BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the

Local Government (Auckland Transitional
Provisions) Act 2010

AND
IN THE MATTER

of 051 - 054 Centres Zones, Business Park

and Industries Zones, Business Activities and
Business Controls. Section D3, D3.1 D3.9,
I3.1 I3.6

STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW WILLIAM BONIS

ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (PLANNING EVIDENCE TOPIC 051 054)
27 July 2015

Page 1

Index
1

Introduction

Code of Conduct

Scope of evidence

Proposed Amendments outside scope of submissions

Summary

Part A Statutory Context

Part B Context to the provisions

Part C Analysis of Submissions

Part D - Summary and conclusions

Attachment A

Qualifications and relevant past experience

Attachment B

Recommended Provisions and Spatial extent of recommended

Identified Growth Corridors
Spatial extent of other Corridors considered

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

My full name is Matthew William Bonis.

I am an Associate at Planz Consultants in

Christchurch. I have held this position since 2009.

1.2

I hold a Bachelor of Regional Planning degree, and have been employed in the practise of
Planning and Resource Management for some 16 years. I am a full member of the New
Zealand Planning Institute.

1.3

I assisted in the preparation of the notified provisions for Chapter B3.1 Commercial and
Industrial Growth (Topic 013 - Section B3.1), and the commercial and business zones
(Topic 051 054) since early 2012.
Page 2

1.4

I have the qualifications and experience set out in my evidence-in-chief on Topic 013 (B3.1
Commercial and Industrial Growth) dated 8 December 2014.

1.5

Full details of my qualifications and relevant past experience are in Attachment A to this
evidence.

1.6

Auckland Council (the Council) engaged me to assist in the preparation of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). My role in this hearing is to respond to submissions
received and to provide planning evidence in relation to the District Plan provisions for:

1.7

(a)

Commercial activity strategy and implementation

(b)

Role and function of centres

(c)

Identified Growth Corridor overlay

I am relatively familiar with the centres network and industrial zonings of Auckland. I have
undertaken numerous site visits to the centres network and surrounds since 2012, including
all of the prospective Identified Growth Corridors.

Explanation of terms and coding used in the report

Commercial Zonings - Centre zonings (excluding city centre), mixed use, general
business and business park zones.
IGC

Identified Growth Corridors

Industrial zonings

Light Industry zone and heavy industry zone

RMA

Resource Management Act (1991)

2.

CODE OF CONDUCT

2.1

I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the
Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have
considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the
opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where
I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.
Page 3

3.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

3.1

I am providing planning evidence in relation to Centres Zones, Mixed Use and General
Business Zones, Business Activities and Business Controls (Section D3, D3.1 D3.9, I3.1
I3.6).

3.2

In considering the submissions and Section B3.1 provisions I have been assisted by the
following expert views:

3.3

Ms Susan Fairgray (Auckland Council) Economics

Mr Kevin Wong-Toi (Interplan Limited) Transport

Mr Greg Akehurst (Market Economics) Retail and Office Economics

Mr Jeremy Wyatt (Auckland Council) Planner

Ms Jarette Wickham (Auckland Council) - Planner

There are some 3276 submission points from 540 Submissions to the Section D3, D3.1
D3.9, I3.1 I3.6 provisions of the PAUP. The majority of submissions received do not
challenge the strategic direction of the provisions. A number of specific submissions
oppose the extent to which the PAUP has disenabled specific activities in rationalising the
previous (legacy) zoning regime.

3.4

The submissions seek either further compression or greater relaxation as to the extent by
which Aucklands centre network and industrial zonings accommodate and provide for
commercial opportunities. The Identified Growth Corridor mechanism as a secondary
preference for commercial enablement also received numerous submissions.

3.5

I attended mediation sessions on 8th to 10th June, and 30th June to 2nd July 2015.

3.6

I have grouped and considered related submissions into topic areas corresponding largely
to the provision challenged.

3.7

In this evidence I support the Council's position on the relevant plan provisions which is
attached to the evidence of Mr Jeremy Wyatt. These are the 'mediated provisions' with
some additional changes that have been proposed through the Council's evidence.

discuss these in more detail later in this evidence.

Page 4

4.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS

4.1

I have proposed the following amendments that I do not consider to be within the scope of
submissions;

D:3.4 Town Centres, Zone Description new vehicle crossings (paragraph 11.7)

D:3.6 Neighbourhood Centres, Zone Description new development within the zone
(paragraph 13.5)

I:3.3.2(b) Food and beverage in the General Business Zone (paragraph 32.1).

5.

SUMMARY

5.1

This evidence provides a planning analysis of the submissions received on Section D3,
D3.1 D3.9, I3.1 I3.6 of the PAUP as they relate to the commercial (office and retail)
aspects of these provisions. Mr Jeremy Wyatt and Mr Ian Munro will be providing the
Planning Assessment for the built form and design aspects. Ms Jarette Wickham considers
the commercial provisions as these relate to the industrial zones.

5.2

The purpose of these Auckland Unitary provisions are to:

Provide clarity as to the function of different centres, their place in the centre hierarchy,
and the appropriate scale and form commensurate with their function;

Support a compact urban form, recognising the role of centres as focal points for
commercial and community activity. More intensive residential development and a
greater mix of activities (Mixed Use Zone) is anticipated around Metropolitan and Town
centres to sustain and support the growth of centres;

To provide some flexibility in the provisions recognising that some commercial activity
beyond centres is appropriate;

5.3

Ensure sufficient and appropriate business opportunities are enabled to 2031.

1

The overall planning policy direction for the Metropolitan Centres is to recognise these
centres in terms of their regional scale, focus for surrounding residential intensification and

1
Albany, Botany, Henderson, Manukau, New Lynn, New Market, Papakura, Sylvia Park, Takapuna, Westgate / Massey North
Legacy zonings include: Manukau CC Business 3 (City Centre Zone); North Shore CC Takapuna Sub-Regional 3 Zone (Areas

Page 5

public transport initiatives, and enablement of a wide range of business, community and
social activities. Quality built form is to assist in providing a high level of amenity and
identity to attract further investment and social interaction.

5.4

For Town Centres , the operative plan approach as continued under the PAUP is to
recognise the importance of these centres in terms of suburban focal points, but with
intensification and growth more reflective of the specific characteristics of each centre. A
wide range of commercial, residential, community and social activities are enabled. A high
quality urban form is sought.

5.5

At a more localised level, Local and Neighbourhood Centres respectively have a smaller
scale of zoned area. There is generally an absence of larger scale office and retail present,
particularly in Neighbourhood centres. Local and neighborhood centres have a narrower
range of activities that provide for a mix of convenience retail, dining, small business
services and other activities which support the local community. There is consistency
between the PAUP and the operative provisions in seeking to provide for small scale and
local business activity, and managing the interface with surrounding residential areas.

5.6

For the Mixed Use Zone, the Operative Plan provisions seek to provide for residential
intensification, generally within and around metropolitan and town centres which can
benefit from public transport accessibility. Mixed uses include cafes and small scale retail
and office activities in addition to the residential activities enabled. This approach has been
continued under the PAUP.

A, B, C and D), Albany Sub-Regional 3 Zone and Business 11A Zone; Waitakere CC Community Environment (New Lynn
Concept Plan). Source: Legacy Zone Harmonization Review (2012), page 32.
2

Examples include: Avondale, Browns Bay, Ellerslie, Mangere, Mt Albert, Otahuhu, Panmure, Pt Chevalier, Remuera, Takanini,
Whangaparaoa Legacy zonings include: Auckland CC (Isthmus) Business 2 zone, Franklin DC Business (General and
Business Centres zone); Manukau CC Mangere Town Centre and Neighbourhood centre zone; North Shore CC Suburban 2
Zone, Business 12 (Miced Use) zone (Areas A, B and C); Papakura DC Commercial 3 zone; Rodney DC Retail Service Zone;
Waitakere CC Community Environment, Henderson. Source: Legacy Zone Harmonization Review (2012), page 33.
Examples of Local Centres include: Albany Village, Balmoral, Grey Lynn, Kelston, Kingsland, Mangere Esat, Mt Eden, Mt Roskill,
Mt Wellington, Sandringham, Sunnyvale, Titirangi, and Torbay. Legacy zonings include: Auckland CC (Isthmus) Business 1
Zone; Franklin DC Village Business Zone and Neighbourhood Centres Zone; Manukau CC Business 1 (Local Shops) and
Business 2 (Suburban Centres) Zones; North Shore CC Local 1 and Local 1G Zones; Papakura DC Commercial 1 Zone.
Source: Legacy Zone Harmonization Review (2012), page 34
Legacy zonings include: Auckland CC (Isthmus) 7c and 8c Zones; North Shore CC Business 11C Zones; Auckland CC (Isthmus)
Business 3 and Mixed Use Zones; Franklin DC Motorway Service Zone; Manukau CC Business 4 (Periphery) Zone and
Manukau Gateway Business Zone; North Shore CC Albany Sub-Regional 5 Zone, Business Special 8 Zone, Business 11B
and 1D Zones; Papakura DC Commercial 2 Zone; Rodney DC Special 21 (Silverdale North LFR) Zone. Source: Legacy Zone
Harmonization Review (2012), page 30

Page 6

5.7

There was no specific large format retail zone within the Operative Plan provisions in a
manner set out by the PAUP General Business Zone. The Service Industrial and the Mixed
Use zones of the Legacy Plans, in addition to some of the lighter industrial zones, provided
for large format retail. A number of these areas remain dominated by such activities. The
5

respective zone provisions provided for medium intensity business, service and light
industrial activities in appropriate locations without generating adverse effects on the
function of town centres as community focal points.

5.8

Business Parks had a limited representation in the Legacy Plans, predominantly associated
6

with the North Shore Plan . The provisions, which are similar to those now included in the
PAUP, sought to provide for comprehensively planned large scale, comprehensive
business developments, typically offices with limited provision of ancillary retail and dining
activities.

5.9

The submissions on Topic 051 054 involve issues which are directly related to Part 2 of
the RMA, and in particular section 5 of the RMA. The issues raised in submissions also
correspond to the Councils functions under section 31 of the RMA.

5.10

Plan provisions managing the distribution of business activity can properly be made in the
context of s74(3), where these seek to: achieve integrated management (s31(1)(a)); and
the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development and protection of land
and associated physical resources (s31(1)(b)).

5.11

Achieving integrated management of business activity within Auckland is complex, and is

influenced by the following drivers and considerations:
(a) the location and distribution of commercial activity, relative to residential intensification
opportunities and transport initiatives is a key ingredient for vitality and prosperity;
(b) sufficient and diverse industrial activity, is important to provide for employment and
economic growth;

Legacy zonings include:Auckland CC (Isthmus) Business 4, Business 5 and Business 5a Zones; Franklin DC Light Industrial and
Tuakau Industrial Services Zones; Manukau CC Business 5 (Mixed) Zone (includes the Oruarangi Road, Waiouru Peninsula
and Favona Special Policy Areas); North Shore CC Business General 9, 9B, 9D and 10 Zones; Papakura DC Commercial 4,
Industrial 1 and Industrial 2 Zones; Rodney DC Mixed Business Zone and Special 20 (Mahurangi East Seaside Village Centre)
Zone; Waitakere CC Working Environment, Lincoln Working Environment and Lincoln Centre Special Area. Source: Legacy
Zone Harmonization Review (2012), page 29
Legacy Zonings include: Auckland CC (Isthmus) Business 8 Zone; North Shore CC Albany Sub-Regional 6 & 7 Zones, Albany
Business Park 7 Zone, and Business Park 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E & 7G Zones. Source: Legacy Zone Harmonization Review
(2012), page 28

Page 7

(c) Auckland Plan directives for enduring, vibrant and functioning centres with high levels
of amenity, that form the primary focus for commercial and retail intensification7. The
Auckland Plan also confirmed that there needs to be ongoing provision for planned and
serviced capacity for Group 1 industrial land8;
(d) substantial public investment has been made by Council (including in transport
infrastructure) in the centre network. This investment is intended to provide the platform
for the consolidation of retail activity and new investment;
(e) Auckland has a polycentric centre network. There is also a considerable dispersal of
some types and formats of commercial activity outside of the established centre
network;
(f) significant household and population growth is projected to 2026, with a total 627,800
households and 1.84 million population respectively9 driving both commercial growth
and employment needs;
(g) to 2031, Aucklands retail sales are projected to increase by $7.1 billion. This equates
to a retail floorspace demand increase of 1.1million m2. Large format retail accounts for
10

some 50% of this demand .

(h) modelling identifies upper and lower levels of capacity to 2031 for between 1.7million
m2 and 2.0million m2 on non-industrial business zones, with between 1.1 million m2 and
11

1.3million m2 of the capacity provided within the centre zones .

(i) there is sufficient zoned capacity, at a sub-regional level, to provide for projected retail
floorspace, although it is recognised that some retail types / formats are inappropriate
for or unable to locate in the centres network, and that there are some localised areas
12

of retail deficit to 2031, including the middle of the North Shore, and central Isthmus) ;
(j) plan enabled capacity for office-commercial sectors is sufficient to enable capacity
13

within the centre network and other business zones . Office based activities do not
necessarily compete for space with retail, as they can be provided for by building up.
5.12

The district plan provisions that flow from the regional considerations in B3.1 establish: a
centre hierarchy (from City Centre to neighbourhood centre); the provision of Identified

7
8

Auckland Plan, Strategic Direction Target, page 240. Directive 10.8, page 255
Auckland Plan. Strategic Direction Target, page 150.

Auckland Business Futures Model. V2012.1.

10
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.1.
11
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.7
12
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.14
13
Evidence RPS 3.1 Nunns. Paragraph 1.9.

Page 8

Growth Corridors (IGCs); and provisions that seek to retain the integrity of the industrial
land resource for Industrial activities.

5.13

Centres provide the primary focus for commercial intensification in the region as
established in B3.1. Centres also provide a broader role in fostering a compact urban form
through

supporting

residential

intensification,

transport

initiatives,

employment

opportunities, and social and community facilities.

5.14

In terms of commercial activities, the district plan approach provides a release valve to
provide additional supply side retail capacity.

This release valve is through providing

additional flexibility for the establishment of retail activities in a limited number of Identified
Growth Corridors (IGCs). Commercial activities of varying scale and degree are also
enabled in other business areas, as appropriate.

5.15

The broad direction of the provisions are not in dispute. Overall the provisions are to:
(a)

Direct commercial activities to centres, at a corresponding scale and intensity as

to the centre tier within the commercial hierarchy;

(b)

Provide for additional, but managed, commercial enablement within the mixed use
zone, given the proximity of these zones to the metropolitan and town centre
network;

(c)

Provide recognition of the inappropriateness to accommodate all forecast retail

types, such as trade suppliers in centres.

(d)

Provide additional capacity for retail enablement within the general business zone
and within Identified Growth Corridors for retail activities subject to criteria;

(e)

Provide recognition of significant office complexes, and provision of a zoning

response through the Business Park zone;

(f)

Restrict new commercial activity in Industrial zones, albeit recognising that some
retail outlets (such as trade suppliers) are better located in these areas than the
centres network; and

(g)

Provide a framework for the management and distribution of commercial activity at

the district level. As based on the regional provisions in B3.1, the provisions seek
to better integrate commercial land uses with infrastructure, industrial land
scarcity, amenity considerations, the transport network and public transport
initiatives, and residential environments and intensification.

Page 9

5.16

I consider the mediated provisions as amended by Council evidence to be sufficiently broad

based to cope with lower or higher demands of growth, as conditions change with the ebb
and flow of the commercial market.

5.17

The District Plan provisions direct the extent and type of commercial enablement subject to
criteria that include:
(a)

commercial intensification within the centres hierarchy to provide agglomeration

benefits and integrate efficiently with infrastructure provision and selective residential
intensification. There is recognition of types of some retail types and formats that are
inappropriate, or unable to locate, in centres.

(b)

For industrial activities, there are medium to long term supply issues (which can be
alleviated through the Future Urban Zone), and the need to retain the integrity of the
zoned industrial land resource (as recognised through matters such as scarcity and
reverse sensitivity).

5.18

The evidence from the Council is that the approach caters for the anticipated demand for
commercial activities as associated with the PAUP (to 2031).

5.19

An agreed shortcoming of the notified PAUP was the extent to which Integrated Growth
Corridors were identified, and the appropriate mechanism to provide market certainty of
retail development opportunities. The notified AUP contained only one IGC, Lincoln Road.
The limited application reflected issues associated with defining and demarcating IGCs
given: competing interests, supply / demand imbalances at the Local Board level, current
land use patterns, and transport conflicts.

5.20

Policy 7 of B3.1 provides the mechanism for notating and recognizing IGCs as a secondary
preference for commercial developments that are inappropriate for or unable to locate in
centres. The approach is preferable to a more dispersed commercial distribution.

5.21

A policy and rule based framework for retail activities along a greater number of IGCs has
been recommended in this evidence. In addition to Lincoln Road, IGCs are also
recommended for segments of Wairau Road, Stoddard Road, New North Road (Kingsland)
and Ti Rakau Drive. The extent of these corridors is identified in Attachment B.

5.22

The key changes from the notified version of the PAUP proposed through this evidence to
the provisions are:
Page 10

Amendments to retail enablement within the mixed use zone so as to limit the extent of
commercial agglomeration.

Amendments to policy and inclusion of rules providing additional retail enablement

associated with those corridors notated with an IGC overlay, being: Lincoln Road,
Wairau Road, Stoddard Road, New North Road (Kingsland) and Ti Rakau Drive

Amendments to the activity status and assessment criteria for specific types of retail
activities across the zones, primarily supermarkets and offices.

Amendments to policy and activity status for retail and offices within the local centre
zone.

5.23

In terms of section 32 of the RMA, I considered that the Auckland Council provisions which
are the subject of this evidence, as amended through the mediated provisions, represent
the more appropriate approach, bearing in mind the benefits and costs.

Page 11

PART A - STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

6.

STATUTORY CRITERIA

General Requirements District Plan

6.1

14

A district plan should be designed in accordance with , and assist the territorial authority to
15

carry out its functions

6.2

so as to achieve the purpose of the RMA

The district plan provisions seek to address the way and rate in which commercial and
industrial land use is undertaken

16

so as to promote the sustainable management of natural

17

and physical resources of Auckland . It is understood that the word enable in Section 5 is
not unqualified, and the respective matters of the higher order directions of sections 72, 74
and 76 provide further guidance and direction as to the application of sustainable
management in relation to business land use for Auckland.
6.3

Relevant definitions from the RMA in this context, include:

Environment (which includes people, communities, physical resources, amenity

values, and social and economic conditions (Section 2).

Effect (which includes adverse, future, and cumulative effects Section 3.

Amenity values (Section 2).

natural and physical resources (which includes all structures - Section 2).

6.4

Trade competition and the effects of such are to be disregarded pursuant to s74(3)).

6.5

Section 7(c) provides an obligation to have particular regard to the maintenance and
enhancement of amenity values, in this instance as represented by the Citys centre
network including the physical qualities and characteristics which contribute to peoples
appreciation of these environments, the interface of business zones with more sensitive
zonings, and the nature and amenity expectations associated with working environments
within the industrial, and particularly Heavy Industrial zones.

14
15
16
17

RMA s74(1)
RMA s31(1)(a) and (b)
RMA s5(2)
Section 5(1)

Page 12

6.6

Section 7(f) provides an obligation with regard to the maintenance and enhancement of the
quality of the environment. In my view, this goes to the extent by which:

commercial development and reinvestment is reinforced within the centres network,

with associated gains in a built form intensity, quality and the diversity of activities
represented by these centres; and

the extent by which commercial development within industrial zones may

disenfranchise appropriately sited industrial opportunities and also impact on the
qualities and amenities anticipated in these industrial zones.

6.7

Section 7(b) and section 7(ba) require particular regard to the efficient use and
development of natural and physical resources, and the efficient use of energy.

6.8

In my view, the Act recognises that structures, as part of the built environment (which
includes commercial centres, industrial buildings, community facilities, and the road
network and piped infrastructure) represent physical resources that need to be managed
and developed in a sustainable way so as to enable people and communities to provide for
their social, economic and cultural well-being.

6.9

Within Industrial environments, the plan provisions should recognise and provide for growth
of industrial activities and associated employment. Amenity expectations should respond to
the nature and scale of more robust activities occurring, and the potential for incumbent
activities to not be unduly limited by reverse sensitivity issues. A matter of importance is the
18

scarcity of the industrial land resource, and particularly larger allotments , through
industrial activities being disenfranchised by competing land uses.

6.10

The concept of enablement is a key part of section 5 in this context.

In terms of

commercial distribution, this has both enabling and disenabling consequences: peoples
wellbeing may be enabled through an increase in retail expansion across the region;
equally there may be a consequential dis-enablement associated with such an approach if
existing centres that are relied on by local communities experience decline, or commercial
dispersal. In essence, this comes down to balancing market needs against the wider
community needs and integration within wider urban form and growth objectives of the
Plan.

18

Evidence Taylor. B3.1 Paragraph 5.26

Page 13

6.11

When preparing its district plan the territorial authority must give effect to a national policy
19

statement or New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement .

6.12

When preparing the district plan provisions of the PAUP the Council must give effect to the
20

PAUP RPS .

6.13

In relation to regional plans:

(a)

The district plan must not be inconsistent with an operative regional plan for any
21

matter specified in s30(1) or a water conservation order ; and

(b)

Shall have regard to any proposed regional plan on any matter of regional
22

significance .

6.14

When preparing its district plan the territory authority must also:
(a)

23

Have regard to any management plans under any other Acts , and consistency
24

with plans and proposed plans of adjacent territorial authorities ;

(b)

Take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi

25

authority ; and
(c)

26

Not have regard to trade competition [or the effects of trade competition] .
27

6.15

The district plan must be prepared in accordance with any regulation .

6.16

A district plan must state

28

its objectives, policies and rules (if any) and may

29

state other

matters, such as principle reasons, methods (other than rules), and environmental results
anticipated.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RMA s75(3)(a)-(c)
RMA s75(3)(c) and ss 122(1) and 145(1)(f)(i) of the LGATPA. Refer Judicial Conference on Interim Recommendations 27
January 2015 Conference Minute.
RMA s75(4)
RMA s74(2)(a)
RMAs74(2)(b)(i)
RMA s74(2)(b)(ii)
RMA s74(2A)
RMA s74(3)
RMA s74(1)(f)
RMA s75(1)

Page 14

6.17

A territorial authority has obligations to prepare an evaluation report in accordance with s32
30

and have particular regard to that report .

Objectives and Provisions

6.18

The objectives in the district plan are to be evaluated as the most appropriate to achieve
31

the purpose of the RMA .

6.19

The policies are to implement the objectives, and the rules are to implement the
32

policies .

6.20

Each provision is to be examined, as to whether the most appropriate method for achieving
the objectives of the regional plan and district plan, by:
33

(a) Identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives ;
(b) Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives,
34

including :
i.

Identifying and assessing the benefits and costs of the environmental,

economic, social

and cultural

effects that are anticipated

from the

implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth

35

and employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced ; and

36

ii. Quantifying these benefits and costs where practicable ; and

iii. Assessing the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient
37

information about the subject matter of the provisions .

6.21

In making a rule the local authority shall have particular regard to the actual or potential
38

effect on the environment of activities including, in particular, any adverse effect .

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

RMA s75(2)
RMA s74(1)(d) and (e)
RMAs32(1)(a)
RMA s32(6), s75(1)(b) and (c) and s76(1)(b)
RMA s32(1)(b)(i)
RMA s32(1)(b)(ii)
RMA s32(2)(2)(a)
RMA s32(2)(b)
RMA s32(2)(c)

Page 15

Section 32 Assessment

6.22

The Auckland Unitary Plan Evaluation report identifies that the Council has focused the
section 32 assessment on the Objectives and Provisions that represent a significant
change in approach from those within the operative Auckland RMA policy statement and
plans.

6.23

The Councils section 32 assessment for Business (Section 2.3) identified that the
approach in the PAUP largely continues that within the operative provisions. Section 2.3 of
that report identifies:
The proposed Unitary Plan seeks to enable business activity while achieving high environmental
standards through avoidance, remediation or mitigation of any adverse effects. Intervention with
regard to the distribution, scale and function of business activity is critical to promote
sustainable resource management and a compact urban form. This intervention is for two main
reasons:
(a) to achieve a distribution of business activity that integrates with:
i. strategic servicing and transport infrastructure;
ii. existing centre locations; and
iii. higher density residential living

(b) there is strong demand for business and commercial activities in Auckland and if these are
left unplanned there is an increased cost to the community.

6.24

I have assessed the Council's proposed changes to the PAUP in accordance with s32AA of
the RMA.

6.25

Proposed changes that do not represent a key policy shift are assessed pursuant to s32AA
to the extent appropriate to the significance of the change.

7.

RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

7.1

A number of Aucklands centres and industrial zonings have a coastal location. However
these matters are not directly relevant to this evidence.

38

RMA s76(3)

Page 16

Regional Policy Statement

7.2

Aspects of the RPS which need to be considered and given effect to by the business
provisions include:
(a) B2.1 providing for Growth in a quality compact urban form
The associated provisions reinforce the focus for business growth in centres, within
neighborhoods and along frequent transport routes. Objective 2 focuses urban growth
within the metropolitan area. Objective 2 and Policy 2 provide for residential
intensification adjacent to the city, metropolitan, town and local centres. Policy 3
provides residential intensification within centres to promote a broad mix of activities
where these do not compromise the accommodation of commercial activities. These
matters are relevant in considering transport and accessibility integration with
commercial distribution. They are also relevant in terms of matters of built form (Mr
Trevor Mackie) and design (Mr Ian Munro).

(b) B2.2 A Quality Built Form

These matters seek to deliver a quality built environment (Objective 1). In terms of
commercial distribution, Objective 1(c) seeks to provide a well-connected network of
activity centres and movement networks. The provisions relate to matters of urban
quality and design, and promote choices and opportunities in built form. These
provisions are relevant in consideration of both the function, role and amenity of the
centres hierarchy, but also design expectations.

(c) B2.3 Development capacity and supply of land for urban development
This section sets out the anticipated development capacity to support population and
business over the next 30 years. Objective 1 ensures development capacity and land
supply to accommodate projected population and business growth. Unconstrained
business land within the RUB is required for an average seven year land supply under
Policy 1.

B2.3 is relevant in terms of ensuring that business growth and development is provided.
The district plan framework, in giving effect to these provisions, should ensure:
sufficient zoned capacity; the enablement of activities in an efficient and certain land
use framework; and that uses do not displace more appropriately located activities
when competing over scarce business land resources.

Page 17

(d) B2.7 Social Infrastructure

This section identifies the importance of social infrastructure to Aucklanders quality of
life and socio-economic outcomes. Objective 1 seeks to ensure a high quality network
of social infrastructure to meet Aucklanders needs. Policy 1 requires small scale social
infrastructure accessible to local communities, with medium-scale social infrastructure
(such as civic buildings, libraries) located in the city centre, metropolitan and town
centres. Policy 4 seeks to improve connections between social infrastructure and
modal networks such as public transport.

(e) B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth

This section provides the regional framework for the district level business provisions.

Objective 1 is concerned with ensuring opportunities for employment and business are
provided to meet growth. Objective 2 seeks to focus commercial growth in the
hierarchy of commercial centres and Identified Growth Corridors that support the
compact urban form. Objective 3 is concerned with: the provision for Industrial
activities in a manner that promotes sustainable and ongoing economic development;
the efficient use of land and buildings in business areas; and avoidance of conflicts
between incompatible activities.

This section seeks to sustain and enhance the role and function of centres as focal
points for community interaction, and is referred to as a centres plus approach to
managing commercial distribution. Commercial intensification is to be encouraged in
the city centre, metropolitan and town centres city centre, metropolitan and town
centres, and enabled on Identified Growth Corridors. Commercial development to meet
anticipated demand is required, including through, as appropriate: the expansion of
existing metropolitan and town centres; the provision of new town and local centres
within the RUB; and in other locations.

Amendments to the notified provisions through mediation on the B3.1 provisions sought
to insert:

a new Policy 1 which identifies that the city centre, metropolitan centres and town
centres are important at a regional level while local centres and neighbourhood
centres are important at a local level;

amendments to Policy 3 to encourage commercial activities to locate within

centres; and
Page 18

amendments to Policies 5, 6 and 7 to clarify effects to be considered, and support

for transport integration when considering commercial enablement outside of the
existing centres network.

In terms of the Industrial provisions, the respective Policies seek to emphasise the
sufficient supply of land for industrial activities, particularly land-extensive industrial
activities and for heavy industry (Policy 9); acknowledgement that industrial land
should be located where it is able to be efficiently served by necessary infrastructure
(Policy 10); and provide for the efficient use of scarce industrial land for industrial
activities and the management of adverse effects on industrial activities (Policy 11). A
new Policy 12 was sought to be added through the mediation and evidence to the
Panel to promote a management approach for reverse sensitivity effects on the efficient
operation, use and development of significant infrastructure and established industrial
activities.

(f) B3.2 Significant Infrastructure

Objective 5 seeks that infrastructure planning and development is integrated and
coordinated with land use and development to support growth.
(g) B3.3 Transport
Relevant objectives include: Objective 2 which seeks to provide an effective, efficient
and safe transport system that is integrated with, and supports a compact urban form;
and Objective 4 which is concerned with the provision of a transport system that
facilitates transport choice, and enables accessibility and mobility across all
communities.
Priority is given to public transport and the freight network for the Aucklands arterial
road network (Policy 5), managing the increase in transport movement associated with
growth in accordance with a compact urban form recognising that this may result in
delays (Policy 7), and improving the integration of land use with transport (Policy 9)
including through ensuring that activities likely to generate significant vehicle trips can
be serviced by the rapid and frequent service network.
These provisions are relevant to the provisions as to the extent of enablement of
commercial activities outside of the centres network, and the notation and provision of
Identified Growth Corridors.
Page 19

Transport considerations
7.3

Under section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA regard must be had to "management plans and
strategies prepared under other Acts". These include:

the regional land transport plan (RLTP) which forms part of the National Land Transport
Programme and represents the statutory intentions of the New Zealand Transport
Agency, Auckland Transport and KiwiRail39 which, amongst other things, sets out the
region's transport objectives, policies and measures over a 10 year period; and

the regional public transport plan which identifies the public transport services to be
provided (RPTP).

7.4

It is understood that the RLTP and RPTP are key statutory documents that determine the
way in which the region's land transport network is operated, maintained and developed.
These plans outline a programme of increased investment in public transport,
improvements for road capacity, and upgrading and managing the arterial network so that it
can accommodate public transport and freight.

The Auckland Plan

7.5

The Auckland Plan is a matter to which regard is to be had under section 74(2)(b)(i).

7.6

Section 6 Aucklands Economy seeks to improve Aucklands relative productivity. Priority 1

- Grow a Business Friendly and Well-Functioning City includes: Directive 6.1 which seeks
to plan and provide for sufficient business zoned land and infrastructure to achieve growth
in employment and economic opportunity; Directive 6.2 that seeks to ensure an efficient
and effective regulatory process; Directive 6.3 to protect, enhance and improve businesszoned areas and business improvement districts.

7.7

Section 10 focuses on Urban Auckland, including how to achieve the development strategy.
The three stated Priorities are:

39

Realise quality compact urban environments;

Demand good design in all development;

Create enduring neighbourhoods, centres and business areas.

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 45(a). The RLTP replaces the regional land transport "programmes"
following the 2013 amendment to the Land Transport Management Act 2003.

Page 20

7.8

Directive 10.2 is concerned with capacity. It seeks to plan for a seven-year average of
unconstrained development capacity (zoned and serviced with bulk infrastructure) at any
point in time with a minimum of five years and a maximum of 10 years capacity.

7.9

Directive 10.3 focuses on intensification. It seeks to focus urban intensification in areas that
have infrastructure in place or which can be provided in a timely and efficient manner,
within walkable catchment of community facilities, open space, high-frequency public
transport, centres and business areas.

7.10

Directives 10.8 and 10.9 establish and reinforce Auckland Centres hierarchy. Directive 10.8
seeks to strengthen Aucklands network of metropolitan, town, local and neighbourhood
centres, as the primary focus for retail and other commercial activity, while limiting out-ofcentre retail and office development. Directive 10.9 seeks to develop and manage business
areas to complement centres, without undermining their role and function in the centres
network, and to provide for a diversity of opportunities for business and employment
growth.

7.11

Directive 10.10 seeks to ensure Business park development promotes clusters of

technology and innovation.

