BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER:

of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local

Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act
2010

AND IN THE MATTER:

of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Topic 081

Rezoning and Precincts

JOINT SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF

JENNIFER MARIE CARVILL AND SUSANNAH VRENA TAIT

For:

PSPIB Waiheke Incorporated/Mitre10 Holdings Limited/Lambie Drive

Nominees Limited/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Limited/John Woolley
and John Newall Murdoch (S5883 And FS2708)

In relation to Topic 081

4 April 2016

1524607_1001_006_Rev0

CONTENTS
SUMMARY STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

CODE OF CONDUCT

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL POSITION

BENEFITS AND STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

METROPOLITAN CENTRE COMPARISONS

RESPONSE TO COUNCIL OFFICERS

10

BUNNINGS SITE, LAMBIE DRIVE, MANUKAU

11

GOODMAN PROPERTY TRUST SITE, PLUNKET AVENUE, MANUKAU

13

10

CONCLUSION

15

ATTACHMENT A Metropolitan Centre comparisons

ATTACHMENT B Noise contours over the Site

2
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

SUMMARY STATEMENT
A.

We support the rezoning of the land bound by Cavendish Drive, Lambie Drive, State Highway
20 and Puhinui Stream (the Site) from General Business zone to Metropolitan Centre zone.

B.

We do not agree with the Auckland Council Officers that the site is not suitable for rezoning due
to the presence of the High Aircraft Air Noise (HANA) overlay or the adjoining Heavy Industry
zone. The HANA results in only a small reduction in the development potential of the site, but,
in our view, does not mean that rezoning the Site to Metropolitan Centre is inappropriate. The
Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay is considered redundant, as the site on the opposite side of
Puhinui Stream owned by Goodman Property Trust (Goodman) at 70-100 Plunket Avenue is
developed with light industrial activities and we support the rezoning of the Goodman site to
Light Industry zone.

C.

We consider that the rezoning of Goodmans land to Light Industry zone reflects the existing
and planned activities on the site and the loss of Heavy Industry zoned land will be offset by
the rezoning of Winstone Aggregates Wiri land. In accordance with Chapter C, Section 7.12,
Policy 4, the benefits of rezoning the Goodman land will outweigh the reverse sensitivity effects
on other Heavy Industry zoned land and the rezoning of both the Goodman land and the Site
will result in increased separation distances (from Heavy Industry zoned land) that are more
comparable to other Metropolitan Centres.

D.

We note Bunnings Limiteds submission to retain the General Business zoning for 55 Lambie
Drive. However the owner of the site, Lambie Drive Nominees Limited, supports the rezoning of
this property to Metropolitan Centre zone. Despite Bunnings concerns, we consider that the
Metropolitan Centre zoning will still enable the ongoing operation, expansion or redevelopment
of the site for Trade Supplier activities and note that they are permitted activities in the
Metropolitan Centre zone. We also consider that the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
provides development controls within the Metropolitan Centre zone that aim to avoid reverse
sensitivity effects and will not restrict the operations of noise generating businesses such as
Bunnings.

E.

We consider that the rezoning of the Site will support a quality compact city, by intensifying
development in the right location where retail demand has been demonstrated and where
office and civic activities are appropriate, and residential and visitor accommodation can be
supported. The intensification of the land in this location is well integrated with the transport
3

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

network, which includes motorway connections, public transport and walking and cycling
opportunities and will contribute to centre vitality, social cohesion, connectedness and
integration and reduce the cost of infrastructure. Importantly, well located intensification will
ease the pressure for new infrastructure investment and outward expansion of the City.
F.

In our opinion, the rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre represents an appropriate
planning response to the policy framework set out in the Regional Policy Statement, the
Metropolitan Centre zone provisions of the PAUP, and the higher order strategic documents.
Importantly, it will provide for more intensive development in a location and manner that will, in
our opinion, enhance and support the role and function of the Manukau Metropolitan Centre.

4
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

INTRODUCTION

1.1

This is a joint supplementary planning statement of Jennifer Marie Carvill and Susannah
Vrena Tait.

1.2

Our qualifications, expertise and experience were attached to our statement of evidence
dated 10 February 2016.

1.3

We have been retained by a group of submitters with collective interests in the land bound by
Cavendish Drive, Lambie Drive, State Highway 20 and Puhinui Stream (the Site) comprising
PSPIB Waiheke Incorporated, Harvey Norman, John Woolley and John Murdoch, Mitre10
and Lambie Drive Nominees (the Submitters).

