Proposed (Private) Plan Change 35 To Facilitate Future Development of Smales Farm Technology Office Park.

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE: PCDN-35 (Plan Change Decision Notice 35) Resource Management Act 1991 NORTH SHORE DISTRICT PLAN DECISIONS ON SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS DECISIONS CONCERNING: Proposed (Private) Plan Change 35 To Facilitate Future Development of Smales Farm Technology Office Park. COMMISSIONERS: Alan Watson (Chairperson), Jan O Connor and Julia Parfitt TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1.1 Proposed Plan Change and Overall Determination. This decision report specifies the Hearing Commissioners ( Commissioners ) decision on submissions (including further submissions) to the Proposed (Private) Plan Change 35 - To facilitate future Development of Smales Farm Technology Office Park. Commissioners were delegated the authority to hear submissions and determine Proposed Plan Change 35 ( the Plan Change ). The notified Plan Change proposed new provisions and amendments to existing provisions within Section 12 Transportation and Section 15 Business of the Operative North Shore District Plan ( District Plan ) as they apply to Smales Farm Technology Office Park ( Smales Farm ). The range of submissions sought a variety of outcomes and modifications to the proposal. The Commissioners, having heard from submitters and the proposer of the Plan Change, and having considered all evidence before the hearing as well as re-evaluating all Section 32 RMA material and background information, consider that it is appropriate that a Plan Change proceed, subject to modification. Their decision has been made pursuant to Clause 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991( the Act or RMA ). The Commissioners response to each submission is set out by the number and name in the following Decision of Commissioners on Submissions and Further Submissions: PCDN Report Structure Section 2.0 details the attendees of the hearing. Section 3.0 provides an overview of the Commissioners considerations. The decision on submissions (and further submissions hereafter also referred to as submissions ) is contained in section 3.0 Commissioners Determination of the Plan Change and Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions of this report. The decisions on submissions in section 4.0 are addressed under the following topic headings: Topic 1 Topic 2 Parking Provision and Standards Impact of Parking 1

2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5 Sustainable & Integrated Transportation Signalisation & Timing of Gross Floor Area Shakespeare Road Extension Attachment 1 is the Decision Version of the Plan Change text (Note: This is the Plan Change as modified by the following decision. 1.3 Summary of Process Proposed Plan Change 35 was publicly notified on 25 March 2010, with a closing date for submissions on 26th April The summary of submissions was publicly notified on 13th May 2010, with a closing date for further submissions on 27 May Council received a total of 54 submissions and 1 further submission to the Plan Change. The Commissioners heard the submissions at the hearing commencing on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 at 9.30am and closing at 4.30pm on the same day. Deliberations by the Commissioners took place on 1 September and adopted the decision that follows. 1.4 Consideration of Late Submissions There were no late submissions. 2.0 The Hearing 2.1 The parties represented at the hearing are detailed below. Full details of the parties and their evidence are available from Council hearing minutes. The evidence presented and matters raised by all these parties have been considered in the determinations contained in sections 3.0 and 6.0 of this report. 2.2 This is a private Plan Change and as such the proposer (Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Ltd) of the private Plan Change appeared before the hearing in accordance with Clause 29 (3) of the First Schedule of the Act. Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Ltd is referred to in this decision report variously as the proposer, the requester or the applicant. 2.3 The case for the proposer was led by Douglas Allan who presented legal submissions. Evidence was presented before the Commissioners on behalf of the proposer from the following witnesses: 1. Mr Chris Smale, Director - Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Limited; 2. Mr Owen Alexander, Principal Takapuna Normal Intermediate School; 3. Mrs Alison Gernhoefer, Principal - Westlake Girls High School; 4. Ms Louise Ward, Group Manager, Facilities and Development Waitemata District Health Board; 5. Mr John Goodwin, Landscape Architect/Director Boffa Miskell; 6. Mr John Parlane, Traffic Engineer/Principal Parlane and Associates Limited; 7. Mr Vaughan Smith, Planning Consultant Bentley & Company Limited. 2.4 Written and/or verbal evidence was tabled or presented from the following submitters (Full copies of the written evidence presented are available as part of the hearing minutes): 1. Ms Angelene Butler, Senior Resource Planner Regional Partnership and Planning, NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). (Submitter 54 -Tabled evidence). 2. Mr Matthew Rednall, Strategic Transport Planning Manager - Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). (Submitter 53 -Tabled evidence). 3. Mr Lawrence Spinley. (Submitter 51 -Tabled and verbal evidence). 4. Allan Nicholson. (Submitter 28 - Tabled and verbal evidence). 2

