. This is likely to impact on residents and visitors to the site and surrounding area. In

the longer term, an increase in people residing at and travelling to the site is likely to contribute to a

general increase in ambient noise levels at the site and in the centre.

A risk associated with these impacts, which has been assessed as low include community complaints

associated with noise. Short-term impact of reduced patronage of retail establishments due to

residential construction is another risk identified. It is noted that noise impacts and mitigation

strategies are being investigated in a separate study. The level of impact associated with this issue

is largely dependent on the successful implementation of the mitigation strategies recommended in

the noise impacts report.



5.5 Impacts on Community Wellbeing

A number of positive social impacts associated with the proposed development relating to impacts on

community wellbeing have been identified, including the potential for the development to act as a

stimulus for overall benefits to the community, positive impacts on community health associated

with increased walking and cycling, and improved crime and safety. Impacts are also associated

with the availability and capacity of community services and facilities. Potential negative impacts on

community wellbeing identified through this study include impacts on community wellbeing

associated with change and uncertainty. Community stability and cohesion may be affected by a

new population moving into the area. Risks associated with these impacts are discussed following.

5.5.1 A Stimulus for Overall Benefits to the Community

Baseline analysis conducted for this study (including community health, levels of educational

attainment, crime and safety and stability of the current population) indicated a likely high level of

community wellbeing currently in the Milford Town Centre.

The development is likely to create a stimulus for overall benefits to the community to the extent

that, (as identified in Section 3.2), an increase in population will create an increase in employment

and business opportunities, and help to stimulate and diversify the local economy, growth will have

the effect of providing the opportunity to improve community well-being in the Milford centre and

surrounding area, as discussed above. A strong and vibrant centre also provides a focus to an area,

providing a sense of identity to residents.

As identified in Section 3.2, socially, co-location also allows for increased equitable access,

particularly by public transport, to a high proportion of residents which might otherwise need to rely

on private transport to engage in daily activities.

A number of impacts on community wellbeing might potentially be associated with change and

uncertainty as a result of the proposed development. As outlined in Section 4, Milford Town Centre

Area has a moderately stable population with a comparatively high proportion of residents having

lived at their place of usual residence for ten years or more. Community stability and cohesion may

be affected with a new population moving into the area. However this potential risk is considered to

be low considering that homeowners, rather than investors are identified as the likely purchasers of

the properties due to the likely price point at which the homes would enter the market and the fact

that the future population at the site is likely to come from the North Shore area and possibly the

immediate vicinity of the site if people who currently reside in single detached dwelling in the

neighbourhood chose to move to ‘apartment living’ at the proposed development (pers. comm.

Bayley’s Real Estate, June 2007).

As outlined in Section 3.2 of this report, in the Auckland context, there is evidence of an appreciation

within the community of the important positive impacts intensification can have. This presents a

potential ‘medium’ risk if community concern about the quality of design of the proposed

development and resistance to change is not properly managed and community concern about

intensification may lead to a decline in community wellbeing if left unchecked.



5.5.2 Impacts Associated with Increased Walking and Cycling

The centre is currently well serviced by buses and is relatively flat, making the MSC site easy to

access for local pedestrians. Urban intensification accounts for substantial health benefits (Section

3.2). Intensification at the Milford Town Centre therefore has the potential to provide more

opportunities for increased walking (and cycling), less motor vehicle use and a healthier population

overall (Graham 2005). It is not considered that car parking provided as part of the proposed

development (1.5 carspaces per dwelling) will erode the potential for these health benefits to occur.

However, disruption to pedestrian access to the site is considered to be a ‘medium’ level risk in the

short-term due to construction. A ‘Construction Management Plan’ will be developed following

approval of the proposed development to assist with the mitigation of this potential risk.

5.5.3 Impacts on Crime and Safety

Crime and safety does not appear to be a significant issue in Milford (Quality of Life Survey, 2006).

The proposed intensification of the MSC site is likely to provide for positive benefits in terms of crime

and safety. More residents living in the town centre may equate with more people on the streets,

which could improve passive surveillance.

