BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN

INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL AT AUCKLAND

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource Management

Act 1991 ("the Act")

AND
IN THE MATTER

of a submission lodged on the

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
Hearing 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

ELLIS GOULD
SOLICITORS
AUCKLAND
REF: Dr C E Kirman / A K Devine

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

Level 17 Vero Centre

48 Shortland Street, Auckland
Tel: (09) 307 2172 Fax: (09) 358 5215
PO Box 1509
DX: CP22003
AUCKLAND

Introduction

1.

These legal submissions to be presented are in support of the submissions

and further submissions of Housing New Zealand Corporation (the
Corporation) in respect of provisions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(Unitary Plan) covered by Hearing Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts
Geographical Areas.

2.

The Corporation has lodged planning, urban design and economic evidence
on this Topic.

Given this Topic draws on and is informed by planning

provisions that are the subject of earlier hearings, the Corporation also relies
on the evidence and legal arguments it has presented in earlier hearings, in
particular in relation to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) (Topics 005,
006, 007, 009, 010, 012, 013) and Topic 020 Viewshafts, Topic 022 Natural
hazards and flooding, Topic 023 SEA and vegetation management, Topics
029/030 Special Character and Pre-1944, Topic 031 Historic Heritage, Topic
032 Historic Heritage Schedules, Topic 035 Air Quality, Topic 042
Infrastructure, Topics 043 and 044 Transport, Topic 045 Airport, Topic 050
City Centre, Topics 051-054 Centres Zones, Business park and industries
zones, Business activities and Business Controls, Topics 059, 060, 062 and
063 Residential provisions, Topic 061 Retirement and Affordability, Topic 064
Subdivision and Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General).
Background Information - Housing New Zealand Corporation
3.

The Corporations detailed evidence regarding social housing in the Auckland

region, the public health benefits of such housing and the role the Corporation
has in the provision of social housing on behalf of the Government was given
in Hearing 013 Urban Growth. A summary of the Corporations background
was provided in Hearing 005 RPS Issues, and for the reference of other
submitters not involved in that hearing, is attached as Attachment A to these
legal submissions.

4.

In summary, the Corporation manages a portfolio of approximately 30,800

dwellings in the Auckland region, providing housing to over 104,000 people
(approximately 7% of the regions population). The Corporations tenants are
people who face barriers (for a number of reasons) to housing in the wider
rental and housing market.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-2-

5.

The Corporation has lodged extensive submissions on the zoning provisions

in the Unitary Plan, in particular the principles that it considers should inform
the spatial application of zoning within the Region so that the direction and
vision of the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan RPS can best be achieved.

6.

As previously noted by the Corporation in its presentation on Topic 061,

Auckland has a unique and critical opportunity through this Unitary Plan
process to identify a policy framework for the future growth of Auckland which
seeks a transformational shift (to use the Auckland Plan language) with
regard to how urban growth and intensification can be accommodated within
the Region.

With Aucklands current housing shortage this need for a

transformational shift in the approach to urban growth and intensification has

even greater importance.
7.

A point emphasised by the Corporation throughout this process is that the

management of urban growth and intensification needs to be addressed in a
holistic manner by the Unitary Plan, not as a discrete issue, and should inform
all aspects of resource management decision-making within the Unitary Plan.
This is not to say that intensification and the management of urban growth
should trump other resource management issues such as the protection of
volcanic views, heritage matters or the interface with infrastructure, but rather
that the ability to provide for intensification and urban growth within the
Region is a matter that is considered in an integrated way when determining
how and to what extent these other resource management issues are
managed.

8.

As noted in previous hearings, the Corporations observation with regards to

the current structure of the Unitary Plan is that each resource management
issue, for example, the protection of volcanic views, water quality, the
management of the interface of sensitive activities (such as residential
activities) with industrial and infrastructure activities, has been undertaken
without a holistic consideration of how the planning frameworks proposed to
manage each of these resource management issues will impact on the ability
to manage issues, such as the intensification of the Region and the provision
of more affordable housing for all Aucklanders, including social housing.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-3-

9.

The Corporations position is best summarised in the joint planning evidence

of Ms Linzey and Mr Lindenberg on Topic 061 as follows:
The overarching basis of the Corporations submission on the PAUP is the need to
enable the increased supply of housing choices, particularly within the existing urban
area, in order to achieve the intensification and quality compact city aspirations of
both the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan (para 18)
Indeed, the Corporations position with regard to the PAUP process as a whole, is
that Auckland has a unique opportunity through this plan development process to
identify a policy framework for the future growth of Auckland which seeks a step
change or transformational shift (to use the Auckland Plan language) with regard to
how urban growth and intensification should occur in the future...
This transformational shift requires an innovative response, and a recognition that the
planning framework of the past will not achieve the urban growth and quality compact
city aspirations which both the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan are seeking.
We support the need for zone provisions of the PAUP (particularly the Residential,
Centre and Mixed Use zone rules and development controls) to be bold in their
intentions to enable a form of urban intensification within the Isthmus area in order to
achieve the urban intensification outcomes which the Councils Auckland Plan and
PAUP RPS provisions describe.
We suggest that such a bold and innovative approach within the key urban zoned
locations, which will provide for residential activities and development, would need to
include:

Moderate increases to the permitted height limits in appropriate locations

(being in and around centres, and within walking distance of public transport
facilities and other recreational, community, commercial and employment
opportunities and facilities);

Significant reductions in, or removal of, land use density controls

(particularly in the Mixed Housing zones);

A reduction in the currently proposed extensive suite of quantitative

development controls, such that a limited number of quantitative controls are
retained to address the key matters which have the potential to create
adverse effects external to a site, most notably in relation to amenity effects
(such as retention of building height, HiRB/Yard, building coverage,
impermeable surface controls for instance); with the remainder of controls
which relate to potential effects internal to a site being addressed in a more
flexible manner through the use of design-related assessment criteria; and

A simplified yet potentially strengthened, suite of assessment criteria,

particularly in relation to development control infringements (in order to
address concerns of neighbours in relation to amenity impacts, and provide
CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-4-

clear guidance to processing planner to assist in their assessment), as well

as design assessment. (paras 27 to 30.4)
However, as already presented to the Panel by the Corporation in relation to the
constraints imposed by the numerous Overlays which apply within the inner Isthmus
(such as heritage and special character issues), the PAUP continues to retain an
inherent conflict between the role of zone provisions (which are seeking to provide for
desired development patterns and built forms of the future), and the trumping role of
Overlay provisions a number of which seek to continue to maintain and protect the
development patterns of the past.
This is the driving theme behind the Corporations submissions across many chapters
of the PAUP with regard to the need for a greater balance to be achieved across
these often competing outcomes. Put simply, if we continue to pursue the type of
planning provisions and methods we have typically applied in the past, we will
continue to get the development patterns and built form outcomes on the ground
which we have always got. It is our opinion that such an approach has the potential to
further compound the existing issues of inefficient land use and lost development
opportunity within the inner Isthmus, and the directing of new residential growth and
intensification opportunities to the outer edges of the existing urban area in a search
for achieving the development of housing that is more affordable and as a
consequence, have a continuing negative impact on the rising costs of housing in the
market attractive areas of Auckland where people want to live and affordability is
most lacking (paras 32-33)

10.

