Point England Development Enabling Bill - NZ Parliament

Point England Development Enabling Bill 223—1 Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee

Contents Recommendation

2

Purpose of the bill

2

Matters we discussed with submitters

3

Terms of the development

5

Conclusion

6

New Zealand Labour Party minority view

6

Appendix

9

POINT ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT ENABLING BILL

Point England Development Enabling Bill

Recommendation The Local Government and Environment Committee has examined the Point England Development Enabling Bill. We recommend by majority that the bill be passed without amendment, and that the House take note of our report. Purpose of the bill The Point England Development Enabling Bill seeks to enable a housing development on about a quarter of the Point England Recreation Reserve (11.69 hectares) in Tāmaki, east Auckland. This land is owned by the Crown and administered by the Auckland Council. It was identified as “under-utilised”, and part of it is fenced off and used for grazing livestock. A housing development on the reserve would normally be impeded by provisions in the Reserves Act 1977, the Resource Management Act 1991, and the Auckland Unitary Plan. To allow the land to be developed for housing, the bill would revoke this land’s reserve status under the Reserves Act. The remaining reserve would continue to be protected. While not specified in the bill, we were advised that the housing development would be used to rehouse some tenants of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company whose housing is due for redevelopment, and to provide much-needed additional housing in Auckland. In February 2017, Statistics New Zealand noted that Auckland’s population is predicted to reach two million by 2033.1 We were advised that the new housing development would provide about 300 new houses, of which a proportion is expected to be social and affordable housing. The exact proportion has not yet been finalised, but we were told that about 40 percent of the houses are likely to fit into these categories. Treaty of Waitangi settlement

One of the Government’s intentions, although not specifically mentioned in the bill, is to assist in concluding a historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngāti Paoa. This settlement process has been under way for nearly eight years. We were not privy to the sensitive details of the negotiations, but Ngāti Paoa stressed that the opportunity to develop the land, which the bill would enable, is critical to it reaching a settlement with the Crown. Ngāti Paoa has strong cultural, traditional, spiritual, and ancestral connections with the land at Point England Recreation Reserve. The proposed development land was identified in

1

Statistics New Zealand, 22 February 2017, “Subnational Population Projections: 2013(base)–2043 update”, as at 24 March 2017.

2


consultation between Ngāti Paoa, the Auckland Council, and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board prior to the local government elections in October 2016. Alternative redress options

We enquired about the availability of other land for cultural and commercial redress. The Office of Treaty Settlements informed us that the amount of land available for redress in the Tāmaki area is very limited. We were also told that multiple redress options were explored during the settlement process, but that ultimately the current proposal was consulted on and agreed to. Any new proposal involving other development land, or any adjustment to the current proposal, would require renegotiation with all parties that could potentially be affected. We were advised by Ngāti Paoa that land now owned by the Tāmaki Regeneration Company was not offered to it in the course of the settlement negotiations. Officials also confirmed that Tāmaki Regeneration Company land was not made available for this purpose. Ngāti Paoa’s intentions for the development land

Ngāti Paoa told us that the housing development would bring increased housing supply to the Auckland market to meet high demand. They told us that the proportion of affordable and social housing in the proposed development would also help to address issues of housing affordability for first home buyers. Ngāti Paoa said that it intends for the site to be developed by Ngāti Paoa Group Investments Limited, which is the commercial component of Ngāti Paoa. Ngāti Paoa explained that as kaitiaki (guardians) of the Point England area, it is responsible for the health of the land and water. Ngāti Paoa stressed its intention to enhance the mauri (life force) of the area, and to look after the nearby residents as well as visitors to the reserve. In particular, Ngāti Paoa hope to improve the quality of the reserve land, the Tāmaki River, and Omaru Creek. Ngāti Paoa considers that these improvements would increase public use of the reserve. The establishment of a marae

We were told that Ngāti Paoa also intends to use two hectares of the reserve to build a marae, which it would make available for broad community use. The land for the marae would not be provided through this bill, but through Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement legislation. Ngāti Paoa considers that the marae would be a significant step to “re-establish a ‘living presence’ of Ngāti Paoa whānau living as mana whenua” in the area. Matters we discussed with submitters Potential side effects of the housing development

Submitters were concerned about the potential for the housing development to further degrade the water quality in Omaru Creek. We note that recently this water body has had the lowest water quality of Auckland’s 36 monitored sites. However, the Auckland Council has committed $40.4 million over the next 15–20 years to improve the quality of Omaru Creek. Additionally, we note that the development would be conditional on receiving

3


resource consent. The developer would need to explain how they would avoid, remedy, or mitigate potential environmental effects of the development. Submitters also raised concerns about the potential flow-on effects of the new housing development. They argued that it would increase light and sound pollution, disrupting residents and visitors. We note these concerns. Protection of the Northern New Zealand dotterel birds