7.12

The approach for recognising and providing for a centre hierarchy in the notified PAUP
stems from the Auckland Plan40. That approach identifies the following as related to
Metropolitan Centres to Neighbourhood Centres:
Metropolitan centres these serve regional catchments or have strategic roles within the
region. They provide a diverse range of shopping, business, cultural, entertainment and
leisure activities, together with higher-density residential and mixed-use environments.
They have good transport access and are served by high-frequency public transportation.
These centres have the greatest opportunities for additional business and residential
growth.
Town centres these act as local hubs for communities, providing a wide range of retail and
business services and facilities, and community facilities. They are generally accessible by
frequent public transport services, and provide a range of residential living options,

40

Auckland Plan. Box 10.3 Urban Centres Hierarchy. Table 10.1 Urban Centres Hierarchy - Classification

Page 21

including mixed-use and higher-density options. They have variable capacity for
accommodating new residential and business development.
Local centres these act as a focus for a community and provide a range of convenience
shops and small business services together with some community facilities. These centres
are focused on walkable catchments supported by public transport services. They have
variable capacity for accommodating new residential and business development, but to a
lesser extent to town centres, due to their individual and accessibility constraints.
Neighbourhood centres these provide day-to-day convenience shopping within walkable
neighbourhoods. Based on a small group of shops, they may also be aligned with a
community facility, such as a school.

7.13

41

The Auckland Plan seeks to focus new retail and office activities into centres . It also
anticipates that new malls and large format retail activities will locate in centres, and be
designed to integrate with other centre activities, so as to contribute to the place making of
the centre. The Auckland Plan recognises the importance of these activities in terms of
attracting people to centres and associated centre vibrancy. However, the Auckland Plan
does recognise that sufficient development capacity in centres is important in terms of
accommodating such commercial growth. The Plan also recognises that out of centre
commercial growth will be considered against criteria as to appropriateness (as contained
in the Unitary Plan).

7.14

The Auckland Plan did not envisage specific notated corridors as providing for additional
retail capacity to alleviate any shortfalls in supply through the centre network.

7.15

The Auckland Plan framework requires a compression of commercial activities (retail and
office) into the centres network, and establishes a hierarchy of centres based on matters of
scale, form and function. The Auckland Plan seeks to ensure provision for the communitys
immediate and long term needs for economic development, employment and social and
cultural wellbeing in a manner that strengthens Auckland centres network to support a
compact urban form.

41

Auckland Plan. Paragraph 588.

Page 22

7.16

Investment certainty is to be fostered, including reducing barriers to local business

42

growth , and Aucklands restricted store of industrial land will be actively managed to
43

promote industrial activities .

7.17

42
43

The Section 051-054 provisions have regard to these directions.

Auckland Plan. Paragraph 379, 383.

Auckland Plan. Paragraph 390.

Page 23

PART B - CONTEXT TO THE PROVISIONS

8.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

8.1

B3.1 outlines the regional objectives and policies that affect and influence the ability of
Auckland to provide for its economic well-being. The approach to managing commercial
growth in B3.1 is described as centres plus. The approach is a policy direction for
commercial growth to be located within the hierarchy of centres, plus identified growth
corridors, and other locations where appropriate.

8.2

Policy 4 of Section B3.1 sets out the scale and range of activities anticipated within centres;
Policy 1 as sought to be inserted through mediation establishes the regional and local
hierarchy.

8.3

The district plan provisions that flow from B3.1 establishes a centre hierarchy (from City
Centre to neighbourhood centre), the provision of Identified Growth Corridors (IGCs), and
provisions that seek to retain the integrity of the industrial land resource for Industrial
activities.

8.4

Centres provide the primary focus for commercial intensification in the region as
established in B3.1 Policy 2.

8.5

The centres hierarchy in the district plan provisions is consistent with that established in the
44

Auckland Plan . The commercial hierarchy determines the role a centre fulfils in fostering
a compact urban form, through supporting residential intensification, transport initiatives,
employment opportunities, and social and community facilities.
8.6

Establishing a hierarchy provides for the ability to apply amenity and character provisions
based on the scale and density of activity that can be anticipated at each tier. The
hierarchy links together the likely functional amenity (diversity and scale of activities) of a
centre with regulatory and Long Term Plan (LTP) expectations for residential
intensification opportunities, social facility provision, and public transport initiatives. The
approach provides greater certainty in relation to amenity expectations at the interface with
surrounding zones, and the expectations of in-centre design and environmental quality.

44

Auckland Plan Box 10.3 Urban Centres Hierarchy.

Page 24

8.7

Regionally important centres are identified in B3.1 as being the city centre, metropolitan
centres and town centres45. The scale and distribution of this regional network of centres
provides efficiencies in terms of: the public transport network and other infrastructure; an
associated substantial range and scale of work and living opportunities; improved
accessibility to a wide range of goods and services; and associated reduction in trip
generation and travel distances (VKT); and substantial scale commercial, civic and
community services.

8.8

The local centre network, local and neighbourhood centres tend to focus on providing a
range of convenience activities to support and serve local communities46. Future
opportunities and diversity of activities can be constrained through limitations imposed by
centre scale, property boundaries, and diverse ownership.

8.9

Centres are dynamic. They will fluctuate in terms of offer and vitality as investment into
centres ebbs and flows. Accordingly, aspects such as centre expansion, amenity
expectations and the functional and operational aspects of larger anchor stores
(supermarkets and department stores) are, in my view, important determinants of centre
viability. These matters are considered within the respective zone provisions.

Business distribution as a resource management issue

8.10

Rationalising the extent of legacy zones into a relatively limited number of zone has
narrowed the range of previously permitted commercial activities within a number of areas.
Chiefly, this has resource management implications for existing commercial activities within
the local centre zone, mixed use, light industrial zone and the heavy industrial zone. Ms
Jarette Wickham has addressed this matter in terms of the Industrial zonings.

8.11

In my view, it is appropriate for the Council to plan for the location and distribution of
businesses (collectively), including commercial activity, for the benefit of the wider
community. The provisions in B3.1, together with those of 051-053 provide an integrated
framework.

45
46

B3.1 Policy 1(a).

B3.1 Policy 1(b).

Page 25

8.12

The positive effects of a new retail activity or centres may include improved access to
goods and services for those living nearby, or on accessible transit routes. Proponents of a
new business activity may react to a perceived market gap, and respond by catering to this
demand as motivated principally by economic gain. A new retail node may also reduce
existing congestion on road networks within the existing centre network. Thus, it must be
recognised that some communities and networks will usually experience a positive result
from any proposal.

8.13

What is not always so well understood, or easily identified, is the complexity of adverse
effects that may be associated with certain patterns of retail distribution.

8.14

The basis for the justification in the intervention of the distribution of business activities is
no different to that applied to residential growth that seeks a compact urban form.
Councils, including Auckland Council, have restricted the spread of residential development
because the cost of allowing dispersal would be significant, and such costs are not
considered by the market. Such costs include increased infrastructure costs, reduced
transport efficiencies and increased emissions, effects on wider planning initiatives such as
improving the liveability of existing urban environments, and inefficient land use patterns.
An individual to the market does not always consider the costs of their decision on the
wider community of the district.

8.15

The Council has significant investment in the infrastructure of its centre network. This
includes both utility infrastructure, such as roading, and social infrastructure such as
libraries, community centres and civic facilities. These assets are generally provided in
centres with high activity and a critical mass that enables sufficient public use so as to
justify such investment. Accordingly, (and as signalled in RPS B:2.7) medium to large scale
social infrastructure is generally established in the (City Centre) Metropolitan and Town
Centre zonings.

8.16

The re-distribution of commercial activities out-of-centre can lead to significant social disbenefits to the community that is reliant on such existing facilities (such as reduced access,
e.g. by undertaking multi-purpose trips). Increased dispersal of commercial activities can
lead to decreased use of such facilities, and pressure for their duplication. Infrastructure
providers may also be affected in terms of the certainty they need as to whether to upkeep
or duplicate such infrastructure.

Page 26

8.17

There are also costs associated with a policy approach seeking to limit the location of
commercial activities (for example constraining commercial activities to centres). These
include potentially decreased competition, increased rents, reduced customer choice, and
reduced development. There are also issues as to opportunity costs for more fine grained
activities, the inability or inherent unsuitability to locate some formats (such as trade
suppliers) in centre, and the potential for capacity issues and crowding out activities.

8.18

Finally, reliance on a free market for the distribution of business activity can actually lead to
a decrease in private investor confidence in town centres and industrial zones, and their
investment in the physical infrastructure within it (i.e. the desire to invest or continue
investment).

Commercial Growth and Development

8.19

Auckland is expecting steady gains in household expenditure (both household increases,

and greater disposable income per household).

8.20

In a market with a well performing network of centres, an increase in available expenditure

(through growth) and employment opportunities signals the requirement for the provision of
additional, commensurate, increases in retail and office supply. The resource management
consequences being that unless demand is met, there will be the resultant dis-enablement
of the communitys economic and social well-being. It is understood that where there is not
a proximate co-location of land uses such as housing, retail and offices in close proximity
47

to each other this can lead to travel inefficiencies .

8.21

Fairgray identifies that by 2031 there may be regional demand for an additional 1.1 million
48

m2 of retail / hospitality floorspace . Analysis of plan enabled capacity reveals between

49

1.7- to 2.0 million m2 of retail floorspace , of which 1.1 to 1.3million m2 is capacity in the
centre zones. Ms Fairgray concludes that at a regional level, capacity is sufficient except
50

for deficits at central North Shore and the mid western side of the isthmus .

47
48
49
50

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.1.1.

Evidence Ms Fairgray. Paragraph 6.1, Categories Retail paragraph 5.17 (inclusive Core retail, Trade retail, Food and beverage
retail, Food hospitality and household services).
Evidence Ms Fairgray. Paragraph 6.7.
Evidence of Ms Fairgray. Paragraph 6.14.

Page 27

8.22

The Auckland Plans policy approach seeks commercial intensification within the existing
centre network, to achieve a compact urban form. There is a tension, as identified in the
51

evidence of Mr Akehurst , in terms of the opportunity for the Auckland network of

commercial centres to provide capacity to accommodate all changing retail forms and
trends, particularly in relation to larger scale retail activities. In my opinion this tension
stems from centre capacity constraints, cadastral fragmentation, and even the opportunity
costs of finer grain in-centre development that would be lost to low intensity large format
activities that provide limited functional amenity.

8.23

I understand that retail supply is a function of three elements: offer, quality, and location.
Commercial offer and scale, is largely a factor of the centre hierarchy.

8.24

Smaller centres offer a narrower range of goods and services than may be found in the
larger centres. The scale and diversity of offer is a function of the size of the supporting
household catchment, and proximate distance to other larger centres. The district plan
manifestation of the centres hierarchy, is as set out in Section D3.1 D3.6, and the
associated Activity Table at I3.1.

8.25

Given the rapid extent of household growth in Auckland, the wellbeing needs of the
community will, in a number of instances arise in locations that are unable to be served
efficiently by the existing centre network. There are also uncertainties as to the potential
52

changes in the distribution of Aucklands future population .

8.26

To service this growth in a managed context, rather than incrementally or through

dispersal, the Unitary Plan provides for a range of managed commercial development
opportunities:
(a) RPS B3.1 Policy 5 provides for the expansion of metropolitan and town centres;

(b) RPS B3.1 Policy 6 provides for new town and local centres within the RUB;
(c) RPS B3.1 Policy 7 provides for Identified Growth Corridors to accommodate managed
provides for commercial enablement. The associated criteria seek to ensure adverse
distributional effects, or effects on the compact urban form can be considered. I
consider this managed approach preferable to wider commercial dispersal; and

51
52

Evidence Mr Akehurst. Summary H, Paragraphs 7.25, 9.7

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.52 6.57

Page 28

(d) RPS B3.1 Policy 8 provides for a range of other locations for commercial enablement,
including the local and neighbourhood centre network, the Mixed Use Zone, General
Business and Business Park zones, and the Light and Industrial zones. This recognises
that there will be a spectrum of commercial enablement throughout a wide range of
business zones, but seeks to impose limits in terms of extent and type.

Travel and Transport

8.27

Travel efficiency is an important component of peoples day to day living. It has implications
for the integration of transport infrastructure with land use, modal choice, monetary
expense to individuals and implications for personal time. These matters are reflected in an
abundance of provisions in the RPS (B3.3), RLTP and RPTP.

8.28

The co-location of land uses such as intensive housing and commercial in close proximity
to each other provides benefits in terms of reduced travel lengths and the number of
vehicle trips to and from these activities and encourages multi-trip making.

8.29

The concentration of office activities and density in the city centre, metropolitan and town
centres provides particular benefits given its high density use and source of trips to

other centre activities. There are increased efficiencies in public transport infrastructure
through having concentrated centres of office employment.
8.30

At a macro level, travel efficiency can be considered to be a factor of vehicle kilometres

travelled (VKT), travel time, accessibility to and efficiency of other forms of transport than
the private car, and travel safety.

8.31

These matters are set out in the evidence of Mr Wong Toi.

Industrial Resources
8.32

Certainty as to the extent and type of commercial activity enabled within the Industrial
zones will have consequences for market expectations. Enabling commercial activities in
Industrial zones can and does start to disenfranchise the very categories of business for
which the zone was established. Other issues include reverse sensitivity effects, amenity
expectations and the dispersal of commercial activity that may otherwise have
agglomeration benefits in terms of a more efficient urban form.

Page 29

8.33

54

There are of course exceptions. Trade suppliers53, Marine Retail , Garden Centres
56

Motor Vehicle Sales

8.34

55

and

in particular are poorly suited to in-centre locations.

Their functional attributes such as car parking, built form and associated amenity, and in
many instances scale, largely precludes them from being easily accommodated in
Aucklands centre network. Such activities in-centre are also counter-productive to urban
design expectations and create opportunity costs for more appropriate activities. I
understand that these activities have little or no implications in terms of the generation of
adverse distributional effects on the centre network.

8.35

Evidence from Mr Taylor for Topic B3.1 identified the following attributes of Aucklands
Industrial land resource, it is understood that these matters remain applicable:

57

estimated industrial floor space

demand is likely to be approximately 3.1 million

m by 2026. A conversion to land area identifies a requirement of some 614ha of

land.

modelling for the Council identifies some 1,000ha of vacant industrial zoned land
58

could be developed to offer up to 2.3 million m2 of industrial floorspace . The

59

RUB provides for some 10,000ha (gross) of Future Urban Zone (FUZ) .

8.36

I understand that the capacity to grow the industrial sector plays a significant role in the
growth of Auckland. Activities such as manufacturing, construction and transport and
60

storage constitute some 32% of regional employment .

8.37

There are pressures on the supply of industrial land, including through the development of
available industrial land for commercial and retail purposes. A loss of the integrity of

53

A business engaged in sales to businesses and institutional customers and may also include sales to the general
public
54
The sale or hire of boats, wholesale and retail sale of fish, and accessory goods and services
55

Shops for the sale of plants, trees or shrubs. Includes sale of: landscaping supplies; bark and compost;
statuary and ornamental garden features

56

The sale or hire of motor vehicles and caravans

57

Evidence Taylor. B3.1 Paragraphs 5.7 5.10

58
59
60

Evidence Taylor. B3.1 Paragraph 5.13

Evidence Taylor. B3.1 Paragraph 5.16
ABFM Employment 2013. Production and distribution 32.1%, Retail and Hospitality 22.3%, Commercial 27%, Education and
Heath 18.6%.

Page 30

industrial zoned land has a consequential impact on Aucklands ability to provide industrial
land for industrial purposes.

8.38

The potential for sensitive uses to limit or diminish the efficient operation, use and
development of industrial activities has the ability to constrain the extent, scale and type of
industrial operations within Auckland.

The Centre network

8.39

Auckland, like other large metropolitan centres has a polycentric urban structure.
Households will provide for their needs across a range of different centres and centre
types. Not all needs will, and can be met locally.

8.40

Retail tends to concentrate into large centres, and has a higher relative importance in terms
of establishing the function and role of these centres as hubs for convenience and
comparison shopping, as well as hubs for social interaction.

8.41

In terms of retail spend, along with the City Centre, Newmarket, Albany, Botany and
Manukau make up the five largest centres. These centres are distributed geographically
across Auckland, forming the main retail hubs in the central isthmus, north shore, eastern
Auckland, and southern Auckland respectively.

8.42

Over the last decade, the consolidation of existing centres, and formation of new centres
has, to a large extent accommodated both large format retail growth and comparison
shopping. Part of this pressure for providing retail capacity has also been through the
formation of commercial, and in particular Trade Suppliers and Large Format Retail on
traditional business arterial corridors such as Lincoln Road, Wairau Road and Stoddard
Road.

8.43

In a number of instances there has also been commercial expansion of existing Centres to
accommodate growth, such as at Ponsonby and St Lukes. The expansion of the
Metropolitan and Town Centre networks are recognised at the RPS level in Policy 5 of
B3.1. For Local Centres, expansion is recognised as being appropriate, subject to strategic
and localised effects.

8.44

Constraints to centre expansion, include transport network capacity, adjoining cadastral

fragmentation and residential intensification, and adjoining amenity expectations. These
Page 31

constraints will only get more pronounced as residential densities and land values increase
around centres.

8.45

Consolidation of many existing centres (primarily through intensification, but including

expansion as appropriate) will be required however, if centres are to remain relevant. The
provisions in D3.3 (Metropolitan), D3.4 (Town Centres) and D3.5 (Local Centres) recognise
this need for growth and intensification.

8.46

Centre relevance is not just a matter of access to goods and services. There are explicit
linkages in the RPS provisions (as outlined in paragraph 7.2) between the City's centre
network and matters of urban form, infrastructure and transportation.

8.47

It is therefore important, that:

In-centre commercial activity is prioritised. This incorporates elements of ensuring the

regulatory framework is appropriately targeted; urban design requirements are not
unduly onerous; and those key anchors that go to the heart of providing for the vitality
and viability of the centre (supermarkets and department stores in particular) are
recognised in terms of their importance and functional requirements.

Centre expansion is anticipated to provide for supply side gains in commercial

provision. Such expansion is managed through consideration of local and strategic
effects; and

Commercial development in non-centre locations does not undermine the wider

commercial network.

8.48

It is understood that there is support for this overall approach from retail experts involved in
61

Expert Conferencing on these Topics as outlined in Mr Akehursts evidence :

as a general principal, all the retail experts have agreed that the city is best served
when retail is focused on centres in the first instance, then around centres and finally in
other locations that do not generate adverse effects.
Large format retail provision
8.49

There was no specific large format retail zone within the Operative Plan provisions in a
manner set out by the PAUP General Business Zone.

61

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.42.

Page 32

8.50

Ms Fairgray identifies that of the forecast 1.1million m2 increase in retail floorspace demand
between 2013 to 2031, large format retail (inclusive of trade suppliers) accounts for some
50% of the this floorspace demand.62

8.51

The general business zone as notified, has a combined land area of 296ha, across some
15 locations. Particular clusters are located around Manakau Centre, Mt Wellington
Highway, Link Drive and Lincoln Road. These sites reflect the existing character and
extent of large format retail activities. 10 Supermarkets are located within the General
Business zone across eight locations.

8.52

The zone provides a framework to cater for a market trend toward large format retail and
trade supply outlets that has accelerated since the 1990s.

8.53

I understand large format retail centres tend to have a significant consumer catchment,
which is due in part to:

their physical separation from residential neighbourhoods and location on the arterial
road network;

reliance on motor vehicles for access given the lack of accessibility by a variety of
other transportation options;

the destination-store influence of larger-format retailing activities that are a

distinguishing feature of such retailers given their scale and offer; and

A corresponding amenity based on large areas of car parking, bulky warehouse type
buildings, and landscape planting.

8.54

The design characteristics of the associated built form is of single storey (albeit high stud
buildings) with glazed frontages facing onto an outdoor at-grade and usually shared parking
area. Building facades are relatively plain and simple, reflecting the functional requirements
of such retail activities.

8.55

The market and the community generally accept that large floorplate retailing is the sale of
comparison items (not necessarily bulky goods) requiring greater amounts of floor and
display space, and usually the centre is accessed by private motor vehicle.

62

Ms Fairgray. Paragraph 6.1.

Page 33

8.56

There was no specific or consistent threshold for Large Format Retail Activity in the legacy
plans. Historically: The Rodney District Plan in the mixed business zone has a threshold of
63

600m2 GFA , beyond which activities were RDA. The North Shore District Plan has a
minimum gross floor space threshold of 500m2 for a range of wholesale and retail trade
64

activities

within the Sub-Regional 5 zone. Waitakere City District Plan the Henderson

Community Environment provided for retail floorspace exceeding 400m2 GFA65. It is

understood that Manakau City District Plans had no specific zoning but provided for
minimum tenancies not less than 500m2 in the Business 2 (Suburban) and 3 (City Centre)
zones66. The Auckland District Plan Isthmus Section did not provide a specific zoning for
large format retail.

Supermarkets and Department Stores

8.57

Supermarket led centres are significantly dependent upon their supermarket for their
commercial function, vitality and social interaction and ongoing sustainable management.
Supermarkets are the biggest generators of pedestrian and traffic movements with regard
to retailing, and also tend to underpin further social and retail infrastructure that forms a
centre.

8.58

There are six supermarkets located within the neighbourhood centre zones. Four of these
are less than 2,000m2 GFA.

8.59

Of the 66 local centres notified in the PAUP, 26 contain supermarkets, 11 of these are less
than 2,000m2, 12 between 2,000m2 to 4,000m2, and only 3 above 4,000m2 GFA67.

8.60

There are 55 supermarkets located within the 43 town centres zonings, and 24 within the
10 metropolitan centre zonings.

63
64
65
66
67

Rodney District Plan Rule 9.9.2 Activity Table. Section 9.8.2.3 Mixed Business Zone Description.
North Shore City Plan. Rule 15.6.1.6
Waitakere City District Plan. Rule 5B(c)
Manakau City Plan. Rule 14.10.2
Auckland Council. Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit. July 2015.

Page 34

8.61

In considering the retail hierarchy from the bottom up, I understand that the loss of a
supermarket represents the primary example of potential centre threat which could trigger a
loss of centre function and amenity, and materially disenable the community served.

8.62

With projected growth in households to 2031, and associated real spending power, I
understand there will be a constant demand for new supermarket formats across Auckland.
This will particularly occur as existing supermarkets are replaced (or displaced) with
modern supermarkets to remain competitive. The resource management consequences of
this is that in the short to mid-term future some of the smaller older supermarkets will be
replaced by their modern equivalent as each brand competes more strongly for market
share. This may involve either the re-development of the existing site or, in some instances,
the relocation to a more strategic location in the surrounding area.

8.63

There is an argument that once a centre reaches a certain critical mass, its function is
unlikely to be undermined by the loss of a supermarket offer, specifically where the centre
is supported by two or more supermarkets. However, such an approach does not consider
the loss of flow / multiplier benefits associated with in-centre supermarket activity.

8.64

The role of Department stores to in-centre function and role is also a critical consideration.
The presence of such stores as a Farmers or Warehouse provide a considerable
proportion, where present, of a centres general merchandising floorspace and appeal to
shoppers. The loss of such an offer can have substantial impacts on the appeal, and hence
viability of such centres.

8.65

I understand that the functional requirements of supermarkets and department stores

consist of the following:
(a)

Clear visual and pedestrian access into the front of the building, or the entrance is
internal to the primary pedestrian concourse of an enclosed mall;

(b)

The checkouts are located in a line with their backs to the windows / entrance;

(c)

The two side walls do not have glazing to provide for the internal display of goods
and to prevent sunlight damage;

(d)

The rear wall is likewise unglazed as it is generally used for the back of house
functions such as loading bays, waste recycling, storage, and on-site food
preparation activities.

Page 35

(e)

A car park of sufficient size to meet typical customer demand is located adjacent to
the main entrances. Where supermarkets and department stores are agglomerated
within an Integrated Retail Development68 shared car parks and access may be
located in multiple locations around the periphery of the complex.

Office Activities
8.66

The consolidation of office, as well as retail is a principle means of achieving the RPS
B:3.1 provisions.

Objective 1 seeks to focus commercial growth and activities within

centres; Policies 2 and 3 (mediated version) seek to encourage commercial intensification

in the city centre, metropolitan and town centres, and encourage growth of commercial
activities that support these centres respectively.

8.67

The agglomeration benefits of office activities within the city centre, metropolitan and town
centres are a critical element in achieving a compact urban form, as is outlined by Mr
Akehurst at paragraph 7.6 of his evidence.

8.68

I understand that the provision of dispersed office activities are unlikely to result in
additional business activity in Auckland, given the zoned capacity. A dispersed pattern of
office (and retail) distribution would likely detract from the potential efficiencies of this
activity being more consolidated in the city centre, metropolitan and town centre network.
These efficiencies are not limited to matters of economic productivity as outlined by Mr
Akehurst, they also extend to the efficient use and development of public transport
69

initiatives and modal choice as set out in the evidence of Mr Wong-Toi

8.69

There is however the need to provide for flexibility in the mixed use zone, local centres and
the light industry zones. Offices in these locations as limited in scale and form, can
appropriately provide for choice and service local needs, without detriment to the wider
centres approach. These are set out in the evidence of Mr Akehurst and Ms Wickham.

Appropriate District Plan Response

68

69

As defined: An integrated and designed development that is principally within an enclosed and internalised building
envelope and is operated by a single management entity, and

incorporates at least two large format retail outlets

provides for shared accessory car parking for all tenancies within one site

incorporates a wide range of comparison good retailers and

may also incorporate entertainment and commercial facilities.

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.1.1

Page 36

8.70

Mr Akehurst has outlined that in a polycentric City such as Auckland, with steady expected
gains in household expenditure (both household increases, and greater disposable income
70

per household), managing commercial (office and retail) distribution can be difficult . This
will especially be the case in rationalising the operative plan zoning framework where there
is the presence of commercial activities in non-centre locations.

8.71

I consider that:

the 051-054 provisions provide commercial certainty, integration of land use and
transport, and a rationalised approach to business activities in Auckland in a manner
that achieves a compact urban form, and gives effect to the provisions of B3.1.

the planning provisions give primacy to in-centre development, but allow some
flexibility for out of centre development; and

the Council has taken appropriate measures to distinguish and clarify zones centres,
and activities.

8.72

The 051-054 provisions seek to manage commercial activity, and inter alia urban form
through intervening in commercial land use patterns as a means of promoting sustainable
resource management and integrated management of effects.

8.73

An appropriate urban form exists to help secure the desired outcomes or manage effects
as generally established in the RPS provisions of the Unitary Plan. The corollary is that if
left unimpeded the resulting pattern of urban land use is likely to produce adverse
environmental effects. I consider that the commercial approach in the provisions attached
to Mr Wyatt's evidence supports this view.

70

Evidence Akehurst. paragraph 6.36

Page 37

PART C SUBMISSIONS
SECTION C:1 THE CENTRE ZONES - OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

9.

D:3.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL ZONES

9.1

These provisions provide an overarching framework for the commercial centre provisions,
mixed use, general business and business park zone. They provide additional objectives
and policies to those considered within the respective zones, but seek to reduce the
duplication of provisions through establishing in this one section matters relating to: design;
the distribution of business activities; and role of the centres network.

9.2

The provisions are appropriate in light of the regional policy statement matters identified in
paragraph 7.2, and the distribution of commercial activities as set out in paragraph 8.26.

Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4

9.3

Objective 1 outlines the environmental conditions associated with a strong centre network,
and the associated social and economic benefits this achieves.

9.4

Submissions to Objective 1 largely seek additional adjectives as to the extent by which

centres either: provide for a diversity of activities and concentrations of people (DNZ 386383, AMP 4376-27, Urban Design Forum 5277-23, New Zealand Institute of Architects
5280-20); or amenity and safety considerations (HNZ839-10087, Minister of Police 427417).

9.5

The submissions are supported in that they provide a more fulsome account of the role and
function of the centres network as expressed in RPS 3.1 Policy 4 (mediation version). The
amended text as agreed at mediation is provided below.

9.6

The form, scale and design quality of development is to reinforce the centres network is set
out in Objective 2. One submission from Peter Hollenstein 3184-17 seeks to insert
reference to the need for competition in development designs to improve good urban
design. That submission is opposed as being uncertain in application. The submission
from Ports of Auckland 5137-110 seeking that the Port Precinct be specifically excluded

Page 38

from the objective is opposed; the more specific provisions in the Port Precinct would take
precedence.

9.7

Objective 3 establishes the distribution of business activities of a scale and form so as to

provide for economic (clause (a)) and social (clause (b)) needs, and manages adverse
effects on the environment (clause (c)).

9.8

HNZ (839-1088) and Transpower NZ (3766-173) seek retention of the objective. G

Russell (2477-7, 8 and 9) seeks amendments to increase the spread of business activity,
cluster joint businesses, and promote self-sufficient recycling). Radio NZ (2750-36) seek
reference to significant rather than strategic infrastructure. Todd Property 4777-3 seek
recognition of economic viability and promotion of centres. Scentre 2968-231 and
Northcote Rd Holdings 3373-2 seek recognition of social wellbeing, residential growth
and employment respectively. AMP Capital 5883-31, Body Corporate 197887 6356-27
and Harvey Norman 5924-21 seek explicit recognition of out of centre locations for
business activity.

9.9

The approach within the objective as notified is supported. Submissions either seek greater
recognition of the distribution of commercial (as opposed to business activities) which has
been rectified through the inclusion of new Objective 4 below (Todd Property, AMP
Capital, Kiwi), or seek unnecessary specificity in the Objective (G Russell). The
submission from Radio NZ is supported as the plan uses the term significant rather than
strategic infrastructure (RPS B:3.2). The submission from Scentre 2968-231 inserting
social into clause (a) is supported.

9.10

New Objective 4 is supported. The basis of the objective is from Kiwi 5253-35 seeking
explicit reference to the hierarchy of centres, and associated regeneration and
intensification initiatives, as well as reiterating the centre hierarchy established in B3.1
Policy 1 (mediation version). That principle is also raised in submissions from Todd
Property 4777-2 and Alastair Ray 6194-10. The objective was agreed by those present at
mediation, with the exception of Z Energy that seek reference to passing traffic in terms of
the needs being met by local and neighbourhood centres.

9.11

The remaining submissions on the objectives relate to matters of amenity and design.
These are considered in the evidence of Mr Munro.

Page 39

Objectives

1. Development strengthens Aucklands network of centres as attractive environments with a mix

of uses that to promote commercial activity and provide employment, housing and goods and
services at a variety of scales.
1. A strong network of centres that are aesthetically attractive environments and attract ongoing
investment, promote commercial activity, and provide employment, housing and goods and
services, all at a variety of scales. (DNZ 3863-83)
2. Development is of a form, scale and design quality so that centres are reinforced as focal
points for the community.
3. Business activity is distributed in locations and is of a scale and form that:
a. provides for the communitys social and economic needs (Scentre 2968-231)
b. improves community access to goods, services, community facilities and opportunities for
social interaction
c. manages adverse effects on the environment, including effects on strategic significant
infrastructure and residential amenity. (Radio NZ 2750-36)
4. A network of commercial centres that provides:
a. a framework and context to the functioning of the urban area and its transport network,
recognising:
i.

the regional role and function of the city centre, metropolitan centres and town
centres as commercial, cultural and social focal points for the region, sub-regions
and local areas

ii.

local centres and neighbourhood centres in their role to provide for a range of
convenience activities to support and serve as focal points for their local
communities;

b. a clear framework within which public and private investment can be prioritised and made
c. a basis for regeneration and intensification initiatives.
(Kiwi 5253-35)

Policy 1

9.12

Policy 1 implements Objective 3 (and new Objective 4). The policy seeks to recognise the
primacy of the city centre, metropolitan and town centres as the primary location for
commercial activity.

Page 40

9.13

G Russell 2422-10 seeks to refer to poly economic town centres. DNZ 3863-84, AMP
Capital 43-76 seek to insert reference to the primacy of offices and retail. DNZ 3863-84
(85) request insertion of a new policy setting out the role and function of local and
neighbourhood centres as a secondary location for retail servicing local areas. Kiwi 525338 request that the phrase according to their role in the hierarchy of centres be added to
the existing policy.

9.14

The submission from G Russell is opposed as being uncertain, and the submission from
DNZ 3863-84 (85) seeking explicit policy for reference to the role and function of local and
neighbourhood centres is unnecessary given new Objective 4 and the respective provisions
in D:3.5 (Local Centres) and D:3.6 (Neighbourhood Centres).

9.15

The submission from Kiwi is supported as providing greater certainty as to the allocative
approach to commercial enablement within the centres hierarchy, and was agreed at
mediation. Explicit reference to retail and offices, which are subsumed within the definition
of commercial activity is seen as unnecessary and is opposed (DNZ 3863-84, AMP Capital
43-76).

Policies

1. Reinforce the function of the city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres as the primary
location for commercial activity, according to their location role in the hierarchy of centres.
Kiwi 5253-38

10.

METROPOLITAN CENTRE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description

10.1

The zone provides for a substantial scale and intensity of commercial and other activities,
second only to the City Centre.