Crime and safety benefits associated with improve passive surveillance is unlikely to occur if the

proposed development not well integrated into the Milford Town Centre Area, or adequate lighting in

public areas surrounding the development is not provided.

In the short-term there is increased potential for impacts on the safety of current residents and

visitors may be associated with increased vehicle movement at the site and construction activity

during the construction period.

5.5.4 Impacts on the Availability and Capacity of Community Services, Programs and Facilities

As outlined in section 4.8, there are some, but not many, community facilities in Milford Town Centre

Area. There is likely to be a requirement for marginal augmentation to existing facilities

(particularly facilities for seniors) if intensification occurs.

As recognised within the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, intensification in centres provides an

important focal point community services as well as being community meeting places and an

increase in population density allows for the multiple use of facilities and the co-location of activities

A key risk associated with the proposed development is that an increase in demand for community

services results in reduced access to community services, programs and facilities available to the

wider community and that future programs are not tailored to changed community make-up.



5.6 Summary of Impacts

The preceding discussion has outlined the potential positive and negative impacts likely to be

associated with the development of the MSC site. In addition, risks have been identified and

assessed.

Positive impacts of the proposed development include:

• Providing a good opportunity for increased residential intensification at Milford

Town Centre. A large lot in single ownership, the proposed redevelopment of the Milford

Shopping Centre site would contribute substantially to intensification in the area, and will

occur in a centrally accessible area, close to public transport, retail and commercial

amenities.

• Presenting a key opportunity to widen the diversity of housing types available to

local and other residents. Residential intensification in centres diversifies housing

products, catering for a wide demographic spectrum. The proposed development at the

Milford Town Centre will add to the supply of housing and to greater diversity in the type of

dwellings available in the Milford area.

• Providing a stimulus for employment and business opportunities and revitalise the

town centre. Residential intensification at centres strengthens local economies and

improves centre viability and vitality by providing a larger and more diverse customer base,

particularly for local retail businesses and a focal point for business and economic activity.

The movement of new people into the area could further contribute to the vibrancy of the

centre.

• Contributing to the sustainability of future public transport networks. The proposed

development provides an opportunity for contribution to the sustainability of future transport

networks by contributing to increased patronage, optimising the use of services and

infrastructure and reducing car dependency.

• Contributing to the preservation of the character and amenity of the surrounding

environment. The proposed development will contribute to concentrated residential

development in the town centre area, thus reducing the need to increase residential density

in nearby suburban localities and preserving the existing character and amenity of the

surrounding environment.

• Providing a stimulus for overall benefits to community wellbeing. The development

is likely to create a stimulus of overall benefits to the community to the extent that an

increase in population will create an increase in employment and business opportunities, and

help to stimulate and diversity the local economy. A strong and vibrant centre also provides

a focus to an area providing a sense of identity to residents

• Providing positive benefits associated with walking and cycling. The Milford centre is

currently well serviced by public transport making the site proposed for redevelopment easily

accessible. Urban intensification can account for substantial health benefits in well serviced

centres by providing more opportunities for increased walking (and cycling), less motor

vehicle use and a healthier population overall.

• Providing positive benefits for crime and safety. More residents living in the town

centre may equate with more people on the surrounding streets, thus improving passive

surveillance.




number of risks. The key risks identified, the overall risk rating, suggested mitigation strategies and

responsibility for implementation of these mitigation strategies are summarised in Appendix 126. Key

potential risks identified in this chapter include:

• Little change to housing supply in the short term;

• Poor integration with neighbouring development, possible visual impacts, overshadowing and

the risk of reverse sensitivity occurring;

• Impacts on housing affordability at a local and regional scale; and

• New residents of the development do not patronise the local centre;

• Potential for residential development to downgrade the retail / commercial role of Milford

town centre.

• The potential that take-up of public transport does not occur;

• Amenity at the site is compromised as a result of short-term (during construction) or longer-

term traffic and noise impacts;

• Community stability and cohesion may be affected with a new population moving into the

area;

• Short-term impacts on pedestrian access and safety during the period of construction;

• Improved passive surveillance does not occur due to poor design and/or inadequate lighting

in public areas surrounding the development;

• Marginally impact on the availability and capacity of community services, programs and

facilities.