CODE OF CONDUCT

2.1

We confirm that we have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses set out in the
Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2014. We have complied with the Code of
Conduct in preparing this evidence and agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence
before the Hearings Panel. Except where we state that we are relying on the evidence of
another person, this written evidence is within our area of expertise. We have not omitted to
consider material facts known to us that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in
this evidence.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

3.1

This supplementary evidence is to be read in conjunction with our primary statement of

evidence dated 10 February 2016 and provides clarification to the Panel on the following
matters:
a.

A summary of the merits for rezoning the Site;

b.

A size and spread comparison of the Manukau Metropolitan Centre, including the Site
to other Metropolitan Centres;

5
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

c.

A response to those matters raised by Auckland Council (Council) in opposition to the

rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone;

d.

The rezoning of 55 Lambie Drive, being land occupied by Bunnings Limited

(Bunnings), to Metropolitan Centre zone; and

e.

The rezoning of 70-100 Plunket Avenue, being land owned by Goodman Property
Trust (Goodman), from Heavy Industry zone to Light Industry zone.

3.2

In preparing our evidence we have reviewed:

a.

The joint statement of evidence of Council witnesses (specifically Anna Jennings,

Roger Eccles And David Wong);

b.

Mr Matthew Norwells statement of evidence and rebuttal evidence (on behalf of

Bunnings) dated 10 February 2016 and 24 February 2016;

c.

Mr Gerard Thompsons statement of evidence (on behalf of Goodman Property) dated

10 February 2016; and

d.

The primary evidence of Mr Don McKenzie and the supplementary statement of

Mr Daryl Hughes, both of Traffic Design Group, and the primary and supplementary
statements of Mr Robert Philpott of McDermott Miller Strategies on behalf of the
Submitters.

COUNCIL POSITION

4.1

The Council officers1 have confirmed that they do not support the rezoning of the Site to
Metropolitan Centre zone. Specifically, the Council officers state:
Do not support submission rezoning from GB to MC. The property falls within High Aircraft
Noise Area (HANA) overlay areas and is adjacent HI zoned area. Retention of the GB zone
is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the zone and gives effect to the
RPS.

1A

Jennings, R Eccles and D Wong evidence, Attachment B (third line in table).

6

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

BENEFITS AND STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

5.1

As noted in our primary statement2, we consider that there are numerous benefits resulting
from the rezoning of the Site, including:
a.

The Metropolitan Centre zone better reflects the existing land use patterns and
development potential for the Site. It builds on the existing Metropolitan Centre zone to
provide for commercial and residential intensification in a location that is well served by
public transport, community facilities and open space. This supports the centres based
approach to planning for commercial growth and is anticipated to support and
strengthen Manukaus role in the centres hierarchy.

b.

The proposed rezoning will increase the realisable retail supply in Manukau3, which will
significantly contribute to economic well-being in the area, particularly in the short to
mid-term. The inclusion of the Site in the Manukau Metropolitan Centre will assist with
meeting demand associated with rapid population rise, reduce retail dispersal and retail
leakage, improve amenity and increase product offering. This improved economic
performance will strengthen the Manukau Metropolitan Centre in the hierarchy of
centres and contribute to its function, role and vitality.

c.

The Site is well located to benefit from the significant investment in transport in the
area, including the motorway system, the new Manukau train station and the planned
bus station (on Putney Way). The transport impacts associated with the development
of the Site, in accordance with the Metropolitan Centre zone provisions that will apply if
the Site is rezoned, can be managed by way of an Integrated Transport Assessment
required as part of any required resource consent applications4.

d.

A Metropolitan Centre zoning would enable the development of office, civic and
residential activities, as well as visitor accommodation, thereby improving the vitality
and security of the Centre, social cohesion, connectedness and economic well-being in
and around the Manukau CBD. These activities will benefit from the Sites proximity to
Manukaus many civic, recreational and cultural assets, which increases social

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, sections 9 and 10.

R Philpott evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraphs 8.28 and 8.29.

D McKenzie evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 38.