3 5. Genevieve Becroft. (Submitter 39 Verbal evidence). 6. Mr Jack Welch. (Verbal evidence, as a witness for Mr Nicholson). 3.0 Overview of Deliberations 3.1 Introduction and Background to the Request This report and decision concerns a request for a private Plan Change to the Operative North Shore District Plan, made under the Resource Management Act 1991 by Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Limited. That Company was formed by the Smale family who has owned the site, Smales Farm, which was part of a larger landholding, since Over time the parent property has been reduced through a series of land acquisitions by local and national government entities. In 1997, after an Environment Court hearing, the site was zoned Business Park 7 in the District Plan The background to the request was addressed by the requester s counsel Mr Douglas Allan. He advised that the rationale for the Plan Change was that development of Smales Farm has been slow and arises from the difficulties generated by the requirement to obtain Limited Discretionary activity consent for every proposed building in terms of traffic matters. That requirement has created doubt as to whether each proposed building will be consented by Council and has made it difficult for the Company to sign up tenants where time and certainty are important The Plan Change has been initiated to remove the requirement for Limited Discretionary activity consent in terms of traffic effects up to a total of 105,000m 2. To support the request the requester has undertaken traffic modelling over a period of two years and establishes that traffic generated by development of up to 105,000m 2 at Smales Farm can be accommodated on the road network but that it would be desirable for a traffic signal to be installed on the Northcote Road egress for vehicles travelling west to the Motorway interchange. The Integrated Traffic Assessment proposed that a set of traffic signals be installed when development at Smales Farm reached 65,000m 2. (The notified Plan Change had set this level at 75,000m 2 but it was subsequently found from the Integrated Transportation Assessment that 65,000m 2 was more appropriate). 3.2 The Operative District Plan The subject land is currently zoned Business Park 7A in the Operative District Plan. This zone provides for high amenity business areas where a mix of activities such as offices, institutions, high density residential and industrial premises can locate in well designed buildings. The zone is applied to land with characteristics which provide for business development in a landscaped setting. The objective and policies of Section Business Park 7 Zone enable a wide range of low intensity business activities and ensure the activities which have a high traffic generating characteristic are restricted to those that serve the particular business area and that any development retains a high level of amenity The planning controls in the District Plan that apply to the Business 7A zone include: Rule e) where any development on the site will require a Controlled activity consent for changes to the external appearance of any site or any building visible from and within 30 metres of any road or residential zone Increases the cubic capacity of building(s). Rule where any proposed activity, permitted or controlled, that is likely to generate a turnover in excess of 100 vehicle movements per day requires a Limited Discretionary resource consent. (With office activities this is the equivalent of approximately 2,000m 2 of floor space). Rule High Traffic Generating Activities which requires a Limited Discretionary activity application for activities such as cafes, restaurants, medical centres and retailing where the GFA is greater than 200m 2. 3

4 Rule Parking Standards which requires a minimum number of parking spaces to be provided for an activity established on a site in accordance with Table 12.1, Parking Standards. 3.3 Documents Considered During the course of the hearing the Commissioners received evidence on behalf of Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Ltd and tabled evidence from NZTA and ARTA and evidence from three of the submitters (refer section 2.0 of this report). 3.4 The Proposed Plan Change The private Plan Change request by Northcote Rd 1 Holdings Ltd was accepted by Council in accordance with Clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act and was publicly notified to include the following amendments to the District Plan: Objectives and Policies 1. Adding a new objective and policy to Section to require the encouragement of ongoing development at Smales Farm Technology Park so it will perform as a high amenity employment node. 2. Adding to the Explanation and Reasons in Section to recognise the technology office park as a well integrated well designed employment node. 3. Adding to the section on Expected Environmental Outcomes in Section surveys to ensure that accelerated ongoing development of employment generating activities are achieved. Changes in Activity Status 1. The District Plan includes in Rule Rules: Limited Discretionary Activities a provision that requires Limited Discretionary activity resource consent for any Permitted or Controlled activity which generates a turnover of vehicles in excess of 100 per day. (With office activities, this is the equivalent of approximately 2,000m 2 of floor space). The notified Plan Change proposes to amend Rule so that future development at Smales Farm is exempt from the rule (excluding automotive fuel retailing) until the limit of 105,000m 2 gross floor area (GFA) is reached at the site. (The total developed GFA currently at the site is approximately 44,770m 2.) The requester advised that this floor area of 105,000m 2 corresponds with the target gross floor area for development of the office park by The traffic implications of 105,000m 2 GFA of office development were modelled and assessed in the Integrated Transport Assessment ( ITA ). 2. Rule High Traffic Generating Activities lists activities such as cafes, restaurants, medical centres and retailing, that require a Limited Discretionary activity application. The notified Plan Change proposes that this rule be amended so that high traffic generating activities locating at Smales Farm are exempt from this rule, where they have a combined GFA (for the entire site) no greater than 1,000m 2 and where total GFA on site does not exceed 105,000m 2. The proposed changes mean that the activity status of high traffic generating activities within the exemptions specified will be Permitted activities subject to other activity and development controls found elsewhere in the District Plan. Changes to Parking Standards 1. Rule Parking Standards sets out the minimum number of parking spaces required for all activities with no maximums specified. The notified Plan Change proposes maximums for parking provision at Smales Farm site in relation to the gross floor area on the site with no minimums, through a new rule, The aim of the rule is to restrict parking and impose maximums that will over time 4

