Thanks for your message. You ask a very reasonable question. Unfortunately, we cannot give a straightforward answer. Our response below includes some context to planning decisions. All properties are governed by requirements set out in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). The Plan includes 6 different residential zones. Currently your property (and adjacent properties) is zoned Single House Zone (SHZ). The zone description, objectives and policies can be found if you search for Chapter H.3 of the AUP (easily accessible on the web). This also sets out what “activities” are permitted, and which are discretionary or restricted discretionary activities, or non-compliant, within the zone. For instance, you will see that although the zone is designated SHZ the site can include minor dwellings as a permitted activity. Sites can also include so-called Integrated Residential Developments (IRDs) – a designation claimed, but rejected, in the first Sandspit Road apartments application. If you want to get even more complicated, the Resource Management Act provides an overarching legislative framework. It imposes additional criteria to apply when considering contentious consent applications – including the so-called Gateway Tests, which in essence say that consent can only be granted if adverse effects on the environment (using the broader definition) will be minor or less than minor and not contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP. Other discretionary developments within the SHZ include activities such as supported residential care, visitor accommodation or boarding houses for more than 10 people per site, and small restaurants/cafes and dairies. Based on economics or financial feasibility, we are a little less concerned about the range of these discretionary activities. Land values are sufficiently high that it is hard to envisage a number of these activities providing an adequate return on investment, given the high cost of sites within the zone. The situation is less clear when it comes to IRDs, because the definition has only been tested before an Independent Hearing Panel considering the first development application on the Steward Motors site. Economies of scale suggest that a developer would need to aggregate a significant number of sites (as in the Sandspit Road case) in order to create something large enough to justify an application for an IRD. That said, the Council definition of an IRD and our own still remains to be definitively resolved. We have the Independent Hearing Panel judgement in our favour – in effect saying that an apartment block with some communal facilities does not qualify as an IRD. We had expected a more precise definition of an IRD to be promulgated by the Environment Court judge if the developer’s application for a reduced scale of development at Sandspit Road had proceeded. However, that application was withdrawn when the developer decided to proceed with a Fast Track application for about 70 apartments. As a final point on the most recent consent application for the Sandspit Road apartments site, you are probably aware that the application was rejected by the Environmental Protection Authority. They made no determination relating to the requested IRD status. The developer has appealed the decision, and after a very brief preliminary Hearing a full Hearing is now set down for 19 – 20 March 2025. The grounds for appeal do not really impact the zoning provisions discussed above. CBRRA is an interested party in the court case. In summary, the possible development of properties adjacent to you will be subject to the zone description, objectives, policies and standards (boundaries, heights etc) set out in the AUP and must not involve more than minor effects. Hence the importance of determining what constitutes an IRD, because if apartment blocks with some additional facilities for residents are considered an IRD then you lose some of the zoning safeguards. But there is a bigger elephant in the room (if we can use the wrong metaphor). It creates even more unknowns that make it difficult to definitively answer your question. In 2021 the Labour and National parties jointly passed the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act, to require intensification. In essence, this required all city councils to introduce medium density residential standards (MDRS) specified in the Act for many of their residential areas. This meant no resource consent would be required for any development of 3 x 3 storey dwellings on a section in residential areas. Auckland Council produced what is known as Plan Change 78 proposing modifications (rezoning) to the Operative AUP in order to comply with this requirement. Before this could be formally approved by the full Council the proposed changes were required to be referred to an Independent Hearing Panel which, in turn, was required to receive and consider public submissions and make final recommendations to Councillors. CBRRA has made both written and verbal presentations to the Panel. Included in PC78 for specific areas were so called “Qualifying Matters” – constraints that would limit the applicability of MDRS consents without more detailed consideration of environmental or infrastructure constraints. As far as Pah Road is concerned the major constraint is a water and/or wastewater qualifying matter – in essence there is no capacity in the sewerage network to service higher volumes of sewage. The qualifying matter area is, in