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 051 - 054 Centre Zones, Business Park and Industrial Zones, Business Activities and Business Controls, Section D3, D3.1 – D3.9, I3.1 – I3.6 STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW WILLIAM BONIS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 28 August 2015
51
Embed
REBUTTAL: 051-054 Hrg - Auckland Council (Matthew Bonis) - Planning
REBUTTAL: 051-054 Hrg - Auckland Council (Matthew Bonis) - Planning
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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 051 - 054 Centre Zones,
Business Park and Industrial Zones, Business Activities and Business Controls, Section D3, D3.1 – D3.9, I3.1 – I3.6
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW WILLIAM BONIS
ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 28 August 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 My name is Matthew Bonis. I am a Consultant planner engaged by the Council to
respond to submissions received on the notified PAUP and to provide planning
evidence in relation to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Issue 051 - 054. I have
the qualifications and experience set out in my evidence in chief dated 27 July
2015.
1.2 I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance
with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court
Practice Note.
1.3 In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of
submitters on Issue 051 – 054. In particular, I have reviewed the evidence of those
parties set out in Attachment ‘A’.
1.4 This rebuttal statement addresses various issues in that evidence.
2. SCOPE
2.1 My rebuttal evidence refers to the ‘consolidated provisions’. These are the
provisions contained as Attachment C to Mr Jeremy Wyatt’s EiC, as amended by
the rebuttal evidence of Council witnesses and attached to Mr Wyatt’s rebuttal
evidence.
2.2 The sub-groups or "themes" that will be addressed in this evidence include the
following:
(a) Overall approach – Economic approaches and the need for flexibility
(Philpott – DNZ, 2863; Heath – NTC, 2632; and Tansley – The Warehouse
2478,)
(b) The Mixed Use Zone – supermarkets (Foster et al (KRG); the
agglomeration rule (Smith, Tansley – the Warehouse 2478); motor vehicle
Examples include Knobs and Knockers, Burton Street – Grafton, and 293 Ti Rakau Drive. 51
Boerson. EiC (Bunnings 6096). Paragraph 6.2(b) 52
Boerson. EiC (Bunnings 6096). Paragraph 6.1(a).
(c) neither narrows the consideration of effects and the ability to mitigate such,
which based on the spectrum of activities within the umbrella definition of
Trade Suppliers can vary widely.
Importantly, a DA status still provides for notification as appropriate53
.
5.21 In terms of motor vehicle sales, I acknowledge that the mixed use zone
‘environment’ for the purpose of s76(3) contains the presence of such traders54 Ms
Panther Knight also correctly points to existing clusters of motor vehicle sales
operators in the zone55.
5.22 The Auckland Unitary Plan review and rationalisation of the legacy plans provide for
a revised approach to land use management. RPS B2.156 and B3.157 recognise the
importance of centre fringe areas in terms of both consolidating and intensifying
residential and commercial provision to accommodate Auckland’s rapid growth. The
fundamental consequences, in terms of the application of the mixed use zone to
these areas is an unequivocal signal to the market to intensify such areas.
Promoting either Trade Suppliers or Motor Vehicle Sales as appropriate uses,
regardless of scale or density, in my view does not reflect, or give effect to that
wider regional approach.
5.23 Motor vehicle sales activities are typically space extensive, provide for lower
densities of employment, and have an operational amenity reflecting that context.
Accordingly, the efficient and effective achievement of Objective 1 and Policy 7 in
particular, in my view is more appropriately met through retaining a DA status.
6. THE GENERAL BUSINESS ZONE – DNZ / AMP (3863 / 4367) 400M RADIUS TO
METROPOLITAN CENTRES RULE
6.1 Ms Carvill and Ms Tait seek addition of a new rule58 to the general business zone.
The proposed rule would provide for retail up to 450m2 GFA per tenancy in the
general business zone as an RDA activity, where the general business zone is
53
Auckland Unitary Plan. Part 3:G.2.4 Clause 1 “Restricted discretionary activities will be considered without public or limited notification, or the need to obtain written approval from affected parties, unless otherwise specified in the Unitary Plan…”
5. Provide for the outward expansion of metropolitan and town centres having regard to whether it:
a. will provide for compact mixed-use environments on the periphery of the centre; b. will provide for a greater level of access by a community to a wide range of facilities, goods and
services in a convenient and efficient manner; c. facilitates the efficient and sustainable distribution of centres, in relation to the existing
distribution of commercial activity and population growth d. retains or enhances the existing centre’s role and function; e. adversely impacts the role, function, role and amenity of other the city centre, and other
metropolitan and town centres in the hierarchy, to a significant extent beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade competition.
