1.

A uckland Council

WAITEMATA LOCAL BOARD DRAFT UNITARY PLAN FEEDBACK 8 August 2013

Introduction
2. This paper presents the Waitemata Local Board feedback on the Draft Unitary Plan to help inform decisions by the Auckland Plan Committee in August. 3. The board appreciates the opportunity to provide its feedback on the Draft Unitary Plan. The board acknowledges the significant work by officers, Councillors, and Local Board representatives in preparing this significant document for Auckland. The Waitemata Local Board feedback outlined in themes below is informed by the local board's feedback from Phase 1 (September to December 2012), the public feedback from Phase 2 (March 2013 to present), and the board's own views, informed by workshops and briefings on the development of the Draft Unitary Plan including two mapping workshops held on 12 July and 2 August 2013. This feedback is provided in the context of the directions of the Auckland Plan committee of 2 July 2013 and the proposal to split the Mixed Housing zone into two separate zones (Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban) and the consequent suggested planning rules that would apply to these distinct zones. The Waitemata Local Board undertook significant public engagement as part of the feedback process and participated in a number of community hosted events as well as the Council's regionally organised events. Of the total 21,120 submissions received by the Auckland Council, 1,102 submissions were coded to Waitemata Local Board area. The Board expresses its appreciation to the members of the community who have participated in the process and provided their feedback. Many groups invested considerable time in their analysis and feedback on the draft plan. The Waitemata Local Board endorses the general approach of one Unitary Plan for Auckland with a consistent approach to zones and overlays and recognises that it is Auckland's most comprehensive single resource management plan and a key tool in delivering the Auckland Plan.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. The board wants to re-affirm its commitment to the outcomes it seeks to be addressed, at least in part through the Unitary Plan: Heritage and historic character protection and promotion (e.g. robust notification processes, providing incentives and controls to protect from demolition by neglect, minimal signage on commercial heritage buildings)

High quality, sustainable and innovative development (e.g. apartments with communal spaces; dry, warm, soundproofed, energy efficient and appropriately solar-oriented buildings). Active frontage in the streetscape and holistic and consistent character, providing for living streets and communities Affordable Housing. 9. The board shares the concern of many Aucklanders that the Unitary Plan process has been going at a fast rate that does not allow for careful analysis and consideration of the issues raised by the general public during the public feedback phase. The board believes the Unitary Plan must reflect local and place-based issues, therefore, sufficient time should be allowed to examine all pieces of feedback received in a diligent and careful manner.

10. Key areas of feedback include the following which were discussed with the Auckland Plan committee on 29 July 2013: Zoning - Residential Grey Lynn - the board is concerned at the proposed zoning of parts of Grey Lynn surrounding the West Lynn shopping centre as Terraced House and Apartment Building and Mixed Housing zones. Zoning of these sites should be rezoned as Single House zone until the Council has completed character investigations to determine whether a character overlay should apply. Grafton - The board strongly opposes the Tertiary Education Overlay in the Grafton area and notes the overlay should only apply to land owned by the university. The proposed zoning needs to be removed from both Seafield View Road and Park Avenue in Grafton. This area is within the Historic Heritage overlay and should be retained as such. Parnell - St George's Bay Road should be identified as a future precinct given the opportunity for site specific built form and new roads/public access and linkages. As such the board wishes to see a precinct plan developed for St George's Bay Road as soon as possible. Herne Bay - The board is concerned with the Terrace House and Apartment Building zone along the Herne Bay Coast, in particular the 4 storey height limit proposed. The board wants to ensure that building height on the coastal edge is sensitive to the surrounding local context and topography and requests that either the height limit is reduced or the area is rezoned Mixed Use. Zoning - Mixed Use The board does not support large format retail that does not provide for active frontage in the streetscape and holistic and consistent character such as the proposed Bunnings on Great North Road. The board wants to ensure that large format retail activity does not impact on the mixed use business zones, particularly along transport corridors. The board seeks a strengthening of the Unitary Plan provisions to ensure that vehicle generating retail activities do not locate in Mixed Use zone where the importance of pedestrian generating retail activities is required to support an active and pleasant streetscape providing for living streets and communities. Transport The Board notes the high level of support for investment in public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure (including the Sky Path).
Page 2