10.2

The RPS B3.1 Policy 1 seeks that metropolitan centres function as commercial, cultural
and social focal points for the region, sub-regions and districts local areas. RPS B3.1
Policy 2, seeks that these centres provide for commercial intensification, with RPS B3.1
Policy 4 establishing the range of activities anticipated. The Auckland Plan identifies such
Page 41

centres as having strategic roles within the region, a diverse range of activities including
residential activities, and good transport access as served by high frequency public
71

transport .

10.3

Submissions to the zone description seek an extensive list of those activities encouraged in
the zone (DNZ 3863-89, AMP 4376-3, Progs 5723-126). Such a relief is unnecessary,
would overlap the second paragraph and duplicate B3.1 Policy 3.

10.4

Amendments (Scentre 2968-239) to expand recognition of the primary purpose of

Metropolitan Centres beyond Transport Hubs is supported, as such a narrowed role for
Metropolitan Centres is incorrect. The amended text is identified below.
DNZ 3863-90, AMP 4376-34, Scentre 2968-241 sought amendments to Policy 1 to
explicitly identify for the expansion of Metropolitan Centres. The amendment to Policy 1 not
supported, as it would duplicate Section B3.1 Policy 5 which provides RPS level support for
Metropolitan and Town Centre expansion, subject to criteria. However, to improve the
interconnections within the Plan, recognition of centre expansion is supported within the
zone statement, and was agreed by all present parties agreed to add a new third paragraph
as follows:
These centres are identified for growth and intensification. Expansion of these centres may be
appropriate depending on strategic and local environmental considerations.

10.5

I support this addition. The first sentence clearly reflects the role of metropolitan centres.
The second sentence implements B3.1, Policy 5, which addresses the expansion of
metropolitan centres.

10.6

There are also amendments to paragraph 5 of the zone description. This addresses the
Key Retail and General Commercial frontage provisions. The primary area of contention is
the following text:
Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New vehicle crossings are generally to
be avoided on site frontages subject to the Key Retail frontage provisions and this is addressed
in the Transport provisions.

71

Auckland Plan. Box 10.3 Urban Centres Hierarchy

Page 42

10.7

The struck out first sentence was deleted as part of track changes as the Key Retail and
General Commercial frontage provisions were considered overlays in the PAUP but have
now been amended to be part of the general zone provisions. To complement this change
the second sentence was added to ensure it is clear that avoiding new vehicle crossings on
the Key Retail frontage are a very important part of the frontage rules and that this is
addressed in the Transport section. This addition was made as part of the pre-mediation
track changes and was opposed by the Key Retail Group. While arguably unnecessary, I
consider the amendment useful to make it clear to users of the plan that elements of the
transport provisions are an important part of the Key Retail frontage strategy.

10.8

In his submission and during mediation Ben Ross (1602-02) sought the application of a
new Super Metropolitan zone to Albany and Manukau. The zone would comprise a new
second tier centre, behind the City Centre, would have greater height than the existing
Metropolitan Centre zone provisions and would make it clear that Albany and Manukau are
the key northern and southern centres respectively.

10.9

As I understand the submission, the key point of difference between the proposed zone
and the Metropolitan Centre zone is unlimited height in the former.

In my view the

Metropolitan Centre zone enables significant growth and intensification above existing
levels of development and also allows an unlimited scope for commercial activities. If the
Panel considers the height limits in the Metropolitan Centre zone too restrictive then this
can be amended, without the need for a new zone. I do not consider that a new zone of
the type described is necessary at this stage of Aucklands development.
10.10

Accordingly, amendments to the zone description from the above, are as below. It is noted
that the only outstanding mediation matter is reference to contain(ing) hubs serving high
frequency transport. Retention of this phrase is seen as aspirational within the life of the
plan and is supported.

Zone description
This zone applies to centres located in different sub-regional catchments of Auckland. These
centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs focal
points for community interaction and commercial growth and development and contain hubs
serving high frequency transport. within their catchments. (Scentre 2968-239)

The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high-density
residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with
Page 43

rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of
commercial activity.
These centres are identified for growth and intensification. Expansion of these centres may be
appropriate

depending

on

strategic

and

local

environmental

effects

considerations.

(Consequential DNZ 3863-90, AMP 4376-34, Scentre 2968-241)

Precincts and overlays that modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions apply to
some of the metropolitan centres. Generally, however, to support an intense level of development,
the zone allows for high- rise buildings.
Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General
Commercial Frontage provisions. overlay. Key retail streets are the a focus focal point of
pedestrian activity within the centre.

General commercial streets play a supporting role.

Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are
incorporated in the zone rules. New vehicle crossings are generally to be avoided on site
frontages subject to the Key Retail frontage provisions and this is addressed in the Transport
provisions.
Buildings within the zone require resource consent to ensure that they are designed to a high
standard, which enhance the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.

Objectives 1, 2a and 2

10.11

Submissions to Objective 1 seek to insert a reference as to the need to reinforce

Metropolitan centres (Kiwi 5253-42) and / or provide for the growth of the centre
(Scentre 2968-240). Adding a reference as to reinforcing the centre is supported within
the objective in terms of creating enduring Metropolitan Centres.

10.12

The submission from Regional Facilities 5473-71 is opposed which sought explicit
reference Entertainment Facilities. Listing this very specific activity is unnecessary as it is
subsumed (nested) within the wider definition of commercial activities already identified in
the Objective.

10.13

As a consequence of mediation, I support a nuanced amendment to residential activities as

being provided for, rather than a focus of such centres. The Objective as agreed at
mediation is stated below.

Page 44

10.14

Two new objectives have been added. These are listed below and were agreed at
mediation. Objective 2A is a consequential amendment through the mediation process and
mirrors the current Objective in the Town Centre zoning. Objective 2 has been sought by
Kiwi 5253-43 and is supported as it expands on both the functional (diversity of activities
and vibrancy) and social (extent of interaction) amenity that Metropolitan Centres should
exhibit.

Objectives

1. A network of metropolitan centres are reinforced and (Kiwi 5253-42) developed, that are
second only to the city centre in diversity, scale, form and function, and which are a
sub-regional focus for commercial, residential, community and civic activities, and which
provide for residential intensification.
2A .The scale and intensity of development in Metropolitan Centres is increased.
2. Metropolitan centres are an attractive place to live, work and visit with vibrant and vital
commercial, entertainment and retail areas. (Kiwi 5253-43)

Policies 1, 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 6

10.15

Submissions to Policy 1 seeking to explicitly provide for expansion have been addressed
by the changes to the Zone Description (DNZ 3863-90, AMP 4376-34, Scentre 2968-241).
Amendments sought by (Kiwi 5253-45) sought that the phrase growth and intensification
replace change as being more directive and certain. This amendment is consistent with
the Auckland Plan approach which identifies that these centres provide the greatest
opportunities for business growth. That amendment which supports the new Objective 2A,
as agreed in mediation is supported as shown below.

10.16

This change provides a more focused Policy 1 as narrowed to the extent of growth
anticipated in Metropolitan Centres. The manner in which such growth is to be managed to
contribute to the function, amenity and vitality of that centre has become a separate stand
alone Policy 1A. That approach was agreed through mediation, and in my view
appropriately separates the form of the centre (Policy 1) and the function of the centre
(Policy 1A).

Page 45

10.17

In terms of Policy 2, Scentre 2968-242 sought for the removal of reference to quality. The
Policy itself establishes the role of Metropolitan Centres within the centres hierarchy as
second only to the City Centre, and is otherwise unopposed by all parties. In my view,
reference to quality in this context is unnecessary. The relativity of the clause is also
inappropriate as the phrase would seek to provide an outcome where the quality of
buildings is second only to the City Centre, whereas a more measureable set of design
outcomes are prescribed through Policy 7. Accordingly, whilst this was an outstanding
matter in mediation, I support of the relief of Scentre 2968-242.

10.18

Policy 3 is submitted on by Mr Ben Ross (1602-02) seeking that Metropolitan Centres

should promote development as necessary to support a regional and inter-regional
catchment. The submission is opposed. Whilst a number of Metropolitan Centres
accommodate spending patterns from households located at some distance, their scale
and role within the urban form is not predicated on providing capacity for regional and interregional catchments.

10.19

Policy 4 was submitted on by five parties (Kiwi 5253-46, 88 Broadway 3449-2, Carter
6588-1, Regional Facilities 5473-72, and Scentre 2968-244). The policy is concerned
with providing for a wide range of activities, and links to permissiveness of the Activity
Table for this zone. Appropriately in my view, Scentre submitted that given the anticipated
range of activities provided for, and the scale of built form envisaged, that the more
proactive verb encourage should replace enable in the policy. The amendment to replace
high intensity with range and concentration of activities is also agreed, given that not all
commercial activities will be intensive.

10.20

72

Those submitters seeking explicit reference to additional activities are not supported .
These activities are either subsumed within the policy (for example, Regional Facilities
seeking entertainment facilities which is included in commercial activities), or is the subject
of other policy (for example Broadway and Carter seeking reference to residential activities
which is the subject of Policy 5).

72

Inclusive of a general submission from McDonalds 4857-39

Page 46

10.21

Policy 6 is concerned with the comprehensive development and redevelopment of the

sites, and goes to the efficient use and development of Metropolitan Centres as physical
resources. There are no submissions on the policy.

10.22

Policy 9 seeks to encourage the location of supermarkets and department stores in

metropolitan centres, given their contribution in promoting the function, amenity and vitality
of a centre. As outlined in paragraphs 8.63 and 8.64 these activities have a critical role in
terms of anchoring the centre network, and are key attributes in promoting the vitality and
viability of Metropolitan and Town centres.

10.23

Supermarkets and department stores often play the key role of providing a destination that
attracts high volumes of shoppers to the centre that smaller retailers in the centre then
benefit from, and accordingly the extent of vitality (the extent of visible activity in the centre)
is increased. For customers, the co-location of anchor stores and specialty retailers,
commercial services, and community facilities means that multiple needs can be met
efficiently during the one visit.

10.24

Policy 9(a) seeks to recognise the positive contribution of supermarkets and department
stores to centre viability and function, and is supported. It is understood that Kiwi 5253-48,
73

Progressives 5723-132, the Warehouse 2748-54 and Scentre 2968-249

support the

intent of this provision but also wish to apply it to shopping malls, and that functional
requirements are balanced with design requirements. I consider that shopping malls
represents the collection of a number of retail tenancies, and of itself is distinguishable from
the specific recognition applied to supermarkets and department Stores. This matter is
considered in the evidence of Mr Munro.
10.25

Policy 9(b) seeks to recognise the functional requirements of Supermarkets and

Department Stores. It is understood that functional, in this sense also includes those
aspects of a development which can be considered operational matters. I note that this
matter was considered in the Auckland Council evidence of Mr McIndoe in Section B2.2
(paragraph 3.9 of his evidence), where at his paragraph 3.4 he states there are two
components of function: the experience of the people using the space or place; and the

73

Policy 6 of the Town Centre Zone has attracted the same submission intent from Kiwi 52353-51, Progs 5723-139, Scentre

Page 47

operation of that space or place. I have outlined my understanding of the functional

requirements of these activities in paragraph 8.65.

10.26

The New Zealand Institute of Architects 5280-25 seek to delete reference to recognising
functional requirements. That relief is opposed. The clause is in my view necessary in
recognising and reducing design barriers in accommodating such activities in the
metropolitan centres. Mr Munro discusses these matters at paragraph 5.51 of his evidence.

10.27

Lastly, Policy 9(c) seeks to ensure that the design parameters are not too tightly focused.
Where urban design requirements do not anticipate and provide for supermarkets and
department stores, the requirements can act as a deterrent to disenfranchise supermarkets
and department establishing or expanding in centres. Accordingly, the priority in the
provisions in my view is to channel commercial development into the appropriate context
(as set out in B3.1), and then instigating urban design (and transport assessments), as an
important but subservient consideration

10.28

Accordingly, I support the policy on the basis of the principles discussed above.

10.29

I understand that Mr Munro is considering those submissions that seek to incorporate

reference to Shopping Malls in terms of both recognition, and design pragmatism
attributable to associated built form. Mr Munro is also considering those aspects of the
submissions that seek to balance rather than recognise functional requirements against
design outcomes, as outlined in his evidence with respect to submission on D3.1 Policies
3.5 and 11(a).

10.30

The respective provisions are:

Policies

1. Enable significant growth and intensification change in metropolitan centres where the
outcome can be shown to contributes to the function, role and amenity, and vitality of the
centre. and is an efficient use of a centres infrastructure. (Kiwi 5253-45)
1A. Manage development in Metropolitan Centres so that it contributes to the function, amenity
and vitality of the centre.
2. Provide for the greatest concentration, quality and scale of buildings within metropolitan
centres, second only to the city centre. Scentre 2968-242
3. Promote and manage the development of the metropolitan centres to provide facilities and
services necessary to support their surrounding sub-regional catchment.
Page 48

4. Enable Encourage a wide range, and a high concentration, of high intensity activities within
metropolitan centres emphasising a wide range of commercial, leisure, tourist, cultural, and
community activities and civic services. Scentre 2968-244

6. Promote the comprehensive development and redevelopment of sites and / or activities within
metropolitan centres.

9. Encourage the location of supermarkets and department stores within metropolitan centres by
recognising:
a. the positive contribution these activities make to centre viability and function, and
b. the functional requirements of these activities
c. where preferred built form outcomes are not achieved, the development needs to
achieve a quality built environment by positively contributing to public open space,
including the activation of streets. should positively contribute to the streetscape
and character of its surroundings.
b. designs that positively contribute to the streetscape and character of their
surroundings, having regard to the functional requirements of these activities.
(Progressive 5723-132, PCNZ 6212-45).

Miscellaneous Requests
10.31

Scentre 2968-243 sought the addition of a new Policy to Encourage economic

development, high levels of business activity and employment opportunities. Whilst the
intent of the policy is supported, the requested Policy is considered redundant. The matters
contained within the request are, in my view, adequately expressed in the new Objective
2A and Policies 2 and 3, and as also supported by RPS B3.1 Policy 4 which seeks to
encourage increased employment and commercial opportunities in the centres network.

10.32

Both Ben Ross 1606-2 and T Greening 3371-22 seek the provision of recognition of a new
tier of centre which is the equivalent of the City Centre zone (Primary Centres) to be
applied to a number of larger Metropolitan Centres including Manukau Centre.

10.33

The relief is opposed, the notified hierarchy follows the approach established in the
Auckland Plan. The notified hierarchy seeks to create a classification approach to centre
management, where centres of equal form and function can be grouped together in terms
of both land use expectations and associated public funding and transport initiatives. Such
Page 49

an approach is consistent with the Councils duty in terms of the integrated management of
physical resources.

10.34

The addition of a further tier of centres that are equivalent to that of the city centre is
unjustified given the primacy of the Auckland CBD as the dominant location for commercial
employment, diversity of activities and economic activity. Inserting a new classification
between the city centre and metropolitan centres would not aid in the clarity of land use
provisions and likely blur the distinctions between the centres hierarchy for no appreciable
benefit.

10.35

Lastly, it is not solely the size of the centre that dictates its placement in the retail hierarchy,
rather the role it plays in the community and the extent of the catchment from which it
attracts shoppers. In general terms bigger centres tend to hold a higher position in the retail
hierarchy compared with smaller centres, however this is not always the case. In this
instance the placement of Manakau Centre (Greening / Ross) and Albany (Ross) as being
metropolitan centres is supported given their role and function.

10.36

The submission from A Brown (3472-4) is rejected in that the Plan is future looking in terms
of transport initiatives for Metropolitan Centres.

11.

TOWN CENTRE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description

11.1

The purpose of the zone is to provide for a wide range of activities, recognising the diverse
range of business and community activities undertaken from such centres.

11.2

As with metropolitan centres, RPS B3.1 Policy 1 recognises the regional importance of
such centres, with increased commercial intensification anticipated by RPS B3.1 Policy 2,
and a wide range of activities through RPS B3.1 Policy 4. The Auckland Plan identifies
such centre as local hubs for communities, providing a wide range of retail and business

Page 50

services and facilities, and community facilities. They are generally accessible by frequent
74

public transport services .

11.3

Submissions (Scentre 2968-250, and Progressives 5723-133) seeking to remove the

focus from public transport are not supported. As outlined in Part B of this evidence, the
provisions of B3.3 seek to manage travel demand and travel choices through supporting
land use and trip patterns that reduce the rate of growth in private vehicle trips. In my view,
the zone description does not overstate this aspect of an integrated transport system.

11.4

It was agreed at mediation in light of these submissions, that Policy 2(c) was narrowly
focused on public transport at the expense of wider transport integration. The policy could,
in my view, rightly be amended in line with the policies within RPS B3.3 that seek to provide
an integrated transport system, and in particular B3.3 Policy 13 that recognises private
vehicles movements where access is not efficiently and effectively made by other means.
That change is identified below.

11.5

Specific inclusion of the Town Centre zone providing a focus for commercial, retail and
business growth as submitted by Scentre 2968-251 is supported and accords with the
policy direction in B3.1 and the Auckland Plan centre hierarchy. The relief to include
reference to residential not compromising the function of centres or their expansion is
considered unnecessary (Scentre 2968-252), as this matter is subject to B:3.1 Policy 4.

11.6

As with the Metropolitan Centres, a number of parties sought amendments to Policy 1 to

explicitly identify the provision for the expansion of Town Centres. (DNZ 3863-91, AMP
4376-35, Scentre 2968-255). The amendment to the Policy is not supported as it would
lead to duplication of provisions. However, to improve the interconnections within the Plan,
an additional sentence is supported within the zone statement reflecting these
considerations, and was agreed during mediation by all present parties. The key difference
between the town centre amendment and that in the Metropolitan Centre zone is that the
former refers to most centres rather than all of the centres. This is a reflection of the
variety of centres to which the Town Centre zone applies.

74

Auckland Plan. Box 10.3 Urban Centres Hierarchy

Page 51

11.7

In the mediation record there is disagreement between Auckland Council and the Key Retail
Group on the addition of the same text about the Key Retail frontage provisions that has
been added to the Metropolitan Centre zone description:
New vehicle crossings are generally to be avoided on site frontages subject to the Key Retail
frontage provisions and this is addressed in the Transport provisions.

11.8

In the mediation version of the text (as appended to Mr Wyatts evidence) this is shown in a
comment box rather than the text because it was erroneously omitted by Auckland Council
from the track changes made to the zone description.

For the reasons expressed in

paragraph 10.7 I think the text should be included in the Town Centre zone description. If
the Panel does not accept this point of view however, in my view the two zone descriptions
should be treated consistently and the addition to the Metropolitan Centre zone description
should be deleted.
11.9

Accordingly, amendments to the zone description from the above, are as below. It is noted
that these matters are agreed through mediation.

Zone description
This zone applies to suburban centres throughout Auckland, the satellite centres of Warkworth and
Pukekohe, and the rural towns of Helensville and Wellsford. The centres are typically located on
main arterial roads, which provide good public transport access.
The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, residential, tourist,
cultural, community and civic services, providing a focus for commercial activities and growth.
(Scentre 2968-251)
Most centres are identified for growth and intensification. Expansion of these centres may be
appropriate depending on strategic and local environmental considerations. (DNZ 3863-91, AMP
4376-35, Scentre 2968-255)
There is a range of possible building heights depending on the context. Provisions typically enable
buildings of between four and eight storeys, although there may be special circumstances where
other building heights are appropriate.The Increased height opportunities within the centres will
facilitate increased intensification, including office and residential activities living opportunities at
upper floors.
Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General Commercial
Frontage overlayprovisons. Key retail streets are the focal a focus point of pedestrian activity within

Page 52

the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is
expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules.
Buildings within the zone require resource consent in order to ensure that they are designed to a
high standard that enhance the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.

Objectives 1, 2 and 3

11.10

Submissions from HNZ 839-10099 and G Poupard-Walbridge 3641-1 support Objective

1.

11.11

Scentre 2968-253 sought a nuanced amendment to residential activities as being provided

for, rather than a focus of such centres within Objective 1. I support that amendment. The
Objective as agreed at mediation is below.

11.12

Three submissions were received on Objective 2. These submissions (HNZ 839-10100,

Scentre 2968-254 and Restaurant Brands 449-35) sought to remove qualifiers as to the
centres planned future character as these outcomes were unclear. I agree that such a term
is vague and unhelpful, as character is a combination of the existing environment
represented by the centre and the Unitary Plan provisions seeking long term planning and
design outcomes for each centre. A specific reference is more appropriate. It was agreed at
the mediation that amended text would refer to the planning and design outcomes
identified in the Unitary Plan for the relevant centre. The Objective agreed states:

Objectives

1. A network of tTown cCentres that are the focus of commercial, residential, community and
civic activities for the surrounding area, and which provide for residential intensification.
(Scentre 2968-253)
2. The scale and intensity of development in tTown cCentres is increased while ensuring
development is in keeping with the centres planning and design outcomes identified in the
Unitary Plan for the relevant centre. future form and quality. character. (HNZ 839-10100,
Scentre 2968-254 and Restaurant Brands 449-35)

Page 53

11.13

Kiwi Income (5253-49) sought the inclusion of a new Objective ensuring the compatibility
of Town Centres with the Metropolitan and City Centres. The intent of the proposed
Objective is supported, but is considered to be contained within the provisions of B3.1 and
hence would be unnecessary. Consequential amendments (Kiwi Income 5253-43) have
led to an agreed Objective (3) recognising the attributes of a well-functioning town centre
as identified below.

3.

Town centres are an attractive place to live, work and visit with vibrant and vital
commercial, entertainment and retail areas. (Kiwi Income 5253-43)

11.14

Peter Hollenstein (3184-25) sought a process Objective seeking to find the best methods
to manage and achieve the objectives. The provision is not specified as an outcome, and
is somewhat circular, and hence not supported. Transpower (3766-177) sought a new
Objective relating to the provision and expansion of infrastructure as necessary to support
the centre. Such an objective overlaps with the provisions of B3.2 and duplicating such
Objectives in the business provisions are not supported.

Policies 1, 1a, 2, 3 and 6

11.15

Amendments sought to Policy 1 seeking to explicitly provide for expansion have instead,
led to recognition of town centre expansion within the Zone Description (DNZ 3863-91,
AMP 4376-35, Scentre 2968-255).

11.16

As with Metropolitan Centres amendments sought by (Kiwi 5253-50) to Policy 1 has led to
the replacement of change with the more directive and certain phrase growth and
intensification. That amendment which supports the new Objective 2, as agreed in
mediation is supported.

11.17

A consequence of this change, is to provide a policy link to the respective variability of

heights rules within each of the Town Centres. This results in a qualification to the
significant extent of growth and intensification anticipated, except where it would
compromise the planning outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for the relevant centre.
Such a change, as agreed at mediation, is appropriate in terms of the achievement of
Objective 2 and is supported.
Page 54

11.18

The change in focus in Policy 1 is that it is narrowed to the extent of growth anticipated in
Town Centre. The manner in which such growth is to be managed to contribute to the
function, amenity and vitality of that centre has become a separate stand alone Policy 1A.
The mediated approach in my view appropriately separates the form of the centre (Policy 1)
and the function of the centre (Policy 1A).

11.19

In terms of Policy 2, G Poupard-Walbridge 3641-9 seek the retention of Policy 2(a) as it

relates to a distribution of town centres to service the surrounding communitys needs; HNZ
839-10101, Fletcher NZ 1731-99 support the intent of Policy 2(b) as it relates to enabling
residential but seeks that residential activities are not unduly precluded. Whereas
Progressives 5723-135 and Scentre 2968-257 seek to ensure that residential
development does not unduly compromise commercial capacity.

11.20

In terms of residential activities, it is considered that Policy 2(b) can be deleted, as outlined
in the evidence of Mr Wyatt.

11.21

The remaining change to the provision is to incorporate the changes to Policy 2(c) relating
the broader range of transport modes as discussed in submissions to the zone description.
Refer Scentre 2968-250, and Progressives 5723-133.

11.22

Policy 3 is sought to be retained by HNZ 839-10102 and PCNZ 6212-46. The Policy is
concerned with the comprehensive development and redevelopment of sites, and
recognising a substantial scale and concentration of buildings. The Policy also seeks to
enable greater intensification of commercial, residential and community activities. The
Policy and goes to the efficient use and development of Town Centre as physical
resources. There are no submissions in opposition.

11.23

The principles of Policy 6 are discussed in paragraphs 10.22 to 10.29 above. The
respective submissions are: Amendments to strengthen recognition of the need and
positive benefits of supermarkets and department stores in town centres (DNZ 3863-92,
AMP 4376-36), incorporate shopping malls as well as supermarkets and department stores
(Kiwi 52353-51, Progs 5723-139, Scentre 2968-263), and redraft to balance design
requirements against the vitality supermarkets and departments stores bring to town
centres (Warehouse 2748-55). Amendments to this Policy is consistent with those
discussed in paragraphs 10.22 to 10.29.
Page 55

11.24

The submission from the Oil Companies

75

(2588-5) to include Service Stations in Policy 6

in terms of policy recognition is opposed. These activities do not provide the equivalent
contribution to Centre viability and function compared to supermarkets and department
stores. Service stations are provided for in a broader range of business zones.

11.25

The respective provisions are:

Policies
1. Enable significant growth and intensification change in town centres, except for those centres
where it that would compromise the planning outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for the
relevant centre. where the outcome can be shown to contribute to the function, role and
amenity, and vitality of the centre. and is an efficient use of a centres infrastructure. (DNZ
3863-91, AMP 4376-35, Scentre 2968-255)
1A. Manage development in Town Centres so that it contributes to the function, amenity and
vitality of the centre.
(Kiwi Income 5253-50)
2. Provide a distribution of town centres, including the provision of new town centres, of different
scales and locations, that:
a. service the surrounding communitys needs for a range of moderate intensity uses,
such as commercial, leisure, tourist, cultural, community and civic activities
b. enable residential development above street level
c. support a range of public transport modes including, public transport, pedestrian and
cycle networks and the ability to change transport modes.
Scentre 2968-257. Consequential Scentre 2968-250, and Progressives 5723-133
3. Enable the intensification of commercial, residential and community activities in town centres,
by:
a. substantial scale, concentration and density of buildings
b. the comprehensive development and redevelopment of sites.

75

Z Energy Limited and BP Oil New Zealand Limited and Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited.

Page 56


6. Encourage the location of supermarkets and department stores within metropolitan centres by
recognising:
a. the positive contribution these activities make to centre viability and function, and
b. the functional requirements of these activities
c. where preferred built form outcomes are not achieved, the development needs to
achieve a quality built environment by positively contributing to public open space,
including the activation of streets. should positively contribute to the streetscape
and character of its surroundings.
c. designs that positively contribute to the streetscape and character of their
surroundings, having regard to the functional requirements of these activities.
(Progressive 5723-139, DNZ 3863-92, AMP 4376-36, PCNZ 6212-42).

Miscellaneous Requests

11.26

Scentre 2968-260 sought the addition of a new Policy to Encourage economic

development in the Town Centres and achieve high levels of business activity and
employment opportunities. The requested Policy is considered redundant. As these
matters are adequately expressed in the Objective 1 and Policy 2(a), and are also
supported by RPS B3.1 Policy 4 which seeks to encourage increased employment and
commercial opportunities in the centres network.

11.27

Transpower (3766-178) sought a new Policy seeking that Development should not
adversely affect the safe and efficient operation, maintenance, upgrade and development
of significant infrastructure. Such an objective overlaps with the provisions of B3.2 Policy 7
and additional provisions in the business section is not supported.

11.28

Other submissions that are opposed include the relief of Peter Hollenstein Associates
3184-29 seeking compliance with Competitive Design Provisions as being uncertain; the
Ellerslie Business Association 3539-3 as matters of business interests being prioritised
over residential activity would represent an unnecessary addition to Policy 3; and
McDonalds 4857-40 as it is considered unnecessary to provide a detailed list of activities
anticipated in the zone.
Page 57

12.

LOCAL CENTRE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description
12.1

Submissions to the zone description are focused on removing references limiting the scale
of commercial opportunities (NTC 2632-21, Warehouse 2748-56, Progressives 5723141), or determination of catchments DNZ 3863-93, AMP 4376-37. Submissions seek
recognition that there were instances where local centres were not serviced by optimal
public transport initiatives (Progressives 5723-140). A very specific submission from Drive
Holdings 1686-2 seeks specific reference to Mission Bay as providing a more sub-regional
caf and dining function.

12.2

The zone description establishes the general purpose of the zone, in comprising smaller
centres that serve their local community. Identification of specific local centres is not
warranted and could led to a perceived prioritisation of local centres. Accordingly the relief
of Drive Holdings 1686-2 is not supported.

12.3

The 66 local centres range in area from 0.25ha (Sunnyvale) to 11.7ha (Waiuku), although
less than a third of Aucklands 66 local centres consist of 3.0ha or more in land area. There
is also a considerable spectrum in terms of function and amenity between these centres.

12.4

Local centres are dispersed through suburban areas, and generally located on arterial
roads. These centres typically provide limited employment opportunities, although some
mainly smaller office buildings are present.

12.5

Retail activities are typically of a small scale and predominantly service local needs. The
built form is characterised by medium to low rise buildings, typically with a predominance of
smaller scale and diverse convenience based commercial activities. Many local centres are
served by shared parking and access. The majority of local centres have a substantial
residential interface.

Page 58

12.6

Whilst some supermarkets are present, larger comparison anchor stores are atypical.
Paragraph 8.59 identifies that of the 26 supermarkets located across the 66 local centres,
23 are below 4,000m2 GFA of these 11 are less than 2,000m2 GFA.

12.7

In terms of the RPS provisions, B3.1 Policy 1 recognises that these centres provide for a
range of convenience activities to support and serve as focal points for their local
communities. Unlike Metropolitan and Town Centres which are identified for commercial
intensification (B3.1 Policy 2), commercial activities are to be enabled pursuant to B3.1
Policy 8 as subject to criteria, including effects on a compact urban form, distributional and
transport effects. The Auckland Plan recognises that local centres have variable capacity
for accommodating new business development, but to a lesser extent to town centres,
due to their individual and accessibility constraints76.

12.8

The

zone

description

is

considered

appropriate.

Three

changes

are

however

recommended: The insertion of primarily to identify that Local Centres are not limited to
solely serving local needs; amendments recognising that not all centres are well served by
good public transport; and recognition that built form heights typically enable up to four
storeys

12.9

There are two issues I consider necessary to discuss in my evidence. One is the change in
paragraph 2 of the zone description, from referring to smaller scale supermarkets as being
appropriate in the zone, to referring to appropriately scaled supermarkets. This reflects
the different scales of local centres and that a supermarket may be appropriate in one local
centre but not in another. I agree with this amendment.

12.10

The second issue is the proposal by the Key Retail group to delete the following text in the
second paragraph:
The zone discourages single largescale commercial activity that would prevent a mix of
activities within the local centre.

12.11

Auckland Council did not agree to this deletion in mediation and I agree with this approach.
As explained above local centres primarily serve the surrounding community and a mix of
different activities ensures this occurs.

Large-scale commercial activity may displace

smaller more convenience based activities limiting the ability of the local community to
access its frequent needs and may not be an efficient outcome for the local community.
76

Auckland Plan Box 10.3 Urban Centres hierarchy.

Page 59

12.12

The recommended text is identified below. It is acknowledged that a number of parties

77

still seek the removal of references limiting the scale of activities.

Zone description

This zone applies to a large number of small centres throughout Auckland. The centres are
generally located in areas of good public transport.

The zone primarily provides for the local convenience needs of surrounding residential areas,
including local retail, commercial services, offices, food and beverage, and appropriately scaled
smaller-scale supermarkets. The zone discourages single large-scale commercial activity that
would prevent a mix of activities within the local centre. The expansion of local centres may be
appropriate if it provides greater social and economic well-being benefits for the community.
Provisions typically enable allow for buildings up to four storeys high, enabling residential use at
upper floors.

New development within the zone requires resource consent so that it is designed to a high
standard which enhances the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.

Objectives 1, 2 and 3

12.13

Objective 1 establishes the intended range of commercial activities anticipated.

78

Submissions either seek retention , or recognition that such centres can service needs
beyond the localised catchment (NTC2632-22, Warehouse 2748-57). As identified above,
the insertion of primarily to identify that Local Centres are not limited to solely serving local
needs is appropriate, and was agreed at mediation.

12.14

Objective 2 sets out the anticipated scale and intensity of development in local centres in a
manner that respects the surrounding, typically residential environment. Submissions seek
79

deletion of future planned character as a vague and uncertain outcome . As has been
identified above, that phrase is to be replaced with reference to the planning outcomes

77
78
79

NTC, 2632-21, Warehouse 2748-56, Progressives 5723-141

The Oil Companies 2588-6, Ormiston Joint Venture Ltd 3963-5, HNZC 839-10104, Restaurant Brands 449-36
HCNZ 839-10105, Ormiston Joint Venture Ltd 3963-6, Restaurant Brands 449-37

Page 60

identified in the Unitary Plan for the surrounding environment. This matter was agreed at
mediation.