It is important to note that all these risks have been assessed as low to medium (refer Appendix 1).

Nonetheless, mitigation strategies for the identified risks have been suggested in the next section to

ensure that, if approved, the positive benefits associated with the development are maximised.

In summary, therefore, this analysis shows that there are a number of key positive impacts

associated with the development and that there are a small number of potential negative impacts. It

is SGS’s professional judgement that the negative impacts assessed in this report could be mitigated

against. It is therefore considered that the potential benefits associated with the proposed

development outweigh possible negative impacts.

26 It is noted that the assessment of effects relating to visual impacts, traffic impacts and overshadowing are to be investigated in separate studies. Identified risks relating to any associated impacts will need to be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of these studies.



6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

This section restates the risks identified in the previous section and notes potential mitigation

strategies to lessen or completely erode the risk identified. As noted in the preceding section, all the

risks identified have been assessed as being low to medium.

Mitigation strategies are presented in this section with regard to:

• Demand and Supply of Housing;

• Economic Vitality and Centre Vibrancy;

• Impacts on Infrastructure;

• Potential Impacts on the Amenity of the Surrounding Environment; and

• Impacts on Community Wellbeing.

The mitigation strategies suggested (refer Appendix 1) are the responsibility of Milford Centre

Limited, North Shore City Council, Auckland Regional Council or Auckland Regional Transport

Authority. These measures are not considered to be complex or expensive and the following points

are considered to contribute to the reduced likelihood of the identified risks occurring:

• Information provided by Milford Centre Limited indicates that their consultants have carefully

assessed the potential effects of the proposal and that the site context has been taken into

account in developing the plan change;

• Community participation through public submission will occur as part of the plan change

process;

• Potential impacts of the proposed development (including impacts relating to design, noise,

traffic and visual impacts and infrastructure capacity) will be assessed by North Shore City

Council through the plan change process.

Demand and Supply of Housing

The risks associated with the demand and supply of housing include:

• That there is likely to be little change to housing supply in the short term;

• The possibility of poor integration with neighbouring development, possible visual impacts

and the risk of reverse sensitivity occurring;

• Potential impacts on housing affordability at a local and regional scale; and


town centre



Possible mitigation strategies to mitigate these risks include (refer Appendix 1):

Potential Risk Overall Risk

Rating

Mitigation Strategy Responsibility

Little change to housing

supply in the short term

Medium • Attention could be given to reducing

this risk from occurring by reducing

the time taken to advance the plan

change application, provide for

infrastructure requirements and

reduce delays during construction.

NSCC, Milford Centre

Limited

Potential for poor

integration with

neighbouring

development, possible

visual impacts and the risk

of reverse sensitivity

occurring

Low • Ensuring appropriate design

standards for new development and

consideration of these issues by

NSCC during the assessment

process.

• Education material could be

provided to new residents to reduce

the likelihood of reverse sensitivity

occurring.


Limited

Decline in housing

affordability at a local or

regional level.

Low • Research into housing affordability

issues could be undertaken to better

understand impacts on housing

affordability associated with

intensification in the Auckland

context.

NSCC, Auckland

Regional Council


development to

downgrade the retail /

commercial role of Milford

town centre.

Low • Land consumption by retail /

commercial and residential

development could be monitored to

understand (and address if

necessary) this potential impact.

NSCC

High density housing types

are not taken up by the

target market.

Low • Research should be conducted to

determine the likely target market

for the development.

• Marketing of the new development

should be directed towards the

desired target market.

Milford Centre Limited

Economic Vitality and Centre Vibrancy

The risks associated with economic vitality and centre vibrancy include:

• Potential that new residents of the development do not patronise the local centre;

• Potential for poor integration with neighbouring development, possible overshadowing and

visual impacts, the risk of reverse sensitivity occurring; and


town centre.





Rating


New residents of the

development do not patronise

the local centre

Low • Support could be provided

for activities to promote

local businesses.