7

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

interaction, liveability and visitor experience. Providing for development that is more
intensive and a wider variety of activities on the Site will also ensure more efficient and
effective use of existing infrastructure, and critically will ease the pressure for new
infrastructure investment and outward expansion of the City.
5.2

We consider that rezoning the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone will realise the benefits
outlined above. Conversely, the General Business zone will not realise the potential benefits
and will result in the under-utilisation of the Site.

5.3

Council Officers5 and Mr Norwell have questioned whether the proposed rezoning is well
aligned with the intent of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The Council Officers
consider that a General Business zone is the most appropriate way to give effect to the RPS,
but did not provide a detailed analysis. We consider that the rezoning of the Site to
Metropolitan Centre zone is the highest and best use of the Site and is consistent with the
RPS. A detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the RPS was included in our primary
statement of evidence6. However, we draw attention to the following policies again as we
consider them to be particularly relevant to the proposed rezoning:
a.

Policy B2.1 Providing for growth in a quality compact urban form7. The proposed
rezoning will allow a greater variety of activities to establish and will enable more
intensive development and efficient use of the land, which is appropriate for the
strategic location of the Site.

b.

Policy B2.2 A quality built environment8. The proposed Metropolitan Centre zone, will
set higher design standards, but will also enable more intensive development, which
are both appropriate outcomes in this location.

c.

Policy B2.3 Development capacity and supply of land for urban development9. Based
on Mr Philpotts assessment, the proposed rezoning will meet forecast retail demand,
increase retail offering and trade competition, reduce retail dispersal, and in turn drive
regeneration and Centre attractiveness as a whole.

A Jennings, R Eccles and D Wong evidence, Attachment B (third line in evidence).

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, section 12.

Auckland Council, Closing Statement (B2.1, B2.3, B2.5 and Appendix 1.1) Annexure A.

Consolidated Version of B2 Enabling Quality Urban Growth, Topic 013, 11 December 2014.

Auckland Council, Closing Statement (B2.1, B2.3, B2.5 and Appendix 1.1) Annexure A.
8

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

d.

Policy B3.1 Commercial and Industrial Growth. Based on the evidence of Mr Philpott,
there are sound economic reasons to include additional land in the Manukau
Metropolitan Centre zone, including a greater ability to meet short term demand
associated with rapid population rise, reduce retail dispersal, potential to reduce
leakage, improve amenity and increase product offering. We also consider that the
inclusion of this Site is an appropriate response to Policy B3.1.5 as it will enable higher
numbers of residents, workers and visitors to establish in close proximity to the
transport network and large urban facilities, while also strengthening the Manukau
Metropolitan Centre in the hierarchy of centres.

e.

Policy B3.3 Transport10. Based on the evidence of Mr McKenzie and Mr Hughes, the
rezoning of the Site will create further efficiencies between the transport network and
adjoining land use and therefore has the potential to reduce reliance on private
vehicles.

5.4

Our primary statement also included a section 32 and section 32AA analysis11. We
concluded that the Metropolitan Centre zone is the most efficient and effective means of
achieving the objectives and policies of the PAUP and therefore the most appropriate way to
achieve the purpose of Resource Management Act 1991.

METROPOLITAN CENTRE COMPARISONS

6.1

We have completed a size and spread comparison of the PAUPs Metropolitan Centres, as
shown in Attachment A to our evidence.

6.2

The existing Manukau Metropolitan Centre, excluding the Site, is 45.83 ha and measures
0.85 km across at approximately its widest point. It is compact and comparable in spread to
Botany (0.67 km), Sylvia Park (0.80 km) and Westgate (0.87 km).

6.3

The addition of the Site results in an area of 62.68 ha and a spread of 1.16 km. This results
in a Metropolitan Centre more comparable in spread to New Lynn (1.10 km), although is still
smaller in extent than both Albany and Henderson.

10

Auckland Council, Rebuttal Evidence (Markup version), Topic 012, Kevin Wong-Toi, 7 November 2014 and the Joint
Memorandum of Counsel (Policy 9, Section B.3.3) dated 21 November 2014.
11

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, section 14.