f. manages the effects of commercial activity at the interface with adjoining land uses; g. substantially reduces the opportunity for medium to high density residential development; h. maintains the safety and efficiency of the road network in a way that promotes integrated
transport, by providing strong connections to a range of transport modes including walking and cycling, and enabling efficient connections to the existing public transport network to link with adjoining centres and identified growth corridors. Supports a safe and efficient transport system which is integrated with the centre.
6.5 I also draw to the Panel’s attention to Ms Fairgray’s capacity surplus figures66,
which show an existing surplus of capacity at the four areas where the proposed
rule would provide additional capacity: Sylvia Park; Westgate / Massey North; New
Lynn; and Manukau.
6.6 I agree with the comments of Ms Fairgray67. The additional flexibility is
unnecessary, and would only assist in duplicating or dispersing economic activity
away from the adjoining centre. I do not consider the relief to be appropriate in
implementing the policy, in particular policy 4, nor the objectives for the general
business zone, in particular objective 1.
7. LOCAL CENTRES – AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 6 TO ENCOURAGE
DEPARTMENT STORES; IMPLICATIONS FROM AGGLOMERATION
ACTIVITIES ON LOCAL CENTRES; OFFICES AND SUPERMARKETS
Department Stores
7.1 Foster et al (KRG) seek to amend Policy 6 to provide explicit recognition of
Department Stores in local centres, and provide for their functional requirements68. I
have commented on this matter at paragraphs 12.26 to 12.30 of my EiC, and I
maintain that view. I do not consider that department stores represent a necessary
and present component of the local centre network, such that their recognition and
provision of functional requirements necessitates policy support.
7.2 I have identified that department stores are not precluded by the local centre
provisions, and I note Ms Shilton (the Warehouse 2748) has identified that two
Warehouse offers are located in local centres (Clendon and Snells Beach)69. I
consider that a policy encouraging department stores in local centres, regardless of
scale or composition, would be incongruent with: the zone description; and
objective 1 which seeks to enable commercial activity that primarily serves local
convenience needs.
Offices and Supermarkets
66
S Fairgray. EiC. Figures 1 and 2. 67
S Fairgray. Rebuttal Paragraph 8.1, 8.2. 68
Foster et al (KRG). Paragraph 8.5 69
Shilton EiC (the Warehouse 2478). Paragraph 18.4
7.3 Mr Sousa (Hogan, 5205) seeks to provide greater provision for offices70 and
supermarkets71 as permitted activities in the local zones. A synopsis of Mr Sousa’s
analysis, (and I acknowledge that this summary may be criticized as an
oversimplification) is that:
The actual ‘threat’ of large scale commercial activity in the local centre, is not a
real risk, given the small land holdings and ownership patterns in the local
centre zones;
Mr Hogan has a unique site, capable of supporting larger commercial premises
and managing interface effects, accordingly a permitted status for supermarkets
on sites larger than 1ha is appropriate;
Providing for permitted retail and office uses would preserve Mr Hogan’s
development rights that existed under the Papakura Legacy Plan.
7.4 My EiC responds to Mr Sousa’s office considerations at paragraphs 27.2 – 27.9,
27.16. I also draw to the Panel’s attention the useful summary from Foster et al
(KRG)72. In terms of supermarkets, my EiC outlines my views at paragraphs 29.4 –
29.15.
7.5 The provisions seeking to manage the scale and range of commercial activities
stem from RPS B3.1 which seeks to concentrate such activities in the City Centre,
Metropolitan and Town Centres, given the role of those centres in terms of a
compact urban form and integration with transport. Reciprocal provisions in the
Local Centre seek to limit the scale and intensity of development73.