The board supports the investigation of no parking minimums especially in the Mixed Housing Urban zone. Presumption of non-notification The board strongly supports the removal of all presumptions of non-notification for discretionary and restricted discretionary activities. The board also supports the Unitary Plan remaining silent on notification so that officers can make an assessment of notification on an application by application basis, except for when an activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor, then it should be notified consistent with Section 950 of the RMA. View-shafts The board strongly supports the retention of the volcanic view-shaft overlay and any infringement of the view-shaft be considered as a non-complying activity on a notified basis. Heritage The board strongly supports the pre-1944 overlay and supports the assessment of historic and character areas in the local board area as a matter of priority. In particular, the board supports character assessments and field surveys of residential areas in Grey Lynn not currently included in the historic character overlay be progressed as soon as possible. Terrace House and Apartment Building Zone (THAB) The board is concerned about isolated THAB zoning within the Waitemata area that are not part of a town centre or on transport routes. These sites should more appropriately be zoned Mixed Housing Urban e.g. on Jervois Road, and Warnock Street. The board supports the Auckland Plan Committee's direction setting to increase the minimum dwelling size in the Mixed Housing zone from 30m2 (plus balcony) to 40m2 (plus balcony). The board also supports the increase of minimum dwellings sizes for two and three bedroom developments in the Terrace House and Apartment Building Zone and the city centre.

Growth Management
11. The board carefully considered the feedback received on intensification and notes there was general support for urban growth within an identified Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). However, concerns over the amount of planned growth outside the RUB were noted. In addition, submitters expressed the need to upgrade infrastructure to keep pace with intensification and the strong desire for quality urban design. 12. The Board acknowledges that the Unitary Plan will give effect to the growth and development requirements of the Auckland Plan. 13. While submitters requested the median estimation from Statistics NZ be used as a baseline for planning, the board is of the view that high projections are more appropriate given the history of growth in Auckland resulting in the previous failure to plan adequately for growth. 14. The Waitemata Local Board area has already experienced a high level of intensification over the last 20 years and the board acknowledges that in terms of the proposed "up-zoning" in the Auckland Region, it is the area of least change.
Page 3

15. Intensification brings with it a need for high quality, sustainable and innovative design. A greater focus on design solutions is therefore critical if intensification is to work well resulting in an environment that accommodates more people and provides the amenity to ensure a good quality of life. The design focus needs to pay particular attention to interface issues, the reduction of heights in coastal areas such as the Herne Bay and the inclusion of height in relation to boundary controls for Terraced House and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zoned sites that adjoin Mixed Housing or Single House zones. 16. The board considers that there should be a staged approach to intensification in Grey Lynn and Westmere with heritage and character assessments completed before sites are zoned Mixed Housing or Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings. The board supports priority being given to advancing heritage and character assessments as a matter of urgency.

Infrastructure
17. The board considered the feedback received on infrastructure and notes the community's concerns regarding the under investment in infrastructure and the need for upgrades to keep pace with the projected growth. 18. The board agrees intensification requires adequate community infrastructure including schools, pedestrian and cycle ways, open space, and other amenities. Within the intensification context, the board understands there has been an inherent under-investment in infrastructure, funding therefore needs to be prioritised as part of the growth management approach. 19. The Board wants to ensure the social and physical infrastructure requirements of the board area are planned for, phased and delivered to support the intensification proposed in the Unitary Plan. 20. The Board notes that infrastructure provision is undertaken through Council's Long Term Plan and Annual Plan process. The Board advocates that a 'joined' up information package be created that clearly demonstrates, on a spatial scale, projected LTP infrastructure investment, linked with Unitary Plan mapping showing areas of intensification. This will enable residents to see the degree of overlap between infrastructure provision through the LTP process, and proposed areas of intensification within the Unitary Plan.

