Zoning – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings in Cockle Bay (THAB)

​

1. Proposal destroys the amenity values and character of the area – the well functioning urban environment

2. Because the sewerage network lacks capacity, the proposed zoning breaches the requirements in the National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS-UD) for developments to be in areas where there is integrated infrastructure planning and funding. Infrastructure must be funded and ready, and reflected in Council’s financial plans. Request that wastewater becomes a qualifying matter. This will constrain development at least until infrastructure is in place.

3. Many houses in the proposed zone rely on soak holes for stormwater. Stormwater systems are likely to be overwhelmed, increasing the risk of flooding, flow path damage and polluted beaches. Request stormwater infrastructure with adequate capacity becomes a qualifying matter in order to accommodate increased run-off and Council’s latest standards for managing stormwater.

4. Parts of the area are identified as having a high risk of landslide susceptibility. Question whether under the Natural Hazards proposals this is acceptable.

5. The proposed zoning is not on a rapid transit network, as required by NPS-UD

6. The proposal will create parking and traffic congestion problems in streets that are already experiencing difficulties with traffic flows at opening and closing times for schools

7. There is no additional green space provided for active and passive recreation

Zoning Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) and Mixed Housing Urban (MHU)

​​

1. Similar arguments to those for THAB, including whether the proposals create a well functioning urban environment

2. The proposed zone lacks both sewage and stormwater infrastructure, and none is currently planned. Again, these should become Qualifying Matters, preventing construction approvals without resource consent.

3. Part of the MHS zone has a flooding issue, bringing it under the new Natural Hazards regime. Is it therefore realistic to zone these areas for MHS?

4. Other parts are shown as having a high risk of landslide susceptibility.

5. The proposals will again create parking and traffic problems

Infrastructure Costs

​​

1. The now dropped Plan Change 78 recognized that Cockle Bay lacked sewerage infrastructure capacity. There are no immediate plans to remedy this.

2. Similarly, there is no proposal to upgrade the stormwater network.

3. Despite assertions by central government, infrastructure capacity cannot be increased incrementally. It must be sufficient for proposed capacity.

4. The NPS-UD requires integrated infrastructure planning and funding. There is no evidence that this has been considered when preparing zoning. It is misrepresentation to define a zone for development, but be unable to offer the necessary infrastructure to service the increased capacity.

5. Other parts of the Howick Ward, such as Flat Bush, are still waiting for their essential infrastructure.

6. The total costs of the proposed intensification across the city as a whole are likely to be unaffordable, or they will create an unsustainable debt burden.

​

Dwelling and Population Targets

​

1. Although these have come from central government they still need to be challenged.

2. What sensible organization tries to plan as far ahead as 2175? Still more so without producing any time bound cash flow projections?

3. The current Auckland Unitary Plan has capacity for the 360,000 dwellings forecast as required by Statistics New Zealand. This is sufficient for the next 30 years.

4. Auckland Council 10 year financial projections should have been based on these more realistic demand projections.

5. The NPS-UD requires the Council to monitor demand for dwellings. Responding to a government mandate for dwellings is to overlook this requirement.

6. Council should respond to central government with a statement that the proposed target is unsustainable in financial terms.

7. Instead, it should propose a targeted, phased, time bound intensification plan that commences with intensification around existing rapid transport corridors where there is sufficient infrastructure capacity and then expands intensification to areas where there is also sufficient infrastructure capacity to service the population. There will be ample time to increase infrastructure capacity in areas where there is currently a shortfall, in adequate time to meet demand for a growing population.

Construction on Flood Plains

​

1. We support constraints on construction within flood plains, whilst noting that some such areas have still been zoned for intensification.

2. In order to meet demands for resilience the Cockle Bay area will need upgrades in the stormwater network to increase cap meet the current design standards

Viewshafts

​

1. We support the retention of the viewshafts from Stockade Hill and wish to see the viewshaft at The Glebe (All Saints church) reinstated.

 

Howick Village

​

1. We support the retention of the height limits within the Village, and wish to see the Howick Business district retained as a special character area.