Proposed Plan Change 30 Addressing Urban Design Issues in the Town Centres

Transcription

1 1 DECISION NOTICE: PCDN-30 (Plan Change Decision Notice 30) Resource Management Act 1991 NORTH SHORE DISTRICT PLAN DECISIONS ON SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS DECISIONS CONCERNING: Proposed Plan Change 30 Addressing Urban Design Issues in the Town Centres COMMISSIONERS: Alan Watson (chair), Dianne Hale, David Mead 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Appointment In accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Council exercised its powers of delegation to appoint us as Hearings Commissioners (Commissioners) to hear and determine the submissions and further submissions on Proposed Plan Change 30 (plan change) to the North Shore District Plan 2002 (District Plan). 1.2 Proposed Plan Change 30 - Background The plan change was prepared in order to assist improving the built environment of the town centres of North Shore City. North Shore City is a signatory to the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol. As such, the Council has an obligation to prepare an Action Plan which outlines measures the Council will take in order to achieve a better built environment. Changes to the district plan which facilitate such improvements have been in Council s Action Plan since As well, submissions to the Annual Plan and the Community Outcomes projects have identified that North Shore City residents wish to see a higher standard of built form in their town centres. The town centres of the city are also expected to accommodate an increasing share of future employment and residential growth, as signalled by the objectives and policies of Section 6.0 of the Plan (and as amended by proposed Plan Change 12). Improved standards of urban design will be important to the success of this strategy. The plan change was prepared in response to these matters. In preparing the plan change the Council carried out: Research into the issues associated with the design of development in the city s town centres, including recent North Shore resource consent applications, relevant literature and the approaches taken by other Territorial Authorities, both in NZ and overseas (see the section 32 RMA report). Consultation with Community Boards to find out what issues are troubling from the community perspective. An analysis of submitters concerns with the plan change and the preparation of a revised set of plan change provisions to assist us as Commissioners with our decisions.

2 2 The Council s section 32 analysis (as required by the RMA) found that changes to the district plan were necessary to achieve a better built environment from an urban design stand point. The same analysis also found urban design assessment criteria, in conjunction with a change in activities status from controlled to limited discretionary, to be the most effective way in which to achieve these outcomes. The section 32 RMA report was available to potential submitters from the date of notification of the plan change. That section 32 process has continued with the Council officer's report on submissions, our deliberations following the hearing of submitters and with this final decision on submissions. 1.3 Proposed Plan Change 30 Summary of Changes Proposed to the District Plan New Objectives and Policies The plan change includes some alterations to the general objectives and policies of Section 15, Business of the district plan with more significant changes to objectives and policies for the Business 1 to 4 zones, and Business 9 (only one small area on Hinemoa Street). Changes to the Rules In the Business 1 to 4, and Business 9 (Hinemoa Street, between Rugby and Brassey Roads only) zones the plan change makes new buildings or alterations and additions to existing buildings a limited discretionary activity, rather than a controlled activity. The limited discretionary activities are to be assessed against the provisions of Section 21, Urban Design Code, a new section to the district plan (the Definitions section of the district plan will be consequently moved to Section 22). New information requirements are to be provided in association with applications in the subject zones (Business 1-4 and part Business 9) and there is a re-wording of assessment criteria for buffer strip development. New Assessment Criteria New assessment criteria for town centre developments include the following topics: Town centre vibrancy Building form and appearance Malls and large stores Mixed use buildings Pedestrian amenity, safety and convenience Public open space and landscaping Parking and service areas Service stations Adaptive re-use and flexible design Energy and water sensitive design.