Submitters were eager to protect the habitat of the rare tūturiwhatu (Northern New Zealand dotterel), which nest in the area. Submitters told us that they considered the reserve to be a significant breeding and nesting habitat for the birds. We were advised that the reserve is not ideal for shorebirds, as they can be disturbed by walkers and their dogs, motorbikes, and cattle. We were also advised that there is “significant scope” for improvements to be made alongside the housing development to support the birds’ habitat. While the development takes place, the birds could be provided with safe nesting spaces. For example, shell banks could be created. Other mitigation options have also been suggested. They include a ban on cats as a condition of consent for the development, and the creation of a more suitable habitat near the tip of the headland where the tūturiwhatu roost in autumn and winter. We note that an environmental effects assessment would need to be conducted when the land developer applies for resource consent. This would entail considering the development’s effect on the tūturiwhatu and other birdlife. Additionally, Ngāti Paoa told us that they intend to incorporate cultural and environmental design principles into the development plans, including for the protection of tūturiwhatu breeding sites. Ngāti Paoa confirmed that they are working closely with ecologists and biodiversity specialists to ensure that the development does not adversely affect the habitat for tūturiwhatu and other birdlife. Ngāti Paoa are also considering staging the development to minimise the impact during the peak nesting season (August to December). Loss of open space and recreation facilities

Submitters were concerned that the bill would reduce the reserve’s open space. We note that public access to part of the proposed development land is currently restricted, as it is fenced to contain grazing livestock. If this bill became law, over 10 hectares of the headland would become more accessible to the public. Some of us agree with submitters, and believe that this bill would lead to an unnecessary loss of open space. Some of us also support an alternative solution, such as offering Tāmaki Regeneration Company land to Ngāti Paoa. Some submitters were concerned about the housing development’s impact on recreation facilities, as it would affect a third of the reserve’s sports fields. We note that the Minister for Building and Construction has committed to reinvesting 100 percent of the proceeds from house sales back into the Tāmaki community. The priority would be to enhance the reserve’s facilities. The majority of us consider that this would balance the housing development’s impact on the sports facilities, as their current poor drainage means the facilities are often not fully used in sustained bad weather. 4


We are aware that the reserve has been used for several decades, during certain periods of the year, for kilikiti, a form of cricket originating in Samoa, which requires a large amount of space. There are very few suitably large spaces in Auckland. We were advised that other parts of the reserve could be used for this sport, but that the Auckland Council has not yet considered forming a suitable field on a different part of the reserve. Rural character of the land

Some submitters were disappointed that grazing livestock would no longer be in the reserve. They consider that the animals provide a rare rural sight in the middle of urban Auckland. Some of us consider that the grazing of livestock is not the best use of the land, and note that cattle can be viewed 4km away in Churchill Reserve. Precedent of revoking the reserve status of land

Some submitters were concerned about the precedent that this bill might set by overriding the usual processes in the Reserves Act to revoke the reserve status of land. The majority of us note that, while uncommon, there is precedent for revoking the reserve status of land. This was done through the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Act 2016. Some of us consider that the circumstances of this bill differ from the Riccarton legislation, as the reserve status is different, being recreation reserve rather than racecourse reserve. The bill also does not contain similar safeguards around the housing development. For instance, it does not include a condition requiring compensation to be paid to the Crown if the affordable housing is not built within a specified timeframe. When we asked why such conditions could not be included in this bill, we were told that, to provide flexibility, the contractual negotiations for the development agreement were separate. We were told that this approach is consistent with the Crown’s other developments under the Crown Land programme. Terms of the development Priority sequence for the opportunity to develop the land

Following the enactment of this bill, the opportunity to develop the land would first be offered to Ngāti Paoa. If Ngāti Paoa does not take up the opportunity, we were informed that it would be offered to Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau (the Tāmaki Collective) under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau is made up of 13 local iwi/hapū groups with interests in Tāmaki Makaurau. If the development opportunity is not taken up by either Ngāti Paoa or Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau, it would then be offered to a panel of private developers established by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. We recognise Ngāti Paoa’s aspiration to develop the land as part of its wider Treaty settlement. Some of us believe that the bill should contain specific safeguards to ensure that Ngāti Paoa receives the land. Some of us do not believe that private developers should be allowed to develop land that was previously reserve land. We were told that the opportunity to develop the land would be subject to conditions, such as the reaching of a development agreement with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The agreement would contract the iwi to develop the land for housing, and 5


require a proportion of the houses to be affordable and social to benefit the wider Tāmaki regeneration project. Minister to consult relevant parties before finalising development plans