• Support for the development

of a Milford Business

Association could also be

provided.

NSCC

Potential for poor integration

with neighbouring

development, possible

overshadowing and visual

impacts, the risk of reverse

sensitivity occurring.

Low • Ensuring appropriate design

standards for new

development and

consideration of these issues

by NSCC during the

assessment process.

• Education material could be

provided to new residents to

reduce the likelihood of

reverse sensitivity occurring.

• Consideration should be

given to the willingness of

the developer to contribute

to a main street upgrade.


Limited


development to downgrade

the retail / commercial role of

Milford town centre.

Low • Monitoring of land

consumption by retail /

commercial and residential

development.

NSCC

Impacts on Infrastructure

The risks associated with impacts on infrastructure include:

• The potential that take-up of public transport does not occur;

• Amenity at the site is compromised as a result of short-term (during construction) or longer-

term traffic impacts;

• Wastewater and water supply infrastructure reaches capacity.



Rating


Potential that take-up of public

transport does not occur.

Medium • Monitoring of public

transport patronage and

services.

• Education and promotion of

the use of public transport

for new residents.

NSCC, Auckland

Regional Transport

Authority

Amenity at the site is

compromised as a result of

Medium • Traffic impacts are to be

investigated in a separate

Milford Centre

Limited




Rating


short-term (during

construction) or longer-term

traffic impacts.

study. Recommended

mitigation measures to be

implemented.

Wastewater and water supply

infrastructure reaches capacity

Low • An improvement to existing

infrastructure will likely be

required following approval

of the plan change so there

is no likelihood of this risk

occurring or need for

mitigation measures.

NSCC

Potential Impacts on the Amenity of the Surrounding Environment

The risks associated with impacts on the amenity of the surrounding environment include:

• Potential for visual impacts and overshadowing; and

• Possibility of short and longer-term noise impacts on residents and visitors to the site and

surrounding retail / commercial and residential areas.



Rating


Visual Impacts and

Overshadowing

Low • Visual impacts and

overshadowing are to be

investigated in separate

studies. Recommended


incorporated into the design

of the new development.

Milford Centre

Limited

Short and longer-term noise

impacts on residents and

visitors to the site and

surrounding retail / commercial

and residential areas.

Low • Noise impacts are to be


study. Recommended


implemented.

Milford Centre

Limited

Impacts on Community Wellbeing

The risks associated with impacts on community wellbeing include:

• Community stability and cohesion may be affected with a new population moving into the

area;

• Short-term impacts on pedestrian access to the site during the period of construction;

• Improved passive surveillance does not occur due to poor design and/or inadequate lighting

in public areas surrounding the development;

• Impacts on the safety of current residents and visitors may be associated with construction

activity in the short-term and increased vehicle movement at the site in the longer-term;



• Impacts on the safety of current residents and visitors may be associated with construction

activity in the short-term and increased vehicle movement at the site in the longer-term;

and

• Reduced access to community services, programs and facilities available to the wider

community, and risk that future programs are not tailored to changed community make-up.



Rating


Community stability and

cohesion may be affected with a

new population moving into the

area.

Low • Community consultation and

education will assist with

reducing the likelihood of this

risk occurring.

• “Welcome packs” could be

distributed to new residents

to assist new residents at the

site ‘settle in’.

Milford Centre

Limited

Short-term impacts on

pedestrian access to the site

during the period of

construction.

Medium • A Construction Management

Plan should be developed.

Recommended mitigation



Limited

Improved passive surveillance

does not occur due to poor

design and/or inadequate

lighting in public areas

surrounding the development.

Medium • Client to ensure that the

design of the proposed

development is well

integrated into the local area

and that adequate lighting is

provided.

Milford Centre

Limited

Impacts on the safety of current

residents and visitors may be

associated with construction

activity in the short-term and

increased vehicle movement at

the site in the longer-term.

Low • Traffic impacts are to be


study.

• A Construction Management

Plan should be developed.

Milford Centre

Limited

Reduced access to community

services, programs and facilities

available to the wider

community, and risk that future

programs are not tailored to

changed community make-up.

