Auckland Transport: Auckland’s draft Parking Strategy (2022)
Auckland Transport (AT) has been consulting on its draft Parking Strategy which provides the guiding principles and policies for the planning, supply, and management of on-street and AT-controlled off-street parking.
The strategy has been developed in response to significant changes to central and local government policies and an attempt to respond to Auckland’s growth.
One of the strategy’s key aims is to help deliver the strategic transport goals that AT and Auckland Council have agreed on for our transport system. To do this, the strategy outlines several parking management approaches, including:
A tiered approach to parking management. This means that how AT manages parking will depend on the land use and transport characteristics of each location. (View the interactive map of parking tiers to see the tier your area falls under)
Responding to increased demand for on-street parking as the city grows. In some areas, residents won’t be able to rely on on-street parking to store their vehicles.
Repurposing kerbside space to improve safety and the movement of people, goods, and services on some of our busiest and most congested roads. These roads make up around 3% of Auckland’s road space.
Providing more diverse types of parking, such as spaces for taxis, motorcycle and bicycle parking, and loading zones.
Changes to how AT manages Park and Rides.
At our June business meeting, we were given the opportunity to give feedback on this strategy. This included supporting Auckland Council’s continued efforts to strongly advocate to central Government to re-introduce minimum parking standards.
Two resolutions I added related to the strategy’s proposal to price the parking at park and ride facilities (copied as below):
strongly disagree with the park and ride management policy which would see parking ‘priced and managed in recognition of their role as a premium product and to ensure utilisation is targeted to those without travel choices’
note that any move to introduce pricing management at park and ride facilities would put in potential jeopardy a system that works to significantly reduce car use at peak hours, particularly on the Auckland Harbour Bridge
The next steps will see AT considering public and Local Board feedback and making appropriate changes. In August and September, the final strategy will be submitted for endorsement to Auckland Council’s Planning Committee and finally submitted to the AT Board for approval.
Feedback on the Annual Budget 2022/2023
The Local Board provided feedback in May on Council’s Annual Budget. Our resolutions are as below. I’ve had a long standing interest in the proposed changes to waste services, which we reiterated our stance on again (not supporting a move to all of Council moving to rates-funded refuse collection).
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:
a) receive the following consultation feedback on the proposed Hibiscus and Bays Local Board priorities and activities for 2022/2023. b) notes that 86 percent of submitters in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area supported the priorities in the draft Local Board Agreement 2022/2023.
Climate i. supports, with reservations, the proposal to introduce a climate action targeted rate, noting: A) concern that while the cost of this package to ratepayers is large, the resulting purchase of only 79 new zero emissions buses and six or seven hybrid ferries is not the wholesale change expected
B) that due to the impact of the increased rate on those with a fixed income, more promotion is needed to inform eligible ratepayers of the option to apply for a rates rebate through the Department of Internal Affairs ii. requests that the climate action targeted rate have more detailed reporting, at a local board level, on where the funds raised are to be spent throughout the ten years of targeted rates collection. iii. recommends that deployment of new electric buses be spread across Auckland for the purpose of all communities being able to see the outcome of the targeted rate, with future deployments then targeted to bus routes with the worst air quality.
Budget pressures iv. supports the budget pressures proposal noting deferring capital expenditure lever: A) should not include CAPEX renewals B) should not include the Local Board One Local Initiative projects across Auckland C) should not include growth funded projects
v. requests that prioritisation is made to capital improvements in Auckland Council strategic assets, such as the Ports of Auckland, to get better operating returns in the future.
Operational spending prioritisation vi. supports the proposal to prioritise operational spending.
Waste service standardisation vii. does not support the move to a standardised waste system paid for via rates, as this penalises those who minimise their household waste. viii. supports the move to offer a standardised bin collection system for general waste and food scraps across the whole of urban Auckland, especially in those areas that currently do not have it. ix. supports the retention of the Pay as You Throw system noting: A) this system is likely to become cheaper over the short term with newer technologies likely to reduce the administrative cost of this method much further B) pay as you throw provides a financial incentive to minimise waste x. requests that the Pay as You Throw system is offered to more parts of Auckland, given that the impact of the food scraps on waste collection is still unknown, and noting that proposed changes resulting from the Ministry for the Environment’s “Transforming recycling” may introduce changes that make eliminating a waste user pays system short sighted. xi. supports the standardisation of opt out rules for residential multi-unit developments. xii. supports the standardisation of opt out rules for residential and lifestyle properties with between two and nine units. xiii. supports the standardisation of opt out rules for non-residential properties.
xv. supports the application of a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property.