Urban Design
21. The Board has been a strong advocate and supporter of the plan providing for controls relating to the quality and design of building and sustainable and innovative design. 22. The board notes the considerable feedback to ensure high quality design and notes the measures suggested to promote quality design and enhance the Auckland Design Manual. 23. The board supports the direction in relation to the provisions for design and quality including:

all new residential and business development should be required to meet high standards of building design, quality and sustainability; The current approach of including the specific objectives, policies, development controls and assessment criteria in the Unitary Plan; The current approach of requiring a design statement for all developments that require a resource consent. 24. However the board is concerned that buildings of four units or less in the Mixed House zone are proposed to not be subject to statutory design review. Good design at the pedestrian scale ensures the creation of pleasant and safe built environments. The board supports the Mixed House Urban zone being subject to resource consent and the requirement to submit a design review statement rather than relying on the willingness of the developer to produce a good design outcome. 25. The Board supports any infringement of the permitted height and height in relation to boundary controls in both Mixed House zones being subject to s95D of the RMA assessment and where appropriate notified. 26. The board seeks greater focus on design solutions that address interface issues, supports reduced height in coastal areas such as the Herne Bay and Parnell coast and supports the inclusion of height in relation to boundary controls for Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zoned sites that join Mixed Housing or Single House zones. 27. The focus on design is critical to the city's development. The Auckland Design Manual will be an important tool which in providing an outcome based approach to guide development. The board supports the Auckland Design Manual remaining non-statutory as this document can be changed over time and is outcome based rather than prescriptive or statutory based. In the long-term this will be more beneficial to the city than a prescriptive or statutory based approach.

Area planning and Precinct planning

28. The Board endorses the general approach of a single Unitary Plan for Auckland with consistent approach to zones and overlays but notes that the Unitary Plan must be supported by area plans that reflect local characteristics. 29. A community -led process for the development of detailed area plans is important to develop local design guidelines to ensure future development reflects local character and the aspirations of communities and neighbourhoods. 30. The board endorses area planning and precinct planning processes and considers these should be prioritised on the basis of market attractiveness and growth prospects. The board requests that the Waitemata Area Plan is prioritised in the 14/15 financial year. 31. The board strongly opposes the Tertiary Education Overlay of the private Isthmus A character homes in the Grafton area and notes the overlay should only apply to land owned by the university. The proposed zoning needs to be removed from both Seafield View Road and Park Avenue in Grafton. This area is within the historic character overlay and should be retained as such.

32. The Board further requests that precincts are included in the Unitary Plan where there is a specific purpose or where the resource management issues relating to the site require a site specific response. 33. The board understands the current Parnell Centre Plan does not go beyond Parnell Road. The board wants this amended to include properties on Falcon and Cheshire Streets. 34. 8t George's Bay Road in Parnell should be identified as a future precinct given the current context of specific built form and the opportunity of new roads/public access and linkages. As such the board wishes to see a precinct plan developed for 8t George's Bay Road as soon as possible.

Residential
35. The board carefully considered the significant amount of feedback received from the community on the residential theme and notes the main issues raised including: intensification, interface between zones, height limits, dwelling sizes, and non-notification of development. 36. The board received a lot of concerns regarding the proposed zoning of parts of Grey Lynn surrounding the West Lynn shopping centre as Terraced House and Apartment Building and the Mixed Housing zones surrounding Grey Lynn Park. The board position is for these sites to be rezoned as Single House zone until the Council has completed character investigations to determine whether a character overlay should apply.
Zones

37. The Board supports that residential areas of most change will be close to metropolitan, town and local centres and be in close proximity to rapid or frequent public transport and along arterial routes. 38. The board supports a graduated approach to intensification, with heritage and character assessments completed before sites are zoned Mixed Housing or Terraced Housing and Apartment !3uildings. This would provide a prudent approach and help manage scope of the zoning issues identified by the community. To facilitate such an appro9ch, heritage 'and character assessment~ need to be completed with some urgency. 39. The board Supports a gradual, transition in height between zones given that transitions can affect privacy, reducing outlook and cause shading. Such graduated transitions could be achieved through either a change in zoning or a reduction 'in the permitted height limit to address local considerations.