Medium • Audit and detailed study of

the future capacity of

community services,

programs and facilities by

NSCC.

NSCC



7 Conclusion



the North Shore District Plan to enhance the opportunity for high density residential development on

the site owned by Milford Centre Limited at Milford Town Centre.





populations were required.

A robust, five stage methodology was used for this Social Impact Assessment by SGS. This included

a mix of data analysis, consultation, literature reviews and assessment based on previous

experience.

There are many positive impacts associated with the proposed development, including potential to:

• Be a good opportunity for increased residential intensification at Milford Town Centre;

• Present a key opportunity to widen the diversity of housing types available to local and other

residents;

• Provide a stimulus for employment and business opportunities;

• Contribute to the sustainability of future public transport networks;

• Contribute to the preservation of the character and amenity of the surrounding environment;

• Provide a stimulus for overall benefits to community wellbeing;

• Provide positive benefits associated with walking and cycling;

• Provide positive benefits for crime and safety.


number of negative impacts. It is important to note that all these risks have been assessed as low

to medium (refer Appendix 1). Nonetheless, mitigation strategies for the identified risks have been

suggested to ensure that, if approved, the positive benefits associated with the development are

maximised.

It is SGS’s professional judgement that the negative impacts assessed in this report27 could be

mitigated against. It is therefore considered that the potential benefits associated with the proposed

development outweigh possible negative impacts. It is noted that the assessment of impacts

relating to visual impacts, traffic impacts and overshadowing are being investigated in separate

studies. As discussed in the body of the report, the level of risk relating to any associated impacts

will need to be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the other studies being

conducted.

27 It is noted that the assessment of effects relating to visual impacts, traffic impacts and overshadowing are to be investigated in separate studies. Identified risks relating to any associated impacts will need to be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of these studies.



Overall, the proposed development is considered to offer a good opportunity for increased residential

intensification to occur within an existing town centre and contribute significantly to the achievement

of long term policy objectives, population and dwelling growth. The development is also likely to add

to the viability of the centre, and is likely to provide a key stimulus to urban renewal.

Following SGS’s comprehensive assessment of potential impacts, the analysis shows that

the number of key positive impacts associated with the development outweigh the

potential negative impacts. In our professional judgement, the negative impacts could be

mitigated through other actions.



8 References

Auckland Regional Council (2001) Regional Growth Strategy – Northern and Western Sectors

Agreement

Auckland Regional Growth Forum (1999) Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 2050, Auckland

Regional Council

Auckland Regional Growth Forum (2007) Growing Smarter: An evaluation of the Auckland Regional

Growth Strategy 1999, accessed at www.arc.govt.nz on 9th July 2007

Auckland Regional Growth Forum (2006) Developer Survey: Intensification in Auckland, Final Draft

Report

Auckland Regional Growth Forum (2007) International Trends and Lessons in Growth Management,

Unpublished Report.

Auckland Regional Growth Forum (2006) Stocktake of Existing Consultation on Urban Intensification

in Auckland: Final Report, accessed at www.arc.govt.nz on 9th July 2007

Auckland Regional Transport Authority (2006) Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan2006-

2016

Bunker, R., Holloway, D., Randolph, B. (2005) Separating Prospects from Propaganda in Urban

Consolidation, SOAC Conference, Griffith University, December 2005.

Aubury Cheng (MATCH), Pers. Correspondence, 26th June 2007

Fischel, W. (1997) Comment on Carl Abbott’s “The Portland Region: Where City and Suburbs Talk to

Each Other – And Often Agree”, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 8(1), pp. 65-73

Chris Gemmell (Lachore’s Real Estate) Pers. Correspondence, 26th June 2007

David Jenkins (Barefoot and Thompson) Pers. Correspondence, 25th June 2007

Graham (2005) ‘Urban Sprawl and Land Use Planning: Implications for Public Health’, PQ, December

2005

Jack Gibb (Lachore’s Real Estate) Pers. Correspondence, 26th June 2007

Meyer, B. (2004) Centres Policy Report, Unpublished Report.