This transformational shift will require an innovative and strategic planning

response, and a recognition that the planning frameworks of the past will not
allow for the urban growth and quality compact city aspirations that both the
Auckland Plan and RPS envisage.

11.

The Corporations view is that the residential provisions as now proposed by

the Council better reflect the future development pattern and form which both
the Auckland Plan and RPS provisions seek to enable, but the spatial
application of these zoning provisions is key to ensuring that aspirations for a
quality compact city can be achieved. Put simply, an approach that provides
for intensification focused to the assessed demand of the next 5 to 15 years is
not sufficient. It is the Corporations position that it is appropriate to set out
the urban form framework (for a compact urban form) through to 2040 now.
While a model of incremental zoning changes to achieve urban intensification
may be attractive in terms of a journey of small steps, as Mr Heath and Mr
Osborne explain in their evidence on Topic 080, such an approach runs a real
risk of missing the targets of 70% growth within the 2010 metropolitan urban
limits as it fails to adequately recognise the market constraints of existing

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-5-

urban form and the natural process of incremental change that is likely in
these areas because of existing development.
12.

Central to the Corporation, the Ministry of Business and Innovation (MBIE)

and the Minister for the Environments (the Minister) case is that urban
intensification around the Isthmus, where existing infrastructure (including
social infrastructure) is available to support such growth, is key to meeting the
objectives of the Auckland Plan.

13.

The Corporations submissions on the zoning provisions that are included

within Topics 080 and 081, reflect the importance such provisions and their
spatial application have to the Corporation in terms of its directive of providing
efficient and effective affordable and social housing for the most vulnerable
members of our society.1 This responsibility drives the Corporations strategic
goals of reconfiguring its portfolio to meet regional demand, and of reducing
the deprivation levels in communities with a high state housing presence.
These goals require the Corporation to the have the ability to construct and
develop quality social housing and to maintain this housing in a manner that:
(a)

provides healthy, comfortable, and fit-for-purpose housing to people in

need, for the duration of their need; and

(b)

improves the diversity and effectiveness of social housing in the

Auckland Region to meet the changing needs of our communities and
aligns the state housing portfolio with demographic trends and
demand.

14.

As noted in the Corporations primary submission, the intention is that the

Corporation, through the Unitary Plan process, be able to deliver an additional
39,000 social, affordable and market dwelling units on Corporation land for
the Crown. As explained previously to the Panel, this is not the total demand
for social housing, as the Corporation is now one of many social housing
providers that it is anticipated will deliver social housing to the Ministry of
Social Development over the next few years.

However, the Corporation

remains the primary provider of social housing for those members of society

Reference specifically the evidence provided by the Corporation on Topic 013, including Mr Sowry and

Professor Howden-Chapman.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-6-

that are most in need.

In that regard, it should be recognised that the

Corporation is in a unique position, in that its size and extensive land holdings
within the Region means it (more readily than private developers) can give
effect to the vision for intensification within the Isthmus because of its ability
to amalgamate and develop land holdings. The Corporation (as previously
noted in Topic 013) currently faces significant challenges in that the demand
for social housing has changed markedly from the 2-3 bedroom houses on
large lots that were built in the 1930s and 1940s, to single unit housing and
4-5 bedroom homes. This contrasts with the Corporations current housing
portfolio in the Auckland Region, of which 76% is of 2-3 bedroom typology,
the majority of which are on large lots.
Relief sought
15.

By way of Directions of the Panel dated 14 January 2016, the Corporation

has been asked as part of this hearing Topic and hearing Topic 080 to
present legal submissions and evidence in relation to both the scope and
merits of the range of residential zonings sought throughout the Region. In
that regard, the zoning principles informing the Corporation's proposed spatial
application of the residential zone has been presented as part of the
Corporations joint case with the MBIE in Topic 080.

These legal

submissions, therefore, focus on the scope of the Corporations and the other
central government submitters (MBIE and the Minister) submissions.
16.

By way of background, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional

Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) established a modified hearings process for
the promulgation of the Unitary Plan. As such, the submission and hearing
process, and importantly the rights of appeal, differ from plans and plan
changes that are promulgated under the RMA. In that regard, the following
features of this modified process are noted:
(c)

The LGATPA establishes a hearings process whereby an Independent

Panel hears submissions on the Unitary Plan and makes a
recommendation, and the Council then makes a decision on that
recommendation sections 128, 129, 144 LGATPA.

(d)

The Schedule 1 RMA submission process still applies, modified only

by extending the period of time within which a submission may be
made following notification of the Unitary Plan.

Under the RMA

process, submissions close 40 working days following notification (cl

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-7-

5(3), Schedule 1 RMA), in contrast, under the LGATPA submitters

have 60 working days following notification of the Unitary Plan within
which to make a submission (section 123(7)).
(e)

As with submissions, the further submission process follows the RMA

Schedule 1 process, modified only to extend the timeframe within
which a further submission may be made, from 10 working days
following the summary of decisions under the RMA (cl 7(1)(c),
Schedule 1), to 30 working days under the LGATPA (section 123(8)).

(f)

A summary of decisions sought is still produced by Council. Again,

the usual Schedule 1 process applies here, the only amendment being
the extended time within which to lodge further submission (section
123(8) LGATPA).

(g)

The right to be heard at the hearing still exists Every person who
has made a submission and stated that they wish to be heard at the
Hearing may speak at a hearing session, either personally or through
a representative, and call evidence (section 129 LGATPA)

(h)

The Panel has an ability to make recommendations outside of scope

section 144(5) LGATPA:
144 Hearings Panel must make recommendations to Council on
proposed plan
...
Scope of recommendations
(4) The Hearings Panel must make recommendations on any
provision included in the proposed plan under clause 4(5) or (6) of
Schedule 1 of the RMA (which relates to designations and heritage
orders), as applied by section 123.
(5) However, the Hearings Panel
(a) is not limited to making recommendations only within the
scope of the submissions made on the proposed plan; and
(b) may make recommendations on any other matters relating to
the proposed plan identified by the Panel or any other
person during the Hearing.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-8-

(i)

If the Council accepts a recommendation, there are rights of appeal to

the High Court only on matters of law (section 158 LGATPA).