5 encourage greater use of public transport and other alternative modes of travel and will limit the total traffic that will travel to the site. The maximum parking at 105,000m 2 GFA is 3,830 spaces provided at the rate of 1:31.8 m 2 GFA. Beyond 105,000m 2 a maximum parking rate of 1:45.1 m 2 of GFA is proposed, up to a maximum of 5,094 spaces at 162,000m 2. Control flexibility by means of a Limited Discretionary activity provides for additional parking to be provided for a given floor area to a maximum of 10% above that allowed, provided that it does not exceed the maximum parking for the whole site at 105,000m 2 GFA (3,830 parks) and unless a Travel Demand Management Plan that encourages employees to use travel modes other than private motor vehicles is being actively managed on an ongoing basis by the Smales Farm Office Technology Park. Once the total number of spaces reaches 3,830 control flexibility does not apply. Assessment criteria for assessing applications for control flexibility are also proposed. Access to The Site Northcote Road Access 1. A new rule relating to the installation of traffic signals is included in the notified Plan Change. This rule states that the Smales Farm Technology Office Park shall at its cost implement the signalisation of the existing intersection of the south east site access with Northcote Road no later than the establishment of a total gross floor area of 75,000m 2 in the business park. The signals shall incorporate a right turn traffic movement from this site to Northcote Road outside morning peak hours and a phase to enable pedestrians to cross Northcote Road. Changes to Front Yard Rule 1. Amendment of Rule Yards. The notified Plan Change proposes a nil front yard along the southern side of Shakespeare Road Extension, provided there is a 4.5m wide footpath between the road carriageway and any building, and that the building abuts the footpath. Rule Yards requires a 5 metre front yard building set back. 2. To ensure the design and external appearance of buildings adjoining the footpath along the southern side of Shakespeare Road Extension are built to a high standard an additional assessment criterion is proposed in Rule In response to submissions Council s principal reporting officer recommended the following changes (as shown as being deleted or underlined) to the notified Plan Change: a) Additional wording to the new policy 5 of Section Business 7 Zone - To encourage use of alternative modes of travel supported by travel demand management plans and facilities that support cycling and walking ; b) Additional wording to the Explanation and Reasons in Section Travel Demand Management Plan developed by the Smales Farm Technology Park Travel Management Association should be designed to encourage alternative modes of travel to the private vehicle and facilities that support travel mode changes to buses, cycling and walking ; c) Additional assessment criteria for Controlled Activities : Business 7 Zone In the Business Park 7A Zone showers, lockers and changing facilities should be incorporated into building designs to meet the demand for these facilities as identified in a Travel Demand Management Plan for promoting alternative modes of travel to and from the business park ; d) Amendment to the new Rule relating to the Installation of Traffic Signals: Business Park 7A zone at Smales Farm signalisation of the existing intersection of the south-eastern access with Northcote Road no later than the establishment of a total gross floor area of 75000m 2 65,000m 2. ; e) Addition of wording to the new assessment criterion in Rule a) The design and external appearance of buildings and development use of doors and windows 5

6 fronting the street, weather protection and verandahs where buildings abut the footpath In response to the recommendations made in the officer s hearing report, the requesters planning consultant Vaughan Smith proposed the following modifications through the evidence he presented to the Commissioners: i) Deletion of officer s recommended wording in a) above but adding wording to the first bullet of the new policy 5 of Section Business 7 Zone - Encouraging the use of public transport, cycling and walking ; ii) Modification of officer s added wording in b) above to the Explanation and Reasons in Section to read as follows The implementation of Travel Demand Management Plans and the provision of facilities such as showers, lockers and changing facilities are methods that may be implemented to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel ; iii) Deletion of officer s recommended additional assessment criteria as noted in c) above. iv) Agreement to the officer s recommended amendment to the new Rule as stated in d) above. v) Deletion of officer s recommended wording to the new assessment criterion in Rule a) in e) above. 3.5 Summary of Commissioners Deliberations in Relation to Evidence Advanced at the Hearing Summary of Decision The Commissioners have largely adopted the Plan Change request in terms of the amendments that are sought to the District Plan The Commissioners find agreement with the amendments sought in relation to activity status, parking standards and the Northcote Road access. Those amended provisions have due regard to the concerns expressed by NZTA and ARTA. The applicant has had ongoing discussions with those parties and the Commissioners find that their concerns are largely met. The Commissioners find they are unable to directly address the concerns of submitters in relation to on-street commuter car parking in the locality through the Plan Change process. They have however made a separate recommendation to the Council that specific investigation of this matter be carried out with a view to the Council implementing time restrictions or a similar mechanism to limit commuter parking in the locality In agreeing with the above elements of the Plan Cchange request, the Commissioners consider they can do little better than quote from the evidence of Vaughan Smith for the applicant who stated: The Plan Change, by largely removing the uncertainty associated with the consenting of new building development, will encourage the further development of Smales Farm, assisting both North Shore City and the Auckland Region to achieve those objectives and policies that seek the location of employment opportunities close to where people live, the integration of land use and transport planning, and encouragement for the use of modes of travel other than private motor vehicle. (refer to Evidence of Vaughan Smith at para.7.10 attached to the Hearing Minutes) The Commissioners have not accepted the amendments sought to the front yard rule as it affects the southern side of Shakespeare Road Extension. This is because of the need to maintain flexibility in relation to the treatment of that street frontage, given the importance of it for pedestrian access to the North Shore Busway Station at this location, and in the 6