New Zealand Government Resource Management Act 1991, accessed at

http://www.legislation.govt.nz on 16th July 2007

North Shore City Council (2001) City Blueprint, NSCC



North Shore City Council (2006) Economic Development Strategy, NSCC

North Shore City Council (2006) Land use Capacity and Allocation Model: Dwelling and Population,

Unpublished Report

North Shore City Council (2002) District Plan

Paling, R., Williamson, J., Waite, D. (2007) Assessing Agglomeration Impacts in Auckland: Linkages

with Regional Strategies, Unpublished Report.

Russell Adams (Bayleys Real Estate), Pers. Correspondence, 25th June 2007

SGS Economics and Planning (2007) Economic Development Strategy: Spatial Issues, report

prepared for Auckland City.

Smye, C et al (2005) Social Implications of Housing Intensification in the Auckland Region: Analysis

and Review of Media Reports, Surveys and Literature, Unpublished Report



Appendix 1 - Risk Impact Assessment

A risk impact assessment with potential mitigation strategies is shown in Table 7. As a practical

output of this Social Impact Assessment (SIA), potential risks and associated mitigation strategies

have been suggested (Table 7).

Scope of Risk Impact Assessment

Potential risks to residents as a result of the proposed Milford Town Centre intensification are

summarised in the following framework.

Risk Framework – Social Risk Areas and Specific Risks

• Demand and Supply of Housing

- An opportunity for increased residential intensification at Milford Town Centre;

- Increase in the diversity of housing types.

• Economic Vitality and Centre Vibrancy

- A stimulus for employment and business opportunities;

• Impacts on Infrastructure

- Potential to contribute to the sustainability of future transport networks;

- Traffic Impacts

- Impacts on Waste Water and Water Supply Infrastructure

• Potential Impacts on the Amenity of the Surrounding Environment

- Preservation of the character and amenity of the surrounding environment;

- Potential noise impacts

• Impacts on community wellbeing

- A stimulus for overall benefits to the community;

- Positive Impacts Associated with Increased Walking and Cycling

- Positive Impacts on crime and safety;

• Impacts on the availability and capacity of community services, programs and facilities.

Risk Impact Assessment

The following table shows the risk impact assessment conducted for this study. This assessment is

based on the baseline analysis shown in Section 4 of this report.



Table 7. Risk Impact Assessment

Possible Impacts With

Development

Risks Likelihood of

Risk Occurring

Scale of

Impact

Overall Risk Rating (if

mitigation strategy is

implemented)

Mitigation Strategies Responsibility

Demand and Supply of

Housing

A good opportunity for

increased residential

intensification

Little change to housing supply in the

short term.

High Medium Medium • Attention could be given to reducing

this risk from occurring by reducing

the time taken to advance the plan

change application, provide for

infrastructure requirements and

reduce delays during construction.

NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited

Potential for poor integration with

neighbouring development, possible

overshadowing and visual impacts,

the risk of reverse sensitivity

occurring.

Medium Low Low • Ensuring appropriate design




process.

• Education material could be provided

to new residents to reduce the

likelihood of reverse sensitivity

occurring.

NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited

Decline in housing affordability at a

local or regional level.

Low Low Low • Research into housing affordability

issues could be undertaken to better

understand impacts on housing

affordability associated with

intensification in the Auckland

context.

NSCC, Auckland

Regional Council




Development

Risks Likelihood of

Risk Occurring

Scale of

Impact



implemented)


Increase in the diversity of

housing types

High density housing types are not

taken up by the target market.

Low Low Low • Research should be conducted to

determine the likely target market

for the development.

• Marketing of the new development

should be directed towards the

desired target market.

Milford Centre

Limited

Economic Vitality and

Centre Vibrancy

Stimulus for Employment

and Business Opportunity

New residents of the development do

not patronise the local centre

Low Low Low • Support could be provided for

activities to promote local

businesses.

• Support for the development of a

Milford Business Association could

also be provided.