40 The board supports Mixed Use Zoning with increasing height controls as the best means of
encouraging residential development with appropriate ground floor retail/office activity.

Page 6

Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone 41. In general, the board supports the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone which provides for the greatest density, height and scale of development out of all the residential zones, located around metropolitan, town and local centres, frequent public transport stations and along some frequent transport routes. The Board notes that the THAB zone allows for buildings of four to six storeys depending on the scale of the centre the zone adjoins and to achieve a transition in height to lower scale residential zones. 42. However the Board notes the significant amount of opposition to the THAB zone particularly in a number of areas within Waitemata where the height and scale of the proposed THAB zoning is inappropriate and where a two or three rather than four storey height limit would be more acceptable. This would reflect the character of these areas better and help address transition issues. Areas that would benefit from a reduction in height include parts near the West Lynn and Grey Lynn shopping centres and coastal Herne Bay and Parnell. 43. The board is concerned at the proposed zoning of parts of Grey Lynn surrounding the West Lynn shopping centre as Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zones. Zoning of these character areas should remain or be rezoned Single House on an interim basis until Council has completed character investigations to determine whether a character overlay should apply. 44. The board is also concerned with the THAB zone along the Herne Bay and Parnell coast, in particular the 4 storey height limit proposed. The board wants to ensure that building height on the coastal edge is sensitive to the surrounding local context and topography and requests the area be rezoned Mixed Housing Urban (in respect of the existing 7a zoned areas) and Mixed Housing Suburban (in respect of the existing 6a zoned areas). 45. Because of these difficulties, the board supports a review of the location of the THAB zone to ensure that it is located in areas that can cater for additional height and intensification while managing the transition between zone interfaces. 46. To ensure a more graduated transition, the board would like to see further consideration given to the interface provisions between the THAB, Mixed Housing and Single House zones. One mechanism the board supports to protect sunlight and reduce overshadowing and visual dominance is to apply the height in relation to boundary controls to all THAB zone boundaries adjoining Mixed Housing and Single House zones. 47. With regard to minimum dwellings sizes, the board supports the increase of minimum dwellings sizes for two and three bedroom developments in the THAB zone and town centres. Mixed Housing zone 48. The Board notes the significant feedback on the Mixed Housing zone in relation to the extent of the zone, the proposed height limit, the minimum dwelling size, and the notification rules. 49. The board supports the Auckland Plan Committee's direction to split the mixed housing zone into two subzones. A Mixed Housing urban (two storey) 8m height zone with the ability to

build to 10m or 11 m via a discretionary application subject to the normal tests of notification and a Mixed Housing suburban (three storey) 10m high zone. 50. The Board considers that the Mixed Housing urban zone can be more appropriately applied to some areas currently included in the THAB zone. 51. The board is concerned at the proposed zoning of parts of Grey Lynn surrounding Grey Lynn Park as Mixed Housing zones. Zoning of these character sites should remain or be rezoned Single House on an interim basis until Council has completed character investigations to determine whether a character overlay should apply. 52. The Board notes feedback requesting all Mixed House zoning in Herne Bay be rezoned as Single House. The Board does not support this "down zoning" as previous heritage assessments suggest the proposed Mixed House suburban zoning (and the current Res 6a zoning) best reflects the current land use. The Board also notes that the remaining pre- 1944 buildings in the Mixed House zone will be subject to the demolition overlay. 53. The Board notes that further information is to be provided on the proposed controls to be applied to the proposed Mixed Housing zones and requests the opportunity to provide further feedback. Single House zone 54. The Board notes support for the application of the single house zone where it has been applied to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 Residential 1 and 2 zones and the Residential 5A areas of Westmere and in keeping with the direction of the Future Planning Framework. 55. The board supports the proposed minimum 500 sqm site size in the Single House Zone. 56. The Board supports the ability to divide houses in the Single House zone into two units, where the second unit can be used to accommodate family or be rented out. This can contribute to housing affordability and retention of character houses.