7.6 The limitations on the scale of offices and supermarkets as expressed in the
consolidated table in my view are more efficient and effective in giving effect to the
RPS, and achieving the respective zone objectives and policies than the approach
recommended by Mr Sousa. As noted in my EiC74 Local Centre policy 4 does not
preclude larger scale commercial activity, but seeks to manage the merits of
specific proposals within the broader framework established by the wider plan.
7.7 Mr Sousa has identified in evidence what he considers to be specific merits
associated with Mr Hogan’s development potential. However in my view, to amend
70
Sousa (Hogan, 5205), paragraphs 9.1 – 9.5. 71
Sousa (Hogan, 5205), paragraphs 10.1 – 10.4. 72
Foster et al (KRG). Paragraph 10.2 – 10.6. 73
Objective 1, 2 and Policies 1 and 4. 74
Bonis EiC. Paragraph 12.23
the Plan framework to accommodate the specific merits of an individual project on a
specific site amounts to the ‘tail wagging the dog’.
7.8 Foster et al (KRG)75 seeks to remove from the Local Centre zone description:
“The zone discourages single, larger scale commercial activity that would
prevent a mix of activities within the local centre”.
The zone description does not have any regulatory effect, but provides a useful
contextual description of the environmental outcomes anticipated in the zone. For
the local centre zone, the zone description reflects both the respective objectives
and policies which seeks a scale and intensity of development reflective of the
surrounding environment76; and the context and description provided in the
Auckland Plan77. In my view, this text has currency and provides context for policy
4 in terms of conveying these attributes, although I note I am not wedded to its
retention.
Impacts on Local Centres
7.9 Rules 3.2(a) and 3.2(b) are discussed above; they seek to manage the
agglomeration of food and beverage outlets in the mixed use and general business
zone respectively. Assessment criteria I:3.6.2.2a seeks to consider the effects of a
breach of these rules on local centres (b ‘centre vitality’, matter (i)).
7.10 This approach is supported by Carvill / Tait (DNZ / AMP 4376, 3863) 78 on the basis
of the importance of local centres within the centre hierarchy, and McGarr /
Thompson (Scentre / Kiwi 2968, 5253)79 that “we consider that local centres are
particularly vulnerable to adverse effects arising from the agglomeration of food and
beverage and small-scale retail in the Mixed Use zone as these are the same sort
of activities that are the most prevalent in the local centres”.
7.11 The approach is opposed by Mr Smith (the Warehouse, 2478)80 as his view is that
it is inevitable that local centres will evolve over time; and Mr Tansley (the
Warehouse, 2478)81 on the basis that there is little or no prospect of a mixed use
zone development having an adverse effect on a local centre, primarily because of
the regulatory constraints on individual larger retailers locating in the mixed use
zone.
7.12 Mr Akehurst has set out in his rebuttal evidence the predominance of food and
beverage outlets within the Local Centre network, and his support for retention of
the scope of the current assessment matters to include local centres.
7.13 I consider that the agglomeration of food and beverage outlets (and retail) within the
mixed use zone is most likely to provide a prospective threat to the local centre tier
of the centres network. This is due to the likely overlap with the function and role
performed by the local centre network.
7.14 I agree with Mr Smith’s view that the local centre tier of the centres hierarchy does
not have the regional importance established in B3.1, nor composition or sufficient
scale to justify a focus for the growth of commercial activities. In my view however,
local centres are important local physical resources and the effects on individual
centres should be assessed. In my view, there is still a need to consider impacts on
this tier of the centres network. The assessment does not preclude effects, but
requires these to extend beyond “those effects ordinarily associated with trade
effects on trade competitors”.
8. NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES – SUPERMARKETS
8.1 Ms Bull (NTC 2632)82 and Foster et al (KRG)83 generally support the approach, but
seek amendment of activity status from the consolidated provisions as follows:
Activity NC LIZ
Supermarkets up to 450m² GFA per tenancy
P NC DA
Supermarkets exceeding 450m2 and up to 2000m² GFA per tenancy
NC RDA NC DA
Supermarkets exceeding 2000m2 per tenancy NC DA NC DA
8.2 Ms Wickham and Mr Akehurst for Auckland have responded with regard to the LIZ.
82
Bull EiC (NTC 2632) paragraphs 6, 38 – 44. 83
Foster et al EiC. Paragraph 7.16
8.3 I retain my consideration of the activity status for supermarkets within the
neighbourhood centre zones84. This is due to:
(a) the status being seen as being both effective and efficient in achieving the
respective policies and objectives, particularly objectives 1 and 2 which
seek to limit the scale and intensity of commercial activities.
