Today is the last day, if you haven’t already, please make a submission before 5pm
Submissions for the Unitary Plan close at 5pm this afternoon so if you have been thinking about making a submission then you need to get on with it. I’ll be finishing our submission today however here are the key points we will be raising.
Specific Suggested Amendments:
|Chapter I – Future Urban Zone||Zone should be split into two sub-zones, one which relates to areas suitable for development in the next 10 years and another suitable for development beyond that date. Zones could be referred to as “Future Urban (short term)” and “Future Urban (long term)”. |
The specific controls for the zoning, especially in “Future Urban (long term)”, would reflect the direction of some future urban zoning developing earlier and some later.
|This change would give clearer direction about which parts of the Future Urban Zone are intended to be developed sooner and which parts later. This will enable infrastructure providers to plan with greater knowledge about the sequencing of land for development. |
This change would also minimise the risk of ‘leap frog’ development through private plan changes and enable the provision of quality transport infrastructure at the same time as development occurs.
|Chapter I – Residential Zones||Front yard setback requirements should be removed or reduced, particularly in zones where intensification is anticipated.||Front yard setback requirements take up valuable space that could otherwise be used within the main area of outdoor open space (generally to the rear) and undermine high quality urban design outcomes where interaction between the dwelling and the street is encouraged. |
Front yard setbacks are likely to undermine achieving the ‘quality’ urban form the Unitary Plan seeks to achieve.
|Chapter I – Residential Zones||Density limits should be removed for development of four or more dwellings in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. |
Density limits should not apply to the Mixed Housing Urban zone.
|Density limits are an overly crude way of managing built form that undermine many of the goals of the Unitary Plan – particularly the provision of affordable housing, the provision of a variety of housing types and promoting a quality built form. |
Other development controls, particularly height limits and site coverage limits, adequately control any adverse environmental outcomes. Density controls are therefore superfluous and counter-productive to the goals of the Unitary Plan.
|Chapter H –Parking Rules||Removal of parking minimums from Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones. |
Removal of parking minimums for Tavern activities.
|Parking minimums undermine many goals the Unitary Plan is trying to achieve – especially in zones where intensification is proposed. Negative impacts of parking minimums in the Mixed Housing zones will include undermining the ability to intensify, adding unnecessary cost to the consenting process, undermining the ability to achieve quality design outcomes, acting as a hidden subsidy to private vehicle travel and undermining investment in public transport.|
|Chapter I – Business Zones (Mixed Use Zone)||Some areas zoned for Mixed Use development should have a significantly higher height limit to reflect their location close to high quality public transport infrastructure (e.g. Morningside, Newton).||Some areas zoned Mixed Use (e.g. Morningside & Newton) are suitable for higher density development than the rest of the Mixed Use zone. This is because they are close to strategically significant existing or proposed railway stations and other amenities/services. |
Enabling higher development densities in parts of the Mixed Use zone will enable best value to be achieved from significant investment in projects such as the City Rail Link.
|Maps – Morningside||All areas between Morningside train station and St Lukes Shopping Centre proposed to be zoned “Light Industrial” should be rezoned “Mixed Use”.||Morningside station is a strategically significant station on the rail network once City Rail Link is completed. The station will be less than 10 minutes journey time from the city centre and the area surrounding it is generally not constrained by heritage/character, plus has a number of large site sizes. |
This is an area suitable for significant residential development due to its proximity to rail and to other amenities such as St Lukes, Fowlds Park and Mt Albert Primary School. The zoning should enable this development, which has already begun to occur over the past decade.
|Maps – Mt Roskill||The area bounded by May Road to the west, Mt Albert Road to the north, SH20 to the south and Mt Roskill Grammar to the east should be “upzoned” to Terraced Housing & Apartment Buildings||This area has excellent access to high quality public transport (Dominion Rd buses & possible rail along Avondale-Southdown Line) and is close proximity to Mt Roskill shops. A good location for intensification that would support many of the high level outcomes in the Regional Policy Statement such as providing housing choice and minimising adverse impacts on special character (as this is not a heritage area).|
|Maps – Grey Lynn||The sides of Great North Road between Ponsonby Road and Surrey Crescent should have an “Additional Zone Height Control” overlay applied to enable a higher height limit.||This area has high quality public transport options, is on a ridge line and is relatively free of heritage constraints. It provides an almost unique opportunity for significant intensification in the Grey Lynn area.|
|Maps – Meadowbank||Areas within an 800m walk of Meadowbank train station should be upzoned to either Terraced Housing & Apartment Buildings or Mixed Housing Urban (or a combination).||Meadowbank train station is one of very few stations that has not seen upzoning around it – which is anomalous and inconsistent with various objectives and policies to enable intensification in areas with good access to rapid transit. This area also overlooks Orakei Basin, which provides good natural amenity and further increases the suitability of the area for intensification.|
|Maps – Central Isthmus||Areas zoned Mixed Housing Suburban within the area bounded by New North Road in the west, the city fringe in the north, SH20 in the south and Great South Road in the east should be considered for rezoning to Mixed Housing Urban.||The central isthmus has the best public transport accessibility of any part of Auckland, plus a gridded street network and frequent centres of various scales. It also has significant market demand for development. |
Rezoning areas from Mixed Housing Suburban to Mixed Housing Urban would enable a wider variety of housing typologies in an area suitable for growth because of its public transport access and other amenities. Mixed Housing Urban would still retain the broad character of the area.
Mixed Housing Suburban area generally avoid places where Special Character overlays are applied.
|Maps – Greenlane||Along both sides of Gt South Rd between Greenlane East/West and Main Highway proposed “Light Industrial” should be rezoned “Mixed Use”.||This area has excellent access to high quality public transport, has good access to other amenities and is free of heritage constraints.|
Areas of Support
|Section||Specific Matter Supported||Reason(s)|
|Chapter I – Residential Zones||3.3 – conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings||This is supported as it is a way of providing affordable housing and allowing intensification in areas where growth is otherwise very difficult (e.g. heritage or character areas).|
|Chapter I – Business Zones||1 – Activity Tables||The strong restrictions placed on retail & office activity outside centres zones is supported. Out of centre retail & office activity results in areas very difficult to adequately serve with public transport but quite often have high concentrations of destinations.|
|Chapter H –Parking Rules||Support not having parking minimums in the various zones listed in Table 3 of Transport: section 3.2.||Parking minimums undermine many goals the Unitary Plan is trying to achieve – especially in zones where intensification is proposed. Not applying parking minimums in these areas is supported.|
|Maps – General||General support of zoning areas close to rapid transit or high frequency public transport to zones that enable intensification – particularly Mixed Use, Terraced Housing & Apartment Buildings or a centre zone.||Enabling intensification in areas with good public transport options will support the increased use of public transport and enable those living in higher density environments to be less car dependent in their lives, reducing the financial burden of transport on them.|