of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Transcription

1 Topic 081d New Lynn Precinct IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan PLANNING STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED (5253/70-75) TOPIC 081D REZONING NEW LYNN PRECINCT 10 FEBRUARY 2016

2 2 Topic 081d New Lynn Precinct 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This evidence has been prepared in support of Kiwi Property Group s (Kiwi) submission on the New Lynn Precinct (submission number to ). 1.2 Council has made a number of changes to the Precinct provisions and Kiwi support the majority of these, including those relating to clarifying the activity status of development control infringements, clarifying which underlying Business zone rules do not apply to LynnMall, and amending the provision relating to the Memorial Avenue entrance to LynnMall. 1.3 Kiwi seeks only one further change relating to the numbering of the subclauses of the Street Frontage rule to assist with the interpretation of this rule. 2. INTRODUCTION, QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 2.1 My name is Gerard Francis Thompson. I am a Principal of Barker & Associates Limited, an independent planning consultancy based in Auckland. I hold a Master of Science degree in Geography from Canterbury University and a Master of Environmental and Resource Planning degree from Massey University. I have practiced as a planner for 13 years and am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. 2.2 This evidence is prepared on behalf of Kiwi with respect to their submission on the New Lynn precinct provisions. 2.3 I have provided planning advice to Kiwi with respect to New Lynn for approximately five years. This has included providing advice on Plan Change 17 which was one of the suite of plan changes promulgated in response to the LGAAA legislation. The Plan Change 17 provisions that were finally agreed through Environment Court mediation form the basis of the proposed Unitary Plan provisions applying to LynnMall. Since 2010 I have also been involved in the preparation of a number of resource applications relating to the refurbishment and expansion of the centre.

3 3 2.4 In terms of the Unitary Plan process, I reviewed the Draft and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and was involved in preparing the primary and further submissions on Kiwi's behalf. In addition, I attended mediation sessions on Topic relating to business zones and the mediation session for the New Lynn Precinct. Therefore, I am familiar with the issues to be addressed at this hearing. 2.5 I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in the Environment Court's Practice Note I have complied with the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and I agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence before the Hearings Panel. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence. 3. PROVISIONS THAT ARE SUPPORTED 3.1 I have reviewed Mark Tollemache s evidence prepared on behalf of Auckland Council and the marked up version of the New Lynn Precinct provisions appended as Attachment C to his evidence. 3.2 Mr Tollemache s marked up provisions include a number of out of scope amendments. The majority of these, however, are relatively minor editorial changes or relate to other sub-precinct s that are beyond the scope of Kiwi s submission. 3.3 Of the proposed amendments that are relevant to Sub-Precinct C, I consider the majority are acceptable. For the record, these include: (a) Kiwi sought a specific objective and policy recognising the contribution that LynnMall makes to New Lynn and that the specific operational and functional requirements associated with the Mall should be recognised and provided for. Mr Tollemache does not support adding a specific objective and policy of this kind for New Lynn. This matter was discussed at length as part of the RPS and Business zone topics, with the

4 4 Key Retailers Group seeking amendments to the Business zone provisions to address the concern. I consider that objectives and policies relating to the merits of integrated shopping centres and their functional and operational requirements are better dealt with on a City-wide basis in the higher order provisions, rather than on a precinct by precinct basis. For this reason, Kiwi no longer seek changes to the New Lynn Sub-Precinct C objectives and policies. (b) The provisions have been amended to clarify that infringements to development controls are a restricted discretionary activity (rather than discretionary). This change provides consistency with the existing operative provisions and also the provisions found elsewhere in the proposed Unitary Plan. (c) (d) (e) The clarification that Sub-Precinct C Rule Street Frontage replaces Rules I (relating to buildings fronting the street) and I (relating to glazing) in the Business zones chapter of the Plan. An amendment to Sub-Precinct C Rule 3.3.1(a)(v) requiring development facing Memorial Drive to ensure one of the main entrances to LynnMall remains opposite McCrae Way (was previously the main entrance). An amendment to Precinct Plan 1 to clarify that the pedestrian connections through LynnMall are indicative rather than proposed. 4. PROVISIONS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED 4.1 Beyond the changes that Mr Tollemache has already made, there is only further change that I consider is necessary to the New Lynn Precinct provisions. 4.2 Sub-Precinct C Rule deals with frontage and glazing requirements for buildings around the perimeter of the LynnMall site. The

5 5 requirements are broken down by the street to which they relate: Great North Road; Veronica Street; Totara Avenue; and Memorial Drive. 4.3 The numbering of the provisions, however, is inconsistent and makes it difficult to interpret the rule. I therefore proposed the changes as shown below (my changes highlighted in red): Street frontage These provisions replace the Building Frontage and Glazing controls in Rules I and I and relate to new development. 1. Development fronting Great North Road: a. 50 per cent of the street frontage must be occupied by a building that: i. is set back no more than 3m from the road boundary ii. has at least 70 per cent of the area of the ground floor facade in the form of transparent doors, glazed windows or other transparent materials. iii 2. development fronting Veronica Street: a. 50 per cent of the street frontage must be occupied by a building that is set back no more than 3m from the road boundary b. 25 per cent of the street frontage must have an active edge. iv 3. development fronting Totara Avenue: a. 50 per cent of the street frontage must be occupied by a building that is set back no more than 3m from the road boundary. v 4. development fronting Memorial Drive must ensure that the one of the main entrances remains opposite McCrae Way and Memorial Square. 4.4 In my view the above renumbering of the street frontage provisions will assist users of the Plan to more readily interpret the rule. Gerard Thompson 10 February 2015