Business
57. The board notes the main issues raised in business theme included: heights in centres, interface between business and residential, and large format retail. 58. The board supports a graduated transition between residential and business zones, particularly in areas along College Hill, Ponsonby Road and Jervois Road where business zones adjoin Single House zoning or sites with historic heritage overlays. 59. The board is concerned about isolated Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings within the Waitemata area that are not part of a town centre or on transport routes. These sites should more appropriately be zoned Mixed Housing Urban e.g. on Jervois Road and Warnock Street.

City Centre Zone

Page 8

60. The Board notes that no common themes emerged in terms of either support or opposition to the principle of the City Centre zone, although some comments of support were received regarding enabling tall buildings in the CBD. The majority of feedback received was of a detailed nature, seeking specific revisions to objectives, policies or rules for both the underlying City Centre zoning and the precinct provisions. 61. The board is concerned that, notwithstanding a long publicly notified process recently determined in the Environment Court, the Draft Unitary Plan enables heights 2 storeys greater than the current provisions in addition to increased height limits and the 52m high 'tower' sites within Wynyard Quarter. In view of the recent process the board does not support this change in height and requests the current Operative District Plan provisions are carried through to the Unitary Plan. 62. The board notes that bonus provisions, as a planning tool relating to activities, enhancing general amenity and pedestrian facilities can provide benefits to the public where they are appropriately designed and integrated within developments. However, the Board notes that in the past, inappropriate application of provisions can result in outcomes less than satisfactory to the public for example, extension to footpaths located inside lobbies. Robust and well designed, or sited bonus provisions along with mandatory notation in favour of the Council on the title will do much to ensure that the benefits of bonus provisions are captured for the public good. 63. The board supports the Ports of Auckland continuing to operate in its current location however there is no need to incorporate the expansion of the ports in the Unitary Plan at this point and until any reclamation has been identified as required in a long-term plan. Mixed use 64. The board notes the concerns regarding the proposed Mixed Use zoning on College Hill (currently Residential 7a) and its impact on the historic character of the area. The board considers Mixed Use as the appropriate zoning because of the commercial activity, but given the topography of the immediately adjoining character homes with south facing back gardens, the Board supports a Mixed Use zone of 12.5m limited to 4 stories or alternatively a Mixed Use zone height with significant setback above 4 stories. 65. The board received a great deal of community opposition to the proposed Bunnings development on Great North Road. This sentiment is shared by the board which does not support large format retail that does not provide for active frontage in the streetscape and holistic and consistent character such as the proposed Bunnings. The board wants to ensure that large format retail activity does not impact on the Mixed Use zone, particularly along transport corridors. The Great North Road ridge is most appropriate for intensified residential apartment developments with active ground floor retail/commercial. 66. The Board does not support large format retail in the mixed use zone being a restricted activity and should move to a non-complying activity. 67. The board also seeks a strengthening of the Unitary Plan provisions to ensure that vehicle generating retail activities do not locate in Mixed Use zone where the importance of pedestrian generating retail activities is required to support an active and pleasant streets cape providing for living streets and communities.

Metropolitan centre 68. The board received feedback opposing the height limits in Newmarket. The board notes height limits in Newmarket are overridden by the view-shaft overlay height limits. The board requests that the permitted zoning is consistent with the lower floor level of the view-shaft. 69. The Board supports controls for vehicle crossings in this zone. Local Centres 70. The board received feedback requesting West Lynn shops change from Local Centre zone to Neighbourhood centre. The board supports West Lynn remaining a Local Centre zone and all the proposed THAB zoning changed to Single House on an interim basis until Council has completed character investigations to determine whether a character overlay should apply. 71. The Board received a number of requests for changes to or inclusion in the Town Centre zone at specific sites in Parnell, College Hill, and Grey Lynn. 72. The board considers that building heights permitted in each town centre and local centre zones should reflect the topography and surrounding features of that centre. It is acknowledged that much of Waitemata Local Board area is subject to the historic character overlay which takes precedent over the general height limits in town centres.