NSCC

Potential for poor integration with

neighbouring development, possible

overshadowing and visual impacts,

the risk of reverse sensitivity

occurring.

Low High Low • Ensuring appropriate design




process.

• Education material could be provided

to new residents to reduce the

likelihood of reverse sensitivity

occurring.

• Consideration should be given to the

willingness of the developer to

contribute to a main street upgrade.

NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited




Development

Risks Likelihood of

Risk Occurring

Scale of

Impact



implemented)


Potential for residential development

to downgrade the retail / commercial

role of Milford town centre.

Low Low Low • Monitoring of land consumption by

retail / commercial and residential

development.

NSCC

Impacts on

Infrastructure

Potential to Contribute to

the Sustainability of Future

Public Transport Networks

Potential that take-up of public

transport does not occur.

Low High Medium • Monitoring of public transport

patronage and services.

• Education and promotion of the use

of public transport for new residents.

NSCC, Auckland

Regional

Transport

Authority

Traffic Impacts Amenity at the site is compromised as

a result of short-term (during

construction) or longer-term traffic

impacts.

Medium Low Medium • Traffic impacts are to be investigated

in a separate study. Recommended


implemented.

Milford Centre

Limited

Wastewater and Water

Supply Infrastructure

Wastewater and water supply

infrastructure reaches capacity

Medium High Low • An improvement to existing

infrastructure will likely be required

following approval of the plan

change so there is no likelihood of

this risk occurring or need for

mitigation measures.

NSCC

Potential Impacts on the

Amenity of the

Surrounding

Environment

Preservation of the

Character and Amenity of

the Surrounding

Visual Impacts and Overshadowing High Medium Low • Visual impacts and overshadowing

are to be investigated in separate

studies. Recommended mitigation

Milford Centre

Limited




Development

Risks Likelihood of

Risk Occurring

Scale of

Impact



implemented)


Environment measures to be incorporated into the

design of the new development.

Potential Noise Impacts Short and longer-term noise impacts

on residents and visitors to the site

and surrounding retail / commercial

and residential areas.

High Low Low • Noise impacts are to be investigated

in a separate study. Recommended


implemented.

Milford Centre

Limited

Impacts on Community

Wellbeing

A Stimulus for Overall

Benefits to the Community

Community stability and cohesion may

be affected with a new population

moving into the area.

Low Low Low • Community consultation and

education will assist with reducing

the likelihood of this risk occurring.

• “Welcome packs” could be

distributed to new residents to assist

new residents at the site ‘settle in’.

Milford Centre

Limited

Community concern about

intensification may lead to a decline in

community wellbeing.

Medium Medium Medium • Community consultation and

education will assist with reducing

the likelihood of this risk occurring.

Milford Centre

Limited

Positive Impacts Associated

with Increased Walking and

Cycling

Short-term impacts on pedestrian

access to the site during the period of

construction.

Medium Low Medium • A Construction Management Plan will

be developed. Recommended


implemented.

NSCC, Milford

Centre Limited

Impacts on Crime and

Safety

Improved passive surveillance does

not occur due to poor design and/or

inadequate lighting in public areas

surrounding the development.

Low Medium Medium • Milford Centre Ltd to ensure that the

design of the proposed development

is well integrated into the local area

and that adequate lighting is

provided.

Milford Centre

Limited




Development

Risks Likelihood of

Risk Occurring

Scale of

Impact



implemented)


Impacts on the safety of current

residents and visitors may be

associated with construction activity in

the short-term and increased vehicle

movement at the site in the longer-

term.

Low Medium Low • Traffic impacts are to be investigated

in a separate study.

• A Construction Management Plan

should be developed.

Milford Centre

Limited

Impacts on the availability

and Capacity of Community

Services, Programs and

Facilities

Marginally impact on the availability

and capacity of community services,

programs and facilities available to the

wider community, and risk that future

programs are not tailored to changed

community make-up.

Medium Medium Medium • Audit and detailed study of the

future capacity of community

services, programs and facilities by

NSCC.

NSCC

milford town centre intensification - auckland council · 2012-07-04 · milford town centre...

Documents