(j)

In

circumstances

where

the

Council

rejects

the

Panels

recommendation, full rights of appeal to the Environment Court exist

and the matter is heard in the normal way (i.e. de novo hearing)
section 156(1) LGATPA. To appeal under this section, a person must
have been a submitter on the plan and have addressed the provision
or matter(s) that they seek to appeal in their submission.
(k)

If a recommendation is made by the Panel which is outside the scope

of submissions and this recommendation is accepted by Council, then
this can be appealed to the Environment Court on merits in the usual
way under section 156(3) of the LGATPA. Unlike the other rights of
appeal, there is no requirement that a person pursuing an appeal in
respect of out of scope recommendation be a submitter on the
Unitary Plan, rather, they must be unduly prejudiced by the inclusion
of the provision or exclusion of the matter.

17.

The Corporation says that this process, as well as creating an efficient and
tight timeframe in which participation and decision making on the Unitary Plan
is undertaken, provides an inbuilt framework that allows for participation of the
public in the same way as the RMA and in a manner that ensures matters of
natural justice are adequately protected. As such, the Corporation submits
that the discussion of the participatory nature of the process which informs
the determination of the scope of submissions in the General Distributors
Limited v Waipa District Council case, is still relevant to this process, even
where this process has been modified from that process established under
the RMA:
The promulgation of district plans and any changes to them is a participatory
process. Ultimately plans express community consensus about land use
planning and development in any given area. To this end the Act requires
that public notice be given by a local authority before it promulgates or makes
changes to its plan. There is the submission/further submission process to be
worked through. A degree of specificity is required in a submission cl 6 in
the First Schedule and Form 5 in the Regulations. Those who submit are
entitled to attend the hearing when their submission is considered and they
are entitled to a decision which should include the reasons for accepting or
rejecting their submission. There is a right of appeal to the Environment Court

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-9-

but only if the prospective appellant referred to the provision or the matter in
the submission cl 14(2) of the First Schedule.
One of the underlying purposes of the notification/submission/further
submission process is to ensure that all are sufficiently informed about what
is proposed. Otherwise the plan could end up in a form which could not
reasonably have been anticipated resulting in potential unfairness. (Refer:
General Distributors Limited v Waipa District Council, High Court, Auckland
Registry, CIV 2008-404-004857, Wylie J, 19 December 2008, paras 54-55)

18.

In that regard, it is submitted that the test for determining the jurisdiction of an
appeal is well settled in this context it requires a consideration of what fairly
and reasonably falls within the general scope of the Corporations original
submission, and submissions lodged by MBIE and the Minister (collectively
referred to as the Central Government Submissions).

19.

It is submitted that the test for demarcating the Courts jurisdiction in respect
of a submission on a proposed plan is that set out in An Application by Vivid
Holdings [1999] NZRMA 467 as follows:
[A]ny decision of the Council, or requested of the Environment Court in a
reference, must be:
(a)

fairly and reasonably within the general scope of:

(i)

an original submission; or

(ii)

the proposed plan as notified; or

(iii)

somewhere in between

provided that
(b)

the summary of the relevant submissions was fair and accurate and
not misleading.

(Refer: An Application by Vivid Holdings [1999] NZRMA 467 at page 475)

5.

In Countdown Properties (Northlands) Limited v Dunedin City Council [1994]

NZRMA 145 the High Court further noted, however:
The local authority or Tribunal must consider whether any amendment made
to the plan change as notified goes beyond what is reasonably and fairly
raised in submission on the plan changeIt will usually be a question of
degree to be judged by the terms of the proposed change and of the content

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 10 -

of the submissions. (Refer: Countdown Properties (Northlands) Limited v

Dunedin City Council [1994] NZRMA 145 at page166)

20.

The rationale that underpins this requirement was explained in Biocycle (New
Zealand) Limited v Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council (W148/96) when it
was noted that:
It is essential in matters of reference that the initial submission, which is the
cornerstone of the reference proceedings, should be explicit and that relief
sought in a reference should be equally explicit. The preliminary step of
submission alerts those who may be involved that the notified plan may be
amended. It is similarly essential that any reference to the Court does not
sidestep the initial submission process by raising matters which the public in
general have no ability to comment upon. (Refer: Biocycle (New Zealand)
Limited v Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council (W148/96) at page 3)
(Emphasis added).

21.

In terms of the approach to be adopted by the Court, in Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society v Southland District Council [1997] NZRMA 408 at page
413 it was stated that:
the assessment of whether any amendment was reasonably and fairly
raised in the course of submissions, should be approached in a realistic
workable fashion rather than from the perspective of legal nicety.

22.

As was also noted by in Ecologic Foundation Incorporated v Waikato

Regional Council (A102/2005):
In our view, the correct approach for us is to apply a realistic, workable
interpretation of the relief sought in [the] original submission, and
compare it with the relief now being sought (Refer: Ecologic Foundation
Incorporated v Waikato Regional Council (A102/2005) at para 10)

23.

Having regard to the above case law, it is submitted that the key issue for this
Panel is whether or not the proposed relief sought by the Corporation could
fairly and reasonably be considered to be within the general scope of the
Corporations submissions or the Central Government Submissions, applying
a realistic, workable interpretation of the relief sought in those submissions.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 11 -

Analysis - Scope of Corporations submissions

24.

The Corporation considers that its submissions on the Unitary Plan, along
with those made by MBIE and the Minister2 are sufficiently broad to support
the amendments to the spatial application of the residential zones as detailed
in the evidence of the Corporation, and the attendant mapping. As noted in
the Corporations January and February submissions3, the Corporation
strongly supported the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan, but
considered that the Unitary Plan (as notified) fell well short of implementing
this strategic direction of providing greater residential intensification.

As

stated in the Corporations submission:

Overall, Housing New Zealand considers that the provisions of the Proposed
AUP as notified (30 September 2013) do not sufficiently provide for the long
term residential development capacity needed to meet the population growth
expected in Auckland, as set out in the Auckland Plan. While the objectives
and policies of the Regional Policy Statement are, in the main, supported by
Housing New Zealand, it is concerned that they are not adequately reflected
in the District Plan provisions.