9

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

6.4

As noted in our primary evidence12, Manukau is the second largest centre in terms of
employment and in nearest catchment terms, is the closest Metropolitan Centre for
approximately 186,000 people13 (or 13 % of Aucklands population). As such, Manukau has
the greatest potential demand for retail floorspace (out to 2031) out of any of the Citys subregional areas14. However, Manukau has only the third largest Metropolitan Centre (by land
area) after Henderson and Albany15. Given the scale of employment and the size of the
catchment (including both Manukau and Papakura16), it is reasonable that the Metropolitan
Centre at Manukau should be larger, possibly the largest of the Metropolitan Centres in
Auckland. If the Site is rezoned as proposed, this would increase the Metropolitan Centre by
16.8 ha to approximately 62.5 ha, meaning it would be the second largest of the Metropolitan
Centres after Albany (which is approximately 69 ha and includes both the Westfield Mall
and the Albany Mega Centre).

6.5

Furthermore, the figures in Attachment A show a notable lack of residential zoned land
adjacent to the Manukau Metropolitan Centre compared to other Metropolitan Centres. We
consider that this further supports the rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre to increase
the opportunity for residential activities to establish in close proximity to retail, commercial,
civic and employment opportunities.

RESPONSE TO COUNCIL OFFICERS

7.1

The Council Officers have provided no additional comment, through rebuttal evidence, on the
rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone. We have outlined their position in Section
4 above.

12

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 10.1.7.

13

Auckland Spatial Plan Assessment, Market Economics, 2011.

14

Robert Philpott evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 7.15.

15

Jeremy Wyatt evidence, Topics 51-54, Attachment D.

16

Robert Philpott evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 6.3.

10

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

7.2

In our primary evidence, we confirmed that the HANA overlay affects only a small portion of
the site (approximately 3.5 ha out of 16.8 ha) (we have attached the overlay map showing
the Air Noise contours at Attachment B). Therefore, the HANA overlay does not significantly
restrict the potential development of sensitive activities within the Site if rezoned to
Metropolitan Centre zone17.

7.3

Furthermore, the Sensitive Activity Restriction overlay is considered redundant, as the site on
the opposite side of Puhinui Stream, which is owned by Goodman Property (70-100 Plunket
Avenue), is characterised by Light Industrial activities. As discussed in Section 6 above, we
support the rezoning of the Goodman site to Light Industry zone.

BUNNINGS SITE, LAMBIE DRIVE, MANUKAU

Introduction

8.1

Bunnings has sought to retain the General Business zone for the site that they lease at
55 Lambie Drive. The site is owned by Lambie Drive Nominees Limited, who support the
rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone. A letter of support from Lambie Drive
Nominees Limited for the rezoning of 55 Lambie Drive to Metropolitan Centre zone has been
tabled for the Hearings Panel.

8.2

In his primary and rebuttal statements, Mr Norwell has cited higher amenity requirements,
economic costs and reverse sensitivity as reasons for retaining the General Business zoning
on 55 Lambie Drive. We address each of these matters below.
Higher amenity requirements

8.3

We agree with Mr Norwells comment18 that the Metropolitan Centre zone requires a higher
level of amenity to be provided for compared to the General Business zone. However, we do
not consider that this precludes the ongoing operation of, extension, or development of Trade
Suppliers in the Metropolitan Centre zone.

17

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraphs 10.5.4 and 10.5.5.

18

M Norwell evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 5.5(i).

11

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

8.4

Trade Suppliers are permitted activities in the Metropolitan Centre zone19. Furthermore,
additions up to 25 % of the existing GFA or 250 m (whichever is lesser) are also permitted
activities. Accordingly, minor alterations or additions to Bunnings Manukau would not require
a resource consent that would necessitate an assessment of the amenity of the building or
site.

8.5

However, a larger scale addition to Bunnings would require resource consent. Such an
application would be assessed in accordance with the objectives and policies of the
Metropolitan Centre zone and Assessment Criteria D3.6.2.5 (new buildings and alterations
and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for).

8.6

Notwithstanding this, we consider that a certain level of reasonableness is to be expected of

Council staff when assessing larger format activities in a Metropolitan Centre zone, including
Trade Suppliers, Garden Centres, Supermarkets, Light Industry and Servicing activities and
Warehousing and Storage, all of which are permitted activities in the Metropolitan Centre
zone.

8.7

We consider it would therefore be inappropriate and misleading to provide for these activities
as permitted and then make the design and amenity requirements so onerous, that they are
unable to meet their operational requirements.
Economic cost

8.8

Mr Philpott has considered the assertion by Mr Norwell that the rezoning will result in
economic costs20. Mr Philpott21 has confirmed that the rezoning may result in financial costs
to Bunnings, while there may also be financial benefit to Bunnings by increased customer
foot traffic. Overall, Mr Philpott confirms there are significant positive economic effects from
rezoning the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone.