3 3 1.4 Submissions 36 submissions were received to the plan change. A discussion of the submissions and the issues was provided in the Council officer s section 42A RMA report (officer s report) along with recommendations. A separate document was also provided which shows, based on the submissions received and the officer s recommendations, the proposed amended changes to the plan change. 1.5 Notification Date of public notification 1 May 2008 Closing date for submissions 30 May 2008, extended to 30 June 2008 at request of some submitters Date of public notification of summary of submissions 9 October 2008 Closing date for further submissions 10 November Hearing We conducted the hearing in respect of the plan change on 2, 10, 11 and 17 June, 31 July and 17 August In the course of the hearing, we: a) considered the report dated 15 May 2009 from the Council s Specialist Urban Design Architect and Consultant Planner; b) considered the submissions lodged; c) heard submissions and evidence from submitters in support and submitters opposed, including partial support and partial opposition; and d) carried out a visit to various town centres on 17 June The hearing provided the opportunity for us to receive presentations from the submitters and also from the Council s officers. On 17 June 2009 we invited the officers to express their views on the matters raised during the hearing by the submitters. They acknowledged their agreement that amendments could be made to the plan change to take account of some of the concerns of submitters. The officers stated that they wished to provide an amended version of the plan change to the Hearings Commissioners. We agreed with an adjournment for that to take place and advised the details to the submitters that had attended the hearing by way of a letter dated 22 June 2009 from the Committee Secretary. We set a time limit on that exercise as 31 July 2009 following which we would reconvene to hear from the Council s officers and close the hearing. Those who appeared at the hearing were: Jenny Hudson, planning consultant for McDonalds Restaurants NZ Ltd Gaynor Revill, landscape architect and urban designer for McDonalds Catherine Sommerville, legal counsel for National Trading Co of NZ Ltd Barry Rae, urban designer for National Trading Cherie Lane, planning consultant Daniel Minhinnick, legal counsel for Westfield NZ Ltd Rob Marler, General Manager Design, Westfield Clinton Bird, urban designer for Westfield

4 4 Michael Foster, planning consultant for Westfield Daniel Minhinnick, legal counsel for Progressive Enterprises Ltd Adrian Walker, General Manager Development, Progressive Enterprises Karl Cooper. urban designer for Progressive Enterprises Michael Foster, planning consultant for Progressive Enterprises Vicki Toan, legal counsel for Aptus Projects Ltd Allan McGregor, Project Director, NZ Retail Property Group Vaughan Smith, planning consultant for NZ Retail Property Group David Town, Policy Planner, Auckland Regional Council David Sadlier, legal counsel for Progressive Enterprises Poul Israelson, planning consultant for Vodafone, NZ Ltd (tabled statement) Richard Burton, planning consultant for Kea Properties (tabled statement) Sarah Lindsay, Specialist Urban Design Architect, North Shore City Council Gael McKitterick, consultant planner for North Shore City Council Sandra Gordon, Secretariat Manager, North Shore City Council. 1.7 Definitions Definitions used in this decision are: Council North Shore City in its capacity as consent authority Commissioners the Hearings Commissioners appointed by the Council Council s officers the Council s urban designer and planning consultant who had jointly prepared the section 42A RMA report district plan North Shore City Operative District Plan (2002) LGA Local Government Act 2002 officer s report the section 42A RMA report from the Council s urban designer and consultant planner plan change Proposed Plan Change 30 RMA Resource Management Act 1991 and its amendments. 2.0 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 2.1 RMA Council gave approval on18 March 2008 to publicly notify the plan change pursuant to clause 5 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

5 5 2.2 RMA Part 2 (a) (b) (c) The primary purpose of RMA is set out in section 5 and is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management is then defined. RMA section 6 sets out matters of national importance, none of which we considered were directly relevant to the issues raised in the plan change. Section 7 sets out other matters to which we are to have particular regard. The matters in section 7 which we considered are of relevance to the plan change include: o The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: o The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: o Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: o Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. (d) Section 8 requires us to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 2.3 RMA Section 31, Functions RMA section 31 provides: (1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: (a) (b) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land 2.4 RMA Section 32 Section 32 provides for an evaluation to be made and: (3) An evaluation must examine (a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and (b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. (4) For the purposes of this examination, an evaluation must take into account (a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and (b the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