In particular, the additional consenting

requirements and the complexity of the District and Regional Plan provisions,
particularly the rules, are not the most appropriate policies and methods to
achieve the urban and economic growth goals of the Regional Policy
Statement. This is particularly the case in respect of provisions relating to
use, development and subdivision within the existing 2010 metropolitan
area. (Refer: page 4, 28 February 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation
submission)
(Emphasis added)

The Minister for the Environments submission clearly states that: the nature of this submission is

high-level: it does not specify amendments to individual provisions in the Proposed AUP, though such
amendments will be required in order to give effect to the relief sought in the submission. (Refer: para
4, submission of the Minister for the Environment)
3

The Corporations submission included the following statement under the Relief sought section: such

further, other or consequential orders, relief or amendments as are considered appropriate and
necessary to address the matters raised in this submission so as to adequately recognise and respond
to the development and operational requirements of Housing New Zealand as the key social housing
provider in New Zealand. (Refer: page 10, 28 February 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation
submission)

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 12 -

Comment: The Corporations submission clearly states its concern that the
notified Unitary Plan did not sufficiently provide for the long-term residential
growth and the urban growth goals of the Auckland Plan. These concerns
mirror those of MBIE in its submission which states:
MBIEs concern with the Unitary Plan as proposed is that it does not follow
through on its strategic objectives (which are generally supported) with the
appropriately-aligned polices and rules:

By not providing sufficient capacity through appropriate zonings and

density provisions to meet Aucklands forecast growth

By failing to free development from complicated policies and rules that

will create high transaction costs, thereby limiting innovation and
responsiveness of supply to demand.

In doing so, the proposed Unitary Plan does not provide for the growth that
Auckland needs over the next thirty years, and to the extent that it does not,
Aucklands housing market will not perform efficiently and house prices will
become even more unaffordable. (Refer: paras 8 and 9, MBIE submission)
(Emphasis added)

25.

A similar submission regarding the need for greater residential development

capacity was made by the Minister in her submission:
The proposed development controls and zoning (including future and urban
land) do not provide the needed long-term residential development capacity
to meet the projected population growth. (Refer: para 17, submission of the
Minister for the Environment)

26.

The Corporations submission then continued to state:

In addition to the comments made in respect of the extent of the residential
zones for urban intensification (see items 11 and 12 below), the provisions of
the residential zones are not sufficiently enabling to encourage urban
intensification (particularly urban regeneration) at a scale that is necessary to
provide for 70% of the Citys residential demand as the population grows.
Failing to enable or provide for appropriately located and designed residential
growth within the urban area will mean the Unitary Plan will not be consistent
with, nor aid the implementation of, the strategic directions identified in the
Auckland Plan. This issue is compounded by the imposition of Overlays
which further restrict the zoning. (Refer: page 4, 28 February 2014, Housing
New Zealand Corporation submission)

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 13 -

(emphasis added)

Comment: Again, the Corporations submission clearly puts at issue the need
for reconsideration of the extent of the residential zones and urban
intensification so that there is congruence with the strategic directions
identified in the Auckland Plan. In that regard, the Corporations submission
aligns closely with the relief sought by other Central Government submitters,
more specifically the MBIE submission which sought that: where necessary
to achieve alignment with the objectives of the Auckland Plan and the
Regional Policy statement sections of the proposed Unitary Plan, the zoning,
overlays and development controls and other rules in the proposed Unitary
Plan are adjusted and amended such that they do not constrain provision of
sufficient residential development to meet Aucklands long term (30 year)
growth projections, and proactively enable efficient growth in areas of high
market demand. (Refer: para 78, MBIE submission) (Emphasis added)
27.

The Corporations submission further stated:

That the provisions of the residential zones do not sufficiently encourage
housing choices that are both necessary to support the social and economic
demands of Aucklands community and are identified as appropriate in the
Regional Policy Statement sections of Proposed AUP; (Refer: page 4, 28
February 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation submission)
(Emphasis added)

Comment: The Corporations concern that the current residential zone

provisions, including their spatial application, did not sufficiently encourage
housing choice within the Region is clearly stated. Again, this is line with the
Ministers submission (made by the Hon. Amy Adams as an whole-ofGovernment submission endorsed by Cabinet) which recorded the following
concern with the Unitary Plan residential provisions:
Based on Auckland Council and independent market-based modelling, there
appears to be a large gap between the likely development capacity provided
by the proposed AUP and that required to meet the objectives and projected
population growth over the next 30 years. Some estimates have the gap at
about half of that required. This is concerning irrespective of what growth
and household formation projections are used.
In some market-attractive areas, where the development sector would be
expected to respond to rising land values with more intensive (i.e. efficient)
CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 14 -

development, rules are especially constraining, and in some cases represent

a down-zoning from existing plans.

Conversely, the areas where zoning

intensity has increased tend to be the areas where the economics of

medium-and high-density development is more questionable due to the
relatively lower levels of consumer demand for those typologies.

This

constrains choices for households, creates additional uncertainty for

developers who will still likely risk out-of-zone development, and by
extension creates greater uncertainty for infrastructure providers about where
growth is actually likely to occur.
There will always be uncertainty about how the market will respond to
development opportunities. In addition, areas that are not market-attractive
now may be more attractive in 15-30 years as development economics
evolve, and as public and private investment generates amenity and
connectivity. Nevertheless, it is vital that a market perspective informs the
policies and rules in the AUP. I consider it is not enough for the AUP just to
provide the needed capacity at a theoretical level. In order to meet the Plans
own objectives, and the wellbeing and resource-efficiency provisions of the
RMA (urban land, dwellings, and infrastructure are all natural and physical
resources for the purposes of the RMA), the AUP needs to provide
residential capacity in areas where it is demanded, and likely to be taken up.
(Refer: paras 27-29, submission of the Minister for the Environment)
(Emphasis added)

With the following relief being specifically sought:

[T]hat zoning, overlays, development controls and other rules be adjusted to
provide sufficient residential development capacity and land supply
particularly in areas of high market demand to meet Aucklands long-term
(30 year) growth projections, as well as the development objectives of the
AUP itself (as specified in the Auckland Plan and the Regional Policy
Statement (RPS) component of the AUP). (Refer: para 31, submission of the
Minister for the Environment)
(Emphasis added)

28.

The Corporations submission also clearly noted concern that:

With respect to residential zoning, that there has been inconsistent
application of the Regional Policy Statement direction for urban intensification
opportunities around Centres, Frequent Transport networks and facilities and
other community infrastructure (e.g. education facilities). In particular,
Housing NZ is concerned that the extent of areas zoned for greater

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 15 -

residential intensification is not sufficient to achieve the desired urban uplift,

nor to support other significant resources (e.g. the public transport network).
For example, Housing NZ has undertaken an assessment of the extent of
Terrance Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (THAB zone) and
concludes that it only represents 3.5% of land in the Metropolitan Urban
Area. Similarly, the Mixed Housing Urban zone only representing some
6.5%. (Refer: page 6, 28 February 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation
submission)
(Emphasis added)

Comment: It follows that in seeking that there be a greater extent of land

zoned for residential intensification, low intensity zones such as SHZ would
decrease in size. Again this is in line with the relief sought in the Ministers
submission that:
[T]he Proposed AUPs policies and methods be reconciled with its RPS-level
objectives, improving the AUPs integrity, and that the approach for doing this
focuses on increasing development capacity to provide housing supply and
choice across a wide range of new and existing locations. (Refer: para 49,
submission of the Minister for the Environment)
(Emphasis added)

29.