We note that the bill would require the Minister to consult with the Auckland Council, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company before finalising the development plans. This would allow these parties, and potentially the public through the Auckland Council, to provide additional feedback on the proposed development plans. Conclusion The majority of us recommend that the bill be passed without amendment. We recognise the need for additional housing in Auckland, and the important contribution that this bill would make towards the finalisation of Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement. We consider that submitters’ concerns are mitigated by Ngāti Paoa’s commitment to improving the reserve’s recreational amenities and natural resources. We also support Ngāti Paoa’s commitment to protecting local birdlife. We note that the housing development would be subject to further scrutiny and conditions imposed by the Auckland Council (on behalf of Auckland residents), the MaungakiekieTāmaki Local Board, and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. The development would also be subject to an environmental effects assessment as part of the resource consent process. Some of us do not support this bill, as we consider that it goes against the wishes of local residents. We note that, in addition to the submissions that opposed the bill, the committee also received two petitions opposing it (from Tsz Ho and Shaun Lee). Some of us oppose the revocation of the land’s reserve status without any provision for land compensation. We believe that an alternative solution would be preferable to address housing supply issues in Auckland and the conclusion of Ngāti Paoa’s settlement. Some of us also believe that this bill should have contained specific reference to Ngāti Paoa, as the iwi told us that their settlement is reliant on the bill. In addition, some of the questions we asked officials about the proposed development could not be answered because they related to sensitive information protected under the confidentiality of settlement negotiations. We appreciate the information that the Office of Treaty Settlements was able to provide us with, but we still felt constrained by the fact that the bill did not mention Ngāti Paoa’s connection with the development land. New Zealand Labour Party minority view Labour opposes the bill because the Government has ignored a better alternative that would offer Ngāti Paoa a marae and co-governance at the Point England Recreation Reserve as well as an adjacent housing development, without taking precious city parkland the community needs for future generations.

6


We agree with the many submitters, including the Auckland Council, who said central government legislating to override the Reserves Act and the Resource Management Act to take parkland for housing sets an unfortunate precedent. Taking away public reserve from a community that is due to get an extra 20,000 people due to the planned intensification of the Tāmaki regeneration project makes no sense to the community nor us. Auckland is slated to grow in population by another million over the next 30–40 years. The city needs its open spaces for future generations. There are many things the Government should be doing to fix the housing crisis. Taking parkland for private housing is not one of them. The Treaty settlement process is an achievement all New Zealanders can be proud of. We support Ngāti Paoa’s aspiration to settle their claim, and for Point England to be a place for them to stand. Under Labour’s plan Ngāti Paoa would get their housing development, a marae, and recognition of their special ties to Point England. But the community would not lose a big slice of waterfront parkland. The Government is the majority shareholder in the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC) that owns 2,800 homes right next to the reserve. Instead of carving up the local park for housing, it should offer to Ngāti Paoa 11 hectares of land from the TRC for its housing development. Given the strength of the Auckland Council’s criticism of the Point England Development Enabling Bill, as the junior shareholder in the TRC it seems likely it would support such a move. Ngāti Paoa say the land at Point England is historically significant for them, and the settlement negotiations have included a plan for two hectares on the reserve for a marae as “cultural redress”. The Government could offer the iwi co-management, and even ownership of the reserve, in recognition of those special ties. This kind of arrangement has been widely accepted in relation to the Tāmaki tribes’ role in managing the city’s volcanic cones while public access is guaranteed. A marae on the reserve would seem a natural extension of that. The third element relates to the Auckland Council’s proposal that the proceeds from the sale of the 11 hectares should be spent on enhancing public parks in the area. The Government has agreed. To make all this work, the Government could put some money on the table, perhaps matched by the Auckland Council, to finance the upgrading of the park so Ngāti Paoa, the Auckland Council and the community can work together on enhancing the reserve.

7


An upgrade plan could see the cows replaced by an ecological reserve with pest eradication to preserve habitat for the endangered dotterels, the clean-up of the polluted Omaru Creek, and investment in more playing fields, playgrounds, and walking and cycling trails. As this legislation stands, the land in question at Point England could be sold to any developers once its reserve status is revoked. Labour will propose an amendment in the committee stages that would, in the event of the legislation being passed, direct the 11 hectares of land at Point England to be sold only to Ngāti Paoa under their Treaty settlement and not to any other developers. Regardless of whether this bill passes or not, Labour will vote for the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement legislation when it comes to the House, in line with its longstanding commitment to the Treaty settlement process.

8


Appendix

Committee procedure

The Point England Development Enabling Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 13 December 2016. The closing date for submissions was 31 January 2017. We received and considered 132 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard oral evidence from 47 submitters in Auckland and Wellington. We received advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Office of Treaty Settlements. Read the evidence and advice that the committee received on the bill. Committee members

Scott Simpson (Chairperson) Andrew Bayly Matt Doocey Hon Craig Foss Joanne Hayes Tutehounuku Korako Ron Mark Mojo Mathers Eugenie Sage Meka Whaitiri Dr Megan Woods Metiria Turei replaced Mojo Mathers for this item of business. Phil Twyford and Marama Davidson participated in the consideration of this item of business.

9