6 6 A copy of the officer s section 32 RMA report accompanied the Agenda for the hearing. 2.5 RMA Section 74, Criteria RMA section 74 sets out the matters to be considered by a territorial authority in preparing or changing its district plan. Subsection 1 provides: (1) A territorial authority shall prepare and change its district plan in accordance with its functions under section 31, the provisions of Part 2, its duty under section 32, and any regulations. Section 74(2) requires us to have regard to any other documents which may be relevant, which in this case may be any management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts. 2.6 RMA Sections 75 & 76, Contents of Plan RMA section 75 requires the district plan to state (among other things): (a) (b) (c) (d) the significant resource management issues of the district; and the objectives sought to be achieved by the plan; and the policies for those issues and objectives, and an explanation of the policies; and the methods being used or to be used to implement the policies, including any rules RMA section 76 allows a council to include rules in a district plan for the purpose of carrying out its functions under RMA, and to achieve the objectives and policies of the plan. In making a rule, a council is to have regard to the actual or potential effect on the environment of activities including, in particular, any adverse effect 2.7 Decision of Local Authority RMA clause 10 of the First Schedule provides that the local authority shall give its decisions, which shall include the reasons for accepting or rejecting any submissions (grouped by subject-matter or individually). Subsection 2 of clause 10 of the First Schedule provides that the decision of the local authority may include any consequential alterations arising out of submissions and any other relevant matters it considered relating to matters raised in submissions 3.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANNING PROVISIONS 3.1 RMA Part 2 Matters We have concluded that, overall, the plan change is entirely consistent with the sustainable management of the physical resource of the city s town centres and with providing for the North Shore community to provide for its social and economic wellbeing, subject to a number of modifications set out below. By adopting the amended plan change provisions, the Council will be sustaining the potential of the town centre resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations and acting to avoid, remedy and mitigate the potential adverse effects on the environment. The plan

7 7 change seeks to enable new development in the town centres in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates any effects of building design on the character, amenities and particular built character qualities of the town centre, including its streetscape and public places. The adoption of the plan change provisions is also entirely consistent with the section 7 matters. In that respect, in relation to managing the physical resources of the City, we are to have particular regard to: o The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: o The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: o Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: o Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. These matters are all directly relevant to the city s town centres and are best served, or given regard to, by way of the plan change and its intention to improve the built environment of the town centres. The plan change is intended to ensure that the design of new development in town centres makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and pedestrian amenity (both existing and future), while responding appropriately to the established character and design of existing buildings of merit within centres, particularly those of heritage value. It recognises that inappropriately designed development can have a significant adverse effect on amenity values in these centres and that as focal points for community retail, employment and recreational facilities, well designed town centres can make a very positive contribution to amenity, economic vitality and community enjoyment of these centres. We judge that the new urban design objective for Section 15 of the district plan is an appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act, as expressed by the settled objectives of the district plan. In particular is the importance higher order plan provisions place on the city s town centres as the location of new development, as well as social and community infrastructure. We further judge that the proposed policies and methods (limited discretionary activity status and assessment against the Urban Design Code) provide an effective and efficient means by which to implement the objective. We are confident that the costs of the proposed changes in terms of additional transaction costs associated with preparing and assessing applications for new development and redevelopment will be off-set and more than compensated for by the benefits to other land uses and the community in general from improved design, and the costs of bad design which are avoided, even though these costs and benefits cannot be quantified. We are therefore satisfied that the plan change meets the tests of section 32 of the RMA. 3.2 The Regional Context The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) provides the regional context. It provides an overview of the resource management issues facing the region and includes policies and methods to achieve the integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. It was made operative on 31 August District plans must give effect to the provisions of the Operative Regional Policy Statement and have regard to any changes. A significant change to the Regional Policy Statement (Change 6) is currently in the appeals stage of the plan change process. The strategic direction for the Auckland region, as set out in the Operative RPS, is one of containment of urban development within defined limits and of accommodating future growth within and around high density centres and corridors linked by an effective public transport system. Urban intensification is recognized as having the potential to cause adverse effects on the environment and, in terms of integrated management, the RPS seeks to avoid adverse effects on amenity values, incompatibility of activities between adjoining properties and between adjacent zones, and increased traffic congestion. The weighting given to the need for protection of the environment needs to be determined having regard to the particular circumstances.