The Corporations submission also sought significant amendments to many of

the proposed overlays notified in the Unitary Plan, with the stated aim of
increasing the ability for residential growth to occur within residential zones
within the Region (including the SHZ), noting:
To this end, Housing NZ is concerned that substantial rezoning is required to
achieve the outcomes of the Auckland Plan and the Regional Policy
Statement.

In response, Housing New Zealand seeks the rezoning of a

notable proportion of its land. Table 3 provides a summary of property

specific rezoning submissions. These specific property submission points are
made in addition to the submission matters that Housing NZ has made with
zone, overlay and precinct provisions (Table 1). In this regard, it is important
to note that the specific relief identified in terms of zoning requests in
contingent on the provisions of the District Plan zones, overlays and precincts
(to achieve the outcomes that Housing NZ is seeking). In summary, rezoning
requests are made for the following broad reasons:
There are a number of Housing NZ properties and sites that are within
walking access of Frequent Transport networks and facilities, education and
CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 16 -

other social facilities and/or centres such that they warrant a zoning that
would enable further urban intensification from that currently proposed (e.g. a
shift from proposed zonings of Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban to
Mixed Housing Urban, Terrace Housing and Apartments or in a few cases to
Mixed Use);
There are a few Housing NZ properties and sites where the zoning proposed
in the Proposed AUP is inconsistent with the current development pattern on
or surrounding the site and it is considered an alternate zone is more
appropriate to the sites existing or proposed zoning;
There are a number of Housing NZ properties that appear to have been
down-zoned (compared with either existing zoning or surrounding zoning)
on the basis of infrastructure constraints (primarily flood hazard notations). It
is submitted that these areas are better managed through the application of
Overlays to address resource values / issues (such that if these issues can
be addressed, the wider zoning pattern appears appropriate for the site);
...
That there are instances where the precautionary approach has resulted in
significant areas of the City being encompassed within Overlays. Housing NZ
considers that the broad spread of Overlays and the constraints that are
imposed by them are not, on balance, appropriately reflective of the resource
management issues in the Regional Policy Statement. Housing NZ submits in
opposition to the extent and degree of regulation of these Overlays. In
particular, Housing NZ considers that these Overlays will unreasonably
restrict development such that there is a risk that providing sufficient capacity
to deliver a quality compact city with some 70% of growth directed to the
existing metropolitan areas of the City will not be achieved. As illustrations
(with Tables 1 and 4 providing further detail):
Approximately 80% of the areas of the City zoned for Terrace Housing and
Apartments are have some form of Overlay (including designation) over it,
leaving on 362ha without some form of further development control.
For Housing New Zealands stock, these figures are even higher, with 85%
affected by overlay and only 21ha unaffected;
Approximately 65% and 75% respectively of the Mixed Housing Urban and
Mixed Housing Suburban zones have some form of Overlay (including
designation) over it.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 17 -

Again, for Housing New Zealands stock these respective percentages are
83% and 91%.
Therefore, Housing NZ is concerned that even those limited land areas that
have been identified within the existing Metropolitan Urban Area for
residential growth are in reality even smaller than the zoning provisions would
indicate. Table 4 highlights specific properties for where Housing NZ is
seeking amendments to Overlay extents. (Refer: pages 6-7, 28 February
2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation submission)
(Emphasis added)

30.

With specific reference to the District Plan mapping, the Corporations

submission states:
In respect of the District Plan mapping, there has been an inconsistent
approach between the mapping and imposition of controls associated with
specific resources/resource values particularly between Overlays and
zoning. As an illustration, the Plan has both mapped heritage and special
character as an Overlay, with specific development controls to manage
activities in these areas and has used such information to change the
underlying zoning (land use classifications) for these areas.

Similar

examples are evidence for natural hazards and infrastructure (e.g. floodplain
areas). (Refer: page 4, 14 January 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation
submission)
(Emphasis added)

31.

In support of its rezoning the Corporation also noted in Table 3c of its

submission:
Housing New Zealand has made submissions on the REGIONAL POLICY
STATEMENT, in support of the objectives and policy intent to achieve a
compact quality urban form. In particular, Housing New Zealand supports
(with amendment) Objective 3 (part B.2.1) and Policy 2 (Part 2.1), which
provide for higher residential densities in areas that are proximate to services
and facilities that enable quality living (e.g. in or near centres, frequent public
transport routes and facilities, open spaces, community facilities, education
and other social infrastructure and employment).
For the reasons that these objectives and policies are supported, Housing
New Zealand has undertaken a review of their sites and considers that a
number are suitable for rezoning. Housing New Zealand has undertaken an
assessment that has been based on an iterative assessment which has

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 18 -

initially undertaken a theoretical suitability test assessment (based on

proximity criteria) and where relevant has sought to supplement this with
qualitative assessment (based on a review of surrounding development and
urban form).
These sites have assessed against the following criteria:
a. For sites where Housing New Zealand seeks that they be rezoned to
Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone;
i.

They are within 400m of the Metropolitan Centre of Town

Centre (a proximate walking distance of 5min, which is
considered a reasonable distance for people walking to daily
facilities and amenities and an appropriate distance to
complement the higher density urban form of the Centres
themselves);

b. For sites where Housing New Zealand seeks that they be rezoned to
Mixed Housing Urban:
They are within 800m of the Metropolitan Centre or Town Centre (as a 10min
walk time proximate, which is considered a reasonable walking distance for
larger shopping amenities provided by such centres);
i.

They are within 400m of a Local Centre or Mixed Use Zone

(a proximate walking distance of 5min, which is considered a
reasonable distance for people walking to daily facilities and
amenities);

ii.

They are within 250m of either a Frequent Transport Network

(providing for walkable access to public transport services);
or

iii.

They are within 250m of other social infrastructure sites

mapped in the PAUP (e.g. schools and tertiary education
facilities).

c.

For sites where Housing New Zealand seeks that they be rezoned to
Mixed Housing Suburban:
i.

They are within 800m of a Local Centre or Mixed Use Zone

(a proximate walking distance of 10min, which is considered
a reasonable distance for residents in development of this
scale to be walking to such amenities; or

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 19 -

ii.

They are within 400m of Neighborhood Centres as this zone

provides for the daily access to amenities appropriate to
support urban development.