7 absence of the applicant presenting any definitive proposal for consideration. Control flexibility is provided in the District Plan for its consideration at a future time as may be required Traffic Effects and the Proposed Northcote Road Intersection The major thrust of the Plan Change request is to provide for development up to 105,000sqm to be undertaken without having to further assess traffic and transportation issues. This is on the basis of that assessment having been carried out by John Parlane as part of the supporting documents to the Plan Change request The Commissioners consider that the assessment and analysis carried out by Mr Parlane comprehensively deals with the traffic and transportation issues associated with further development of the site. It demonstrates that traffic generation will not be a difficulty in relation to future development up to 105,000sqm and subject to compliance with controls on the total level of parking to be provided on the site. His work has included extensive modelling of public transport and traffic. The results show at the regional level there are benefits to locating further office employment at Smales Farm and, at a local level, the road network can cope with the expected traffic flows. The assessment also shows that a new signalised intersection for Northcote Road should be formed to allow right turns out of Smales Farm at the point that development reaches 65,000sqm with that intersection being formed in accordance with the agreement that has been reached between the applicant and the Council The Council s officers concur with the assessment by Mr Parlane in their reporting on the Plan Change request. Representatives of Westlake Girls High School (Alison Gernhoefer), Takapuna Normal Intermediate School (Owen Alexander) and the North Shore Hospital (Louise Ward) all appeared at the hearing in support of the Plan Change request. That demonstrates the manner in which the applicant has consulted with these parties who are all highly dependent on a safe and efficient transportation system operating in this location The applicant had also consulted with NZTA and ARTA. These parties did not appear at the hearing but tabled statements for the information of the Commissioners. It is fair to say that both NZTA and ARTA are generally in agreement with the Plan Change request on the basis of on-going discussions with the applicant relating to details of it. Their residual concerns relate to car parking (discussed below) and to details relating to the use of a Travel Demand Management Plan ( TDMP ) at Smales Farm In relation to the latter, NZTA sought that the applicant make some provision to accommodate parking for high occupancy vehicles ( HOVs ) with destinations within the site and that NZTA be involved in the TDMP for Smales Farm. The Commissioners note at this stage that no provision is made for HOVs to operate on the busway and if that was to be the case at a later time, it would not be difficult for the applicant to make specific parking provision for HOVs as part of the car parking provided on the site. That matter could be addressed in the TDMP. The involvement of NZTA in the TDMP process is a matter for the applicant and NZTA to agree upon In his evidence at the hearing Mr Parlane explained how the applicant and the Council had signed an agreement that approved the installation by Smales Farm of a new set of traffic lights on Northcote Road, that meaning that south and west bound traffic from Smales Farm could avoid the need to exit through the very busy Taharoto/Northcote Road intersection. That is being carried out as a separate process to the Plan Change request and is expected to be completed within the next year to eighteen months. Mr Parlane otherwise comprehensively addressed traffic and transportation issues associated with the Plan Change request, including the manner in which it fits with the statutory planning documents. The Commissioners wish to compliment Mr Parlane on the manner in which he has carried out all this work and for his presentation at the hearing. 7