8 8 The plan change is consistent with the RPS in all these respects in seeking to assist in improving the built environment of the town centres of North Shore City. The change is also consistent with the more detailed policies on centres-based urban intensification and quality urban environments set out in Change 6 to the Regional Policy Statement. 3.3 The District Context The district context is set by the provisions in the operative district plan. Sections 5 and 6 of the district plan are introductory sections which respectively identify and discuss the major issues faced by the city, and establish the key broad goals for the city s future, goals which underpin the later more detailed sections of the district plan. There are six major issues identified as facing the city which include, (among others): Protecting our high quality natural environment; Securing a high quality built environment; and Effectively managing change within the city. These issues are the basis for the development of strategic policies and specific goals for the city. The district plan (Section 6.2, Urban Growth and Development) identifies the effects of continued growth and change on, amongst other matters, the quality of the built environment. The identified issues include: Ad hoc development compromising the ability to achieve more comprehensive developments in the future. The standard of urban design, including pedestrian amenity of public space and community facilities. The ease of access through our living environments for all modes of movement. The goals (Section 6.3 of the district plan) relate to these various matters, referring to local character and community wellbeing, and, by way of Plan Change 12, seek: A compact and contained City with a quality built environment, focused around town and village centres that supports goals for the natural environment, for ease of movement, community wellbeing and economic growth. These provisions in the district plan are then further developed into the Urban Growth Strategy (Section 6.4 of the district plan) for the City where the objective is to effectively manage growth and change by various means. These include achieving the maintenance and enhancement of a high quality built environment and enabling an ease of movement and accessibility that minimizes the impact on the environment. Relevant policies refer to the use of high quality design, protection of areas of special character, and fostering and promoting the city s sense of place and identify. We find all of these provisions are relevant to the plan change because they address the effects of development on the environment, including the quality of the built environment. We consider the plan change is entirely in accordance with the intention of these key goals which underpin the district plan. We also note that Plan Change 9 and Variation 67 relating to the Albany Centre became operative in early The key amendments of this change/ variation included the introduction of a new Structure Plan for this area, the introduction of new rules for building design and development to ensure a high quality urban environment and improved assessment criteria for new development relating to matters such as building design, streets, and public spaces. These provisions are relevant to Plan Change 30 given they address matters of urban design in relation to the Albany Centre. The

9 9 plan change seeks to extend such consideration of urban design issues to the other town centres in the city. We find all of these provisions provide a sound basis upon which the plan change can be progressed in order to assist in improving the built environment of the town centres of the City. 4.0 DECISION REPORT FORMAT AND TOPICS 4.1 Conclusions on Principal Matters Before discussing and providing decisions on the individual submissions we believe it useful that we set our the conclusions we have arrived at in relation to the principal matters that were raised in submissions to us, and where our decision has an impact on the scope and structure of the the plan change. We do that below under sub-headings for each matter: Street Typologies It was put to us by a number of experienced urban design professionals that the plan change and associated Code needed to distinguish between different street conditions within the city s town centres, particularly the larger centres. In their view, the various street conditions, such as pedestrian focused mainstreets versus more car orientated side or peripheral streets should more strongly influence appropriate design responses. We agree that there is merit in providing more direction within the plan change as to the need for the design of buildings to consider the street context with which they interrelate. However we do not agree with the need to go as far as categorising all the different streets in the town centres as falling within different groups or typologies, with different provisions flowing from these categories, as we were urged to do by a number of submitters. We have concluded that town centre streets display a range of characteristics that often present more of a transition between different forms, rather than clear breaks that can be easily mapped. We are also concerned that some form of specific categorisation could be construed to support a black and white type situation; that is streets where urban design was seen to be important and streets where it was not. In our opinion, good urban design is important for all types of street interface conditions, but that urban design principles need to be applied and modified to respond to the particular circumstances. We therefore consider that a more appropriate response is for the required Site Context Analysis and Urban Design Statement to consider the street context and the appropriate response to it on a site-by-site basis. To this end, we have amended the plan change to take greater account of the type and location of the street onto which a development will front or face. This has been achieved by way of changes to the Context Analysis (Section ) requirements as well as a number of changes to the Urban Design Code. Section of the Code, Town Centre Vibrancy, is deleted and is replaced with a new sub-section titled Street-level Frontages. We consider this section provides the appropriate level of guidance as to preferred ground floor design responses by differentiating between those sites located in the central area of a town centre, which will require more active, generally retail-oriented frontages, and those sites located on the periphery of a centre which have a more mixed, semicommercial flavour to them, while still leaving room for site specific responses. An explanation and associated assessment criteria are provided. We also recognise that a few streets across the Business 2 and 3 zones cannot, for specific reasons, usually topographical or due to the street s function, comply with the criteria set out in the Code. The exempted streets are listed at the beginning of the Business 2 and 3 section. A consideration of the effect on streetscape is still required, by way of the criteria listed in the same section. Business 4 Zone It was put to us that the Albany Centre, as covered by the Business 4 zoned land, was a different type of centre to the rest of the centres in the city. In particular it was a centre that was designed for the car and its structure of a sweeping inner ring road meant that buildings should not have to closely engage