12.15

DNZ 3863 sought the insertion of Objective 3 to ensure local centres are an attractive
place to live, work and visit. The objective as agreed at mediation provides a more direct
linkage to design Policy 4, and better achieves RPS provisions B2.2 and is supported.

12.16

New Objectives were sought seeking to recognise the function of specific local centres
(Drive Holdings Ltd 1686-4), and specific enablement of infrastructure, including
significant infrastructure (Transpower 3766-179).

Both submissions are opposed; the

former on the basis of the inappropriateness of creating perceived priorities within this tier
of the centres hierarchy; and the latter as matters of infrastructure are well contained in the
stand alone provisions of RPS B3.2.

Objectives

1. A network of local centres that enable commercial activity which primarily services local
convenience needs and provides residential living opportunities. (NTC 2632-22)
2. The scale and intensity of development within local centres respects the future planned
character of the surrounding environment planning outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for
the surrounding environment. (HCNZ 839-10105, Ormiston Joint Venture Ltd 3963-6,
Restaurant Brands 449-37)
3. Local centres are an attractive place to live, work and visit. (DNZ 3863)

Policies 1, 4, 5, 6
12.17

Policy 1 establishes the range of activities anticipated from local centres. Submissions
seek to delete reference to serving local convenience needs (DNZ 3863-94, AMP 437638), or to include references to the need to provide for large scale supermarkets (NTC
2632-23, Progs 5723-142). The approach recommended by DNZ and AMP is appropriate
in part, as it focuses on the enablement of activities that provide for the local convenience
needs.

Page 61

12.18

The approach for Progressive is opposed. Full service supermarkets as identified by Mr

Akehurst are of a substantial scale, serve district wide catchments, and can be incongruent
80

with the purpose and built form expectations of the local centres .

12.19

Policy 4 seeks to provide criteria in considering the implications where large scale
commercial activity seeks to establish in a local centre.

12.20

The purpose of the policy is appropriate in that the local centre role and function is
predicated on predominantly local needs and convenience, and a compatible scale with the
surrounding environment. Policy 4 provides the mechanism for that role, and associated
scale based limitations for retail and office activity. The policy as contained in the notified
PAUP is disjunctive, larger format is discouraged where it fails one or more of the criteria:
(a) Reduces the function and diversity of activities within the centre;
(b) Potentially generates relevant distributional effects on the wider centre network;
(c) Potentially generates adverse transport effects.

12.21

81

A number of submissions were received, seeking deletion , or removal of specific criteria

relating to distributional

82

83

or amenity effects . A similar theme within the submissions is

that in a number of instances larger format retail, and in particular supermarkets helps to
anchor the local centre, and is central to its function and vitality. Mr Wong-Toi has
commented on the need to consider the safe and efficient operation of the transport system
at paragraph 5.2.7 of his evidence. I agree with his analysis.

12.22

As a consequence of mediation, I consider that the Policy should be refocused such that
larger scale commercial activities could be encouraged in certain circumstances.

12.23

This would appropriately recognise that such larger scale commercial activities can play an
important role in facilitating local centre outcomes. However due to their scale and intensity,
such activities can result in adverse strategic (distributional / transport) and local (loss of incentre diversity and function) adverse effects that should be appropriately managed in

80
81
82
83

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.33, 7.34

NTC 2632-24, Warehouse 2748-58, Progressives 5723-144
DNZ 3863-95, AMP 4376-39
Ormiston Joint Venture 3963-10

Page 62

terms of the Councils functions under s31 and s5(2)(c). The amended provision, which in
principle was supported by the parties at mediation is attached below.

12.24

Policy 5 establishes criteria for considering the expansion of a local centre. The provision
is appropriate in signalling that local centre expansion may well be appropriate to provide
additional commercial capacity or better provide for its community. Policy 5 is the
equivalent district plan policy for RPS B3.1 Policy 5 which provides for the managed
expansion of regionally important metropolitan and town centres.

12.25

Ormiston Joint Venture 3963-11 submitted to retain the Policy. The Urban Design
Forum 5277-27, 30 sought to ensure that the provision provided for the need to ensure
coherence and the continuous commercial edge. I opposed that submission as those
matters would be subject to the consideration of the local environmental effects of centre
expansion; requirement of a specific form outcome is unnecessary and may led to
unintended consequences.

12.26

Submitters seek recognition of the importance and functional aspects of supermarkets and
department stores within local centres (DNZ 3863-96, AMP 4376-40, 5723-145, NTC 263220). The functional attributes of these activities and there importance to centre vitality is
identified in paragraph 10.22 to 10.28.

12.27

I have no reservations in applying this principle to supermarkets where these seek to locate
within a local centres. I do not support the qualifier smaller as the matter of scale for
supermarkets would be appropriately determined under Policy 6. I do not support
application of the policy to department stores.

12.28

The basis for the distinction, is that supermarkets are well located within the network of
local centres, provide for local convenience grocery needs, and support the wellbeing of the
local community.

12.29

By comparison, there are a limited number of department stores located in local centres.
General merchandise comparison shopping provided by department stores, are of a
substantial scale, and not targeted at a localised catchment. Accordingly, the scale,
intensity and offer of Department stores is less appropriate in local centres.

Page 63

Accordingly a policy (Policy 6) that seeks to encourage department stores would be

12.30

incongruent with the purpose of the zone, and Objective 1 which sets out that commercial
activity is to primarily servicing local convenience needs. The relief would also necessitate
a more permissive activity status in Activity Table I:3.1.1. It is noted that Department Stores
are not precluded within Local Centres, and would be the subject of Policy 6, as to the
appropriateness of such activities in the local centre.

Policies

1. Enable activities for the local convenience needs of the surrounding residential area, including
local retail, commercial services, office, food and beverage and small scale supermarkets. (DNZ
3863-94)
....
4. Discourage large-scale commercial activity that would adversely affect the:
a. retention and establishment of a mix of activities within the local centre
b. function, role and vitality or amenity of the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town
Centre zones beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade
competitors.
c. safe and efficient operation of the transport network.
4.

Enable large scale commercial activity where this:

a. supports:
i. a diversity of activities within the local centre
ii. the centre's on-going ability to provide for the local convenience needs of its
surrounding community.
b. does not adversely affect:
iii. the safe and efficient operation of the transport network; and
iv. the function, role and amenity of the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre
zones beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade
competitors.
c. manages adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the transport network
including effects on pedestrian safety and amenity.

Page 64

(NTC 2632-24, Warehouse 2748-58, Progressives 5723-144)

5. Provide for the outward expansion of local centres to better provide for community social and
economic well- being, where expansion is suitable for growth in terms of strategic and local
environmental effects.
6. Recognise:
a. the positive contribution small scale supermarkets make to centre viability and
function
b. the functional requirements of these activities
c. where preferred built form outcomes are not achieved, the development needs to
achieve a quality built environment by positively contributing to public open space,
including the activation of streets.
Recognise the positive contribution small scale supermarkets make to local centre viability and
function and the functional requirements of these activities, so that where preferred built form
outcomes are not achieved the development positively contributes to the streetscape and
character of its surroundings.
(NTC 2632-20, Progressives 5723-145)

Miscellaneous

12.31

The submission from McDonalds 4857-41 seeking a more explicit list of activities
anticipated through an additional policy is opposed as being unnecessary. The submission
from Transpower 3766-180 seeking policy provision for the avoidance of adverse effects
on significant infrastructure is opposed. The policy is considered unnecessary within the
context of the Unitary Plan.

13.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description

13.1

The zone description establishes the general purpose of the zone, in comprising single
corner stores or small shopping strips located in residential neighbourhoods.

Page 65

13.2

There is one submission in terms of the form and function of neighbourhood centres. DNZ
3863-97 seek the replacement of daily with frequent in terms of more accurately
describing the extent of convenience needs met at this tier of the centres network. The
submission is supported.

13.3

Two consequential changes are made to the zone description. The amendments reflect the
deletion of the building storey control, and to ensure consistency with other zones where a
resource consent is also required for new development.

13.4

In terms of the RPS provisions, B3.1 Policy 1 recognises the convenience based role of
these centres, unlike Metropolitan and Town Centres which are identified for commercial
intensification (B3.1 Policy 2). The Auckland Plan recognises that Neighbourhood centres
provide day-to-day convenience shopping within walkable neighbourhoods as based on a
84

small group of shops .

13.5

Paragraph 3 is an out of scope change recommended by Auckland Council and proposes

to correct an error on the part of Auckland Council in not including this paragraph as part of
the notified PAUP. As part of their zone descriptions, the Metropolitan, Town and Local
Centre zones all have the following paragraph:
New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is
designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of streets within the area and public
open spaces.

13.6

This paragraph reflects that centres are complex environments where many different
activities complete for limited space.

To ensure that new development contributes

positively to public open spaces and streets, all new buildings within centres zones require
resource consent. I note that the requirement for new buildings to seek resource consent is
addressed in the evidence of Mr Munro.
13.7

All other commercial zones except for the Business Park zone have this reference. While it
is not essential, for consistency purposes with the zone descriptions for the other
commercial zones, I support this addition.

Zone description

This zone applies to single corner stores or small shopping strips located in residential

84

Auckland Plan Box 10.3 Urban Centres Hierarchy

Page 66

neighbourhoods. They provide residents and passers-by with daily frequent retail and commercial
service needs. (DNZ 3863-97)
Provisions typically enable B buildings of up to three storeys high and residential use at upper
floors is permitted. Development is expected to be in keeping with the surrounding residential
environment.
New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed
to a high standard which enhances the quality of streets within the area and public open spaces.

Objectives 1 and 2

13.8

Objective 185 establishes the intended range of commercial activities sought in the zone.
Objective 286 sets out the anticipated scale and intensity of development in neighbourhood
centres in a manner that respects the surrounding environment.

13.9

These Objectives are the subject of submissions of a similar intent to those considered with
respect to Local Centres. Accordingly, as a consequence of the submission from DNZ
3863-98, the term local is recommended to be deleted from Objective 1 as being
redundant, as the remainder of the provision establishes the type and scale of activities
provided for. Objective 2 is supported to be amended through reference to the planning
outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for the surrounding environment through the
submissions of (HNZ 839-10110, Restaurant Brands 449-38).

13.10

Transpower 3766-181 sought a new objective seeking the enablement of infrastructure,

including significant infrastructure. That submission is opposed as matters of infrastructure
are well contained in the stand alone provisions of RPS B3.2.

Objectives

1. Commercial activities within residential areas, limited to a range and scale that meets the local
convenience needs of residents as well as passers-by, are provided in neighbourhood centres.
(DNZ 3863-98)

85
86

HNZC 839-10109, the Oil Companies 2588-14, Restaurant Brands 449-38 sought retention.
The Oil Companies 2588-15 sought retention.

Page 67

2. Neighbourhood centres are developed to a scale and intensity that respects the future planned
character of the surrounding environment.planning outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for
the surrounding environment. (HNZ 839-10110, Restaurant Brands 449-38)

Policies 1 and 4

13.11

Policy 1

87

establishes the range of activities anticipated from neighbourhood centres.

Submissions seek to remove reference to limited (DNZ 3863-98, AMP 4376-42). The
approach recommended by DNZ and AMP is appropriate as the phrase is redundant given
the remainder of the policy specifies the scale and intensity of activities to be provided.

13.12

The submission from Progressive 5723-146 to remove small scale from the Policy is
opposed. Neighbourhood centres are typically small in scale, with a built form predicated by
small scale and fine grain activities, typically in a linear form, and with a high predominance
of food and beverage activities.

13.13

The principles behind Policy 4 seeks to discourage larger scale commercial activities
based on a consideration of their strategic and local effects. The basis of the policy is
discussed in paragraph 12.20. A number of parties seek deletion or amendment to the
88

provision .

13.14

These submissions are opposed. It is considered that the provision of large scale retail
should be discouraged from locating within Neighbourhood Centres, given: the size, scale
and function of such centres; the residential interface associated with the majority of
neighbourhood centres; and potential conflicts with the character and amenity associated
with resultant traffic and pedestrian generation. Policy 4 gives effect to RPS B3:1 Policy 1,
and D:3.6 Objective 1 and 2 as to ensuring neighbourhood centres are developed in a
manner, and of a scale and intensity compatible with its surrounding environment, and
providing for convenience needs.

13.15

Policy criteria (a) to (c) are disjunctive in seeking to manage the adverse effects of large
scale commercial activities. As such the activity is not, in itself precluded. It is considered

87
88

The Oil Companies 2588-16 seek retention.

DNZ 3863-99, 100. AMP Capital 4376-43. Progressives 5723-148

Page 68

this is the appropriate resource management response for managing effects within this tier
of the centres network. Consequential amendments have been made to (a) and a new
inserted (b) to provide consistency with amendments made to equivalent policy. Clause (c)
89

has been amended as set out in the evidence of Mr Wong-Toi .

Policies
1. Provide for limited small scale commercial activities to meet either local or passers-by
convenience needs, including local retail, business services, food and beverage activities.
(DNZ 3863-98, AMP 4376-42)

4. Discourage large-scale commercial activity that: would adversely affect the:

a. would adversely affect the retention and establishment of a mix of activities within
the neighbourhood centre
b. would adversely affect the function, role and vitality or amenity of the City Centre,
Metropolitan and Town Centre zones, beyond those effects ordinarily associated
with trade effects on trade competitors for retail or office activities
c. does not appropriately manage adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation
of the transport network including effects on pedestrian safety and amenity. safe
and efficient operation of the transport network.

Miscellaneous

13.16

The submission from Transpower 3766-182 seeking policy provision for the avoidance of
adverse effects on significant infrastructure is opposed. The policy is considered
unnecessary.

89

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.2.9

Page 69

13.17

Stephen Davies 4823-48 seeks policy providing for the expansion of neighbourhood
centre zones. The submission is opposed. This tier of the centres network is not anticipated
to play a substantial role in providing substantial commercial capacity. The location of many
of these centres, absence of efficient transport network integration, and absence of
surrounding intensified residential development makes a policy approach anticipating
expansion inappropriate.

Page 70

SECTION C:2 THE MIXED USE ZONE AND GENERAL BUSINESS ZONE OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES

14.

D:3.7 MIXED USE CENTRE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description

14.1

90

The zone description establishes the general purpose of the zone . The purpose of the
zone is to provide for a mixture of activities such as offices, retail, entertainment and
residential. Application of the zone is to those locations suitable for intensification,
particularly areas in close proximity to metropolitan and town centres which benefit from
public transport accessibility

14.2

As identified in paragraph 5.6, the policy direction is generally consistent with that
associated with the previous legacy plans, albeit that the wide range and scale of activities
provided for across the legacy zones has been rationalised.

14.3

The spatial application of the zone has resulted in submissions (DNZ3863-102, 104, AMP
4376-47, T Daniels 4600 9, A Jacobs 167-1, DNZ3863-104, AMP Capital 4376-47)
expressing concern as to the enablement of retail activities. That matter is the subject of
new Policy 2A, and the recommended introduction of Rule I:3.2A.

14.4

Paragraph 2 contained an addition made by Council through track changes, in response to

91

a DNZ submission : Cumulative retail development should not occur in a way that results
in an unplanned centre. The addition was deleted during mediation. I agree with this
deletion. The first part of paragraph 2 in the zone description states that the zone provides
for smaller scale commercial activities that do not cumulatively affect the function, role and
amenity of centres.

I consider that this reference addresses the mischief that DNZs

addition sought to address, and I consider this reference sufficient to frame recommended
Policy 2A.

90
91

Susan Song 6101-2, PCNZ 6212-49, Westgate Partnership 4373-104 seek retention of the zone description.
DNZ 3863-102

Page 71

14.5

DNZ 3863-101, AMP Capital 4376-44 seek recognition in the zone description that the
application of the zone includes sections of the rapid and frequent service network. The
submission, which provides a more accurate representation of the zone application is
supported.

14.6

DNZ 3863-102, AMP Capital 4376-45 seek amendments to change the focus of the zone
description to encouraging residential intensification in preference to other activities
provided for in the zone. That relief is not supported, as the zone seeks to enable a broad
range of activities, without providing a specific preference.

14.7

Progressives 5723-149 seek deletion of reference to the zone as being limited to providing
predominantly for smaller scale commercial activities. It is acknowledged that
supermarkets are located within the zone (including at Botany, Takapuna and Ponsonby).
The presence of large scale supermarkets is not a defining characteristic of the zone. Six
of the 11 supermarkets in the zone are less than 2,000m 2 GFA, with only three at a scale
above 4,000m2GFA.

14.8

The zone purpose is not to specifically provide for LFR and supermarkets. If such activities
wish to establish in the zone, the provisions do not preclude that outcome based upon the
consideration of the broader plan framework. The relief is opposed.

14.9

Tim Daniels 4600-9 seeks that the zone description be amended to reflect Policy 2 which
would be more specific as limiting larger retail and office activities. The relief is opposed, as
this matter is adequately conveyed in the zone purpose.

14.10

In terms of the RPS provisions, B2.1 Objective 1 seeks to ensure that land within and
adjacent to centres and frequent public transport routes is the primary focus for residential
intensification. The provisions of B3.1 Policy 5 recognises the importance of the outward
expansion of metropolitan and town centres in terms of providing additional commercial
capacity in a manner that supports the centre network. The Auckland Plan does not
explicitly reference the Mixed Use zone, albeit Directives 10.3 and 10.9 envisage focused
urban intensification in close proximity to centres, and the development and management
of business areas that compliment centres respectively.

Page 72

14.11

Finally, in paragraph 5 the references to the role of Key Retail and General Commercial
92

Frontage provisions have largely been deleted . This is because the Mixed Use zone
should not contain any Key Retail streets as it is not part of the main shopping strips found
in centres. I support this deletion.
Zone description
This zone is typically located around centres and along sections of the rapid and frequent
service network. It acts as a transition area, in terms of scale and activity, between residential
areas and the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones. It also applies to areas where
there is a need for a compatible mix of residential and employment activities.
The zone provides for residential activity as well as predominantly smaller scale commercial
activity that does not cumulatively affect the viability function, role and amenity of centres.
(Consequential to Topic 013 RPS Urban Growth (B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth)
evidence of Matt Bonis) The zone does not specifically require a mix of uses on individual sites
or within areas,. but buildings should be adaptable so that the uses within them can change over
time. Cumulative retail development should not occur in a way that results in an unplanned
centre. (DNZ3863-104, AMP Capital 4376-47)
There is a range of possible building heights depending on the context. The standard zone
height is Provisions typically enable heights up to four storeys. Greater height may be enabled in
areas close to the city centre, metropolitan centres and larger town centres.
Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General
Commercial Frontage overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within
the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these
streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone
rules.
New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is
designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of streets within the area and public
open spaces.

92

In response to The Warehouse 2748-59

Page 73

Objectives 1 and 2

14.12

Objective 1 establishes the intended application of the Mixed Use zone. The submission
from HNZC 839-10114 seeking to remove reference to limited number in the objective is
accepted, as the mixed use zone has been liberally applied.

14.13

Objective 2 seeks to ensure that activities provided for in the Mixed Use zone do not
individually or cumulative impact negatively on adjoining centres.

14.14

The Objective provides for provisions that constrain the scale, extent and agglomeration

of activities (predominantly commercial) as enabled in the mixed use zone. The basis
93

of that constraint, as outlined in the evidence of Mr Akehurst , is that a substantial

dispersal of economic activity from a centre into the adjoining mixed use zone may
result in an inefficient centres network, decrease in centre vitality, and result in
transport inefficiencies. Such an approach would not support RPS B3.1 Policies 2 and
3 which respectively seek to intensify and encourage commercial activity within
centres.
14.15

The objective does not preclude commercial development that supports the population
(residential and business) intensification objectives of the zone.

14.16

The Objective, through mediation has been amended as below:

The Oxford Dictionary defines diminished as having the meaning made smaller,
lessened. This term is more appropriate than the current use of the term detract
which also has the meaning take away from and may unintentionally stray into
matters under s74(4). The Oil Companies 2588-13

Reference to function, role and amenity replaces vitality and viability as a

consistent change within the provisions NTC 2632-26, Warehouse 2748-60; and

Reference to the consideration of Local centres has been inserted as a relevant

consideration of impacts. DNZ 3863-105

93

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.69 -7.79

Page 74

14.17

Inserting reference to local centres is unresolved. I consider such a reference to be

appropriate in the context of provisions in RPS B3.1 and the Auckland Plan that provide
some prominence for local centres in comparison to the Mixed Use zone, and given the
importance of local centres to their communities.

14.18

Submissions seek to retain Objective 3 which encourages a mix of compatible residential

94

and non-residential activities .

14.19

Paragraph 14.11 identifies that the Mixed Use Zone does not contain Key Retail Streets,
making the reference to such within the notified Objective 4 incorrect. Submissions from
NTC 2632-27, The Warehouse 2632-27, DNZ 3863-106, and AMP Capital 4376-49 seek
the deletion of the Objective. T Daniels 4600-12 sought addition of an Objective
establishing the urban design outcomes sought from development. A high level of amenity
is anticipated within the mixed use zone given the interaction and intensity of business and
residential uses, accordingly, and to provide linage to the amenity and design policies of
the zone, the request from Mr T Daniels was agreed at mediation through the replacement
of Objective 4 with:
Mixed Use zoned areas are high amenity places.

14.20

This is amendment is supported.

14.21

NZ Architects 5280-29 seek a new Objective that Larger offices, retail and supermarkets
will locate in close proximity to Metropolitan or Town Centre Zones and be subject to
appropriate frontage controls. Such an objective is opposed as whilst such activities are
not precluded, the amendments would alter the focus of the zone to one that would be less
compatible with the centres network. Substantial managed expansion of the centre zonings
is provided for in RPS B3.1 Policy 5, and for the Local Centres in Policy D3.5 Policy 5.

Objectives
1.

Moderate to high intensity residential and employment opportunities, in a limited number

of areas in close proximity to, or which can support the City Centre, Metropolitan Centre,
and Town Centre zones and the rapid and frequent services network. (HNZC 839-10114)

94

HNZ 839-10115, Z Energy et al 2588-10, PCNZ 6212-47

Page 75

2.

Activities within the zone do not detract from diminish (The Oil Companies 2588-13) the
vitality and viability function, role and amenity (NTC 2632-26, Warehouse 2748-60) of the
City Centre, Metropolitan, and Town and Local Centres. zones (DNZ 3863-105)

3.

A mix of compatible residential and non-residential activities is encouraged.

4.

Mixed Use zoned areas are attractive high amenity places.

Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity, with identified general
commercial streets supporting this role.

Policies 1, 2, 2A, 3, 6 and 7

14.22

Policy 1 establishes the intended application of the Mixed Use zone. As consistent with
amendments to Objective 1, the submission from HNZC 839-10115, NTC 2632-28 and
Warehouse 2748-62 seeking to remove reference to limited number is accepted.

14.23

Policy 2 provides the basis for restrictions in the Activity Table as to the scale of
95

commercial activities enabled in the zone. The provision is appropriate . It seeks to ensure
the range and scale of commercial activities remains compatible with the centres network,
and that the mix of activities and extent of residential intensification anticipated is not
unduly disenfranchised by large scale commercial activities.

14.24

Submissions seek to either be more enabling as to the extent of commercial activities

96

provided for , provide for additional enablement of department stores and malls when well
97

connected to a centre , amend the terminology associated with the consideration of

98

99

distributional effects , or clarify the provision in relation to impacts on local centres .

14.25

A limitation on the scale of commercial (retail and office) activities is appropriate in terms of
maintaining the integrity of the zone. The policy is considered necessary in ensuring that
the zone does not unduly duplicate or diminish the role and function of the centres network.

95
96
97
98
99

The Oil Companies 2588-11 seek retention.

NTC 2632-29, The Warehouse 2748-63, Progressives 5723-150, Hugh Green Ltd 5259-179 (Offices only)
DNZ 3863-108, AMP Capital 4376-50
NTC 2632-30, the Warehouse 2748-64, DNZ 3863-107
DNZ 3863-109

Page 76

Submissions seeking lifting restraints as to the scale of commercial activities, even where
these are proximate to centres is opposed (DNZ 3863-108, AMP Capital 4376-50).

14.26

Submissions seeking to clarify terminology are supported.

14.27

There are two outstanding matters associated with Policy 2 as mediated on below:

Hugh Green Ltd 5259-179 accepts the limitation on retail activities, but disputes the
necessity of limiting the scale of office activities in the Mixed Use Zone.
Office activities in the mixed use zone can provide individual and broader benefits in
terms of redevelopment and reinvestment in sites, and increased intensity in land use.
The costs of dispersed office activities are contained in the evidence of Mr Akehurst in
terms of a dispersal of economic potential, loss of in-centre agglomeration benefits, and
inefficiencies associated with poor integration with public transport initiatives.
It is understood that there is significant zoned capacity to accommodate office growth in
the existing centres network. Additional flexibility in accommodating office activity is
also provided by the Office overlay as outlined by Mr Wyatt and the extent to which
Activity Table provides for moderate size office activities in the mixed use zone as
permitted.
Accordingly, I support restraint on the scale of office activities in the Mixed Use Zone.

The Warehouse 2748-63 have reserved their position on the inclusion of reference to
local centres. I discussed under Objective 2, I consider such a reference to be
appropriate.

14.28

Policy 2A is in response to those matters raised in the specific submission from DNZ 3863108.

14.29

The ability for small scale retail to provide a convenience function for business and
residents within the mixed use zone is a central tenant within the zone purpose.

14.30

However, without adequate controls, an agglomeration of small scale retail (including food
and beverage) could nucleate in the mixed use zone, including around an existing or
consented anchor store (such as a supermarket).

14.31

This would allow the market to disperse retail activities into the mixed use zone at a rate
that could be detrimental to the centres network, disenfranchise residential intensification

Page 77

anticipated in the zone, and may not be supported by existing infrastructure, including
public transport infrastructure.

14.32

The exception is where retail is located at the fringe of an existing centre it is likely to
reinforce the centre, and be consistent with RPS B3.1 Policy 5 which provides for centre
expansion.

14.33

As with any intervention into the market, there would be costs associated with a restriction
on the agglomeration of retail in the mixed use zone. Such an intervention would be
effective in terms of achieving broader policy that seeks to intensify commercial activities in
centres, whilst providing for compatible commercial activities in other business zones.
However, the efficiency of any provision is limited by the extent to which the scale of
agglomerated retail would likely raise the prospect of distributional effects on adjoining
centres and associated infrastructure.

14.34

Overall the addition of Policy 2A as below is supported. It is understood The Warehouse

(2748) would oppose limitations extending from the policy on food and beverage outlets.

14.35

Submissions for the retention of Policy 3 which seeks to enable residential intensification
are supported (HNZ 839-10117, Fletcher 1731-102).

14.36

DNZ 3863-110, AMP 4376-51 sought to encourage residential activities, however the
zone provisions do not create a preference in terms of activities. Lastly, the submissions
from Weaver Hind Ltd 5036-1, M&M Lang 5492-1 seeking recognition and management
of interface issues in terms of maintaining adjoining character is opposed. Such provisions
would substantially diminish the extent of change anticipated by the mixed use zone.

14.37

Policy 6 seeks to ensure that development supports the safe and efficient operation of the
transport network.

14.38

Submissions from Transpower New Zealand (3766-183) seek application of the provision
to significant infrastructure. The relief is opposed as unnecessary within the broader
context of the Unitary Plan. Restaurant Brands seek a qualifier of significant in terms of

Page 78

100

adverse effects on the transport network. Mr Wong-Toi

identifies the importance of

focusing on the management of transport effects and pedestrian safety and amenity, given
the interface of this zone between commercial and residential activities, and associated
modal advantages. As a consequence the qualifier sought by Restaurant Brands is
considered redundant.

14.39

Policy 7 which seeks to recognise the resultant amenity from the anticipated range of uses
in the zone is supported by HCNZ-839-10119 and the Oil Companies 2588-12. The
submissions from Weaver Hind Ltd 5036-2, M&M Lang 5492-2 seek to recognise and
manage interface issues within the policy are opposed for the reasons set out to their relief
to Policy 3. The notified Policy 7 is supported.

Policies
1. Locate the Mixed Use zone in a limited number of suitable locations within a close walk of the
City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones and rapid and frequent services network.
(HNZC 839-10115, NTC 2632-28, Warehouse 2748-62)
2. Limit larger retail and office activities and provide for a range of commercial activities:
a. that will not diminish the function, role and amenity vitality and viability of the City
Centre, Metropolitan, and Town and Local Centres zones, beyond those effects
ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade competitors.
(NTC 2632-30, the Warehouse 2748-64, DNZ 3863-107)
b. that are compatible with the role and function of any nearby Local Centre zones.
(DNZ 3863-109)
2A Limit the agglomeration of retail and food and beverage activities except where they are well
connected to the City Centre, or a Metropolitan, Town or Local Centre.
DNZ 3863-108
3. Enable the development of intensive residential activities.

6. Development should not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the transport

100

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.2.11

Page 79

network.
Manage adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the transport network including
effects on pedestrian safety and amenity.
7. Promote and manage development to a standard of amenity that:
a. recognises the moderate scale, intensity and diversity of business, social and
cultural activities, as well as increases in residential densities provided in the zone
and
b. avoids significant adverse effects on residents.

Miscellaneous
14.40

Progressives 5723-155 seek inclusion of a policy encouraging supermarkets in the mixed

use zone, and recognition of their functional requirements where built form still positively
contributes to streetscape character. Such a relief is opposed.

14.41

Supermarket activities are not encouraged in the mixed use zone, and would be somewhat
incongruent with the purpose of the zone, and broader provisions seeking to intensify
commercial activity in the centre network. Unlike metropolitan and town centres, the
efficient and effective functioning of the mixed use zone is not dependent on the
establishment of a supermarket offer.

14.42

I am unaware of the resource management basis that would necessitate policy recognition
of supermarkets in the mixed use zone, and legislate for a pragmatic response to their
functional design requirements. Parity to similar provisions for these outlets as expressed in
the metropolitan and town centre zones is in my view unjustified. It is noted that there are
specific design assessment matters for supermarkets (I:3.8.1) that apply regardless of the
business zone in which the activity is located.

14.43

N Saunderson 5052-29 seeks policy to protect the sunlight, privacy and character of
dwellings adjacent to the zone. Such a policy is unnecessary as consideration of these
matters are expressed in the provisions of D3.1 General Provisions.

Page 80

15.

D:3.8

GENERAL BUSINESS ZONE SUBMISSIONS

Zone Description

15.1

The General Business Zone is made of those areas that provide for larger format (greater
than 450m2) as well as trade suppliers, e.g. Bunnings, and yard-based retailing, e.g. car
sales yards. The zone purpose identifies that the zone provides for larger scale business
development that may be inappropriate or unable to locate in centres, and sets out the
basis of provisions limiting the range of activities.

15.2

Paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 set out the legacy plan basis for these provisions, and paragraphs
8.49 to 8.56 set out the growth forecasts and functional requirements of large format retail
activities in Auckland.

15.3

The general business zone provides an alternative, and additional capacity to the centres
network to accommodate large format retailing. The zone provisions accommodate retail
within the zone in a different manner to that primarily undertaken through the centre
network (which tend to have a predominance of smaller scale speciality retail). The aim is
to promote compatibility between these two major types of retail offer. I see large format
retailing under the general business zone as being generally compatible with, rather than in
competition with centres. This is reflected in the wording of Objective 2, Policy 3 and
importantly Policy 4 which provides a firm policy directive to avoid smaller scale retail.

15.4

Submissions from NTC 2632-32 and Warehouse 2748-66 seek to provide a focus in the
zone for activities that may be less appropriate in centres. These parties also seek
amendments that recognise that large format retail may not always be desirable in centres
due to functional requirements (NTC 2632-33, Warehouse 2748-67).

15.5

The submissions are supported in part. An amendment recognising business activities that
may less appropriate in centres are facilitated in the zone is suggested, as well as
recognition that it may not always be practical to accommodate Large Format Retail in
centres. These amendments were accepted at mediation.

15.6

Submissions from NTC 2632-36 seek to amend the third paragraph to reference other
areas where the zone may be applicable. The relief is supported and agreed at mediation,
through insertion of the qualifier primarily into the paragraph.
Page 81

15.7

The Warehouse 2748-69 seeks amendments to the second paragraph to change the focus
on the avoidance of small scale retail, to one that seeks to limit the presence of such
activities. Commercial services and food and beverage outlets are provided for the zone as
they do not (unless present in substantial numbers, or in combination with small scale
comparison retail) generate significant distributional effects or disenfranchise the integrity of
the zone. Accordingly, the amendment is supported, including by those parties present at
the mediation with the exception of DNZ (3863).

15.8

DNZ 3863-113 seek to reinforce restrictions on residential activities given opportunity costs
in establishing appropriate commercial activities in the zone. The relief is supported.