Advocacy xvi. requests that funding be allocated before 2024 for the Auckland Transport Whangaparāoa Bus facility, that is currently in Appendix 7 of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 as unfunded but prioritised, for this public transport facility to be available from day one of the Penlink project, to ensure that this project contributes to TeTāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. b) receive the consultation feedback on regional topics in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 from people and organisations’ based in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.
Local board feedback on proposed supporting plan changes to accompany the Medium Density Residential Standards and National Policy Statement on Urban Development plan change
At our June business meeting, we also had the opportunity to provide feedback on the development of draft plan changes and variations to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). These changes are to be considered for notification at the August 2022 Planning Committee meeting together with the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) on medium-density residential standards (MDRS) and implementing Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD).
These are:
• Transport-related changes to promote safe and efficient access to residentially zoned parking spaces and rear sites, and to address additional parking issues that were identified following the mandatory removal of car parking minimums from the AUP (Auckland-wide chapters E24 Lighting, E27 Transport, and E38 Subdivision – Urban access and parking provisions)
• Additions to scheduled items to enable their protection when the IPI is notified (Schedule 10 Notable Tree Schedule and Maps, and Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps)
• Mandatory variations to incomplete plan changes (council-initiated and private) required by the government to ensure MDRS are applied in all relevant residential zones.
Some of the resolutions from the Local Board included:
request that Auckland Council advocate to Government to bring back minimum parking requirements for developments unless it can be proven that public transport is readily available in the area
request that Auckland Council review and consider proposed plan change provisions for onsite loading and unloading and other heavy vehicle provisions, including utility and emergency services, to avoid any adverse impacts on the health and safety of workers and the general public
express concern for the removal of requirements for open space or minimum parking under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development, and request options for developers to apply best practice for open space, and pedestrian access that meets universal design guidelines should be strongly encouraged
express concern that the pressures of increased and unplanned development places on infrastructure is of serious concern to communities and is likely to result in future frustration without adequate consideration from central government of new sources of funding for Auckland Council and its CouncilControlled Organisations to meet demand from new housing
note that the principles of sunlight, shading on neighbouring properties should be required and considered with any development application
Local board feedback on the council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021
The council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RMA amendments) are set out in the national policy statement and the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). Some of these are not optional. Council must change the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) to put these new rules in place.
The national policy statement allows Council to make some limited decisions to help shape the future of our city. Council can determine:
i) the distances of walkable catchments, where buildings of six storeys or more are required. These are the areas around the city centre, rapid transit stops, and the ten metropolitan centres (Albany, Takapuna, Westgate, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket, Sylvia Park, Manukau, Botany and Papakura). ii) the building heights and density to enable residential development within and next to other suburban centres – neighbourhoods centres, local centres, and town centres. iii) the “qualifying matters” that will apply in Auckland, or the characteristics within some areas that may allow the council to modify (or limit) the required building heights and density.
Resolutions passed at our June business meeting:
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) note the council’s preliminary response to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 as set out in attachment A to the agenda report b) note the feedback received from Aucklanders on the council’s preliminary response during the three-week public consultation in April and May 2022 as set out in attachment B to the agenda report c) provide the following local board views to the Auckland Council’s preliminary response, to be considered by the Planning Committee in preparation of the proposed intensification plan change for notification in August 2022 i) note that there was limited support for this proposal in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area ii) request that tools and education to inform the community of what is a “permitted activity” are provided with some urgency upon adoption of this plan change d) express concern that the removal of requirements for open space or minimum parking under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development, and request options for developers to apply best practice for open space, and pedestrian access that meets universal design guidelines should be strongly encouraged e) express concern that the pressures of increased and unplanned development places on infrastructure are of serious concern to communities and are likely to result in future frustration without adequate consideration from central government of new sources of funding for Auckland Council and its Council Controlled Organisations to meet demand from new housing f) request the consideration of the principles of access to sunlight and shading on neighbouring properties in respect of any development application provisions.