Heritage and Character

73. The Waitemata is home to many buildings and sites with historic heritage and historic character that contribute to the overall character and amenity of the Waitemata area. This is reflected in the significant amount of feedback the board received on this theme. 74. The board understands that protecting sites of heritage and character may require assessment for scheduling or wider notification of resource consent applications for the demolition of historic heritage and historic character buildings. 75. The board strongly supports the removal of all presumptions of non-notification for discretionary and restricted discretionary activities. 76. The board also supports the Unitary Plan remaining silent on notification so that officers can make an assessment of notification on an application by application basis, except when an activity has or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor, then it should be notified consistent with Section 95D of the RMA. 77. The plan remaining silent on notification should also apply to the pre-1944 demolition control overlay specifically in respect of any on-going application to demolish where a heritage or character assessment has been undertaken and the property found to be of heritage or character. 78. The board strongly supports the pre-1944 overlay as an interim measure pending completion of heritage and character assessment. In particular, the board supports character assessments and field surveys of residential areas in Grey Lynn not currently included in the
Page 10

historic character overlay be completed as a matter of priority. In the meantime, the board supports the sites zoned Single House. 79. The board supports a phased approach to intensification whereby sites are only up-zoned once character assessments have been completed and a determination made whether sites or areas should be included in a character overlay. 80. The board strongly supports the retention of the historic heritage overlay and advocates for the inclusion of additional sites and areas based on individual heritage assessments. The board seeks that additional sites are investigated as a matter of priority.

View-shafts
81. The board notes the significance of views hafts to the Waitemata community and notes the general support for the retention of volcanic and Auckland Museum view-shafts and their protection from high rise developments. 82. The board strongly supports the retention of the volcanic and Auckland Museum view-shaft overlay and any infringement of the view-shaft be considered as a non-complying activity on a notified basis. 83. The board also does not support up-zoning land in the volcanic and Auckland Museum views hafts where the up-zoning results in the permitted zone height breaching the view-shaft. In these situations, the board supports an equivalent zoning being retained. 84. The Board notes the request to investigate further view-shafts. We intend to investigate the matter as part of the Waitemata Area Plan

Natural Environment
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 85. The board noted the strong feedback recommending the board adopt the recommendation of the Inter-Council Working Party (ICWP) regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). 86. In February 2013, the board resolved (WTM/2013/9) to declare the Waitemata Local Board area GE and GMO free and to adopt a precautionary approach in dealing with research into the utilisation of Genetic Engineering technology. As such the board supports the recommendations of the Inter-Council Working Party to: ensure outdoor use of GMO does not adversely affect our environment, economy and social and cultural resources. make it prohibited activity to commercially release GMO make field tests a discretionary activity Climate change 87. The Board is committed to the Auckland Plan targets for reducing GHG emissions. 88. The Board is concerned that there is a lack of clarity on how the Regional Policy Statement 'Responding to climate change' (2.1.8) provisions (climate change and energy) cascade to the rules.

89. However the board notes that climate change effects cannot currently be considered within the framework of the unitary plan as a result of recent changes to the RMA. Noise Control 90. The board does not support any relaxation of existing noise controls. More permissive noise controls have the potential to negatively impact on the residential amenity of areas where the council is seeking to encourage intensification, particularly in the Central City. Significant Ecological Area (SEA) 91. The board supports the retention of SEA. 92. The board supports the restoration and enhancement of waterways and freshwater systems and the effects of intensification are mitigated. 93. The board supports the Unitary Plan containing clear standards around permeability of surfaces and the active management of storm water. The board requests the plan proactively supports sustainable and low impact storm water solutions such as rain gardens, swales and wetland treatments. 94. The board supports the plan actively encouraging the uptake of low impact design eg solar power and rainwater tanks. 95. The board supports the protection of flood plains and overland flow paths and the effects of intensification are mitigated. 96. The board supports the protection of cliff lines and the effects of intensification are mitigated. 97. The board does not support extending the SEA to residential properties and requests for this to be removed. Notable Trees 98. The board supports the scheduling of notable trees. 99. The board notes the feedback received requesting the scheduling of London Plane trees.