8 The Commissioners adopt Mr Parlane s assessment and evidence for the purposes of this decision in agreeing with the Plan Change request Car Parking Most business areas in the Auckland region are currently subject to minimum car parking requirements. That reflects the fact that, for decades, Councils have wanted to ensure that developers provide sufficient car parking on site so as to accommodate the demand for car parking that would inevitably follow development. There has however been a recent shift in policy towards the imposition of maximum car parking ratios for development. The rational behind that shift is that restrictions on car parking provision will encourage members of the public to shift travel modes from private to public transport On that basis, agencies such as NZTA and ARTA, by way of submissions to the Plan Change request, have sought more constrained car parking provisions in relation to Smales Farm. In contrast, residents had submitted seeking more liberal provision of car parking with a view to minimising on-street car parking in their neighbourhoods. Those contrasting submissions emphasize the fine balance that needs to be struck between encouraging private transport use and travel efficiency through constraining car parking and recognizing the existence of high private vehicle use and the off-site effects that will be generated if insufficient parking is provided. It was the view of the applicant and its consultants that the proposed provisions for Smales Farm strike the right balance and should be upheld Chris Smale explained in evidence how the applicant needed to ensure that adequate parking is available to attract new tenancies but he also provided details of the Smales Farm Traffic Management Association, which sought to find creative solutions to minimise the number of site employee vehicles accessing the site on a daily basis. He described the high cost of providing individual car parks such that the applicant did not want to provide any excess of car parks. Rather, the applicant sought to achieve a balance in terms of meeting tenants wishes with the regional considerations of reducing car parking availability in order to encourage greater use of public transport and other travel modes The Commissioners note, particularly in relation to the submissions from NZTA and ARTA, that the applicant is seeking to implement some parking constraint at Smales Park in response to the concerns of the Auckland Regional Council and the North Shore District Council. The applicant is seeking to achieve a balance and to impose a maximum level on itself whereas the District Plan does not do so and currently has only a minimum requirement. As submitted by Mr Allan for the applicant, in this case the car parking regime proposed by the applicant involves a graduated reduction in the car parking provision on the site. This is an appropriate and practical way of dealing with the issue. It requires the rate of car parking provision to reduce with time but it does so in a way that avoids alienating prospective tenants now. Mr Parlane stated that the proposed regime has the following benefits: It ensures that a maximum parking regime is applied at Smales Farm but does not overly disadvantage the site compared to other sites for which there is no maximum. It is consistent with the current level of parking that has been consented on Smales Farm. It ensures that in the long term the entire site has an overall parking limitation. It provides a means by which the current additional parking needed to attract and established tenants can be used in the short terms to ensure the success of Smales Farm The Commissioners agree with the applicant s representatives and are of the view that this graduated response to car parking provision, coupled with the consideration for TDMP approach at Smales Farm, serves to address the concerns that have been raised by the statutory agencies, being NZTA and ARTA The concerns by local residents for a significant amount of on-street car parking being generated by Smales Farm and other activities in this location cannot effectively be 8

9 addressed through the Plan Change process. To provide unlimited car parking on the Smales Farm site is clearly untenable in terms of the current planning regime. At a neighbourhood level however, the Council is able to implement mechanisms to limit on-street car parking by commuters by way of time limits or residents-only parking schemes. The Commissioners are of the view, from the submissions and from their observations, that this matter could be given further consideration by the Council. The Commissioners have accordingly made a recommendation, separate to this Plan Change decision, seeking that the Council gives specific consideration to the on-street car parking incidence currently occurring on the local streets with a view to implementing mechanisms to limit long term parking. The Commissioners find this is the most effective way they can address the concerns of the submitters in this respect. The appearances at the hearing by Laurie Spinley, Allan Nicholson, Genevieve Becroft and Jack Welch are acknowledged The Commissioners find that the amendments to the parking standards sought as part of the plan change request are acceptable for all the above reasons Yard Setback to Shakespeare Road Extension The deletion of the front yard requirement was supported in a report by John Goodwin included with the application. That report and evidence at the hearing recommended that the ground floor of any building fronting the footpath should contain an active frontage which would be implemented by the additional assessment criterion. This was also supported by the officers in their reporting on the Plan Change request. However, the officers recommended that the criterion at Rule specifically include reference to verandahs where buildings abut the footpath Mr Smale explained at the hearing that the designation and development of Shakespeare Road Extension had changed the nature of the northern part of Smales Farm insofar as it would not be one of three main privately owned entrances, as originally envisaged, which would have been constructed and landscaped in a manner similar to that used for the two existing entrances. That road is far busier than it would have been previously due to its serving the bus station and Westlake Girls High School with that being accompanied by an increase in pedestrian usage. In those circumstances he saw the manner in which buildings will address that road to be different and that it would be possible that buildings could be developed up against the road s southern boundary in a manner that maximised pedestrian convenience and amenity. He did not wish to be subject to a requirement to implement verandahs because, in practice, appropriate and alternative means of weather protection may be provided and he sought some flexibility in the requirements Mr Goodwin s evidence was that any future building could extend up to a paved footpath based upon the different streetscape condition that was developing there in comparison to that currently found along the other road frontages of the Smales Farm Office Park. It would be appropriate, in his opinion, to create a more urban streetscape character on this frontage of the Smales Farm site where any future building could extend up to a paved footpath which he recommended should in this location be 4.5m wide. That would provide sufficient room for weather protection and specimen tree planting and the footpath would remain sunny and attractive for pedestrians. The ground floor of any building fronting onto this space would need to contain an active frontage to the street The Commissioners find, from the evidence and site visit, that the 5m front yard setback should be retained as it currently is included in the District Plan The applicant is seeking to delete that provision on the basis that a building can be constructed to the road frontage that would still provide sufficient footpath space for pedestrians and a future building design incorporating an active street frontage including suitable weather protection. That may well be the case but there is no building design or similar before the Commissioners that would enable any informed decision to be made on this matter and with confidence that a satisfactory situation for pedestrians and in terms of streetscape would result. Shakespeare Road Extension may well be of a different nature and function than the other streets fronting Smales Farm but that in itself, coupled with indications 9