In addition to assessing the proximity to facilities, amenities and services (set

out above), Housing New Zealand has also reviewed the constraints that
appear to have informed the proposed zoning pattern of the PAUP. For the
reasons set out in Housing New Zealands submission in support of the
objectives and policies for urban development (Part 2.3 Objectives 1-4), and
in seeking amendment to other policies of the REGIONAL POLICY
STATEMENT (including but not limited to Policy 5 in Part B.6.7; Policy 3 in
Part B.2.3; Policies 1 and 9 in Part B.4.1), Housing New Zealand does not
support the effective down-zoning of land on the basis of other resource
values.
The approach of the PAUP has been to recognise and provide for resource
values and constraints through application of Overlays. The principle of this
approach is supported by Housing New Zealand as it clearly identities the
values that are being protected / provided for and the management
mechanisms that are being used to achieve that protection / provision.
However, it appears that in addition to the application of Overlays, these
values have been used to inform the underlying zoning. Housing New
Zealand considers that this approach results in confusion in the intent of the
zoning and the overlays. For example, it appears that some areas of the City
have been effectively down-zoned due to the sensitivity of development of
these areas for heritage (potential heritage). However, in addition to this, the
areas also have character or heritage overlays applied. Similarly, areas
appear to have been down-zoned in areas of potential flood hazards.
Notwithstanding other concerns from Housing New Zealand (regarding the
accuracy and legality of this non-statutory information being used for zoning
and rules), the outcome is that these areas are effectively being managed by
two processes (Rules for the flood hazard and zoning pattern).
Housing New Zealand seeks that the management of values and resources
that are identified in Overlays be managed through the application of Overlay
rules, to specifically address the resource values / issues that are relevant to
that Overlay and not the zoning pattern. In instances where this approach
from Council has been applied, Housing New Zealand has sought to amend
the zoning to reflect either the proximity criteria above or (as appropriate) the
pattern of surrounding development that is not affected by the Overlay. It is
noted that while Housing New Zealand has only submitted seeking this relief
to their sites, consequential amendments may be appropriate for wider areas
of areas that have effectively been down-zoned.
CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 20 -

In addition to the site context issues above, there are a few Housing New
Zealand properties and sites where the zoning proposed in the Proposed
AUP is inconsistent with the current development pattern on or surrounding
the site (including some inaccurate zones). Following our site assessments,
Housing New Zealand seeks that these sites are re-zoned to provide a
zoning more consistent with these development patterns.
Finally, following detailed review of Housing New Zealand sites, there are
also a few Housing New Zealand sites where it is considered that an
alternative enabling zoning would facilitate Housing New Zealand to deliver
positive social and community change. Such outcomes would assist in
Housing New Zealand contributing to the social and economic wellbeing of
the community. For example, in cases where the age and condition of
existing stock is having potential adverse effects on communities (e.g.
amenity values), it is considered that an opportunity for redevelopment of
these areas would positively contribute to quality urban form (Issue B.1.1 of
the REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT).
Housing New Zealand seeks a number of amendments of the provisions of
the Unitary Plan relating to the use and development of its sites in the
Region. The amendments sough can be met by amendments to the zoning
provisions and/or by removal of the sites from various overlay provisions, but
as an alternative can also be dealt with by way of introduction of another
planning mechanism (for example, a Precinct (recognising Housing New
Zealands submission on the weighting given to Precincts relative to
Overlays)). (Refer: Table 3: Housing New Zealand Site Specific Zoning
Submissions 3c. Submissions in Opposition (Amendment Sought), Housing
New Zealand Submission)
(Emphasis added)

Comment: Similar concerns regard the inconsistent zoning of land around

centres and transport networks, the down-zoning of areas, and the
widespread use of overlays which prevents intensification included in the
notified Unitary Plan, was also included in the MBIE submission which noted
that:
The broad brush approach of the overlays, the inconsistency in zonings
between market interest and density allocations (e.g. down-zoned areas
around centres and transport corridors), and the misalignment between
density allowances and specific development controls that then constrain
attaining that density. (Refer: para 12, MBIE submission)

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 21 -

32.

And later in the MBIE submission similar submission points were made
stating:
As noted in the Government submission, the misalignment between the
regional-level objectives and the district-level provisions are expressed
through:
Proposed development controls and zoning (including future urban land) that
do not provide the needed long-term development capacity to meet projected
population growth
A deliberate down-zoning apparent between the draft Unitary Plan released
in March 2013, and the proposed version, creating a misalignment between
areas of high demand and the areas where growth is provided for, which may
create additional uncertainty for infrastructure providers, and additional cost
to housing provision as developers challenge through out-of-zone consents,
the development rules and zonings in order to achieve economically viable
development (Refer: para 23, MBIE submission)
There is little justification provided for why many zoning decisions across the
city have been made i.e. why ostensibly market-attractive areas near
transport and employment etc. have been zoned at low densities (or lower
densities than indicated in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan in March 2013).
Inefficient use of market attractive land while protecting the micro-amenity of
neighbourhoods in the short-term will seriously compromise the macro-utility
of the city as a whole, and detract from the overarching vision of Auckland as
the worlds most liveable city attractive, economically efficient and socially
equitable. (Refer: para 28, MBIE submission)
MBIE seeks amendment to the zoning and density rules pertaining across
the region to re-establish and ensure alignment with the strategic objectives
of the Auckland Plan and the Regional Policy Statement sections of the
proposed Unitary Plan, with the zoning, overlays and development controls
and other rules adjusted to provide sufficient residential development
capacity and land-supply particularly in areas of high market demand to
meet Aucklands long term (30 year) growth projections. (Refer: para 30,
MBIE submission)
Where necessary to achieve alignment with the objectives of the Auckland
Plan and the Regional Policy Statement sections of the proposed Unitary
Plan, the zoning, overlays and development controls and other rules in the
proposed Unitary Plan are adjusted and amended such that they do not
constrain provision of sufficient residential development to meet Aucklands

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 22 -

long term (30 year) growth projections, and proactively enable efficient
growth in areas of high market demand. (Refer: para 78, MBIE submission)
(Emphasis added)

33.

Detailed amendments were also sought by the Corporation to the RPS which
sought, that "opportunities for brownfield urban intensification should be
optimised". Further, amendments to the RPS were sought to enable higher
residential densities and efficient use of land in neighbourhoods located in
close proximity to employment opportunities.

34.

In relation to the Single House Zone (SHZ), specific amendments were

sought to the regional and district objectives and policies to allow for greater
density within this zone by way of rules permitting the conversion of an
existing dwelling into two dwellings, and the establishment of a small
detached residential unit in addition to the main dwelling.

35.

For the Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) and Mixed Housing Urban (MHU)
zones, amendments were also sought to the regional and district objectives
and policies to require the density and scale of development for those zones
to achieve an appropriate balance between making the most efficient use of
the site, whilst still providing quality amenity for residents and adjoining sites.

36.

For the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone,

amendments were sought by the Corporation to the regional and district
objectives and policies to require development to make the most efficient
use of the site as was practicable, taking into account the ability to provide
quality amenity for residents as well as adjoining sites.