10 10 with this street environment, as might be the case elsewhere. Topography and the large floorplate of the Mall were also identified to us as constraining issues that impacted upon the extent to which development could closely align to street frontages and create interactive edges with them. We saw merit in the plan change acknowledging the particular character of the Albany Centre, but were concerned that the urban design intent of the Albany Centre structure plan was still given sufficient recognition, particularly the interface of development with Civic Crescent and the linkages and connections to adjacent development such as the Stadium and the Albany Mega centre. Following the presentations by Westfield, the Council officers had a number of meetings with Westfield as the main landowner in the Business 4 zone. National Trading Co which has a smaller part of the Business 4 zone was provided with the proposed provisions that resulted from those meetings. The need for separate provisions for the Business 4 zone was recognised by the officers. We agree, based on the evidence presented for Westfield and the amended provisions provided by the officers, that a new section for the Business 4 zone land be inserted with specific criteria for the zone. The plan change has been amended accordingly. Supermarkets Balancing the operational requirements of supermarkets and large stores with design-based approaches to development in town centres was an issue that took up some time in the hearing. On the one hand, the advantages of having a supermarket in the middle of a town centre is obvious from our visit to Milford and Browns Bay. The supermarkets in these centres add considerably to the foot traffic and vibrancy of the centre. On the other hand there are issues of parking and traffic movement and long blank walls to streets than can disrupt the pedestrian experience. We are of the mind that the benefits of larger stores and supermarkets to overall vitality of town centres outweighs concerns about these types of activities not being able to replicate the traditional pattern of narrow fronted store fronts lining a shopping street. However this does not mean that supermarkets and large stores should be free to pursue their own layout and design; rather that some flexibility be given to them as to how they are to meet basic urban design requirements as to containing and enlivening the streetscene and providing for pedestrian safety and security. The section of the Code which deals specifically with Malls, Supermarkets and Large Stores has been reworked in response to submitters concerns, in particular those of National Trading Company. A consequential amendment to the policies of Section 15 is now included in the plan change. Context Analysis To reflect the above determinations, an amended Rule , Context Analysis and Design Statement, has been prepared which includes: Insertion of the word urban into the title of the rule, so that it reads: Context Analysis and Urban Design Statement. This amendment reflects the need for the assessment to relate to urban design issues, not architectural design alone. Inclusion of requirements (assessment and design response) relating to the particular function of the street, that is, retail/town centre streets or town centre edge streets. Insertion of particular requirements applying where parking is proposed proximate to the street, or where a site has two or more street frontages. These latter two amendments have been made to respond to submissions requesting that greater consideration of street typology issues is required. Activity Status Currently the District Plan manages the design of development in town centres by way of a Controlled Activity status. The change proposes an elevation of status to Limited Discretionary activity. A number