10 that an active street frontage would result in terms of future building design, is not sufficient in the view of the Commissioners to dispense with the existing yard requirement That yard setback would provide amenity by way of the open landscaped area consistent with the manner in which the street appears, on that side, at the current time. The opposite side of the street has been developed in a manner that has taken on a harsher streetscape character with elements of the stone wall, bus shelters and paving. Shakespeare Road Extension is a major pedestrian access to the busway which, because it does not have a park and ride facility, relies more on providing safe and attractive pedestrian access to and from it. Unless there were specific design provisions built into future buildings that were sought to be erected to the building frontage on the Smales Farm site then there is a danger of this roadway taking on more of a service lane appearance which is not desirable given the need for it to operate as a major pedestrian facility in association with the busway The District Plan currently provides control flexibility in relation to that 5m yard on future building development by way of Limited Discretionary activity consideration. The Commissioners consider that is not an onerous process to follow should Smales Farm seek to vary that 5m yard requirement at a later time on the basis of a specific building design that has due regard to the pedestrian usage and amenity of this southern side of the street Accordingly, this part of the Plan Change request is not accepted Policy Amendments The Commissioners agree with the reporting officers that there should be a separate policy to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport rather than, as sought by the applicant, that being incorporated with the policy to encourage the use of public transport. The Commissioners consider that each of these matters is important and that each is highlighted as requiring to be addressed in any considerations relating to on-going development at Smales Farm Office Park The policies are amended accordingly as shown in the attached revision to the Plan Change and summary of submissions. 4.0 Statutory Framework 4.1 Section 31 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the functions of territorial authorities under the Act. They include the following for the purpose of giving effect to the Act in its district: the establishment and review of objectives, policies and methods to achieve the integrated management of natural and physical resources; the control of actual and potential effects of the use, development and protection of land. 4.1 Section 72 specifies the purpose of the preparation of the District Plan is to assist Councils to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of the Act. Section 73(1) requires that at all times there be one District Plan for the district. Section 73(2) provides that any person may request a territorial authority to change a District Plan, and the Plan may be changed in the manner set out in Schedule Plan Change 35 is such a request made under Clause 21 of Schedule 1 and subsequently notified by the Council under Clause 25(2)(b). 4.4 The statutory requirements in respect of a proposed plan change are set out in Section 32 of the Act which relevantly provides: (1) In achieving the purpose of this Act, before a proposed plan, change is notified, an evaluation must be carried out by 10

11 (c) the local authority, for a policy statement or plan (except for plan changes that have been requested and the request accepted under clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 1); (2) A further evaluation must also be made by (a) a local authority before making a decision under clause 10 or clause 29(4) of the Schedule 1; (3) An evaluation must examine (a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and (b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. (4) For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account (a) The benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and (b) The risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods. (5) The person required to carry out an evaluation under subsection (1) must prepare a report summarising the evaluation and giving reasons for that evaluation. (6) The report must be available for public inspection at the same time as the document to which the report relates is publicly notified or the regulation is made. 4.5 For the purposes of this examination, an evaluation must take into account the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods. 4.6 Part 2 of the RMA, being the purpose and principles of the statute, is the overarching part of the RMA. Regard is to be given to all matters within it. 4.7 Clause 10 of the First Schedule states that a local authority must give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions and must include reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions and, for that purpose, may address the submissions by grouping them according to the provisions of the proposed plan change to which they relate or the matters to which they relate. 4.8 The Plan Change documentation includes a Section 32 RMA evaluation, which addresses the relevant matters. The Commissioners consider that evaluation satisfies this section of the RMA including having considered alternatives and showing that the Plan Change is the most appropriate means of achieving the objectives of what is sought by it. It is supported by the further evaluation carried out in reporting upon the Plan Change As regards Part 2 of the RMA, being its purpose and principles, the Commissioners find that the Plan Change is in accordance with its sustainable management purpose. It will enable people and communities to provide for their social wellbeing and for their health and safety whilst sustaining the potential of the site and property resource to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs for future generations. Any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the amending the objective and policy for the Business 7 zone and amendments to the rules as decided by the Commissioners in Section 12 Transportation and Section 15 Business can be avoided, remedied or sufficiently mitigated The Section 7 RMA matters of relevance relate to the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, the efficiency of end use of energy, the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. The Commissioners find the Plan Change is consistent with these principles and also with the principle relating to a consideration of any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. The Smales Farm Technology Park represents a finite resource, flat accessible land of sufficient size for business growth in close proximity to other business centres and residential areas. Its ongoing development will ensure that efficient use is made 11