19

Mediated provisions attached to Councils closing statement, 29 September 2015 (Topics 051-054).

20

M Norwell rebuttal evidence, 24 February 2016, paragraph 4.5.

21

Mr Philpott supplementary evidence, 4 April 2016, paragraph 1.74.

12

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

Reverse sensitivity
8.9

Trade Suppliers are permitted activities in the Metropolitan Centre zone and the General
Business zone. Dwellings and Visitor Accommodation are also permitted activities in the
Metropolitan Centre zone, although they are not permitted in the General Business zone.
Mr Norwell has cited reverse sensitivity as a concern for Bunnings22. In considering
Mr Norwells opinion, we have considered the implications of the mediated noise provisions
(Topic 040)23 as outlined below.

8.10

We agree with Mr Norwell that the night-time noise limit (11pm-7am) will reduce by 5 dBLAeq
(from 65 dBLAeq to 60 dBLAeq) if the Site is rezoned from General Business zone to
Metropolitan Centre zone. However, Mr Norwell does not take into account that Noise
Sensitive Spaces must be designed and insulated so that internal noise levels are managed.
Specifically, Bedrooms and Sleeping Areas are required to achieve 35 dBLAeq between 11pm
and 7am and other Noise Sensitive Spaces are required to achieve 40 dBLAeq at all other
times.

8.11

The requirement for Noise Sensitive Spaces to be responsible (at least partly) for managing
any noise effects on them, is to ensure that reverse sensitivity effects are avoided and noisier
activities that may occur in the Metropolitan Centre zone are not unfairly restricted.

GOODMAN PROPERTY TRUST SITE, PLUNKET AVENUE, MANUKAU

9.1

In their primary statement, Council Officers advised that they did not support the rezoning of
Goodmans land to Light Industry zone (from Heavy Industry zone). Specifically24:
Do not support rezoning from HI to LI zones. Rezoning to LI would result in the loss of scarce
heavy industrial land The HI zone and the associated manufacturing that takes places in
these zones are important sources of employment in Auckland and particularly in the

22

M Norwell evidence. 10 February 2016, paragraph 5.5(ii) and rebuttal evidence, 24 February 2016, paragraphs 4.6
and 4.7.
23

Council closing statement, Topic 040, Attachment B, 20.10.2015.

24

A Jennings, R Eccles and D Wong evidence, Attachment C, page 9.

13

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

Manukau area. Importantly, retaining Plunket Avenue HI zoning provides for larger HI zoned
block and a better protection against possible reverse sensitivity effects that could arise.
Retention of the HI zoning is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the zone
gives effect to the RPS. (This position is consistent with the 051-054 evidence.)
9.2

As noted in our primary statement25, the nature of the activities on the Goodman site better
align with the Light Industry zone than with the (currently proposed) Heavy Industry zone. In
his evidence26, Mr Gerard Thompson states that the existing activities are a better fit with
those anticipated and provided for in the Light Industry zone. He further notes that there are
no manufacturing activities occurring on the land and that there is little prospect that the land
will ever transition to heavy industrial activities.

9.3

Our primary evidence considered that the rezoning of the Goodman land to Light Industry
was appropriate, largely because of the nature of the existing activities, but also because the
proposed rezoning of Winstone Aggregates Wiri land to Heavy Industry zone would offset
any potential loss of Heavy Industry zoned land. Importantly, we noted that the rezoning is
consistent with proposed Section 7.12, Policy 427 of the Air Management provisions which
provides for the rezoning of land where the benefits of the rezoning will outweigh the reverse
sensitivity effects on Heavy Industry zoned land.

9.4

Further to this, we have also considered the proximity of Heavy Industry zoned land to all ten
proposed Metropolitan Centre zones. From this assessment, we note that, excluding the
Manukau Metropolitan Centre, the nearest Heavy Industry to any Metropolitan Centre is
approximately 530 m (to Sylvia Park), while the majority of Metropolitan Centres (seven out
of ten) are more than a kilometre from the nearest Heavy Industry zoned land.

9.5

Conversely, the nearest Heavy Industry zoned land is approximately 190 m from the existing
Manukau Metropolitan Centre (across State Highway 20), and there is approximately 270 m
between the existing Metropolitan Centre and the Goodman land. Rezoning the Goodman
land to Light Industry would increase the separation distance to approximately 700 m (to the

25

J Carvill and S Tait evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 11.2.