37.

Reading the Central Government Submissions together (i.e. the whole relief
package detailed in each submission to use Chisholm Js language in the
Shaw v Selwyn District Council [2001] 2 NZLR 277 decision), it is submitted
that it is quite clear that the objectives, policies, rules and spatial application
of the zoning of the Unitary Plan as notified were under challenge due to the
Corporation, and other Central Government submitters expressed concerns
that the notified provisions would not provide for the levels of intensification
required to address the Regions housing shortage and to accommodate
future growth. Whilst couched in broad terms, it is submitted that the relief
sought was made with the necessary specificity to make clear to those
reading the submission that greater intensification within zones and changes

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 23 -

in the spatial composition of zones could occur (Refer: Shaw v Selwyn District
Council [2001] 2 NZLR 277 at paras 29-33).
38.

As such, it is submitted, that it would not be justifiable for a person to have

assumed that the notified zoning of SHZ, for example, necessarily meant that
their property was exempt from future intensification because of its SHZ
zoning in the notified version of the Unitary Plan.

In that regard, it is

submitted that the Panel, in determining the ambit or scope of a submission,

should also consider the effects or consequences of the changes being
sought in submissions, rather than the particular coding of a submission point.
In a resource management context it follows, as a matter of law, that
submissions seeking amendments to high level planning instruments, will if
accepted, lead to amendments to lower order planning instruments. As noted
in Auckland Regional Council v Arrigato Investments Limited and Others
[2001] NZRMA 158:
The Act creates a hierarchy of documents, each being required to reflect the
objectives and policies of the document higher in the chain.
mechanism for resolving conflict: see s 82.

There is a

Naturally, the most specific

document is that at the bottom of the hierarchy the district plan. But all
documents in the chain should be considered when attempting to assess the
overall objectives and policies and how in a given situation the sustainable
management of natural and physical resources is to be promoted (which is
the purpose of the Act: see s 5(1)).
For instance, one cannot sensibly consider whether s 6(a) was misinterpreted
without considering the documents reliant on it further down the chain. Even
when one gets to the district plan, which has specific objectives, policies,
rule, and provisions relating to Pakiri and to subdivisions at Pakiri, one is still
assisted in the appropriate understanding of that document by considering
the other documents which in part led to it. The statutory documents need to
be assessed as a whole. (Refer: Auckland Regional Council v Arrigato
Investments Limited and Others [2001] NZRMA 158 at paras 12 and 13)

39.

In effect, this is simply a reversal of the situation faced by the High Court in
the Shaw decision where Chishom J stated:
Although it is true that no new objectives and policies were actually
formulated in either referrers' submission, there can be little doubt that both
submissions signalled that the relief package was intended to include such
modification to the objectives and policies as might be necessary to support
the proposed rules. In my opinion the workable approach discussed by

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 24 -

Panckhurst J required the Environment Court to take into account the whole
relief package detailed in each submission when considering whether the
relief sought had been reasonable and fairly raised in the submissions. Given
the nature of the proposed rules I cannot conceive that anyone could have
been under any illusion that the submissions were seeking not only a
reduction in lot size (and associated relaxation in relation to dwellings) but
also any necessary modification to the objectives and policies. In other
words, I do not think that anyone could justifiably complain that they would
have lodged a submission if they had been aware that the referrers were
seeking amendments to the objectives and policies. They were on notice that
such amendments were contemplated. (Refer: Shaw v Selwyn District
Council [2001] 2 NZLR 277 at para 31).

40.

As noted above, the emphasis should therefore be on the relief package

sought by the submitter and the consequence of that relief package as
understood by a reasonably informed reader or citizen (Refer: Healthlink
South Ltd v Christchurch International Airport Ltd AP14/99 at para 33). That
is, a submission seeking an increase in residential intensification within the
Region through, for example, an expansion of the THAB and MHU zones,
necessarily means that the other zones within the Region will consequentially
decrease spatially.

41.

Likewise, a submission seeking the removal of overlays from properties and

the attendant up-zoning of those properties, for example the Pre-1944 or the
volcanic viewshaft overlays, also would have an effect, indeed in some cases
a quite profound effect, on the ability to intensify a zone.

42.

Submissions seeking the provision of minor dwellings within the SHZ would
have the same effect in terms of increasing the intensity of the development
envisaged within that zone. In a similar way, the submissions challenging the
extent of the application of overlays and the attendant down-zoning of sites
which has then followed in the notified version of the Unitary Plan, would (if
the SHZ is to remain restricted in its ability to allow for future intensification),
lead to changes in the spatial application of that zone.

43.

To summarise, in a Countdown Properties4 sense it is submitted that the

general nature of the changes now proposed by the Corporation are

Countdown Properties (Northlands) Ltd v Dunedin City Council [1994] NZRMA 145

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 25 -

supported both by the combined written submissions of the Corporation,

MBIE and the Minister; correspond to the grounds stated in those written
submissions; and have been addressed in the cases presented at the hearing
of submissions of those parties.
44.

In summary, it is submitted that, reading the Central Government

Submissions together, the relief sought falls into one of three categories:
(a)

The specific zoning changes sought by the Corporation for properties

it owns and manages, which are in the order of 30,800 properties.5
The addresses of these properties are detailed in Table 3c of the
Corporations submissions.

The Corporations submissions also

sought to avoid spot zoning of its properties, and as such its

submission specifically seeks consequential zoning for wider areas.
As is shown in the confidential Attachment C maps to these
submissions, this occurs in what can be described as a continuum of
mapping circumstances. The first, as depicted in the Map C1 is the
situation where the Corporation owns or manages the majority of a
block or blocks, and the attendant consequential changes relate to a
minority of landowners within the block or blocks. The other end of the
continuum, as depicted in Map C2, is where the Corporations
landholdings are more dispersed. In this case, it could be argued that
the Corporation is in this instance relying on the zoning principles
component of its submission as providing the necessary scope for the
scale of consequential changes necessary to avoid spot zoning.
(b)

The zoning changes that arise from the Corporations submission that
the down-zoning of overlays should be removed.

The planning

evidence in Topic 080 and numerous earlier hearings has set out the
reasons why the Corporation and its experts consider that it is
inappropriate to down-zone a property solely because it is also subject
to an overlay and that these planning mechanisms should remain
independent.