(b) the built form and transport intensity of larger scale supermarkets is
typically incongruent with the amenity expectations of both neighbourhood
centres, and the adjoining residential interface.
(c) the displacement of smaller more convenience based activities narrowing
the ability of the local community to access frequent needs. However, it is
acknowledged that in-centre supermarket developments can in some
instances foster reinvestment and improved accessibility to convenience
retail.
(d) the absence of developable sites able to absorb a larger scale
supermarket offer, with the most likely resultant scenario being extension
onto an adjoining zone.
8.4 In terms of matter (d) above, assuming a 40% built form : car parking, loading /
landscaping ratio, supermarkets of up to 2,000m2 GFA require a developable area
of 0.5ha, and supermarkets up to 4,000m2 GFA require some 1.2ha. In my view
these are not realistically obtainable within the scale, current built form, and
fragmented sites represented in neighbourhood zones. The largest 5% of
neighbourhood centres being some 0.6ha to 3.9ha in size85. Figure 1 below
identifies the range and scale of neighbourhood centres. Figure 2 identifies the
cadastral fragmentation.
8.5 There are 539 zoned areas of Neighbourhood Centre Zone, consisting of 1533 land
parcels. The neighbourhood centres typically include clusters of zoned areas that
are separated by road or laneway. A 100m buffer has been utilised to define ‘the
centre’ (refer examples Attachment D)
Figure 1: Neighbourhood Centres Scale
Metric Scale (m2)
Smallest area of zone 142
84
Bonis EiC. Paragraph 29.7 to 29.13. 85
Noting these do not necessary represent contiguous zoned allotments, nor large titles. Refer Attachment B.
Largest 39,761
Mean 2110
Lowest 5% 142m – 417
Lowest 25% 142m – 800
Highest 5% 6198m – 39,761
Highest 25% 2065m – 39,761
Figure 2: Neighbourhood Centres land parcel size
Metric Scale (m2)
Smallest parcel 102
Largest parcel 15,237
Mean 780
8.6 This analysis is not to provide hurdles to the valid considerations raised by both Ms
Bull86 and Mr Heath. I agree that there is a demonstrable need to ensure the
provision of supermarkets across the city to meet growth expectations87.
8.7 The issue comes down to integrity of the zone provisions, scale, and the more
appropriate mechanism to provide additional capacity. Simply put, a larger scale
supermarket extends beyond serving immediate needs, and would likely need to
either traverse into the residential zone, or replace the existing commercial activities
in the centre. The practical effect of the establishment of a larger scale supermarket
is that the role and function of the centre becomes akin to that of a local centre, or
provides a stand-alone supermarket.
8.8 The more appropriate approach in my view is to retain the current rule status within
the framework, and for substantial supermarkets applications to be undertaken by
way of plan change; including zoning the necessary area, and most likely elevating
the status of the centre. A case in point in my view is the difference between Torbay
and Half Moon Bay in terms of their supermarket offer. The latter is served by a
larger scale supermarket (Freshchoice) in the order of 800m2 GFA and is
associated with a range of adjoining convenience and community facilities and
86
MS Bull (NTC 26352). Particularly paragraphs 38 – 44. 87
Mr Heath (NTC 2632) identifies a land area requirement for 90ha to 105ha (to 2041). EiC Paragraph 5.6. Ms Fairgray identifies a requirement for 24 – 29ha (2031) Rebuttal Paragraph 3.15.
should more rightly be deemed a local centre given it serves a reasonably wide
catchment. Torbay contains a smaller supermarket (Four square) and a limited
range of convenience food and beverage outlets.
9. IDENTIFIED GROWTH CORRIDORS – PROVISION
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait (DNZ / AMP 4376 / 3863)
9.1 Ms Carvill and Ms Tait at Section 9 of their evidence, provide a critique of the
consolidation version of the provisions as these relate to Identified Growth
Corridors. In summary:
(a) The consolidated provisions are largely supported, including the objectives and
policies88;
(b) An amendment is sought to the zone description seeking to explicitly state that
IGCs are to provide overflow capacity for large format retail activities unable to
locate in centres, and without adversely impacting transport function or centre
vitality89.