11 11 of submitters raised concerns about this change, indicating that they considered that the change did not provide sufficient guidance as to the limits of the discretion reserved to the Council, and that applicants would be subject to lengthy, uncertain and inconsistent consent preparation and assessment processes, given the extent of judgement contained in the proposed provisions. In making our decision on this issue, we were mindful of the various tests set out in the RMA as to whether a rule is an appropriate method to achieve the purpose of the Act. For the purposes of this issue, these tests can be summarized as: 1. Would the proposed rule be the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the District Plan, having regard to efficiency and effectiveness (Section 32)? 2. Would the rule assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the Act (Setions 72 and 74)? With regard to the first of these tests (appropriate way to achieve the objectives), we note that the District Plan s objectives are to be amended to refer to the need for development to contribute to the creation of a high quality built environment within town centres (refer to amended Objective ). This amendment signals a change in emphasis from the operative District Plan, which had a focus on development avoiding adverse effects. The new objective requires a greater consideration of how development will interact with other resources and structures in town centres in both a negative and positive sense. These interactions are complex and cannot be neatly transcribed into a set of performance standards that could be used to define a Controlled activity class. In the absence of design-based standards that would place a boundary on Controlled activity status (in that the breach of the standards would have the effect of shifting the activity status to discretionary or similar) then Limited Discretionary activity status - with development subject to an explicit set of criteria - is the most appropriate route by which some certainty around urban design standards can be achieved. In this regard, we were advised by the Council staff, of a number of situations where, in their judgment, the imposition of conditions on a Controlled activity has been found to be inadequate in those situations where there are fundamental issues with the design of a proposal. We are also mindful of the fact that Restricted or Limited Discretionary activities were introduced into the RMA specifically to deal with those cases where discretion to decline consent was needed, but it was unnecessary to consider the full range of relevant matters under section 104. We consider that development in town centres falls appropriately into this category and that therefore a full Discretionary activity is not required. On the question of effectiveness and efficiency, we are influenced by the fact that a number of Councils are moving the activity status for development in town centres from Controlled to Limited (or Restricted) Discretionary status. This means that North Shore is not ahead of the pack creating additional hurdles to development in its centres, compared to other centres in other districts. We have also noted elsewhere in this Decision the need for the Council to have the appropriate in-house urban design resources to process applications in a consistent manner. To address issues relating to small scale developments being caught up in complex resource management processes and to increase certainty as to which design criteria apply to what types of developments, we note that this Decision has made the following changes: The Design Code has been amended to better reflect the issues of street frontages, supermarkets and large stores, and development in the Business 4 zone land. These changes provide greater guidance as to the discretion to be applied to the different types of development in town centres, and as a result lessens possible fears about open ended assessment and consenting processes. Including as a Permitted activity, external alterations and additions of less than 15sqm, which will not be visible from roads, public open spaces, recreation or recreation zones. The Permitted activity category is also amended to include external alterations to a building that is limited to repair of existing building fabric.

12 12 Including as a Controlled activity, external cosmetic alterations. This provides for the recladding of existing buildings, replacement of joinery etc, but excludes all structural changes such as alterations to the size of window or door openings. Retaining the provision which specifically provides for Limited Discretionary activity applications to be processed without notice. This recognises that the potential for an application to be publicly notified is of considerable concern to submitters due to the potential delays and costs associated with hearing such applications. Turning to the issue of whether the amended rule assists the Council with its functions under the Act, section 7 of the Act provides for Councils to consider the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. The District Plan, within Section 6.0, sets out the importance of town centres to the sustainable management of the city s resources, and to the amenity values of the city. It is clear to us that the current structure of the District Plan cannot provide appropriate guidance as to what constitutes poor urban design, and hence negative impacts on the amenity of town centres, have and will continue to be experienced. This weakness is to the detriment of all activities in town centres: poor design can start a process of decline and decay that affects other businesses and the community in general. Growth, Change and Innovation Concern that the provisions of the Code would be used to stifle new development and to constrain innovation in architectural design was an issue raised from a number of different viewpoints: some submitters felt that the references to new development needing to reflect the existing character of town centres would be used to limit development that was more intensive or higher than current development, contrary to the plans policies related to the more effective use of town centre land; other submitters felt that the provisions would be used to try to curtail or knock out development that had a very strong corporate theme to its design. We are sympathetic to both issues. Good urban design is a tool to help centres intensify and redevelop. In the application of urban design principles, both existing and future character needs to be considered, with the balance between the two dependent upon the planning framework for the centre. References linking the code to both the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and North Shore City s own Urban Growth Strategy (Section 6.3 of the district plan) have been included in the introduction to the Code, at Section to help establish this link. With regard to architectural style, we have modified the Code to emphasis the principles of urban design and the creation of visually rich and diverse town centres that acknowledge existing style idioms, but not the need to replicate them. Diagrams Many of the diagrams in the Code have been removed in response to some submitter s requests, including the revisions to the Supermarket section of the Code where all diagrams are removed.