15.9

DNZ 3863-114 and AMP Capital 4376-54 seek nuanced demarcation in the zone
description based on proximity to metropolitan and town centres. That relief is opposed as
being unworkable. The relief in The Warehouse 2748-72, and DNZ 3863-114 extends to
removing reference to an active street edge which is supported given the functional
requirements of large format retailers. Consequentially the relief of AMP Capital 5883-37
and Body Corporate 197887 6356-37 seeking recognition of functional requirements in
this instance is unnecessary.

15.10

DNZ 3863-112, AMP 4376-53 seek that paragraph 1 in the zone description be drafted in a
manner that specifically lists activities provided for

101

, and that impacts of large format

activities on local centres will be considered. The relief is opposed. An exhaustive list of
activities anticipated in the zone description is unnecessary. Activities in local centres are
primarily made up of small scale retail serving localised needs; this is distinct form a zone
characterised by large format retail which will have a substantially different form, role and
catchment. Local centres and the general business zones should remain compatible,
except where activities within the general business zones starts to provide an overlapping
function through the provision of small scale convenience and comparison shopping
opportunities.

15.11

The change I consider significant is in paragraph 3, where The design of development

within this zone is expected to contribute to an active street edge has been deleted. The

101

As does Harvey Norman 5924-27

Page 82

part of the building frontage rule in I:4.6 that supports this statement has been deleted and
this statement is no longer valid. I support the amendment.

15.12

I also note that there is an out of scope change in the last paragraph of the zone
description. As with the zone description for the Neighbourhood Centre zone, Council
proposes an addition to include a reference to new development within the zone requiring
resource consent and being designed to a good standard. While it is not essential, for
consistency purposes with the zone descriptions for the other commercial zones, I support
this addition.

15.13

The requirement for new development to obtain resource consent based on design
expectations has been added to provide consistency with the remainder of the business
sections. All parties at mediation have agreed.

15.14

It is understood from mediation that the only outstanding matter is that DNZ (3863) reserve
their position with regard to those matters discussed in paragraph 15.7.

Zone description
This zone provides for business activities that may not be less (NTC 2632-32 and Warehouse
2748-66) appropriate for, or are unable to locate in, centres. This includes activities ranging from
light industrial to limited office, large format retail and trade suppliers. Large format retail is
preferred in centres but it is recognised that this is not always possible, or practical (NTC 263233, Warehouse 2748-67). These activities are appropriate in the General Business zone only
when this does not adversely affect the vitality and viability function, role and amenity102 of the
City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones. Although the application of the zone within
Auckland is limited, it is an important part of the Unitary Plans strategy to provide for growth in
commercial activity and manage the effects of large format retail.
The establishment of small Small retail activities are not appropriate in the zone should be
limited as the presence of these activities, in combination with large format retail, will can
effectively create an unplanned centre. (Warehouse 2748-69) Residential activity is also not
envisaged due to the potential (The Warehouse 2748-70) presence of light industrial activities
and the need to preserve land for appropriate commercial activities (DNZ 3863-113)

102

Consequential to Topic 013 RPS Urban Growth (B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth) evidence of Matt Bonis

Page 83

out-of-centre commercial opportunities.

The zone is located primarily (NTC 2632-36) in areas close to the City Centre, Metropolitan and
Town Centre zones or along within identified growth corridors, where there is good transport
access and exposure to customers. The design of development within this zone is expected to
contribute to an active street edge. (The Warehouse 2748-72, DNZ 3863-114)
New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is
designed to a good standard.

Objectives 1, 2 and 3

15.15

Objective 1 seeks to provide a zone for business activities that may not be appropriate or
able to be accommodated in the centres network.

15.16

Objective 2 sets out criteria for the spatial application of the zone. The objective also
outlines matters of distributional effects on other centres, and employment outcomes. In
providing for all these matters, the objective as notified loses some focus.

15.17

Submissions to Objective 1 seek a more absolute expression of the enablement of the

zone. Activities are provided for in the zone provided that they are not appropriate in the
centre zones (DNZ 3863-115, AMP Capital 4376-55).

15.18

Submissions to Objective 2 include:

DNZ 3863-116, AMP Capital 4376-56 seeking replacement of Objective 2 with a

new objective setting out the need for activities in the zone to not detract from the
viability and vitality of the City Centre, Metropolitan, Town and Local Centre zones.

NTC 2632-38, The Warehouse 2748-73 seeking recognition that the zone can be
applied to areas with good transport access, and CLC Auckland Trust
(Incorporated) 5815-2 seeking recognition of the suitability of growth areas,
including the Airport for the application of the General Business zone;

Harvey Norman 5924-29 and Body Corporate 197887 6356-38 seeking to remove
any need to consider impacts on the centres network.

Page 84

15.19

As a consequence of the submissions and mediation, Objectives 1 and 2 have been

reordered to improve clarity. These changes were agreed at mediation.

15.20

Objective 1 has been amended to recognise that business activities are provided for where
they may be less appropriate for a centre location. This relief is a consequential
amendment from NTC 2632-32 and Warehouse 2748-66. Accordingly the more absolute
relief sought by DNZ 3863-115, AMP Capital 4376-55 is opposed. However, the relief from
DNZ 3863-116, AMP Capital 4376-56 is supported in part as the distributional impact
considerations have been relocated to Objective 1. The relief from Harvey Norman 592429 and Body Corporate 197887 6356-38 is opposed as these distributional considerations
are a critical component in ensuring that the broader provisions of B:3.1 are achieved.

15.21

Objective 2 has been amended. Firstly consideration of employment opportunities is

removed as the activities anticipated will not result in intensified employment. Secondly,
given that the zone could be appropriately applied to areas other along IGCs or in close
proximity to the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones, reference to or in other
areas where appropriate has been inserted with the criteria in RPS B3.1 Policy 8 providing
criteria as to what would be considered appropriate in that context. (NTC 2632-38, The
Warehouse 2748-73, CLC Auckland Trust (Incorporated) 5815-2).

15.22

Objective 3 is supported by the Oil Companies 2588-18.

Objectives

1. Business activities are provided for that may not be less appropriate for, or are not able to
locate in centres, while ensuring activities within the zone do not diminish the function, role
and amenity of these centres. NTC 2632-32 and Warehouse 2748-66, DNZ 3863-116, AMP
Capital 4376-56
2. Additional employment opportunities exist in a limited number of The zone is located primarily
in areas which are located along identified growth corridors or close to the City Centre,
Metropolitan and Town Centre zones, or in other areas where appropriate. while ensuring
activities within the zone do not detract from diminish the function, role and amenity vitality and
viability of these centres
NTC 2632-38, The Warehouse 2748-73, CLC Auckland Trust (Incorporated) 5815-2
3. A mix of compatible business activities exist, where the adverse effects on amenity values and
Page 85

the environmental qualities at the interface with other zones are managed.

Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8

15.23

Policy 1 seeks to achieve Objective 2 in identifying the anticipated application of the

general business zone. NTC 2632-39, The Warehouse 2748-74 and CLC Auckland Trust
5815-3 seek recognition that the zone could be applied in areas other than in close
proximity to the city centre, metropolitan and town centre zones and along identified growth
corridors, as appropriate. The amendment is consistent with changes to Objective 2 and is
supported.

15.24

DNZ 3863-118 and AMP Capital 4376-58 seek amendments to the Policy to ensure
reference to local centres; and to provide for the application of the zone based on proximity
to metropolitan and town centres. That latter relief is opposed as being unworkable. That
aspect of the relief in relation to referencing local centres is achieved in part through
amendments made referencing other locations as appropriate through the NTC 2632-39,
The Warehouse 2748-74 submissions.

15.25

Policy 2 seeks to identify the range of activities that due to in-centre capacity constraints,
the nature of the activity or its functional requirements, are anticipated in the zone in a
manner that achieves Objective 1.

15.26

Submissions from DNZ 3863-119 and AMP Capital 4367-19 seek to extend recognition of
Policy 2(b) to local centres. The relief is opposed as unnecessary. The range of activities
anticipated with the general business zone, being larger footprint retail, trade suppliers and
lighter industry is not provided for within the local zone as per the provisions of D3.5.

15.27

The policy was supported at mediation, albeit with the inconsequential amendment to move
the reference to light industry to improve legibility in the interpretation of the policy.

15.28

Policy 3

103

seeks to manage the distributional impacts of activities in the general business

zone, in a manner to achieve Objective 1. As with other consistent provisions for the

103

The Oil Companies 2588-19 seek retention.

Page 86

business section, the basis for the provision is envisaged by RPS B:3.1 Policy 8
(commercial activities enabled in other areas), and the Auckland Plan Directive 10.9 which
seeks that business areas complement centres without undermining their role and function.

15.29

DNZ 863-120 and AMP Capital 4367-60 seek that the provision extends to Local Centres.
Such a relief is considered unnecessary. Policy 4 provides a more directive restraint on
small scale retail activities located within the general business zone. That restraint would
preclude the prospect of the general business zone generating significant distributional
effects on local centres through duplicating the range of activities that could be found at the
local centre tier of the hierarchy.

15.30

Progressives 5723-156 seeks to discourage, rather than avoid significant distributional

effects as set out in this policy. Such an approach is considered inconsistent with the
purpose of the policy as set out in paragraph 15.28, and would decrease certainty in the
application of the policy.

15.31

The purpose of Policy 4 is to avoid small scale retail in the zone, excepting commercial
services and food and beverage outlets. This policy provides the key principle of the zone
to avoid smaller speciality stores which are best described as communal retailers who
occupy premises in pedestrian orientated shopping areas with stores of up to 450m 2 GFA,
but are usually smaller. They are specialists in their field, e.g. fashion apparel, footwear
and cosmetics.

15.32

Therefore, this policy and associated provisions (minimum GFA rule in the Activity Table) is
critical to attaining the environmental results anticipated for the general business zone, and
to ensure the zone remains compatible with the overall distribution and pattern of
commercial activity within the City.

15.33

Submissions from the Warehouse 2748-75 and Progressives 5723-157 to limit rather
than avoid small scale retail are opposed, as are submissions from Harvey Norman 592430 and Body Corporate 197887 6356-39 to delete the policy.

15.34

Policy 5 seeks to provide for light industry activities, discouraging those activities that
generate objectionable nuisance. The provision is supported. The Policy recognises the
likely built form and amenity compatibility between light industrial activities, trade suppliers
and in many instances large format retail activities. Amenity expectations associated with
Page 87

the zone is also not as high as that associated with the centres network. In that respect, the
general business zone is paired with the light industry zone in terms of nuisance standards
such as noise (H:6.2.1 (Table 6)). Accordingly, submissions from AMP Capital 5883-38,
Body Corporate 197887 6356-40 and Harvey Norman 5924-31 seeking to avoid light
industrial activities that could result in objectionable nuisance effects are opposed.

15.35

Policy 6

104

seeks to manage compatibility of activities, through site layout and design

measures. Submissions from AMP Capital 5883-39, Harvey Norman 5924-32 and Body
Corporate 6356-41 seek to include reference to the ability to impose conditions of consent.
This addition is considered as unnecessary.

15.36

Policy 8 seeks to manage effects on the transport network. This matter is considered by Mr
105

Wong-Toi

. Submissions from NTC 2632-41 and The Warehouse 2748-77 seek a

qualifier so that only significant effects are to be considered. The policy has been
refocused so that it is the adverse effects that are to be managed, not that the development
itself should not result in adverse effects on the transport network. As outlined by Mr
Wong-Toi, this is an appropriate response given that the zone promotes high trip
generating larger scale retail activities, and to ensure consistency with RPS B3:3
Objectives 2 and 4, and Policies 5 and 9(c), (d). In this respect the submissions are
supported.

15.37

Submissions from Transpower New Zealand (3766-184) seek application of the provision
to significant infrastructure. The relief is opposed as unnecessary within the broader
context of the Unitary Plan.

Policies

1. Locate the zone adjacent or close to the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones
and along within identified growth corridors and in other areas where appropriate.
(NTC 2632-39, The Warehouse 2748-74 and CLC Auckland Trust 5815-3)
2. Enable a range of business activities, including light industry, large format retail, trade
suppliers, light industry and small service activities that are either:

104
105

The Oil Companies 2588-20 seek retention.

Evidence Mr Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.2.13

Page 88

a. difficult to accommodate within centres due to their scale and functional requirements
b. more appropriately located outside of the City Centre, Metropolitan Centre or Town
Centre zone.
3. Avoid commercial activity of a scale and type locating within the zone that will detract from
diminish the function, role and amenity vitality and viability of the City Centre, Metropolitan and
Town Centre zones beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade
competitors.
Consequential to Topic 013 RPS Urban Growth (B3.1 Commercial and Industrial
Growth) evidence of Matt Bonis
4. Avoid small-scale retail activities locating within the zone except for commercial services and
food and beverage activities.
5. Enable light industrial activities to locate within the zone but discourage activities which have
objectionable odour, dust or noise emissions.
6. Manage compatibility issues of activities within and between developments through site layout
and design measures.

8. Manage development so that it does not adverse effects on ly affect the safe and efficient
operation of the transport network. NTC 2632-41, The Warehouse 2748-77

Miscellaneous

15.38

Progressives 5723-159 seek inclusion of a policy encouraging supermarkets in the

general business zone. The provision is opposed for the reasons set out in paragraphs
14.40 to 14.42 substituting reference from the mixed use zone to the general business
zone.

Page 89

SECTION C:3 CHAPTER E:4.5 IDENTIFIED GROWTH CORRIDOR OVERLAY

16.

IGC OVERVIEW

16.1

The statutory background to Identified Growth Corridors is contained in my B3.1 evidence.

In brief:

Change 6 to the RPS(2012) sought to implement the 1999 Regional Growth Concept.
The growth concept accommodated business and residential intensification in both
centres and corridors;

Policy 2.6.5.2 of the RPS(2012) provided for Intensive Corridors for commercial
enablement pending a classification framework, and as subject to criteria. The
approach, considered necessary given the Auckland growth context, was overtaken by
the formation of Auckland Council.

RPS Objective B:3.1.2 and Policy B:3.1.1 enables commercial intensification on

identified growth corridors, which with commercial intensification in centres provides the
primary focus for Aucklands commercial growth. Policy B:3.1 Policy 7 sets out the
criteria for the application of IGCs, as well as managing land use effects.

16.2

Paragraph 4.10 of my B3.1 evidence states:

An agreed shortcoming of the notified PAUP is the extent to which Integrated Growth Corridors
are identified. The notified AUP contains only one IGC, Lincoln Road. The limited application
reflects issues associated with defining and demarcating IGCs given: competing interests,
supply / demand imbalances at the Local Board level, current land use patterns, and transport
conflicts. Policy 7 provides the mechanism for notating and recognising a secondary preference
for commercial developments that are inappropriate for or unable to locate in centres. The
approach is preferable to a more diffuse commercial distribution, but is reliant on a limited
number of additional IGCs being introduced at the District Plan hearings.

16.3

106

Ms Fairgray

, identifies generally a regional supply demand balance in terms of the

provision of retail activity. However, Ms Fairgray identifies two sub-regional areas in

Auckland where capacity deficits exist:
The first is the middle of the North Shore, where capacity deficits are shown for Wairau Valley,
Glenfield, Constellation Drive and, within the low capacity scenario Milford, areas. The second
sub-regional area is across the mid-western side of the isthmus, where capacity deficits are

106

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraphs 6.13 6.17

Page 90

shown for Newmarket, St Lukes, Mt Albert, Balmoral, Eden Valley, Greenlane and, within the
low capacity scenario Greenlane, areas.

16.4

The purpose of IGCs is provide a release valve for additional retail opportunities.

16.5

The notified Objectives and Policies for IGCs is set out at Chapter E.4.5. The provisions
sought to provide for a mix of compatible commercial activities unable or inappropriate to
accommodate in centres (Objective E:4.5.1). Where significant distributional effects are
managed (Objective E:4.5.1), and activities are integrated with the transport environment
(Objective E:4.5.2), and adverse effects on the surrounding area are managed (Objective
E:4.5.3).

16.6

Only Lincoln Road is identified in the notified PAUP as an IGC

16.7

The Independent Hearings Panels preliminary findings on the Regional provisions (RPS
Topic 013, dated 20 March 2015) accepted commercial growth on transport corridors as
well as centres.

16.8

Submissions from Sally Peake 2418-77 seek to delete IGCs as the mechanism seems to
promote big box retail. DNZ 3863-121 and AMP Capital 4376 also seek deletion on the
basis that additional retail capacity is unnecessary.

16.9

There is a recognised inability to accommodate all retail demand with the commercial
zones, where further provision for retail location in the form of IGCs may be complementary
to the centres network

16.10

107

An inadequate number of IGCs, coupled with a restrictive approach to commercial

provision, renders the mechanism redundant. Too many IGCs will promote a diffuse pattern
of commercial activity to the detriment of the centres network.

16.11

Kiwi 5253-19, seek to retain the overlay, and amend objectives to envisage development
of limited types of stand alone large format shops to meet demand from intensification.
That submission is supported.

107

Evidence Fairgray. paragraph 4.2

Page 91

17.

THE NECESSITY FOR RULES TO ACHIEVE THE POLICY

17.1

The Warehouse 2748-31 and Kiwi 5253-22, seek greater certainty as to activity outcomes
anticipated in the zone through the addition of rules.

17.2

The notified approach of a policy overlay has limited utility. It would provide policy
relevance in terms of s104((b)(vi) as a relevant provision(s) of the Auckland Unitary Plan
providing support for increased commercial activity on an application site, as well as zoning
plan changes.

17.3

There are benefits in terms of policy recognition of commercial enablement, and the ability
for Council to manage incremental effects.

17.4

The economic and social costs of such an approach include increased uncertainty as the
expected range of activities provided for within the zone framework, and the provision of
supporting infrastructure. In terms of market signals, the approach does not provide
investment certainty. Reliance only on the policy approach may well decrease the utility
and benefit of the IGC mechanism in favour of non-centre locations.

17.5

The approach is considered broadly effective

B3.1. In terms of efficiency

108

in implementing the broader provisions of

109

, the approach is somewhat inefficient, primarily through

identifying overlay areas, and yet retaining discretion through retention of the underlying
zone activity table.

17.6

An alternative approach would provide a more lenient Activity Table which confirms the
status and range of activities provided by the overlay.

17.7

The benefits of that approach is that certainty is increased. Prospective applicants can:
focus on the activity status of the proposed activity and associated assessment matters
(where RDA); rely on a more robust consideration of what constitutes an IGC environment
for the purposes of s104(a), as well as reliance on s104(b)(iv) as it relates to the Section

108
109

How successful a provision is in achieving the stated objective

Whether the benefits of the provision outweigh the costs, either immediately or over time.

Page 92

E:4.5 provisions. Similarly the Auckland Council and the community have increased
certainty as to the environmental outcomes and infrastructure required to support the long
term land uses.

17.8

The costs of the approach are: a reduction in the ability of the Council and community to
accommodate localised characteristics; and manage incremental adverse effects.
However, these implications can be overcome with: the appropriate and limited application
of the IGC notation; reliance on the traffic generation assessment matters of H1.2.5.2.1A
Exceeding the traffic generation threshold; and ensuring restricted discretionary activity
status where management of specific effects is necessary.

17.9

Accordingly, the addition of an Activity Table is seen as being more effective and efficient in
implementing B:3.1 Policy 7, and the objectives of E:4.5. Consequently identification of the
spatial extent of the overlay to individual properties is necessary. The submissions from
The Warehouse 2748-31 and Kiwi 5253-22 are supported. The approach was agreed at
mediation.

18.

PROVISIONS

Overlay Description

18.1

It is understood that the existing zoned capacity provides for forecast growth in office
employment. Accordingly, the purpose of the IGC can be appropriately narrowed to
accommodate deficits in the retail sector only. This matter was agreed at mediation.

18.2

The Warehouse Ltd 2748-41/42 sought amendments to the overlay description removing
reference to promoting integrated transport.

18.3

The evidence of Mr Wong-Toi highlights that dispersed retail activities will not optimise the
integration of land use and transport. The purpose of the IGCs is however to provide a
pragmatic release valve for centre capacity deficits, and accordingly integrated transport
will not necessarily be promoted. Retention of an outcome expressing such would be
incorrect, and the submission is supported.

Page 93

18.4

Individual properties subject to the IGC overlay will be notated on the planning maps.
Submissions as to the application of the IGC can be deleted.

18.5

Unitec Institute of Technology 2742-209 seek to amend the overlay description to

promote mixed urban development along significant growth corridors. The approach is
supported in part. IGCs will provide for additional opportunities for retail growth in notated
Identified Growth Corridors. However, the approach is not aimed at fostering substantial
intensification.

18.6

The amendments to the overlay, including consequential amendments is identified in

Attachment B. All the amendments were agreed at mediation.

Objectives

18.7

The submission from Unitec Institute of Technology 2742-210 seeking a new Objective
1A to enable development along significant growth corridors that support the Plans growth
strategy is opposed as being unnecessary.

18.8

The IGC approach achieves that part of the growth strategy as outlined in Objective B3.1.2
and Policy B3.1.1 and Policy B3.1.7.

18.9

The approach does not seek to implement Objective B2.1.3 and associated Policy B2.1.2
(b) which seek to enable higher residential densities in areas close to the frequent
transport routes and facilities. Residential intensification is achieved through the zoning
framework, and in particular application of the mixed use zone, and the mixed housing /
terrace housing and apartment buildings zones.

18.10

The approach will provide for greater retail enablement where the overlay relates to the
Mixed Use zone or residential zones. This may act in a manner that reduces opportunities
for residential intensification, however the extent to which residential intensification is
reduced is dependent on the application of the overlay.

18.11

Objective 1 establishes the purpose of the zone in seeking to provide additional

commercial capacity, subject to managing distributional effects. There are no submissions
to the objective. The objective has been narrowed to only provide for retail activities; that
matter was agreed at mediation.
Page 94

18.12

Objective 2 relates to amenity expectations. Kiwi 5253-19 sought that that the objective
require an appropriate level of amenity. That amendment would provide recognition of the
underlying zone characteristics within the context of the functional requirements of the
proposed activity. This approach is consistent with assessment criteria in I:8.1. Such an
amendment is supported and was agreed at mediation.

18.13

Objective 3 provides for activities to minimise their adverse effects. The Warehouse 274844 sought that activities remain compatible with the surrounding area. During mediation,
and supported by parties in attendance, the provision was amended to include reference to
RMA s5(2)(c).

18.14

The amendments to objectives, including consequential amendments are identified in

Attachment B. All the amendments were agreed at mediation.

Policies

18.15

Policy 1 seeks to limit the application of the overlay. Policy 2 seeks to assessment
applications for commercial activities against criteria in RPS B3.1 Policy 7.

18.16

The policies were subject to submissions seeking: deletion of Policy 1 (the Warehouse
2748-44); replacement of Policy 2 with B3.1 Policy 7 Lincoln Junction 5315-2; and Kiwi
5253-19 seeking amendments to provide for limited types of stand-alone retail. Unitec
Institute of Technology 2742-211 sought amendment to promote quality development.

18.17

Policy 1 is sought to be amended (Lincoln Junction 5315-2) making it explicit that the
broader application of the criteria contained in B3.1 Policy 7 are to be applied to the
application of the IGC. Reference to frontage or access has been inserted (the
Warehouse 2748-44) recognising that for a number of sites, whilst the extent of frontage
may be limited, principal access and visibility to the site may still be attained from the IGC.
Lastly, the submission from Unitech 2742-211 to promote quality environments has led to
the insertion of criteria requiring compatibility with surrounding activities. The amended
Policy is identified in Attachment B as agreed by all parties present at mediation.

Page 95

18.18

A new Policy 2 has been inserted which seeks to recognise the function requirements of
large format retail, as consistent with the assessment criteria in I:8.1. Providing for such
activities through the overlay, and yet imposing unrealistic design controls would undermine
the basis of the overlay. The policy does not extend to recognising the importance of
particular retail activities as being located in non-centre locations, and is supported on that
basis. The policy was agreed at mediation.

18.19

New Policies 3 and 4 are more explicit as to the criteria considered for commercial
activities in business zones (Policy 3) and residential zones (Policy 4). These policies
replace notified Policy 2. These amendments support the submissions from Kiwi 5253-19,
Lincoln Junction 5312-2 which seek to replace Policy 2 with the relevant provisions of
B:3.1 Policy 7.

18.20

Respectively, these seek to consider matters associated with relevant distributional effects
(clause (a)), effects on community wellbeing and accessibility (clause (b)), impacts on the
safe and efficient operation of the transport system including public transport and the road
network (clause (c)), and conflicts between incompatible activities (clause (d)). Additional to
these requirements is the need to consider compatibility with residential character for retail
activities proposed on IGCs applied to residential zones.

18.21

The approach was agreed at mediation.

18.22

Mr Wong-Toi

110

recommends for Policy 3(c) replacement of transport system with

transport network to ensure consistency with Transport Provisions C.1. I agree with that
change, as amended below.
3. Require applications for retail activities in business zones to be assessed with
regard to:
...
c. impacts on the safe and efficient operation of the transport system network
including public transport and the road network

110

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.28

Page 96

18.23

Those matters in B3.1 Policy 7, omitted from Policy 3 relating to impacts on urban form,
development on the scarce industrial land resource, and integration of land and
infrastructure remain relevant in terms of IGCs application.

19.

IGC ACTIVITY TABLE AND MATTERS OF DISCRETION

19.1

The overlay does not replace the existing PAUP zone and associated provisions. An
Activity Table therefore (The Warehouse 2748-31 and Kiwi 5253-22) is required to
establish with clarity the status for retail activities within the overlay.

19.2

Additional matters of discretion (3.1) and Assessment criteria (3.2) are necessary to
appropriately consider retail activities where these establish within the overlay. These
matters were agreed at mediation. The matters directly relate to those criteria identified in
Policy 3 relating to effects on: centres; the transport system, and reverse sensitivity.

19.3

111

Mr Wong-Toi

has identified that reference to Auckland wide transport assessment

criteria for exceeding the traffic generation threshold (H1.2.5.2.1A) is appropriate. Such
discretion is necessary to consider the effects on the transport network in terms of: the safe
and efficient operation of the transport network; trip characteristics of the proposed activity;
and associated mitigation measures. Mr Wong-Toi also identifies that it is important to
reference the need for developments to consider the integration with programmed network
112

improvements or transport infrastructure upgrades

. These matter as agreed with, are

identified below.

19.4

It was agreed at mediation that the Activity Table should only be applied to Retail, and that
the application of the Activity Table would determine the status of the Activity based on the
most lenient status with the underlying zone. With the exception of Retail up to 450m2
(DNZ 3863 and AMP Capital 4376 reserved their position), the approach is supported.

19.5

At mediation Auckland Council reserved their discretion with regard to seeking a

discretionary activity status for supermarkets and department stores, and for retail greater
than 450m2 GFA per tenancy when located within the residential zone.

111
112

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.28

Evidence Wong=Toi. Paragraph 5.4.23.

Page 97

19.6

In my view, the recommended number of IGCs, coupled with the requirement for consent
(as an RDA) is appropriate in terms of considering the spatial implications of Retail greater
than 450m2 GFA / tenancy, as inclusive of supermarkets and department stores.
Supermarkets and department stores are already present in a number of the recommended
IGC locations (Stoddard Road, Wairau Road, Lincoln Road).

19.7

There would be concern where IGCs were to be liberally applied. Supermarkets and
department stores are key anchors within centres. A larger number of IGCs coupled with an
RDA status may well provide for greater dispersal of supermarkets and department stores
in a manner not supported of B:3.1 Policies 2, 3 and 4. Those RPS policies seek to
encourage commercial activities that support centres, to locate in centres.

19.8

The recommended IGCs do not incorporate residential zones. Future application of IGCs
may well be applied to residential areas as appropriate, and provided for in B:3.1 Policy 7.
There may be instances where the application of an IGC would appropriately apply to
discrete residential areas. I support a discretionary activity status for retail greater than
450m2 where applied in a discrete residential context.

19.9

I support a Discretionary activity status for Food and Beverage, and Retail up to 450m 2
GFA per tenancy. The basis of that support is the need to consider the full range of effects
and implications on policy from a broader agglomeration of retail activities.

19.10

The proposed Rules, Development Controls and Assessment are provided below:

1. Activity table

The following table specifies the land use activities in the Identified Growth Corridor overlay. The
land use activity status is to be determined in accordance with the underlying zoning of the site
unless the following table applies a more lenient activity status.

Activity
Food and Beverage

Retail up to 450m GFA per tenancy

2

Retail greater than 450m GFA per tenancy

RD

Retail greater than 450m2 GFA per tenancy

with a residential zone

D / NC

Page 98

Trade Suppliers

RD

2. Development controls

The development controls for the underlying zone shall apply.

3. Assessment restricted discretionary activities

3.1 Matters of Discretion

The council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the activities listed as restricted
discretionary in the activity table:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Effects of new buildings

Effects on centres
Reverse sensitivity
Traffic generation

3.2 Assessment criteria

The council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the restricted discretionary
activities listed above.
1. The criteria in I3.8, Assessment - Integrated retail developments, supermarkets, and
department stores, large format retail and trade suppliers if relevant.
2. The criteria in H1.2.5.2.1A Assessment - Traffic Generation Threshold.
3. The integration of the development with transport network improvements or transport
infrastructure upgrades where implementation is programmed
4. The relevant assessment criteria for the underlying zone shall apply.
5. The extent to which the proposal will generate adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on
the function, role and amenity of the city centre, metropolitan, town and local centres, beyond
those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade competitors.
6. The extent to which the form and scale of buildings on sites in Residential zones are compatible
with the residential character of adjacent sites if occupied by residential activity.
7. For activities on sites in Light Industrial zones, the extent to which reverse sensitivity effects on
neighbouring industrial activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

20.

APPLICATION OF THE IGC

20.1

Kiwi 5253-21 and the Warehouse 2748-30 seek identification of additional IGCs. Kiwi
seeks application of the overlay should be applied on major arterial routes that are or are
Page 99

intended in the future well served by public transport; pass through business or industrial
zoned land as opposed to residential or open space areas; and are in close proximity to
residential areas that can be served efficiently and appropriately by commercial
developments. The Warehouse seeks application of the overlay to additional arterial
roads [including sections of Great North Road, New North Road, Great South Road and Ti
Rakau Drive] as stated in submission [page 28/132].
20.2

Further application of IGCs requires consideration of the strategic and localised effects as
established in B:3.1 Policy 7. These include:

Strategic considerations
-

Urban form and structure (B:3.1Policy 7a(i),(ii), (iii), (vi)). In my view, these
matters relate to capacity constraints in the existing centres network,
displacement

of

industrial

opportunities,

the

extent

of

commercial

development present, and the prospect of additional retail opportunities

resulting in relevant distribution effects. These matters are considered in the
evidence of Ms Fairgray and Mr Akehurst.
-

Integration with infrastructure, including the public transport and arterial road
networks (B:3.1 Policy 7a(iv), (v)). Matters associated with the transport
network are considered in the evidence of Mr Wong-Toi.

Localised effects
-

Impacts on the localised transport network (B:3.1Policy 7a (v)). Matters

associated with the transport network are considered in the evidence of Mr
Wong-Toi, and would be considered pursuant to recommended assessment
matters.

Amenity, including avoiding conflicts between incompatible activities (B:3.1

Policy 7a(vii), (viii) Policy 7b (ii). Matters relating to the displacement of
industrial activities is considered by Ms Fairgray and Mr Akehurst, matters
associated with interface amenity is addressed through assessment matters.

20.3

Planners for both Auckland Council and submitters identified potential IGC candidates
across Auckland. These were:

Constellation Drive

Wairau Road

Lincoln Road

Great North Road in Kelston

Page 100

Great North Road in Arch Hill

New North Road in Kingsland

Stoddard Road

Pilkington Road

Ti Rakau Drive

Great South Road in Takanini

20.4

The spatial extent of these corridors is identified in the evidence of Ms Fairgray

20.5

Through mediation, the following IGCs were agreed

Wairau Road;

New North Road, Kingsland

Stoddard Road

Wairau Road
20.6

This segment has an area of 25ha, and a length of 1.4km. The notified zoning is light
industry, with a general business zoning applied to Link Drive / Croftfield Lane. The nearest
centre is Takapuna, some 2.7km to the south east. Wairau Road is located centrally within
the North Shore and in the middle of centres such as Glenfield, Northcote, Birkenhead and
Milford.

20.7

Ms Fairgray identifies this location as being within an area of retail deficit,

113

not met within

the proposed commercial zonings. Despite a light industrial zoning, the share of floorspace
114

for retail and commercial services is some 51%

, with observations confirming the large

extent of trade supplier (30,000m2) activity present on the corridor, including Bunnings and
Mitre10. Key core retail present includes Pak n Save.