(c) Support for the activity table, development controls and assessment matters90,
except: for retail activities between 200m2 - 450m2 in area which should remain
DA as included in the consolidated provisions, but below this default to the
activity status of the underlying zone91; and trade suppliers which should default
to the underlying zone92.
(d) Support for IGCs at Kingsland, Wairau Road93 and Stoddard Road94.
(e) Opposition to IGCs at Lincoln Road95 and Ti Rakau Drive96.
9.2 In terms of matter (b) above, Ms Carvill and Ms Tait seeks the insertion of the
following into the zone description:
The primary function of the Integrated (sic) Growth Corridors is to provide overflow capacity for
large format retail activities that are unable to establish in centres. It is not anticipated that the
overlay areas will become retail corridors that would adversely impact on the transport function of
the corridor, or the function and vitality of centres.”
88
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait (DNZ / AMP 4376 / 3863). Paragraph 9.1.1 89
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.1.9 90
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.2.1 91
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.2.8 92
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.2.11 93
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.3.3 94
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.3.10 – 9.3.16, acknowledging concerns raised by Messrs Philpott and McKenzie. 95
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.3.17 – 9.3.21 96
Ms Carvill and Ms Tait. Paragraph 9.3.22 – 9.3..27
9.3 The rationale for their recommendation is: the evidence from Mr Philpott97 that the
IGC overlay is primarily a release valve for large format retail, and that if
unmanaged may compromise the viability of centres; and Mr McKenzie’s
commentary on the implications for transport efficiency98.
9.4 I consider that the proposed amendments unnecessary and inappropriate. In
particular, I oppose the blunt assertion that there be no adverse impacts on the
transport function of the corridor, or the function and vitality of centres from the
establishment of IGC’s. In my view, this overlooks the activity table and associated
assessment matters that require consideration of such matters, and an absence of
some qualification as to magnitude of acceptability of such effects in
accommodating growth. In my view these matters, as raised by Ms Carvill and Ms
Tait are more appropriately stated in the existing consolidated provisions as below:
Where commercial activities are enabled by an identified growth corridor, these should:
respect the current land uses and the outcomes anticipated by the underlying zone
support a compact urban form
maintain the safety and efficiency of the road network and promote integrated transport
not diminish the function, role and amenity of the city centre, metropolitan, town and local
centres.
9.5 Both Mr Akehurst99 and Ms Fairgray100 have commented on the issue, and agree
that the formation of de facto centres should be avoided on IGCs. They agree that
the provisions are appropriately set to achieve that outcome. Ms Fairgray has also
identified that retail floorspace is projected to increase by 1.1million m2 by 2031,
with approximately 50% as large format retail101, and thereby there is also a need to
accommodate some 50% that must by association be non-LFR within the
respective business zones of the City. My reading of their evidence does not
extend to explicitly amending the zone description in the manner sought, as the
zone description already cogently expresses this as:
These provisions are applied to a limited number of significant road corridors or significant segments of these corridors. The purpose is to provide additional opportunity to those commercial activities (predominantly retail activities) that:
may not be appropriate for, or are not able to locate in centres due to the size, scale or
nature of the activity, and
are not typically provided for in the underlying zone.
and Mr Wong-Toi including the need to consider proposed infrastructural
upgrades as recommended in the assessment matters (J:4.4.3), I consider
that the effects of development as an IGC overlay along this corridor can be
appropriately managed.
Foster et al (KRG)
9.14 Foster et al, at Section 11 of their evidence supports the IGC provisions124, the
IGCs in the consolidated provisions125, but seeks additional IGCs126 at:
(a) Constellation Drive, Albany
(b) Great North Road, Arch Hill
(c) Lunn Avenue, Mt Wellington
(d) Ellerslie-Panmure Highway
(e) Great South Road, Takanini (west)
(f) Great South Road, Takanini (east)
9.15 I have considered these matters at paragraphs 20.31 to 20.44 of my EiC. I also
reiterate my statement at paragraph 16.10 of my EiC:
“An inadequate number of IGCs, coupled with a restrictive approach to commercial provision,
renders the mechanism redundant. Too many IGCs will promote a diffuse patter of commercial
activity to the detriment of the centres network”.