13 13 The subsequent illustrations in the sections of the Code which follow on from the Malls, Supermarkets and Large Stores section, namely, those of Mixed Use, Pedestrian Amenity, Public Open Space, Parking and Service Areas, Service Stations, Adaptive Re-Use and Energy Efficiency all remain. Code Rationalisation We have rationalised the Urban Design Code to assist with clarity. The Code is now arranged around the three zoning groupings, Business 1, 2 & 3, and 4 zones. Heritage has been made into a separate section. Minor amendments, some of which are consequential, have also been made to the Introduction section. In addition, the provisions relating to Pedestrian Amenity, Public Open Space, Parking and Service Areas, Adaptive Re-Use and Energy Efficiency have been grouped in one section, titled General Urban Design Provisions. The content of these individual sections has not been changed. Stormwater Clarifications A number of consequential amendments have been made, primarily to the Code, to better reflect the change sought by submitters in relation to water sensitive design. In the main these changes are minor in nature and do not introduce additional requirements into the plan change. 4.2 Decision Format An extensive range of matters was raised in submissions. For convenience, we have grouped these by topic in Section 6 of this decision using a similar format to that set out in the officer s report as follows: Part A, General, support and opposition Part B, Section 15, Objectives and Policies with 10 topic headers Part C, Section 15, Rules with 7 topic headers Part D, Particular Issues, with 11 topic headers Part E, Urban Design Code, with 11 topic headers. In considering each of the topics, we have adopted the following format: Summary of Submission and Relief Sought with related further submissions - the adoption of the summary contained in the officer s report in each case. Commissioners Deliberations Submission Determination outlining whether the submission is accepted wholly or in part or rejected. Provision Determination outlining the changes (if any) to be made to Plan Change 30 as a consequence of accepting any submission wholly or in part. Where changes are recommended these are double underlined and if text is deleted this is indicated by a double strikethrough line in the Appendix. Reasons being the Commissioners reasons for accepting or rejecting any submission. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESOURCING OF PLAN CHANGE A number of submitters expressed concerns as to whether the Council is appropriately staffed and resourced to implement the provisions of Plan Change 30. Of particular concern is the need for expert and timely advice and reporting by specialist urban designers on development proposals within town centres, (Business 1-4 and part of Business 9 zone).

14 14 We were informed that Council currently has one, part-time qualified urban designer in the Environmental Services (resource consent processing) division. While for larger and /or more complex town centre applications external consultants are utilised and urban design expertise is also available from the Policy team of the Council, in our opinion the Council is likely to need additional urban design staff to help implement the Plan Change. We note that the transition to the Auckland Council will provide the opportunity for greater specialisation to be developed amongst planning staff and for the pooling of urban design expertise, but even with this, demand for appropriate urban design advice and assessment is likely to increase. We foresee potential problems with the implementation of the Plan Change unless there is sufficient specialist staff to provide the appropriate input. We accordingly strongly recommend that the Management of the Environmental Services division consider whether there is currently sufficient specialist urban design resources to appropriately implement the provisions of Plan Change 30, and also review that situation on a regular basis, in order to achieve the best outcomes for both applicants and the city from an urban design perspective. This is in terms of both the lead up to the Auckland Council being established, and once the new organisation is in place. 6.0 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED We have not included a summary of the evidence. That is not necessary because it was presented mainly in writing; we have listed above appearances at the hearing and the specialist roles of the presenters and the submitter each represented; and, the minutes of the hearing also provide the details if necessary. It is readily apparent from the decisions we have made on the submissions that we have had regard to the evidence of submitters because we have agreed with much of what they presented to us. That has seen a number of changes to the plan change. Our decisions on individual submissions further reflect details that were presented to us in evidence. We consider the decisions we have made provide a good balance between the need to provide the plan change provisions in the district plan with the specific concerns that were raised by submitters. We acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the material presented by submitters and the work and efforts of the Council s reporting officers. 7.0 DECISION ON SUBMISSIONS TO PLAN CHANGE 30:

15