20.8

115

Other large format retail accounts for 5,500m2 of floorspace

. Ms Fairgray identifies that

Wairau Road represents a more appropriate candidate for an IGC (than Constellation
116

Drive) in providing for capacity deficits in this area

113
114
115
116

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.14

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.10.
Evidence Fairgray. Table 2,
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.13, 8.14.

Page 101

20.9

117

Mr Wong-Toi identifies transport conditions

, and also identifies that this corridor is one of

118

the least appropriate in terms of public transport accessibility and transport efficiency

These constraints detract from application of an IGC to this corridor, but can, in my view, be
overcome from consideration of traffic generation impacts for future retail developments as
provided by the assessment matters. However given that the predominant character of this
environment is commercial, recognition as an IGC is appropriate.

New North Road, Kingsland

20.10

This city centre fringe mixed use zoned area is 6ha in area, with a length of 700m. The
Kingsland Town Centre is located some 1.85km to the south east. The area which contains
a significant proportion of industrial, retail and office-based uses, would through
redevelopment provide additional retail capacity for deficits identified in the central
119

isthmus

20.11

Mr Wong-Toi identifies that this area is well located in terms of being proximate to centres
120

and residential intensification

, as well as frequent and efficient public transport

121

options

Stoddard Road
20.12

Consisting of Town Centre zone (both the southern and northern frontage between
Richardson Road), mixed use zone and general business zones, this 22ha area has a
length of 1.7km.

20.13

There is considerable presence of industrial, retail and office-based uses, with large format
retail accounting for 3,600m2, Supermarket floorspace of 10,500m2 and Trade Suppliers
122

5,000m2.

The commercial focus and presence in this area has been increased through

the recent establishment of a New World Supermarket and The Warehouse to the east.

117
118
119
120
121
122

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.18

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.10, 5.4.14
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 6.49.
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.25
Evidence. Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.11
Evidence Fairgray. Table 2, Paragraph 8.11(viii)

Page 102

Between this area and the town centre, is a mature building stock, containing smaller retail,
commercial and industrial businesses.

20.14

Ms Fairgray has identified that this area has a small surplus of retail capacity, and that any
deficit in the central isthmus is better met through the centres network and application of an
IGC at Kingsland. However, application of an IGC allows for the managed development of
retail development expansion of the Town Centre and is consistent with the commercial
character of this area. Mr Akehurst identifies that an IGC in this location is well suited to
both meet that portion of retail deficit identified in Ms Fairgrays evidence in the isthmus,
and provide an environment well suited as an alternative location for large format retail

20.15

123

124

Mr Akehurst

, has considered the commercial and retail character of Stoddard Road. He

outlines that this surrounding area is likely to transition under the Unitary Plan with potential
for residential intensification, that the character is predominantly commercial, and provides
opportunity for redevelopment. Accordingly, he recommends that Stoddard Road
represents a suitable location for an IGC overlay that will not result in significant adverse
effects on the centres network.
20.16

Mr Wong-Toi identifies the transport advantages of this area in terms of public transport
125

accessibility and being proximate to residential intensification

20.17

The following IGCs were agreed, with the exception of DNZ and AMP Capital

Lincoln Road, removing that area south of the intersection with Woodford Avenue

Ti Rakau Road.

Lincoln Road
20.18

The zoning of this area 33ha area is a combination of mixed use and general business on
the western side, and general business and light industry on the west.

123
124
125

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.59.

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.58 to 7.62.
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.10, 5.4.25

Page 103

20.19

Despite the light industry and mixed use zoning extents, the existing environment is one
characterised by commercial activity. By way of example, that area between Universal
Drive and Daytona Road consists of a small commercial centre on the eastern extent, and
a Bunnings and smaller scale retail on the western side.

20.20

Large format retail accounts for 12,700m2 GFA, principally located within the Lincoln Centre
and Lincoln North Centre. Supermarket floorspace accounts for 10,200m2 and trade
suppliers account for 11,500m2 GFA within the corridor

20.21

126

Ms Fairgray has identified a retail deficit for this area

. However she considers despite

this that further retail growth may not be appropriate given expansion of the Westgate
centre, and proximity to Henderson. Mr Wong-Toi identifies the transport considerations
associated with this corridor

127

. He identifies that the corridor provides benefits in terms of

its relative closeness and intensity of residential activities and the associated transport land
use integration principle of concentrating a diverse and intensive range of activities within
proximity to one another to encourage transport options such as walking, cycling and public
128

transport

, however the corridor is less appropriate than other prospects in terms of

129

transport efficiency

20.22

130

Mr Akehurst

identifies that given the broader commercial character of Lincoln Road

especially the upper third of the road, and higher levels of further residential growth and
intensification anticipated in the surrounding area, that the area is likely to be well served
by retaining the IGC overlay. Mr Akehurst identifies that the overlay is appropriate provided
the twin aims of providing alternative for large format retail that cant appropriate locate in
centre, a home and aligning the zone framework with the patterns of land use that have
emerged over time . I agree with that view as the prevailing character in this area is
commercial, and retention of the overlay allows for the managed development of that
commercial character. The overlay identified in the PAUP south of Woodford Avenue has
been removed as this may otherwise undermine the THAB zoning which anticipates

126
127
128
129
130

Evidence Fairgray. Figure 1.

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraphs 5.4.15 to 5.4.17
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.26
Evidence Wong Toi. Paragraph 5.4.22
Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.51 to 7.57

Page 104

significantly increased household numbers in close proximity to the Henderson

Metropolitan Centre.

20.23

My support for an IGC notation on this corridor is finely balanced. Support for an IGC on
this corridor is predicated on the planning history for this area, the ability to accommodate
additional retail capacity in an area where there is a localised shortfall, and the proximate
and intensifying residential population. Lincoln Road also from my observation has a strong
commercial character. I acknowledge Mr Wong-Tois concern in terms of transport
efficiency but consider these matters can be adequately addressed through the consenting
process.

Ti Rakau Road.

20.24

This segment of Ti Rakau Road consists of 25ha with a length of 1.1km. The nearest
centres are Botany Metropolitan centre 1km to the west, and Pakuranga Town Centre
1.8km to the east.

20.25

Despite the light industrial zoning, nearly half of the floorspace in the corridor is being
131

utilised for retail (48%)

, with large format retail accounting for 12,000m2GFA and Trade

132

Suppliers accounting for 16,500m2

. Significant amounts of industrial and office-based

floorspace is present, including a few large factories. Several car or boat sale yards occupy
premises on the southern side of the corridor toward the eastern end.

20.26

Ms Fairgray identifies that this corridor is not needed in terms of overcoming an immediate
retail deficit. However, I consider that the application of an IGC for this corridor represents
the more appropriate mechanism, in comparison to retaining the light industrial zoning
without the overlay, or alternatively applying a commercial zoning.

20.27

133

Mr Akehurst

identifies that an IGC overlay in this area is appropriate in accommodating

LFR that cant appropriately locate at Botany Downs or Pakauranga.

131
132
133

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.10

Evidence Fairgray. Table 2.
Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.63 to 7.68.

Page 105

20.28

Mr Wong-Toi identifies that the proximate residential intensification areas close to the
134

corridor provides some relative transport benefits

20.29

Application of an IGC at New North Road Kelston, was agreed as not being
appropriate.

20.30

IGCs that are not supported include:

Constellation Drive;

Great North Road, Arch Hill;

Pilkington Road; and

Great South Road, Takanini.

Constellation Drive
20.31

This 15ha, 1km arterial corridor is zoned general business (east) and light industry (west).
The Albany Metropolitan Centre 3km to north. The Windsor Park Local centre is located
750m to the north east. The preference for resolving any commercial deficit in this area of
the North Shore is more appropriately met at Albany Centre and application of an IGC at
135

Wairau Road

20.32

The current presence of large format retail is provide for by the general business zone.
Other existing land uses, including the substantial office presence would at best not be
assisted, and at worst displaced by an IGC in this location. It is understood that that
Constellation Drive has some relative benefits in terms of transport integration

136

Great North Road, Arch Hill

20.33

Located close to the city centre, this corridor has a notified mixed use zone. The segment
consists of 7.54ha and has a length of 1.0km.

134
135
136

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.10, 5.4.27

Evidence. Fairgray. Paragraph 8.13.
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.19

Page 106

20.34

There is a limited presence of retail activities on this corridor, and a relative large proportion
137

of office based activities

. In my view there are considerable opportunity costs to

prospective residential and business intensification if this area were notated as an IGC
aimed largely at accommodating space extensive retail activities.

20.35

Opposition to an IGC for this corridor would be partially consistent with the submission from
Arch Hill 4224-1 seeking to ensure the mixed use zone remains an important transitional
area between residential and business activities.

Pilkington Road
20.36

This prospective corridor segment has an area of 18ha, and a length of 1.6km. Panmure
centre is located some 600m to the south.

20.37

Mr Wong-Toi identifies that this corridor has some transport advantages given proximity to
the Panmure Town Centre and transport interchange

138

. There are however implications in

terms of potential effects on the safe and efficient operation of the transport network

20.38

139

A proportion of this area is zoned mixed use, however there is a general absence of
residential or retail activity. Over 70% of the area is however used for a combination of light
(16,800m2 gfa) and heavy (35,700m2 gfa) industry
evidence supporting a retal deficit in this area

140

. Ms Fairgray also outlines little

141

. The displacement of industrial activity is

not seen to achieve B:3.7 Policy 11 which seeks to provide for the efficient use of scarce
industrial land for industrial activities.

Great South Road, Takanini

20.39

Opposition to an IGC to this corridor is also related to the likely displacement of resident
industrial activity, with this area containing the Fonterra Factory, as well as numerous small
scale light industry and automotive services.

137
138
139
140
141

Evidence Fairgray. Table 2.

Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.25
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.14
Evidence. Fairgray Table 2.
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.23.

Page 107

20.40

With over half of the floorspace in industrial uses

142

, the area would support substantial

industrial employment. The centres of Papakura, Takaini and Manukau provide

considerable capacity

20.41

143

in a manner that would much better achieve B:3.1.

Mr Wong-Toi identifies that this corridor has some transport benefits given proximate
144

residential populations

20.42

Lastly, IGC options for Lunn Avenue and the Ellerslie Panmure Highway were
provided by submitters in early July 2015. The spatial extent of these areas is identified in
Attachment B.

20.43

It is understood from the evidence of Ms Fairgray, that there is no retail capacity shortfall in
the area that needs to be overcome. However Ellerslie-Panmure would be preferred to
Lunn Avenue given that it would be a natural expansion of the Panmure Town Centre in a
manner that compliments the centre network

145

. There is also significant proximate

residential intensification anticipated through the THAB zoning surrounding Panmure

Centre. Proximity to the Panmure Transport Interchange provides a greater range of public
146

transport connections in this locality

20.44

Lunn Avenue whilst containing a substantial trade supply outlets (Mitre 10 Mega, Place
Makers), retail (Countdown, Animates) and a range of food retailers (Farro) suffers from
poor integration with the public transport network

147

, is not proximate to areas of residential

148

growth, and has potential implications for Panmure Town Centre

20.45

On this basis I recommend the IGC overlay applies to Wairau Road; New North Road,
Kingsland; Stoddard Road; Lincoln Road and Ti Rakau Drive as identified in Attachment
B.

142
143
144
145
146
147
148

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.11(ix)

Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.28.
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.25
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.32(viii)
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.25
Evidence Wong-Toi. Paragraph 5.4.10
Evidence Fairgray. Paragraph 8.32(vii)

Page 108

SECTION C:4

ACTIVITY TABLE I3.1.1 COMMERCIAL ZONES

Ms Jarette Wickhams evidence considers commercial submissions associated with the Activity
Table I:3.1.2 Industry Zones.

21.

CINEMAS

Submissions
21.1

The submission from Kiwi 5252-11 seeks to amend the activity status for entertainment
facilities within the mixed use, general business and business park zone. Entertainment
facilities, particularly cinemas were seen as critical to in-centre vitality, particularly during
evening.

21.2

The definition for Entertainment Facilities is considerably broad, and relates to Facilities
used for paid recreation, leisure or entertainment. It is acknowledged that there is some
overlap with the definition for Recreational Facility.

21.3

There were no other submissions on this specific activity.

Discussion
21.4

Cinemas are an important component of metropolitan and town centres. They stimulate
after-hours activity and increase vitality in a manner consistent with that sought by the
Auckland Plan. Accordingly, it was considered that permitting cinemas to establish within
the mixed use zone and general business zone would not reinforce the centres network,
nor be consistent with their zone outcomes.

Response and recommendation

21.5

It is recommended that a new Activity row specifically for Cinemas be added to the Activity
Table. This would replicate the activity status for Entertainment Facilities, albeit that
Cinemas would be deemed non-complying activities in the mixed use and general
business zones. The amendment was supported by those at mediation with the exception
of Masfen Holdings Ltd (5968)

21.6

The recommended inclusion to the Activity Table is:

Page 109

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

NC

NC

NC

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

22.

Submissions
22.1

Commercial services are defined as

Businesses that sell personal, property, financial, household, private or business services.
Includes:

22.2

real estate agent

travel agent

customer banking facilities

dry cleaning

hairdressing

Submissions received on the commercial zone Activity Table (AMP Capital 5883 76,
Body Corporate 197887 6356-71) seek retention of the activity status for the mixed use
and general business zones.

Discussion
22.3

These activities are nested within the definition of retail activities as they provide retail
services

149

with the public at large. Such facilitates tend to provide for localised needs for a

range of service related activities, which are considered (even when clustered) of being
unlikely to reach the threshold of generating significant distributional effects on the centres
network. Commercial services are broadly distributed across the range of commercial
zones (including the mixed use, general business and business park zones). Amenity
expectations are consistent with those anticipated in commercial areas rather than
industrial zones. These factors support an enabling approach in the Commercial zone
Activity table (Activity Table I:3.1.1).

22.4

The permissive nature of commercial services in the commercial zones is considered

appropriate. This approach was agreed at mediation.

149

Termed Household services within the categories utilised by Ms Fairgray. Fairgray Evidence paragraph 5.16(iii).

Page 110

Response and recommendation

22.5

The notified provisions are seen as appropriate.

23.

ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES

Submissions
23.1

The definition of Entertainment Facilities is broad, as described in paragraph 21.2.

23.2

Submissions associated with local centres seek either retention of a discretionary status
(T&M Manson 4579-4), or that such activities be permitted (P Hogan 5205-4, 5).

23.3

Submissions also seek retention of a permitted status for entertainment facilities in the
mixed use zone (Body Corporate 197887 6356-73), or amendment to discretionary from
permitted in the general business zone (North Harbour Business Association 6354-6).

Discussion
23.4

The range of activities provided for in the Entertainment definition are primarily of a larger
scale, and cater for typically a wide catchment. Such activities include theatres, concert
venues, cinemas, and bars and nightclubs, but can also extend to activities that overlap
with recreational facilities. Whilst these activities may in some instances be located within
a local centre (for example the entertainment venues and bars of Mission Bay), this is not
the anticipated purpose of the zone, and is not consistent with the provisions of RPS B3.1
and 2.7 which primarily seek to locate such facilities with the city centre, metropolitan and
town centres.

23.5

Submissions to the local centre zone are targeted towards the extent to which a
proliferation of bars and cafes may impact on the function and night time amenity of local
centres.

23.6

There are issues in terms of generating a higher level of night time activity that can be
incompatible with the anticipated residential amenity surrounding local centres.

23.7

The discretionary activity status in local centres is supported.

Page 111

23.8

Cinemas have been ascribed a non-complying status in the general business zone as a
response to submissions. This provides partial support for the submission from North
Harbour Business Association 6354-6. However, further restraint on the status of the
broader range of entertainment facilities general business zone is opposed. The general
business zone would not be sensitive to the amenity expectations of a broad range of
entertainment facilities. The bulk and car parking demands of many entertainment facilities
would also be comparable with activities anticipated in the general business zones.

Response and recommendation

23.9

The provisions are supported as notified, with the exception of Cinemas as described
above.

24.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS PREMISES

Submissions
24.1

Funeral Directors are defined as facilities used for holding funerals, and includes mortuary
facilities and funeral chapels.

24.2

The submission from J&P Wise (4724-5) seeks non-complying status for such activities in
the neighbourhood zone.

Discussion
24.3

Such activities provide for civic and cultural wellbeing, and are relatively benign in terms of
environmental effects. Accordingly a reasonably enabling permissive activity status regime
is applied.

24.4

Funeral directors premises service large areas, and hence are appropriately permitted in
the metropolitan, town and local centres zones, as well as the mixed use zone, and
constrained in the neighbourhood centre zones. Such activities however have opportunity
costs and an amenity less compatible with development anticipated in the general business
zone and business park zone, where funeral directors premises are deemed as
discretionary and non-complying activities respectively.

Page 112

Response and recommendation

24.5

The provisions are supported as notified.

25.

FOOD AND BEVERAGE / DAIRIES

Submissions

25.1

150

In the commercial zones

, submissions seek to amend the status to restricted

discretionary in neighbourhood zones given consideration of amenity effects (Crotty

Family Trust 3602-3).
25.2

The Auckland Regional Public Health Service (6100) has a number of submissions to
this topic, seeking: the limiting the proximity of fast food outlets to sensitive or low socioeconomic areas (49); retain land use control I:3.1 which provides a 30m restraint on
taverns adjoining a residential zone (60); and restrictions on clusters of alcohol related
activities.

Discussion
25.3

Food and beverage outlets, including taverns, restaurants, cafes and takeaway food bars,
form a substantial component of any centre.

25.4

Such activities are also anticipated in the mixed use zone, are important in terms of
meeting worker needs in the business park zone, and provide for patrons and staff in
general business zones. Accordingly, the notified provisions provide for these activities as
permitted across all these zones

25.5

The submission from Crotty Family Trust 3602-3 is opposed. The relief would render food
and beverage outlets as restricted discretionary activities in neighbourhood zones. These
centres are predominantly made up of such activities, which as identified in the zone
purpose provide for convenience needs of the local residential neighbourhoods. Land use

150

Restaurant Brands 4449-44 seek retention of the notified provisions. AMP Capital 5883-75, Harvey Norman 5924 and Body
Corporate 197887 6356-59 seek retention in the general business zone. Body Corporate 197887 6356-74 seek retention of the
provisions for the mixed use zone.

Page 113

control I:3.1 which restricts taverns within 30m of a residential zone provides sufficient
ability to manage the effects of these activities at the residential zone interface.

25.6

The submissions from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (6100) are
supported in so far of retention of land use control 3.1 (6100-60); however other relief is not
supported as being inefficient in terms of managing environment effects under the
Resource Management Act. The Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy provides the most
effective and efficient mechanism to manage the effects of alcohol related harm as
submitted on. The Local Alcohol Policy is identified as a mechanism for implementing the
broader RPS B3.1 provisions.

25.7

Paragraph 14.3 outlines concern as to the manner in which the spatial application of the
mixed use zone and its enabling retail and food and beverage provisions could be
detrimental to the centres network, and disenfranchise other activities anticipated in the
zone. Recommended Policy D:3.7.2(A) seeks to Limit the agglomeration of retail and
food and beverage activities, except where they are well connected to the city centre, or a
metropolitan, town or local centre.

25.8

In effectively and efficiently achieving that policy, a new land use rule (I:3.3.2) is
recommended. The purpose of the rule is to manage the agglomeration of retail (including
food and beverage outlets) within the mixed use zone where not located (and hence not
reinforcing the) adjoining city centre, metropolitan, town or local centre. Manage the
dispersal of food and beverage activities where these would not reinforce the centres
network, or be beyond a scale and number necessary to support intensification in the
mixed use zone.

25.9

The enablement of too much retail within the mixed use zone would diffuse investment
within the centre network, at the expense of reinforcing and strengthening centres as
sought in RPS B3.1. However, a certain level of retail development is required to support
the population (residential and business) intensification objectives of the mixed use zone.

25.10

This matter is contained in the evidence of Mr Akehurst

151

. The proposed rule provides for

food and beverage outlets within 200m of City Centre, Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre or

151

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.73 7.75.

Page 114

Local Centre zones (as shown on the planning maps) as outlined in Activity Table I:3.1.
Beyond 200m. The rule is relatively enabling: it does not provide any limitation on the
extent or scale of Food and Beverage outlets where located close to centres; beyond 200m
the proposed rule limits a larger agglomeration of food and beverage outlets. This provides
for a scale and range of food and beverage outlets beyond 200m so as to provide for
intensification, diversity of uses and meeting localised needs, recognising the importance of
food and beverage activities as integral to centre function. Food and Beverage outlets
would be subject to additional limitations where there is a clustering of retail activities.

25.11

A proposed land use control is supported. It was raised at mediation, and is based on the
submissions from DNZ3863-104, AMP 4376-47, T Daniels 4600 9, A Jacobs 167-1,
DNZ3863-104, AMP Capital 4376-47. The rule is opposed by parties including Property
Council NZ (6212) and Masfen Holdings Ltd (5968). The principle of the rule is supported
by the Warehouse Group, but excluding limitations on food and beverage outlets.

25.12

A limitation has also been considered on the agglomeration of food and beverage outlets in
the general business zone, on the basis that in combination with large format retail and the
provision of office activities, these zones may start to replicate the function of centres. The
prospect of an additional control as land use control I:3.3.2 was raised during mediation,
and is supported. The rule requires consideration of the relevant distributional effects of a
general business zone where a predominance of food and beverage outlets in conjunction
with permitted retail and office would start to duplicate the role of centres, as well as impact
on the integrity of the zones purpose of primarily providing for large scale retail.

Response and recommendation

25.13

The notified provisions in the Activity Table are supported.

25.14

Land use control 3.2a is recommended which seeks to manage effects associated with the
agglomeration of food and beverage (and retail activities).

25.15

Land use control 3.2b which seeks to manage the clustering of food and beverage outlets
within the general business zone is supported.

26.

TRADE SUPPLIERS GARDEN CENTRES, MARINE RETAIL, MOTOR VEHICLE SALES

Page 115

Submissions

Motor Vehicle Sales

26.1

In the commercial zones, Giltrap Group 6269-1 sought that Motor Vehicle Sales be
restricted discretionary activities within the mixed use zone. DNZ 3863-125, 161, and 162;
and AMP Capital 4376-77, 78, and 79 seek that such activities are restricted discretionary
activities in metropolitan and town centres, and permitted in the general business zone
respectively.

Garden Centres
26.2

Fletcher Distribution Ltd (5413-1) have a broad submission seeking that the range of
trade supplier activities in the general business zone be deemed permitted activities.

Marine Retail
26.3

The submission from Auckland Maritime Foundation (6930-56) seeks a more permissive
activity status that non-complying for such activities in the neighbourhood centre zone.

Trade Suppliers
26.4

Bunnings (6096-21) and (Fletcher Distribution Limited (trading as Placemakers, 54131) seek that Trade Suppliers become restricted discretionary activities in the mixed use
zone. Arch Hill Residents (4224-3) seek to amend the status of Trade Suppliers as
prohibited activities within the centre zones, mixed use zone, general business and
business park zone.

Discussion
26.5

Trade Suppliers, Marine Retail, Motor Vehicle Sales, and Garden Centres make up
some 15% of Aucklands retail floorspace152.

26.6

There is a spectrum of built form and scale associated with these activities. Typically
these activities provide goods over substantial areas, accordingly they are not based
on providing for localised needs. Built form and associated amenity expectations are

152

Fairgray. Auckland Retail Economic Evidence Base (2013). Excludes boat yards, car yards.

Page 116

comparable to those anticipated within working environments, such as the light industry
zone.

26.7

The scale of such activities is not a key determinant of the extent of proportional sales
to the general public153. Even within similar offers, for example building suppliers such
as Bunnings and Placemakers, it is understood there is a spectrum of the frequency of
sales (not volume) to the public.

26.8

These categories of activities do not provide material social or economic benefits from
being concentrated within centres, consequently their distribution outside of the centres
network would not trigger relevant distributional effects.

26.9

Whilst locating such activities in centres can be challenging, subject to compliance with
design requirements there would be no resource management purpose from
constraining such activities in metropolitan and town centre zones. Accordingly, that
aspect of the submissions from DNZ (3863), and AMP Capital (4376) are opposed.

26.10

Constraints are appropriate on these activities within the local and neighbourhood
centres. There are resource management implications of the density of such activities
given the scale of local and neighbourhood centres, as well as opportunity costs for
activities that would otherwise provide social and economic benefits for the local
community. As outlined, trade suppliers are not predicated on providing for localised
needs. Accordingly the status of discretionary activity and non-complying activity is
supported for the local and neighbourhood centres respectively given the relative scale
of this tier of the centres network and their policy direction. The submission from
Auckland Maritime Foundation (6930-56) is opposed.

26.11

The status of such activities as discretionary activities within the mixed use zone is
considered appropriate. The status achieves both Objective 1 of the zone which seeks
moderate to high intensity residential and employment opportunities and Policies 2
and 7 which seek to limit larger scale retail activities and provide a standard of
amenity that recognises a moderate scale, intensity and diversity of buildings.

153

Trade Supplier definition, means: A business engaged in sales to businesses and institutional customers and may also include
sales to the general public, and wholly consists of suppliers of goods in one or more of the categories [listed].

Page 117

26.12

It is acknowledged that there are clusters of Motor Vehicle Sales premises present
within the mixed use zone, particularly south of Newmarket, and north New North
Road, and some market interest in establishing trade suppliers in these zones. I
consider that the expansion of existing activities, or propagation of additional
opportunities is best considered in terms of the activities merits under s104B and s104
as a discretionary activity. Accordingly, the relief by Bunnings (6096-21), (Fletcher
Distribution Limited (trading as Placemakers, 5413-1), and Giltrap Group 6269-1 is
opposed. The relief by Arch Hill Residents (4224-3) is also opposed

26.13

A number of the submissions seek that this range of activities should be permitted in the
General Business zone. In the notified provisions, such activities are discretionary with the
Councils discretion limited to matters of intensity and scale, reverse sensitivity, and design
154

of parking

. As identified above, such activities do not generate material distributional

effects on centres. Given that the application of the general business zone should take into
account the displacement of the industrial land resource, and matters associated with
parking are provided for within the Transport rules under H:1.2, there is, in my view, no
additional resource management benefit as to why this group of activities should not be
permitted in the general business zone. Accordingly, I support such activities being
permitted as sought by Fletcher Distribution Ltd (5413-1).

Response and recommendation

26.14

The notified provisions in the Activity Table are supported, except for changes to the
general business zone permitting this range of activities.

I:1.1

Commercial zones

Activity
Garden
centres
Motor
vehicle
sales
Marine
retail

154

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

NC

RD P

NC

RD P

NC

RD P

I:6 Assessment Matters. 6.1.3 Garden centres, motor vehicle sales and trade suppliers in the Light Industry and General
Business zones

Page 118

Trade
suppliers

27.

NC

RD P

OFFICES

Submissions
27.1

Submissions seek that:

(a) Offices are permitted or controlled in the mixed use zone (Barrys Point Road 1820-3,
Udy Investments 2955-3, Mansons TCLM 3194-66, Pengellys Properties 4219-4,
Tram Lease et al 5566-141, Bladon Holdings 5880-3, Ockham Holdings Ltd 6099111, Rolf Masfen 6355-10);
(b) Offices are permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary in the general business zone
(Barrys Point Road 1820-6, Archers Road Investments 1977-4, Udy Investments
2955-3, Mansons TCLM 3194-67, Tram Lease et al 5566-141, Bladon Holdings
5880-3, Harvey Norman 5924-52, Body Corporate 197887 6356-64, Andrew Brands
Ltd 6947-2);
(c) Office thresholds up to 500m2 GFA / site are retained in the general business zone
(Harvey Norman 5924-51, Body Corporate 197887 6356-64);
(d) Offices greater than 500m2 GFA / site are discretionary or permitted in the local centre
zone and / or Half Moon Bay (DNZ 3863-163, AMP Capital 4376-80, Crown
Corporation 4353-2, P Hogan 5205-2, Samson et al 6247-18, Trust Management et
al 6785-37, Auckland Maritime Foundation 6930-57, Anglian Diocese 8932-50);
(e) Offices greater than 500m2 GFA / site are discretionary the neighbourhood centre zone
(AMP Capital 4376-81);
(f) Permit offices greater than 500m2 GFA/ site where adjacent to the Town Centre zone
(H Green Ltd 5259-178).

Discussion
Overview
27.2

The overall approach in both RPS 3.1 and associated provisions in the commercial and
industrial zones, is that commercial activities should locate in the commercial zones, and
preferably in metropolitan and town centres. There are provisions seeking to limit the extent
of office activities within the mixed use zone (D:3.7 Policy 2) and general business zone
(D:3.8 Objective 1 and Policy 2).

Page 119

27.3

It is understood that office workers are high users of public transport, due to their relatively
constant schedules and concentrated work location.

27.4

Metropolitan and town centre zones generally have the best public transport access, and
receive the greatest amounts of public sector spending on transport initiatives.

Such

centres also provide the greatest opportunity for intensification, which fit the nature of large
scale office activities very well.
27.5

As outlined by Mr Akehurst, there is considerable synergy between retail and office activity.
The concentration and spending patterns of office workers is a critical component of the
robustness and health of centres, as well as agglomeration benefits from the concentration
of such activities.

27.6

It is understood that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast growth in office

employment to 2031 within the centres network. There are consequential benefits from
accommodating such activities in this manner in achieving a compact urban form. Mr
Akehurst identifies that there is a need for limitations on the scale of offices in the mixed
155

use zone

and Local Centre

156

that provide sufficient flexibility to allow a degree of choice

if the opportunity arises for a particular business, while appropriately not providing an
attraction away from higher order centres where office activity needs to be concentrated.

27.7

For these reasons, large offices (greater than 500m2) are directed towards Metropolitan
and Town Centre zones, where they are permitted activities. Smaller offices (less than
500m2 and comprising about 30 staff, based on a ratio of 1:15m2) are permitted activities in
the remaining commercial zones. This is considered appropriate to give effect to RPS B:3.1
which seeks to intensify and encourage commercial activities in the city centre,
metropolitan and town centres (Policy 1, 2, 3), with local centres serving a role supporting
local communities (Policy 1).

27.8

Offices are discouraged in industrial zones as set out in the evidence of Ms Wickham.

27.9

The consideration of whether intervention is desirable or expedient in terms of achieving

the purpose of the RMA, raises the broader issue as to whether individual submitter

155
156

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.80, 7.81

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.38

Page 120

interests are to be outweighed by the broader interests of the community. The benefits of
the approach seeking to consolidate office agglomeration within centres is outlined in the
evidence of Mr Akehurst. The costs to the submitters in terms of investment certainty and
economic wellbeing, are somewhat reduced by the mechanisms to provide some
recognition of existing office activity as identified in the evidence of Ms Wickham and Mr
Wyatt as to recognising existing activities in the light industrial zone, and the City Centre
Fringe overlay for the mixed use zone respectively.
Commercial Zones
27.10

Mr Akehurst identifies that the 500m2 GFA / Site threshold is extremely accommodating. At
such a threshold it provides a split between a number of smaller operations on a site by site
basis providing variety at a local level and a range of locational choices across the city for
small businesses looking to meet local needs

27.11

157

The threshold allows for an appropriate mix of commercial activity within the mixed use,
local centre and general business centre but would restrict larger scale, and high rise office
activities. Such an approach is appropriate in terms of giving effect to RPS B3.1 which
seeks to intensify commercial activity in the regional tier centres (City Centre, Metro Centre
and Town Centre).

27.12

Submissions seeking a relaxation of the scale of office activities permitted in the mixed use
zones are opposed. Providing for large scale office activities in the mixed use zone would
disenfranchise the purpose of the zone; and potentially disperse office agglomeration from
adjoining centres at the expense of public transport efficiency and centre vitality.

27.13

The mixed use zone does not have a substantial quantum of large scale office activities
present. Whilst it is recognised that there are some clusters of large scale office activities,
particularly south of Newmarket, the majority of these are accommodated within the City
Centre Fringe Office overlay. Overall individual costs associated with the intervention are
considered less than the long term community benefits.

27.14

Submissions seeking a relaxation of the scale of office activities permitted in the general
business zones are opposed. In addition to the reasons expressed above, I am unaware of

157

Evidence Akehurst. paragraph 7.81

Page 121

any large scale office activities present in the general business zones that would be
disenfranchised by regulation. Furthermore, given the presence of large scale retail within
the zone, the provision of larger scale office activities would inappropriately overlap and
duplicate the function and role of centres.

27.15

The scale and form of neighbourhood centres would not be compatible with large scale
office activities. The submission from H Green Ltd 5259-178 is opposed.

27.16

The non-complying activity status of in the Local Centre zone in the notified plan is due to
the fact that local centres are often smaller centres in residential areas and it is considered
important to preserve a mix of uses in that centre to serve the local area. However,
amendments to D:3.5 Policy 4 (refer paragraphs commencing 12.19) provide recognition
that large scale commercial activities can be appropriate subject to caveats. Accordingly, a
restricted discretionary status for offices over 500m2 GFA / Site is seen as appropriate in
achieving the amended policy. Councils discretion would remain focused on a broad range
158

of matters

associated with:

a.

intensity and scale

b.

centre vitality

c.

design of parking, access and servicing

d.

functionality.