9.16 Ms Fairgray has stated this far more eloquently at paragraph 8.8 of her Rebuttal
evidence:
“Therefore, in my view, the issue becomes more focused around aspects of urban form –
whether spatial structural changes are required to the centre network and what form the
emergence of new centres may take. In this respect, I consider the KRG recommendations to
allow retail to locate on an incremental and ad-hoc basis across a range of IGCs a departure
from a centres-based urban form as this type of development may not occur in the form of new
centres. It has the potential to result in lineal tracts of dispersed retail development without the
critical mass or cohesiveness to function as a centre. As such, in my view, I do not consider
that the KRG have adequately taken into account the possible effects on existing centres if new
configurations of retail were to emerge; or the benefits of a centre configuration of retail”.
9.17 I am unassisted by the analysis contained in the KRG evidence.
123
Akehurst. Rebuttal. Paragraph 7.4. 124
Foster et al (KRG). Paragraph 11.1, 11.4 125
Foster et al (KRG). Paragraph 11.5 126
Foster et al (KRG). Paragraph 11.8
9.18 I maintain my view that then KRG Planner’s recommended corridors not be notated
as IGCs. However, and as outlined in paragraph 4.11, if the Panel after considering
all the evidence were of a mind that sufficient commercial flexibility was not present
in the Council’s framework, I recommend additional IGCs as a mechanism for
appropriately managing commercial enablement in comparison to greater dispersal.
Accordingly, I note that Ellerslie – Panmure Highway corridor127, has some tacit
economic128 and transport support129; Lunn Avenue130 does not; and the remaining
recommendations from the KRG Planners lie in a spectrum between the two.
10. MISCELLANOUS – ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES, MANUKAU SUPER METRO
ZONE
Manukau – Super Metro
10.1 Mr Ben Ross (Ben Ross, 1606) has pursued his submission that the Manukau
Commercial centre be rezoned as a ‘Super Metropolitan Centre Zone’ and a suite of
objectives, policies and rules be inserted into the Unitary Plan to manage growth in
the centre. The central premise is that Manukau (and Albany131) should be afforded
greater regional and inter-regional prominence, than the current position as
contained in the Metropolitan Centre tier of the commercial hierarchy.
10.2 I have read Mr Ross’s evidence in its entirety. I do not agree with his proposition. I
retain my views as expressed at paragraphs 10.8, 10.9, 10.32 to 10.34 of my EiC.
10.3 Principally, I reiterate my EiC paragraph 10.34, that there is no appreciable benefit
in the proposition. The Ross approach would not in my view: better give effect to the
provisions of B3.1; would increase the extent of complexity in the plan provisions;
inappropriately be predicated on servicing markets outside the region132 with
resultant transport and retail distribution inefficiencies; and is unnecessary in terms
of providing for additional commercial growth133.
127
Bonis EiC. Attachment B. 128
S Fairgray. EiC. Paragraph 8.32(vii) 129
Wong-Toi. Rebuttal. Paragraph 4.25. 130
S Fairgray Paragraph 8.32 (vii) and Wong-Toi Rebuttal 4.22 Table1. 131
B Ross. 1606. Paragraph 7(a). 132
Bonis EiC 10.18. Refer Ross EiC. Attachment D, Super Metro Centre Objective 1 “To serve as complementary to the main City Centre Zone in servicing core parts of the region (Manukau serving Southern Auckland and arguably the northern Waikato, and Albany in time serving the North Shore, Rodney and Northland)…” 133
S Fairgray. EiC. Figure 1 and 2 Capacity surpluses at Manukau. Refer also Ross EiC paragraph 40 “I agree with Mr Bonis on his point that the Metropolitan Centres do enable significant growth and (in theory) unlimited scope for commercial activities”.
Entertainment Facilities
10.4 Mr Sousa (Hogan, 5205) has raised two concerns with the treatment of
‘Entertainment Facilities’ and ‘Taverns’134 in the consolidated version of the plan.