essence, along the seaward side of the north-south stretch of Sandspit Road and Litten Road. It therefore includes Pah Road. The Hearing Panel was originally expected to make their recommendations on adopting or modifying PC 78 (bearing in mind the legislation) to Council, (from memory) late this year. But … Subsequently it seems that the National party got cold feet at the public reaction to the intensification (our personal assessment) and decided to back away from the MDRS legislative requirements. Chris Bishop, as Minister of Housing, indicated to councils’ that the MDRS would cease to be mandatory (our loose wording). The current in-force legislation is still to be amended; the deadline for the Hearing Panel considering PC 78 has been extended until, from memory, 2026, and the situation is somewhat in limbo. By implication Watercare was involved in the original PC 78 qualifying matter introducing a constraint on new connections for properties from the ridge down to the sea in the Cockle Bay area. Please note that the existence of the qualifying matter is not a prohibition on development, but rather grounds on which Watercare can decline a connection. Watercare had originally declined to grant a connection application for the most recent Sandspit Road Fast track application. Subsequently, they agreed to approve connections provided the developer constructed sewage tank(s) to enable discharges to be limited to agreed times of the day when demand throughout the system was low. Ironically, soon after agreeing to connect the newly proposed Sandspit Road apartments, Watercare publicly announced that they were not able to guarantee connections for a much larger area of Howick than what is specified in the qualifying matter, and published revised maps showing where capacity is constrained and connections may not be possible. We do not believe the latest map has a qualifying matter status, but it might still mean (we presume) that Watercare can decline to connect new developments throughout the larger area because there is insufficient capacity. If the intensification legislation is not repealed and PC 78 is approved as drafted, your zoning changes from SHZ to Residential Mixed House Urban – see H.5 of AUP. (Properties on the other side of Pah Road will have a different zoning – Low Density Residential). Very briefly, Mixed House Urban is a reasonably high density zone with typically 3 storey dwellings as of right, but subject to standards, including detached dwellings, terrace housing and low rise apartments, (provided they can get Watercare connections, possibly involving sewage tanks?). The question then arises what planning rules apply between now and whenever final decisions are made on PC78. Which zoning rules apply? There is a legal precedent indicating that any proposed future zoning should be given greater weight when considering consent applications. We have argued to the Environmental Protection Authority which considered the most recent Fast Track consent application for the proposed Sandspit Road apartments that the Minister’s statement that MDRS requirements will be rescinded mean that the SHZ rules, and not PC 78, must prevail when considering the application. The barrister heading the EPA Hearing checked with Auckland Council what their stance was, and they indicated that SHZ rules remain in force until amended. However, one of the appeal points now before the High Court is whether the Minister’s statements about amending the legislation can be given any influence. In summary, there is a number of indicators that PC 78 will not be adopted, but if it is, then significant intensification on your side of Pah Road is a possibility. Our personal view is that developers will have no problem getting Watercare connections on a one-for-one dwelling replacement, but that capacity constraints may prevent connections for multiple dwellings. It is conceivable that Watercare would accept a sewage tank proposal in order to agree to connecting multiple properties, but this would probably require a single large scale development to make it feasible. We apologise for such a long and somewhat ambiguous response. The difficulty is that we are working with 2 quite different scenarios – retention of the current zoning or the future introduction of medium density residential standards, both underpinned by capacity constraints relating to wastewater. Lurking in the background there is also the High Court hearing, and the appeal against political statements influencing decision making. We are interested parties in the court case, and will be pushing a natural justice claim to enable us to make further submissions to the Environmental Protection Authority if the appeal is upheld. (The mere fact that Sandspit Road consent application has made it as far as the High Court and is subject to a number of appeal points demonstrates the legal ambiguity relating to both intensification and past and future Fast Tracking). People with particular concerns, or who want a more authoritative source, should contact their legal representatives. Out of interest, we are also submitters on the subdivision consent application for 56 Pah Road. For what it is worth, we attach a copy of our submission, which spells out some of the policies and objectives for the SHZ which were mentioned at the beginning of this email. Our Working Group on Sandspit Road and intensification will let you know if there are any additional points (or amendments) they would like to make.