Transport
100. The board considered the significant feedback received regarding transport and notes the concerns raised regarding the impact of intensification on transport infrastructure and the high level of support for investment in public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure (including the Sky Path). 101. The Board requests that the Transport RPS (Section 2.3.3) is better aligned with the transformation shift in Transport outlined in the Auckland Plan and recognises properly the connection between land use and transport. There needs to be clear direction about transport decisions being consistent with desired land use outcomes. 102. The Board supports well designed public transport orientated development and intensification along major transport routes. 103. The board also supports the provision of 'end of journey' cycle parking facilities.

Parking 104. Maintaining minimum parking requirements is likely to be one of the biggest factors that holds back sensible and efficient land use in Auckland and positive transport outcomes. The benefits of no minimums include more motorist convenience, more attractive streetscapes, greater housing affordability, more walkable communities and more development around business centres. 105. Consequently the board supports the investigation of the removal of parking minimums as consistent with Directive 10.6 of the Auckland Plan, especially in the Mixed Housing urban Zone.

Coastal
Coastal Marine Areas 106. The board considered the feedback received and notes the main issues raised including stronger rules to protect coastal marine areas and guiding principles for removal of mangrove. 107. The Board supports the permitted removal of mangroves established after 1996. For all other mangroves, the board supports removal via resource consent to enable consideration on a case by case basis. 108. The board supports stronger controls on vehicles accessing beaches in the coastal marine area. The board considers that the uncontrolled access of vehicles in the coastal marine area significantly impacts the enjoyment and use of beaches. 109. The Board support the protection of coastal Pohutukawa in the board area as they protect against coastal erosion and provide significant amenity. 110. The Board also supports far stronger protection of coastal areas and riparian margins against development that exceeds the permitted development controls in these areas.

Parks and Community

Parks 111. The board supports the retention of public open space and recreational activities in line with the growth of the city. 112. The board notes that the Dickens road extension through Grey Lynn Park as identified on the draft map was a drafting error and is not proposed.

Schools 113. The board notes the feedback requesting schools have their own special purpose zone, rather than zoned consistently with the surrounding area. 114. The Boards notes the education overlay remains in place and understands it would be removed if the Ministry of Education wished to divest any school land. If the Board's

10. understanding is incorrect the board supports retention of the special purpose zone for schools. 115. The Board supports Auckland Council working in partnership with the Ministry of Education to plan for schools to support intensification.

Zoning Requests and Map Changes

116. The board received substantial feedback from the community regarding zoning changes, in particular from Grey Lynn and Herne Bay residents requesting recognition of the historic and character of the area. 117. The board took note of these requests and had a chance to workshop these zoning requests with officers. This enabled the Board to challenge officers and provide detailed feedback on the recommendations. 118. Officers have also recommended zoning changes as a result of the feedback. A list of all the zoning changes discussed at the mapping workshops on 12 July and 2 August is attached as APPENDIX A.

Affordable Housing
119. Housing affordability is a live issue in the Waitemata board area, and there is a need for appropriate mechanisms and tools within the Unitary Plan to encourage and achieve housing diversity. 120. The Board recognises that housing choice and facilitating urban development will contribute to housing affordability. 121. The Board supports further investigation of inclusionary zoning being included in the Unitary Plan. This approach has worked well in cities overseas to provide for a percentage of units in a large scale housing development to be "affordable" (within a specified price range and sold to people who meet certain criteria) or available for key workers to purchase.