26

G Thompson evidence, 10 February 2016, paragraph 4.2.

27

Jeremy Wyatts evidence, Topic 035, Attachment A.

14

1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

existing Metropolitan centre zone boundary), which in turn would reduce to approximately
500 m if the Site is rezoned to Metropolitan Centre (which is comparable to the Sylvia Park
separation distance).
9.6

We consider that rezoning both the Goodman land and the Site (to Light Industry zone and
Metropolitan Centre zone respectively) and consequently increasing the separation distance
between the Manukau Metropolitan Centre and the nearby Heavy Industry zone is more
consistent with other Metropolitan Centres and provides better air quality management and
therefore amenity values for the Manukau Metropolitan Centre.

10

CONCLUSION

10.1

We support the rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone. We consider that the
rezoning of the Site will support a quality compact city, by intensifying development in the
right location where retail demand has been demonstrated and where office and civic
activities are appropriate, and residential and visitor accommodation can be supported. The
Site is well integrated with the transport network and therefore intensification will contribute to
centre vitality, social cohesion, connectedness and integration and reduction of the cost of
infrastructure. Importantly, well located intensification will ease the pressure on investment
in new infrastructure and the outward expansion of the City.

10.2

We do not agree with the Council Officers that the site is not suitable for rezoning due to the
presence of the HANA overlay or the adjoining Heavy Industry zone. The HANA results in
only a small reduction in the development potential of the site, but does not, in our view,
mean that rezoning the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone is inappropriate. The Sensitive
Activity Restriction overlay is considered redundant, as the site on the opposite side of
Puhinui Stream owned by Goodman (70-100 Plunket Avenue) is developed with Light
Industrial activities and we support the rezoning of the Goodman site to Light Industry zone.

15
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

10.3

We consider that rezoning Goodmans land to Light Industry better reflects the existing and
planned activities on the site and will be offset by the rezoning of Winstone Aggregates Wiri
land. The rezoning of the Goodman land will outweigh the reverse sensitivity effects on other
Heavy Industry zoned land (as required by Chapter C, Rule 7.12, Policy 4). Lastly, the
rezoning of both the Goodman land and the Site will result in separation distances (from
Heavy Industry zoned land) that are more comparable to other Metropolitan Centres.

10.4

We note that Lambie Drive Nominees Limited, as owners of 55 Lambie Drive, support the
rezoning of this site to Metropolitan Centre zone. We consider that the Metropolitan Centre
zoning will enable the ongoing operation, expansion or redevelopment of the site for Trade
Supplier activities. The PAUP includes suitable development controls in Metropolitan Centre
zones aimed at avoiding reverse sensitivity effects and limiting noise generating businesses.

10.5

Overall, we consider the proposed rezoning of the Site to Metropolitan Centre zone will better
achieve the strategic outcomes sought in the relevant higher order planning documents, the
zoning principles established by the Panel, and better achieves sustainable management
under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Jennifer Carvill and Susannah Tait

4 April 2016

16
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

Attachment A

17
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

Manukau

Albany

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.

Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.

Proposed Metropolitan
Centre Zone Extension

200

400
Metres

200

400
Metres

Area: 45.83 ha --> 62.68 ha | Distance: 0.85 km --> 1.16 km

Existing Retail GFA: 88,500 m 2 (SFR share 56%) --> 152,100 m2
(SFR share 33%)

Area: 69.02 ha | Distance: 1.49 km

Existing Retail GFA: 148,100 m 2 (SFR share 33%)

Henderson

Newmarket

Legend

Measurement line

1. Aerial: LINZ data service. CC-BY-3.0-NZ

2. PAUP Zoning supplied by Auckland Council.
3. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an
engineering design or construction drawing.
4. Drawn by: KC. Reviewed by: RW.