12 of its existing infrastructure and its highly accessible location. The changes to the District Plan rules controlling such development will see any potential adverse effects suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated. 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 In overview, the Commissioners consider that the private Plan Change request be adopted, with the amendments set out in the decisions on the submissions below. 6.0 Decisions of Commissioners on Submissions and Further Submissions: PCDN-35 The following submissions and further submissions are accepted, accepted in part or rejected as indicated, pursuant to Clause 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act The further submissions are referred to as submissions in the decisions. 6.3 Topic 1 Parking Provision and Standards Overview of Submissions Submissions Which Oppose the Plan Change New Zealand Transport Agency through its submission and further submission opposes the Plan Change on the basis that there is an overprovision of parking on the site and this may undermine the effectiveness of the busway to provide a change in mode. 54 New Zealand Transport Agency C/- Angelene Butler Private Bag , Auckland City Auckland Oppose the Plan Change because it proposes considerable increases in car parking on the Smales Farm site and as a consequence, may compromise or render unachievable the objectives of the adjacent busway to reduce reliance on private cars to reduce congestion. Submissions which seek Amendments to the Parking Provisions The following group of submissions seek changes to the carparking standards for Smales Farm. In particular: Local residents seek to increase the parking associated with development at Smales Farm. Auckland Regional Transport Agency and NZTA seek to reduce the parking associated with development at Smales Farm. Waitemata District Health Board (WDHB) supports the use of maximum parking standards and the use of ongoing travel demand management plans. The submissions of local residents are diametrically opposed to those of NZTA and ARTA. The local residents seek increases to the parking ratios whereas the other submissions seek reductions. Submissions 1-2 to 50-2 Amend Section (Parking Standards) to ensure that sufficient long term carparking be provided on-site at Smales Farm. Submission Submitter Number 1 Jan Nicholson 53 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City John Berry 19 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Louanne Felstead 14 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City

13 Submissions 4 Dave Westram 4 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Eileen Somerville 5 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Graham Mourant 14C Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City John Sinclair 14D Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Louise Sinclair 14D Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Jocelyn Spinley 8 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City T Spinley 10 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Aaron Spinley 12 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Julia Spinley 12 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Richard Grigg 1/17 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Kerrin Grigg 1/17 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Debra Franklin 36 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Art Franklin 36 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Muriel Leith 1/34 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Brett Fawcett 23 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Sue Fawcett 32 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Helen Lay 30 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Sam Lay 30 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Richard Groenenark 18 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Ross Goodin 6 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Kathryn Clair 10 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Anthony Field 18 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Tonya Field 18 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Liz Blackwell 27 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Alan Nicholson 53 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Peter Coles 51 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Jacquie Coles 51 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City V Roach 49A Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Susan Davis 41 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Peter Rakich 39 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Penelope Field 31 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Caroline Powell 29 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Angela Berry 17 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City N Wition 11 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Colleen Bergin 11 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Genevieve Becroft 9 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City David Becroft 7 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Beverley & Jack Bray 43 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Shelagh Meehan 16 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Brendan Meehan 16 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Paul Spencer 3 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Peter Urquhart 12 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Heather Green 7 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City J Green 7 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City W Boak 1 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Mike Bitossi 15 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Virginia Bitossi 15 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Waitemata District Health Board C/- Louise Ward Private Bag 93503, Takapuna North Shore City Supports the Plan Change and rule (Parking Standards) which propose new on-site carparking maximums and on-going Travel Demand Management Plans for the site. 53 Auckland Regional Transport Authority C/- Peter Clark Private Bag 92236, Victoria Street West Auckland Delete the Control Flexibility of Proposed Rule Parking Standards for development on Smales Farm given the high level of public transport accessibility to the site. 13