Feedback on the Draft Regional Parks Management Plan
At the Local Board’s April Business meeting, Julia Parfitt and I moved a number of resolutions that we had put together giving feedback on Council’s Draft Regional Parks Management Plan (RPMP)
The RPMP is the 10-year planning document that guides the management of all 28 Regional Parks. You can read our feedback in full in the minutes (Item 16). In summary, it included:
Request that sufficient funding is allocated in future 10-year budgets to allow all works proposed in the plan to be delivered.
That Council should acquire land at Piripiri Point (Area C) to extend the Long Bay Regional Park.
Not supporting Policy 45 (which seeks the formal investigation of including regional parks that contribute to the coastal area of the Gulf into the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park). We recommended that the Parks remain as one network managed by Auckland Council, we noted the lack of clarity as to the benefits of the Policy, and noted that there is a significant opportunity to re-address this policy point and provide much greater clarity as a first step as it has caused much confusion and misunderstanding on what is intended.
Not supporting Policies 271 and 272, which seek consideration of the transfer of management in whole or park. We noted out support for minor instances of beneficial management transfers that were provided as examples in the Draft plan, however we do not believe that the policies as they stand are acceptable and provide the potential for larger management changes of parital or entire regional parks. We requested that greater clarity is provided in this section and also sought that a plan change process with public consultation take place for any proposed management transfers.
Submission on central government’s proposals to transform recycling in Aotearoa
At our April Business meeting we had the option to provide feedback on the Transforming Recyling in Aotearoa consultation that the Ministry for the Environment is consulting on. This is a really interesting piece of work and signals some significant changes coming in the next decade. I wrote the Local Board’s feedback:
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board: a) provide the following feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling discussion document to inform the council’s draft submission:
i. Container return scheme A) supports the implementation of a container return scheme for New Zealand B) supports the proposed definition of an eligible beverage container given that only 1% of containers in NZ supermarkets are over three litres C) notes that clear communication will be needed to explain why liquid paperboard is included in a container return scheme, but not in kerbside recycling
ii. Single use coffee cups and Fresh milk containers A) recommends that options for phasing out single use coffee cups be investigated, given that they are non-desirable plastic packaging B) notes that the exclusion of single-use coffee cups, particularly those lined with polyethylene or polylactic acid are not included in the container return scheme, given the common perception that they are recyclable C) endorses the proposed refund amount of 20 cents, as this corelates with high performing schemes worldwide D) supports the exemption for fresh milk containers from the container return scheme, as long as consideration is given to the anomaly of milk sold in a liquid paperboard format – a format covered by the scheme iii. Refillable containers and the container return scheme A) endorse the proposal to exclude containers intended for refilling, as this could dissuade consumers from following the best low carbon option of reuse B) notes that currently access to refill stations for reusable containers is very limited, and investigation of incentives or levers to provide accessible and attractive options for consumers is desirable
iv. Mixed return model for the container return scheme A) support proposals to ensure that all retailers who sell products that are covered by this scheme have an easy and affordable access to drop-off points B) note that smaller businesses may be unfairly impacted if only larger retailers are enjoying benefit of the foot traffic that comes with the drop-off points
v. Household kerbside recycling A) endorse the proposal for a standard set of materials for household kerbside recycling across New Zealand B) notes that the current lack of a standards set of rules for recyclable materials causes universal confusion and inhibits making choices on “better” plastics to purchase over others C) recommend that the model followed by Auckland Council of Community Recycling Centres be replicated as a they are essential to recycle or reuse those items unable to managed by a kerbside collection, noting that these can also host a deposit scheme
vi. Food and garden waste
A) endorse the proposal that food and garden waste should be diverted from landfill
B) recommend further investigation of mandating a diversion of commercial food waste, noting that careful consideration is needed of this given that it is already a profitable or cost
recovery exercise in some areas, and therefore legislative changes may have undesirable outcomes without investigation of how to incentivise similar schemes
C) recommend consideration be given to balancing the benefits from economies of scale of large anaerobic digestive facilities versus the food miles saved by utilising local initiatives such as the City to Farm project in Waitoki
D) recommend that any proposal to divert commercial food waste should be brought forward following careful consideration of the planning and support needed to ensure success, given the important outcomes achieved
E) recommend that targeted engagement be undertaken with different sectors and sizes of commercial enterprise on what incentives and support are needed to undertake food diversion as soon as possible
Comments