Specifically, the Corporations submission sought that

these overlays be removed and that the properties currently subject to

these overlays be rezoned in accordance with its zoning principles.
This category also covers the situation such as in the flooding, Special

As at the date of the Corporations submission in February 2014.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 26 -

Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition overlays, where the Council

has considered that there is no longer the evidential basis to support
the existence of overlays over some properties. In such cases it is
therefore necessary and appropriate to consider the appropriate
zoning for these sites in line with the objectives of the Auckland Plan
and the RPS. The Corporation says that its submission and the other
Central Government Submissions provide the necessary jurisdiction to
undertake this task.
(c)

The Corporation set out in its submissions some clear planning

principles in which to inform the spatial application of the zoning within
the Region. These are set out in the evidence and legal submissions
presented in Topic 080 and are also included in paragraph 31 of these
legal submissions. In addition, the Corporations submission clearly
seeks that there be further intensification in line with that sought in the
Auckland Plan and RPS, mirroring the submissions of MBIE and the
Minister. It is recognised that unlike the first two categories where
specific addresses were given, or a person could determine whether
or not they were the subject of an overlay via mapping, there was no
mapping tool in this instance to assist a person as to whether or not
their property might be affected by these submissions, other than the
planning principles which offer some spatial guidelines based on
distances from centres. Taking into account the law regarding the
need for submissions to be in sufficient detail and specificity so as to
allow a person to determine whether or not their property is affected, it
is the Corporations view that should the Panel consider that up-zoning
of

the

properties

in proximity of

the

dispersed

Corporation

landholdings is appropriate in light of objectives of the Auckland Plan

and RPS, but it has any uncertainty regarding the ambit of the scope
of a submission supporting those changes, the Panel should not shy
away from recommending that up-zoning is the most appropriate
planning response, but may wish to err on the side of caution in terms
of jurisdiction and identify this as being an out of scope amendment so
as to protect an affected persons right to appeal to the Environment
Court.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

- 27 -

Application for a Right of Reply

45.

Finally, the Corporation seeks leave to file a short reply to address any further
submitters speaking to the Corporations submission, in circumstances where
those submitters have asked to speak but have not yet exchanged evidence.

Evidence
46.

For this Topic, the Corporation will be calling the following witnesses in
support of its case:
(a)

Ms Amelia Linzey and Mr Matt Lindenberg, Planners, Beca;

(b)

Mr Carl Luca, Urban Designer, Beca; and

(c)

Mr Phil Osborne and Mr Tim Health, Economic Analysts, Property

Economics.

Mr David Hermans, Principal Advisor Auckland Housing, MBIE; Mr Patrick

Doughty, General Manager Asset Development (acting) and Mr Brendon
Liggett, Development Planning Manager, the Corporation, will also be present
to answer any questions from the Panel.
DATED 10 March 2016

_________________________________
Dr Claire Kirman / Alex Devine
Counsel for Housing New Zealand
Corporation

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

Attachment A
The Corporation
1.

The Corporation was formed in 2001 as a statutory corporation established

under the Housing Corporation Act 1974 (as amended by the Housing
Corporation Amendment Act 2001). It is also a Crown agency under the
Crown Entities Act 2004.

2.

The Corporation's statutory objectives are to give effect to the Government's

social objectives by providing housing and related services. To this end:

The Corporation owns or manages more than 68,000 rental

properties throughout New Zealand, including about 1,500 homes for
community groups that provide housing services. Approximately twothirds of the total state housing portfolio was built before 1980, and
half of it before 1960.

The Corporation has 200,000 people occupying Corporation

tenancies, with 6,960 new tenancies started in the 2012/13 year.6

The Corporation manages a portfolio of approximately 30,800

dwellings in the Auckland region, providing housing to over 104,000
occupants.

The Corporation has social housing in locations spread throughout

the Auckland region. With the exception of Great Barrier Island, the
Corporation manages tenancies located within all of the Auckland
Council Local Board boundaries.

The figures in the first two bullet points are from the 2012-2013 Annual Report.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-2-

Social Housing Policy

(c) Social housing is a subset of affordable housing, and meets the
housing needs of people who face barriers to housing in the wider
rental and housing market. In general terms housing supply issues
have made housing less affordable and as such there is an increased
demand for social housing. This is particularly so in the Auckland
region.
(d) The Housing Corporation Act 1974 sets out the Corporations
functions to provide housing and housing-related services to support
the Crowns social objectives. Under the Crown Entities Act 2004,
the Corporation is listed as a Crown agent and is required to give
effect to Government policies.
(e) The Corporation works within a community of government, charitable
and private sector organisations to provide social housing and
housing support throughout New Zealand.

From July 2011 the

Corporations primary goal has been to provide social housing to

those with the highest need. This has meant moving away from a
state house for life approach towards providing housing for people
in need for the duration of that need.
(f) The Corporations tenant base is characterised by lower income
households, with over 90 percent of tenants paying a subsidised
income related rent. More than a third of the Corporations tenants
identify as Maori (compared with 14.67% of the general population)
and over a quarter of tenants identify themselves as Pacific peoples
(compared with 6.9% of the general population).7

Statistics taken from the Briefing for the Incoming Minister of Housing, 2013.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-3-

(g) There has been a marked change in the type of social housing that is
required by the Corporations tenant base:
a. Demand has increased for single bedroom housing required
for single persons, the elderly or disabled, and larger homes
with four to six bedrooms required to house larger families.
b. As a result the size of many state houses in the Auckland
region do not match the changing demand for social housing,
with a large proportion of the Corporations housing stock
comprising older 2-3 bedroom homes on large lots which are
too large for smaller households and too small for larger
households..
c. This has meant that the Corporation has had to review its
housing portfolio and assess how it can respond to the
changes in demand, given its current housing supply is
skewed towards 23 bedroom houses that do not meet the
needs of tenants and/or are uneconomic to maintain.
(h) The Corporation has a long-term Asset Management Strategy which
is focused on providing houses that are the right size, in the right
place and in the right condition. As part of that strategy the
Corporation will look to redevelop existing sites by using them more
efficiently in order to improve the quality and quantity of social
housing that is available.
(i) The Corporation has been involved in a number of redevelopment
projects that have amalgamated sites to allow for more efficient use
of the Corporations stock, or to use single sites more effectively. A
recent example of this type of development was undertaken on sites
owned by the Corporation on Garrison Avenue, Three Kings. In this
instance, a group of four old, single-storey dwellings were replaced

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-4-

by a low-rise apartment complex, containing 22 dwellings, occupied

by elderly and disabled persons.
The Corporation is increasingly looking to rebalance the state housing presence
within communities, particularly in areas such as South Auckland, by managing the
rebuilding programme to deliver projects comprising a mix of state, social and
affordable housing. For instance, the Northern Glen Innes Project in East
Auckland will redevelop 156 older state houses to deliver 260 new houses
including 78 state houses, 39 social housing properties and the balance being a mix
of affordable rental and affordable home ownership opportunities.

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-5-

Attachment C Confidential Maps

C1

CEK-004386-240-419-V3

-6-

C2

CEK-004386-240-419-V3