14 Submissions Further Submission Further Submitter Support/Oppose 53-6 x2 New Zealand Transport Agency C/- Angelene Butler Support Private Bag , Auckland City, Auckland 1143, 53-7 Amend the Proposed Rule (Parking Standards) specifically the staged parking max standard and the parking cap of 5,094 so as to better recognize the high level of public transport accessibility already provided to the site. Further Submission Further Submitter Support/Oppose 53-7x3 New Zealand Transport Agency C/- Angelene Butler Support Private Bag , Auckland City, Auckland 1143, 54 New Zealand Transport Agency C/- Angelene Butler New Zealand Transport Agency - Private Bag , Auckland City Auckland Review Rule (Parking Standards) to justify the rate of parking proposed and why it is higher than the District Plan rate and rates typically applied elsewhere in the Auckland region. Commissioners Deliberations The proposed parking ratio in the Plan Change sets a maximum parking ratio based upon floor area rather than specific activity. There is no minimum standard applied. The parking ratios proposed involve a graduated reduction in the car parking provision on the site with time. The proposed ratios have sought to strike a balance between ensuring that the site is accessible by car and promoting alternative modes of travel. This is in line with the recent shift in policy towards the imposition of maximum car parking ratios for development. The Commissioners agree with the maximum parking provision and graduated response to car parking provision, coupled with the consideration for a Travel Demand Management Plan approach at Smales Farm which serves to address the concerns that have been raised by the statutory agencies, being New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Both NZTA and ARTA tabled evidence at the hearing and are satisfied with the maximum parking provision proposed is consistent with the Regional Parking Strategy However residents seek more liberal parking provisions with a view to minimising on street car parking in their neighbourhoods. Residents presented evidence at the hearing providing photographs showing the extent of the on street parking problem in Rangitira Avenue, Pupuke Road, Ngaio Road and Northcote Road. The Commissioners recognise the importance of balancing the need to encourage private transport use and travel efficiency through constraining car parking and recognising the existence of high private vehicle use and the off-site effects that will be generated if insufficient parking is provided. The Commissioners are also of the view that the existing problem of on street parking being generated by Smales Farm and other activities in this location cannot be addressed through the Plan Change process but that the matter could be given further consideration by Council through other mechanisms to limit on street car parking in these residential streets by way of time limits or residents only parking schemes. Commissioners Decision That submissions 1-2 to 50-2 (group submission) be accepted in part for the reason that on street parking problems will be generated if insufficient parking is provided on site and the maximum parking ratios proposed for car parking on the Smales Farm site are in line with the recent shift in policy towards the imposition of maximum car parking ratios for development and will ensure that the site is accessible by car and promotes alternative modes of travel. That submission 52-1 (Waitemata District Health Board) be accepted for the reason that it supports a balanced approach to parking provision and travel demand management. 14

15 That submission 53-6 and 53-7 (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) and further submission 53-6x2 and 53-7x3 (New Zealand Transport Agency) be accepted in part for the reason that the ratio of car parking will be higher than rates typically applied through the District Plan to other office developments but that Rule (Parking Standards) remain as it is because the staged reduction in car parking provision on the site is appropriate to ensure that in the long term the entire site has an overall parking limitation and will promote the use of alternative modes of travel. That submission 54-3 (New Zealand Transport Agency) be accepted in part for the reason that further investigations carried out by ARTA have justified the appropriate rate of parking for the Smales Farm site and that rule (Parking Standards) will restrict car park provision on the site up to a maximum of 105,000m 2 and given the proximity of the site to the northern busway will promote the use of alternative modes of travel. 6.4 Topic 2 Impact of Parking Overview Submissions Which Oppose the Plan Change and Submissions Which Request On Street Parking Restrictions The following group of submissions oppose the Plan Change on the basis of the provisions for parking relating to development. Local residents are concerned that there is insufficient parking being provided for commuter demand on site and that the effect of this will be overflow parking in residential streets. They also request the Plan Change include rules providing for the imposition of time restrictions on surrounding residential streets and that financial contributions be collected to fund this. Submissions 1-1 to 50-1 Oppose Plan Change as the parking provisions will have an adverse effect upon the character, visual and environmental amenity of the surrounding residential neighbourhood. 1-3 to 50-3 Amend Plan Change to include a rule to impose time restricted on-street parking on Rangitira Ave, Lake View Rd, Kowhai St and Pupuke Rd between 8am to 6pm 1-4 to 50-4 Amend Plan Change to provide for financial contribution to be imposed on any resource consent granted for development on Smales Farm for the purpose of controlling parking on residential streets surrounding Smales Farm. Submission Submitter Number 1 Jan Nicholson 53 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City John Berry 19 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Louanne Felstead 14 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Dave Westram 4 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Eileen Somerville 5 Kowhai Street, Takapuna North Shore City Graham Mourant 14C Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City John Sinclair 14D Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Louise Sinclair 14D Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Jocelyn Spinley 8 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City T Spinley 10 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Aaron Spinley 12 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Julia Spinley 12 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Richard Grigg 1/17 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Kerrin Grigg 1/17 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Debra Franklin 36 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Art Franklin 36 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Muriel Leith 1/34 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Brett Fawcett 23 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Sue Fawcett 32 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City Helen Lay 30 Lake View Road, Takapuna North Shore City