Two concerns are raised:
Entertainment facilities (‘EFs’) are permitted in the Metropolitan and Town
Centres and the Mixed Use zone. EFs are discretionary in local and
neighbourhood centres. Given the environmental context of local centres, Mr
Sousa considers that EFs should also be permitted in the local centre
zones135; that the 30m buffer rule136 will manage related amenity effects on
sensitive proximate residential activities; and there should be no distinction to
the approach in the mixed use zone.
Taverns nest under the definition of ‘Food and beverage’, which are permitted
within the Local Centre zone. ‘Bars and nightclubs’ are a subset of
‘Entertainment facilities’ which are discretionary in Local Centres137.
Therefore any additions to a tavern could be considered an extension of a
‘bar’ activity and therefore subject to a discretionary resource consent. Mr
Sousa seeks a dedicated definition for ‘bars and nightclubs’ in the plan, such
that the distinction with ‘Taverns’ is apparent.
10.5 My EiC identifies issues associated with accommodating ‘Entertainment Facilities’
in local centres. These relate to both the scale and catchment of such facilities, and
the generation of a higher level of night time activity that can be incompatible with
the anticipated residential amenity surrounding local centres.
10.6 I am not of the view that activities such as ‘theatres’, ‘concert venues’, ‘cinemas’,
and ‘nightclubs138’; would primarily service local convenience needs (objective 1),
nor be of a scale or intensity that respects the surrounding environment (policy 4).
Accordingly, I retain my view that a DA status remains the most effective and
efficient status for such activities in the local centre zones. I question the relevance
of Mr Sousa’s comparison to the mixed use zone which has quite different policy
provisions, and is typically located proximate to the city centre, metropolitan and
134
Sousa (Hogan, 5205). Paragraphs 7.1 – 8.3 135
Sousa (Hogan, 5205). Paragraphs 7.2 136
Land use Rule I:3.3.1 ‘Activities within 30m of a residential zone’. 137
Sousa (Hogan, 5205). Paragraphs 8.1 138
Refer recommendation removing ‘bars’ at paragraph 10.7 and 10.8
town centre zones where such facilities are promoted and a higher level of night
time activity is anticipated.
10.7 I agree with Mr Sousa’s concern as to the differentiation of ‘bars’ within the
spectrum of ‘taverns’ and ‘night-clubs’ and the resultant effect in activity status in
the local centre zone. In my view there is little light between a bar and a tavern. A
‘tavern’ is defined in the PAUP as “Facilities used for the sale and consumption of
liquor on the premises”, which is consistent with the Oxford University Dictionary
(Third Edition) definition. ‘Bar’ is undefined in the PAUP, but defined in the Oxford
University Dictionary (Third Edition) as a ‘room or building for serving alcohol;
tavern’. In my view a ‘Nightclub’ is quite a different proposition in terms of operating
hours, likely catchment and scale, and where whilst alcohol is consumed on the
site, the primary purpose is entertainment by way of amplified music.
10.8 Accordingly, I consider that the intent of Mr Sousa’s concerns can be met, albeit by
different means. The term ‘bars’ should be removed from the definition of
Entertainment Facilities as follows:
Entertainment facilities
Facilities used for paid recreation, leisure or entertainment.
Includes:
cinemas
bars and nightclubs
theatres
concert venues.
This definition is nested within the Commerce nesting table.
In addition to the above change, add ‘Bars and’ to ‘taverns’ in the commercial
nesting table, so it is clear that bars and taverns are nested under food and
beverage:
Retail Food and beverage Bars and Taverns
Restaurants
Finally, add ‘bars and’ to I:3.1.1a Activities within 30m of a residential zone (as
associated with taverns) as follows:
3.1 Activities within 30m of a residential zone
1. The following activities are restricted discretionary activities where
they are located within 30m of a residential zone and are listed as
a permitted activity in the zone activity table:
a. Bars and taverns
b. drivethrough restaurant facilities
c. outdoor eating areas accessory to restaurants
d. entertainment facilities
e. child care centres
f. animal breeding and boarding.
This control only applies to those parts of the activities subject to the application that are within 30m of the residential zone.
I do not consider a specific definition of ‘nightclub’ is necessary; the term is well
understood and would now be clearly distinguishable from a ‘bar and tavern’.
11. CONCLUSION
11.1 Except as identified above, I maintain the opinions expressed in my EiC.