We are now onto Day 3 on the Unitary Plan process.

On now is the last major topic which is zoning. This includes Rural Urban Boundary changes, including contentious areas like Okura. There are also ‘catch-all’ votes to accept the panel zoning in the South, West, North, Rodney and Central.  After that there is just technical amendments and votes on designations to be done.

This morning so far:

  • Residential rules have passed. Officer proposals to shift land use consent requirements from 5 to 3 dwellings were passed without debate.
  • The zoning for the South, West and Rodney has already passed, though a few exceptions where office changes voted on.
  • The council rejected the panel’s zoning for Crater Hill 10 – 9. This opens this up for Environment Court appeal.
  • The Council accepted the zoning for a Clevedon Waterways Development that the staff reccomended to be turned down.
Share this


  1. Bad news for getting buildings done without having to get a resource consent. The criteria is so vague and wishy washy that it comes down to if the planner likes it or not. Again we have subjective decisions made by middle class academics who have not been trained in design. This is a case of planners looking out for their jobs and the private planners milking us for every cent as they naval gaze over the merits of a development. The Panel did a great job of getting rid of unnecessary drivel in the plan and now we have a backward step to self appointed experts in design. A lot of the best design I have seen has been in despite of the rules not because of a planning manual based on a planners wet dream.

    1. Of course it works both ways doesnt it Robert and the building we got on Hobson St remain as a reminder of what certain parts of the market will deliver if Council doesnt have control over design.

      1. What is wrong with that building? It’s not attractive to look at from the Nelson Street side because of the at grade parking but the reason it seems so horrible is the state of Nelson and Hobson Streets themselves which council has full control over the design of.

      2. If the rules were spelled out then fine but planner speak is what we are left with which just gives them an excuse to charge $5000 for a consultant planner and then another $5000 for the council planner to scratch is head and say er I do not really like it. Give me a rule anytime. Besides when you talk of planners protecting our city I just laugh, as planners removed sunlight protection in the last district scheme and now I think I heard Councillor Darby say they have removed it again. I would rather have a crappy building with sun than an architectural beauty with none.

  2. How does the proposed zoning compare to the zoning in the current district plans? We can rave about how the IHP improved the plan, but how much of it was just cancelling proposed downzoning in the original version?

  3. Auckland officers misinterpreted rule H4.6.6 “Alternative height in relation to boundary”, they claimed it impacts “the front boundary” of buildings while the IHP text clearly states it applies to “the side and the rear boundaries”. This incorrect interpretation made the rule redundant hence the Councillors voted to reject it. The planners admited that the rule is not clear for them and the “cleanest” way is to reject it. Listen to minute 11:04. Also read http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2016/08/AUC_20160810_AGN_6585_AT_SUP.PDF , page 76.

  4. The government must have lent on some councillors. They’re mostly all quietly voting for the UP now. Why else the change of view?

Leave a Reply