This amendment was agreed at mediation.

Response and recommendation

27.17

The notified provisions are supported, with the exception that Offices greater than 500m2
GFA per site in the local centre zone are restricted discretionary activities.

Activity
Offices up
to 500m
GFA per
site
Offices

158

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

NC RD

NC

Assessment matters I:3.6.2 (a) to (d)

Page 122

greater
than
500m
GFA per
site

28.

RETAIL, INCLUDING RETAIL GREATER THAN 450M2 GFA

28.1

Themes associated with the 60 submissions include

(a)

Submissions seeking no restrictions on retail (Oyster Management 1499-9,

Pengelly 4219-3);

(b)

Submissions seeking larger scale (600m2 +) retail in the mixed use zone (Barrys
Point Road 1820-7, Udy Investments Ltd 2955-4, Tram lease 5566-140, Rolf
Masfen 6355-1), or limiting the extent of retail in the mixed use zone (T Daniels
4600-1, Kiwi 5253-12, 14).

(c)

Submissions seeking larger scale (600m2 +) retail in the general business zone
(Archers Road 1977-5, Tram lease 5566-154)

(d)

Submissions seeking to prohibit retail greater than 450m2 (Arch Hill 4224-1)

(e)

Amend the metric associated with retail from site to premises (the Warehouse
2748, DNZ 3863)

(f)

Provide for an activity tier for retail between 200m2 and 450m2 GFA per tenancy
(DNZ 3863-128)

(g)

Classify retail in the general business zone below 450m2 as non-complying (DNZ
3863-127, 128), or retain as discretionary (Harvey Norman 5924-49, 50),

(h)

Provide for additional tiers of retail for between 450m2 and 1,000m2 GFA per tenancy,
and greater than1,000m2 GFA per tenancy across a range of zones and with
associated classification on activity status (DNZ 3863-129, 130, 164 170, AMP
Capital 4376 83 - 95)

(i)

Provision for one retail tenancy up to 1,000m2 in the Business Park Zone,
neighbourhood zone (Kiwi 5253-16, 17)

(j)

Permit retail above 450m2 GFA per site in the general business zone (Harvey
Norman 5924-53).

Discussion

Overview
Page 123

28.2

The regulatory approach and context to managing retail distribution is set out in Sections 6
and 7 of this evidence

28.3

Ms Fairgray has identified that in conjunction with a limited number of Integrated Growth
Corridors there is sufficient capacity to accommodate retail growth within the commercial
centre zones to 2031.

28.4

Submissions seeking to amend the metric associated with retail from site to tenancy are
supported (the Warehouse 2748, DNZ 3863). Reference to retail tenancy is appropriate as
it relates to the scale of individual retail premises. This is more appropriate than managing
such activities by site, as in many instances, such as a mall or large format retail complex,
a number of tenancies could be developed on one site. A new definition of tenancy has
also been introduced.

28.5

Submissions seeking that there are no retail restrictions on retail tenancy size are opposed.
Such an approach would flatten the centres hierarchy, not give effect to the provisions of
B3.1, and would blur the distinctions between the centres network and the mixed use,
general business and business parks zones. (Oyster Management 1499-9, Pengelly
4219-3).

28.6

Submissions seeking larger scale retail provision in the mixed use zones are opposed.
Large scale retail activity is not predicated on serving the local function, and would be of a
scale and form not conducive to the anticipated mixed zone qualities and amenity. The
submissions would provide for the type of retail that people are willing to travel further for
(i.e. core retail (comparison goods)) or more destination-type food and beverage, which
would result in a negative effect on the centres network, through diffusing commercial
intensification in-centre. (Barrys Point Road 1820-7, Udy Investments Ltd 2955-4, Tram
lease 5566-140, Rolf Masfen 6355-1).

28.7

Submissions seeking an additional restraint on the extent of retail activities in the mixed
use zone are supported (T Daniels 4600-1, Kiwi 5253-12, 14). The basis of such a
constraint is discussed in paragraphs 25.7 to 25.11, and achieves recommended D:3.7
Policy 2A.

28.8

Recommended land use rule I:3.2 is considered effective in achieving D:3.7 Policy 2A. The
proposed rule is reasonably efficient, in that the threshold for consent is set relatively low in
Page 124

requiring an applicant to determine the extent of retail adjoining the application site. The
proposed outcomes sought are:

Natural expansion of the centres network into the mixed use zone through providing for
retail as per the Activity Table for retail activities within 200m of the city, metropolitan,
town or local centre;

A range of smaller scale and convenience retail activities dispersed throughout the
mixed use zone to provide for localised and passer-by needs; and

Clusters of small scale retail, where these remain compatible with the centres network
and transport outcomes.

28.9

There are a range of submissions seeking a graduated approach to retail provision across
the commercial zones (DNZ 3863-129, 130, 164 170, AMP Capital 4376 83 95).
Those aspects of the relief seeking to provide thresholds associated with retail tenancies
exceeding 1,000m2 GFA per tenancy are opposed. I understand that there is a natural
delineation in the nature and type of retail that occurs around 450m2. For example, there
are chain stores that have both small format stores are typically located in mainstreets or
malls, and then larger stores of 450m2+ that locate in metropolitan, town centres or in the
general business zone, and are substantially different in layout to their smaller stores.
Accordingly, further graduation is unnecessary.

28.10

The submission from AMP Capital 4376-83 and DNZ 3863-127 is supported. The
submission renders retail activities below 200m2 GFA non complying in the general
business zone. The basis of support is that providing for development below 200m2 GFA as
a discretionary activity carries with it implications that the activity is an efficient use and
development of resources for the purpose of Part II of the RMA.

28.11

Consenting for the full spectrum of retail activities to establish within the general business
zone, (or even the mixed use zone), beyond that supported by sustainable retail growth
represents an inefficient use of the Citys centre network and associated resources.

28.12

Activity in a general business zone has a critical mass: limiting small scale activities
significantly reduces the potential for distributional effects from such areas. These
limitations ensure existing and future general business zones (within the centres plus
approach) provide for compatible commercial activities to meet the needs of people and
communities.

Page 125

28.13

A discretionary activity status for retail activities below 200m 2 GFA in the general business
zone provides a lowered hurdle and facilitates the easier distribution of smaller stores
between the general business zones and the centres network. This will reduce the
development potentials of such outlets to enable centres to modernise, expand and
refurbish. The potential for adverse distributional effects and consequential implications on
the integrity of the Plan by allowing for smaller scale retail to establish in the general
159

business zones would, in Mr Akehursts view be potentially significant

28.14

There is also no policy contemplation that smaller scale retail opportunities are provided for
in the general business zone. D3.8 Policy 4 seeks to:
Avoid small-scale retail activities locating within the zone except for commercial services and
food and beverage activities.

28.15

The submission from Harvey Norman 5924-53 seeks that retail activities greater than
450m2 GFA in the general business zone are permitted in the general business zone.

28.16

In the notified provisions, such activities are a restricted discretionary activity. Discretion is
restricted to intensity and scale, centre vitality and design of parking, access and
160

servicing

28.17

The General Business zone is designed to cater for large format retail but is applied
sparingly, due to potential effects on centres. The purpose of the zone is to accommodate
large format retail.

28.18

Given the share of large format retail activities within the centres network, that there is
some concern as to the ability for anchor stores to relocate, into the general business zone
with subsequent distributional impacts on centres. However, the prospect by which such
effects would be considered to breach the threshold of being significant is realistically
limited to supermarkets and department stores as set out in the evidence of Mr Akehurst

161

which identifies as being critical components of in-centre vitality and viability.

159
160
161

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.103

Assessment matter I6.1.2 Retail greater than 450m in the General Business and Local Centre zone
Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 7.98, 7.107.

Page 126

28.19

From my perspective the appropriateness of large format retail activities establishing within
the zone is to be considered at the time the zone is applied. I have concerns as to the
integrity of the zone where the activities anticipated require further consideration and
consent.

28.20

Accordingly, I support the submission from Harvey Norman 5924-53 seeking to provide for
retail activities greater than 450m2 GFA in the general business zone as permitted.

28.21

However, I share Mr Akehursts reservations as to applying a permitted activity status to

supermarkets and department stores, which are particularly important to centres, and
should still be considered subject to the assessment matters in I6.1.2.

28.22

Should the Panel agree with this approach the following addition to the Activity Table below
would, be appropriate.

Activity
Department stores

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

RD

NC

RD

NC

Response and recommendation

28.23

The notified provisions are supported, with the exception that: retail less than 250m2 GFA
per site in the general business zone are non-complying activities, and greater than 450m2
GFA per tenancy is permitted (except for supermarkets and department stores).

I:1.1

Commercial zones
Activity
200m2

Retail up to
GFA per site tenancy
Retail exceeding 200m2 per
tenancy and up to 450m
GFA per site tenancy
Retail greater than
450m GFA per site tenancy

29.

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

D NC

RD

NC

RDP

SUPERMARKETS

Submissions

Page 127

29.1

Submissions have been received from the National Trading Company (2632) and
Progressives (5723-291) seeking a graduated and more permissive approach to the
provision of supermarkets within the commercial and industrial zones.

29.2

Submissions from I&I Bone (3909-27, 28, 29) seek that supermarkets greater than 4,000m2
GFA in local centres are non-complying and notifiable, and supermarkets up to 4,000m2
GFA in the local centre are discretionary and notifiable. Orimston 3963-16 seek retention
of the current status. Auckland Maritime Foundation 6930-58 seek that supermarkets
greater than 4,000m2 GFA are discretionary in the Neighbourhood centre zone.

29.3

Arch Hill Residents 4224-2 seek that all supermarkets over 4,000m2 GFA are prohibited.
The relief is opposed.

Discussion

Commercial Zones
29.4

I support the submission from Kiwi 5253-20 seek that supermarkets are provided for as a
restricted discretionary activity in the general business zone, for the reasons set out in
paragraph 28.17 to 28.21. That support does not however extend to smaller format (less
than 450m2 GFA Supermarkets) which can appropriately be located within the centre
zones. This relief was agreed at mediation.

29.5

Progressives and NTC seek a graduated suite of provisions in Activity Table I:3.1.1.

29.6

At the smallest tier (below 450m2 GFA) this range of supermarket would provide for
essential groceries and top ups for a localised catchment. The built form would be small in
scale and easily accommodated across the range of commercial zones in terms of design
outcomes, transport integration and zone purpose. As outlined in the evidence of Mr
Akehurst this category only captures small 4 Square type supermarkets and potentially
some Asian food focused supermarkets

162

. Accordingly providing for this tier of

supermarket in all commercial zones as a permitted activity is supported, with the exception
of the general business zone. The approach was agreed at mediation.

162

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraph 7.106

Page 128

29.7

The next tier (between 450m2 and 2,000m2), incorporates small to moderate scale
supermarkets that are typically located within the metropolitan, town and local centre
zones. Such supermarkets often do not provide the full service range of supermarket offer.
Such supermarkets have a reasonable provision of on-site car parking, and can present
challenges in terms of urban design outcomes for centres.

29.8

Such supermarkets often anchor smaller town centres and local centres, and are critical in
terms of in-centre vitality.

29.9

Providing for such supermarkets as permitted activities in the metropolitan, town and local
centre is supported.

29.10

Supermarkets of this scale are not consistent with the design outcomes and zone purpose
anticipated for the neighbourhood centre zone and business park zone and are assigned a
non-complying activity status. For the mixed use zone a discretionary activity status is
considered appropriate to achieve the zone purpose and associated policies seeking to
limit larger scale activities (D:3.7 Policy 2), and provide for moderate to high intensity
residential and employment opportunities (D:3.7 Objective 1). Apart from the status of this
tier within the neighbourhood centre zone, where NTC and Progressive seek a restricted
discretionary status, and Progressive seeking a restricted discretionary status within the
business park zone, all other matters were agreed at mediation.

29.11

The last two tiers (between 2000m2 to 4,000m2, and greater than 4,000m2) represent full
service supermarkets. At the higher end of the scale, these supermarkets provide both a
top up role, but typically provide larger scale bulk purchases. Supermarkets of this scale
are of importance in anchoring the metropolitan and town centres, despite obvious
challenges associated with built form. These activities are permitted in these zones.

29.12

There is also bound to be a degree of incongruity associated with the physical development
of such large scale supermarkets in the local centre, neighbourhood centre, mixed use and
business park zones.

29.13

By way of example, a supermarket of 7,000m2 GFA requires approximately two and half
hectares of flat land to accommodate the building, car-parking, planting buffers and service
areas.
Page 129

29.14

This can have opportunity costs in terms of the range of anticipated activities, decrease
opportunities for intensification, and generate adverse transport effects on the localised
roading network. Accordingly, the status supported for such activities is restricted
discretionary for local centres, and non-complying for the business park zone. A
discretionary activity status is provided for such activities in the mixed use zone, albeit that
Progressives and NTC seek a restricted discretionary status. For all other matters, this
approach was agreed at mediation.

Response and recommendation

29.15

The recommended approach, collapsing the tiers between 2,000m2 GFA and above
4,000m2 GFA given parallel activity status is:

Activity

MC

TC

LC

NC

MU

GB

BP

Supermarkets up to
450m GFA per tenancy
Supermarkets exceeding 450m2 and
up to
2000m GFA per tenancy
Supermarkets exceeding 2000 m2
per tenanc y and up to 4000m
GFA per site tenancy

NC

D RD

D RD

NC

RD

NC

D RD

NC

SERVICE STATIONS

30.

Submissions
30.1

Submissions from Z Energy et al 2588-2

163

and Atlas Concrete 3700-44 seek to amend

the activity status of service stations in all commercial zones to restricted discretionary, and
retained the permitted status in the light and heavy industry zones Z Energy et al 2588-32,
Rockgas Ltd 6257-21.

30.2

Submissions from Janine Bell 3765-9 seeks to assign a discretionary activity status to
service stations in the light and heavy industry zones where these do not have arterial
frontage.

163

Referred to in Evidence as the Oil Companies.

Page 130

30.3

I&I Bone 3909-33 seek that these activities are non-complying in the local and
neighbourhood zones.

30.4

S Davies seeks that these activities are permitted across the business zones.

Discussion
30.5

Service stations represent important physical resources in terms of providing for economic
and social wellbeing. Service stations also require equitable distribution throughout the city
to service employment, industrial and residential needs.

30.6

Service stations are defined as:

A drive-through facility where the primary business is selling motor vehicle fuels.
Includes the following accessory activities:

retail

car wash facilities

mechanical repair, servicing and testing of motor vehicles and domestic equipment

sale of lubricating oils, kerosene, LPG, or spare parts and accessories for motor
vehicles

30.7

trailer hire.

Such facilities can consist of cafes, pump stations and associated canopies, vacuum and
rubbish service areas, staff and visitor parking, buildings, signage and landscaping. Service
Station activities also generate considerable vehicle movements.

30.8

The notified provisions were restrictive in the commercial zones, recognising that the
provision of such activities were unlikely to be compatible with the design outcomes for
these zones. A permissive approach was applied in the light and heavy industry zones.

30.9

However, the approach in the commercial zones did not, in my view, adequately recognise:
the many existing activities that were located in these areas and their provision in the
legacy zones. I note that in residential zones service stations are a discretionary activity on
arterial roads and by having the same activity status in commercial zones the PAUP does
little to encourage these activities into less sensitive areas.

30.10

In my view the range of effects are limited in scope. Appropriate matters of discretion
would be intensity and scale, operational matters, the parking, access and servicing and
Page 131

recognising the functional requirements that service stations have. I consider that a
restricted discretionary activity is generally appropriate. I note that a restricted discretionary
consent for the building is required and this would largely rule out these activities along key
retail streets and instead focus them towards areas with lower streetscape amenity.

30.11

I consider that the Neighbourhood Centre zone is an exception to my analysis above. The
zone areas are generally small and seek to provide for the local communitys convenience
needs. Development is anticipated to be at a scale and intensity that respects the planning
outcomes identified in the Unitary Plan for the surrounding environment (Objective 2). I
understand that there are a number of service stations in the Neighbourhood Centre zone,
but in my view the zone objectives are not easily reconciled with service stations and a
discretionary activity is appropriate.

30.12

I note that service stations in the Business Park zone is a non-complying activity. I
consider that the activity is similar to many other activities that are discretionary activities in
the zone, such as drive throughs, trade suppliers and storage and lock-up facilities. In my
view a discretionary activity is appropriate in the Business Park zone.

30.13

Lastly, where the status of service stations becomes restricted discretionary within the
commercial zones, the relevant matters associated with traffic generation, scale and
intensity and hours of operation and noise and lighting can be considered under
Assessment Matter I:3.6.1 as follows:
6.1 Matters of discretion
The council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the activities listed as restricted
discretionary in the activity table.
1.Drive-through facilities, Service Stations, activities within 30m of a residential
zone, supermarkets greater than 4000m in the Local Centre zone
a.
intensity and scale
b.
noise, lighting and hours of operation
c.
design of parking, access and servicing

30.14

Accordingly, I support such activities being restricted discretionary activities within the
commercial zones, except the Neighbourhood Zone and Business Park zone as sought
within the submission by Z Energy et al 2588-2.

Response and recommendation

Page 132

30.15

I support amendments to the Activity Table for Drive-Through Facilities, follows:

MC
RD

TC
RD

SECTION C:5

LC

NC

RD

MU
RD

GB
RD

BP
NCD

LAND USE CONTROLS I:3.3

31.

3.2 RETAIL WITHIN THE MIXED USE ZONE

31.1

I have supported submissions to the policies and objectives of the mixed use zone seeking
restraint on retail enablement within the zone (DNZ3863-104). Policy 2A has been
recommended which states:

2A Limit the agglomeration of retail activities except where they are well connected to the
City Centre, or a Metropolitan, Town or Local Centre. (DNZ3683-109)

31.2

The principles behind the policy is discussed in paragraphs 14.28 to 14.34. Mr Akehurst
identifies the importance of a greater degree of retail enablement in the zone fringing the
centres network, but considers that management is needed for retail agglomeration further
164

from centres to manage impacts

31.3

Paragraph 25.8 to 25.11 outline the basis of a rule limiting the agglomeration (5 retail
activities or a maximum total GFA of 1,000m2) of food and beverage activities in the mixed
use zone where these are located some distance from a centre zone (200m). Paragraphs
28.7 to 28.8 set out the basis for the rule in terms of the broad range of retail activities.
Proposed Rules 3.2 and 3.2a below respond to the submissions from T Daniels 4600-1
and Kiwi 5253-12, 14. The proposed rules, below, would give effect to the provisions of
B:3.1 seeking that commercial activities be intensified in centres, and would achieve
proposed D:3.7 Policy 2A.

3. Land Use Controls

164

Evidence Akehurst. Paragraphs 6.49 6.53.

Page 133

3.2 Retail up to 200m2 GFA per tenancy in the Mixed Use zone
1.

Retail (excluding food and beverage, dairies and service stations) up to 200m2
GFA per tenancy in the Mixed Use zone is a restricted discretionary activity
where it is not located within a 400m 200m walk from the City Centre,
Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre or Local Centre zones (as shown on the
planning maps).

3.2a Food and beverage in the Mixed Use zone

1.

Food and beverage activities that:

a. are not located within a 200m walk from the City Centre, Metropolitan Centre,
Town Centre or Local Centre zones (as shown on the planning maps)
b. form part of an integrated development, with more than 5 retail activities or a
maximum total GFA of 1000m2;
are a restricted discretionary activity.

2.

In 1 above, integrated development means a development that shares the same

carparking or access.

6. Assessment Restricted Discretionary Activities

2a.

Retail that infringes land use control 3.2 (retail up to 200m 2 GFA per tenancy in the Mixed
Use zone), food and beverage that infringes land use control 3.2a (food and beverage
activities in the Mixed Use zone) and food and beverage that infringes land use control 3.2b
(food and beverage activities in the General Business zone)
a. local housing
b. centre vitality
c. cumulative effects.

31.4

The assessment criteria (I:3.6.2.2a Retail that infringes land use control 3.2) is appended
to Mr Wyatts evidence in the suite of provisions. The criteria require consideration of
whether agglomerated retail would intensify the site supporting high density housing; and
matters related to relevant distributional effects on the centres network. The assessment
criteria are supported.

Page 134

The note is considered appropriate. It assists with the efficiency of the application of the

31.5

rule. It explicitly seeks to identify that a cumulative distributional assessment will only be
required when there is a significant cluster (over 1,000m2 gfa or 5 retail tenancies within a
100m radius); below these thresholds it is understood that there is little prospective risk of
relevant distributional effects.

31.6

The benefits of the approach are as set out in the evidence of Mr Akehurst. It is understood
that there will be individual costs associated with the provisions, however these are
somewhat offset by the inherent flexibility in the provision, focused matters of discretion,
and the limited application of the rule within the mixed use zone (the majority of land
parcels are located within 200m of the city centre, metropolitan and local centre). It is
understood that the rule (and associated limitation) accords with the modelling undertaken
by Ms Fairgray in terms of her allocation of retail capacity to the mixed use zone.

32.

3.2 FOOD AND BEVERAGE WITHIN THE GENERAL BUSINESS ZONE

32.1

Rule I:3.3.2b is proposed as set out in paragraph 25.12. The rule states:

3.2b Food and beverage in the General Business zone

1.

Food and beverage activities that form part of an integrated development, with
more than 5 food and beverage activities, are a restricted discretionary activity.

2.

In 1 above, integrated development means a development that shares the same

carparking or access.

32.2

The assessment matters and criteria (I:3.6.1.2a and I:3.6.2.2a Retail that infringes land
use control 3.2) are appended to Mr Wyatts evidence in the suite of provisions. The criteria
require consideration of the distributional effects of food and beverage outlets, in
association with nearby commercial activities, on the centres network. The assessment
criteria are supported.

32.3

There are a number of food and beverage outlets within individual general business
centres. This reflects what has been currently provided by the legacy plans and existing
Page 135

consents. The provision of a limited number of food and beverage outlets is supported, as
together with Drive-through restaurants (which are more functional than cafes and
restaurants) these provide for both custom and workers within the general business zone.

32.4

It is recognised that food and beverage outlets located within the general business zones
do not provide significant draw in the evening when other retail activity is closed.

32.5

To date, there has not been an agglomeration of food and beverage activity in any one
location, and accordingly the regulatory effect of the rules is not considered unduly
onerous.

32.6

The purpose of the rule is to consider, and appropriately limit the extent of food and
beverage outlets present in a general business zone, where the zoned area is exhibiting
characteristics and a diversity of activities more akin to a centre zone. The proposed rule is
considered appropriate in terms of achieving D:3.8 Policies 3 and 4 which recognise the
provision of food and beverage outlets, but seek to avoid commercial activity where this
would otherwise diminish the function, role and amenity of the centres network.

32.7

For the avoidance of doubt, the rule is recommended by Auckland Council. Submissions
seeking the retention of the status for food and beverage outlets in the general business
zone are identified in paragraph 25.1

33.

MATTERS OF DISCRETON, RDA ASSESSMENT

I.3.6.2.1.2 Matters of Discretion Retail Greater than 450m2 in the Local zone
33.1

These matters seek to consider, in a narrowed manner, the effects of larger scale
commercial activities on: the effects on the network of centres (relevant distributional
effects); and more localised implications in terms of compatibility with the surrounding area,
in terms of scale and transport effects.

33.2

Submissions received were related to amendments proposed to the Activity Table, rather
than that criteria to be considered. Body Corporate 197887 6356-67 and DNZ Property
3863-141.
Page 136

33.3

I recommended in paragraph 28.19 that Retail greater than 450m2 per tenancy should be
permitted in the general business zone, except for supermarkets and department stores.
The amendment to that change is identified below as sought by Harvey Norman 5924-54.
Clause (d) functionality has been inserted as a consequential amendment from the
evidence of Mr Munro on D:3.1 Policy 11A and is supported.

33.4

In all other respects the matters of discretion and assessment criteria are supported, as
these provide for an appropriate consideration of these activities, which are largely
anticipated in the respective zone framework, but allows for specific consideration where
broader transport, local amenity and centre considerations should be reserved. The matters
are relatively condensed and discrete, leaving individual proponents to resolve the matters
with reference to the specific context and role of the commercial zoning in question.

6. Assessment - Restricted discretionary activities

6.1

Matters of discretion
1.

Retail greater than 450m in the General Business and Local Centre zone, offices
greater than 500m2 in the Local Centre zone, supermarkets greater than 450m2 and
department stores in the General Business zone, and supermarkets greater than 450m2
and up to 2000m2 in the Mixed Use zone

I.3.6.2.2(a)
33.5

a.

intensity and scale

b.

centre vitality

c.

design of parking, access and servicing

d.

functionality.

Centre Vitality

This criteria seeks to ensure that the relevant distributional effects on the centres network
can be considered. The criteria applies to: Retail greater than 450m Local Centre zone,
offices greater than 500m2 in the Local Centre zone, supermarkets greater than 450m2 and
department stores in the General Business zone, and supermarkets greater than 450m2 and
up to 2000m2 in the Mixed Use zone

Page 137

33.6

The control implements objectives and policies seeking to manage the distributional effects
of: large scale office and retail activity in the local centre zone (refer D:3.5 Objective 1 and
Policy 4); supermarkets and department stores in the general business zone (refer B3.1
Objective 2, Policy 3 and Policy 7. D:3.8 Policy 2(b), Policy 3); and supermarkets in the
mixed use zone between 450m2 and up to 2000m2 (refer to D:3.7 Objective 2 and Policy 2).

33.7

Submissions from NTC 2632-168, The Warehouse 2748-94 sought the qualifier
substantial to be replaced by significant in terms of determining relevant distributional
effects. That amendment is supported, and the phrase beyond those effects ordinarily
associated with trade effects on trade competitors which has been used extensively is a
recommended and agreed replacement.

33.8

The amendment to the status of offices to RDA above 500m2 within local centres (Crown
Corp-4376) requires a consequential amendment to also consider implication the efficient
and effective operation of public transport. This responds to D:3.5 Policy 4 which in relation
to the safe and efficient operation of the transport network.

33.9

Lastly NTC 2632-158 seek the deletion of the assessment matter which is about
considering any net positive benefits of retail and office location. It is agreed that this matter
was poorly drafted, and is recommended as refocused to consider whether a proposal
enables convenient access of communities to commercial and community services. It is
understood that this matter was agreed at mediation.

SECTION C:6

DEFINITIONS

34.

DEFINITIONS

34.1

Submissions to Part 4 Definitions within the PAUP have been allocated to Hearing Topic
065 Definitions. However, it is considered appropriate to address the definitions that are
inherent to the business chapter at this stage. This section of my evidence addresses
definitions that relate to the broad themes of role and function of centres, and commercial
activities.

34.2

Submitters have sought to amend existing definitions or introduce new definitions for the
following activities:
Page 138

(a)

Building suppliers

(b)

Commercial activities

(c)

Commercial services

(d)

Drive-through facility

(e)

Identified growth corridors

(f)

Integrated retail developments

(g)

Large format retail

(h)

Retail

(i)

Supermarket

(j)

Tenancy, office unit and retail unit

(k)

Trade suppliers

Building suppliers
34.3

NTC (2632-200) and The Warehouse (2748-192) seek to limit the sale of products not
specifically identified within the building suppliers definition to a maximum of 5 per cent of
the products offered for sale. The submitters concern is that the PAUP adopts a more
enabling approach for building suppliers in the Light Industry zone

165

compared with other

retail, yet building suppliers are increasingly offering products other than building suppliers.
As a result, building suppliers located in the Light Industry zone could incorporate a
substantial proportion of general retail products into their merchandise mix without the level
of discretion that a standalone retail use would be subject to.

34.4

In this regard, the definition of trade supplier is to be read in conjunction with are building
supplier and other nested definitions including garden and landscape supplies. The
meaning of trade supplier is expanded by direct reference to these other definitions, and
takes meaning from those terms. The only reference to customer base is within the
definition of trade supplier. It does not arise in the subsequent definitions, which focus

165

Trade suppliers are RD in the Light Industry zone compared with NC for general retail that is not accessory to an industrial
activity.

Page 139

more on the nature of the products offered. Accordingly, Bunnings and Mitre10 would carry
the necessary products to qualify as a building supplier or garden and landscape supplier.

34.5

The practical effect of the submissions would be to restrict the sale of products to 95%
building supply products, leaving a residual 5% for other uses nested under the definition of
trade supplier. This would effectively undermine the both the manner in which trade
supplier provides flexibility for trade based retail activities encompassed within the broader
definition, and would render the majority of traders under the building supply banner as not
being contained within that definition.

34.6

The relief is not supported.

34.7

Bunnings (6096-81) seek to add suppliers of lighting to the inclusions list for the building
suppliers definition. The relief is not considered necessary. The definition of what
constitutes a building supplier incorporates a business primarily engaged in selling
materials for use in the construction, modification, cladding, fixed decoration or outfitting of
buildings which would not exclude light fittings.

Commercial activities
34.8

ACI (852-98) and Transpacific (877-83) seek to limit the definition of commercial activities
to just offices, retail and commercial services, in order to more clearly distinguish between
commercial and industrial activities. The proposed amendment is:
'The range of commercial activities including o Offices, retail and commercial services
providers.

34.9

In my view, the notified definition of commercial activities sufficiently clarifies that industrial
activities are not contemplated within the definition.

Industrial activities are separately

defined within the plan, and are contained within a separate nesting table. In addition, the
amendment sought does not recognise that entertainment facilities are nested directly
below commercial activities in the commercial nesting table.

On this basis, it would

inappropriate to exclude entertainment facilities from this definition.

34.10

Therefore I consider that no change should be made to the notified definition of commercial
activities.
Page 140

Commercial services
34.11

New Zealand Racing Board (272-1) seek the inclusion of Totalisator Agency Board (TAB)
as a subset of the Commercial services definition on the basis that such activities are not
expressly provided for within the plan. Within the notified PAUP, betting agencies might be
interpreted as entertainment facilities, which the submitter does not consider appropriate.

34.12

I agree that this type of activity requires specific recognition within the plan but consider
that the term authorised betting shop is more appropriate, as it more clearly recognises
the nature of the activity anticipated. To this end, I consider that the following amendments
should be made to commercial services:
Commercial services
Businesses that sell personal, property, financial, household, private or business services.
Includes:
...

betting shops

Department Stores

34.13

The notified definition of department store was unduly vague. The definition required
greater specificity, as to whether it would adequately capture recognised department stores
(Farmers, K Mart and the Warehouse) and not unduly account for retail activities such as
Harvey Norman and the $2 Shop.

34.14

Accuracy in the definition is important. There are: policy implications, with policy seeking to
recognise the importance of department stores to centre function and providing for their
functional requirements (D:3.4 Policy 9 and D3.5 Policy 6); and rule implications especially
given the recommendation to retain an RDA status for department stores within the general
business zone.

34.15

Therefore I support the following changes to the definition of department stores

Department stores
A shop organised into departments that sell goods such as apparel, furniture, appliances,
electronics, household goods, toiletries, cosmetics, jewellery, toys and sporting goods, where no
one merchandise line dominates.
Page 141

A shop that retails a wide variety of goods, but the variety is such that no predominant product line
can be determined. These units have predominant retail sales in clothing and at least three of the
following six product groups:

Furniture

Kitchenware, china, glassware and other housewares

Textile goods

Electrical, electronic and gas appliances

Perfumes, cosmetics and toiletries

Sporting goods

The products primary to these headings, as well as other products, are normally sold by or
displayed in separate departments or sections.
This definition is nested within the Commerce nesting table.

Drive-through facility
34.16

Restaurant Brands Limited (4449-78) seek to delete and replace the PAUP definition to
clarify that a drive-through facility encompasses the whole premises (including the dine-in
restaurant aspect), rather than just the drive-through component.

34.17

Drive-through facilities typically encompass both restaurant and drive-through functions.

On this basis, I agree that these components should be captured by a single activity. This
will reduce complexity for drive-through operators and avoid potential duplication of consent
requirements. In addition, the activity would appropriately be nested under the food and
beverage in the Industry nesting table. As a result, I support the following amendments:
Drive-through facility
'Facilities designed to serve customers in their vehicles.
Drive-through restaurant
Any land and/or building on or in which food and beverages are prepared, served and sold to the
public inclusive of a facility designed to serve customers in their vehicles, for the consumption on or
off the premises and may include an ancillary cafe and/or playground area.

