BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN

INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource Management Act 1991

as amended by the Local Government
(Auckland Transitional Provision)
Amendment Act 2010 (Act)

AND
IN THE MATTER

of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Topics 081 Residential Zoning Spatial
zoning maps released 17th December
2015

SUBMITTER:

AUCKLAND 2040 INCORPORATED

Submitter No. 1473

EVIDENCE OF RICHARD J BURTON

My name is Richard John Burton, I hold the qualifications of Diploma in Urban Valuation and
Diploma in Town Planning from Auckland University. I was a member of the New Zealand
Planning Institute for over 30 years. I was a resource management consultant and Managing
Director of Burton Consultants Limited, a nationwide resource management consultancy
from 1980 to 2006. I acknowledge that in giving expert evidence I do so in accordance with
the Code of Practice for Expert Evidence.
SUMMARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT
1. This summary deals with out of scope zoning provisions and generic submissions. By
generic submissions I mean submissions which do not relate to specific properties or
named streets but submissions seeking for example up zoning within a specified

distance from a:
a.
b.
c.
d.

commercial area
Bus route
Employment area
Reserve
1

Or submissions seeking up zonings related to the class of road, eg to MHU or THAB

along arterial roads, or blanket submissions seeking the rezoning of all areas zoned
one zone to be up zoned to another more intensive zone.

2. In my opinion the approval of generic submissions (or out of scope proposals) would
call into question some fundamental planning principles:
i. That decisions to undertake significant modifications to a plan be done
on a sound evidential basis in accordance with Part Two and S32 and
S32AA of the RMA
ii. That preparation of district plans should be done in an informed,
consultative and participatory manner so that the views of all parties
can be taken into consideration by the decision makers
iii. In order to have a balanced and informed decision making process,
opportunity needs to be given for all sides of an issue to contribute
iv. That principals of natural justice are fundamental

3. The planning implications of out of scope zoning changes and changes proposed as
a result of generic submissions are almost identical in that to a large degree they
share the following characteristics:
a. They are not site or street specific and can cover significant areas
b. Residents in areas affected are not individually notified
c. There is little difference between generic submissions and out of scope from
the point of view of neighbourhood awareness which is extremely low
d. There has been no or inadequate Neighbourhood Plan preparation assessing
the suitability or otherwise of the zoning proposed
e. There are no opportunities for community consultation and feedback and no
attempt to bring the community along in the planning of an area
f.

Evidence is one sided and may lack balance

g. Sub regional and regional implications of the proposed zoning pattern may
not have been given adequate consideration
h. The requirements of Part Two and s32 are unlikely to have been met

4. There is one important distinction between Out of scope changes and generic
submissions. Out of scope changes can be appealed on the merits to the

Environment Court, generic submissions cannot. This should in my opinion set the
bar even higher for generic submissions.

5. The generic submissions proposed by Housing New Zealand are very wide spread
and if allowed would significantly alter the zone distribution across large parts of
Auckland, particularly the central isthmus. This change could be further extended by
Housing NZ seeking to in some way incorporate the former out of scope zoning
changes which have been withdrawn by Council. The proposed rewriting of the
zoning pattern over much of Auckland is in my opinion a significant breach of the
planning principles I have set out above.

6. Procedural Minute No 6 dated 5th August 2014 from the Chairperson of the IHP
makes several points which reinforce the importance of community participation in
planning instruments. Auckland 2040 through the over 100 community groups we
represent understands the lack of awareness in the community of the out of scope
and generic submissions proposed by a few submitters and in particular Housing
New Zealand. Only since the extensive media coverage on the out of scope
proposals have residents realised that their reliance on the PAUP has been
misplaced and that very extensive changes to the zoning of Auckland are being put
before the Panel. In my opinion the proposed generic changes (and any remaining
out of scope changes) are in complete conflict with the principles set out in
Procedural Minute 6 and if allowed would result in a clear abuse of process.

7. In the Chairpersons directions dated 14th January 2016 the Judge said
I expect that existing submitters (including Auckland 2040 and Housing New
Zealand) will present submissions as to both the scope and the merits of a
range of residential zonings all over the region, so that the effects of various
residential zonings will be able to be adequately assessed
With the greatest respect to the Judge, in order for a person to have the right to
present submissions on the scope and merits of a proposed residential zoning
change they firstly need to have lodged a submission or further submission. In the
absence of any knowledge of a rezoning proposal how can any person be in a
position to submit and present their case? The residents of Auckland have to a great
3

extent been unaware of what Council originally proposed as out of scope and more
recently what Housing NZ and a few other large developers are now putting forward
as generic submissions.

8. There is a proper process to be followed before proposing the wholescale rezoning of

significant areas of existing residential development.
The provisions of Part Two and s32 establish the groundwork needing to be done
before a planning instrument is bought forward in a plan. This essential ground work
is complemented through community involvement in what is commonly referred to as
bottom up planning. Such work results in Neighbourhood Area Studies. The
advantages of this process are that:
1. The essential background work determining the areas suitability for
intensification is done at an early stage and can inform future zoning
changes. This would include:
a. Topographical investigations into the suitability of the landform for
various types of development
b. Ecological assessment of vegetation patterns, urban trees and wildlife
corridors.
c. Determination of the existing subdivision pattern and section sizes
d. The physical built form, the degree of infill and presence of historically
significant buildings, features and landforms
e. Presence of physical restraints such as flooding, instability
f.

Assessment of physical infrastructure and the adequacy of

infrastructure to accommodate intensification

g. Assessment of social infrastructure such as location and size of

schools, reserves, walkways and public amenities
h. Traffic implications, choke point assessments, ability of public
transport to service further intensification
i.

Proximity to commercial centres, employment areas

j.

Etc, etc

2. The community can be involved and consulted from the earliest stages, can
be involved in the background investigations from the start and can hopefully
be bought along with the project as it proceeds.

9. This contrasts with the out of scope and generic changes where little if any
background work has been done and the affected communities are largely
ignorant of the proposed changes. When informed of them there is a
considerable sense of resentment and this is likely to manifest itself in strong
opposition to intensification proposals and the likelihood of appeals to higher
courts.

10. In my opinion if any particular out of scope proposal or generic submissions is

seen to have some merit it should be referred back to Council to consider
afresh and if considered desirable the necessary background work and
community consultation done and the proposal put forward by means of Plan
Change.
11. In my opinion there is not such a level of urgency that well founded planning
and legal principles should be thrown aside for the sake of expediency. In the
modelling work undertaken by an expert group the conclusion of Mr
Balderston and Dr Fairgray was that
5.31 These updated results are important in relation to the PAUP and RPS.
They confirm the earlier conclusion that the estimated capacity for dwellings
within the MUL and for all of Auckland in the period to 2026 is considerably
greater than the projected demand for dwellings. The margin is based on
developable capacity which is that component of plan-enabled capacity for
which development is expected to be feasible.
5.32 These figures are based on the Residential zone provisions as amended
in August 2015.
12. The amendments of August 2015 were those negotiated by an expert
conferencing group comprising Auckland Council, major developers (including
HNZC) and Auckland 2040. This resulted in a recommendation to the IHP to
significantly relax the density provisions in the MHS and MHU zones. This
has had a very significant upward effect on the capacity figure and will over
time see a considerable intensification of those zones.
13. In my opinion there is not a capacity problem in the PAUP. The demand for
dwellings can be satisfied for the foreseeable future. Should further studies
indicate that more supply should be added then Council can do the necessary
background work and community consultation and then bring down
appropriate plan changes.
5