A proposed housing development on the site of the former Three Kings quarry by Fletcher Residential has been gaining media attention in recent weeks and has culminated in a community meeting.
So, what has been happening over the last few months and how does Auckland Council fit into the picture?
The site itself has a long history and late last year independent commissioners granted Fletchers a private plan change to the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Isthmus Section under the Resource Management Act, which allowed for the rezoning of the quarry and reserve land for residential and open space, with some modifications.
Around the same time, a separate group of independent commissioners approved a land exchange with Auckland Council, which would see Fletchers develop sections of its quarry site into a central park with playing fields and a network of other open spaces in exchange for Auckland Council-managed reserve land bordering the site.
Following the decision on the private plan change, however, two local community groups – the South Epsom Planning Group and the Three Kings United Group – lodged an appeal opposing the scale of development and final floor level within the quarry.
An appeal was also lodged by Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Ngati Tamaoho Trust over concerns about stormwater and the location of a proposed whare manaaki, or cultural centre.
What happened next?
At the Environment Court hearing in June, the council supported the decision of the independent commissioners who granted the private plan change to the operative district plan.
During the Environment Court hearing, Fletchers also made a number of changes to the layout of its development, including reducing the proposed number of homes from its original plan of up to 1500 apartments and townhouses.
What did the Environment Court say?
In late July, the Environment Court issued an interim decision supporting the objectives and policies of the plan change, but set out a number of concerns it had with some of the plan change detail.
It suggested some changes, including to ground levels and connections to the town centre.
But because all the parties hadn’t had a chance to fully consider all of the changes proposed by Fletchers during the Environment Court hearing, they were all given an opportunity to write to the court outlining any further concerns.
The council said that it generally supported Fletcher’s proposed amendments and those of the court, but asked for more information and evidence on the effects of some of the changes, including the maximum number of houses.
So, what now?
There is a judicial conference set down for September 26 to discuss how the plan change should proceed, taking into account the comments provided by all the parties. This will be after the appeal period on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan ends.
That judicial conference may result in further witness conferencing or mediation and if the issues can’t be resolved, then further evidence may be required and another hearing could take place.
What’s important to remember is that there will be further discussions on the appeals by the Environment Court.
How does the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan fit into all of this?
The Independent Hearings Panel issued its recommendations on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to the council after the Environment Court hearing but before the Environment Court’s interim decision on the private plan change was released.
The Independent Hearings Panel’s recommended Proposed Unitary Plan provisions for Three Kings are closer to the decision of the Independent Commissioners on the private plan change than Fletcher’s amended proposal before the Environment Court. The Independent Hearings Panel’s recommended provisions have been accepted by the council in its decisions on the Proposed Unitary Plan.
Any provisions in the Proposed Unitary Plan that are not subject to appeals are deemed operative once the appeal period ends on 16 September.
If the Proposed Unitary Plan provisions for Three Kings are not subject to any appeals, the Unitary Plan becomes operative. In effect that means the operative district plan (including any plan changes and appeals) will no longer apply.