Integrated retail developments

34.1

Scentre (2968-355) seek to replace the term integrated retail developments with
integrated shopping centres on the basis that the latter is a more commonly understood
Page 142

term. I agree that the term integrated shopping centre could be more commonly used and
understood than integrated retail development. However this term could also implicate an
entire business centre in the definition, rather than its intended use which is to define
shopping malls.
34.2

Scentre (2968-355, 356), DNZ (3863-136) and AMP (4376-116) seek to amend the
definition

to

broaden

the

scope

of

activities

within

an

integrated

retail

development. Specifically, the submitters seek to:

(a)
(b)

Delete the requirement to incorporate two large format retail outlets (all submitters)
Enable integrated retail development to include incremental development on
adjoining sites (DNZ and AMP)

(c)

Replace the term principally with typically in reference to being within an

internalised building envelope. (Scentre)

(d)

Make the components listed in bullet points optional rather than compulsory aspects
of integrated retail developments (Scentre).

34.3

A definition of integrated retail developments is used in I:3.8 in relation to specific

assessment matters associated with the built form of such developments, and provides
some latitude recognising the design and external appearance of such developments .
There is therefore need for certainty as to the application of the definition, and a narrow
focus applicable to larger mall developments.

34.4

That aspect of the submissions seeking to increase the application of the definition to a
wider range of commercial complexes is opposed. This would increases the application of
the definition, and with it reduce the design outcomes preferred for centres, as outlined in
the evidence of Mr Munro.

34.5

The submission from Scentre identifying that development is typically enclosed is agreed
with. Botany Metropolitan centre is an example of both internalised and external integration
between parts of the complex. The amendment is:
Integrated retail developments
An integrated and designed development that is principally typically within an enclosed and
internalised building envelope and is operated by a single management entity, and

incorporates at least two large format retail outlets

Page 143

provides for shared accessory car parking for all tenancies within one site
incorporates a wide range of comparison good retailers and
may also incorporate entertainment and commercial facilities.

Identified growth corridors

34.6

NTC (2632-189) and The Warehouse (2748-195) seek to broaden the scope of identified
growth corridors, on the basis that significant road corridor is not a defined term in the
PAUP, and the wording limited number is more appropriately located in an objective or
policy. The proposed amendment is:
A limited number of significant road Road corridors or significant road corridor segments, that
are selected for urban and in particular commercial development, due to physical or locational
characteristics

34.7

The submissions are opposed. The purpose of Integrated Growth Corridors is as set out in
Section C:3 of this evidence. The application of the IGC notation is to be sparsely applied,
as outlined in the evidence of Ms Fairgray, Mr Akehurst and Mr Wong-Toi in terms of
implications on urban form and transport integration respectively; this is signalled in the
phrase a limited number. Reference to significant road corridor segments is necessary to
convey that the notation should not be dispersed in an incremental manner, and in my view
does not require further definition.

Large format retail

34.8

166

Some submitters

seek specific provision for department stores and supermarkets as part

of the large format retail definition. The submitters concern is that the definition of large
format retail excludes food and beverage activities, and could therefore be interpreted as
excluding supermarkets as well. I do not agree. Supermarkets and department stores are
nested under the activity large format retail in the Commerce nesting table.

166

AMP Capital Property Portfolio Limited (2575-63), DNZ Property Fund Limited et al (3863-136), AMP Capital Investors New
Zealand Limited and AMP Capital Property Portfolio Limited (4376-116),

Page 144

34.9

Auckland Council (5716-364) seeks to exclude garden centres, marine retail and motor
vehicle sales within the definition of large format retail. These activities were removed from
the definition of trade supplier shortly before the PAUP was notified, but were not excluded
from the large format retail definition as intended. In addition, these activities do not cause
distributional effects in the same way that large format retail does and therefore should not
be captured by rules not intended for these activities.

I agree that these should be

excluded from the definition.

34.10

Therefore, I consider that the following amendments should be made:

Large format retail
Any individual shop tenancy with a floor area greater than 450m2, where the tenancy is created by
freehold, leasehold, licence or any other arrangement to occupy.
Excludes:

food and beverage

garden centres

marine retail

motor vehicle sales

trade suppliers.

Retail
34.11

Bunnings seek to exclude trade suppliers from the retail definition to avoid ambiguity
between this definition and the separate definition of trade suppliers in the plan. I do not
agree with this approach. Trade suppliers are a form of retail activity and are appropriately
nested under the broader heading of retail. Therefore I consider that the notified definition
should be retained.

34.12

Hugh Green Limited (5259-82) seek to introduce a new definition for convenience retail
so that more convenience retail activities can establish in the residential zones.

The

proposed definition is:

Any individual shop tenancy with a floor area greater than 100m2 GFA where the tenancy is
created freehold, leasehold, licence or any other arrangement to occupy. This includes:
Restaurants and Cafes, Dairies and Commercial Services

34.13

The residential zones in the PAUP provide for dairies, restaurants and cafes up to 100m.
Enabling larger scale convenience retail in residential areas can undermine the centres
Page 145

approach to commercial activities, and cause adverse effects on residential amenity and
the road network by introducing more vehicle trips into an area without sufficient capacity.
For these reasons I do not support provision for convenience retail as sought by the
submitter.

Supermarket
34.14

Progressives (5723-360) seek to delete and replace the supermarket definition.

The

primary concern of Progressives is that the 20% threshold for non-domestic supplies (such
as magazines and newspapers, stationery and batteries) is arbitrary and does not reflect
industry practices. Progressives also seek recognition for pharmacies and lottery sales,
which they consider to be commonly associated with supermarkets. The definition sought
is:
A retail outlet that stocks, sells and supplies (including by delivery on-site or off-site) a
comprehensive range of predominantly domestic supplies, services, merchandise and
convenience goods for consumption and use off or on the premises including, without
limitation, financial, insurance, transportation, pharmaceutical, alcohol and gaming (for
example, Lotto) goods and services.
Excludes:

34.15

Dairies;

Restaurants.

The submission is opposed. The replacement definition provided by Progressives is so

broad as to encompass a considerable range of retail activities that would not commonly be
considered supermarkets. That part of the definition associated with non-domestic supplies
is considered necessary to ensure that non-domestic supplies are subordinate to the
primary purpose, however the practicalities associated with the 20% threshold are
acknowledged. Accordingly, the following amendment is proposed.
Supermarkets
An individual retail outlet that sells, primarily by way of self service, a comprehensive range of:
a. domestic supplies such as

fresh meat and produce

chilled, frozen, packaged, canned and bottled foodstuffs and beverages

general housekeeping and personal goods, includes cooking, cleaning and

washing products, kitchenwares; toilet paper, diapers and other paper tissue

Page 146

products, pharmaceutical, health and personal hygiene products and other

toiletries, and cigarettes and related products and

b. a subordinate range of non domestic supplies comprising not more than 20 per cent of all
products offered for sale as measured by retail floor space, includinges:

magazines and newspapers

greeting cards and stationery

barbecue and heating fuels

Batteries

flashlights and light bulbs

Films

appliances

Tenancy, office unit and retail unit

34.16

Paragraph 28.4 of my evidence supports retail thresholds in the activity tables being
determined on a per tenancy rather than per site basis (The Warehouse 2748). There is a
need to define tenancy.

34.17

Hugh Green Limited (5259-129) suggest the term retail unit is used in the activity table
and defined as follows:
'retail unit means an individual, self contained entity engagement in retail activities'

34.18

In my opinion the tenancy is more accurate and widely understood. To this end, I consider
the following definition appropriate:
Tenancy
One area of occupancy of a retail or office activity that is created by freehold, leasehold, licence
or any other arrangement to occupy.

34.19

Hugh Green Limited (5259-130) also seek to introduce a definition for office unit into the
plan to support their request to define office gross floor area thresholds on a per tenancy
or per unit basis. I do not consider a per tenancy based GFA threshold appropriate for
office activities.

34.20

Controlling office activity on a site by site basis delivers the most appropriate outcomes,
and is the more measurable metric. Control by site provides a higher degree of certainty
about the volume of office activities being enabled than a per tenancy basis. It may be
Page 147

theoretically possible to subdivide sites to increase their number and allow more
office activities, this would be a most complex and difficult route, and hence unlikely; than
simply putting a divider up to provide a new tenancy space of less than the required
footprint within the provisions.
34.21

A per tenancy basis may end up driving building floorplate sizes simply to meet the rule,
and would require a complete redrafting of the office provisions. Based on the current scale
provisions, reliance on a tenancy metric would control only the individual size of office
business, not the total volume and scale of office developments. Using tenancy as the
metric of measurement would be inefficient and ineffective.

Trade suppliers
34.1

NTC (2632-205) seek that wholesale grocery, domestic and merchandise suppliers be
included as a subset of the trade suppliers definition. The primary concern of the submitter
is that the PAUP does not provide certainty for Gilmours wholesaling activities.

This

amendment would make this type of activity permitted in the Metropolitan Centre, Town
Centre, General Business and Light Industry zones.
34.2

Wholesaling is contained within the definition of Industrial Activities:

The manufacturing, assembly, packaging, wholesaling or storage of products or the processing of
raw materials and other accessory goods.

34.3

These activities are therefore rendered non-complying throughout the commercial zones,
with the exception of the general business zone.

34.4

The primary function of a wholesaler is distribution, invariably with a mixture of private

logistics and transport and customer vehicles for that purpose.

34.5

The associated built form is often utilitarian, consisting of a high stud height single
storey building, with limited parking and associated landscaping. Vehicle movements
typically are associated with heavy vehicles, and can result in conflicts in high
pedestrian environments.

34.6

These activities are suited to a light industrial zone where the built form, amenity
expectations and associated vehicle generation characteristics are appropriate. Whilst
Page 148

there would be few wholesale businesses that do not have a retail element, they are
distinguishable from trade suppliers.
34.7

Accordingly, that part of the relief seeking that these activities are permitted within
metropolitan, town and local centres is opposed. However, such activities would also
unlikely be anticipated or compatible with the amenity of the heavy industry zone. I
have recommended a definition as below, as nested under Industrial Activities. Ms
Wickham has outlined in her evidence a differing status for Wholesalers within the
Heavy Industry Zone.
Wholesaler
A business engaged in the storage and distribution of goods to businesses (including retail
activities) and institutional customers.

34.8

Bunnings (6096-84) seek that the definition of trade suppliers recognise home furnishing,
including cleaning and storage suppliers, and lifestyle including leisure, BBQ / outdoor
furniture suppliers. Such an amendment is considered unnecessary, to the extent that such
activities are incorporated within the inclusive nature of the definition of Building Supplier
which provides for the retail of materials primarily for use in the construction, modification,
cladding, fixed decoration or outfitting of buildings. There does become a point where the
sale of materials not subordinate to those considered building materials, would render such
activities as a large format retail activity, rather than a trade supplier.

Response
34.9

Therefore I consider that Part 4 - Definitions of the PAUP should be amended as noted in
the previous paragraphs and attached to Mr Wyatts evidence.

PART D - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

35. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

35.1

In my opinion, the Auckland Council evidence addresses the requirements of s32.

35.2

In terms of Part II of the Act, there are no treaty issues arising under s8, nor matters of
national importance under s6. In terms of s7 matters to which we are to have particular
regard, I consider the following are relevant
Page 149

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;
(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;
(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment; and
(g) any finite characteristic of natural and physical resources

35.3

In this context, Section 7 (b) and (g) have considerable importance in terms of not only the
infrastructure associated with existing centre network, but also that of the strategic roading
and transport network.

35.4

There are a number of submissions, from an array of parties. On the whole however, there
is general support for the Councils approach, albeit with varying degrees as to which
commercial activity should be compressed within the centres network, mixed use and
general business zone, and the extent to which industrial land can be sufficiently provided
for and reverse sensitivity effects managed.

35.5

I am of the view that the Auckland Council position, as reflected in the mediated provisions
with the other minor changes I support, is the most appropriate approach in terms of the
efficient use of the network of centres and the industrial land resource, and responds to the
finite capacity of the Council and wider communitys investment in the centre network and
provision of industrial land supply.

35.6

I have considered the submitter's relief against Section 7(c) and (f) of the RMA. The
provision of additional commercial capacity can result in the dispersal and transfer of retail
activity from the centre network, however the Council's approach of the managed release
through expanded and new centres, as well as additional capacity through those Identified
Growth Corridors recommended provides an appropriate release valve to retain and
enhance centre amenity values and reinvestment.

35.7

Overall, I consider that the Auckland Council position is the most appropriate way to meet
the purpose of the Act. The provisions of the PAUP as amended by the mediated
provisions will assist the Auckland Council carry out its functions under s30 of the RMA, to
achieve the purpose of the Act.

Matthew William Bonis

Page 150

27 July 2015

Page 151

ATTACHMENT A
Qualifications
I hold a Bachelor of Regional and Environmental Planning (Hons) gained from Massey University in
1995.
I have worked as a strategic planner and policy advisor for over 17 years.
My main areas of expertise are spatial planning, strategic policy development, strategic
infrastructure development and business growth. I have worked extensively on these issues in both
New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
My experience in business and retail resource management matters has included: representing the
Auckland Regional Council (Specified Commercial Appeals to the Change 6 LG(A)AA 2004), which
formed the predecessor provisions to Section B3.1; Auckland Unitary Council on the Section B3.1
provisions; Christchurch City Council (National Investment Trust vs Christchurch City Council.
C152/2007); Waimakariri District Council (Kiwi Property Holdings et al vs Christchurch City Council
[2012] NZEnv92); and Taupo District Council Advance Properties Group Ltd et al vs Taupo District
Council [2014] NZEnvC126 at the Environment Court. I have also assisted a number of territorial
authorities on matters relating to business and retail strategy and policy drafting.
Experience
Associate, (and Senior Planner)
Planz Consultants, Christchurch, New Zealand
April 2005 Present
Senior Planner, Strategy and Policy
Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, New Zealand
June 2000 April 2005
Community Resource Management Advisor,
Christchurch Community Law Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand
November 1999 May 2000
Planner
Adams Hendry Planning Consultancy, Winchester, United Kingdom
May 1998 August 1999
Policy Planner, District Planning
New Plymouth District Council, New Plymouth, New Zealand
December 1995 March 1997

Page 152

ATTACHMENT B
IDENTIFIED GROWTH CORRIDOR PROVISIONS
RECOMMENDED CORRIDORS
RESIDUAL CONSIDERED CORRIDORS

Page 153

E4.5 Identified Growth Corridor Overlay objectives and policies

Note: This text replaced the deleted section above. For ease of reading the changes that are the same as the
notified PAUP are not shown as underlined.
Overlay description Description
These provisions are The overlay is applied to a limited number of significant road corridors or significant segments
of these corridors. The purpose is to provide additional opportunity to those commercialretail activities
(predominantly large format retail activities) that:

may not be appropriate for, or are not able to locate in centres due to the size, scale or nature of
the activity, and

are not typically provided for in the underlying zone.

Where commercialretail activities are enabled by an identified growth corridor, these should:

respect the current land uses and the design outcomes anticipated by the underlying zone

support a compact urban form

maintain the safety and efficiency of the road network and promote integrated transport

not diminish the function, role and amenityand viability of the city centre, metropolitan, town and local
centres.

The provisions only relates to those sites that have direct frontage and access to the identified growth corridor.
The provisions overlay can do not change the activity status of land use activities within the overlay area.
They It also provides specific additional objectives and policies that must be considered when assessing a
proposal for a resource consent.

Objectives
1.

Provide for A mix of commercialretail activities that may not be appropriate for, or are not able to locate
in centres, is provided for,where they that will not have adverse effects on the function, role and amenity
of centres, beyond those ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade competitors.

2.

An appropriate level of improved amenity and a street environment that integrates with the transport network.

3.

Commercial Aactivities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on existing development in the
surrounding area.

Policies
1.

Having regard to those matters identified in B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth, Policy 7, Aapply the
overlay only to those sites which:

have direct frontage or access to a major arterial road to the Identified Growth Corridor;

are proximate to catchments that can be served efficiently and appropriately by retail development;

are capable of being developed in a way that is compatible with surrounding activities;

2.

Recognise the functional requirements of large format retail in business zones, so that where the built
form outcomes of the underlying zone are not achieved the development positively contributes to the

streetscape and character of its surroundings.

3.

Assess Require applications for commercialretail activities in business zones to be assessed

with regard to: in terms of their effects on those matters identified in against the RPS B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth, Policy 7, and the adverse effects, including cumulative
effects, on the function, role and amenity of local centres, beyond those effects ordinarily associated
with trade effects on trade competitors.

a. adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on the function, role and amenity of the city centre,
metropolitan, town and local centres, beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on
trade competitors
b. effects, on community social and economic well-being and accessibility
c. impacts on the safe and efficient operation of the transport system network including public
transport and the road network
d. conflicts between incompatible activities
4.

Require applications for retail activities in residential zones to be assessed with regard to:
a. the matters in Policy 3 above
b. compatibility with residential character

J4.4 Identified Growth Corridor - rules

1. Activity table
Activity Table
The following table specifies the land use activities in the Identified Growth Corridor overlay. The land use
Aactivity status is to be determined in accordance with the underlying zoning of the site unless the following
table applies provisions apply a more lenient activity status. on the activity:
Activity
Food and Beverage

Retail up to 450m GFA per tenancy

2

Retail greater than 450m GFA per tenancy

RD

Retail greater than 450m2 GFA per tenancy with

a residential zone

Trade Suppliers

RD

2. Development controls
Development Controls
The development controls for the underlying zone shall apply.
3. Assessment restricted discretionary activities
Assessment Criteria
3.1 Matters of Discretion
The council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the activities listed as restricted discretionary in the
activity table:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.

Effects of new buildings

Effects on centres
Reverse sensitivity
Traffic generation
New buildings

3.2 Assessment criteria

The council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the restricted discretionary activities listed
above.
1. The criteria in I3.8, Assessment - Integrated retail developments, supermarkets, and department stores, large
format retail and trade suppliers if relevant.
2. The criteria in H1.2.5.2.1A Assessment - Traffic Generation Threshold.
3. The relevant assessment criteria for the underlying zone shall apply.
4. The extent to which the proposal will generate adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on the function,
role and amenity of the city centre, metropolitan, town and local centres, beyond those effects ordinarily
associated with trade effects on trade competitors.

5. The extent to which the form and scale of buildings on sites in Residential zones are compatible with the
residential character of adjacent sites if occupied by residential activity.
6. For activities on sites in Light Industrial zones, the extent to which reverse sensitivity effects on neighbouring
industrial activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

ER

T
EE

ET

D
OA D
O A ORTH R
R
H
AD
RT NEW N
NO

NE

N OR
TH
RO

ET

NE

RE

OAD
HR
T
R
NO

NO

RT

R OA

OD AVENU E

DOMINION

NE
W

NO

RT
H

RO

BRE

NTW
O

STREET

ET

AD

H ROAD
D

GE OR GE

TRE

ET

R
ST

ET

RE
ST

ST

W
NE

HT

ET
RE
ST

RE
ST
ET

NE

ET

DS

ST
RE

RE
ST

UR

ET

RE
ST

ND

BO

SK

BON

BO

NA

Y
ST

CH
RI

HE

N
KI

NE
W

LI

I
BR

ND

HA

O
M

AY
W
R
TO WAY
O
M OR
N
R
OT
E
T
M
N
ES
-W T E R
H
RT
ES
NO H-W
RT
NO

I
VA

XA

AD

Integrated GrowthAYCorridor
Kingsland MA W

E
AL

W
NE

TO

O
R

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

C
BU

E LL
PP
E
K

ST

ET
RE

N
O

P
M
A
R

ME

T
EE

NE

HO

STR

STR
E

ET

GE O

R GE

STR

EET

VIEW

R OA

KAW AKA
S

AD

Legend
IntegratedGrowthCorridor

Unitary Plan Zones

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Mixed Housing Urban

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

Future Urban

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Mixed Housing Suburban

0.03 Kil ome ters

Created Date: 27 Jul 2015

Scale @ A3: 1:3,810
Projection: NZTM
Datum: NZGD2000

File Name: Integrated Growth Corridor.mxd

General Business

Large Lot

0.01 5

OE A
VEN
U

Green Infrastructure Corridor

Special Purpose

LISN

R LE

HA

ET

ALD
E

KO

RE
ST

Y RO

AD

ON

O
SL

RO

TRE
E

TAW
A RI

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Town Centre
City Centre

Business Park

Rural Conservation
Rural Coastal

Public Open Space - Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Strategic Transport Corridor

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Mooring [rcp]
Water [i]

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

TR

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

N
RT
Integrated OGrowth
Corridor
HW
Lincoln Road
ES
TE
RN
MO
TO
RW
AY

IA

L
NG

OA

CR

ESC
E

NT

R
PA

PARAM
OUN

UNIVERS

AL

AC
IntegratedGrowthCorridor

FAIRDEN
E

KON

Legend

E
NU
E
AV

Unitary Plan Zones

Created Date: 27 Jul 2015

Scale @ A3: 1:9,460
Projection: NZTM
Datum: NZGD2000

File Name: Integrated Growth Corridor.mxd

UE

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Mixed Housing Urban

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

Future Urban

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Mixed Housing Suburban

0.09 Kil ome ters

RD AVEN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

Large Lot

0.04 5

WOODFO

PLACE

Special Purpose

AVENUE

RIVE
KD

MOSELL
E

R
PA

PINEDAL
E

A CE

TR

RESCENT

S AVENU

N
CE

TE PAI PL

EDWARD

AL DRIV

OA D

ROAD

IVE
DR

LINCOLN
R

LON GB U
RN RO
AD

KING DAL
E

TUDO R RO
AD

R
IVE

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Town Centre
City Centre

Business Park

Rural Conservation
Rural Coastal

Public Open Space - Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Strategic Transport Corridor

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Mooring [rcp]
Water [i]

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

ST
OD
MA

IO
R

MA
IO

BI
A
LU
M

VENUE
RA

AD

DA

RD

RO

AD

ST
OD
ST
RE
RO
DA
ET
RD
ST
RE
ON
RO
ET
AD
RA
OF
F R MP
AM
P
O

TE

RN

MO

TO
R

WA
Y

MA
Y

RO

AD

ROMA RO
AD

SO
UT
HW
ES

AD

RO

RO

RD

MA
Y

DA

UE

P O T TE

ST
OD

AV
EN

CO

AUROR
A

RO

AD

Integrated Growth Corridor

Stoddard Road

Legend
IntegratedGrowthCorridor

Unitary Plan Zones

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Mixed Housing Urban

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

Future Urban

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose
Large Lot

Mixed Housing Suburban

0

0.04

0.08 Kil ome ters

Created Date: 27 Jul 2015

Scale @ A3: 1:9,130
Projection: NZTM
Datum: NZGD2000

File Name: Integrated Growth Corridor.mxd

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Town Centre
City Centre

Business Park

Rural Conservation
Rural Coastal

Public Open Space - Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Strategic Transport Corridor

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Mooring [rcp]
Water [i]

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

IVE
DR

SWOO
UR

Integrated Growth Corridor

Ti Rakau Drive

DAV
I

TON W AY
NG

R OA
D

OD DRI V E

E NS

AD

UG

D
VE
RI

H A RR

O
O

IS RO

BU R

SW O

TOR
R

RO A

S ROAD

U NT DRIVE

MO

RP E

N TE

HARR

R RO

AD

I S RO

AD

CRYERS

ER
CRY

IntegratedGrowthCorridor

Unitary Plan Zones

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Mixed Housing Urban

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

Future Urban

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose
Large Lot

Mixed Housing Suburban

0

0.03 5

0.07 Kil ome ters

Created Date: 27 Jul 2015

Scale @ A3: 1:7,550
Projection: NZTM
Datum: NZGD2000

File Name: Integrated Growth Corridor.mxd

EE

CA
Legend

GR

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Town Centre
City Centre

Business Park

Rural Conservation
Rural Coastal

Public Open Space - Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Strategic Transport Corridor

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Mooring [rcp]
Water [i]

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

AR

BR
Legend
IntegratedGrowthCorridor

E
UC

RO

AD
AR

R
HE

Unitary Plan Zones

Created Date: 27 Jul 2015

Scale @ A3: 1:6,700
Projection: NZTM
Datum: NZGD2000

File Name: Integrated Growth Corridor.mxd

ROA
D

W
AI

RA

AD

UR
O AD

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Mixed Housing Urban

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

Future Urban

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Mixed Housing Suburban

0.06 Kil ome ters

AD

General Business

Large Lot

0.03

RO

ER

Green Infrastructure Corridor

Special Purpose

E
D

AD

AC

UE

OA

RO

L
C EL P

Y
Y
WA
WA TOR
NT
US
CE
O
ES
N B RN M
CR
ER
TH RTHE
ND
BO
OR
O
N
N
D
P
OA
E
AM
AN
UR
NR
L
IRA
E O MP RYS
NU
WA
VE F R A C U R
MA
F

EO
R
AU

ND

AR

AD

TR A

NU
IR
WA

LA

UCE R
BR

NUE
AVE
M
RA

TRIS

E
AV

OA D
PO

LS
IL
H

ER
ID

DE

AD

OA

L
HI

I
LS

RO

T
TRIS

M
RA
IST
TR

VE

RO
AD

R
AU

DRI

AU

IR
WA

NA
DIA

WA
IR

PA

VE
XA

N
AVE

CRO

ROAD

NE S

E
AN

RAI

DL

V IE

MP
RA
FF
AY
EO
RW
NU
TO
VE N M O
NE
R
MA
E
RA
D LA
TH
IST NOR
F I EL
FT
TR

L
FIE
FT

AD

WAIRAU R
OAD

ARRO
W

RO

Integrated Growth Corridor

Wairau Road

O
CR

GE

LIN

IV
DR

IV E
BECR O
F T DR

R
TA

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Town Centre
City Centre

Business Park

Rural Conservation
Rural Coastal

Public Open Space - Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Strategic Transport Corridor

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Mooring [rcp]
Water [i]

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

TION
STA

R OA

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Integrated Growth Corridor

Other Corridors considered where
overlay not supported

RE
A ST
TAK

TA
KA

AD

AD

AN

IN
I

RO

ROAD

RO

TA
K

ION

SO
UT
H

AR

R
EA
T

NIN

IR

Takanini

ET

GR

EA
T

H
UT
RO

AD

E
TH
RN

MO

WA
RE
O
M

UI ROAD
ON

AD

AD
E T RO

TI R

RO

I RO
AD

U
SO

UT

AD

AY
RW
TO

NT
CE

MO

OA

SO

T RO

RN

OSS CRES

I NL
A
PL

ON U

T
EA

IVE

INLE

E
TH

LO

GR

U
SO

DR
FORD PA R K
G
N

T IR

R
ERS
T
L
WA

AY
RW
TO

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Integrated Growth Corridor

Other Corridors considered where
overlay not supported

KS

RO

AD

BA
R

HI G
GS

RA

CK

RO
AD

RO

AD

BA
N

BA
R

RA

CK

RO

AD

Mt Wellington Highway

AN

AD

H ORE

WE
LL
NT
MO
U

JA

RM

AN

RO
AD

ING

TO
N

HI G

HW
AY

TE

TA
R

RIE

OA
D

L LY

PLAC
E

EL
IR

RO

WAIPUNA R O AD
Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

AD

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

IT
E

RO

Integrated Growth Corridor

CA
RT
W

Kelston

RI
GH

RO

AD

SA
B

UL

IT
E

RO

AD

SA
B

UL

Other Corridors considered where

overlay not supported

KE
LM

SA

RO

NA

RE

AT

NO

RT
H

RO

AN

RO

AD

AD

NU
VE

GR

NO

RT
H

RO

AD

LM

CO
U

RT

DR

E
IV

EA
T

PA

RE

AT

NO

RT
H

RO

AD

BR
A

ND

ON

RO

AD

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Integrated Growth Corridor

Other Corridors considered where
overlay not supported
PO
N

E
AI
M

N
VI

Arch Hill

L
AR AN
G
E

SO
N

BY

AD

E
R
ST

AC

R
ST

EN

EE

LL

T
EE

I
LV

RE
ST

KE

ET

SE

RE
ST

S
SU

AN

PO

NL

N
TO

A
SC

DS

RO

E
ST

ET

R
T

KI

EE

I
AR

ST

IN

E
RE

AK

RA

T
T

U
KA
A
T

E
TR

R
NO
VE

-W N O
ES RT
T E H -W
R E
N S
M TE NE
O R W
TO N T
RW M ON
O
AY TO RO
RW AD
AY OF
F

EE

EE
R

OS

S
LD
IE

ST

SF

I
IK

ON

AR

AC

R
ST

BE

T
EE

RT
H

ND

NA
RE
ST

ET

RE
ET

E
STR

ST

ND

YN
ST

BO

ET
RE
ST

HA

EET

ER

C
BU

ST R
ET

AY
TO W
O R
M O
N OT
R
M
TE N
ES E R
-W T
TH ES
R
W
NO TH
R
NO

R
ST

ET

HT

E
TR

XA

EET

ER

LL
PE
EP

ET

E
AL

TR

OP

E
TR

DS

CO

ME

EE
R
ST

I
BR

N
BO

HO

EE

ET

T
EE
ST R

R
ST

RW
AY

GR

AN
DE

TR

M
P

EX

R
TU

SS

ET

SU

RE
ST

PU

S
KI
TI

T
EE

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Integrated Growth Corridor

Other Corridors considered where
overlay not supported

Constellation Drive

N TO RI A N

LLO

CE

APO

DRIVE

DR
IVE

VEGA PLACE

AD

R
IPE

SE

O
TR

N
JU

N
SU

AD

AD

RO

RO

E
SUNS

VE
RI

M
RA

AY
W
K
P AR

PA

AY
W
K
R

I A P CE
LA

I
AT

IV E

IV

D
T RO A

KE

RO

NS
CO

L
EL

ON

DR

DR

SU

NS

ET

RINA ROA D
LAU

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

NG

W
AY

IN

AR

RI

MA

AY

GA

DR

E
IV

ABBOTTS WAY

E
HU

NG

Lunn Avenue

CR
ES

AH

Other Corridors considered where

overlay not supported

CE
NT

DR
IV
E

Integrated Growth Corridor

G
UA
R DC

R E S CE N T

KA

U
R IKI

LU

NN

AV
E

NU

E RRA C

OAD

A RO

AD

MA
R

IS

OA

RO

AD
MA
RU

A RO A D

D
OA
IS R
RR

HA

NU

ELLERSLIE-PAN

EH
MU R

E
AV

BURT ROAD

NN

R U TLAND ROAD

LU

STANHOPE ROA

UA

HA
RR

ND
R

RU
T LA

RO

AD

MAR
U

E
TID

Y RO

AD

UA R
MAR

AY
IGHW

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

OA D

AV
E

LAN
R

NG

Other Corridors considered where

overlay not supported

Ellerslie - Panmure Highway

GOL

HA
RD
I

Integrated Growth Corridor

NU
E

MOUNT
A IN

LU

ROA
D

E
AV

EN U
E

NN

M OU
NTA
IN

HAR

DI N

G AV

NU

RO
AD

AY

AD

MO
U

NT

WE
LL

ING

TO
N

HI G

BA
R

HW
AY

RA

CK

RO

AD

FOR

W
GE

PLACE

ON

ER

OA

EL
IR

AN

AD

TE
H

OR

AD

RI E

L LY

BE

RT
RA

ND

RO

MA
L

RO

ETA R O

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council

MER
TO

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

N RO

Integrated Growth Corridor

AD

MAYB
Other Corridors considered
URY where
overlay not supported STREET

AVEN
UE
A ND

ROPA
TA AV
E

RA N

API

EET

TARATO
A

TA
I

UI ROA D

ST

RI

D
ENT

LL

S TR E E T

RESC

OA

JE

NO

TC

ENT
ESC
CR

RIN R

EN

ET

AD
O

UR
CO

MO R

AD

AN R
OR

CO
AT
E
ICOE RO

RO A D

RO

UPHAM

IN

DD

AD
N RO
PILK
IN

HANNIG

OA D
NR
RI

OA

GTO

A N DRIVE

RR

IR

WA

TR
IPO
L

EL L A
V E NU

UE

VEN
AA

H OL L

PETT ST

OA

T IP

MO

NR
R RI

NUE

Pilkington

ES

DUN

CO AT ES C R
N RO

AD

Legend

Integrated Growth Corridor - not supported UNITARY PLAN

Green Infrastructure Corridor

General Business

Rural Production

Defence [rcp/dp]

Rural and Coastal Settlement

Business Park

Public Open Space - Conservation

Ferry Terminal [rcp/dp]

Large Lot

Neighbourhood Centre

Light Industry

Public Open Space - Informal Recreation

Minor Port [rcp/dp]

Single House

Local Centre

Heavy Industry

Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation

Marina [rcp/dp]

Town Centre

Rural Conservation

Public Open Space - Community

Mooring [rcp]

Metropolitan Centre

Countryside Living

Public Open Space - Civic Spaces

General Coastal Marine [rcp]

City Centre

Rural Coastal

Strategic Transport Corridor

Water [i]

Mixed Use

Mixed Rural

Road [i]

Coastal Transition

Special Purpose

Mixed Housing Suburban

Mixed Housing Urban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Future Urban

Hauraki Gulf Islands

COPYRIGHT Auckland Council