200

400

100

Metres

Area: 47.06 ha | Distance: 1.43 km

Existing Retail GFA: 86,100 m 2 (SFR share 48%)

200
Metres

Area: 14.71 ha | Distance: 0.92 km

Existing Retail GFA: 67,900 m 2 (SFR share 84%)

Notes:
1. Existing retail GFA as at October 2013 sourced from the Auckland Retail Economic Evidence Base, Auckland Council Technical Report 2013/046, October 2013 (REB).
2. Existing retail GFA for Westgate/Massey North has been updated to include new floor-space of Northwest shopping centre opened in October 2015.
3. SFR share is the proportion of floor-space in each centre occupied by small format retail sourced from the REB. This shows SFR to be dominant in Manukau, New Lynn, Newmarket, Papakura and Takapuna, and LFR
to be dominant in Albany, Botany, Sylvia Park and Henderson.

TITLE

COMPARISON OF
METROPOLITAN CENTRE ZONES

K:\GIS\Projects-Dynamics\2015\7401\1524607_PSPIBWaihekeIncorporated_ManukauSupaCenta\MapDocuments\1001 - PAUP\F01_CompareMetroCentreZones_A4P_GIS.mxd

MARCH 2016
PROJECT

1524607

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.

Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.

Sylvia Park

Botany

100

200

100

Metres

200
Metres

Area: 21.50 ha | Distance: 0.80 km

Existing Retail GFA: 84,900 m 2 (SFR share 45%)

Area: 23.46 ha | Distance: 0.67 km

Existing Retail GFA: 70,400 m 2 (SFR share 39%)

Westgate / Massey North

Takapuna

Legend

Measurement line

1. Aerial: LINZ data service. CC-BY-3.0-NZ

2. PAUP Zoning supplied by Auckland Council.
3. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an
engineering design or construction drawing.
4. Drawn by: KC. Reviewed by: RW.

100

200

100

Metres

Area: 28.27 ha | Distance: 0.87 km

Existing Retail GFA: 59,000 m 2

200
Metres

Area: 21.31 ha | Distance: 0.97 km

Existing Retail GFA: 42,500 m 2 (SFR share 86%)

Notes:
1. Existing retail GFA as at October 2013 sourced from the Auckland Retail Economic Evidence Base, Auckland Council Technical Report 2013/046, October 2013 (REB).
2. Existing retail GFA for Westgate/Massey North has been updated to include new floor-space of Northwest shopping centre opened in October 2015.
3. SFR share is the proportion of floor-space in each centre occupied by small format retail sourced from the REB. This shows SFR to be dominant in Manukau, New Lynn, Newmarket, Papakura and Takapuna, and LFR
to be dominant in Albany, Botany, Sylvia Park and Henderson.

TITLE

COMPARISON OF
METROPOLITAN CENTRE ZONES

K:\GIS\Projects-Dynamics\2015\7401\1524607_PSPIBWaihekeIncorporated_ManukauSupaCenta\MapDocuments\1001 - PAUP\F02_CompareMetroCentreZones_A4P_GIS.mxd

MARCH 2016
PROJECT

1524607

Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.

Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.

New Lynn

Papakura

200

400

200

Metres

Area: 44.55 ha | Distance: 1.10 km

Existing Retail GFA: 78,700 m 2 (SFR share 58%)

400
Metres

Area: 23.79 ha | Distance: 0.98 km

Existing Retail GFA: 69,000 m 2 (SFR share 76%)

Legend

Measurement line

1.
2.
3.
4.

Aerial: LINZ data service. CC-BY-3.0-NZ

PAUP Zoning supplied by Auckland Council.
Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.
Drawn by: KC. Reviewed by: RW.

Notes:
1. Existing retail GFA as at October 2013 sourced from the Auckland Retail Economic Evidence Base, Auckland Council Technical Report 2013/046, October 2013 (REB).
2. Existing retail GFA for Westgate/Massey North has been updated to include new floor-space of Northwest shopping centre opened in October 2015.
3. SFR share is the proportion of floor-space in each centre occupied by small format retail sourced from the REB. This shows SFR to be dominant in Manukau, New Lynn, Newmarket, Papakura and Takapuna, and LFR
to be dominant in Albany, Botany, Sylvia Park and Henderson.

TITLE

COMPARISON OF
METROPOLITAN CENTRE ZONES

K:\GIS\Projects-Dynamics\2015\7401\1524607_PSPIBWaihekeIncorporated_ManukauSupaCenta\MapDocuments\1001 - PAUP\F03_CompareMetroCentreZones_A4P_GIS.mxd

MARCH 2016
PROJECT

1524607

Attachment B

21
1524607_1001_006_RevC_E_Topic 080-081

Attachment B Noise contours

Legend
The site

HANA

MANA

ANAA